Genesis 27

Chap. XXVII. Ver. 1—29. Jacob obtains the blessing by subtlety.—We have in this section of Scripture three very important circumstances. 1. Here is a design on the part of Isaac to bestow his patriarchal blessing in a manner inconsistent with God’s revealed will, which was, that “the elder should serve the younger;” or (which is the same in the Hebrew) the greater serve the less. Now, there can be little doubt but that Isaac was informed of this, even before they were born. It is no less credible that Isaac knew that Esau had despised and sold his birthright: how, then, could he think of giving him the blessing connected with it? Yet this he did; and for no other reason, that we can find, but that he loved his venison. Thus he says to his son Esau, “Behold, now I am old.”

It is generally reckoned that he was now about 137 years old, and Jacob 77, [but Dr. Kennicott supposes that Isaac was 117 and Jacob 57,] and his eyes were so dim that he could not distinguish objects. He adds, “I know not the day of my death;” meaning how soon it might occur, and, therefore, he wished no longer to defer the patriarchal benediction. But why should he require venison before he gave the blessing? It seems to have been the custom among most nations in these early times, to accompany every transaction of importance with a feast; and to eat with any one, was a solemn pledge of friendship and protection. In this case, also, Isaac might wish to have a pledge of his son Esau’s affection, in going out to hunt for venison for him, ‘that (says he) my soul may bless thee before I die,’—of which event he had now considerable apprehensions.

2. We have Rebekah’s deep-laid plan to counteract the design of her husband. We may charitably hope she did this in the confidence that Isaac was decidedly wrong, in thus acting in opposition to the oracle she had consulted when she was pregnant, and perhaps persuaded herself that she could hardly err in fulfilling the designs of heaven. But there is no error more fatal, than to make the divine decrees the rule of our conduct. It was the like “crooked policy” that induced Sarah to give Hagar to Abraham, that he might have an heir; whereas the Lord chose to fulfil his promise in another way, vastly more for his own glory; and, no doubt, had Rebekah only remonstrated with her husband on his duty, and left the issue to Providence, the blessing would have been obtained by far more honourable means.

But when we see Rebekah practising such an imposition, and teaching her son to deceive his father, it is truly horrible; especially when we hear her imprecating upon herself all the consequences: “‘Upon me be thy curse, my son.” And Jacob himself, though not the foremost in the scheme, seems to vie with his mother in the crime; for when his father asked him, with surprise, “How is it that thou hast found it (the venison) so quickly, my son?” he replies, “Because the Lord God brought it to me.” Thus lying in the name of the Lord. It is upon such examples that the dangerous principle has been advanced, that “the end sanctifies the means;” and that to defraud a person is justifiable, when done for a greater good; and the reasonings and excuses of some ancient commentators upon this passage are both astonishing and grievous.

It is a just remark of the judicious Dr. Owen, that, “as it is our duty firmly to believe the promises, so it is our wisdom not to attempt, upon any temptations, provocations, or advantages, their accomplishment in any unwarrantable way.” (Owen on Heb. 3.) We may observe how a supreme power overrules the follies of some, and the crimes of others, to fulfil his great designs. The blessing intended for Esau was given to Jacob, but the blessing appropriate to Jacob was not given to Esau: thus Jacob had a double blessing. And when Isaac discovered his mistake, and trembled (as well he might) to think how he had been imposed upon, at the same time he saw there was the hand of God in the event, and he acquiesced.

“I have eaten of all before thou camest,” said he to Esau; “and have blessed him: yea, and he shall be blessed.” But how could Isaac bless Jacob in fact, (as we are told, (Hebrews 11:20).) when he knew not whom he blessed? The answer is, that it was by faith in the divine promise that he pronounced his blessing on both his sons, though he was mistaken in the application; and we know that in other instances the prophets did not always fully understand their own predictions. (See 1 Peter i. 10—12.) A case in some degree parallel to this is, when believers derive from the word of God instruction or encouragement, though they may not understand the precise meaning of the particular passage from which such instruction or encouragement has been drawn.

Of the blessing itself we have only to remark, that it is confined to temporal promises, being intended for Esau, who regarded no other; it says nothing, therefore, of the great promise of Abraham’s seed and the promised land, which was reserved for Jacob, and in the next chapter bestowed upon him. Ver. 30—46. Esau also claims and receives his father’s blessing.—It is difficult to conceive the horror and alarm of Isaac when he discovered how he had been imposed upon. The Hebrew (as in the margin) says, “He trembled with a great trembling.” To ascertain his sensations, “we must (says Fuller) place ourselves in his situation. As an aged and afflicted man, the imposition which had been practised on him would excite his indignation.

Yet a moment’s reflection would convince him that the transfer of the blessing must have been of the Lord; and, consequently, that he had all along been acting against his will, in seeking to have it otherwise. Two such considerations rushing upon his mind at the same instant, sufficiently account for all his feelings: it was to him like a place where two seas meet; or as the running of subterraneous fires and waters, the commotion of which causeth the earth to tremble. It must have appeared to him as a strong measure, permitted of God for his correction; and that he had caused him to do that against his choice which should have been done with it. Viewing it in this light, and knowing the blessing to be irrevocable, he, like a good man, acquiesced in the will of God, saying, “Yea, and he shall be blessed.”

Esau, on his part, is actuated by passions no less strong; violent grief and disappointment for having missed the blessing; anger and revenge against him who had been the means of his disappointment. The circumstance which no doubt most peeved him, was the pre-eminence given to his brother. “Behold, (says Isaac,) I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; with corn and wine have I sustained (or supported) him, and what shall I do now for thee, my son?” On hearing this, we need not wonder that “Esau cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry,” for his heart was set on the pre-eminence; nor at his mutterings of revenge and murder. As respected Jacob, it must be confessed Esau had great occasion to be angry; and it is no wonder that he adverts to the manner in which he had been deprived, first of the birthright, and then of the blessing.

As to the former, though it is literally true that he sold it, yet the advantage taken of Esau’s situation was certainly ungenerous and mean; and, in the present instance, his conduct was base and criminal. The first object of Esau, however, was to induce his father to repent, and change his mind; but finding that impossible, on account of his seeing a superior overruling power, he exclaims, “Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father!” And he lifted up his voice and wept. Isaac at length pronounces a blessing upon Esau, which also includes “the fatness of the earth and the dew of heaven;” blessings to him the most desirable. It is farther predicted that he should ‘live by the sword,’ which was perfectly congenial to his habits and disposition; but then this is connected with the mortifying words, “Thou shalt serve thy brother.”

This circumstance again is mitigated by the following:—“It shall come to pass, when thou shalt have the dominion, thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.” These prophecies we must bear in mind, were not intended to be personal, but to relate to their children, for the ancients took great interest in the fate of their posterity. To the truth of this prophecy, some exception has been taken by infidel writers, from the present appearance of the country, which lies to the south-east of Judea and the Dead Sea, and is now very barren; but to this it may be replied, that once it had “fields and vineyards, and wells of water;” until “the mountains of Esau were laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

((Numbers 20:17). (Malachi 1:2).) The fulfilment of the other predictions may be compressed into a few words, from Bishop Newton. Edom enjoyed the pre-eminence for a considerable time, and there were dukes (or princes) in Edom “before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.” ((Genesis 36:31).) But David made an entire conquest of the Edomites, and “throughout all Edom put he

Notes on the verses

Ver. 16. Go from us.—[Dr. A. Clarke observes, that this is the first instance on record of what was termed among the Greeks, ostracism, i. e. the banishment of a person from the state, of whose power, influence, or riches, the people were jealous; and that the remarkable saying of Bacon on this subject seems in allusion to this circumstance: “Public envy is an ostracism that eclipseth men when they grow too great.”]—Bagster.

Ver. 18. Days of Abraham.—[Houbigant contends, that instead of dimey, “in the days,” we should read avdey, “servants;” agreeably to the Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate: “And Isaac digged again the wells of water which the servants of Abraham his father had digged.” This is probably the true reading: see ver. 15.]—Bagster.

Ver. 22. Digged another well.—(The wells in Arabia are generally dug in to a rock: their [wells] are about six feet in diameter, and they are from nineteen to twenty feet in depth. But Nieduzr informs us, that many wells are from 160 to 170 feet deep.)—Bagster.

Ver. 26. Abimelech went to him,—As this was about 100 years after Abraham was visited by Abimelech, it is hardly to be supposed that this was the same person; but it is probable that this name might be common to all the kings of Philistia, as that of Pharaoh to those of Egypt: and this Phichoi was probably son of the former.

Ver. 33. Beer-sheba.—[i. e. the well of the oath, (ver. 28.) This is probably the same city which was called Beer-sheba a hundred years before this, in the time of Abraham; but as the well, from which it had its name originally, was closed up by the Philistines, probably the name of the place was abolished with the well; when, therefore, Isaac re-opened the well, he restored the ancient name of the place.]—Bagster.

Chap. XXVIII. Ver. 4. Savoury meat.—Almost all the dishes of the people of Aleppo, Dr. Russel informs us, ‘are greasy either with fat or butter, pretty high seasoned with salt and spices; many of them made sour with verjuice, pomegranates, or lemon-juice; and onions and garlic often complete the seasoning.”

Ver. 35. Rebekah took goodly raiment.—Hebrew, “Garments of desire.” Some Jewish writers have fancied this a sacerdotal robe, handed over from one generation to another, from the time of Adam. Others suppose them to be perfumed garments, which certainly were often worn; but it is more probable that it was a hunting dress, and smelt strongly of the field. See ver. 27.

Ver. 16. Put the skins of the kids of the goats.—[Travellers inform us, that the Eastern goats have long, fine, and beautiful hair, of the most delicate silky softness; and this being that of kids would not be so long, or ample, but of sufficiently delicate texture to resemble that of a man; so that Isaac might easily be deceived, when his eyes were dim, and his feeling no less impaired than his sight. See Bochart, Hieroz.]—Bagster.

Ver. 19. I am Esau, thy first-born.—Miserable indeed are the shifts to which some of the Christian fathers and others have been driven to justify this atrocious falsehood. Some have recurred to what they call “the right of personification;” others recur to the principle of ‘permutation’ and some good men have been weak enough to attempt to justify it by the instance of our Lord calling John Baptist by the name of Elias. But did Esau authorize Jacob to personate him? Did Jacob ‘come in the spirit and power’ of Esau? There is certainly no principle that can justify this conduct, but one that would justify every species of imposition and robbery—no right to be pleaded but “the right of doing wrong.”

Ver. 22. The voice is Jacob’s voice.—[How wonderful, says Scott, is that difference which there is betwixt the faces and the voices of the several individuals of the human species! Scarcely any two of the innumerable millions are exactly alike in either, and yet the difference cannot be defined or described! The power, wisdom, and kindness of our Creator should be admired and adored in this remarkable circumstance; for they are very visible. ‘This description of Jacob is not unaptly accommodated to the character of a hypocrite: his voice, his language, is that of a Christian; his hands, or conduct, that of an ungodly man; but the judgment will proceed from God, the Judge of our last day, as in the present case, not by the voice, but by the hands.’]—Bagster.

Ver. 27. The smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed.—Pliny observes, “that the land, after a long drought, moistened by the rain, exhales a delightful odour, with which nothing can be compared; and soon after he adds, that “it is a sign of a fruitful soil, when it emits an agreeable smell when it has been ploughed.”—Rosenmuiller.

Ver. 39. Fatness of the earth.—(It is here foretold, says Bishop Newton, that as to situation, and other temporal advantages, the two brothers should be much alike. (See ver. 28.) Mount Seir, and the adjacent country, were at first the possession of the Edomites; and they afterwards extended themselves farther into Arabia, and into the south of Judea. But wherever they were situated, in temporal advantages they were little inferior to the Israelites.

Esau had cattle, beasts, and substance in abundance, and he went to dwell in Mount Seir of his own accord; but had it been such a barren and desolate country as some represent it, he would hardly have removed thither with so much cattle. The Edomites had dukes and kings reigning over them, while the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. When the Israelites on their return desired leave to pass through the territories of Edom, it appears the country abounded with fruitful fields and vineyards. (Numb. 20. 17.) If the country is barren and unfruitful now, neither is Judea what it was formerly.)—Bagster.

Dew of heaven,—“Egypt,” says Savary, “would be uninhabitable, did not the nocturnal dews restore life to vegetables.

‘These dews are so copious, especially in summer, that the earth is deeply soaked with them; so that in the morning one would imagine that rain had fallen during the night. This is the reason why the Scripture promises the Israelites, who inhabited a climate pretty similar to that of Egypt, the dew of heaven as a signal favour.’”—Orient. Cust.

Ver. 40. By thy sword shalt thou live, &c.—For a full and satisfactory account of the import and fulfilment of these predictions, see Bp. Newton on the Prophecies, Dissert. iii.