# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I am standing by this spring of water. Let it happen, that the maiden who comes out to draw, to whom I will say, Please give me a little water from your pitcher to drink</em>- As mentioned earlier, once the pitcher was full and on her shoulder or head, it was quite an inconvenience to get it down again, unstop it, and give some water to a person; :20 seems to say that she emptied the rest of the pitcher into the trough after Eliezer had done drinking. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And she will tell me, 'Drink, and I will also draw for your camels' - let her be the woman whom Yahweh has appointed for my master's son</em>- All who heard the account would have agreed that this was really an impossible hoop to set for God to make someone jump through, and Rebekah's response was counter instinctive, counter cultural and so unusual that one could only say that God made her do it. Just as our response to the call is induced by the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Before I had finished speaking in my heart, behold, Rebekah came out with her pitcher on her shoulder. She went down to the spring, and drew. I said to her, ‘Please let me drink’</em>- Prayer is largely carried out in the mind – how we ‘speak in the heart’ is effectively read as our prayer to God. Thus our self-talk merges into prayer; Hannah’s “prayer” appears to have been the same (<em><a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a></em>). Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is described by God as “in your heart” (<em><a href='B:140 1:11'>2Ch 1:11</a></em>). This close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a></em>. In Hannah's time, such prayer in the heart was unheard of. Relationship with the gods was seen as a question of going into a "house of prayer", it was not personal. But the promises to Abraham were of a personal relationship with Yahweh: "I will be their God". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She hurried and let down her pitcher from her shoulder, and said, ‘Drink, and I will also give your camels a drink’. So I drank, and she also gave the camels a drink</em>- Eliezer is careful to recount things exactly as they happened, with no exaggeration, omissions or additions. It was so clearly the hand of God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>24:47 <em>I asked her, and said, ‘Whose daughter are you?’ She said, ‘The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bore to him’. I put the ring on her nose, and the bracelets on her hands</em>- This technically should have happened after the girl and her family had agreed. Eliezer had gone ahead and taken the initiative, in a way which would have otherwise been seen as rude and countercultural, and disrespectful to the family. But this is the insistent demand of the Gospel's call. It's why people were baptized immediately in the New Testament, the same hour or day they believed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I bowed my head, and worshiped Yahweh, and blessed Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, who had led me in the right way to take my master’s brother’s daughter for his son</em>- Biblical genealogies often skip generations, and this is an example. "Right" is the same word translated "truth" in :27, where it is used (as so often, e.g. <em><a href='B:10 32:10'>Gen 32:10</a></em>) of the certainty of the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. And Eliezer goes on to ask them to deal "truly" (:49) in response. God's mercy and truth to us are to be reflected in our responding with these things. Covenant relationship with Him is the ultimate truth or reality of our lives. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew words for being 'led in the way' are used of how God led Israel in the way to Canaan, also by an Angel (<em><a href='B:20 13:17'>Exo 13:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:21'>Exo 13:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:12'>Neh 9:12</a></em>). Moses was retelling this story to encourage his primary audience, as well as us; that experience is not random, but part of being led.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now if you will deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me. If not, tell me, that I may turn to the right hand, or to the left</em>- As noted on :48, the kindness and truth of God in the covenant must be responded to "truly" by men. Eliezer comes over as high pressure, forcing them to make a decision before he had even eaten a meal with the family. This speaks of the urgency of response to the Gospel. We are not lamely standing on streets holding out tracts for any who may wish to walk up to us and take them. Rather are we to entreat and implore men to see the intensity of our position, and to respond.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Laban and Bethuel answered, The thing proceeds from Yahweh. We can’t speak to you bad or good</em>- This is precisely what Laban says years later to Jacob; that he couldn't speak bad or good to him (<em><a href='B:10 31:29'>Gen 31:29</a></em>). We feel that Laban and Bethuel were not exactly enthusiastic about going God's way, but rather felt they could say nothing against it, because His hand was so clearly evident.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, Rebekah is before you. Take her, and go, and let her be your master’s son’s wife, as Yahweh has spoken</em>- There is no record that Yahweh had spoken specifically that Rebekah should be Isaac' wife. But the path of providence was effectively God's spoken voice; and we likewise can perceive God's voice to us through such situations.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened that when Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed himself down to the earth to Yahweh</em>- The cultural thing to do would have been to thank the family. But instead he prostrates himself on the ground to Yahweh, as if in all these acts of providence, he sensed the Angel, or God Himself, standing there albeit unseen. He sensed very much the presence of God, just as we do in such times and situations. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The servant brought out jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and clothing, and gave them to Rebekah. He also gave precious things to her brother and her mother</em>- Ten camels' burden of expensive gifts would have been worth the equivalent of a million or more dollars in our terms. But this was the value Abraham placed upon a Godly wife for his son. It speaks of the invaluable importance of marriage within the faith in order to raise a Godly seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They ate and drank, he and the men who were with him, and stayed all night. They rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away to my master</em>- The immediacy of response was not part of the deal, but it was perhaps implied. They would have been exhausted after the long journey; but the urgency of the work in hand, the following of the Spirit, was such that nothing was to delay them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Her brother and her mother said, Let the young lady stay with us a few days, at least ten. After that she will go</em>- This sounded reasonable, and indeed it was, from a human viewpoint. But Eliezer was aware that the flesh always seeks the opportunity to use delays and procrastination in order to get out of spiritual commitment. And constantly, we see the man aware of the urgent need to follow the Spirit's leading. The spirit of all this explains why baptism was practiced immediately in the New Testament, as it should be today.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to them, Don’t hinder me, since Yahweh has prospered my way. Send me away that I may go to my master</em>- This should be our attitude- following the leading of the Spirit, and not allowing anything or anyone to delay us. All procrastination in such cases is of the flesh, seeking to put the brakes on our response to the Spirit; hence Israel should not "delay" or "hinder ourselves" to offer the first fruits (<em><a href='B:20 22:29'>Exo 22:29</a></em>). We can easily get caught up for a whole period of our lives, delaying instead of following. The same word translated "hinder" is used of how Jacob "stayed" with Laban (<em><a href='B:10 32:4'>Gen 32:4</a></em>) far longer than he should have done. He failed to learn the lesson; Rebekah and Eliezer had refused to be hindered or delayed with Laban. Situations had repeated themselves, and Jacob had failed to learn the lesson from history, even within his own immediate family history.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'prospering' of the way was in direct answer to Eliezer's question as to whether his way had been prospered in :21. This was a characteristic of Joseph, whose way was 'prospered' by God likewise (<em><a href='B:10 39:2-3'>Gen 39:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 39:23'>Gen 39:23</a></em>), despite many hard experiences. Joseph was potentially a primary fulfilment of the great seed of Abraham, as was Solomon, who also 'prospered' so long as he followed God's word (<em><a href='B:130 22:11'>1Ch 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:23'>1Ch 29:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:11'>2Ch 7:11</a></em>). Hezekiah was another potential fulfilment of the seed, and he too prospered (<em><a href='B:140 31:21'>2Ch 31:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 32:30'>2Ch 32:30</a></em>); and the way of the Lord Jesus was prospered above all (<em><a href='B:290 48:15'>Isa 48:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 55:11'>Isa 55:11</a></em>). But every member of the seed likewise will "prosper" in their path to the Kingdom, although not necessarily in material terms (<em><a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:41'>Num 14:41</a></em>). That 'prospering' is the work of the Spirit; the same word is used repeatedly about the work of the Spirit in human lives (<em><a href='B:90 10:6'>1Sa 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 10:10'>1Sa 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 11:6'>1Sa 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 16:13'>1Sa 16:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 18:10'>1Sa 18:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 14:6'>Jdg 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a></em> s.w. "the Spirit came mightily / to cause to prosper upon him"). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said, We will call the young lady, and ask her</em>- &nbsp;He likely thought she would flunk the decision; but she didn't. See on :59.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They called Rebekah, and said to her, Will you go with this man? She said, I will go</em>- There was a definite trait of energy and industrious activity amongst them, indicated by the record of Rebekah running to respond to the call of Eliezer to marry Isaac&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:20'>Gen 24:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:28'>Gen 24:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:58'>Gen 24:58</a></em>). Laban too was spritely (<em><a href='B:10 24:29'>Gen 24:29</a></em>). And Abraham as an old man <em>ran</em>&nbsp; to meet the Angels, he <em>hastened</em>&nbsp; into the tent, and personally <em>ran</em> unto the herd rather than wave his wand at the servants (or the wife) to do it (<em><a href='B:10 18:2'>Gen 18:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:6-7'>Gen 18:6-7</a></em>). The way in which it is stressed that he got up early in the morning gives the same impression (<em><a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:8'>Gen 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>; the same is said of Jacob, <em><a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a></em> and Laban, <em><a href='B:10 31:55'>Gen 31:55</a></em>). The mixture of zeal and business acumen is reflected in the way both Abraham and Lot greeted the Angels in a similar, outgoing, gentlemanly manner (<em><a href='B:10 19:1-3'>Gen 19:1-3</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 18:1-6'>Gen 18:1-6</a></em>). Note how Rebekah immediately says "I will go" (Heb. <em>elek</em>)- just as Abraham had been called to "go" from Ur (<em>lek</em>, <em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>); "and he went" (<em>wayyelek</em>, <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>). This would seem to suggest an undesigned similarity of character between the family members.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They sent away Rebekah, their sister, with her nurse, Abraham’s servant, and his men</em>- It was most unusual for a woman to be allowed such total freedom of decision, especially with respect to her marriage. But as noted on :50, Laban felt that God's hand was at work, and so he feared to speak against it. But we note he was not particularly "for" it; he failed to have the enthusiasm to keep in step with the Spirit which was seen in Eliezer and Rebekah. And so he left it that she could decide herself. He likely thought she would flunk the decision; but she didn't. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They blessed Rebekah, and said to her, Our sister, may you be the mother of thousands of ten thousands, and let your seed possess the gate of those who hate them</em>- She was barren for 20 years and didn't have so many children. But the Divine promises were fulfilled through her seed. We see here the contrast between spiritual and secular viewpoints; the Divine way of fulfilling these promises and hopes was so different from the secular imagination. And so it is as our own lives unfold. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rebekah arose with her ladies. They rode on the camels, and followed the man. The servant took Rebekah, and went his way</em>- 'Following the man' reminds us again that everything in this incident is parabolic of the calling of the bride of Christ, the seed of Abraham. We are to respond immediately, and we go to Him into an unknown land and situation, following "the man", "the servant", also representative of the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac came from the way of Beer Lahai Roi, for he lived in the land of the South</em>- This was the very well associated with Hagar and Ishmael. We wonder what Isaac's thoughts were. If he were to be the seed through whom the promises were to be fulfilled, then it was surely necessary for him to marry and have faithful children. But he was 40 years old. And now, those prayers and hopes were to be answered in the arrival of Rebekah. Or he may have reflected, as I explained previously, that Ishmael&nbsp; could have been the seed, he had been circumcised into the covenant, and had received the same promises, and Abraham's prayer that Ishmael might live before Yahweh had been heard. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac went out to pray in the field at the evening. He lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, there were camels coming</em>- Surely he was praying about Eliezer's mission, and a faithful wife through whom to continue the seed. On one hand, God is sovereign and shall bring about His purposes. But that sovereignty meshes with human freewill, so that we too must make our moves in the way of faith, and with prayer. "He lifted up his eyes" and saw his bride approaching, just as she "lifted up her eyes" and saw Isaac (:64). It really was a marriage made in heaven.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she dismounted from the camel</em>- Her lifting up her eyes and seeing Isaac is complementary to Isaac lifting up his eyes and seeing her coming towards him (:63). From this symmetry we can reason that she lifted up her eyes from prayer, as he had done. They were both praying for the same thing, and had their answers in a sublimely beautiful way. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She said to the servant, Who is the man who is walking in the field to meet us? The servant said, It is my master. She took her veil, and covered herself</em>- Eliezer and Rebekah were apparently travelling on the same camel out of the ten camels. He took very personally his responsibility in the matter; his diligence is prophetic of ours in seeking out the Lord's bride. The fact Isaac was walking alone after praying alone in a remote spot speaks much about him; and he represents the Lord, who likewise did this. She veiled herself because the wedding ceremony had not yet been undertaken. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The servant told Isaac all the things that he had done</em>- In the parable of redemption here, the servant represents the preachers of the Gospel. The Lord Jesus uses similar language in <em><a href='B:470 18:31'>Mat 18:31</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>, of His servants coming and telling Him what had been done. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife. He loved her. Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death</em>- Clearly Rebekah is presented as filling the emotional hole left by the loss of Sarah. Rebekah is not given a new tent, as was usual, but instead took Sarah's tent. "He loved her" may sound obvious, but in contracted marriages both then and now, marriage is often not love marriage. This is a commendable note; that he loved his wife. Later we will read of their physical affection, so strongly felt between them that they met up privately for intercourse when separate from each other (<em><a href='B:10 26:8'>Gen 26:8</a></em>). The whole account of Isaac's love for Rebekah has the ring of psychological credibility to it; and such things are major internal evidence reasons for believing the Bible to be Divinely inspired.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah-&nbsp; </em>It would seem that at the time of the promises, Abraham had other children by Keturah, another "concubine", as she is described in <em><a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a></em>. This term is only really applicable to other women taken during the lifetime of the wife or wives. Although the children of Keturah and Abraham are only recorded in <em><a href='B:10 25:1-4'>Gen 25:1-4</a></em>, it seems to me that this isn't chronological; this a notice inserted at this point as a genealogical note, rather than implying that Abraham only took Keturah after the marriage of Isaac in Genesis 24. Remember that at the time of the promise in Genesis 15, Abraham was impotent- hence his bitterness at not having any child, and <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em> describes his having faith that he would overcome this problem. Having recovered his virility, it could be that he eagerly had children by Keturah to as it were prove himself. Yet one wonders therefore how long he maintained the intensity of his faith that specifically by Sarah he would have a child. Yet that faith of Abraham at the time of the promise in Genesis 15 was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, is held up as our example and glorified throughout the New Testament- when it would seem that in fact Abraham didn't always maintain the intensity of the faith he had at that time. And God Himself had to reassure him: "Know of a <em>surety</em>" (<em><a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a></em>), as if God recognized the element of doubt within the faith of Abraham- although God elsewhere holds up that faith to us as such a wonderful example.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Circumcision was a sign of the covenant through Isaac, hence the resentment and bitterness of Zipporah over the circumcision issue; and it seems Moses capitulated to her on this. Their marriage is sure proof that fundamental spiritual differences at the start can only lead to anger and break up later on.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah</em>- Zipporah was a Midianite, a descendant of Abraham through Keturah; and yet she didn't practice circumcision. Ishmael had been circumcised as a sign that if he wished, he could "live before" God, in covenant relationship. We wonder if the same possibility was open to all Abraham's children or seed, but they declined.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Job's friend Bildad was a descendant of Shuah (<em><a href='B:220 2:11'>Job 2:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jokshan became the father of Sheba, and Dedan. The sons of Dedan were Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim</em>- Sheba and Dedan are mentioned in Ezekiel 38 as amongst those who in the last days turn against the children of Jacob, members of the group of ten neighbours who invade the land under the leadership of Gog. The old jealousy which began here over the apparent favouritism afforded Isaac... will then play itself out in its final climax. Sheba and Dedan were also sons of Cush (<em><a href='B:10 10:7'>Gen 10:7</a></em>), and one theme of the genealogies of Abraham's other sons is that they all intermarried with surrounding nations and lost any sense of ethnic purity; see on :14. The theme of needing to marry within the family of God is strongly developed in Genesis, beginning with the sons of God marrying the daughters of men and losing the faith in Genesis 6, and being stressed in Genesis 24 with the search for a suitable wife for Isaac. Abraham's other children all merged into their surrounding worlds. However, "Sheba" here may refer to the Sabeans, who stole Job's herds (<em><a href='B:220 2:11'>Job 2:11</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Leummim" may simply mean "other nations". It cannot be identified with any location or nation. The idea is that the promise that Abraham would be a father of many nations had its primary fulfilment through the children he had by his concubines. Although they chose not have a part in God's salvation purpose at the time, they could have had; just as Ishmael could have continued in the covenant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Midian: Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah</em>- <em><a href='B:290 60:6'>Isa 60:6</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 72:10'>Psa 72:10</a></em> envisage Ephah and other children of Keturah as ultimately saved along with Israel in the Kingdom age. The blessing upon Abraham will ultimately come true upon all his seed, by grace alone. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac</em>- He did this even before he died (<em><a href='B:10 24:36'>Gen 24:36</a></em>). It was usual for a father to divide the inheritance amongst all the children, with the firstborn getting a double portion- and for this to happen on his death, not during his lifetime. But whilst Abraham did provide for his children by Keturah (:6), he gave all he had as inheritance to Isaac. This reflects how Abraham considered Isaac as his one and only legitimate son. The others were by concubines (Hagar and Keturah). And we can better perceive the magnitude of the sacrifice which Abraham had been asked to make, in sacrificing this son. The language is very much that of the father in the parable of the prodigal son- all that he had was the elder son's. But that son went out into the night in bitterness and left the family. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But to the sons of Abraham’s concubines, Abraham gave gifts. He sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, to the east country</em>- The plural "concubines" suggests he may have had more than Keturah; it's just that her children were relevant to the Israelites in the wilderness, for whom Moses initially wrote. Abraham had been insistent that Isaac <em>not</em> go to live with any new wife in the east, by which Abraham surely means Mesopotamia, the land he had been asked to leave. By sending his other children back there, he is really saying that he didn't want them in covenant relationship or having a share in the promises to inherit the <em>eretz</em>. He has the spirit of Sarah, who didn't want Ishmael to inherit along with Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 21:10'>Gen 21:10</a></em>). But as explained there, God gave Ishmael the chance of covenant relationship, including circumcision. The fact Abraham didn't send Ishmael back into the east perhaps reflects his acceptance of the fact that Ishmael could have had covenant relationship and a share in the promises; although he apparently chose not to. Heading east is the direction of the rejected Adam, Cain and the Babel builders. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the days of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived: one hundred and seventy-five years</em>- Abraham entered the promised land at 75 (<em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em>), so he lived in it 100 years, the majority of his life. But despite that, he always is at pains to stress that he lived amongst the local inhabitants, as a stranger. No matter how stable and sedentary our lives may be, living in the same house for most of our years, we too are to be but passers through this world in our attitude towards it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham gave up the spirit, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years, and was gathered to his people</em>- "Full of days" (Heb.) is differentiated from being "aged" in <em><a href='B:300 6:11'>Jer 6:11</a></em>. The idea is that he didn't live the same kind of day over and over thousands of times; his life was rich with experience, each day was significant, as it should be for us if we are led of the Spirit. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"His people" were idolaters (<em><a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a></em>), demonstrating that the separation between faithful and unfaithful is not at the point of death (<em><a href='B:250 3:19-20'>Ecc 3:19-20</a></em>), but at the final judgment. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron, the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre</em>- We note the absence of the sons by Keturah, who had been sent away to the east; and the implication that Ishmael was still living in the <em>eretz</em> of promise; see on :6.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The field which Abraham purchased of the children of Heth. Abraham was buried there with Sarah, his wife</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 23:16'>Gen 23:16</a></em>. It is continually emphasized that Abraham purchased land in the very <em>eretz</em> which had been promised him as an eternal inheritance. This is the intended paradox of our lives- that we live in this world as strangers and passers through, but the earth is eternally ours.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened after the death of Abraham that God blessed Isaac, his son- </em>This blessing is surely the blessing of Abraham; although it could mean that his flocks were miraculously increased as a sign that the greater blessing had indeed passed on to him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac lived by Beer Lahai Roi</em>- This was the well where God had saved Hagar and Ishmael, assuring Ishmael that he could still be part of the covenant family and promises. Isaac living there would have continually reminded him that his own standing with God was by grace, and that Ishmael his half brother was also potentially a part of God's purpose.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now this is the history of the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bore to Abraham</em>- "Abraham's son" serves to emphasize that he was in some sense the seed, and could have been part of the Divine purpose if he wished; he was circumcised into the covenant, and is clearly treated separately from Abraham's sons by Keturah, who were sent to the east, back to where Abraham had come from, to as it were keep them out of the covenant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to the order of their birth: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth, then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam</em>- These 12 tribes make them a pseudo Israel, and yet also, as Paul develops in Galatians 4, representatives of unbelieving Israel after the flesh.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Mishma, Dumah, Massa</em>- Dumah intermarried with the Edomites (<em><a href='B:290 21:11-12'>Isa 21:11-12</a></em>); see on :3. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah</em>- Teman was an area through which the Israelites passed (<em><a href='B:420 3:3'>Hab 3:3</a></em>), and they were the primary audience for whom Moses was recording Genesis. None of the names of Ishmael's sons appear to be very spiritual or God centred.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their villages, and by their encampments: twelve princes, according to their nations</em>- The names of Ishmael's sons make a statement about their final acceptance in God's Kingdom, in language which is picked up in the later prophecies about them in <em><a href='B:290 60:6-7'>Isa 60:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:19-20'>Isa 43:19-20</a></em>: "In the high places a powerful people will experience a miracle of God. For they shall cause sweet odours to ascend, calling His fame to remembrance. Their burden will be lifted, they will become mighty in power, conquerors of the desert, strong in defence, numerous in population, at the forefront of the nations".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham's prayer that Ishmael might be accepted into the covenant was heard (his name means 'God has heard'). The same promises were made to him as to Isaac; his 12 tribes (<em><a href='B:10 17:20'>Gen 17:20</a></em>) could also have become some kind of people of God. But in this world, they chose not to; although for Abraham's sake, their latter day representatives will finally be saved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred and thirty-seven years. He gave up the spirit and died, and was gathered to his people</em>- We note the subtle difference with how Ishmael lived "years", but Abraham lived "days"; see on :8. As noted on <em><a href='B:10 27:1'>Gen 27:1</a></em>, Isaac was 137 when he was struck by a premonition of death. This has the ring of psychological credibility; for he would've subconsciously been aware that Ishmael his brother had died at that age. This is another one of many internal evidences that the Biblical record is credible and dovetails within itself so perfectly that only a Divine hand could have brought it about.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They lived from Havilah to Shur that is before Egypt, as you go toward Assyria. He lived opposite all his relatives</em>- Or,&nbsp; to the east of his relatives, referring to the encampment of Isaac. He followed the general trend of moving East, as did Cain and the Babel builders, returning to Mesopotamia, rather than living in the land of promise, unlike Jacob and Joseph, who wanted their very bones to be buried in the land of their hopes. He returned to Egypt where his mother Hagar was from, choosing to live just outside the promised land. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This area was relevant to the Israelites as they passed through it on their wilderness journeys. Again we see that the initial relevance of the account was for that generation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the history of the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Abraham became the father of Isaac</em>- The way Biblical history is written contrasts strongly with the way secular history is written, focusing as it does on mega movements of peoples, international events etc. Biblical history- and the records of Israel's early history are classic examples- is articulated in the last analysis through the story of individuals. The account of Isaac's family is prefaced by the note: "These are the generations of Isaac" (<em><a href='B:10 25:19'>Gen 25:19</a></em> AV). We expect a genealogical list- but instead we get the accounts of human lives. That history was the 'generation' of Isaac. In this we see a reflection of how God views history- the growth, actions, thoughts, struggles, spirituality and passing of persons. The value placed by God upon individuals is seen by the way in which He inspired Biblical history to be written. Humanly written history tends to focus upon megatrends, the glories and successes of a nation as a nation. God's history focuses upon people. And the Bible is hardly a history of glorious successes- it's a record of one human failure after another, endless rounds of attempt and failure, a historical path that leads God from one disappointment to another with us. Human history records human failure only as it were as a foil, a context, to the successes of the heroes. God's heroes are the lowly, the poor of this world rich in faith like Hannah and Mary, and the megatrends of society's history are passed by. But this is how much He values people on an individual level. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Paddan Aram, the sister of Laban the Syrian, to be his wife</em>- Isaac really is an example of waiting for the right woman to marry and refusing to marry anyone who doesn't tick all the right boxes on the spiritual front. It is twice emphasized here that Rebekah was a "Syrian". Jacob is likewise described as a "Syrian" (<em><a href='B:50 26:5'>Deu 26:5</a></em>). Aram ("Syria", s.w.) was Rebekah's cousin (<em><a href='B:10 22:21-23'>Gen 22:21-23</a></em>); he appears to have been a dominant force and source of identity in the wider family. The later attacks upon Israel by the Arameans were therefore part of the huge family feud which has always gone on amongst the descendants of Abraham. From these considerations it appears quite inappropriate to argue that Jewish people are ethnically pure and separate from the Arabs; their beginnings and early history were absolutely intertwined with each other. Identity as "Israel" was and is a matter of personal spiritual choice and culture, not ethnicity. The arguments of the Judaizers in the first century depended heavily upon definitions of "Israel" in ethnic terms, but they are null and void according to Biblical history.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac entreated Yahweh for his wife, because she was barren. Yahweh was entreated by him, and Rebekah his wife conceived</em>- When Eliezer first met Rebekah by the well, she must have appeared the ideal candidate through whom Isaac could raise a Godly seed. She was attractive, hard working, healthy, spiritually aware- and from within the wider Abraham family. And she was willing to sacrifice all she had known for the sake of emigrating to Canaan and bearing the seed. But she was barren for 20 years. Those who seem to have ideal qualifications are often not used for the job, until they are humbled and made to realize that all is of grace and not of human strength and ability. And Isaac and Rebekah's desire to bear the Abrahamic seed would have been honed by 20 years of prayer. The delay was surely to increase the intensity of that desire. We don't read that Isaac took any concubines in that period, and given the (poor?) example of his father Abraham in this, that surely is commendable. Unlike his father, he didn't seek to force the fulfilment of the promises in his own ways and on his own terms.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children struggled together within her- </em>"Struggle" is Heb. to bruise or crush, suggesting the struggle between the two seeds of <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>; and Galatians 4 and then <em><a href='B:550 5:17'>Gal 5:17</a></em> confirms that they represent the struggle between flesh and spirit. Paul may have alluded to the situation in his description of flesh and spirit in conflict within his own body (<em><a href='B:520 7:23'>Rom 7:23</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She said, If it be so, why do I live?- </em>This may be pre-natal depression and nothing more. But it could also reflect her belief that she was the bearer of the promised seed; and so she wondered why there were twins within her, already in conflict with each other. The truth is that the seed of Abraham is only developed as such through struggle with the flesh. The seed of the spirit must "separate" from the fleshly seed (:23).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She went to inquire of Yahweh</em>- The judgment will be the time when God 'requires' of us our behaviour. And yet the Hebrew word is used about our enquiring / searching to God in prayer now (<em><a href='B:10 25:22'>Gen 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 18:15'>Exo 18:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:29'>Deu 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:5'>Deu 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 22:5'>1Ki 22:5</a></em>), as well as His 'requiring' / searching of us at the last day (<em><a href='B:50 18:19'>Deu 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:23'>Jos 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 20:16'>1Sa 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 24:22'>2Ch 24:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 3:20'>Eze 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:6'>Eze 33:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:8'>Eze 33:8</a></em>). There is a mutuality between a man and his God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to her, Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples will be separated from your body- </em>The desire of Esau's descendants to “cut them off from being a nation” in Psalms 83 runs counter to God’s clear statement here: “Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples…”. Note that they were not to be of a different ethnicity, as both Jews and Arabs often claim (for they were from the same parents), but different types of people. The "separation" spoke of the separation of flesh from spirit through struggle; see on :22. The elder serving the younger is not necessarily determinative, i.e. forcing the babies into certain paths. It also has the element of prediction; this was how it was going to work out because that was how the two people were going to be. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The one people will be stronger than the other people- </em>Who was the stronger? Hosea 12 suggests it was ultimately Jacob, who by his strength had power with God. And yet Esau was likely physically stronger; and there is the paradox of how God works with men.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The elder will serve the younger</em>- God had promised Rebekah that the elder (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob); and yet her concern to trick her husband into blessing Jacob rather than Esau was studied rejection of that promise. And Jacob followed her in her faithlessness- in this area. He perceived the promises of God through her eyes, rather than his own. Just as many relatives of believers do today. Likewise Isaac saw the promises as "mercy and truth" (<em><a href='B:10 24:27'>Gen 24:27</a></em>); and so did Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 32:10'>Gen 32:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb</em>- The "behold" could suggest she didn't fully believe the Lord's answer of :23, that she had twins. Perhaps she understood those words in some other way than meaning that she would have twins. She was all psyched up to bear a seed for Abraham and Isaac, and the idea of having twins who would fight each other was outside of her imagination.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The first came out red all over, like a hairy garment. They named him Esau</em>- "Red" connects with the redness of the earth which we encounter in early Genesis; "Edom", who is Esau, is another form of "Adam". He was of the earth, and a representative of the flesh (see on :21). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>After that, his brother came out, and his hand had hold on Esau’s heel. He was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them</em>- This meant that Rebekah was barren for 20 years. "Jacob" literally means 'heel catcher' or 'supplanter'. From the womb his character was set, it appears. Romans 9 presents them as the parade example of calling and predestination. And indeed they are. But Paul introduces that topic directly in the context of exemplifying grace, and that salvation is not of works or human strength. The fact there is an element of predestination is proof enough that our faith and salvation are not purely of ourselves. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The boys grew. Esau was a skilful hunter, a man of the field- </em>He followed the characteristics of Nimrod (<em><a href='B:10 10:9'>Gen 10:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob was a perfect man, living in tents</em>- By grace, righteousness has to be imputed to us. The spiritual blindnesses and deficiencies of our brethren can be so agonizing to behold; and yet we too have ours, as Jacob had his, and the fact we have them does not mean that we (or they, or Jacob) will not be saved in the end. Jacob didn't quite make it to the spiritually perfect / mature status with which he is credited right here at the beginning. Job is an identical case; he is labelled "perfect" at the beginning, but at the end of his spiritual growth, he didn't quite get to perfection.&nbsp; The weakness of Jacob meant likewise. Thus the record is written in such a way as to make Jacob out to be the righteous one; he is described as "perfect" at a time when he had not even accepted Yahweh as his God. Thus what he eventually was is said of him at the beginning, but with no hint that this is the case; the impression is given that he was always "perfect" from the start. Jacob is here described as living in tents with his righteous father and grandfather; whereas there is ample evidence that he was quite used to the tough outdoor life, and was an accomplished shepherd. <em><a href='B:650 11:9'>Heb 11:9</a></em> implies that he had faith in the promises and was indeed an heir of them at this time; even though he did not see them as personally applying to him then (<em><a href='B:10 28:20'>Gen 28:20</a></em>), and was more involved in idolatry than he should have been.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob was 77 when he fled from Esau. As far as we know, he had lived all that time "dwelling in tents"; and <em><a href='B:650 11:9'>Heb 11:9</a></em> adds the information that at this time, faithful Abraham lived together with Isaac and Jacob in the same tents. Jacob's living in tents is understood as an act of faith; choosing the temporal life rather than the permanent one. Jacob grew up with Abraham and Isaac. He would have known the promises backwards. He lived, as far as we know, a single life, staying at home with his mother, who evidently doted on him, openly preferring him to Esau. Yet at this time, Jacob did not accept the Abrahamic promises as really relevant to him, nor did he worship Yahweh as his God (<em><a href='B:10 28:20'>Gen 28:20</a></em>). Familiarity bred contempt: "Thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; thou hast been weary of me, O Israel... thy first father (i.e. natural Jacob" hath sinned" (in this way) (<em><a href='B:290 43:22'>Isa 43:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:27'>Isa 43:27</a></em> AV).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Isaac loved Esau, because he ate his venison. Rebekah loved Jacob</em>- The Abraham family were characterized by division, partly due to over favoritism by the leaders. The divided nature of the new Israel is a sad reflection of it. Isaac is not portrayed as particularly stellar in his faith, "just" holding on to the faith of his father Abraham. His attractions were to the things of the flesh; he liked Esau because he brought tasty meat for him to eat. The prophetic word about the sons appears to have been ignored by Isaac.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come" (<em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em>). Yet the record of this in Genesis 25 doesn't paint Isaac in a very positive light. The AVmg. seems to bring out Isaac's superficiality: "Isaac loved Esau, because venison was in his mouth". This seems to connect with the way Esau threw away his birthright for the sake of food in his mouth. Esau was evidently of the flesh, whilst Jacob had at least some potential spirituality. Yet Isaac preferred Esau. He chose to live in Gerar (<em><a href='B:10 26:6'>Gen 26:6</a></em>), right on the border of Egypt- as close as he could get to the world, without crossing the line. And he thought nothing of denying his marriage to Rebekah, just to save his own skin (<em><a href='B:10 26:7'>Gen 26:7</a></em>). So it seems Isaac had some marriage problems; the record speaks of "Esau his son" and "Jacob (Rebekah's) son" (<em><a href='B:10 27:5-6'>Gen 27:5-6</a></em>). The way Jacob gave Isaac wine "and he drank" just before giving the blessings is another hint at some unspirituality (<em><a href='B:10 27:25'>Gen 27:25</a></em>). Isaac seems not to have accepted the Divine prophecy concerning his sons: "the elder shall serve the younger" (<em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>), seeing that it was his intention to give Esau the blessings of the firstborn, and thinking that he was speaking to Esau, he gave him the blessing of his younger brothers (i.e. Jacob) serving him (<em><a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a></em> cp. 15). A<em>nd yet</em>, and this is the point, Isaac's blessing of the two boys is described as an act of faith; even though it was only one of his passing moments of faith and was done with an element of disbelief in God's word of prophecy concerning the elder serving the younger, and perhaps under the influence of alcohol. Yet according to <em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em>, this blessing was done with faith; <em>at that very point in time</em>, Isaac had faith. So&nbsp;God's piercing eye saw through the haze of alcohol, through Isaac's liking for the good life, through Isaac's unspiritual liking for Esau, through his marriage problem, through his lack of faith that the elder must serve the younger, and discerned that there was some faith in that man Isaac; and then holds this up as a stimulant for our faith, centuries later! Not only should we be exhorted to see the good side in our present brethren; but we can take comfort that this God is our God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob boiled stew. Esau came in from the field, and he was famished</em>- The stew was of lentils (:34), not meat. Again the Lord's parable of the prodigal appears to allude here in a strange way; for there, the older brother also 'comes in from the field' and effectively despises his own birthright by refusing to accept his younger brother's repentance (<em><a href='B:490 15:25'>Luk 15:25</a></em>). In this case, Jacob is set up as the prodigal, wasting his inheritance amongst the unbelievers, and finally returning home- to be welcomed rather than rejected by his elder brother. The Lord's parable clearly eyes Esau as the elder brother, but his acceptance of Jacob at the end is seen by the Lord as commendable.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To sit in the tents and boil stew was classical female work. Jacob is portrayed as a mummy's boy; and yet it would seem that Rebekah had more faith than Isaac, and perhaps this was passed on to Jacob.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Esau said to Jacob, Please feed me with that same red stew, for I am famished. Therefore his name was called Edom</em>- Perhaps "Edom", "red", became his nickname from then onwards, and it stuck. For "Esau is Edom" (<em><a href='B:10 36:1'>Gen 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 36:8'>Gen 36:8</a></em>). The Hebrew is literally something like "that Red, that Red there!”. Esau is presented as utterly sensual, going after the desire of his eyes. He could have been playing on words, to the effect "Feed with that Red, me the Red one". He was thus personally associated with his belly, his appetite, his food. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob's basic dishonesty is seen by the way in which Esau begged Jacob for "the red", which he maybe thought was a kind of blood soup (a strange thing for Yahweh's people to be eating at the time!)- and yet Jacob actually only gave him a dish of lentils. This would explain why Esau later claimed he had been twice deceived by Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 27:36'>Gen 27:36</a></em>). The mere sale of the birthright was hardly deception; but if the bitterness of it all was that even in that hard bargain, Jacob didn't really give Esau the food he craved... then we can understand Esau feeling Jacob had twice deceived him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob said, First, sell me your birthright</em>- Jacob’s 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. This was no sign of spirituality, but rather of his obsession with material acquisition. We can be sure he arranged to be boiling that broth just at the right moment. It was hardly an off-the-cuff decision to ask Esau for the birthright. He not only disbelieved the promise that the elder would serve the younger, but he misunderstood it, thinking that God's promises were dependent upon human works and wit to be fulfilled. He spoke of how he would bring upon himself the blessing God had promised him (<em><a href='B:10 27:12'>Gen 27:12</a></em>). Later, he reveals the same attitude when he describes his children as the fulfillment of the promises of present fruitfulness (<em><a href='B:10 32:10'>Gen 32:10</a></em>), but also the children he had obtained by his own service (<em><a href='B:10 30:26'>Gen 30:26</a></em>); he thought that his own effort and labour had fulfilled God's promises. He reasoned that Laban had been rebuked by God because God had seen how hard he had worked (<em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>). He explicitly says that if God further increases his flocks, it would be a sign that he was righteous (<em><a href='B:10 30:33'>Gen 30:33</a></em>). Like Job, he had to learn that God's blessings are not primarily <em>physical</em>, and that we do not receive them in proportion to our present righteousness. And yet during this learning process, God patiently went along with him to some extent.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps psychologically, Jacob was driven to do what he did by his father's preference for Esau over himself. It was his way of striking back; and that act of selfishness was however used by God to fulfil His purpose of the elder serving the younger. But he failed to perceive that the promises were essentially of spiritual things, and the blessing of the firstborn was not the same as the Abrahamic promise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Esau said, Behold, I am about to die. What good is the birthright to me?</em>- Esau's attitude is alluded to by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em> as being typical of the mentality of those who have no faith in the resurrection which the promises to Abraham implied: "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die". "I am about to die" are almost the words found on the lips of his father Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 27:2'>Gen 27:2</a></em>). This is what happens within families- sons repeat the words and attitudes of their fathers. We have here yet another ring of truth to the record; that these are the actual words spoken by these men, millennia ago. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob said, Swear to me first. He swore to him. He sold his birthright to Jacob</em>- Esau's behaviour is seen as the essence of all who shall be finally rejected (<em><a href='B:650 12:16'>Heb 12:16</a></em>); they want the immediate rather than the things of eternal consequence. Whether or not there was any physical item which defined the birthright, such as a scarlet thread placed on the firstborn- a verbal oath was considered binding.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils- </em>I suggested on :30 that Esau thought the stew was a blood broth, but Jacob deceived him a second time by giving him lentils rather than a blood meat stew.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He ate and drank, rose up, and went his way- </em>The same words used of how Eliezer did likewise after securing Rebekah as a wife for Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 24:54'>Gen 24:54</a></em>). We are intended to see the contrast- the way taken was so different. Eliezer was respecting the covenant, whereas Esau despised it. "Rose up" is elsewhere translated "establish" and is used of the establishing of the covenant (<em><a href='B:10 26:3'>Gen 26:3</a></em>). So it could be that we are to understand that after reviving from his exhaustion, Esau confirmed the agreement. Instead of establishing the covenant with him, he had as it were disestablished it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Esau despised his birthright</em>- The phrase “vile person” ('despiser') in <em><a href='B:340 11:21'>Dan 11:21</a></em> connects here to Esau who "despised his birthright". If the first usage of a word in Scripture is significant, then <em><a href='B:10 25:34'>Gen 25:34</a></em> is indeed helpful here– because it is used of Esau, father of many of the Arab tribes. And it recurs in describing Edom in <em><a href='B:380 1:2'>Oba 1:2</a></em>, Goliath the Philistine / Palestinian (<em><a href='B:90 17:42'>1Sa 17:42</a></em>), “Tobiah the Ammonite and Geshem the Arabian” (<em><a href='B:160 2:19'>Neh 2:19</a></em>), and Haman the persecutor of the Jews (<em><a href='B:190 3:6'>Est 3:6</a></em>). All these men were Arab prototypes of the “vile person”, the ruler of Assyria, who is to again persecute God’s people. And his provenance is of Esau, of the relatives of Israel who live nearby to them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whilst the Abrahamic promises did not demand fulfilment through the firstborn, it would be fair to assume that they imagined that the firstborn was the promised seed. So Esau's despising of the birthright was in practice a reflection of his attitude to the promises of the seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham- </em>The recollection of the famine in Abraham's days is to point up the fact that Isaac found himself in an identical situation to Abraham, and failed in precisely the same way. Circumstances and situations repeat between the lives of God's people, and between our lives and those of Biblical characters. This is so that we might learn the lessons; or upon failure, reflect and discern the similarities. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines, to Gerar</em>- He ought to have learnt from Abraham's mistake, and not led himself into temptation. The desire to go to Egypt was likely because the famine meant that his flocks, his wealth, would be decreased- rather than that he would literally die of famine. So as so often, the fear of losing wealth leads believers into temptation and failure.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh appeared to him, and said, Don’t go down into Egypt. Live in the land I will tell you about</em>- The fact Isaac lived in Gerar (:6) could be read as rank disobedience. Or perhaps he reasoned that as Gerar was on the edge of the promised <em>eretz</em>, he was justified in doing so. But living on the edge of Divine things leads to temptation. Whether Gerar was in "Egypt" or the <em>eretz</em> of promise was debatable; and instead of removing himself from temptation, Isaac took himself to the edge, and therefore fell into it. See on <em><a href='B:350 4:15'>Hos 4:15</a></em> for a similar failure in later Israel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Live in this land, and I will be with you, and will bless you. For to you, and to your seed, I will give all these lands- </em>As noted on :1, his fear was that he would lose the material blessings of large flocks because of the famine if he remained in "this land". He was being asked to do something counter instinctive. And he didn't want to. He ought to have recalled how Abraham resigned the best pasture land to Lot, and was then told that to look out over the land Lot had chosen, and believe that this land would be his eternal inheritance. And so Isaac was promised that he would be given all Egypt and "all these lands" eternally. The phrase may suggest that certain lands were in view; perhaps like Abraham, Isaac was on an elevated point from where he could view "these lands", and was promised them. Or maybe we have here the first hint that the promise of inheriting one land, the <em>eretz, </em>was to be extended to the inheritance of all lands, "the world", the entire planet (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And I will establish the oath which I swore to Abraham your father</em>- The oath to Abraham would be established or repeated to him. That is evidence enough that the Abrahamic blessing was not simply inherited; it had to be established or confirmed to each individual, on their choice. Ishmael clearly didn't want this, despite being circumcised into the covenant. We read in <em><a href='B:300 34:18'>Jer 34:18</a></em> of those of Israel who did not establish or confirm the covenant oath (s.w.). People today allow the promises to be established to them by baptism into Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). We encounter the same word at the end of the wilderness journey, where Moses urges the peoples' faithfulness so that Yahweh might "establish His covenant" with them (<em><a href='B:50 8:18'>Deu 8:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:9'>Deu 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:13'>Deu 28:13</a></em>); and we note that despite their disobedience, He still "established" the covenant with them, by grace alone (<em><a href='B:50 9:5'>Deu 9:5</a></em>). The idea of an "everlasting covenant" being established with God's people (<em><a href='B:330 16:60'>Eze 16:60</a></em>) perhaps means that from that time onwards, it would be unconditional, not requiring the human side of reconfirmation. It may therefore refer to our eternal existence. Or the idea could be that from God's side, His offer is eternally there, He is always offering the covenant- and it is the indifference of men which leads to their not confirming it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will multiply your seed as the stars of the sky, and will give to your seed all these lands- </em>Paul's point in <em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em> is that "seed" is singular and ultimately refers to the Lord Jesus. The singular seed becomes many because people from all nations become "in" Christ by baptism into Him and abiding in Him (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). And yet whether Isaac perceived that is doubtful; perhaps he was driven to understand it that way by the fact that so far as we know, he and Rebecca had only two children, the twins. And that after waiting 20 years. This would have been considered a most <em>not</em> blessed marriage and fruitfulness. But again we see the Divine hallmark, of working through human weakness. It was to be through that apparent lack of blessing that the greatest conceivable blessing was to come.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed</em>- The Hebrew text says that "a great mixture" of people "went up also" with Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:38'>Exo 12:38</a></em>).&nbsp; There can be no doubt that this refers to the many references in the promises that the seed would come to include such a "mixed&nbsp; multitude" (<em><a href='B:10 17:6'>Gen 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:4'>Gen 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:3'>Gen 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em>), thereby showing that by reason of leaving Egypt and passing through the Red Sea these Gentiles became part of the seed (cp. <em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). But the supreme fulfilment of these promises will be after the 'Red Sea' of the last days. And the "blessing" promised was of relationship with God and forgiveness of sin (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My requirements, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws</em>- Here again we see the huge significance of Abraham's faith. The promises made to him were available to future generations because of his faith, although individuals still needed to personally respond to the covenant. We wonder whether there were more laws and requirements given to Abraham than are recorded in Genesis. Or perhaps Moses expressed it this way for the sake of his primary audience, Israel in the wilderness, who were being given the various requirements of the law. Another possibility is that we have here a case of intensive plurals, whereby the one great law or requirement is spoken of in the plural. And the greatest law or command he obeyed was surely to be willing to sacrifice Isaac. As we noted on chapters 11 and 12, Abraham's obedience to God's word of command to leave Ur and break with his family was "obeyed" very poorly and slowly by him; but God counts such obedience to him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac lived in Gerar</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 25:28'>Gen 25:28</a></em> and <em><a href='B:10 26:1-2'>Gen 26:1-2</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The men of the place asked him about his wife. He said, She is my sister, for he was afraid to say, My wife, lest, he thought, the men of the place might kill me for Rebekah, because she is beautiful to look at</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 25:28'>Gen 25:28</a></em>. If he had remained firmly within the <em>eretz</em> rather than practicing the spiritual brinkmanship of living in Gerar (see on :1,2), the situation would not have arisen. He repeats the failure of Abraham precisely. Rebekah was indeed his relative, but that was a stretch of the word "sister". The contrast is clearly made with the way that in the New Testament, a husband should be willing to die for his wife. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out of a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was caressing Rebekah his wife</em>- Isaac is an example of a man who wouldn't be whom God intended him to be- at least, not all the time. His fear stopped him, and it robbed him of the joy God intended for him. It was due to his fear, his lack of faith in God's promises, that he passes off his wife as his sister when he thinks Abimelech or his people have an interest in her. But Isaac and Rebekah slip off for some intimate time together, and it's noticed that Isaac was "Isaacing ("playing" / "laughing") himself with Rebekah"- <em>Yitshaq metsaheq et Ribqah</em> (<em><a href='B:10 26:8'>Gen 26:8</a></em> Heb.). He was 'being himself' with her, living up to his name, Isaac, which means 'laughter'. It was his fear and lack of faith which had led him to <em>not</em> be himself. And we so very often make the same mistake. And yet I observe that Isaac must have really loved his wife to do this; and it gives force to the simple statement that Isaac loved Rebekah, despite it being an arranged marriage and not a love marriage (see on <em><a href='B:10 24:67'>Gen 24:67</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech called Isaac and said, Behold, surely she is your wife. Why did you say, ‘She is my sister?’ Isaac said to him, Because I said, ‘Lest I die because of her’</em>- Again, the contrast is clearly made with the way that in the New Testament, a husband should be willing to die for his wife. Abimelech and his people had already had this experience with Isaac's father Abraham. They must have found God's people rather enigmatic; their personal morality and integrity was low, lower than the surrounding peoples. And yet they strongly believed in their God's promises, and were greatly blessed by Him. Their God was the God of all grace, quite different to their gods. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech said, What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt on us!</em>- These are the very words the Abimelech had used to Abraham. See on :9. The fact Rebekah was in this situation for "a long time" (:8) points up the morality of the Gentiles as being superior to that of the supposedly holy family. They didn't rape her, nor have casual sex with her; if indeed she was taken as a wife, she was subject to a long period of ritual preparation before having sex with her. "Abimelech" is likely a generic title for the rulers of the area, but it could conceivably have been the same Abimelech with whom Abraham dealt. He too realized that sins of ignorance were still reckoned by Yahweh to be sins, and brought guilt. The idea of sins of ignorance was probably unknown amongst the local religions; but the one true God was far more sensitive to sin than they were. "Easily" is literally 'as a light thing'. In their morality, casual sex with a stranger was a light thing; but Abimelech tacitly recognizes that they were answerable to Yahweh, and for Him, such sins of ignorance were not a light thing, and would bring guilt.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech commanded all the people, saying, He who touches this man or his wife will surely be put to death</em>- &nbsp;The Abimelech kings appear far more gracious and honourable than the Abraham family who wandered in and out of their territory; the way Abimelech threatens his own people with death if they touch Isaac or his wife, after they had been deceitful to him, is an example. Yet it was not the nice people of the world, but this wandering, spiritually struggling family whom God loved and worked with.&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:10 20:16'>Gen 20:16</a></em>. "Will surely be put to death" may be a comment to the effect that Yahweh, Isaac's God, would surely take vengeance in such a case. Or perhaps Abimelech reasoned that it would be better if his authorities punished such an offender with death, than that Yahweh take vengeance upon them all. He clearly feared and respected Yahweh, realizing that He would judge even sins of ignorance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac sowed in that land, and reaped in the same year one hundred times what he planted. Yahweh blessed him</em>- One hundred fold yield is incredible; 25 fold yield would be good. Especially as this was in time of famine. Abraham likewise was greatly blessed immediately after making the identical failure. We would rather expect there to be some punishment; but there was none. Instead, the opposite- blessing. Punishment is often an ineffective way of achieving correction and growth. Hence the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer in this life. It was the pouring out of grace which led to Abraham and Isaac realizing the depth of their failure.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Abraham family's considerable wealth is a theme in the records. Here and :13 provide quite some emphasis of the same point. Eliezer commented on Abraham's material wealth: "The Lord hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great (note the repetition)"; he then goes on to enumerate a long list of possessions:&nbsp;flocks, herds, silver, gold, menservants, maidservants, camels, asses. Truly "The Lord had blessed Abraham in all things" (<em><a href='B:10 24:1'>Gen 24:1</a></em>). This suggests that the patriarchs' material prosperity was a primary fulfillment of the Abrahamic blessing in their lifetime. Peter interprets the blessing as the forgiveness of sins (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>). The stress on their material blessings therefore points forward to our spiritual riches of blessing in Christ. Even earlier in Abraham's life, "Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver&nbsp;and in gold" (13:1). Other references to Abraham's wealth occur in 13:6; 14:23. Jacob too was&nbsp; blessed with material wealth (31:16; 33:11 AVmg.). His parting with Esau because they were both so wealthy (36:7) echoes the division between Abraham and Lot&nbsp; and Abraham and Abimelech for the same reason (<em><a href='B:10 13:6'>Gen 13:6</a></em>). The similarities between these incidents serves to emphasize the wealth of the family. The prosperity of Lot in Sodom is also highlighted (14:12 Heb.). Each of them seems to have accumulated wealth in their own right in addition to inheriting it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man grew great, and grew more and more until he became very great</em>- "Great" is the same word used in <em><a href='B:10 12:2'>Gen 12:2</a></em>; that Abraham's seed would be "great". As noted on <em><a href='B:10 24:35'>Gen 24:35</a></em>, the greatness of blessing had a primary fulfilment as demonstration of how the greater, spiritual blessing would likewise become true. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He had possessions of flocks, possessions of herds, and a great household. The Philistines envied him</em>-&nbsp; There is a theme of envy in the accounts of Isaac and Jacob. The Philistines envied Isaac; 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:10 37:11'>Gen 37:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:9'>Act 7:9</a></em>). Family friction certainly stalked the generations, as it has done amongst the new Israel. 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now all the wells which his father’s servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped, and filled with earth</em>- This was due to their envy (:14). Flocks were the measure of wealth, and to cut off the water supply was a way of diminishing them. This reflects the basic human feature of wanting to bring others down to our level, the tall poppy syndrome. Abraham is repeatedly called "his father" (see on :18). We get the idea that he was living out parental expectation to some degree, as Jacob also did. Abraham was a hard act to follow; and yet unlike many sons in that situation, Isaac did not lose faith because of it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech said to Isaac, Go from us, for you are much mightier than we</em>- Moses was primarily writing for the Israelites in the wilderness, who had suffered the same treatment from the Egyptians. He was seeking to teach them that circumstances repeat, just as they had in the lives of Abraham and Isaac; and they were to learn from that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac departed from there, encamped in the valley of Gerar, and lived there</em>- I suggested on :2 that God had in fact asked Isaac to remain in the promised <em>eretz</em>, and his living in Gerar was in disobedience. At best, seeing it was somewhere on the borders of the <em>eretz</em>, he was practicing spiritual brinkmanship; and because he placed himself close to the edge, he went over. Like Abraham, he seems not to have learnt the lesson. For he leaves Gerar town and lives in the valley nearby; and therefore the friction continued with the local Philistines (a term which may then have included Abimelech and the people of Gerar). The record of the patriarchs is full of such examples of not learning lessons, partial obedience, rank failure- and yet an abiding basic faith in God. And that is what makes them our pattern.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac dug again the wells of water, which they had dug in the days of Abraham his father. For the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham- </em>And yet immediately after Abraham's death, the Lord had richly blessed Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 25:11'>Gen 25:11</a></em>). Blessing would have been understood in terms of fertility; growth in flocks or good harvests. Yet this was achieved without the water sources which were seen as so important to achieve wealth. All the time, Isaac was being shown that blessing was by grace alone. But like us, the Abraham family struggled so hard to accept this. See on :22.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He called their names after the names by which his father had called them</em>- As noted on :15, this could reflect an obsession with his father, and a living out of parental expectation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac’s servants dug in the valley, and found there a well of springing water</em>- As noted on :18, the whole business of the wells was to try to teach Isaac about God's grace. They dug, but God responded by giving them a spring of water, welling up from Him, rather than the stagnant water usually found when a well hits the water table. The implication could even be that they dug in search of water, but found a natural well of springing water which for some reason had as yet been undiscovered. Again, this was grace. This would explain the argument in :20.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The herdsmen of Gerar argued with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, The water is ours! He called the name of the well Esek, because they contended with him</em>- I suggested on :19 that Esek was a natural well of springing water which for some reason had as yet been undiscovered. It was not as it were dug down to by Isaac's workers. And so the local people claimed it was theirs, because it was in their territory.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They dug another well, and they argued over that, also. He called its name Sitnah</em>- "Sitnah" is a form of <em>satan</em>, to be an adversary or make an accusation. That is all 'satan' means as a word. The Hebrew translated "argued" can as well mean that they fought together (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 21:18'>Exo 21:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He left that place, and dug another well. They didn’t argue over that one. He called it Rehoboth. He said, For now Yahweh has made room for us, and we will be fruitful in the land</em>- The response&nbsp; to contention should be to walk away, rather than "argue", bearing in mind as noted on :21 that the Hebrew can mean that they actually fought over it. Isaac had already been blessed with amazing fruitfulness by God's grace (see on :12). But here Isaac reasons that having his own personal water supply would make him more fruitful. He had failed to realize that fruitfulness was given not by water supply but God's grace; see on :18. The immediate relevance to the wilderness generation of Yahweh making room for Isaac in Canaan was that He had promised to also make room for <em>them</em> in the same land; the same word is translated "enlarge" (<em><a href='B:20 34:24'>Exo 34:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:20'>Deu 12:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:8'>Deu 19:8</a></em>). Perhaps Isaac was thinking that now he finally had his own territory within the land, with his own secured water supply. But he failed to fully believe that the entire <em>eretz</em> was promised to him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He went up from there to Beersheba</em>- As noted on :22, Isaac was thinking that now he finally had his own territory within the land, with his own secured water supply. But he failed to fully believe that the entire <em>eretz</em> was promised to him.&nbsp; And so as soon as he considered himself settled in permanently, he has to move to Beersheba. The reasons aren't given; but the lesson is that the true seed of Abraham never really settle down. We are kept on the move, especially if we are tempted to think that we have a settled place now. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh appeared to him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham your father. Don’t be afraid, for I am with you, and will bless you, and multiply your seed for My servant Abraham’s sake</em>- The encouragement not to fear was perhaps because Isaac had had to flee Rehoboth, where he thought he had settled permanently (see on :23), because of some aggressors; perhaps his comment to Abimelech that "you hate me" (:27) has something to do with it. <em>God</em> would be the source of blessing for Isaac, through His grace; and not because Isaac had his own secured private water source and apparently secure, permanent territory. And instead of focusing so much upon the literal land aspect of the promises, he was bidden refocus upon the seed. Likewise the idea of inheriting a literal Kingdom on earth can become so focused upon that the things of the Lord Jesus are obscured or distorted; and thus the New Testament without doubt focuses more upon Jesus than upon the literal aspect of His future Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He built an altar there, and called on the name of Yahweh, and pitched his tent there. There Isaac’s servants dug a well</em>- As explained on :23 and :24, Isaac had thought that Rehoboth was to be his permanent home, especially as he had his own private, secure water supply. But the hand of providence moved him on from any sense of permanence in this life; for that is not the spirit of the seed of Abraham, who are merely passing through this world, which they shall eternally inherit in future. Isaac seems to have learnt the lesson this time; for he pitches his tent, calls on Yahweh, and digs a new well in tacit recognition that Rehoboth was not the final well after all (see on :23).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath his friend, and Phicol the captain of his army</em>- This was similar to how they had come and made a treaty with Abraham in <em><a href='B:10 21:22'>Gen 21:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 21:32'>Gen 21:32</a></em>. The names may well be titles rather than personal names. The language used is identical to that in Genesis 21; Isaac was being led through some of Abraham's experiences, so that he would be the true seed of Abraham not just ethnically, but spiritually. And the same is true of us; Abraham is father of all the faithful (<em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>) in that his life and path is in essence that of us all. We are therefore led through similar experiences to him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac said to them, Why have you come to me, since you hate me, and have sent me away from you?</em>- Isaac's criticism of them seems unreasonably aggressive and paranoiac. Abimelech is consistently presented in Genesis as being of great integrity and far higher morality than the Abraham family. Isaac thinks that they "hate" him; but Abimelech can truly say in :29 that he has done nothing but good to Isaac. He had sent Isaac away "in peace" and not with any personal animosity (:29). I suggest that Isaac was a fearful man, and he had an irrational fear about Abimelech. It was this which led him to leave Rehoboth, after he had imagined that there he finally had found some permanence, and a secure private water source- see on :23,24. The "fear" he had, which God comforted him about in :24, was therefore an irrational fear. But God worked through it, as He works through our irrational fears, in order to keep Isaac on the move, and to save him from losing his pilgrim status and mentality, by settling down in Rehoboth. Even if Abimelech did indeed "hate" Isaac, he had the Abrahamic promise that he would possess the gate of his enemies, those who "hate" him (<em><a href='B:10 24:60'>Gen 24:60</a></em> s.w.). Perhaps Abimelech realized this more than Isaac did, and therefore wanted to make peace rather than experience God's judgment. We recall his fear of Divine judgment if any of his people had slept with Rebekah. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said, We saw plainly that Yahweh was with you. We said, ‘Let there now be an oath between us, even between us and you, and let us make a covenant with you</em>- Despite Abimelech's poor experiences with Isaac and Rebekah due to their lack of integrity about their marriage, Abimelech could not but accept that Yahweh was with Isaac. And he didn't want to be the enemy of God's people. He had a definite fear of Isaac and his God. The oath between Abimelech and Abraham had been for three generations, including Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 21:21-22'>Gen 21:21-22</a></em>). But Abimelech felt the need to confirm it with Isaac personally; reminding Isaac that God's oath to Abraham and his seed likewise had to be personally reaffirmed by those in subsequent generations. Maybe Isaac's lack of integrity led Abimelech to question whether Isaac still felt bound to Abraham's oaths. The incident was therefore used in Divine providence to help Isaac see that he must personally reaffirm Abraham's covenants- including, supremely, that with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That you will do us no harm, as we have not touched you, and as we have done to you nothing but good, and have sent you away in peace’. You are now the blessed of Yahweh</em>- Abimelech makes free use of the Yahweh name. He knew something of the promises about "blessing", and considered that Isaac had received blessing from Yahweh. Those material blessings, however, were but attention grabbers, to signpost that generation to understand that there were far greater spiritual blessings yet to come. But as in our lives, the Kingdom life is also now as well as not yet.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made them a feast, and they ate and drank</em>- Eating and drinking at such a feast was a sign of the confirming of a covenant; in this case, the <em>re</em>confirming of a covenant already made in <em><a href='B:10 21:21-22'>Gen 21:21-22</a></em>. The memorial feast, the breaking of bread, is our equivalent of this; it is an opportunity to personally reconfirm our part in the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He called it Shibah. Therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>They grieved Isaac’s and Rebekah’s spirits</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, See now, I am old. I don’t know the day of my death</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore, please take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field, and take me venison</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rebekah heard when Isaac spoke to Esau his son. Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rebekah spoke to Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard your father speak to Esau your brother, saying</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Bring me venison, and make me savoury food, that I may eat, and bless you before Yahweh before my death’</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command you</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring it to your father, that he may eat, so that he may bless you before his death</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He went, and got them, and brought them to his mother. His mother made savoury food, such as his father loved</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>She put the skins of the young goats on his hands, and on the smooth of his neck</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>S<em>he gave the savoury food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He came to his father, and said, My father? He said, Here I am. Who are you, my son?</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because his hands were hairy, like his brother Esau’s hands. So he blessed him</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Are you really my son Esau? He said, I am</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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> 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He brought him wine, and he drank</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>His father Isaac said to him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>God give you of the dew of the sky, of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and new wine</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let your mother’s sons bow down to you.&nbsp;Cursed be everyone who curses you. Blessed be everyone who blesses you</em>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac his father said to him, Who are you? He said, I am your son, your firstborn, Esau</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Your brother came with deceit, and has taken away your blessing</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- <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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will happen, when you will break loose, that you shall shake his yoke from off your neck</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore, my son, obey my voice. Arise, flee to Laban, my brother, in Haran</em>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Stay with him a few days, until your brother’s fury turns away</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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> 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then I will send, and get you from there. Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac called Jacob, blessed him, and commanded him, You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>May God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a company of peoples</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Paddan Aram</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, 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan didn’t please Isaac, his father</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran-</em> 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, Yahweh stood above it, and said, I am Yahweh, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac-</em> 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>The land whereon you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- <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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob awakened out of his sleep, and he said, Surely Yahweh is in this place, and I didn’t know it</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>“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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>So that I come again to my father’s house in peace, and Yahweh will be my God</em>- 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><table><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the children of the east</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob said to them, My relatives, where are you from? They said, We are from Haran</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to them, Do you know Laban, the son of Nahor? They said, We know him</em>- Laban was Nahor's grandson, but Hebrew genealogies frequently skip generations. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>While he was yet speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she kept them</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban said to him, Surely you are my bone and my flesh. He lived with him for a month</em>-&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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban had two daughters. The name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and attractive</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob loved Rachel. He said, I will serve you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob served seven years for Rachel. They seemed to him but a few days, for the love he had for her</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob said to Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him. He went in to her</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban gave Zilpah his handmaid to his daughter Leah for a handmaid</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why then have you deceived me?</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban said, It is not done so in our place, to give the younger before the firstborn</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week. He gave him Rachel his daughter as wife</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah, his handmaid, to be her handmaid</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He went in also to Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Leah conceived, and bore a son, and she named him Reuben-</em> 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>For she said, Because Yahweh has looked at my affliction-</em>‘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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>For now my husband will love me</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>She gave him Bilhah her handmaid as wife, and Jacob went in to her</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bilhah conceived, and bore Jacob a son</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid, conceived again, and bore Jacob a second son</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rachel said, With mighty wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed. She named him Naphtali</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Leah saw that she had finished bearing, she took Zilpah, her handmaid, and gave her to Jacob as a wife</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, bore Jacob a son</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Leah said, How fortunate! She named him Gad</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, bore Jacob a second son</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me happy. She named him Asher</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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> 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rachel said, Therefore he will lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>God listened to Leah, and she conceived, and bore Jacob a fifth son</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Leah said, God has given me my hire, because I gave my handmaid to my husband. She named him Issachar</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Leah conceived again, and bore a sixth son to Jacob</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now my husband will live with me, because I have borne him six sons. She named him Zebulun</em>- &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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Afterwards, she bore a daughter, and named her Dinah</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her, and opened her womb</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>She conceived, bore a son, and said, God has taken away my reproach</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>She named him Joseph, saying, May Yahweh add another son to me</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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><table><tr><td></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Appoint me your wages, and I will give it</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to him, You know how I have served you, and how your livestock have fared with me</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh has blessed you wherever I turned. Now when will I provide for my own house also?</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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> 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>This will be my hire</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban said, Behold, let it be according to your word</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He set three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>The flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks produced streaked, speckled, and spotted</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man increased exceedingly, and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkey</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob saw the expression on Laban’s face, and, behold, it was not toward him as before</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Jacob, Return to the land of your fathers, and to your relatives, and I will be with you</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field to his flock</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>You know that I have served your father with all of my strength</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your father has deceived me, and changed my wages ten times, but God didn’t allow him to hurt me</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus God has taken away your father’s livestock, and given them to me</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob’, and I said, ‘Here I am’</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- “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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rachel and Leah answered him, Is there still any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house?</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aren’t we accounted by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and has also quite devoured our money</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives on the camels</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Laban had gone to shear his sheep: and Rachel stole the teraphim that were her father’s</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob deceived Laban the Syrian, in that he didn’t tell him that he was running away</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban was told on the third day that Jacob had fled</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took his relatives with him, and pursued after him seven days’ journey. He overtook him in the mountain of Gilead</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And didn’t allow me to kiss my sons and my daughters? Now have you done foolishly</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>-&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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now you want to be gone, because you greatly longed for your father’s house, but why have you stolen my gods?</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob answered Laban, Because I was afraid, for I said, ‘Lest you should take your daughters from me by force’</em>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- The chronological problem is well addressed by H.P. Mansfield: </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And rebuked you last night</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now come, let us make a covenant, you and I; and let it be for a witness between me and you</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob said to his relatives, Gather stones. They took stones, and made a heap. They ate there by the heap</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban called it Jegar Sahadutha, but Jacob called it Galeed</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban said, This heap is witness between me and you this day. Therefore it was named Galeed</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Mizpah, for he said, Yahweh watch between me and you, when we are absent one from another</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Laban said to Jacob, See this heap, and see the pillar, which I have set between me and you</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us-</em> 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Jacob swore by the fear of his father, Isaac</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>When he saw them, Jacob said, This is God’s army. He called the name of that place Mahanaim</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob sent messengers in front of him to Esau, his brother, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom</em>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He divided the people who were with him, and the flocks, and the herds, and the camels, into two companies</em>- Literally, two camps- Mahanaim. These two camps of Jacob are stressed (:8,10,21). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And now I have become two companies</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He lodged there that night, and took from that which he had with him, a present for Esau, his brother</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thirty milk camels and their colts, forty cows, ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten foals</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>So the present passed over before him, and he himself lodged that night in the camp</em>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took them, and sent them over the stream, and sent over that which he had</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jacob was left alone, and wrestled with a man there until the breaking of the day</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was strained, as he wrestled</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man said, Let me go, for the day breaks. Jacob said, I won’t let You go, unless You bless me</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to him, What is your name? He said, Jacob</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sun rose on him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped because of his thigh</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He put the handmaids and their children in front, Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph at the rear</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He himself passed over in front of them-</em> 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Esau ran to meet him, embraced him, fell on his neck, kissed him, and they wept</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the handmaids came near with their children, and they bowed themselves</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Leah also and her children came near, and bowed themselves. After them, Joseph came near with Rachel, and they bowed themselves</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Esau said, I have enough, my brother; let that which you have be yours</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And you were pleased with me</em>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Esau said, Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before you</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>He erected an altar there, and called it El Elohe Israel</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- "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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>His soul joined to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young lady, and spoke kindly to the young lady</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shechem spoke to his father, Hamor, saying, Get me this young lady as a wife</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to talk with him</em>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'><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>- 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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>


