The Book of Genesis. Section 2, (Gen. 25 — end).

L M Grant.

 

Genesis 25

OTHER GENERATIONS OF ABRAHAM (vv. 1-6)

We are not told at what time Abraham took Keturah as a wife. Of course, God could enable him to be a father of children even after Sarah had died, but in this case he would be over 137 years, and nothing is given to enlighten us in this matter. However, verses 1-4 tell us that Keturah bore Abraham six sons, and that some of these also had sons afterward. Whenever they were born, they were not considered by God as having any place compared to Isaac. Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac (v. 5). Yet in fact we are also told that he had sons by concubines. All of this reminds us that, though God's prime interests are centered in His Son and the bride His Son receives, yet He does not forget His kindness toward Gentile nations. To these sons Abraham gave gifts, but sent them away from any close proximity to Isaac, to the land of the east (v. 6). The names, Midian, Ephah and Sheba are mentioned in Isaiah 60: 6 when the prophet speaks of Gentile nations converted in the coming millennial age.

 

ABRAHAM'S DEATH AND BURIAL (7-11)

Abraham's age is now recorded — 175 years — at the time of his death (vv. 7-8). Isaac and Ishmael were brought together again at this time, both having part in their father's burial. Abraham was buried with Sarah in the cave he had bought from Ephron (Gen. 23: 19-20). Just as the circumstances at that time pointed to the promise of Sarah's future resurrection, so it was with Abraham, who fully believed that God was able to raise the dead (Rom. 4: 17-21).

After this Isaac takes the place of Abraham as a vessel of God's testimony, and is blessed by God (v. 11), living by Beer Lahai Roi, “the well of Him who sees me.” There is true spiritual refreshment (the well) in the consciousness of living under the eye of God.

THE FAMILIES OF ISHMAEL (vv. 12-18)

Ishmael's genealogy is given in verses 12-16. As we have seen in verses 1-4, God does not forget the Gentile nations because of His interest in the church (Rebekah); now Ishmael's genealogy tells us God does not forget Israel either, for Ishmael typifies Israel under law (Gal. 4: 22-25). That nation is yet to receive blessing from God in His own time. Verse 16 mentions 12 princes, a reminder of Israel's 12 tribes. Ishmael then died at the age of 137 years (v. 17). His brother Isaac outlived him by 33 years (Gen. 35: 28). Ishmael both lived and died in the presence of his brethren (v. 18). Such is the legal principle. Legality lives as before the eyes of others: faith lives as in the presence of God.

 ISAAC'S SONS (vv. 19-28)

Verse 19 draws our attention now to Isaac, whom we have seen takes Abraham's place as the vessel of God's direct testimony in the world (v. 11). He was forty years of age when married to Rebekah. The same problem that Abraham had with Sarah now surfaces again with Rebekah. She had been unable to bear children. However, in this case the prayers of Isaac were answered and she became pregnant (v. 21). She did not understand why she had such turmoil in her womb until she went to enquire of the Lord. It is good to see both Isaac's entreating the Lord and Rebekah's enquiring of the Lord when problems arose.

She receives the answer that she has twins: in fact God calls them two nations, telling her that the twins were two totally different characters, one stronger than the other, but that the elder should serve the younger. This is a lesson that God often impresses on us in His word, to the effect that the last shall be first and the first last. Ishmael was born before Isaac, but he had to give place to Isaac. Now the same lesson is emphasized even when the same mother gives birth to twin sons. This totally casts us upon the sovereign wisdom of God. It is He who orders such matters, far above any question of people's character or actions. He is sovereign and we must simply bow to Him.

Verses 24-26 record the birth of the two sons. Esau, the first, was strikingly red in his appearance, hairy, and his hair red. This reminds us of Adam, which means “red earth,” for Esau's history was to emphasize what man is in the flesh, just as “the first man is from the earth, earthy” (1 Cor. 15: 47). The second son, Jacob, followed closely, his hand holding the heel of Esau. This is told us in order to illustrate what was to be true of Jacob in his life. His name means “he will take by the heel.” Esau referred to this later when Jacob had deceived his father in taking Esau's place. Esau's words then were “Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me these two times?” (Gen. 22: 36). His hand grasped for the blessing that was going to be given to Esau. This tells us what Jacob was in the flesh, but later his name was changed to Israel, “a prince with God,” for God's counsels would stand, and He did a work in Jacob's soul that made a glorious change in the man.

When grown Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the outdoors, while Jacob was of a more reserved nature, conforming to the general trends of society, and dwelling in tents. We are told here too that Isaac loved Esau because he enjoyed the taste of wild game, while Rebekah loved Jacob, perhaps because the Lord had told her that he would be given preference over his brother. But it is not good that parents should ever have a preference for one of their children over another.

Jacob's character comes out strikingly in the incident of verses 29-34. When he has stew already prepared and Esau comes in faint from hunger, asking for some stew, Jacob, instead of kindly giving him some, takes advantage of the occasion to bargain with his brother. He would sell him the stew for his birthright. Esau reasons that the birthright would be of no use to him if he died from hunger, and the compact is made by an oath that Jacob required from Esau. Jacob's character as a bargainer is established from the beginning. He is a fitting father for the nation Israel, choosing the principle of law-keeping as a rule of life. He had to learn by later experience that this principle failed him, and that he must eventually depend only on the grace of God.

But another matter here is most important. Esau despised his birthright (v. 34), that which God had given him: it became of no more value to him than a mouthful of stew! How many are like him, who consider satisfying their present natural appetite as being more important than God's long range blessing! On the other hand, though Jacob used wrong methods of getting the birthright, yet the fact is clear that Jacob valued what God had to give.

Genesis 26

ISAAC IN GERAR (vv. 1-14)

A famine occurs in the land, just as it had in the days of Abraham (Gen. 12: 10). In that case Abraham went down to Egypt, whereas Isaac went only as far as Gerar, in the land of the Philistines, but the same place where we read of Abraham denying his relationship with Sarah. It may be that Isaac had some thought of continuing down to Egypt, for God appeared to him, telling him not to go there, but to remain in the land of promise (v. 2). He was not told to remain in one place, but to sojourn in the land. He could in this way count upon the blessing of the Lord for himself and his descendants.

Again God confirms the word that He had spoken to Abraham, telling Isaac that “all these lands” (as described in Genesis 15: 18-21) He would give to him and to his descendants, thus reaffirming His oath to Abraham and applying it to Isaac (v. 3).

God speaks of multiplying Isaac's descendants “as the stars of heaven.' He does not tell Isaac, as He does Jacob later, that his seed would be “as the dust of the earth” (Gen. 28: 14), for Jacob is seen as the father of Israel, while Isaac, typifying Christ, is prominent for His relationship to Rebekah, a type of the church. Since Israel is God's earthly people, the dust of the earth signified

Yet also, as God had said to Abraham, so He assures Isaac, “in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (v. 4). The “seed” here is not their many descendants, for Galatians 3: 16 insists, “He does not say, 'and to seeds,' as referring to many, but 'and to your seed,' that is, Christ.” Abraham is typical of God the Father, and in His Son, the Lord Jesus, all nations will be blessed. Interestingly, God adds here, “because Abraham obeyed Me, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws” (v. 5). This was never stated as a condition to Abraham, but is said after he had lived his life. It shows the sovereignty of God in knowing perfectly well beforehand that this was Abraham's character, which of course was proven in his life. God did not lay down any conditions to Isaac either. As He had told Abraham, “I will,” so He tells Isaac (Gen. 22: 15-18).

In spite of God's clear declaration of His faithfulness, Isaac does not take this to heart in being diligent to prove faithful himself. He is snared by the same fault that overtook his father Abraham, telling the Philistines that Rebekah was his sister rather than his wife (v. 7). He was motivated also by the same unfounded fears, thinking that because Rebekah was beautiful, the men of the place might kill him in order to get his wife. He certainly failed as regards his being a type of Christ in this matter. The Lord Jesus will never deny His relationship with the church, though she may sadly at times deny in practice her relationship to Him.

In this case Rebekah is not brought into Abimelech's court, nor is she evidently courted by anyone else over a period of “a long time.” Isaac was also near enough to Abimelech's house that Abimelech could see him showing such affection for Rebekah that would only be the case between husband and wife. How can our true relationship ever be indefinitely concealed? Things must always come out as they are.

When Abimelech faces Isaac with such facts, Isaac can only admit that his fear had moved him in being deceitful (v. 9). Then he must receive a righteous reproof from Abimelech, who told him he had been guilty of an injustice toward the Philistines in misrepresenting the truth. One of his men might easily have treated her as an unattached woman and had sexual relations with her. If a believer does not frankly confess before the world his relationship to the Lord Jesus, he is unfair to the world.

Isaac is not sent away, however. Rather, Abimelech gives orders to his people not to touch Isaac or his wife, on pain of death (v. 11). In view of this, how foolish had been Isaac's fear of being killed by the Philistines! The truth having come out, then we read that Isaac is greatly blessed. The crop he planted that year brought forth one hundred bushels from one bushel of seed, an absolutely maximum yield. This prosperity continued, so that his wealth increased to such an extent that he became the envy of the Philistines (v. 14).

There is important spiritual significance in the envy of the Philistines leading them to stop up the wells that Abraham had dug, and fill them with earth (v. 15). Wells are typical of the living refreshment of the word of God obtained through the work of the man of faith. Only through spiritual diligence do we find the blessing of drinking in the truth of God's word, and Abraham's faith and labor had been rewarded by this refreshment. But the Philistines picture the mere formalism of Christian religion, without its living power. They do not appreciate the pure word of God, but contaminate it with material, earthly doctrines. Earthly pleasures and cares displace the word of God so far as they are concerned. This has happened over and over again in our present dispensation of grace.

WELLS RESTORED (vv. 17-25)

However, the time comes when Abimelech recognizes that Isaac's prosperity is a threat to the Philistines, and he asks him to leave them, which Isaac does, though he does not go far distant, for he was still in the valley of Gerar. In that area he dug a second time the wells that Abraham had before dug, but which the Philistines had filled with earth. Formalistic religion may obscure to us some of the most precious truths of the word of God, as has taken place extensively in Christendom. The energy of faith will labor to restore these, however. Isaac also called them by the same names that Abraham had given them. When we are privileged to recover any truth, let us not think that we have done something original. Rather, let us remember that the truth was in scripture before we discovered it, so that we have nothing to boast of. Let us give it the same name it had long ago.

Digging in the valley, Isaac's servants found a spring of living water, but the herdsmen of Gerar contended for this, claiming that the water was theirs. Isaac named the spring Esek, meaning “contention,” but “the servant of the Lord must not strive” (2 Tim. 2: 14), and instead of continuing the strife, Isaac dug another well. However, this too became a matter of contention (v. 21), to the point that Isaac named it Sitna, meaning “hatred.” The wise thing for him to do therefore was to move from the place before digging another well (v. 22). Evidently this was far enough away that the Philistines no longer demanded it for themselves. Isaac called it Rehoboth, meaning “room,” considering that the Lord had made room for him to be fruitful and expand.

However, he finally left the land of the Philistines and went to Beersheba (v. 23). Likely by this time the famine had abated (v. 1). But only then did the Lord appear to him again (v. 24), for Beersheba means “well of the oath,” and indicates that Isaac was learning to depend on the oath that God had made to Abraham and himself. God reminds him that He is the God of Abraham his father, and assures Isaac that He is with him, would bless him and multiply his descendants for Abraham's sake. How often did the Lord remind Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of this absolute, unconditional promise! But we too easily forget what God Himself has purposed concerning us, and we need as many reminders as they. Consider Hebrews 6: 16-18.

Isaac's response to God's word is good. He built an altar there (v. 25). Of course this was for offering sacrifices, which would tell us of His appreciation of Christ and the value of His great sacrifice of Calvary. Isaac did not fully understand this, but he did know that only a blood sacrifice was acceptable to God in order that Isaac might be accepted. The promise of God therefore was on the basis of the value of the sacrifice of His beloved son. The altar indicates Isaac's relationship to God, while his tent (as with Abraham) speaks of his relationship toward the world — a pilgrim passing through. In the same place Isaac's servants dug a well, speaking of the refreshment of the word of God energized by the Spirit of God.

A COVENANT WITH ABIMELECH (vv. 26-35)

The prosperity of Isaac served to put questions in the mind of the Philistine king Abimelech and his officers as to whether Isaac might threaten their liberty or their independence. When they come to him, Isaac is puzzled, however, because they had before asked him to leave them, and he considered that they hated him (vv. 26-27). Actually, they were more afraid than they were hateful.

They tell him that they see plainly that the Lord is with him, of course because of his prosperity. They knew well that if a man has power in his hand, he may often use it in oppressing others. Sad to say, even believers are not exempt from this danger, as we see in some of Judah's kings, including Solomon (1 Kings 11: 6; 1 Kings 12: 4). It is too bad that an unbeliever must require a promise from a believer that he will not harm him. Our character as believers should be such that an unbeliever would have full confidence that we should do him good rather than harm.

But Abimelech reminds Isaac that the Philistines had actually been good to him, and asks that Isaac should respond in the same way. Isaac had no reservations as to making such a covenant, however, and he makes his visitors a feast, while both parties make oaths to one another that they will remain peaceful (vv. 30-31).

At the same time Isaac learns from his servants that they had dug a well and found water (v. 32). They called the well Shebah, meaning “oath,” and the place was therefore called Beersheba (v. 33). But this must have been in confirmation of the fact that this was its name before, for Abraham and Abimelech had made a covenant at Beersheba, naming it this because of their oath (Gen. 21: 31-32). These two covenants (between Abraham and Abimelech and Isaac and Abimelech) were the occasion of the well receiving its name, but it is symbolical of the far greater covenant that God made with Abraham and confirmed to Isaac.

But verses 34-35 show us that Esau, the firstborn of Isaac, did not value the promise of God as his fathers did. Isaac had received a wife from the kindred of Abraham, for God's promise was connected with that line, the line of faith. Esau took two wives, both from the Hittites, the children of Heth, which means “fear,” typical of those who live in fear of death rather than by faith. Compare Hebrews 2: 15, which speaks of “those who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” How dishonoring to God it is to mix His promise with the fear of death! But mixed marriages have been a source of great trouble throughout history. Esau's marriages therefore were a grief of mind to his parents. May every believer pay closest attention to the serious admonition of 2 Corinthians 6: 14 to 18, which begins, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.”

Genesis 27

JACOB DECEIVES HIS FATHER (1-29)

In spite of Esau's wrong marriages, and in spite of God's word that Isaac's older son would serve the younger (Gen. 25: 23), Isaac was ready to confer his chief blessing on Esau. We are told in verse 1 that his eyes were dim, and no doubt his spiritual eyes were dim also, evidently because he allowed his natural appetite to take precedence over the revealed will of God (Gen. 25: 28) But in order that he might bless Esau, he wanted Esau first to take his bow and quiver of arrows to hunt deer, and bring him cooked venison, “such as I love,” he adds (v. 4).

When Rebekah overheard these instructions, she recognized a threatened emergency, but instead of going in prayer to the Lord, who had told her that Jacob would have the chief place, she took the only way she saw to change things. It is true that her plan worked in the way she wanted, and no doubt God was over this, but still we cannot defend her cunning scheme to deceive her husband. God could have worked the matter out in another way without both Rebekah and Jacob being involved in deception. If they had acted in faith and had depended on God, they may have seen a miraculous answer to the problem, and in this way have reason for deepest thanksgiving, rather then being left with troubled consciences.

Rebekah had Jacob kill two kids of the goats, of which the meat would be young and tender (v. 9), and she was able to prepare it in such a way that Isaac did not even suspect it was not venison. So much for our preconceived ideas of what we like the best!

Jacob was hesitant about the whole scheme. He objected that all his father had to do was to feel his hands and arms, for Esau was a hairy man and Jacob not so (vv. 11-12), But Rebekah urged him to obey her and that she would bear the results of any miscarriage of the plan. One writer defends Jacob in this whole matter because he says that Jacob was responsible to obey his mother, therefore no blame could attach to him! But Jacob was a grown man, not a little child. In fact, even a little child is wrong to tell a lie, whether his mother tells him to or not. Rebekah gave Jacob Esau's clothes to wear, put goat skins on his hands and on the smooth of his neck, and Jacob proceeded with the deception.

He brought the meat to his father and told him that he was Esau. Isaac wondered at Esau's finding venison so quickly, but Jacob hypocritically brought God's name into his deception in order to make Isaac more comfortable (v. 20). Still, Isaac was not too sure that it was Esau speaking to him, and as Jacob anticipated, he wanted to feel him to be certain. It is a lesson for us that we cannot always depend on our sight or on our feelings either. But Isaac allowed his feelings to persuade him, though his hearing told him it was Jacob's voice (v. 21). Still, he pressed further in asking if Jacob was actually his very son Esau, and Jacob flatly lied to him, saying, “I am.”

After finishing his meal, which he thought was venison, Isaac asked his son to kiss him, and he recognized the outdoor smell of Esau's clothes, as being the smell of a field which the Lord has blessed” (v. 27).

His blessing first voices the desire that God would give his son of the dew of heaven. This is typical of the living refreshment of the Spirit of God. Added to this is an abundance of grain and wine. The grain speaks of the Lord Jesus as the food of the believer, whether it may be barley (typical of His character of lowly humiliation on earth) or wheat (symbolizing the higher truth of Christ glorified at God's right hand). Both are valuable in providing needed nourishment for the Christian life. The new wine pictures the joy of a new life in Christ based upon the value of the shedding of His blood. Every Christian father or mother may well desire such blessing for all of their children.

But more than this: Isaac desires and virtually prophesies that people will serve his son. Nations would bow down to him. He would be the master of his brothers. His own mother's sons would bow down to him. Those who cursed him would be cursed, and those who blessed him would be blessed (v. 29).

While Isaac intended all this for Esau, he was not in concord with God's thoughts, for God had decreed that the elder would serve the younger, and Isaac did not realize that he was blessing his second son rather than his first. Jacob was to be the father of the Israelitish nation, and other nations would eventually bow to them. Predominantly, Christ would be born of the line of Jacob, and the force of the prophecy is primarily that all must bow to Christ. But the nation Israel was to have a place above all other nations. Nations who bless her will find themselves blessed, while those who curse her will not escape a curse on themselves. The ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy has never taken place as yet, and will not until Israel is recovered from her present state of unbelief in bowing to the Lord Jesus, the true Messiah of Israel.

ESAU BLESSED IN A SECOND PLACE (vv. 30-40)

Jacob was able to accomplish his ends just in time to leave his father before Esau returned with his prepared venison. He had been quick in finding a deer and preparing it for Isaac, no doubt because he was anxious to receive the blessing. Actually, since he had sold his birthright to Jacob, he was not entitled to the blessing, but he did not tell his father this. He saw an opportunity of getting the blessing of the firstborn, and would get it before his brother became aware of it!

But he found that it was he who was too late. Isaac was shocked when Esau told him who he was (vv. 32-33). At first he questions who had already come, but of course he knew the answer to this. He tells Esau he has blessed the first one who came, and adds positively that “he shall be blessed.” In this way God had overruled Jacob's inexcusable deceit in order that the blessing should be given to the younger son, as God had decreed.

Esau deeply felt the pain of being deprived of the blessing of the firstborn, and cried with an exceeding great and bitter cry, entreating that his father should bless him also. Hebrews 12: 16-17 refers to this occasion, speaking of Esau being a profane person who, for one morsel of food sold his birthright, then when he expected the blessing, was rejected, We are told that “he found no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” Not that he sought repentance: he sought the blessing, but without repentance. He ought to have repented for despising his birthright, but he found no place to repent.

Isaac could not bless Esau now with the same blessing as Jacob, for he had made Esau the servant of Jacob, as he tells him that his brother had come deceitfully to take away Esau's blessing (v. 35). Esau reminds his father that Jacob's name means supplanter, and that he has been true to his name in taking away both Esau's birthright and his blessing. Did Esau forget that he had willingly sold his birthright to Jacob? This being the case, Jacob was entitled to the blessing too. But Esau wanted the blessing though he had despised the birthright. He entreats his father if he had not at least reserved some blessing for him (v. 36). This is a common affliction among human beings. While they have no interest in that which God has to give in a spiritual way (for the birthright is significant of this), they are most importunate when it becomes a matter of their temporal prosperity and blessings. It is really a matter of their desiring all the blessings that God may give while ignoring the Giver Himself. Thus men may receive much blessing from God, yet at the same calmly refuse to receive the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, as Savior and Lord.

In all this history God was sovereignly working. Jacob was the heir according to His promise. Esau is typical of the flesh, which will not live before God. It must be put into the place of subjection. Yet Isaac does give Esau his blessing, just as God in man's present life provides many material blessings for him in spite of his rebellious character. But Isaac tells Esau he will live by his sword. The flesh is always in conflict, just as the troubled sea cannot rest, and the flesh considers it necessary to fight for its rights. Esau would serve his brother, yet would break Jacob's yoke from off his neck: in spite of his subjection, his rebellious character could not be tamed, just as the flesh continually breaks out in rebellion.

ESAU'S HATRED AWAKENED (vv. 41-46)

This occasion awakened such hatred in Esau toward Jacob that he purposed to kill him after their father's death (v. 41). While it is only written that Esau said this in his heart, he must also have told someone else of his intention, for his mother heard about it, and warned Jacob of it (v. 42).

Rebekah therefore advised Jacob to leave and take a long journey back to Haran, where he could count on the hospitality of her brother Laban. She tells him he should stay there “a few days” until Esau's anger has abated, but the few days turned out to be over 20 years, probably because Jacob was not anxious to see Esau in all that time. But the government of God did not allow Jacob to see his mother again on earth (see Gen. 35: 27), though he did see his father. She said she would send for him at the appropriate time and have Jacob brought home again. She was therefore as fully deprived of Jacob's presence as if she had been bereaved of him, as she feared (v. 45).

Rebekah had made that decision for Jacob before she spoke to Isaac about it. But her words to Isaac in verse 46 were altogether different to those to Jacob. She tells Isaac she is tired of living because of the daughters of Heth, two of whom Esau had married. They evidently continued to be “a grief of mind” to her (Gen. 26: 35). How many Christian mothers since then have had deep sorrow over their children being married to unbelievers! Rebekah tells Isaac therefore that her life would be miserable if Jacob were to marry one of the daughters of Heth.

Genesis 28

JACOB SENT TO PADAN-ARAM (vv. 1-9)

Though scripture tells us that Isaac loved Esau, he had not done as Abraham had in making sure that Isaac's wife was of his own kindred. Rebekah's words to him now evidently awaken him out of such laxity, and he called Jacob and charged him that he must not take a wife of the Canaanites, but must rather go to Padan-aram and take a wife from the kindred of his grandfather, in fact one of the daughters of Jacob's uncle Laban (v. 2). Today a marriage of cousins is not wise because weaknesses have multiplied greatly since sin was introduced into the human family, and special weaknesses attach to each family. Those weaknesses would be doubled by the marriage of two who are closely related, and the children therefore likely to be badly affected. In early history this was not a problem at all.

Isaac again gives Jacob his blessing in verses 3 and 4, desiring that God Almighty might make him fruitful and multiply his descendants, and that through him God's promise to Abraham should be fulfilled, both as to his descendants and as to the possession of the land of promise. It seems clear in this passage that Isaac's thoughts had been corrected, for he did not speak this way to Esau. When God had overruled him in having the blessing given to Jacob, then at least Isaac stayed by this action, and here confirms it in no uncertain terms.

Isaac then sends Jacob away (v. 5). Possibly this was some relief to Esau, for he did not have to kill Jacob, yet would have him far removed from him. But when Esau knew that Isaac had given Jacob his blessing and sent him away with a charge not to take a wife from the Canaanites, and that Jacob had obediently accepted the charge of his parents (vv. 6-7), then Esau was stirred up about the fact that his two wives had not pleased his father (v. 8). Yet how sad was his effort to remedy the situation! Apparently he thought his parents would be more pleased by his adding another wife, just so long as she had some relationship to Abraham! So he took the daughter of Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman (v. 9). This is of course the foolish reasoning of the flesh. He knew his father had only one wife: how could he expect him to be pleased with Esau's having three! In fact, even the third one alone would not be pleasing to Isaac, who had been persecuted by his half brother Ishmael. But “they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8: 8).

JACOB'S DREAM (vv. 10-17)

Jacob goes out from Beersheba (v. 10). This is a striking picture of the nation Israel, the sons of Jacob, for Beersheba means “the well of the oath” and Haran means “mountaineer.” Israel has practically left the ground of the unconditional promise of God and has chosen rather the mountain of law-keeping, as though this could ever bring the blessing of God! Just as Jacob, all the time he was in Haran, retained a character of selfish bargaining, so Israel at present remains in a state of self-righteousness, professing to believe and obey the law, but not submitting to the righteousness of God (Rom. 10: 3).

We are told only of one of the nights Jacob spent on his way to Haran. He laid down to sleep with a stone for a pillow. No doubt he found the law of God rather a hard resting-place also, for it is as hard as the stones upon which it was written.

Though Jacob was not walking in communion with God, yet God was not stopped from communicating with him. When God sends a dream He has a captive audience (v. 12), and this dream given to Jacob was of particular significance. He saw a ladder set up on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descending on it. Some have imagined that this intimates that man by his spiritual energy is able to climb up to heaven, gradually ascending by human effort, into favor with God. But it has nothing to do with man's ascending, just as is true when the Lord tells Nathanael he would “see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1: 51).

This is a prophetic picture of the future restoration of communication between heaven and earth, once interrupted by Adam's sin. The fulfillment of this will be during the 1000 years of peace introduced by the coming of the Lord in power and glory. God gave this dream to Jacob in order to assure him that, in spite of Jacob's failure and wandering, God's purposes remained absolutely certain.

The Lord stood above the ladder and told Jacob, “I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac.” There was to be no mistaking the fact that Jacob's blessing did not depend on Jacob's faithfulness. The source of it went back, not only to his father and his grandfather, but to the living God, who had revealed Himself in grace to both Abraham and Isaac, and who would not change His purpose even though Jacob was a failing vessel, just as is true as regards God's purposes as to the nation Israel, whom Jacob represents.

In this dream of Jacob the Lord's initial message to him is that He would give him the land on which he was lying. Though Jacob was in a poor state of soul, the Lord did not reprove him, but emphasized the grace of His own heart. He promised the land to Jacob and his descendants. This has nothing to do with heavenly blessing, but is plainly earthly, so that natural blessings in earthly places is all that is promised to the children of Israel, in contrast to “all spiritual blessings in heavenly places” that are today the possession of all the saints of God, members of the body of Christ, the church (Eph. 1: 3).

Consistently therefore, Jacob's seed would be “as the dust of the earth” (v. 14), not “as the stars of heaven” (Gen. 26: 4), which was a promise to Isaac because he is a type of Christ in connection with the church, the bride, as typified in Rebekah. The Lord further emphasizes the earthly character of Jacob's blessing in saying that his descendants would spread “to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south.” There are no such directions in heaven. More than this, in Jacob and his seed all the families of the earth will be blessed. Israel will be the center of blessing on earth in the coming day of millennial glory, and in identification with Israel all the Gentile nations will be blessed. This is a firm, absolute declaration.

Added to this is the Lord's promise to Jacob personally, that he would be with him and keep him everywhere he went, and would bring him back to the land of promise (v. 15). He would not leave him till his promises were fulfilled completely. This promise is totally unconditional. This is all the more striking when we consider that Jacob was not enjoying a good state of soul. Nothing therefore depended on Jacob's faithfulness.

Jacob was not really going with God at this time, but God was going in pure grace with Jacob. This is typical also of God's preserving hand being over the nation Israel even at a time when they have failed miserably and are in a state of wandering and self seeking. Though for centuries they have been dispersed in this condition of self-will, God “has not cast off His people whom He foreknew,” and He will yet restore them to their land in His own time. Meanwhile they must learn through trial and affliction not to depend on themselves, but on their God who cannot fail.

Jacob's soul was stirred to its depths by the dream. In waking up he was alarmed by the fact that the Lord was in that place and he had not realized it (v. 16). Did he think it might have been better to go on to another place? Could the Lord not meet him wherever he went? However, it is good that the fear of God was deeply impressed on him to such an extent that he called the place “the house of God” and “the gate of heaven” (v. 17), and after 20 years absence he did not forget that place.  

JACOB'S FIRST PILLAR AND HIS VOW (vv. 18-22)

Now Jacob sets up the first of four pillars that were landmarks in his eventful life. He set up the stone he had used as a pillow and poured oil on it, calling the place Bethel,” “the house of God.” Abraham had before dwelt between Bethel and Ai (Gen. 12: 8), and Jacob simply renames the place. “The name of the city had been Luz previously” (v. 19). This name means “separation,” and reminds us that the house of God must be given a place of holy separation from all the principles of man's civilization.

Though Jacob appreciated God's blessing, yet his faith as to God's promise was pathetically weak. Rather than simply thanking God for the absolute truth of His word, Jacob considered that he also should make a promise to God! But Jacob's promise is conditional, not unconditional, as God's was. Abraham had been strong in faith, giving glory to God, — being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able to perform (Rom. 4: 21). But Jacob says, If God will be with me” (v. 20). But what God promises, faith simply believes.

However, did Jacob desire God's presence because he wanted to enjoy fellowship with God? This does not seem to be his motive. Rather, he realized that God was able to bless him and keep him in the way he had chosen to go, as well as supplying his food and clothing. Jacob did not ask for God's way (as Moses did in Exodus 33: 13), but rather desired God's blessing in the way Jacob decided to go! But God had told him He would bless him and bring him back to his homeland. All he needed to do was to believe this and therefore be concerned about enjoying the Lord Himself. If this had been his object, how much trouble he would have been spared!

He promises that, on condition the Lord will fulfill all His promises, then when this is accomplished the Lord would be his God. Who would be his God in the meantime? Also he promises that the stone he set would be God's house. How many there are like Jacob who think that in the future they will be concerned about the truth of God's house, but at present think their own house more important!

He vows too that he would surely give to God one tenth of all that God gave to him! Did he seriously think he was being very generous? God had said, “I will,” but Jacob said, 'I will surely.” Of course God's promise is perfectly fulfilled, but there is no record of Jacob's having ever carried out his promise to give God one tenth of all.

 Genesis 29

JACOB MEETS RACHEL AND LABAN (vv. 1-14)

After many days of travel Jacob came to the land of his relatives. He could not phone to find his directions to their home, nor did he have any street and house number, but it did not take long for him to contact them. A well was of course the most likely place to meet people. Three flocks of sheep were nearby, waiting to be watered, which they could not until a huge stone was removed from the mouth of the well (v. 2). The stone was evidently necessary to prevent humans or animals from accidentally falling into the well. Their practice was to wait until all the flocks were gathered together, then the shepherds would roll the stone away, the flocks would be watered and the stone would be returned to its place.

Jacob finds through questioning the shepherds that he has come to the right place, for their home was at Haran. They knew Laban also, and that he was well (vv. 5-6). More than this, at the very moment Laban's daughter Rachel was coming with her flock of sheep to the well.

However, Jacob was puzzled that the shepherds were still waiting to water their flock, but they tell him that they were unable to do this until there were enough shepherds present to roll the stone from the well's mouth. When all were gathered there they would do this and water the sheep. There is a picture in this of men waiting for the time of universal blessing, which will take place in the millennial age.

Then Rachel arrives with her father's sheep (v. 9). When Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of his mother's brother, and the sheep of his mother's brother, he was moved with amazing strength, rolling the stone away by himself (v. 10). How striking a lesson is this that the energy of faith and love is able to remove great obstacles and bring blessing before the time of “the restitution of all things.” This is what is seen in the present “dispensation of the grace of God.” The Lord Jesus, in pure love and devotion to God, has shown the strength of that love toward the church, His espoused bride, and toward the sheep of God's flock (another type of the church) in the great sacrifice of Himself, in His resurrection power, and in already having “raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2: 6). Thus the church has been marvelously blessed before the time of the universal blessing in the world, and the living water of the word of God has become most precious to her.

The warmth of family affection then predominates the scene as Jacob kissed Rachel, weeping for joy, telling her that he is the son of Rebekah, her father's sister. Of course they had never met, but family ties can be remarkably strong in spite of this. Rachel left the sheep and ran to tell her father the good news of a relative from a far country (v. 12). Laban also ran to meet Jacob and embraced and kissed him. Thus he welcomed him into his home as his own “bone and flesh” (v. 14). How good it would have been if this attitude had continued throughout their relationship! But when they parted 20 years later, the atmosphere was hostile rather than congenial (vv. 31: 25-55).

BARGAINING FOR A WIFE (vv. 15-30)

They had been one month together, with Jacob evidently working for his uncle, when Laban, realizing that Jacob should have wages for his service, asked what Jacob would like for wages. Jacob's character as a bargainer again comes strongly to the fore on this occasion. Laban had an older daughter than Rachel, but she was not so attractive. Jacob was drawn only to Rachel and offered to work for Laban for seven years in order to earn Rachel as his wife (v. 18). Laban agreed to this, evidently conveniently forgetting that his sister Rebekah had been given to Isaac immediately when the servant of Abraham brought his message (Gen. 24: 57-61). There was no bargaining then, no suggestion that her father would virtually sell her to Isaac, but simply a willing decision on her part.

Rachel did not belong to Laban, and both Jacob and Laban were totally wrong in placing a mercenary value on a wife. When the Lord created a woman for Adam, He gave her to him as a gift by grace, and grace should always predominate in the sacred relationship of marriage. However, Jacob was willing to work for all this seven years because of his ardent love for Rachel. In fact, the time seemed to him very short in comparison to the prospect of having her as wife. When the time was fulfilled he asked now that Rachel should be given to him (v. 21).

Laban therefore made a marriage feast for them. We may wonder what part Rachel had in the feast, and if she thought she was to be married to Jacob. If so, the shock to her would be as great as that to Jacob. When evening came (and of course darkness with only very dim light at best) Laban had Leah go to share Jacob's bed with him, and Jacob had no suspicion of this until the morning (vv. 21-25). Possibly he had drunk too much wine at the feast, but he was certainly not prepared for such unprincipled deception as this practiced by a near relative

When Jacob faced Laban with his deception in giving him Leah instead of Rachel, Laban coolly answered him that in his country the younger must not be married before the elder daughter. Certainly honesty would have at least informed Jacob of this at the time the agreement was made seven years earlier! It may be that Laban made up this policy in his own mind and considered it adopted by his own country! For surely if it had been the usual custom, Jacob would have heard of it before seven years. But Laban knew that the best way to get Jacob to continue working for him was to do just what he did; so he told Jacob that he could work another seven years for Rachel. What could Jacob do? He still had his heart set on Rachel, so he simply submitted to this unjust treatment, and eventually got her also as a wife.

However, the deception of his uncle might well have reminded Jacob that he himself had before deceived a relative, his own father. Such things have a way of recoiling, under the governing hand of God. It is a striking fact that those who form the character of deceivers will very likely be deceived themselves (2 Tim. 3: 13). In this case too Jacob painfully learned the rights of a firstborn, which he had ignored in the case of his brother Esau.

There is a serious spiritual lesson for us in the history of Jacob's two wives. Rachel (meaning “sheep”) is typical of the lovely state of soul in humble submission to God that believers would like to attain. She was the desire of Jacob's heart. But in struggling to get Rachel, he only got Leah, meaning “wearied.” For Leah is a picture of what I really am, not what I desire to be. There was conflict between the two. I may try hard to make myself different, only to find myself “stuck” with what I really am, as Jacob was “stuck” with Leah! This is the struggle of Romans 7, where “I” is seen fighting against “I.”

CHILDREN BORN TO LEAH (vv. 31-35)

It was Leah who bore children, while Rachel remained fruitless for a long time. So that it is the hated “I” that seems to predominate in the experience of a believer who really wants to be what he thinks he should be. Leah bore four sons, Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah (vv. 31-35), while Rachel remained childless. It is good to consider that in spite of Jacob's dislike for Leah, he never made a suggestion of resorting to people's present day practice of putting away his wife. In fact, he kept her longer than Rachel, who died in childbirth and was buried on the way to Ephrath (Gen. 35: 19), before Jacob came to his father at Mamre. We are not told of Leah's death, but Jacob says he buried her at Mamre (Gen. 49: 30-32).

Thus the proper experience of the believer is that he keeps the fact of what he is longer than he keeps the desire to attain a high spiritual state. In fact, when Rachel died she gave place to Benjamin (meaning “son of my right hand”), a type of Christ in exaltation. Thus, when the Lord Jesus takes the place of my desire for a better spiritual life, it is not hard for me to give up that desire. For I have title to forget myself and find everything in Christ Jesus my Lord. I remain just what I am, but I have a perfect Object, and actually it is only through enjoying Him as my Object that I can have any proper state of soul.

Genesis 30

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN RACHEL AND LEAH (vv. 1-24)

The fruitfulness of Leah moved Rachel to jealousy, then her demand to Jacob for children moves him to anger (vv. 1-2). We may see a serious lesson in Rachel's words, “Give me children or else I die.” If we do not see evident fruit, we have the tendency to give up: the exercise of soul that desires true godliness may virtually die. Many Christians have their proper growth stunted by this very thing.

On the other hand, Jacob's anger does not help the situation. If Christ is not the Object of our lives, our efforts to make ourselves more spiritual will always involve the principles of jealousy, anger and discouragement, which are contrary to the very result we seek to obtain.

Then we too often resort to a humanly conceived substitution, as Rachel did in verse 3. Sarah had done the same in giving Abraham her handmaid by whom to have a child. Rachel ought to have known that this did not work out as Sarah planned, but she thought, as Sarah, that the children of Bilhah, her handmaid, would be hers. When a boy was born (vv. 5-6), Rachel said that God had given her a son, and she named him Dan, meaning “judge.” Bilhah also had a second son whom Rachel named Naphthali, meaning “my wrestling,” because of Rachel's wrestling with her sister Leah. All of this struggle is a picture of the struggle of Romans 7, which only stirs up the evil passions of our hearts, rather than subduing them, as we attempt to do. At first sight it may be that people would not discern any spiritual significance of a history like this, and might wonder why the Lord has gone to such pains to record all the details of this. But all scripture is of vital consequence to every believer.

When Leah had no more children, she resorted to the same tactics as Rachel had, giving her maid Zilpah to Jacob, by whom he had a son, Leah naming him Gad, then another whom she named Asher (vv. 9-13). Gad means “a troop” and Asher means “happy.” Thus we find human support (a troop), and seek to make ourselves happy as we are, without attaining the state we desire, but Leah is not satisfied with this. For as soon as Reuben brings her mandrakes she sees the possibility of having another son. Rachel tried to obtain some with the same purpose, but Leah answered her sharply (v. 15). She knew Rachel's purpose. Thus neither of them was actually content: the struggle continues.

Evidently mandrakes were a cherished delicacy, and Jacob was persuaded to share his bed with Leah that night. His natural appetite leads him, and Leah bears another son, Issachar, meaning “he will be hired.” Then a sixth son is added for Leah herself, named Zebulon, which means “dwelling.” These six are all the sons that Leah herself bore. This pictures the fact that people can struggle hard to accomplish their own ends, but always come short, for seven is the number of completeness, while six is the number of man's work day week. So Leah, speaking of what I am, can only produce that which falls short of any proper satisfaction, though she did then bear a daughter whom she named Dinah (v. 21).

Finally God answered the prayer of Rachel, and she gave birth to Joseph (vv. 22-24), whose name means “adding” because she had confidence that God would add to her another son. Joseph is plainly a type of Christ. A desire for a high spiritual state should thus lead us to the person of Christ, who is the only One in whom such a state is seen. Yet, Joseph gives us only one side of the truth concerning Christ, that is, that He was a Sufferer before being exalted. This is most important for us all to learn, before we are in any condition to appreciate the truth seen in Benjamin, a type of Christ as the Son of the Father's right hand, glorified and exalted to the throne, reigning in glory.

A BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH LABAN (vv. 25-43)

Appropriately, when Joseph is born, Jacob's thoughts turn toward his proper home in Canaan (v. 25). When the person of Christ dawns upon the vision of the believer, he begins to realize that he should be in God's place for him. However, when Jacob informs Laban of his intention of leaving, Laban is unwilling to be deprived of the service of his son-in-law. He says he has learned by experience that the Lord has blessed him through Jacob's presence there, and does not want to lose this (v. 27). If Jacob had insisted on leaving at that time, he and Laban would have parted on less unpleasant terms than they did later (Gen. 31: 25-55). But Jacob agreed to stay on terms that he himself suggested.

He first emphasized what Laban had already admitted, that he had served Laban faithfully, so that though Laban had little when Jacob came, his herd of sheep was greatly increased (v. 39). Both of them recognized that the Lord had done this. Since that time many Gentile nations have actually been blessed by God through the presence of Israelites among them, after Israel was scattered among the nations.

Then Jacob asks, “When shall I provide for my own house also?” Certainly it is right for a man to provide for his own house. Yet Jacob was at the time more concerned for his own house than he was for the house of God. Most of us put our own house first, and it was some years yet before Jacob was finally told by God to return to Bethel (“the house of God”) where he had made his vow (Gen. 31:13).

Jacob suggested wages that seemed to be very low, asking for only the speckled and spotted sheep and goats and the black lambs. The normally colored sheep and goats would therefore all belong to Laban. Such a percentage for Jacob would seem to be low indeed, and Laban saw himself as having the great advantage in this bargain (vv. 32-34). In this there is no doubt that Jacob desired to show that he was depending on God to give him what He wanted Jacob to have, and the element of faith in God was surely present. We know that God answered such faith. Yet we see later that his faith was weak when he resorted to human artifice in trying to make the sheep produce as he desired (vv. 37-42).

All the special class of sheep he left with his sons. Then he himself took all Laban's sheep a long distance from the others, a matter of three days' journey (v. 36), thus assuring Laban that Laban's sheep would not mix with any spotted or speckled. Since Laban's sheep were all a normal color, it was not likely there would be many born for Jacob to claim.

However, in being so far away, Jacob could put into operation his cunning plan by which to make Laban's sheep bear striped, speckled or spotted lambs. Taking fresh rods from trees, he peeled strips of bark off them, then put them in front of the sheep when they came to drink (v. 38). At this time they mated, and the plan worked remarkably for Jacob, for the number of striped, speckled or spotted lambs being born was very large.

There are some who question that Jacob's trickery in verse 37-39 made any actual difference, but whether it did or not, there is a spiritual lesson here that ought to have spoken deeply to Jacob himself. The things that we allow to most occupy our attention will affect us and everything that comes from us. Jacob was allowing his desire for gain to have foremost place in his thoughts. This was bad for him spiritually, and caused him to be selfish and underhand in his actions. But we can generally recognize such principles in natural things, while not seeing their significance in our spiritual lives.

Jacob separated the lambs that he could claim for his own and kept all of his own apart from the flock of Laban (v. 40), then when the stronger sheep of Laban were mating he would use his peeled rods in the watering troughs, which he would not do in the case of the weaker sheep. Thus he was able to secure the stronger sheep while Laban was left with those weaker (vv. 41-42). No doubt Laban was not aware of what Jacob was doing, and Jacob wanted Laban to consider that Jacob was only depending on God to decide how many sheep Jacob should have. How often it is true with us too, that we persuade ourselves we are walking by faith in God while using our own wits to help God out in supplying our needs!

Jacob prospered, but he ought to have realized that this was really by the grace of God, not because of his artifice. God had told him He would bless him, and He did so in spite of Jacob's trickery.

Genesis 31

JACOB'S SECRET DEPARTURE (vv. 1-21)

The prosperity of Jacob could not but awaken the envy of Laban's sons. Jacob had gained all of this through his caring for their father's sheep: now the majority of the sheep and the stronger sheep belonged to Jacob. But Laban had agreed to the arrangement, and they could do nothing about it. Before this Laban had recognized that it was Jacob's presence with him that caused Laban to prosper greatly; so he appreciated Jacob. Now Jacob prospers and Laban's attitude toward him changes to that of resentment (v. 2).

We must not excuse Jacob's manipulating as he did. But on the other hand, Laban had been taking unfair advantage of Jacob all the way through. Jacob did the hard work of caring for Laban's flocks for twenty years. Laban had sons who could have helped with this work, but they evidently left the work to one who could do it well. Were Laban and his sons all partaking of the benefits of Jacob's work without having to work themselves? It seemed this was the case. Management commonly considers it has the right to reap all the benefits that labor produces, because management has provided the original capital. but God takes account of the guilt of management in the oppression of its employees (James 5: 4).

The time has come when the Lord tells Jacob to return to the land of his fathers (v. 3). There is no reason for him to continue with Laban when there is serious friction in their relationship. While scripture has plainly exposed what Jacob was doing, yet the Lord does not reprove him for this: Jacob knew that his actions were wrong, being not the fruit of faith. The Lord therefore left him to fight that matter out with his own conscience. But God repeats His promise to Jacob, that He will be with him. Such is the sovereign goodness of God toward His servants in spite of their failing ways.

Jacob therefore sent for Rachel and Leah to come to him where he was with the flock, and set before them the facts as to Laban's changed attitude (v. 5). He does defend himself in the whole matter: it would have been better if he had not done so. However, it was true that he had served Laban with great diligence. Here we learn that Laban had changed Jacob's wages ten times. When he saw that Jacob was gaining greatly by one bargain, he would change the terms of his wages. Then the sheep would bear in another way to Jacob's advantage (vv. 7-8). Thus he says that God had taken Laban's flocks and given them to Jacob. He does not tell them of his own trickery in the matter: evidently he had been able to hide this from everyone except the Lord.

He speaks of a dream in which he saw the goats mating in the way that would benefit him, and of the angel of God speaking to indicate that it was God who had caused the animals to bear in such a way as to be to Jacob's advantage. This is no doubt true, but it shows us that there was no need for Jacob to resort to his deceitful actions. God would bless him apart from this. He tells him that He has seen all that Laban was doing to him. It may be true that Jacob's descendants, like Jacob, have often been guilty of deceit, and Gentiles make a great deal of this, but Gentiles, like Laban, have been guilty of treating Israel shamefully, and God takes full account of this also. Gentiles can be just as deceitful as Jews: there is no difference (Rom. 3: 22-23).

Jacob reports further to Leah and Rachel that God told him, “I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me” (v. 13). This designation, “the God of Bethel, is of very real importance, for it means “God of the house of God.” Jacob had been concerned about his own house (Gen. 30: 30), allowing the claims of God's house to wait. But the increase of Jacob's house had not produced peace and happiness in all his relationships. It was time that he learned that true contentment is only found in connection with God's house, where God's interests are paramount. God also remembered Jacob's vow (Gen. 28: 20-22), though He only mentions it without comment. But he tells Jacob to return to the land of his family.

Rachel and Leah were fully prepared to move immediately. They realized that there was nothing to tie them to their father. One thing they remembered, that their father had sold his daughters, enriching himself through their sale, so that they became virtually strangers to their own father. We may say that, spiritually speaking, Laban had chosen to sell all spiritual exercise as to (1) what he is (Leah) and (2) what he ought to be (Rachel) in favor of base gain. Far too many professing Christians do the same thing today, rather than go through the exercise of soul that would lead them to find in Christ the one real answer to their need. But Rachel and Leah have good advice for Jacob: “Do whatever God has said to you” (v. 16).

Jacob did not delay his departure. This time he does not consult with Laban, as he had before (Gen. 30: 25-26). In fact, he does not even inform him that he is leaving. His sons and his wives ride on camels (v. 17). Of course he had servants also who would be caring for the sheep. He was able to organize all his possessions to put everything in motion three days before Laban even heard of his leaving. Since Jacob had such large possessions now, there was of course some distance between him and Laban. Also the time was opportune for Jacob since Laban was occupied with the shearing of his sheep.

Only four times in scripture do we read of sheep shearing. First, on this occasion (v. 19); second in Genesis 38:13 (Judah); third in l Samuel 25: 4 (Nabal); and fourth in 2 Samuel 13: 23 (Absalom). In each case, something unpleasantly selfish is involved. Peter was not told by the Lord to “shear My sheep,” but “shepherd My sheep” and “feed My sheep” (John 21: 16-17).

Another sad complication takes place also. Rachel had stolen the teraphim (household images) that belonged to her father (v. 19). She had not learned to walk by faith in the living God, but like her father, she needed to depend on what she could see. Though she was a beautiful woman, yet her desire for a religious atmosphere allowed her to indulge in stealing, idolatry and deceit (vv. 34-35). This is common with all human religion: it is only the true knowledge of the Lord Jesus that will preserve us from such things.

LABAN PURSES JACOB (vv. 22-43)

The journey was long, but Jacob ought to have realized that Laban would pursue him. Though he had three days start before Laban learned of his leaving (v.22), Laban did not then delay in taking others with him and pursuing Jacob. After seven days he caught up with him.

Before their confrontation, however, God spoke to Laban in a dream, charging him that he must not speak to Jacob “either good or bad” (v. 24). Of course, he was most likely to speak bad to Jacob, for he was angry with him, and God made it clear that Laban was not Jacob's judge. It is interesting, however, that Laban must not speak good to Jacob. Why is this? It is because God was dealing with Jacob, and Laban must not interfere. This is a needed lesson for all Gentile nations. They must not either defend the Jewish nation, nor oppose them. At the time of the end, some nations will take sides with Israel while others fight against them. But Israel must not be supported in their wrong doing (idolatry), nor does anyone have the right to condemn Israel, for they are God's people and He will deal with them. In fact, He will in sovereign wisdom send the Assyrians against Israel because of their idolatry (Isa. 10: 5-6), and when the Roman beast and his armies try to interfere to defend Israel, God will judge them first (Rev. 11-21). Afterward He will judge Assyria also because their intentions against Israel exceed the reasons for God's sending them (Isa. 10: 12).

But Jacob must face Laban, unpleasant as the experience must be. Though Laban was angry, God's words to him kept him from going too far in what he said. He asks why Jacob had sneaked away in an underhand manner, as though he was carrying Laban's daughters away as captives (v. 26). Why did he act in such secrecy without even a word to Laban, thus giving Laban no opportunity for giving them a pleasant send-off, including being able to kiss his daughters and their children? He does not hesitate to tell Jacob that he has done foolishly in this matter.

Having spoken of Jacob's foolishness in secretly leaving Haran, Laban tells him that he had the power to do harm to Jacob, yet admits that his desire for revenge was arrested by God's warning him to speak neither good or bad to Jacob. Still, he says, though Jacob was anxious to get back to his father's house, why had he stolen Laban's gods?

Jacob answers his first question first, excusing himself for his secret departure on the ground of his being afraid that Laban might take Leah and Rachel from him by force. This was not sensible, for it is not likely that Laban would want two daughters back under his roof to care for, with their children, without any prospect of their having husbands. Besides, Laban had sold his daughters at a high monetary price.

Jacob however did not at all suspect any of his company of having stolen Laban's idols, probably least of all Rachel. He invites Laban to search through the goods of everyone with him, and to put the thief to death (v. 32). What a shock it would have been to him if Rachel had been discovered! But Rachel was like most of us. We know well how to hide our idols and to deceive even our own loved ones! In fact, Rachel was the last in Laban's search, evidently the least suspected. She was sitting on the images and had a good excuse for not standing (vv. 34-35).

Then Jacob's self-righteous anger begins to boil (v. 36). If only Laban had discovered the idols, how different this would have been! “What is my trespass? What is my sin,” Jacob asks, “that you have so hotly pursued me?” Of course, if there had not been the sin of stealing, there was still the fact of Jacob's having kept his departure a secret from Laban. He tells Laban, since he has searched through all of Jacob's possessions, to set before everybody anything he has found that belonged to him (Laban). Of course he knew that Laban had found nothing.

Then he strongly speaks of the way Laban had treated him. For twenty years, he says, he has served Laban. He had so cared for the females of Laban's flock that they had not miscarried, nor had he taken any of Laban's sheep, even to eat. Any animal that was lost, whether killed by wild animals or whether stolen, Laban held Jacob accountable for: he had to pay for the loss (v. 54). He found himself suffering often by the heat of the day and shivering at night because of the cold, being unable to sleep. He stresses that he had served Laban fourteen years for his two daughters. Of course he had willingly offered to work seven years for Rachel, but had been deceived. Then he had worked six years in order to gain the large number of sheep he now had. But more: he affirms that Laban had changed his wages ten times (v. 41). This must have been true, or Laban would have denied it. It does show the manipulating character of Laban. He was not at all behind Jacob in this artifice.

What Jacob says in verse 42 is also very likely true. It was only the intervention of God that enabled Jacob to accumulate the wealth he had. Laban was so greedy of gain that he would have been content to leave Jacob without any accumulation whatever for his twenty years of labor. He says that God had observed how he had labored and suffered, and therefore had rebuked Laban the previous night.

Laban had little that he could say in defense of himself in answer to Jacob's tirade, but he does use the one argument that he considered valid, “These daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children, and this flock is my flock” (v. 43). Leah and Rachel had been his daughters, but Laban had sold them. The children were actually Jacob's children, though grandchildren of Laban (at least those from Leah and Rachel). As to the flocks, while they had been bred from Laban's flocks, yet they were the wages Laban had agreed to give Jacob for his labor.

Since Leah and Rachel were his daughters, he thought (wrongly) that they were his possession and he had the right to sell them. They were not his own to begin with, let alone after he had sold them. But this verse loudly proclaims the fact that a merely possessive character loses what he tenaciously seeks to hold. Laban found that he was left poorer in various respects when Jacob left him. But he asks, What can I do this day to these my daughters or to their children whom they have borne?” He feels himself virtually bereaved of his family. May we well learn the lesson that this history teaches: what we own is not ours, but the Lord's, and what we selfishly hold we will lose. On the other hand, what we unselfishly give up for the Lord's sake we shall find that we gain in the end. Consider Abraham's willingly offering Isaac (Gen. 22: 10-13).

A COVENANT BETWEEN JACOB AND LABAN (vv. 44-54)

However, Laban was subdued enough that, instead of continuing the argument, he suggested that he and Jacob make a covenant between them (v. 44). It is sad to think that he considered this necessary between relatives, for it is again a legal arrangement rather than a trusting relationship characterized by grace, as every family relationship should be. There is still here the evidence of mere confidence in the flesh, rather than the faith that trusts in the living God.

 

Jacob sets up his second pillar. His first was in Genesis 28: 18, where he made his fleshly vow, therefore the pillar of confidence in the flesh. This time his pillar is a memorial to the fact of broken confidence between relatives, a contrast to the first pillar, for it tells us that the flesh has proven it cannot be trusted. A heap of stones further emphasizes this, both Laban and Jacob calling it a “heap of witness,” Laban using the Chaldee language and Jacob the Hebrew (v. 47). They eat upon the heap, not the most comfortable dining room!

It is Laban who pronounces the terms of their covenant, saying that the heap was a witness to it. He introduces the Lord's name here, expecting Him to watch between himself and Jacob when they are absent from one another (v. 49). He is really telling Jacob, “I cannot trust you out of my sight, so I want the Lord to watch.” Of course it was true the other way also. Jacob had learned not to trust Laban. So that this pillar is the milestone in Jacob's life that proclaims clearly the untrustworthiness of the flesh. Very often it takes two parties to expose it to one another!

We may wonder if Laban suspected that Jacob might try to take some revenge against Laban by mistreating Leah and Rachel (v. 50). There is no indication that Jacob had done this before. But as we have seen, Laban was still possessive of his daughters, and felt that he was caring for them better than he expected Jacob would care for them. He was even fearful that Jacob might take other wives as well as Leah and Rachel. After all, he himself had initiated the project of Jacob's having two wives: why did he have a right to complain if Jacob took another also? But his fears were groundless. Jacob never did show any inclination to have another wife, or more.

Then Laban speaks of the heap and the pillar as a separating point between him and Jacob, a witness of the agreement of each not to pass that point in order to do harm to the other (v. 52). The whole covenant might seem rather superfluous to us, for it is not likely that either of them had any intention of passing that point for any purpose: they would be happier living far apart from each other.

While Laban has emphasized the covenant, Jacob offered a sacrifice (v. 54), which was far better. Then he invited the whole company to eat a meal with him. At least the sacrifice was a reminder that God had rights far more important than those of either Jacob or Laban. Eating together served as an easing of the tension between them. so that they could part on comparatively friendly terms. The next morning, before their parting, Laban kissed his daughters and their children, but there is no mention of his kissing Jacob, as he had done at the time of their first meeting (Gen. 29: 13).

Genesis 32

RETURNING TO FACE ESAU (vv. 1-32)

As Jacob continues his journey we are told that the angels of God met him (v. 1). It was not God Himself as yet who met him, but the angels were no doubt intended as an encouragement for Jacob to be diligent to return all the way to the Lord's place for him. We may wonder in what way they appeared, but Jacob recognized them as “God's host,” and named the place “Mahanaim,” meaning “two camps.” Jacob had not yet learned that his interests ought to be merged with God's interests, therefore he considers God's “camp” separate from his. This has its unhealthy influence over his actions soon after, when he divided his own company into “two bands” (v. 7). How much better it would have been for him if he had prayed the prayer of the Psalmist, “Unite my heart to fear Thy name” (Psalm 86:11). It is always because our hearts are not undividedly devoted to God that we resort to divisions among the people of God.

Jacob realizes that in returning he must meet Esau again. Twenty years previously Esau had spoken of killing him, and he had no knowledge of whether Esau's attitude had changed. He sends messengers to Esau, telling him of his long sojourn with Laban and that he had acquired livestock and servants. He even takes a place of subservience to Esau, calling him “my lord,” and asking that he might find grace in Esau's sight.

The messengers bring back word that Esau is coming with four hundred men to meet Jacob (v. 6). They say nothing as to whether Esau was glad to hear of Jacob or not; and Jacob is thrown into a panic. He is so frightened that, instead of first appealing to the Lord, he divides his company into two bands, thinking that one band may escape if the first is attacked by Esau. Of course such human reasoning was not God's leading. God does not divide His saints in order to sacrifice one part of them for the protection of the other. He loves all His saints, and has no intention of sacrificing any of them to the enemy. But what of ourselves when trouble of any kind threatens us? Though every believer surely knows that our only true resource is in the Lord, yet our first impulse is to try something to relieve us, rather than going first to the One who can really help.

After Jacob had resorted to his own planning, then he prays, addressing the Lord as the God of Abraham and of Isaac, the One who had told him to return to his own country, where God would deal well with him. But where was Jacob's faith to absolutely believe that God would deal well with him in his own land? He ought to have had perfect confidence that God would do this, for God said He would. However, he has learned more than he had when he made his vow at Bethel. He had thought then he would prove fully worthy of whatever blessing God would give him. Now he confesses, “I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and all the truth which You have shown Your servant (v. 10). At least he is giving up the self confidence that he had before expressed, though he has not yet learned to have total confidence in the living God.

But he has nowhere else to turn, and he earnestly entreats the Lord to deliver him from Esau, his brother (v. 11), for he admits he is afraid of Esau, that he might kill him and his wife and children. “For you said,” he adds, I will surely treat you well, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea” etc. He was virtually saying to God, “You said this, but now Esau might kill me, and what will happen to your promise?” Did he need to plead with God to keep His promise? He did make an error, however, in saying that God had told him he would make his seed as the sand of the sea. God had said this to Abraham (Gen. 22: 17), but to Jacob He had promised a seed “as the dust of the earth” (Gen. 28: 14)

After prayer Jacob goes back to his planning as to how he can protect himself from Esau (vv. 13-20). Of course he finds afterward that his planning was totally unnecessary. He sets apart 560 animals altogether as a present for Esau, apparently in about six droves with some distance between each. He gave the driver of the first drove instructions as to what to say to Esau when he met him. He expected Esau to inquire as to who the man was and to whom the animals belonged. In reply he was to tell Esau that they belonged to Esau's servant Jacob (why not Esau's brother?), and Jacob was giving them as a present to “my Lord Esau.” When Jacob knew that the Lord had told Rebekah ”the elder shall serve the younger” (Gen. 25: 23), it is sad to see him taking this place of unseemly subservience to Esau. Of course, because of his previous supplanting of Esau, he was moved by both conscience and fear.

Each succeeding driver was given similar instructions, for Jacob assumed that by this means he might appease any antipathy of Esau (v. 20). This is the natural conception of human beings, and they constantly use this method in seeking any proper relationship with God, as though God is going to be influenced by man's giving him presents of things that God has in the first place created! But God is not looking for gifts from men. Rather, He desires their hearts. The droves went on before Jacob, and he lodged that night in the camp (v. 21). However, he did send his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons over the brook together with his possessions (vv. 22-23).

Now God designed matters so that Jacob was left alone. It was time that Jacob was wrestled with, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. No doubt this was the Lord Himself in bodily form, which required an unusual miracle. Certainly the Lord could have subdued Jacob immediately, yet the wrestling continued for hours. However, this was intended to be a significant lesson for Jacob, and for us. The Lord had actually been wrestling with Jacob all his previous life, and Jacob had not surrendered: he continued to struggle against God's dealings with him. How could he properly learn until he had yielded himself to God? His planning, then praying, then going back to his planning was only consistent with his previous character of self confidence rather than confidence in God. He was struggling, yet hardly realized his struggle was against God.

Finally, because Jacob continued to struggle, the Lord simply “touched the hollow of his thigh,” putting it out of joint (v. 25). He could have done this before, but had given Jacob opportunity to submit without any drastic action. Usually, however, we require some hard measures before we learn to truly submit ourselves to God.

Jacob was rendered unfit to wrestle any more, but he was still clinging to the Lord, who told him, “Let me go, for the day breaks.” The Lord could have easily left at once, but He gave opportunity to Jacob to say what he did, “I will not let You go unless you bless me” (v. 26). At least the faith of Jacob was real, though it was weak. He knew he needed the Lord's blessing, though he had acted inconsistently with a spirit of unquestioning faith and dependence on God.

The Lord then first requires Jacob to confess his name by natural birth. But Jacob (“the supplanter”) must have his name changed if he is to receive proper blessing from God. Only when the flesh is touched and shriveled does Jacob receive the name Israel (”a prince with God”). By nature he was Jacob, but by the grace of God he becomes Israel.

God said of Jacob that he would be named Israel because he had “struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.” It certainly does not mean that he had defeated God in wrestling, for he actually prevailed only when he was crippled and therefore clung dependently to the Lord. This dependence on God would enable him to prevail with men too. This will prove true in the future day for the nation Israel also; and the same proves true for every believer today who has been brought down to a place of clinging dependently to the Lord. May we know this place well.

Jacob wanted to know the name of his adversary in wrestling, but he is only answered by the question, “Why is it that you ask about my name?” Jacob would not learn that name properly until he was in the place of God's name, that is, Bethel, “the house of God.” It is only in God's way that we really know God Himself (Ex. 33: 13). Jacob had begun the trip back to Bethel, but he was not there. Yet the Lord blessed him where he was (v. 29). But until he reached Bethel, he was not called “Israel” at all, for he did not learn quickly to act in the princely dignity becoming to that name. But we are all slow learners.

Jacob called the place “Peniel,” meaning “the face of God,” saying he had seen God face to face and his life was preserved (v. 30). What he understood by this we do not know, but whatever he saw of God was concealed by a human form. Still, he realized the Lord was involved in this encounter, and he would remember it.

As he passed over Peniel we are told “the sun rose upon him.” This is in designed contrast to Genesis 28: 11, when he had left Beersheba: “the sun was set.” The night of darkness in our lives passes only when the flesh has been crippled (or judged) and we learn to cling only to the Lord. The sun (typical of the Lord Jesus) rises on our vision in a living, practical way. But Jacob remains crippled (v. 31).

The children of Israel were impressed enough by this to take the outward action of abstaining from eating meat from the hollow of the thigh of the animals they slaughtered. But it was only outward. How little in all this history have they learned in spiritual reality to put the flesh in the place of self-judgment. Similarly, after being established in the land, they could go to Gilgal and ”multiply transgressions” (Amos 4: 4), rather than have the serious lesson of Gilgal impressed upon their souls, the lesson of the sharp knives of circumcision cutting off the flesh (Joshua 5: 2-9).

Genesis 33

THE BROTHERS MEET AGAIN (vv. 1-16)

Jacob's trepidation is not eased when he sees that Esau has passed by all the droves and is coming with his four hundred men to meet Jacob. He even divides his family at this time, putting the maids and their children first, then Leah and her children, followed by Rachel and Joseph, for whom he was plainly the most concerned (vv. 1-2).

Now he must meet Esau, and with a servility that is not becoming to a brother, he bows himself seven times to the ground (v. 3). Of course it was conscience and fear that made him do this, but Esau had no such attitude. He ran to meet his brother, embraced him and kissed him. Then both of them wept. Time had made a difference with Esau particularly. What a relief for Jacob! Indeed, family feuds should never be allowed to continue long without a reconciliation. Only an unusually hard heart could maintain bitter rancor against a brother for long years.

Esau then needs an introduction to Jacob's wives and children, and each in turn are presented in the order that Jacob had previously arranged. Actually, if he had more confidence in Esau, he would have presented Rachel and Joseph first, for they were most important to him (vv. 6-7). Then Esau asks the meaning of all the droves that he met. Jacob does not conceal the fact that this was not a gift given because of his love to his brother, but tells him honestly that he was giving them to him in order to find favor from Esau, — whom he calls “my lord” — virtually as a bribe to secure his good-will! (v. 8).

But even Esau was not looking for any such thing: he tells him that he has enough, therefore that Jacob should keep what belonged to him (v. 9).

Jacob insists that, since Esau's attitude was favorable toward him, he wants Esau to take his present. His words to Esau are far too flattering and exaggerated, when he says that seeing Esau was like seeing the face of God (v. 10.) If this meeting had been like his parting with Laban, he would not have spoken of Esau's face being like the face of God. But he urges Esau to accept his gift, and Esau does so (v. 11). Though we read of Jacob giving this large gift to Esau, we never read of his keeping his promise to give one tenth of his possessions to God!

Now that they have met on friendly terms, Esau proposes to Jacob that they travel together to Seir, Esau going before (v. 12), but Jacob replies, quite plausibly, that he and his large company could not keep pace with Esau's four hundred men. The flocks and herds with young must not be over driven, and his children also were young. Therefore he asks that Esau go on and that he (Jacob) would proceed at a slower pace to come to Esau's residence at Seir (vv. 13-14). Jacob continues to call Esau his “lord,” but he had no intention of obeying Esau's will that he should go to Seir, even though he told him he would do so. When Esau wants to leave some of his company with Jacob to accompany him to Seir, Jacob only responds that there was no need for this.

Why did Jacob not act in simplicity of faith? He could have simply told Esau the truth, that God had directed him to return to Bethel. Was he afraid that Esau might be “put out” by Jacob's not coming to visit with him at least? But would Esau not be more put out by Jacob's deceiving him as he did?

Perhaps one reason for Jacob's deceit was that he was not prepared to fully obey God at the time, for he did not continue to Bethel, but came as far as Succoth, where he built a house and made shelters for his flock and herds (v. 17). Rather than going to Bethel (God's house) he built a house for himself. This was only half-way obedience, and evidently it did not satisfy his own conscience, for he left all these buildings behind and journeyed to Shalem, a city of Shechem. Shalem means “peace,” and Jacob was not at peace at Succoth, but finds it apparently at Shalem. Shechem means “shoulder,” and implies that peace cannot be enjoyed apart from our taking responsibility on our shoulders. Here he does not build a house, but pitches his tent. At least he seems to realize that, in being away from Bethel, he should maintain pilgrim character.

Still, this was also only a half-way measure, and there he bought “a parcel of a field,” typical of “a part of the world,” not a large part, but nevertheless involving him in a compromise that brought some sad results, so that he actually paid far more for this than only his hundred pieces of silver. He erected there an altar, but it was not because of God's word he did so. God told him later to make an altar at Bethel. He names this one at Shalem “El-Elohe-Israel,” meaning “God, the God of Israel.” For it was still not God's honor primarily that he was seeking, but his own blessing. At Bethel his altar's name was “El Bethel,” “God of the house of God,” for then he finally learned that God's glory was more important than Jacob's blessing. God is the God of His own house, not merely the God of Israel.

Genesis 34

SHAMEFUL SIN IN JACOB'S HOUSE (vv. 1-31)

Jacob had been concerned about his own house: now he must learn through painful experience that when he puts his house first, he will find trouble and sorrow from his house. Understandably, Dinah the daughter of Leah did not want to be confined to her home, and went out to see the daughters of the land. But it was more than daughters she saw. She became sexually involved with a young man, son of the prince of that land. However, having been guilty of such an act of fornication, the young man did not then reject her, as many would do, but apparently genuinely loved her and spoke kindly to her (v. 3).

Then he appealed to his father Hamor, asking him to intercede with Jacob so that he might marry Dinah. Jacob had heard the news before Hamor came, but had said nothing, waiting till his sons returned from their employment in the field before speaking at all as to the shame of Shechem's sin with Dinah. The sons, when they came, were not only grieved, but very angry at Shechem. Did they not stop to think that the blame was not only Shechem's, but Dinah's also? For though this was sin, it was not rape.

Hamor came at this time to tell them that Shechem had real affection for Dinah and wanted to marry her. At the same time he invited them to remain in the land and have their families intermarry. No doubt to the mind of Hamor this was the honorable way to meet the question. Shechem adds to this that he is willing to pay any dowry that they might ask of him for Dinah (vv. 11-12).

But the sons of Jacob were far from honorable in the way they answered. No doubt Jacob did not suspect their motives at all, but it was with cruel deceit that they told Shechem and Hamor that only if all the males of the land would be circumcised could they consent to Hamor's suggestion, and in fact promised that if the men were circumcised, they will live together as one people, willing to intermarry with the natives there. If they would not agree to be circumcised, then the brothers say they will take Dinah with them and leave the country (vv. 14-17).

The terms of the pact proposed by Jacob's sons were fully agreeable to Hamor and Shechem, and Shechem specifically did not delay to be circumcised because of his love for Dinah. We are told he was more honorable than all the household of his father. The two of them then carried a message to the inhabitants of their city, to the effect that Jacob and his family were friendly toward them and would be glad to settle there and intermarry, but only on condition that all the men of the city should be circumcised as they were. All no doubt recognized that circumcision had a religious connotation and they would not be in the least suspicious of any ulterior design against them. Moreover, the wealth of Jacob's family would be a welcome addition to the area, making all to benefit by them (vv. 20-23). These were persuasive arguments, and found the men of the city fully agreeable, so that all them were circumcised.

Then the cruel treachery of Jacob's sons comes to the surface. Only Simeon and Levi are mentioned here, brothers of Dinah, though Reuben and Judah were also her brothers. The two however attack the unarmed city, killing every male while they were still sore from surgery. Of course this was totally unexpected and the men had no defense. No men were left either to organize any counter attack. Hamor and Shechem also, who had been considerate of Jacob's family, were killed. Dinah was taken from Shechem's house, and other women and children all taken captive, while the possessions of the inhabitants, including all their livestock, were taken as if they were the spoils of war (vv. 26-29).

This whole action was so cruelly unjust that we wonder that there was nothing whatever done in the way of retribution or correction. God has certainly exposed it in all its naked wickedness, and we know He could not approve of anything like this. Yet why was there no recompense? It seems the answer is simply that God does not always settle His accounts quickly: the wheels of His government grind slowly, but He misses nothing, and will in His own time take care of every detail of our ways. At least, as to Simeon, see Genesis 42: 24. The other brothers at the same time went through a traumatic ordeal. But the full end of the matter is in God's hands. This is consistent with God's ways always in regard to Israel the nation. He did not allow others at this time to attack Jacob, but He will deal with His people in His own time and way.

Jacob was shocked by the vicious action of his sons, and protested to them that they had given Jacob an odious reputation before the inhabitants of the land, and that he was exposed to the likelihood of being attacked himself and destroyed together with his household. J