Naomi's Exile & Exodus (part 1)

In the first verse of the book of Ruth it is recorded that “During the time of the judges there was a famine in the land of Judah.  So a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to live as a resident foreigner in the region of Moab, along with his wife and two sons” (1:1).  Famine is an underlying issue.  Giving this some thought, one realizes that famine is an important theme of Scripture and the covenantal narrative, and it here presents itself on another occasion.  Famines can be seen in connection with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, and with Joseph. 

Thus the man being referenced here in Ruth, whose name was Elimelech, now stands in good company.  In dealing with a famine, he is now walking the familiar path that has been previously trod by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Elimelech, like these men, has voluntarily removed himself from the land of the Creator God’s promise.  When considering one of the overarching themes of all of Scripture, it can be noted that he is now in something of a self-imposed exile.  Along with that, it should be noted that the Scripture here offers no commentary on his departure from the promised land, but simply presents it as a matter of fact. 

While in this state of exile from the land that represents the covenant God’s faithful promises to His people, Elimelech died.  His death left his wife (Naomi) and two sons (Mahlon and Kilion) alone.  Rather than return to the land of Judah, “her sons married Moabite women (Orpah and Ruth).  And they continued to live there about ten years” (1:4).  Here, as one listens to this story as a member of the nation of Israel, it is possible to hear echoes of Jacob’s first departure from his father’s house, which came on the heels of what he believed to be his father’s impending death (because of Isaac’s insistence on blessing Esau before he died), as when Jacob was in the first of his exiles in Haran, two women were married and there was an extended dwelling away from the land of promise.  For Naomi, the pain of exile would grow, as her two sons went the way of their father, dying there in the land of Moab.  With this, she is described as being “bereaved of her two children as well as her husband” (1:5b). 

It was within this bereavement that Naomi “decided to return home from the region of Moab, accompanied by her daughters-in-law” (1:6a).  She decided to make this return journey “because while she was living in Moab she had heard that the Lord had shown concern for His people, reversing the famine by providing abundant crops” (1:6b).  This statement should serve as a reminder of the opening statement of the book and the famine mentioned therein “during the time of the judges.” 

Why would there have been a famine in Judah?  Well, if one believes in a covenant God that is faithful to His promises (according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy), and also believes in the repetitive record of the book of Judges, the famine is a curse related to Israel’s idolatry---doing evil in the sight of their Lord.  Famine points to exile, while also informing an observer that Elimelech’s flight to Moab, occurring during the time period covered by the book of Judges, was most likely undertaken during one of the periods of Israel’s subjugation to a foreign power. 

Compassionate Brother (part 18 of 18)

In the parable of the prodigal, the younger son returns home, doing so with the knowledge that he is taking a risk and potentially putting his life in jeopardy.  If he is seen and recognized by the community, he is possibly going to be subject to stoning at worst, and a very public ceremony of shaming at best.  However, Jesus says that “while he was still a long way from home his father saw him, and his heart went out to him: he ran and hugged his son and kissed him” (Luke 15:20b).  Like Esau running to Jacob, the compassionate father ran to his son, subjecting himself to loss of honor (increase in shame).  As is said of Esau, who did not take it upon himself to inflict pain and suffering on Jacob, the compassionate father, following the model of the compassionate brother, shamed and dishonored himself, rather than allowing his son to suffer. 

As Esau hugged and kissed his brother, enduring the shame and extending compassion, so too did the father and true star of the parable hug and kiss his son, in a similar demonstration of merciful compassion.  The son of the parable attempted to execute the plan that he formulated and rehearsed, but before he was able to deliver his prepared speech, the father cuts him off and restores him to the position of honor as if he had never wronged his father, his family, or his community.  Likewise, Jacob’s planning and preparations were wholly unnecessary, as Esau welcomed him with open arms, celebrating a joyous reunion with no apparent thought of retribution or a need to re-pay (thought Jacob is revealed to not be fully convinced of his brother’s compassion). 

The father in the parable exclaims that “this son of mine was dead, and is alive again---he was lost and is found!” (15:24a).  Esau, who had wished his brother dead, and to whom he was effectively dead, celebrates the return of his brother---alive again.  Here are the stories of a compassionate brother and a compassionate father, who dealt with a brother and a son whose stories shared some common features.  Both had been dishonored and both had been shamed.  Both had the right to take vengeance.  Both exercised compassion. 

Both stories, as told to and for a people of the covenant-making and providential Creator God that seeks to reconcile His image-bearers and His world to Himself, reveal a God that revels in compassion---willing to take the pain and shame and suffering that rightfully belong to others upon Himself (there was no greater shame than the curse of the cross) so as to set His world to rights, restore the beings created and set forth as His image in the world, and show forth His kingdom and His glory.           

Compassionate Brother (part 17 of 18)

Jacob did not squander his wealth, though as has been seen, life was a bit wild for him.  Like the prodigal in his exile from his father’s house, fortune had eluded Jacob though others had gotten rich at his expense.  The son of the famed parable is said to have experienced the effects of destitution, as a terrible famine grips the land.  Seeking whatever income he could find, he attaches himself to a citizen of that country, much like Jacob was attached to Laban because of the need to pay him for all of the wives (and children until the wife debt obligation is met), and is sent to feed the citizen’s pigs. 

Naturally, as the hearers of Jesus’ parable were predominantly Jewish, and because they would naturally assume that the family in the story is Jewish, they would see this as an attempt by the man to get rid of an unwanted hanger-on, expecting that the young Jewish man would resolutely refuse to lower and defile himself in such a way.  This was viewed as a possibility in Laban’s business deal with Jacob, which, based on Laban’s actions after striking the deal, might be taken to have indicated a desire to rid himself of Jacob. 

Eventually, while feeding the pigs but while still hungry, the young man in the parable is said to have come “to his senses,” saying “How many of my father’s hired workers have food enough and to spare, but here I am dying from hunger!” (Luke 15:17), and so hatches a plan to return to the home that he had left in shame and dishonor.  Similarly, Jacob comes to his senses.  With the documented hostility that he is experiencing, he wonders why it is that he remains where he is, when he could return to his father’s house, rather than continuing to serve under a man who clearly did not want him around any longer. 

The younger son however, knows that he has shamed himself and his family, and knows that harsh consequence up to and including the possibility of death, await him if he returns to his father’s house.  Owing to that, and considering the fact that his father’s hired workers earn enough to feed themselves with money to spare, he devises a plan that will allow him to gain one of those positions, so as to be able to pay back his father over time, and in the process allow him to regain the honor that he had lost.  So he says “I will get up and go to my father and say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.  I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired workers.’” (15:18-19) 

This is the same thing that can be seen with Jacob.  He cannot simply return to the house that he left, covered in shame, having dishonored his father and his brother.  He has a brother that has previously declared his desire to kill him, and a father that he greatly dishonored.  Therefore he must devise a plan.  Clearly, because his father (though it was done unwittingly) passed the covenantal blessing on to him, his primary concern is with the wrath of his brother, thus the planning taking place with the division of the families, and then the gifts of animals, with the message passed along by the servants. 

Effectively, with the language that is heard on the lips of Jacob, bowing to the ground as he refers to himself as Esau’s servant while also referring to Esau as “my lord” and telling him that seeing his face is like seeing the face of God, it is almost as if Jacob can be heard saying something like “I have sinned against heaven and against you; treat me like one of your hired workers.” 

Compassionate Brother (part 16)

With the gifts of a substantial number of animals, the words of the messengers, the bowing before Esau, and the repeated use of “servant” and “lord,” that plan could be seen unfolding.  However, it was also seen that Esau felt these things to have been completely unnecessary, as he runs to his brother, welcoming him with open arms and demonstrating compassion in his words and actions.  Basically, though Esau will begrudgingly accept the gifts that are on offer from his brother, Jacob’s well-rehearsed plan is dismissed out of hand, as Esau counters Jacob’s attempt to attract shame to himself in order to elevate his aggrieved brother. 

In stark contrast and as something of a reversal, Esau’s own actions bring shame upon himself, as he runs to his brother and refrains from taking action to avenge the dishonor done to him many years prior.  Whereas Jacob expected conflict, Esau appeared to be in favor of celebration.  Though Jacob had been dead to him, and though part of the plot was the thought that Esau had wanted him dead, it was now as if Jacob had returned to life.      

Though it has taken some work to get to this point, this story of the compassionate brother sounds remarkably similar to a story that would eventually be offered up by Jesus.  Though Esau generally gets a bad rap, and though there is precious little positive talk of Esau in Scriptures, perhaps the man who regularly dined with tax collectors and sinners, who offered up stories commending “unjust” stewards and good Samaritans, and generally opened up the kingdom of God to what were considered to be all the wrong people, had the story of Esau as the compassionate brother in mind when He offered up the parable of the compassionate father (often incorrectly labeled as the parable of the prodigal son). 

In that story, Jesus tells about a man with two sons.  The younger of the two demanded that his father give him the assets that would eventually come to him upon his father’s death.  This is the equivalent of wishing his father dead, which would have been well understood by those that would hear this tale from the lips of Jesus.  The father, who would be immensely dishonored by this action (the family would also suffer dishonor in the community), accedes to his son’s wishes. 

Though this is not precisely what happened with Isaac and his two sons, Isaac insisted on blessing Esau (the older son), indicating that he wanted to do so before he died.  However, rather than Esau receiving the blessing as the firstborn, the blessing fell to Jacob.  In the parable, as it is presented by Jesus, the son dishonored his father by his request, just as Jacob dishonored his father.  In both cases, the father has every right to take vengeance on his son, but he restrains himself.  There is compassion in evidence. 

In the parable, reports of the actions of the son would have quickly spread through the community, creating a growing hostility towards this presumptuous and shameful son.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that his life would have possibly been in jeopardy (as was Jacob’s), so it is quite likely that he quickly sells the assets in order to gain liquidity and leaves.  As did Jacob, with possible death looming, the son leaves on a journey to a distant country.  Jesus informs His hearers that the son “squandered his wealth with a wild lifestyle” (Luke 15:13b).  

Compassionate Brother (part 15)

One could go on at great length in discussing the honor and shame connotations so as to be able to gain a more robust reading of Scripture, but it seems as if the point has been made.  Considerations of honor and shame are more than necessary if there is a desire to rightly understand the stories and movement of Scripture, as this cultural component looms large.  Approaching the text from this angle allows a reader to make sense of the stories on their own terms, rather than reading terms and ideas into them (however noble or uplifting those things might be) that simply are not there. 

Additionally, as was previously said, proceeding along these lines allows for the narrative to be heard as it would have been heard by the people for whom it was written, while also allowing for a better comprehension of the movement of Scripture, and therefore an enhanced ability to comprehend and serve the God that is said to be revealed in and through those Scriptures.  This then, of course, allows a divine image-bearer to better understand the words and deeds of the God that was made manifest in human form, that being Jesus of Nazareth.    

So what has been seen in the course of this study?  What is it that prompted travel down the path that has revealed that Esau, perhaps surprisingly, was the compassionate brother?  To answer that question, the story of Jacob must be reviewed in broad terms.  Jacob, as is known, was one of two sons.  He was the younger of fraternal twins.  In a deceptive and dishonorable action, he secured for himself the blessing of his (purportedly dying---a deception in its own right) father---a blessing that rightfully belonged to his brother.  This generated anger on behalf of his brother, and most likely on the part of his father as well (due to the shame that would have been generated by the deception).  It is said that his brother was determined to kill him, so rather than staying, Jacob left, putting distance between himself and those that he had dishonored, ending up in the house of his uncle Laban. 

As was seen, Jacob lived a rather interesting and tumultuous life.  In particular, the report of his wives competing for his attention and his affection, with them offering up their female servants as wives to their husband, is revealed as being rather riotous.  When one considers the lifestyle, the adjective “wild” comes to mind.  By all indications he worked very hard for his uncle.  It appears to be the case that his labor served to increase his uncle’s wealth (and honor), but when it came to his own wealth, possessions, and honor, though he had surreptitiously secured the blessing of his father (which promised the richness of the earth along with plenty of grain and new wine), it was as if his life was gripped by famine.  Seeking to rectify this situation, he struck a deal with his uncle.  Though at first it seems like a legitimate agreement, closer inspection reveals that Laban may very well have intended to cause Jacob to become discouraged and despondent over his situation, possibly hopeful that this would result in Jacob leaving (and leaving behind his wives and children that would have been the property of his uncle). 

Eventually, after realizing that there was nothing more to be gained by staying where he was, and continuing to live in what was going to be a difficult and ultimately unsatisfying situation, Jacob expresses a desire to return to his father’s house.  He shares with his wives the reasons for acting on this desire.  However, there is the problem of his dishonored and angry brother, not to mention the dishonored and angry father, whose son had brought shame on the entire family.  Jacob had no idea how Esau would respond, and he figured that it was likely that he would meet up with Esau somewhere along the journey to his father’s house.  With this in mind, he devises a plan by which he will attempt to soothe his brother, even if it means dishonor for himself. 

Compassionate Brother (part 14)

As an aside, a similar story of give and take and relent can be found in connection with Abraham, which serves as a reminder that there is a cultural component at play in this reunion exchange between Jacob and Esau, and that it is informed by the constant struggle for honor in almost every transaction.  The twenty-third chapter of Genesis opens with the report of the death of Abraham’s wife (Jacob’s grandmother) Sarah has died.  Abraham desired to obtain a burial site for Sarah, and speaks to a group of men, saying “I am a temporary settler among you.  Grant me ownership of a burial site among you so that I may bury my dead” (23:4). 

Not wanting to lose sight of Esau’s compassion, of his willingness to shame himself, and the fact that great honor accrues to him because of his extension of compassion, the encounter between Jacob and Esau is kept in mind, along with the culture of honor that even extends to routine transactions, as the exchange between Abraham and these men is observed.  Abraham receives a favorable answer as he hears: “Listen, sir, you are a mighty prince among us!  You may bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs.  None of us will refuse you his tomb to prevent you from burying your dead” (23:6).  Though this seems like the offer of a gift, in reality, with these words the negotiations have begun.  Abraham understands this.   

Abraham “got up and bowed down to the local people,” saying “If you agree that I may bury my dead, then hear me out.  As Ephron the son of Zohar if he will sell me the cave of Machpelah that belongs to him… Let him sell it to me publicly for the full price, so that I may own it as a burial site” (23:8-9).  Though this will certainly be a great honor for Ephron, the immediate acceptance of payment from Abraham would be a source of dishonor for Ephron.  Also, as every such transaction is an opportunity to elevate oneself in ongoing competition to accrue honor and eschew shame, getting Abraham to purchase more than that for which he has expressed interest will gain him some honor, as it demonstrates the shrewdness and business savvy of the seller.  Of course, this will not be unexpected by Abraham.  He’s willing to play the game, and has undoubtedly played the game throughout his life as well.  

The negotiation continues, as Ephron, couching the offer as a demonstration of magnanimity while also extending the range of purchase (a rather regular feature in transactions in the culture) says, “No, my lord!  Hear me out.  I sell you both the field and the cave that is in it.  In the presence of my people I sell it to you.  Bury your dead” (23:11).  Ephron has called attention to the fact that there are many witnesses to this negotiation, which is a tacit reminder of the honor game that is being played.  Hearing this, Abraham bows again and says “Hear me, if you will.  I pay to you the price of the field.  Take it from me so that I may bury my dead there” (23:13b). 

It should be noticed that Abraham does not yet name a price, leaving this to Ephron to propose---another feature of the game of honor.  Abraham receives the response of “Hear me, my lord.  The land is worth four hundred pieces of silver, but what is that between me and you?  So bury your dead” (23:15).  Though Ephron has been forced to name the price (and thus loses that end of the game), by his words he attempts to position the price as so low that it is practically a gift to Abraham.  Thus the game continues.  Those that have spent any amount of time in the east, whether living there or simply visiting, will be familiar with this type of exchange.           

Compassionate Brother (part 13)

The compassion on display is a remarkable response from Esau.  Esau has every right to be angry.  He was grossly dishonored.  He is in a position to justifiably lord himself over Jacob until such a time as Jacob recompenses him for the wrong that has been done to him.  However, he runs to Jacob, embracing him, kissing him as a brother, and weeping with him.  This is indeed a tremendous act of compassion on the part of Esau.  Though he is often dismissed and looked down upon, it is in this very act that Esau reveals himself as the quintessentially compassionate brother. 

As Jacob goes through a process by which he is effectively attempting to divest himself of honor (effectively shaming himself through behavior that is set at quite a distance from behavior that works towards the accrual of honor), Esau’s gracious compassion shines through.  He actually takes shame upon himself (divesting himself of honor) by running to Jacob.  It was well understood that men, in that culture, did not run.  A man’s honor was at least partially measured and revealed by the slowness of his walk.  It was shameful for a man to even show his legs, and with the type of clothing that was common in that day, showing the legs would be necessary for running to take place.  Now, one might believe that Esau was being disingenuous, and was actually harboring resentment towards Jacob, but the fact of Esau’s running to Jacob takes this possibility out of play.  This is extraordinarily revelatory when it comes to providing knowledge of the character of Esau, and this would not be lost on the hearers or culturally attuned readers of the story. 

The scene of Jacob and Esau’s reunion continues, as “Esau looked up and saw the women and children,” asking “Who are these people with you?” (33:5a)  Continuing his effective prostrations before Esau, Jacob answers with “The children whom God has graciously given your servant” (33:5b).  With this, the pattern established by their husband and father is carried forward, as “The female servants came forward with their children and bowed down.  Then Leah came forward with her children and they bowed down.  Finally Joseph and Rachel came forward and bowed down” (33:6-7).  Surely, this pleased the compassionate Esau.  Searching out his brother’s intentions, Esau goes on to as “What did you intend by sending all these herds to meet me?” (33:8a)  Of course, those who have been hearing the story know the answer, as Jacob replies by saying “To find favor in your sight, my lord” (33:8b). 

It can be observed that Jacob has done well in keeping up the language of servant and lord.  Undoubtedly, he is still fearful and hopeful.  What has been seen from Jacob, though assuredly genuine, is also a negotiation tactic.  Jacob has sent the animals ahead of him, laying the groundwork for their face to face meeting, but Esau does not immediately acquiesce in acceptance.  Things will not be so simple for Jacob.  He is not going to be able to give Esau some animals and get himself off the hook.  He is going to have to demonstrate some penitence.  Esau makes it clear that this is not a matter of property.  He says “I have plenty, my brother.  Keep what belongs to you” (33:9). 

Jacob insists and even ups the ante, moving beyond the use of servant and lord while also presuming Esau’s satisfaction, saying “If I have found favor in your sight, accept my gift from my hand.  Now that I have seen your face and you have accepted me, it is as if I have seen the face of God.  Please take my present that was brought to you, for God has been generous to me and I have all I need” (33:10-11a).  With this, it is said that Esau relents and accepts the gift, though it seems as if he does so in a way that is actually against his wishes, especially as he has demonstrated such compassion and mercy, and because there is nothing in the Scriptural record to suggest that this compassion was not genuine. 

Compassionate Brother (part 12)

Jacob extended his instructions, as he “gave these instructions to the second and third servants, as well as all those who were following the herds, saying ‘You must say the same thing to Esau when you meet him.  You must also say, “In fact your servant Jacob is behind us!”’” (Genesis 32:19-20)  Notice the language that is being used.  Jacob is asking his servants to refer to him, before Esau, as “your servant,” while also asking them to refer to Esau as “my lord.”  The goings-on could not be more obvious. 

Jacob’s plan is now in full effect.  He knows that this must be done in order to, as he hopes, deflect the vengeance that he knows is due him.  The author confirms this, once again sharing a thought process (with this forming part of the oral tradition that had, no doubt, been passed down through the generations beginning with Jacob’s own telling, before it would be composed in written form), in which “Jacob thought, ‘I will first appease him by sending a gift ahead of me.  After that I will meet him.  Perhaps he will accept me.’” (32:20b)  This process of appeasement would be terribly important, as Jacob, dishonored his father, his brother, himself (shaming himself), and his entire family, is well aware that he deserves something far different.

The thirty-third chapter (though it is necessary to always be cognizant of the fact that there would have been no chapter and verse divisions, especially considering that the primary means of conveying the story would have been orally rather than as a written story to be read) begins rather ominously for the hopeful Jacob.  “Jacob looked up and saw that Esau was coming along with four hundred men” (33:1).  At this point, the herds of animals have already been presented to Esau.  The servants have already made repeated references to Jacob as Esau’s servant.  Esau has already heard himself referred to as lord on a number of occasions.  Yet here he is, coming with his four hundred men. 

What must Jacob be thinking at this point?  If this story was being told afresh into a community shaped by honor and shame concerns, or if it is being read for the first time by an individual who has grown up steeped in a culture that values honor and shame, what would the hearer or reader be thinking?  Clearly, Jacob is still fearful.  He can probably surmise that his plan has been unsuccessful to this point.  Taking further steps, “he divided the children among Leah, Rachel, and the two female servants” (33:1b).  These, lest it has been forgotten, are Bilhah and Zilpah---his other two wives.  “He put the servants and their children in front, with Leah and her children behind them, and Rachel and Joseph behind them” (33:2).

Jacob, with what would appear to be a lavish display of humility on his part, and in a last ditch effort to avert his brother’s wrath (while also knowing that, if he survives, he will still have to deal with the wrath of his dis-honored father), “went on ahead of them, and he bowed toward the ground seven times as he approached his brother” (33:3).  One should not underestimate what this would have communicated to all involved---Esau included. 

Jacob is actively humbling himself.  He is divesting himself of his honor, and demonstrating that he is willing to shame himself before his brother.  The total effort has been a substantial gesture, indicating Jacob’s penitent spirit and his willingness to do whatever it takes to rectify the shame while preserving his own life.  So how does Esau respond?  To what would be the astonishment of those hearing or reading the story, “Esau ran to meet him, embraced him, hugged his neck, and kissed him.  Then they both wept” (33:4). 

Compassionate Brother (part 11)

It is as soon as Laban departs from him that Jacob’s thoughts turn to his brother.  He knows that he has a serious problem on his hands.  He knows that he has wronged his brother, and that he has dishonored his brother and his entire family.  He devises a plan.  Indeed, “Jacob sent messengers on ahead to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the region of Edom.  He commanded them, ‘This is what you must say to my lord Esau: “This is what your servant Jacob says: I have been staying with Laban until now.  I have oxen, donkeys, sheep, and male and female servants.  I have sent this message to inform my lord, so that I may find favor in your sight.”’” (Genesis 32:3-5)

Jacob is quite right to be concerned.  This concern, and the reasons for the concern (which are culturally dependent) will be well understood and top of mind by those that would hear this story independently as part of the oral tradition being shared amongst the Israelites, or as those that would hear/read this story as a post-exodus people, doing so after the stories have been codified and taken the shape in which they have been passed through history.  Though all will already know the outcome (much like the initial church communities that were the hearers of the Gospels hear those stories with knowledge of their outcome), they can still share in the building tension by which the story is shaped. 

Having made this initial effort at what Jacob believes to be necessary for the assuaging of Esau, “The messengers returned to Jacob and said, ‘We went to your brother Esau.  He is coming to meet you and has four hundred men with him.’” (32:6)  Understandably, and with full cognizance of what he had done to his brother, “Jacob was very afraid and upset” (32:7a).  Owing to this, he took some precautions.  Knowing that the dishonor to which he has subjected his brother could be satisfied with a certain level of vengeance, and undoubtedly expecting the worst from Esau, Jacob “divided the people who were with him into two camps, as well as the flocks, herds, and camels” (32:7b). 

Jacob’s reasoning process, as it is steeped in an honor and shame culture (as the stories are being circulated within communities that also function in the dialectic of honor and shame), is on display as he thinks “If Esau attacks one camp… then the other camp will be able to escape” (32:8).  In hope, Jacob reasons that the dishonor which he has foisted upon his brother (really to his own shame) will be satisfied by Esau’s slaughter of half of Jacob’s people and possessions. 

After devising this plan, Jacob is said to have prayed to the Lord, saying “Rescue me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, as well as the mothers with their children” (32:11).  He then repeats the promise that has been conveyed to him, reminding his Lord of His words in which He had said “I will certainly make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand on the seashore, too numerous to count” (32:12). 

Having offered up this prayer, and perhaps gaining a bit of confidence in light of this recollection and of all that has happened to him to this point, Jacob makes a change to his plans.  “He sent as a gift to his brother Esau” (32:13b) a sizable number of animals, in the obvious hope that doing so would make up for what Jacob had stolen from him, and as something of a symbolic (and tangible) transfer of honor.  Is this a semblance of humility here on Jacob’s part?  Perhaps. 

It is recorded that “He entrusted them to his servants” (32:16a), telling them to “’Pass over before me, and keep some distance between one herd and the next.’  He instructed the servant leading the first herd, ‘When my brother Esau meets you and asks, “To whom do you belong?  Where are you going?  Whose herds are you driving?” then you must say, “They belong to your servant Jacob.  They have been sent as a gift to my lord Esau.  In fact Jacob himself is behind us.”’” (32:16b-18)  There is an element here, however faint it may seen, of Jacob attempting to shame himself (and so acknowledge his own shameful actions) as he approaches Esau.

Compassionate Brother (part 8)

Providentially (it would seem), and with the glaring reality that he has completely worn out his welcome with Laban staring him in the face, “The Lord said to Jacob, ‘Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives.  I will be with you.’” (31:3)  This conforms with the word of the Lord that was heard in the twenty-eighth chapter when Jacob was at Bethel, where Jacob heard the Lord say to him, “I am with you!  I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land” (28:15a). 

As Jacob, at this point, is still going to be unsure as to Esau’s disposition towards him, he is in desperate need of the reassurance of these words.  Regardless, the deteriorating situation with Laban, along with the fact that Laban really did not want him there (as evidenced by his dismay at Jacob actually achieving what it was that was proposed in his wage agreement), apparently causes Jacob to come to his senses, re-orienting him towards his homeland and the house of his father. 

Accordingly, he sends a message to Rachel and Leah, asking them to come to him in the field where he was with his flocks and said to them “I can tell that your father’s attitude toward me has changed, but the God of my father has been with me” (31:5).  He presents his reasoning process behind the decision that he has taken to return to his father’s house, saying “You know that I’ve worked for your father as hard as I could, but your father has humiliated me” (31:6-7a), thus drawing out the honor and shame component that has been herein submitted as an underlying factor in the growing tension between Jacob and Laban, “and changed my wages ten times.  But God has not permitted him to do me any harm” (31:7b). 

Making this point, and underscoring his gathering of honor in spite of Laban’s desire to shame him, he adds “If he said, ‘The speckled animals will be your wage,’ then the entire flock gave birth to speckled offspring.  But if he said, ‘The streaked animals will be your wage,’ then the entire flock gave birth to streaked offspring.’” (31:8)  Reinforcing the fact that Jacob has accrued honor (and possessions), while Laban’s possessions (and honor) have been devoured, Jacob says “In this way God has snatched away your father’s livestock and given them to me” (31:9). 

Jacob piles further divine sanction upon his pending departure by speaking of a dream in which the angel of the Creator God (31:11) reportedly spoke to him and said “Observe that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled, or spotted, for I have observed all that Laban has done to you.  I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the sacred stone and made a vow to me” (31:12-13a).  To this is appended the message of “Now leave this land immediately and return to your native land” (31:13b). 

Dutifully, his wives respond with “Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father’s house?  Hasn’t he treated us like foreigners?” (31:14b-15a)  This insistent query in regards to being treated like foreigners would certainly take an interesting connotation upon itself when heard by the people of Israel after the receiving of the law, as the Mosaic law provided detailed proscriptions for dealing with foreigners.  Prior to the receipt of the law, and though the circumstances are not entirely applicable (Jacob had grown rich at the hand of the one that treated him as a foreigner), one can imagine how the words of this story would have been heard by an oppressed Israel in Egypt.  In later years, when the tribes of Israel were scattered and exiled as strangers in strange lands, it is almost certain that the story of Jacob’s exile from home, along with these words on the lips of his wives, provided a hope for restoration to their promised land (as it also would have for Israel in Egypt). 

Compassionate Brother (part 1)

…Esau ran to meet him, embraced him, hugged his neck, and kissed him. Then they both wept. – Genesis 33:4  (NET)

Jacob and Esau, the twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah, were estranged brothers.  Owing to the events recorded in the twenty-seventh chapter of Genesis, in which Jacob (at his mother’s insistence) presented himself before his father, in place of his brother, in order to receive his father’s blessing, Jacob greatly feared Esau.  There, Esau can be heard to exclaim “He has tripped me up two times!  He took away my birthright,” referring to Esau’s “selling” of his birthright to Jacob as recorded in chapter twenty-five, “and now, look, he has taken away my blessing!” (27:36b) 

The record insists that “Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing his father had given to his brother.  Esau said privately, ‘The time of mourning for my father is near; then I will kill my brother Jacob!” (27:41)  Clearly, hostility ran high.  For this reason, having effectively taken everything from his father that was supposed to fall to his brother---or at least all that was truly important (the birthright and the blessing), Jacob left the house of his father and mother, with instructions to do so until his “brother’s rage subsides” (27:44b). 

Of course the story is well known.  To escape his brother’s wrath, Jacob went to live with his uncle, a man by the name of Laban.  Before, during, and after arriving there, Jacob’s story is vivid and entertaining.  Needless to say, he lives quite the interesting life.  On the way to Laban’s place, Jacob has a dream of a “stairway erected on the earth with its top reaching to the heavens” (28:12b).  Undoubtedly, the alert reader (or hearer) will hear in this an echo of the story of the tower of Babel, as recorded in the eleventh chapter of Genesis. 

There, following the great flood (which would almost certainly need to be understood to have served as a motivating factor in their plans), it is said that “The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary” (11:1).  Thus, with this unifying factor in play, they said “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves.  Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth” (11:4).  Though there shall be a return to it in the course of this study, for now it is necessary to skip past the well-known result of this desire, to find that after a short digression into the genealogy of Shem (11:10-26), the narrative introduces Abram and records the first pronouncement (in a series of pronouncements) that would come to be referred to as the Abrahamic covenant. 

As these words that mark the beginning of the people of the Creator God on earth (the covenant people of Israel and the church), providing information as to the Creator God’s desires and purposes for His people (the divine image-bearers), one does well to hear them often.  The Lord speaks to Abram and says “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you.  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:1-3).  As the story progresses, more will be appended to this declaration. 

Where Your Treasure Is (part 2)

Heaven was rightly understood to be the realm of abode of the Creator God, and the ongoing movement of that God that occurred through His people was for the purpose of causing heaven and earth to come together (this is what is understood of any temple, and the Jerusalem Temple specifically).  When it comes to the Biblical narrative, when acts in accordance with the covenant responsibilities of the covenant people were performed, such as caring for orphans and widows (an extraordinarily prominent theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures), that was when heaven and earth were over-lapping and the Creator God’s will was being done on earth as in heaven. 

The long-sought-after kingdom of heaven, among other things, was the time when this overlap of the abode of the Creator God and the realm of man (the creation in which the creatures made in that God’s image dwelt and were called to steward) would finally and completely take place.  When the kingdom of heaven was fully and finally manifest, and the Creator God ruled over His redeemed creation, it would then be said that “Death has been swallowed up in victory,” and questions such as “Where, O death, is your victory?  Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:54b-55) could be triumphantly posed.  The Apostle Paul rightly connects the coming of the kingdom of heaven with the resurrection of the dead, thus indicating that this was a feature of first century Jewish thought.    

Joining with the participants of the early church to and for whom Luke wrote, it is now possible to stand in the place of one who would have heard the story told in Luke’s Gospel.  In doing so one hears “Then someone from the crowd said to Him (Jesus), ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.’” (12:13)  Though the parable will not be touched on here, this statement and the words from Jesus that follow will still be resounding in the ears of an audience well-trained to provide comprehensive attention to an oral-performance-oriented presentation such as Luke’s narrative, when the fifteenth chapter is reached and they hear “A man had two sons.  The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that will belong to me.’” (15:12a) 

The way that the crowd will hear and understand the parable that follows that introduction will not only be shaped by community and cultural norms and traditions, but it will also be shaped by what is seen and heard in chapter twelve.  Of course, it cannot be forgotten that any story that begins with “a man had two sons” would immediately cause a Jew to consider Jacob and Esau (or Isaac and Ishmael) and the foundations of their nation.  

Returning to the request that is made of Jesus concerning the inheritance, Jesus responds by saying “Man, who made Me a judge or arbitrator between you two?” (12:14)  Though it is not entirely relevant to this particular study, an interesting point can be made here based on Jesus’ response.  As part of Luke’s efforts in his two part series of what came to be called the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, Luke makes the effort to paint Jesus as a Moses-like figure (as does Matthew). 

This can be seen in Peter’s speech that is recorded in the third chapter of Acts (3:22-26), where Peter references Deuteronomy 18:15, making it clear with what follows that it is his understanding that Jesus is the promised prophet like Moses.  Based upon this, it is not inconceivable that Jesus’ question of “who made me a judge or arbitrator between you two,” would cause His hearers to hearken back to the story of Moses and to his attempt to settle a dispute between two of his countrymen.  Though it is Moses that is there rebuffed with a response of “Who made you a ruler and judge over us?” (Exodus 2:14a), Luke’s very subtle point is made, and the notion that any attempt to understand Jesus must be grounded in the history of Israel is reinforced.  

Deeds Of Love & Faithfulness (part 2 of 2)

It was during Jacob’s flight from Esau that God appeared to Jacob in a dream and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac.  The land on which you lie I will give to you and your offspring.  Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.  Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land.  For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you” (28:13b-15).  Now, Jacob is returning to the place where he began, so he is sure to remind his God of the words of His covenant promise that he is said to have received shortly after he departed from his home.  It appears that Jacob calls God to remembrance of His covenant, counting on divine faithfulness to the words and ends of that covenant.   

Why have we gone through all of that?  It has been in order to get to what comes next.  Jacob “took a present for his brother Esau, two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams, thirty milking camels and their calves, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys” (32:13b-15).  These evidences of the blessings of God, through His covenant faithfulness, were a present for Esau.  Jacob thought, “I may appease him with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterward I shall see his face.  Perhaps he will accept me” (32:20b).  Because all of this has been placed in the context of God’s covenant with Jacob (which would be instructive for Israel and the stories are told and retold, recognizing that Israel would very much define itself by these stories), and that covenant’s promise of blessing the families of the earth through the covenant bearers, it is possible to view the giving of gifts to Esau---the apparent showing forth of the riches of the God that is faithful to His covenant---as an example of one under God’s covenant extending the blessings of the covenant to those outside of it.  Even though Esau was Jacob’s brother, he was not a recipient of God’s covenant. 

In this, being unsure of Esau’s response, it would seem that Jacob becomes something of a prototype for what the nation of Israel to come was supposed to do and be, as a light to all the nations, revealing the covenant making and keeping God to those outside the covenant, as those nations could then see the blessings of the riches that their God has lavished upon those with whom He has entered into covenant, and to whom He has given conditions for obtaining the blessings of that covenant, which in Israel’s case would be the keeping of the Torah (generally outlined as circumcision, keeping the Sabbaths, and reverencing the sanctuary). 

Let it be said that the response of the nations to the shining of the light of God through the people of the covenant was not Israel’s concern.  Their concern was the showing forth of that God’s faithfulness, by being a blessing to all peoples, as their response of trust in their faithful God.  Likewise, for us, being part of God’s covenant family through Jesus Christ, we are not necessarily to overtly concern ourselves with the response to the shining of the light of the Gospel.  The response is God’s business.  It is our over-arching responsibility to live according to the Gospel (ordering our lives according to the recognition of the universal kingly dominion of the Christ), and to make possible the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God with Jesus as its King, and its riches of the eternal life (the in-breaking of the life of the age to come) that is to be had in union with the Christ (allegiance to Him in His royal position) which shows itself forth as faith. 

As we experience God’s steadfast love and faithfulness, believing in Jesus by the demonstrable outworkings of the Spirit (good deeds performed because Jesus is King and such are the demands of His kingdom and its subjects), we know that it is through these preached and lived proclamations that we also experience God working through us to extend His love and show His faithfulness, like Jacob to Esau, to all those that are destined to receive His blessings.     

Deeds Of Love & Faithfulness (part 1 of 2)

I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. – Genesis 32:10  (ESV)

The words of this text are spoken by Jacob.  In them, he makes reference to the steadfast love of the God of Abraham that has been shown to him as covenant faithfulness.  He speaks of the fact that, when he first crossed the Jordan, when he was escaping the sure wrath of his brother Esau, that he crossed over the river with nothing but his staff in his hand, and presumably, the clothes on his back.  The point was, he had nothing.  Now, however, Jacob has become rich.  He had so much that he was able to divide his people and property into two camps.  He “divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and herd and camels, into two camps, thinking, ‘If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape’.” (32:7)  It seems that his riches and possessions were the evidence, in his mind, of the covenant blessings of God, which is why he prefaces his statement of the tenth verse, by saying “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord Who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good’.” (32:9)

The preface to this story has Jacob leaving the house of his uncle Laban, for whom he has labored many years.  He is returning to his home, the place he had left years prior, fleeing from Esau, having secured the blessing that would rightfully have fallen to Esau as the firstborn.  As he returns, he is fearful of how his brother will react, and whether or not Esau is still angry with him.  In order to appease him, he is willing to give him “oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants” (32:5a).  Jacob sends some of his servants on ahead of him, to ascertain his brother’s mindset, and they returned to Jacob, telling him that Esau “is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him” (32:6b).  Naturally, Jacob thinks the worst, and finds himself “greatly afraid and distressed” (32:7a). 

In the midst of his fear and distress, Jacob is sure to remind the Creator God of the covenant that had been made with Jacob.  This was the extension and continuation of the covenant that this God had originally made with Abraham, and which had been passed along to Isaac.  When Jacob is blessed by Isaac, Isaac references the covenant that we first find God making with Abraham in chapter twelve of Genesis, saying “Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you” (Genesis 27:29b).  This, in both narrative structure and in historical understanding, is designed to reflect God’s words to Abraham, when he was told “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (12:3). 

Returning to Jacob, the blessing from his father was obviously something nice to receive, but the Scriptural record indicates to us that it was not precisely in Isaac’s power to transfer the Creator God’s covenant on from himself.  It seems that this was something that is left to God alone.  Abraham had not passed along the covenant to Isaac.  Rather, Isaac had received the call of the covenant in the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis, when the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am the God of Abraham your father.  Fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your offspring for My servant Abraham’s sake” (26:24b).  Abraham is not reported to have taken steps to pass along the covenant to Isaac through customary and traditional means.  So as Isaac is reported to have received the covenant directly from the covenant maker (as did Abraham), so too should the same type of scenario be expected for Jacob, rather than the passing on of the covenant from father to son, though this is something that Isaac is shown to have apparently attempted.   

God Of Tents (part 2 of 4)

All and that is well and good as it relates to Israel, but of what do tents speak when this message is to communicated to those outside Israel?  The answer is much the same.  As the tents reminded an Israel that regularly found itself in conditions of exile (under foreign subjugation, whether inside or outside of their promised land), and with hopes for exodus (as exodus is an ongoing process, whether in the wilderness, in their land, or in exile), so too does it serve for all of humanity.  These tents, and the impermanent nature of settlement which they imply, remind humanity of its wider exile.  Not in the sense of creating the escapist attitude of “this world is not my home, I’m just passing through,” but that humanity finds itself in exile from its God-given intentions to bear the divine image in this world, and that God is at work through a tent-dwelling people, to re-establish His order in this world. 

Why a tent-dwelling people?  Because a tent-dwelling people is a people that are prepared for exodus.  A tent-dwelling people are a people that are God’s instruments to spread across the earth so as to establish the message of His kingdom, His reign, and the restoration of His creation that demands to be understood if in fact a controlling hermeneutic of Scripture, and of God’s purposes for His creation and for the divine image-bearers specially placed within that creation, is that of exile and exodus.  Those are the people that will go out as witnesses to the glory of God, doing so with an understanding of the blessing of being a part of a chosen people that have been placed upon the trail of restoration to the ideal of humanity that was God’s original creation.   With a knowledge of God’s blessing, and the grace implied thereby, those who bear in mind the tents, and so bear in mind the exile, and exodus by extension, joyfully take up the Abrahamic call and promise to be a blessing.  This blessing operates through the telling of the promises of the covenant God, and living the blessing invites more to hear the telling.  As Abraham’s descendants, this was Israel’s task.  The Scriptures make it fairly clear that this is the task of all that consider themselves to be Abraham’s descendants. 

It is as we think of tents that we can consider the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even the narrower context of a consideration of Solomon’s building of the Temple.  There is an application to be made, but before making that application there is a step that must be taken.  To take it, we can look to Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, which comes about as a result of deception and subterfuge.  Rebekah went to great lengths to be certain that her ruse would be successful, so when Jacob went before his father, pretending to be Esau, Isaac was indeed fooled.  Owing to this, Isaac, in a way that we did not see with Abraham, raises his voice and says, “May God give you the dew of the sky and the richness of the earth, and plenty of grain and new wine.  May peoples serve you and nations bow down to you” (Genesis 27:28-29a).  Connecting these words to Jacob with that which becomes a controlling factor in the consideration of God’s dealings with His people to come, we might note that such things are reflected in the promised blessings of the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy (and the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus), whereas the promised curses of the same chapter essentially reflect the opposite. 

With that said, it is incumbent to mention the words of “blessing” that will be delivered by Isaac to Esau, as he says, “your home will be away from the richness of the earth, and away from the dew of the sky above.  You will live by the sword but you will serve your brother” (27:29-40a).  Because they are the mirror of what was said to Jacob, these words also reflect the Deuteronomic & Levitical curses.  Speaking to Jacob, Isaac continues, saying “You will be lord over your brothers, and the sons of your mother will bow down to you” (28:29b).  With this, Isaac confirms what the Lord had promised to Rebekah concerning her sons before she had given birth.  The blessing is finalized by the delivery of that which was fundamental to the Abrahamic covenant, as Isaac then says, “May those who curse you be cursed, and those who bless you be blessed” (28:29c).  Of course, Isaac is not being selective in his choice of words.  He is not simply passing along only a portion of the Abrahamic covenant.  As the quotation of brief snippets of Scripture by Jesus and by the New Testament authors are meant to call to mind entire stories, the mention of blessing and cursing stands for the whole of the covenant with Abraham.  So as Jacob hears these words, having grown up in the household of both his father and grandfather, and having undoubtedly heard the story of Abraham’s call countless times, he also hears his father communicate the words of God and saying “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing…and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:2,3b). 

God Of Tents (part 1 of 4)

When the boys grew up, Esau became a skilled hunter, a man of the open fields, but Jacob was an even-tempered man, living in tents. – Genesis 25:27  NET

At first glance, this simple statement doesn’t seem all that significant, and has all the appearances of a basic relaying of biographical information concerning Esau and Jacob.  When we read something like “When the boys grew up, Esau became a skilled hunter, a man of the open fields, but Jacob was an even-tempered man, living in tents,” it might seem like the natural course of action would be to focus on the first piece of information concerning both of these men, drawing analogies based on the fact that Esau is described as a “skilled hunter,” with Jacob referred to as “even-tempered,” and from that, making applications to how we are supposed to live as people of the covenant God. 

That may be a useful exercise, but is not that which we will be doing here and now.  The far more compelling information is found in the second part of the biographical statements, in which we are told that Esau is “a man of the open fields,” whilst Jacob was “living in tents.”  This becomes an important statement when considered within the light and context provided by the larger Scriptural narrative.  We must remember that the author of Genesis (presumed to be Moses---and we have no reason to argue that point, though it doesn’t really matter for our purposes) is here recounting the foundational history of man in general, and of Israel in particular.  The record of what are commonly known as the five books of Moses indicate that he was doing these things while Israel was living in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan, following their exodus, during the forty years of wandering that was imposed upon them by God because of their basic lack of trust in Him.  At that time, Israel was dwelling in tents.  The Ark of the Covenant was housed in a tent.  Moses met with the Lord in a tent.  Because of the repeated filling of the tabernacle with the cloud of the presence of the Lord, it could be said that God Himself was also dwelling in a tent.  Looking further down the road, it will be said that in the Messiah, God would and did strike a tent in human flesh so as to tabernacle with His own creation.  In that context, it becomes singularly interesting that the trade of the Apostle Paul was that of tent-maker. 

As we can broadly reflect on Genesis and consider that tents are routinely mentioned inside and along with the stories of Abraham and Isaac, we can consider that there is something significant about tents.  Not only were the tents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel instrumental in better facilitating their regular movement, that they might be better positioned to become a blessing to the multiplied peoples of the earth, but the tents would also serve as an ongoing reminder of their exile and their exodus.  For Israel, as the narrative that leads up to Exodus and the beginnings of Israel’s history as a distinct people is compiled, the tents of the Genesis narrative take on a particular importance.  This is especially so when we consider the yearly Feast of Tabernacles, when the nation is required to take up residence in tents, as an explicit reminder of their exodus and its associated time in the wilderness. 

It is simply amazing to consider how much importance is given to Israel’s Egyptian exodus within the history of the nation, with the reminder provided by the feasts of Tabernacles and the Passover, not to mention the regular recitation of the people’s history, and the near constant reference to Egypt in the mouths of Israel’s judges, and prophets.  Because Jacob is the immediate father of the nation of Israel, with the fact that his name is changed from Jacob to Israel providing witness to that fact, we are not left to wonder at the reason for this mentioning of Jacob as one who lived in tents.  For Israel, it would provide a sustaining and encouraging link to the past and to their forefathers, as they, though they were the covenant people and were in possession of a promise of a specific land of their own, dwelt in tents in a desert during the time of Moses’ leadership.  So this becomes a very useful connection in fanning the flames of hope amongst the people of Israel. 

Because the Biblical record presents us with relatively short and fleeting periods of time in which Israel is actually in controlling possession of the promised land (implicitly near the end of Joshua’s leadership; sporadically during the time of the judges;  consistently during the time of the united monarchy kingdom monarchy of Saul, David, and Solomon; and tenuously throughout the entire period of the divided kingdom), and that apart from the reign of Solomon, this control is always challenged by enemies on various sides, the tents serve a purpose well beyond the time in the wilderness, always reminding promised-land-occupying-Israel of possible exile and triumphant exodus, and ideally, of its responsibility to be a blessing to the nations in spite of its perceived difficulties.  

Deceptively Revealing (part 2 of 2)

When Isaac spoke these words to Esau, it was not to his ears alone that they came.  “Rebekah,” Isaac’s wife, “had been listening while Isaac spoke to his son Esau” (Genesis 27:5).  Apparently, she was rightly alarmed at what she had heard.  When Isaac, who had been marked as the bearer of the divine covenant that had first come to Abraham, spoke to Esau about blessing him, Rebekah knew that, because of Isaac’s use of “bless,” that it was the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant to which he referred.  Isaac was intent upon passing the blessing on to Esau. 

Before we contemplate the way that Rebekah responded to what she had heard, we should take a moment to consider what it is that Isaac is doing, and whether or not he can actually do what both Isaac and Rebekah (and most likely Esau) know that he is about to attempt to do.  Can Isaac actually pass along the Abrahamic covenant?  No, he cannot.  That is the prerogative of the God that enters into covenant.  Isaac did not have the covenant passed along to him by Abraham, but rather, the Scriptures inform us that it was the Lord who spoke to Isaac and informed him that he was to be the bearer of the divine covenant.  This lined-up with what Abraham had been told about the son that would be born to he and Sarah.  Here, Isaac, fully aware of his plans and intentions, is presuming to usurp the promise that had come to him, while presuming to encroach upon an area that belonged to God alone.  So though it is unlikely that Isaac’s actions are going to be effectual in relation to the bearer of the covenant, his completing the task to which he had set himself would only prove to be problematic down the road, especially in the area of family relations and positions of honor within the extended household. 

This is only a part of what it was that prompted Rebekah to take action.  What was that action?  Well, it was deception.  Rebekah, in full awareness of the family’s history of deception, jumps right into the family “business,” doing what she believes to be an absolute necessity.  Just as Isaac figured that deception had worked for him and his dad in the past, so too could Rebekah reach the same conclusion.  So “Rebekah said to her son Jacob, ‘Look, I overheard your father… Now then, my son, do exactly what I tell you!’” (27:6a,8)  With that, she proceeded to unfold a plan and give Jacob instructions that would allow him to go before his father in his brother’s place, telling her son that in this way his father would “bless you before he dies” (27:10b). 

Why would she go to such trouble?  It is because she had a promise from the Lord.  That promise came to her when she was pregnant with both Jacob and Esau.  She was told that “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples will be separated from within you.  One people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger” (25:23).  Because Rebekah was married to the younger son of Abraham, and because it was he that bore the divine covenant in the world, this would naturally lead to the belief that her younger son (the one that came out second) would also be the recipient of the covenant that the Lord had made with Abraham and was carrying out at that time through Isaac.  One would think that it would be foolish to believe that she did not make this promise known to Isaac.  However, it might very well be the case that she did not do so.  So naturally, as the boys grew, Isaac would have favored the older son, which would not have been surprising, and we are told that “Isaac loved Esau because he had a taste for fresh game” (25:28a).  However, it is specifically said that “Rebekah loved Jacob” (25:28b). 

While it is quite natural for the older son to be favored, we can probably attribute this special love for her younger son to the promise that she had received, and the knowledge that it was he that was going to receive and bear forth the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.  Viewed in this light, it would not be terribly difficult to believe that Rebekah kept the Lord’s message to herself, though this would carry the risk of Isaac attempting to do what he was now doing, which is what has now prompted Rebekah’s actions.  As we remember that Isaac himself was the younger son of Abraham, it is doubtful that he would have difficulty accepting the receipt of a report from Rebekah dealing with what she had been told by the Lord, so his actions to bless the older son further indicate that he had not been made aware of this promise. 

When Rebekah speaks to Jacob, he responds with a protest, indicating that he didn’t see how it was possible for him to carry out this deception, due to the physical differences between he and his brother.  Within his protest, we get a glimpse of the notion that Rebekah has shared the knowledge of her promise with Jacob, as he says, “My father may touch me!  Then he’ll think I’m mocking him and I’ll bring a curse on myself instead of a blessing” (27:12).  It is with this that Jacob reveals the fact that he is aware of the promise concerning his position, but is simply concerned with how his mother is suggesting he go about receiving the blessing that would affirm this in the eyes of his brother and the whole of his father’s household.  Along with this, by use of the language of blessing and cursing, he demonstrates his awareness of the covenant that his father carries.  We should expect this of him, as Isaac would have made this well known to his sons.  Rebekah’s response has her taking up the language of covenant as well, saying “Any curse against you will fall on me, my son!  Just obey me!” (27:13b).  She was confident that the deception would be successful, and that it would result in blessing, as such things (deceptions) had so often done for her husband and her father-in-law.         

Deceptively Revealing (part 1 of 2)

Let us never forget, each and every time we approach the Scriptures, that the communication of the stories of the men, women, and the nation of Israel is designed to reveal God.  Even in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, which is sometimes thought of as a commendation of the faithfulness of the men and women therein referenced, the actual message that comes ringing through quite loudly and ever so clearly, is that it was God that was faithful by granting faith to those that are mentioned so that He might accomplish His purposes through them.  These stories are not necessarily communicated so as to provide us with examples to emulate, but rather, as the Apostle Paul would tell the church in Corinth, they were written and told again and again for the purpose of instruction, and as examples of God’s faithful actions according to His covenant (1 Corinthians 10:11). 

If we ever find ourselves attempting to imitate one of these Biblical characters and their actions, whether good or bad, it is time to take a step back and examine what it is that we are supposed to be doing, and what it is that is providing our motivation towards imitation.  If our motivation is to put ourselves in a position to enjoy the same types of blessings that they enjoyed, so in order to achieve that end we do what they did that seems good according to our own subjective observations, then our motivation is faulty.  If we are attempting to imitate in the sense that we have a desire for God to use us in the establishment of His kingdom and in the accomplishment of the redemption that He is working out for His creation, without placing demands upon God in regards to the nature of the way in which He is going to use us, then it is more likely that we are taking the right approach. 

That said, we look to Abraham’s family and to Isaac’s blessing of Jacob and Esau.  According to a pattern that fills Genesis, this story begins with something akin to a deception, but it is not something that is incredibly overt at first glance.  We read that “When Isaac was old and his eyes were so weak that he was almost blind, he called his older son Esau and said to him, ‘My Son!... Since I am so old, I could die at any time.  Therefore, take your weapons… and go out into the open fields and hunt down some wild game for me.  Then prepare for me some tasty food, the kind I love, and bring it to me.  Then I will eat it so that I may bless you before I die” (Genesis 27:1-4).  Now why can it be said that this is a deception, though initial appearances to do not provide us with that perspective?  It is because Isaac is speaking about his death, and making it seem as if it is imminent and could happen at any time. 

According to the Scriptural record, Abraham had lived one hundred and seventy five years.  Abraham’s father Terah (Isaac’s grandfather) lived, for two hundred and five years.  At this point, Isaac was at least seventy-five years old, and ultimately, Genesis tells us that he lived to be one hundred and eighty years old.  At the very least, Isaac would know that he had some pretty good genes working for him, and what he might expecting in the area of the duration of his life.  Beyond that, we have almost the entire Scriptural history of the lives of Jacob and Esau, along with the births of all of Jacob’s children in the record that intervenes between Isaac speaking of his death and the actual time of his death.  That record encompasses a minimum of twenty years, though it is probably a much longer period of time. 

Regardless, and even though it is quite nearly impossible for a man to know when death will finally come upon him, it seems plausible to posit that Isaac was probably not actually terribly worried about death impinging upon him at that time.  In addition, at this point it appears that Isaac’s brother Ishmael is still alive as well, as we read that Esau, in the wake of the blessings bestowed by his father, “Went to Ishmael” (28:9) to get a wife.  He died relatively young, at the age of one hundred and thirty seven, meaning that Isaac was approximately one hundred twenty four years old when Ishmael passed away.  At the minimum, Isaac is speaking of his death nearly sixty years before death will take him.  So either Isaac was quite mistaken about his physical condition, or he was simply a pessimist that was always seeing death around the corner.  A third option would be to consider that the record of Genesis has both he and his father talking about their fear of being killed by men that would take their wives, and that this was yet another entrance into the practice which seems to be a cornerstone in the edifice of their history, which is deception.   

Deception

Though there is much to be learned from his life, in comparison to his father and son (Abraham and Jacob), Isaac appears on the scene and passes relatively quickly from the pages of Scripture.  However, before he departs from view, we encounter the story of Isaac’s blessing of Jacob and Esau.  It is a familiar story, in that, it is a story that involves deception.  Why should this not be the case?   This is what we have now come to expect, and we will see it carried out all the way through the story of Joseph.  

If we were to explore the Biblical narrative, we would see Abraham engaging in outright deception on two occasions, and Isaac engaging in the same type of deceptive practices on one occasion.  How did those cases of deception turn out?  One could say that they turned out pretty well in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the deceptions (gaining of individual wealth), though the deceptions may very well have had long-term implications in the area of Israel’s relations with the Egyptians and the Philistines.  In the case of Abraham, much wealth was added to him as a direct result of his engagement in deception, with those whom he defrauded supplying the material wealth.  In the case of Isaac, wealth also came to him, but it was indirect, in that the Scriptural report is that “the Lord blessed him” (Genesis 26:12b).  This blessing by the Lord, which Isaac would have been attributed by Isaac to the blessings of the covenant that had been made with Abraham, and which he now enjoyed (both the covenant and the blessings), is confirmed by what we see at the close of Isaac’s dealings with Abimelech of the Philistines.  There, we bear in mind the Abrahamic covenant, and its being passed along to Isaac, when Abimelech says to him, “Now you are blessed by the Lord” (26:29b).  

This family has displayed a history of a willingness to engage in deception, especially if such engagement is deemed to be crucial to survival (which is a questionable basis) or simply in their self-interest (much more likely).  We do not here attempt to pass judgment on this, nor do we desire to make an attempt to downplay the facts of the matter.  We do diffuse the potential argument in favor of the deceptions, in that they were dealing with those who were not, in a manner of speaking, “saved.”  However, it mattered not that they were dealing with Egyptians and Philistines, who were those outside of the covenant, for the covenant was designed and purposed to extend God’s blessings to them, so as to make them a blessing to all nations. 

These deceptive practices could very well have put in jeopardy the possibility of their being a blessing, but the results of the deception (the gaining of wealth and its attendant respect, whether direct or indirect) put them in a position to tell others about their covenant-making Creator God, His promises of blessing or cursing, and His transcendent nature as the God of all creation and all nations.  The fact that the hearers could easily observe the wealth, power, and respect that had been garnered by these men would serve as a witness to their words.  The accumulation of visual and historical evidence would then lead to an acknowledgment of their God, as we have seen here with Abimelech and his reference to “the Lord.” 

More than anything, the willful acknowledgment of these deceptive practices (for there is no escaping what they are) causes us, as observers, to look past these men to the God that had decided to use them and to work through them to make His name known in the world.  It appears to be an unavoidable conclusion that this covenant God works through flawed men in order to draw attention to Himself and to the accomplishment of His purposes.  This is why passing judgment upon these cases serves little to no purpose.  When we presume to judge, rather than simply observe and learn inside the foundational narrative of Scripture, we come to be focused on the characters that are on the stage, and we lose sight of the God that has created the stage on which the performance is taking place, and Who has a greater purpose that is being served.  This is not to say that we sanction the activities (for neither is that our place), but again, we observe and learn inside the exile and exodus criteria that is provided by the foundational narrative so that we might learn more of this God, and through that, better know Him so as to serve Him within and towards His grand design as we await His climactic, consummating, and transformational action towards His creation.  Naturally, we catch a brilliant glimpse of that climactic and transformational purpose in the Resurrection of Jesus, especially as we consider His crucifixion and Resurrection and how it can be understood within the increasingly obvious story of exile and exodus that is being so deftly told.        

Why all this talk of deception?  It seems like a bit of a black mark on the pages of Scripture.  That may be so, but only in the sense that if it is a black mark at all, it is not a black mark on Scripture, but on these men, which is useful because it keeps us from elevating them to the position of demigods, while constantly reminding us of the Creator God that would eventually embody a human form so as to do what was necessary to provide humanity and His creation with an exodus from exile. 

Sand On The Seashore

The Biblical descriptions that are given to Solomon’s reign paint a picture of a people living the life of exodus, with God’s will for His people solidly in place, and those people operating in the midst of that will.  It is a time in which Israel is firmly in control of the land that had been promised to Abraham, with no threatening enemies on any side.  They are living in a state of permanent rescue.  In fact, it is recorded that “Solomon ruled all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt,” and that “These kingdoms paid tribute as Solomon’s subjects throughout his lifetime”  (1 Kings 4:21).  At this point, Israel is far removed from being subject to any foreign powers, and instead, finds itself in the subjecting position.  Exile, which is represented by the Levitical and Deuteronomic curses, is not a concern, as Israel is, for what seems like the first time, living out the Abrahamic covenant. 

Israel, through and because of Solomon’s “discerning mind” for “judicial decisions” (3:9), is executing justice in their land and for the surrounding nations.  According to God’s promise to Abraham, they have been made into a great nation that is being a blessing, as well as being exemplary of divine blessing (Genesis 12:2).  When details of the life of Solomon would be shared within the oral community, and when the author writes that “The people of Judah and Israel were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore” (4:20a), such would be designed to draw attention to the Abrahamic covenant and the totality of its promised blessings, along with the God that stands behind it as supremely faithful to all His covenants. 

Before recalling the Abrahamic covenant in connection with Solomon, the author first calls attention to the Davidic covenant, as Solomon, with God appearing to him in a dream, saying “You demonstrated great loyalty to your servant, my father David, as he served you faithfully, properly, and sincerely.  You have maintained this great loyalty to this day by allowing his son to sit on his throne” (3:6).  A consistent reference to the Davidic promises, with a movement on to the Abrahamic promises, would be an ongoing reminder of the divine sanction that has been accorded to Solomon’s rule. 

Now, not only has it been said that the people of Judah and Israel were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore, but we go on to read of Solomon that “the breadth of his understanding was as infinite as the sand on the seashore” (4:29b).  The two uses of this phrase would be designed as a reference to the two uses of this phrase in the book of Genesis.  In the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, Abraham, after demonstrating his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, is told by God that “I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore” (22:17a).  This same promise is made to Jacob, as he returns from his self-imposed exile so as to face his brother Esau.  Jacob pleads before the Lord to remember the covenant that he knows belongs to him because of Isaac’s blessing on him (“May those who curse you be cursed, and those who bless you be blessed” – 27:29b), and to rescue (exodus) him from his brother’s hand, which Jacob was certain would be against him.  With this pleading, Jacob reminds the Lord of the portion of the promise that said “I will certainly make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand on the seashore, too numerous to count” (32:12). 

The promise of a vast number of descendants, of course, would be closely linked with the possession of land, and it is under Solomon that Israel is finally able to truly enjoy their land.  Therefore, there appears to be a widely-held understanding that the Abrahamic covenant, to some extent, was fulfilled in Solomon’s day.  Of course, any mention or discussion of the Abrahamic covenant, and the promised land attached to it, would be incomplete without a reference to the promise to Abraham that his descendants would make their way into Egypt and there find oppression before being exodus-ed to the land of promise.  So the “grains of sand” references would, as a result, serve as yet another reminder that Israel’s covenant, Creator God was also the powerful, delivering God of the exodus, which would then color the whole of the narrative, as the hearers and readers would reflect on what had been accomplished for them by their God, as He redeemed a chosen people for Himself to be a light to the nations and to reflect His glory into the world. 

Finally, we must remind ourselves of the fact that specific references to Mosaic passages would not limit themselves to drawing attention to only the words referenced, but that they would call attention to the wider narrative in which those words appeared.  So in making a return visit to the first mention of grains of sand in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, we find that it is immediately followed by “Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies” (22:17b).  This is not a singular statement, as the family of Isaac’s chosen wife is later positioned within the Genesis record as having knowledge of God’s covenant with Abraham, and they send her off by saying “Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands of ten thousands!  May your descendants possess the strongholds of their enemies” (24:60b).  The very fact that Israel’s former enemies were now subject to them during the reign of Solomon, with peace on all sides, would have been looked upon as further evidence that Abraham’s blessings had reached Israel, which would have been the author’s (whether contemporary with Solomon or coming later) clear and obvious intention.