Genesis 27

PART THIRTY-SIX RECAPITULATION: SURVEY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE

From A Class-Book of Old Testament History, pp. 73-76

by G. F. Maclear, D.D. Published by Macmillan, London, 1881, now long out of print.

With the death of Joseph the Patriachal Age of Israel’s history may be said to close. The Family had now thrown out many branches and was now on the point of emerging into the Nation. At this juncture, then, it may be well to look back, and review some of the chief features of the Patriarchal Life.

1. And the first of these that claims attention is its Nomadic character. Unlike the founders of Egypt, of Babylon, of Nineveh, the Patriarchs were not the builders of cities and towns, but pilgrims and sojourners, dwellers in tents (Hebrews 11:9). But they were very different from rude hordes, like the Amalekites and other sons of the desert, abhorring any higher mode of life. Abraham was no stranger to the highest form of civilization that his age afforded. He was acquainted with Ur, with Nineveh, with Damascus, with Egypt; he had left his home in one of the chief cities of Mesopotamia, not from choice, but in consequence of a direct personal call from God. Moreover, so far from regarding his present mode of life as an ultimate end, he and Isaac and Jacob were ever looking forward to a time when it would close, when their descendants should be settled in the Land of Promise, and become a great nation, when the portable tent should give way to the city that had foundations (Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 11:13-16; comp. Genesis 24:7; Genesis 28:4; Genesis 49:4; Genesis 50:24). Hence, from time to time, as opportunity offered, we see the wandering life freely and willingly laid aside. Lot settled in Sodom (Genesis 13:10-12); Abraham in Egypt went direct to Pharaoh’s court (Genesis 12:14); at Hebron he settled and became a prince of God in the midst of the Hittites (Genesis 23:6); Isaac not only lived near the Philistines, but occupied a house opposite the palace (Genesis 26:8), and practised agriculture (Genesis 26:12); and Joseph’s dream of the sheaves points out that this was also continued in the time of Jacob (Genesis 37:7).

2. The Family was the center of the Patriarchal commonwealth. Its head was the source of authority and jurisdiction; he possessed the power of life and death (Genesis 38:24); he united in himself the functions of chief and priest; he offered the burnt-offering; he had his armed retainers (Genesis 14:14; Genesis 48:22; Genesis 34:25; Genesis 33:1); his intercourse with his wives (for polygamy was not forbidden) was free and unrestrained; the wife’s consent was asked before wedlock (Genesis 24:57-58); love hallowed the relations of Abraham with Sarah, of Isaac with Rebekah, of Jacob with Leah and Rachel; woman, indeed, did not occupy the position since conceded to her, but her position was far from degraded, and the sanctity of the marriage-bond was defended by severe laws, which made death the punishment for adultery (Genesis 38:24). Slavery, it is true, existed, but in the tents of Abraham the slave was ever treated with consideration, and not excluded from, but made a partaker of religious privileges (Genesis 17:13). The fidelity and attachment of Eliezer the steward of Abraham’s house, the mourning for Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (Genesis 35:8), are pleasing proofs of the peace that reigned in the Patriarchal household.

3. Civilization. The life of the Patriarchs was chiefly that of the shepherd, and their wealth consisted in their flocks and their herds. But besides practising agriculture they were not unacquainted with money and the precious metals. Abraham paid for the field of Machpelah with coin (Genesis 23:9-20), and the sons of Jacob took money with them into Egypt (Genesis 42:25; Genesis 42:35); while the gold ring and armlets presented to Rebekah by Eliezer (Genesis 24:22), the bracelet and signet ring of Judah (Genesis 38:18), the ear-rings of Rachel (Genesis 35:4), the many-coloured coat of Joseph, indicate an acquaintance with the luxuries of life.

4. Religion. While other nations were rapidly learning to deify the powers of nature, the Patriarchs believed not only in a God above and beyond nature, but in a God Personal, Omnipotent, and Holy. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was. no mere abstraction, no mere law. He could and did reveal Himself by angelic appearances, by visions, by dreams; He could console, strengthen, encourage; He could punish, rebuke, and on repentance forgive. Abraham, the Friend of God (James 2:23), intercedes with Him in behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:23-33); Isaac is warned by Him against going down into Egypt (Genesis 26:2); Jacob is consoled by Him at Bethel when setting out into the land of exile (Genesis 28:13-15), and wrestles with Him by the fords of Jabbok till the break of day (Genesis 32:24); Joseph believes in His invisible but ever-present help in prison and in a strange land, and ascribes to Him all his wisdom in the interpretation of dreams (Genesis 41:16). The Divine Promise of a great future Abraham believed under circumstances of greatest trial, and his faith was counted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:3). Moreover, the God of the Patriarchs was not a mere national or household God. His sphere of operation was not restricted to the Patriarchs and their families; He is the God of all the earth (Genesis 24:3), the God of Righteousness and Holiness. He punishes the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25); He plagues Pharaoh’s house (Genesis 12:17); He is the God of the priest-king Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18), and of the Philistine Abimelech (Genesis 20:3); He protects not only Isaac the child of promise, but the outcast Ishmael the child of the bond-woman (Genesis 21:13); He is with Joseph in prison, but He sends dreams to Pharaoh, and through Joseph He saves Egypt from famine (Genesis 50:20).

5. The Religious Worship of the Patriarchs was in keeping with the simplicity of their creed. The head of the family was also the priest of the family. Whenever Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, reached any new spot in their pilgrimage, they invariably erected an altar, generally of stone and on a high situation (Genesis 22:9; Genesis 26:25; Genesis 35:7); there they called on the name of Jehovah, there they presented their burnt sacrifice, there they offered up their prayers. Their history also proves the existence of offering covenant-sacrifices, and celebrating covenant-feasts (Genesis 15:9-18); the making and paying of vows (Gen. 28:23); the erection of memorial pillars, and the consecration of them by pouring upon them oil and wine (Genesis 28:18); the rite of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14); and the paying of tithes (Genesis 14:20).

6. The Character of the Patriarchs is never represented as perfect; their faults are freely exposed; theirs is no ideal history. If we compare the four most eminent amongst them, we seem to trace in (i) Abraham, the faith that can remove mountains in its power and in its fulness, revealing itself in unfaltering trust and unquestioning obedience under the most trying circumstances conceivable; in (ii) Isaac, the faith that can possess itself in patience, and discharge the ordinary duties of life in quietness and waiting; in (iii) Jacob, the violent contest of faith with the flesh, the higher with the lower nature, till by hard discipline the latter is purified, and the Sup-planter becomes the Prince, the Prevailer with God; in (iv) Joseph, the fidelity and perseverance of faith, revealed not only in the patient endurance of the most grievous trials, but in energetic action, and at length crowned with victory. He unites in himself the noble trust and resolution of Abraham, with the quiet perseverance of Isaac, and the careful prudence of Jacob. He is moreover an eminent historic type of Christ, in (1) his persecution and sale by his brethren, (2) his resisting temptation, (3) his humiliation and exaltation, and (4) his dispensing to a famine-stricken people the bread of life, and (5) in the fulness of his forgiving love.

ADDENDA [Volume 3] LANGE: ON THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH

(CDHCG, 389-390, verbatim)

Between Abram’s connection with Hagar and the next manifestation of Jehovah there are full thirteen years. But then his faith is strengthened again, and Jehovah appears to him (Genesis 17:1). The most prominent and important theophany in the life of Abram is the appearance of the three men (ch. 17). But this appearance wears its prevailing angelic form, because it is a collective appearance for Abram and Lot, and at the same time refers to the judgement upon Sodom. Hence the two angels are related to their central point as the sun-images to the sun itself, and this central point for Abram is Jehovah himself in his manifestation, but not a commissioned Angel of the Lord. Thus also this Angel visits Sarah (Genesis 21:1; compare Genesis 18:10). But the Angel appears in the history of Hagar a second time (Genesis 21:17), and this time as the Angel of God (Maleach Elohim), not as the Maleach Jehovah, for the question is not now about a return to Abram’s house, but about the independent settlement with Ishmael in the wilderness. The person who tempts Abram (Genesis 22:1) is ElohimGod as he manifests himself to the nations and their general ideas or notions, and the revelation is effected purely through the word. Now, also, in the most critical moment for Abram, the Angel of the Lord comes forward, calling down to him from heaven since there was need of a prompt message of relief. In the rest of the narrative this Angel of the Lord identifies himself throughout with Jehovah (Genesis 22:12; Genesis 22:16). To Isaac also Jehovah appears (Genesis 26:2), and the second time in the night (Genesis 26:24). He appears to Jacob in the night in a dream (Genesis 28:12-13). Thus also he appears to him as the Angel of God in a dream (Genesis 31:11), but throughout identified with Jehovah (Genesis 31:13). Jehovah commands him to return home through the word (31:3). Laban receives the word of God in a dream (Genesis 31:24). The greatest event of revelation in the life of Jacob is the grand theophany, in the night, through the vision, but the man who wrestles with him calls himself God and man (men) at the same time. According to the theory of a created angel, Jacob is not a wrestler with God (Israel), but merely a wrestler with the Angel. It is a more purely external circumstance which God uses to warn Jacob through the word to remove from Shechem (Genesis 35:1). In the second-’ peculiar manifestation of God to Jacob after his return from Mesopotamia (Genesis 35:9), we have a clear and distinct reflection of the first (Genesis 32:24). In the night-visions of Joseph, which already appear in the life of Isaac, and occur more frequently with Jacob, the form of revelation during the patriarchal period comes less distinctly into view. But then it enters again, and with new energy, in the life of Moses. The Angel of Jehovah (Exodus 3:2) is connected with the earlier revelation, and here also is identified with Jehovah and Elohim (Exodus 3:4). But he assumes a more definite form and title, as the Angel of his face, since with the Mosaic system the rejection of any deifying of the creature comes into greater prominence, and since it is impossible that the face of God should be esteemed a creature.

The reasons which are urged for the old ecclesiastical view of the Angel of the Lord, are recapitulated by Kurtz in the following order: 1. The Maleach Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah. 2. Those to whom he appears recognize, name, and worship him as the true God. 3. He receives sacrifice and worship without any protest. 4. The biblical writers constantly speak of him as Jehovah. We add the reasons. 1. The theory of our opponents opens a wide door in the Old Testament for the deifying of the creature, which the Old Testament everywhere condemned; and the Romish worship of angels finds in it a complete justification. 2. The Socinians also gain an important argument for their rejection of the Trinity, if, instead of self-revelation of God, and of the self-distinction included in it in the Old Testament, there is merely a pure revelation through angels. As the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the Old Testament, so no one can remove from the Old Testament the beginnings of that doctrine, the self-distinction of God, without removing the very substructure on which the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity rests, and without obscuring the Old Testament theology in its very centre and glory. 3. It would break the band of the organic unity between the Old and New Testaments if it could be proved that the central point in the Old Testament revelation is a creature-angel, and that the New Testament revelation passes at one bound from this form to that of the God-man. The theory of the creature-angel in its continuation through a colossal adoration of angels, points downwards to the Rabbinic and Mohammedan doctrine of angels which has established itself in opposition to the New Testament Christology, and is bound together with that exaggerated doctrine of angels in more recent times, which ever corresponds with a veiled and obscure Christology. On the other hand, it removes from the New Testament Christology its Old Testament foundation and preparation which consists in this, that the interchange between God and men is in full operation, and must therefore prefigure itself in the images of the future God-man. 4. The doctrine of angels itself loses its very heart, its justification and interpretation, if we take away from it the symbolic angel-form, which rules it, as its royal centre, i.e. that angelic form which, as a real manifestation of God, as a typical manifestation of Christ, as a manifestation of angels, has the nature and force of a symbol. But with the obliteration of the symbolic element, all the remaining symbolic and angelic images, the cherubim and seraphim, will disappear, and with the key of biblical psychology in its representation of the development of the life of the soul, to an organ of revelation, we shall lose the key to the exposition of the Old Testament itself. 5. Augustin was consistent when, with his interpretation of the Angel of Jehovah as a creature-angel, he decidedly rejects the interpretation which regards the sons of God (ch. 6)as angel-beings; for the assumption of angels who, as such, venture to identify themselves with Jehovah, and notwithstanding they are in peril, abandon themselves to lustful pleasures and a magical transformation of their nature, combines two groundless and intolerable phantoms. We hold, therefore, that Old Testament theology, in its very heart and centre, is in serious danger from these two great prejudices, as the New Testament from the two great prejudices of a mere mechanical structure of the Gospels, and of the unapostolic and yet more than apostolic brothers of the Lord. (See the defence of the old ecclesiastical view in the Commentary by Keil, also with a reference to Kahnis, de Angelo Domini diatribe, 1858. The assertion of the opposite view held by Delitzsch in his Commentary, meets here its refutation).

6. The aspect of all theophanies as visions. It is a general supposition, that divine revelation is partly through visions, or through inward miraculous sights and sounds. We must, however, bring out distinctly the fundamental position, that every theophany is at the same time vision, and every vision a theophany; but that in the one case the objective theophany and in the other the subjective vision, is the prevailing feature. The subjective vision appears in the most definite form in dream-visions, of which Adam’s sleep, and Abram’s night-horror (chs. 2 and 15.), are the first striking portents. It develops itself with great power in the lives of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and is of still greater importance in the lives of Samuel and Solomon, as also in the night-visions of Zechariah. We find them in the New Testament in the life of Joseph of Nazareth and in the history of Paul. It needs no proof to show that the manifestations of God or angels in dreams, are not outward manifestations to the natural senses. In the elements of the subjective dream-vision, veils itself, however, the existing divine manifestation. But what the dream introduces in the night-life, the seeing in imagesthat the ecstasy does in the day or ordinary waking life (see Lange: Apostolic Age). The ecstasy, as the removing of the mind into the condition of unconsciousness, or of a different consciousness, is the potential basis of the vision, the vision is the activity or effect of the ecstasy. But since the visions have historical permanence and results, it is evident that they are the intuitions of actual objective manifestations of God. Mere hallucinations of the mind lead into the house of error, spiritual visions build the historical house of God. But in this aspect we may distinguish peculiar dream-visions, night-visions of a higher form and power, momentary day-visions, apocalyptic groups or circles of visions, linked together in prophetic contemplation, and that habitual clear-sightedness as to visions which is the condition of inspiration. But that theophanies which are ever at the same time Angelophanies and Christophanies, and indeed as theophanies of the voice of God, or of the voice from heaven, of the simple appearance of angels, of their more enlarged and complete manifestations of the developed heavenly scenethat these are always conditioned through a disposition of fitness for visions, is clear from numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments (2 Kings 6:17, Daniel 10:7; John 12:28-29; John 20:10-12; Acts 9:8; Acts 12:7-12; Acts 22:9-14).

---

THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE

(by H. Christopher, The Remedial System, pp. 146-150)

The promise that God would bless the whole world through him [Abraham] had reference to Christ, the son of Abraham, through whom God would fulfill his promise of blessing the whole world through the offspring of Abraham. Whilst it was the first and chief promise made to Abraham, it was the last in fulfillment. Nearly two thousand years intervened. It was ratified and covenanted by the blood of Christ, and looked to the possession of the heavenly Canaan, and to a circumcision that cut off the heart from all that is worldly and sensual, and to a seal that became the pledge of the purchased possession, and its settlement in the heavenly Canaan, by the resurrection from the dead, when the spiritual people of God cross the Jordan of death, and take possession of the land of promise, for which even Abraham looked, when he sought a city whose maker and builder is God. This promise and its blessings have no connection with the others made to Abraham. They differ as widely as flesh and spirit, and as earth and heaven. They connect or coalesce no where. The first were but preparatory and necessary to the last. When the last appeared, the first had served their chief, if not all their, purpose. The first had chief reference to man’s body, while the last has chief reference to man’s spirit. And as the spirit of man is superimposed, as it were, upon the body, and is capable of a separate and independent existence, so was the last promise superimposed upon the first, and is capable of existing, and does exist, independently of it. Hence, the promises and the covenants by which they were ratified, connect with each other only as the flesh connects with the spirit. Between them lies an impassable gulf. There is no possible passage from the first to the last. The Jew has no rights and privileges under Christ by virtue of his being the son of Abraham according to the flesh; for the promise was; In Isaac shall thy seed be called, and he was the child of promise and of faith. The Christian is the child of promise and of faith, and hence is reckoned through Isaac as a special creation of God, and is, therefore, himself a new creation. The last creation supersedes all former ones, and by this supersession abrogates them. The adoption of the children of Abraham as the special and peculiar people of God, set aside the adoption by creation, and during the time of their adoption, the natural adoption was set aside, and the rest of mankind ignored, and treated as an uncovenanted people. So when the Christian adoption came in, the Jewish was set aside, and all the rest of mankind, not embraced in the new adoption, were ignored and treated as uncovenanted. Hence, under Christianity there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither circumcision nor uncircumcision; but all the families, nations, and races of mankind are one in Christ, in perfect fulfillment of the promise: In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

All this is necessarily true. The Remedial System is developed by differentiations which mark the boundaries of the development. The patriarch had no privileges, special and peculiar, after the calling of Abraham. By that call God isolated a part from the whole, and made this part his special care. By the new creation through Christ another isolation was made, which placed Jew and Greek on the same plane before God, and abrogated all special and peculiar rights or privileges claimed by the Jews. This is necessarily true from another consideration. The claim of the Jew rested on an explicit covenant. That covenant recognized him as the chosen of God, through a means wholly different from that by which he had recognized the patriarch, and does now recognize the Christian. This consideration or means was his birth. He was the son of Abraham according to the flesh, and entitled, consequently, only to the rights and privileges guaranteed by the covenant ordained to grant and secure these. He could claim only under the stipulated grants of his covenant. Under other and different covenants, and made with other people, he could, of course, have no claim or right whatever. His circumcision effected all it was designed to effect, and meant more than the Jew was willing to accept. It cut him off from all the rest of the world, and also from all other covenants of God, but according to the flesh. His circumcision bound him down to the provisions and obligations of that covenant, and confined him within its prescribed limits. What claim, therefore can a Jew have to the grants and blessings of a covenant that has no special reference to him whatever, and that was not made with him as a Jew? The European had as well claim equal rights with the American under the constitution of the United States. The Jew was the chosen of God only according to the flesh, and entitled only to blessings of his covenant. He is not the chosen of God according to the spirit, or the seed of Isaac according to the promise, and hence he can have no right with those who are.

There are four things necessary to make a nation the peculiar and chosen people of God, and all these obtained in the case of the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh. These things are, 1. A creation. This we have in the birth of Isaac. His conception was a miracle, and hence a creation. 2. A seal. This we have in circumcision. 3. A purchase. This we have in the deliverance of this people from Egypt. And 4. A covenant. And this we have in the covenant made before Mt. Sinai. All these are peculiar and consistent, and perfectly harmonious with all that God has promised, or has done for, the Jews. They were all equally necessary, and they follow each other as necessary results one of the other. The seal came to ratify the creation, the purchase, in demonstration of the fulfillment of the promise, and the covenant, in order that the people might also pledge themselves by covenant. By this the people became cemented and organized into a nation. As such they needed laws and institutions for their government and welfare as a people; and as the people of God, religious institutions for the various purposes which God had in view with that people. It will be observed that this covenant made with Abraham’s descendants arose under that which covenanted them as the peculiar people of God, and was, consequently, entirely Jewish. The covenant of Mt. Sinai was made with that people, and the institutions subsequently given, were given to that people, and to no other. The Jewish institution, in all its entirety, was as verily circumcised as were the people for whose benefit it was ordained. It was as completely isolated from all other religions and peoples, as were that people. Hence, it had no connection with any other, nor relation, except that of opposition. The covenant stipulated and embraced no more than did the promise under which it was made. It was a ratification, or acceptance on their part, of the stipulations of the promise. It was the covenant by which God renewed his promise to be their God, and by it the people accepted the offer, and covenanted to be the people of God. This covenant bound both parties to their pledgeGod to be their God, and them to be his obedient people. It did not, and could not stipulate and grant more than did the promise; hence, all these were temporal in their nature. This completed all that God had to provide for that people. Henceforth there was naught for either party to do, but to carry out the provisions of the covenant which formulated the promise. But this covenant was not only temporary as respects the rights, privileges, and blessings which it secured to that people; but it was also temporary in its duration. The people broke that covenant: and a covenant broken on one side, is broken on both. It was faulty in that it only contemplated and provided for man’s temporal wants. Indeed, this was the fault of the whole Jewish fabric, from the inception to the close. This was foreseen; and not only foreseen, but the whole structure was but a means to an end; a measure to give time for the preparation and institution of a better. The promise of God under which the whole Jewish structure arose, was not the first and chief promise that God made to Abraham, nor his chief purpose in calling him. This chief and greatest promise was that through him he would bless the whole human family. This promise the apostle interprets as having reference to Christ, and consequently, it was sooner or later, to take precedence of all others. It could not be annulled by any subsequent promise, unless that promise annulled, at the same time, all former ones. But this the subsequent promises did not do, as is affirmed by the people. The promise which had reference to Christ, preceded the ratification of that concerning the land several years, and antedated the covenant of circumcision twenty-four years. The covenant at Mt. Sinai followed the latter four hundred and six thereafter. So that nothing which transpired under the later promises could annul the first. The first and chief promise which contemplated spiritual blessings and a spiritual offspring through Isaac, was not ratified, fulfilled, or covenanted, for nearly two thousand years. All that has grown out of this promise has no connection with what arose under the others. It differs from them in every respect. It differed from them in the beginning. It came into the world through a different line. There were two lines of descendants in Isaac, as two promises were fulfilled in his descendants. The one line was the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and the other the seed according to the spirit, the latter of which is reckoned the true line under the covenant of the first promise. This excludes the children according to the flesh from all rights and privileges pertaining to the children according to the spirit. As respects, therefore, their nature, rights, and privileges, the Jewish and Christian institutions differ radically and entirely; to that degree as to exclude the one wholly from the other. The creation, the circumcision or seal, the purchase, and the covenant, that made the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh the people of God, have no place nor value under the Christian institution. The latter has its own creation, seal, purchase, and covenant, all of which are spiritual and eternal, and these give the Christian no rights or privileges under the former. Hence, as respects institutions differing so completely and widely, there can be no community of rights and privileges; nor can the one flow out of the other so as to establish any genetic connection between them. As the spiritual and the eternal necessarily supersede the fleshly and temporal, so does the Jewish institution, in whole and in part, give way to the Christian. Under the latter arises a people of God as distinct from the former as spirit is from flesh. The Christian is a new creation, and all that pertains to his creation is new. Before it the Jew and Gentile stand on the same ground. Both must become the subjects of this new creation before they can be regarded as belonging to the people of God. All the claim which the Jew once preferred, goes for naught under the operation of the new creation. A new birth is just as essential for the Jew as for the Gentile. Hence, the Jew’s creation, seal, purchase, and covenant are all naught when he stands before the Christian’S. His birth of the flesh avails nothing, and neither does his circumcision, Nothing is now acceptable to God but the new creation in Christ. These things being true, all that is Jewish has passed away. The Jews are no longer the people of God. Their whole religious service has perished; and what purpose God has now with that people remains to be seen. That he has no further purpose with them in regard to the fulfillment of his promise of blessing the world through them by Christ, is evident from the fact that Christianity has superseded Judaism, and that the whole religious service of that people perished with the total destruction of their temple. Christ is the end of the law, and of all that pertained to it. It was but a pedagogue to lead the Jews to Christ; so that when he came all that was Jewish was set aside, and the pedagogue was dismissed. All now become the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither bond nor free; neither male nor female; but all are one in Christ Jesus. And all who are Christ’s by virtue of the new creation, the spiritual seal, the eternal purchase, and the everlasting covenant, are the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise: In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (N. B. After hunting several years for a copy of Christopher’s book, I found it in the Dallas Christian College LibraryC. C.)

---

THE EXCELLENCE OF FAITH

(Read Romans 5:1-11).

In the study of First Principles the term which first engages our attention is faith. We shall find that it occupies a prominent place in connection not only with conversion, but also with every phase of Christian activity and growth.

Faith is one of the most far-reaching words in the vocabulary of inspiration. Without faith none of the blessings of the spiritual realm would be available to man. Contrariwise, on the ground of faith, such blessings as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived (1 Corinthians 2:9), are within his power to appropriate and enjoy.

Faith is an oft-recurring word in the New Testament. Jesus had much to say about it, and the word is used repeatedly in the Epistles. Paul states expressly that we are justified by faith (Romans 5 :).

The excellence of faith is indicated in scripture by the following representations:

1. Faith is superior to things and circumstances of this material world.

When given full sway in the human heart it rises above the circumstances of life and controls them. The power of faith is described in such scriptures as Matthew 17:20, Mark 9:23; Mark 11:23, Luke 17:6. Christians of this materialistic age, in bondage as they are to the tyranny of things, are inclined to look on these sayings of the Master with more or less skepticism. The tragedy is that we have never really learned to walk by faith. We cannot testify that these sayings are true for the simple reason that we have never learned to stand on God’s promises. True, we claim to do so, and we sing Standing on the Promises, but always with mental reservations. It is only through the exercise of implicit faith that we can throw off the fetters of anxiety and fear which enslave us to this present evil world. We are willing to obey the Lord in confession and baptism, but we certainly fall far short of His teaching in regard to such everyday matters as fear, worry, forgiveness, humility, and the like. (See Matthew 5:3-12; Matthew 5:21-26; Matthew 5:38-42; Matthew 6:25-33; Matthew 7:1-5; Matthew 7:7-12, etc. Cf. 1 John 4:18) He might well say to us as to His disciples of old, O ye of little faith!

2. Faith is the ground of our justification.

Being therefore justified by faithnot by faith alone, or mere intellectual assent (the theologians have added the word alone)we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Not by faith alone, because faith apart from works (i.e., works of faith) is dead (James 2:26). The faith that is unto the saving of the soul (Hebrews 10:39) expresses itself in works of obedience, sacrifice and service (Romans 12:1-2). To walk by faith is to live by the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25). God so loved us that He gave His only begotten Son as a propitiation for our sins (John 3:16), but we must appropriate this matchless Gift by faith. By true faith in Him we have access into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:2). For by grace ye have been saved through faith, and that (i.e., that salvation) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

3. Faith is the motivating principle of all Christian worship and service.

True worship is (1) communion of the human spirit with the Divine Spirit, (2) on the terms of the truth as revealed in scripture (John 4:24). This can be realized only through faith. Repentance is faith choosing; the confession is faith speaking; baptism is faith obeying; the Lord’s Supper is faith remembering; liberality is faith acknowledging God’s ownership; prayer is faith communing; meditation is faith pondering; and. the whole Christian life is faith serving. Therefore we are justified by faith. From the day of conversion to that of the putting, on of immortality, the actuating principle in the life of every true Christian is faith.

4. Implicit faith, along with obedience, is a necessary, condition to the answer of prayer (John 14:12-15; John 15:5-10, etc.).

(1) Acts 12:1-17. We read here that many of the early disciples were gathered together in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, praying for Peter’s deliverance from prison. Yet they were amazed when their prayer was answered and Peter stood in their midst. Most of our praying is of this kind; it has little conviction back of it. (Matthew 21:22).

(2) The prayer of faith, i.e., the petition offered in harmony with the teaching of God’s word, will not go unanswered.

Unanswered yet? The prayer your lips have pleaded

In agony of heart these many years?

Does faith begin to fail? is hope departing?

And thing you all in vain those falling tears?

Say not the Father hath not heard your prayer,

You shall have your desire, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Tho-’ when you first presented

This one petition at the Father’s throne,

It seemed you could not wait the time of asking

So urgent was your heart to make it known.

Tho-’ years have passed since then, do not despair;

The Lord will answer you, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Nay, do not say -ungranted-';

Perhaps your part is not yet wholly done;

The work began when first your prayer was uttered,

And God will finish what He has begun;

If you will keep the incense burning there,

His glory you shall see, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Faith cannot be unanswered;

Her feet are firmly planted on the Rock;

Amid the wildest storms she stands undaunted,

Nor quails before the loudest thunder-shock.

She knows Omnipotence has heard her prayer, And cries, -It shall be done, sometime, somewhere!-’ And cries, -It shall be done, sometime, somewhere!-'

5. The blessings and rewards of the gospel are all received and realized through faith.

Among these are: (1) salvation from the guilt of sin (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18); (2) spiritual life (John 20:31; John 6:40, John 3:16; John 3:36; 1 John 5:12); (3) spiritual light (John 1:9; John 8:12; John 12:36); (4) heavenly adoption (Galatians 3:26); (5) the indwelling Spirit (John 7:39, Ephesians 1:13, Galatians 3:14); (6) justification (Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16): (7) true righteousness (Romans 1:16-17; Romans 10:6; Romans 3:22); (8) true worship (John 4:24, Ephesians 3:12); (9) providential oversight (1 Peter 1:5); (10) eternal rest (Hebrews 4:3). In fact the inheritance of all the promises of God is to be realized through faith (Hebrews 6:12).

Conclusion: No wonder then that faith is represented to be the foundation which supports the entire pyramid of Christian virtues that true disciples build, one stone upon the other, and upon which they climb heavenward (2 Peter 1:5-7). True Christians walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7).

Faith, hope and love, according to Paul, constitute the abiding trinity of spiritual virtues (1 Corinthians 13:13). Of these three, love is greatest; because, in the home over there, faith will have given way to spiritual knowledge, and hope to fruition, leaving only love to consummate the blissful intercourse of the redeemed with their heavenly Father (Revelation 21:1-5).

THE NATURE OF FAITH

(Read Hebrews, ch. 11, esp. Hebrews 11:1.)

The eleventh chapter of Hebrews has been called Israel’s Roll of Honor. It is the great faith chapter of the Bible. It is an inspired discourse on the subject of faith. The discourse begins properly with the last three verses of ch. 10, in which the writer speaks of a faith that is unto the saving of the soul. The subject-matter which follows, in ch. 11, is an analysis of that kind of faith, what it is, whence it is obtained, and how it operates unto salvation, as exemplified in the lives of many illustrious believers of olden times. The writer proves to be an excellent sermonizer, as we might expect in view of his having been inspired by the Spirit of God. He states his text in v. 1, and then proceeds to develop it with appropriate illustrations drawn from Old Testament history. His concluding exhortation follows, in ch. 12, Genesis 12:1-2. We shall attempt here to evaluate the teaching of this great chapter on the nature (i.e., the original and essential characteristics) of faith.

Let me repeat that the kind of faith under consideration here is the faith that works unto the saving of the soul. By some this has been called saving faith. Not that faith of itself will save any one, because it will not; but that the right kind of faith will motivate the believer to such intelligent and sincere cooperation with God, on God’s terms and according to His plan, that He may consistently save the one who so believes. It is God who pardons and saves, but always through Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

What is faith? Considering the excellence of faith, it is exceedingly important that we know what faith is. I am profoundly thankful that the Holy Spirit has not left us in darkness regarding this essential matter. Nor has he left it to our finite minds to formulate a definition. We are not compelled to go either to philosophy or to theology for a definition of faithwe have it in clear, unmistakable terms, in the Christian Scriptures.

What, then, are the essential characteristics of faith? This question is fully answered in the words of our text, as follows:

1. Faith is assurance. Assurance is defined as confidence inspired or expressed, that which produces certainty. It connotes positiveness, certainty, even boldness.

2. Faith is assurance of things hoped for. That is, faith is the foundation of hope.

(1) Authorized Version: the substance of things hoped for. The word substance means in our language the stuff, material, or matter of which anything is composed. It is used here, however, in its derivative sense. It is derived from the Latin prefix, sub (under) and the Latin participle stans (standing). Substance, then is that which stands under. Faith is that which stands under hope. Cf. Living Oracles: faith is the confidence of things hoped for. Moffatt: faith means we are confident of what we hope for. Weymouth: faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope. Goodspeed: faith means the assurance of what we hope for.

(2) Faith is the foundation of hope. This is true in every department of human activity. It is true in the business world. I visited a friend on one occasion to solicit a contribution from him for a worthy cause. Having heard my case, his reply was: I believe in your proposition, and I am sorry that I am not in a position to help just at this time. But I will do something later. I have invested a considerable sum of money in an oil well in Texas, and I am expecting returns from this investment within a few months. If you will come back about a year from this date, I will give you a substantial donation. I thanked him, and departed. About a year later I called at his office a second time, and as soon as I entered he looked at me and exclaimed: I know what you have come for, but I can-’t do anything for you. What is the trouble? I asked, didn-’t the oil well turn out satisfactorily? And in extreme disgust he said: I wish I had the money back that I sank in that hole in the ground. The first time I called he was extremely hopeful, because he believed in the enterprise in which he had invested; the second time I found him with hopes blasted, because he had lost all faith in it. Where there is no faith, there is no hope.

(3) This is also true in the social realm. In the course of time a young couple will fall in love, marry, and establish a home. The success of their undertaking will depend largely on their faith in each other. On this foundation of faith they will erect a structure of dreams and plans and hopes. But let the confidence of one in the other be destroyed and this structure will fall to the ground. Both marriage and home are erected on a foundation of faith.

(4) So, in the realm of spirit, as elsewhere, hope rests upon faith. Every act of worship and service we perform is motivated by faith. Faith underlies the pyramid of Christian virtues (2 Peter 1:5-7). And all our aspirations and hopes respecting the home over there, the inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away (1 Peter 1:4) rest on faith. In everything faith is the foundation of hope.

(5) Illustrations from the chapter (Hebrews 11). (a) Abel’s hope that his offering would be acceptable to God rested on faith, Hebrews 11:4. (1 John 3:12) (b) Enoch’s walk with God was a walk of faith, Hebrews 11:5. (c) Faith was the foundation of Noah’s hope of deliverance from impending judgment, Hebrews 11:7. (d) Abraham’s hope of attaining the far country which he was to receive for an inheritance was founded on faith, Hebrews 11:8. Also, his hope of receiving Isaac back from the dead was inspired by faith, from whence he did also in a figure receive him back, Hebrews 11:17-19. (e) Sarah’s expectation of a son, the child of promise, rested on faith, Hebrews 11:11. (f) Joseph’s hope that the children of Israel would ultimately take possession of the land of promise rested upon his faith, Hebrews 11:22. (g) The aspirations, hopes and plans of Moses for his people, and his matchless efforts in their behalf, were all inspired by his faith, Hebrews 11:24-29. In every example cited, faith is presented as the foundation of hope.

3. Faith is a conviction … A conviction is defined as a strong belief, something firmly believed. The faith which operates unto the saving of the soul is something more than a passive intellectual assent. It is a conviction. It must be a conviction, one that takes hold of the soul and determines the course of one’s life. In the light of this definition, it is obvious that faith is precisely the thing that is lacking in the modern church.

4. Faith is a conviction of things not seen, i.e., a conviction with respect to things not seen.

(1) Authorized Version: the evidence of things not seen. Moffatt: Faith means. we are convicted of what we do not see. Weymouth: a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see. Goodspeed: our conviction about things we cannot see.

(2) Note that faith is a conviction with respect to things not seen. I have never seen Paris, but I have a conviction that there is a city by that name and that it is the capital of France. My conviction is the result of satisfactory evidence. Things which are seen are matters of observation and knowledge, but things that are not seen belong to the realm of faith. God who is a Spirit (John 4:24) cannot be seen, and is therefore to be apprehended only by faith. Angels, spirit, resurrection, immortality, heaven, etc., all these realities of the unseen world are matters of faith. Faith pertains not to the things that are illusive and transitory, but to the things which are abiding. For the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18).

(3) We have never seen God, but we believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him (Hebrews 11:6). We were not present to see the worlds created, but our conviction is that they were framed by the word of God (Hebrews 11:3). We have never seen Christ, our Elder Brother, but we believe in Him as the One who is abundantly able to save us from sin and mortality. We have never had a glimpse of heaven, but we believe that the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in us, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to our mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in us (Romans 8:11). Therefore we are exhorted to live by faith, to walk by faith and to die in the faith.

(4) Illustrations from the chapter (Hebrews 11). (a) Abel brought his offering to the altar with the conviction that the God whom he had never seen, but in whom he believed, would accept it, Hebrews 11:4. (b) In Noah’s heart there was an overwhelming conviction that judgment would come upon the antediluvian world because of its wickedness. Although summer and winter, and seedtime and harvest, continued to come and go as usual for one hundred and twenty years, he never faltered. Through all the trying experiences of this period of grace he retained his conviction. Because that during all these intervening years there was no evidence in nature of the impending catastrophe, it was a conviction with respect to things not seen, Hebrews 11:7. (c) Abraham left home and kindred and friends, and started on a strange journey to a land both unknown to him and unseen by him. He had no idea how far he would have to travel in order to reach it. All that moved him was a conviction with respect to the far country and a conviction that God would give it to him for an inheritance. Hebrews 11:8-12. (d) These fathers of Israel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all died in the faith, having never received the literal fulfilment of the promises. So far as we know they all died without possessing a single acre of the land of promise save the few square feet they had purchased for a burial ground. It seems that as they continued in their pilgrimage their faith became clearer, and they began to look beyond the literal to the spiritual fulfilment of the promise, in the city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God, Hebrews 11:13-16. (e) Joseph’s conviction with respect to the exodus of his people from Egypt pertained to an event far in the future, an event not seen, Hebrews 11:22. (f) Moses, the man who saw an undying flame, chose to share ill treatment with the people of God, above the temporary enjoyment of the pleasures of sin, because he endured as seeing him who is invisible (Hebrews 11:23-29). In all these cases, faith was a conviction with respect to things not seen.

(5) As in the various cases cited from Old Testament history, so it is with respect to faith in the present dispensation and under the new covenant: (a) our faith must be something more than mere assent; (b) it must be genuine conviction in order to work unto the saving of the soul; (c) it must be conviction with respect to things not seen, viz., God, the Son of God, the Spirit of God, the future life, heaven, etc.; (d) this faith undergirds all our spiritual blessings, aspirations and hopes (1 Corinthians 2:6-10).

Conclusion: 1. This inspired definition of faith is perfect and complete. Nothing can be taken from it without weakening its import. Nothing can be added to it that would give it greater force.

2. Christian faith takes in all those convictions with respect to God, the Son of God, the Word of God, the Spirit of God, immortality, heaven, and the like; all of which are eternal realities above and beyond the realm of time and space. Like Moses, we endure as seeing him who is invisible, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Like Abraham, we realize that we are pilgrims and strangers upon this earth, that our present dwelling places are but the tabernacles of a night-time; and, like him, we anticipate a more glorious fulfilment of the promises than would be possible in this world of places and things (1 Corinthians 2:9-10). Our ultimate goal is that heavenly country towards which he made his pilgrimage. In the words of Emily Dickinson:

I never saw a moor, I never saw the sea, Yet know I how the heather looks, And what a wave must be. I never spoke with God, Nor visited in heaven; Yet certain am I of the spot As if the chart were given.

---

THE SOURCE OF FAITH

(Read Romans 10:1-17).

Having ascertained the essential nature of faith (1) the assurance of things hoped for, and (2) a conviction with respect to things not seen, we shall now turn our attention to the source of faith. Whence is the faith obtained that is unto the saving of the soul? We may find the answer to this important question by turning again to the cases cited in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews:

1. Abel, Hebrews 11:4. Whence did Abel obtain his conviction that the offering of a sacrifice of blood would be pleasing to God and would bring him God’s blessing? Evidently from the word of God. It seems obvious that God laid down the law of sacrifice as soon as man fell, in order to establish the principle that apart from shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). Abel, in bringing an offering in which blood was shed, obeyed the law; Cain, in bringing the fruit of the ground, disobeyed it (1 John 3:12). This explains why Abel’s offering was accepted and Cain’s rejected.

That this institution was of divine origin is evident from several considerations: I. We learn from Hebrews 11:4, that Abel offered his sacrifice in faith. But in Romans 10:17, we are told that -faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.-’ And hence it follows that Abel could not have offered in faith without a command from God. II. It could not have been a human invention, because Reason can perceive no connection between the means and the end. It is evidently a positive and not a moral or natural institution. III. Its universality is another proof of its divine origin. Mr. Faber says that -throughout the whole world there is a notion prevalent that the gods can be appeased only by bloody sacrifices. There is no heathen people,-’ he adds, -that can specify a time when they were without sacrifice. All have had it from a time which is not reached by their genuine records. Tradition alone can be brought forward to account for its origin.-’ IV. The distinction between clean and unclean beasts even in the time of Noah (Genesis 7:2) proves also the divine origin of sacrifice. This is a distinction which is altogether positive, and which has no foundation in either reason or philosophy (Milligan, SR, 67).

2. Enoch, Hebrews 11:5.Enoch’s walk of faith was evidently inspired and directed by the word of God (Genesis 5:24).

3. Noah, Hebrews 11:7. How did Noah obtain his conviction that an overwhelming deluge would come upon the antediluvian world? How did he obtain the conviction that in the building of the ark a means of deliverance would be provided him and his family? Evidently from the word of God. God told him the flood would come in due time. God told him to build the ark and how to build it. God gave him the plans for it. God promised him deliverance through the instrumentality of the ark. And Noah believed God. His conviction was inspired not by any manifestation in nature, but solely by the word of God. See Genesis 6:13-22; Genesis 7:1-5; Genesis 8:15-17.

4. Abraham, Hebrews 11:8-19. Whence did Abraham obtain his conviction regarding the land to which he journeyed? Whence did he obtain his belief that this land would be given him for an inheritance? From the word of God. See Genesis 12:1-4; Genesis 13:14-18, etc. It was God who told him about the far country and promised it to him for an inheritance. Whence did Abraham and Sarah obtain their conviction regarding the birth of the child of promise? From the word of God (Genesis 17:15-21). Whence did Abraham obtain his conviction that God would not allow Isaac to suffer an untimely end (Hebrews 11:19)? From the word of God. Had not Isaac been miraculously conceived and born? Were not the details of the Abrahamic promise to be worked out through him? (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 13:16; Genesis 17:19, Hebrews 11:18). Cf. Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23.

5. Joseph, Hebrews 11:22. Whence did Joseph obtain his conviction that his people would leave Egypt and repossess Canaan? Evidently from God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 12:1-4; Genesis 13:14-18; Genesis 17:15-21; Genesis 26:2-5; Genesis 28:12-17).

6. Moses, Hebrews 11:22-29. From whom did Moses receive his commission to lead his people out of bondage? From whom did he receive the Law ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator (Galatians 3:19)? From God Himself. See Exodus 3:1 to Exodus 4:17, Exodus 20:1-26, Deuteronomy 5:1-33, etc. Who was his constant Guide and Protector through all those terrible marches in the wilderness? Who rained manna from heaven upon the starving people? Who guided them by means of a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night? Moses constantly endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

7. Joshua, Hebrews 11:29. Whence did Joshua obtain his confidence that the walls of Jericho would fall? From Jehovah’s word. He went to God for a war program, in his extremity, and God supplied it (Joshua 6:1-20).

8. Rahab, Hebrews 11:30. Whence did Rahab obtain her belief that she should give aid and succor to the men of Joshua’s army? Evidently from her knowledge of God’s promises and judgments (John 2:9-21; John 6:22-25, James 2:25).

9. The creation, Hebrews 11:3. Whence do we obtain our belief that our physical universe was the materialization of God’s word? Our conviction that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear (i.e., that this universe was not fashioned out of pre-existing materials, as the evolutionists and materialists contend)? From the word of God. (See Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Psalms 148:5, etc. Note that the expression, God said, is found ten consecutive times in Genesis 1. Cf. also John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, 2 Peter 3:5-8, etc.).

10. Other great heroes and heroines of faith, Hebrews 11:32-39. All received their inspiration to deeds of heroism from the attractions and impulsions of God’s word. So, then, belief cometh of hearing the divine word, as our text says. Believers in all ages endure as seeing Him who is invisible.

Conclusion: So much for the examples from Old Testament history. But what about the faith that operates unto the salvation of the soul, in the present dispensation, under the new covenant?

1. From what source do we obtain our belief that God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him (Hebrews 11:6)? From the testimony about Him as revealed and recorded in Scripture. From the complete and perfect revelation of Him afforded us in the person and work of Jesus Christ, whom to know aright is eternal life. John 15:9-11, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Peter 1:3-12, etc.

2. From what source do we obtain our conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God? From the testimony presented in the Scriptures, particularly that of the gospel records. This is our only source of accurate information about Him, See John 17:20, John 20:30-31, Acts 15:7, Acts 17:11-12, etc. Why should me reject the testimony of these competent eye-witnesses, these men who walked and talked and supped with Him, and listen to the quibblings of half-baked professors removed from Him by a span of twenty centuries?

3. Whence do we obtain our convictions respecting the future life and its rewards and retributions? From the testimony of Scripture? From the great and exceeding precious promises of God.

4. Romans 10:17. Hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Faith does not come by feeling, nor by a direct operation of the Spirit, nor in answer to prayer, but faith does come by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:6-8, 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

---

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH

(Hebrews 11:1-19, esp. Hebrews 11:13)

One of the most illustrious characters of ancient times to whom our attention is called by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people.

Abraham’s life and walk were so eminently motivated by faith, that his name has gone down in sacred history as the Father of the Faithful, and as the Friend of God (Romans 4:17, Galatians 3:29, Isaiah 41:8, 2 Chronicles 20:7, James 2:23).

1. Note, in the first place, that Abraham’s whole life was a pilgrimage of faith.

(1) It was by faith that he first went out from his native home, Ur of the Chaldees. As faith comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17), so he went out in response to God’s command (cf. Genesis 12:1-3). He did not go out in consequence of any urge within himself, but solely in obedience to God. By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance (Hebrews 11:8).

(2)* By faith he made his initial pilgrimage from Ur of Chaldea to the land of promise.* As faith is a conviction with respect to things not seen (Hebrews 11:1), he therefore went out not knowing whither he went (Hebrews 11:8). Commenting on this verse, Milligan says: Here we have given the fact that Abraham received a call from God; that by his call he was required to leave his home and kindred in Ur of Chaldea, and go out into a strange land; that this land, though promised to his posterity, was wholly unknown to him at the time; and that he nevertheless obeyed God, and went out of his own country, not knowing whither he went (Milligan, NTCH, in loco.)

(3) By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, etc. It would seem from this that Abraham never regarded Canaan as his home. He knew of course, by faith, that when the Canaanites should have filled up the cup of their iniquity to the full, in the fourth generation, the land would be given to his posterity for an everlasting possession, as indeed it was in the time of Joshua (Genesis 15:12-21). But until that time neither he nor his seed, he realized, had any rights or privileges there beyond what might have been accorded other strangers under like circumstances. (Cf. Acts 7:5). Hence Abraham died without owning a foot of the land other than the cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite for a burying-ground (Genesis 23:3-20); and hence, also, neither he, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, ever established a permanent residence in the country. They were satisfied to live in movable tents, feeling assured that according to the promise, they were to fall heir to a better inheritance than any that is to be found on this earth.

(4) By faith he looked beyond the literal to the spiritual fulfilment of the promise. For he looked for the city which hath the foundations, etc. (Hebrews 11:9-10). From this and other like passages we are constrained to think that God had given the patriarchs information with regard to the heavenly country, far beyond what is now recorded in Genesis or any other part of the Old Testament. What we find there at present was written for our instruction, as well as for the benefit of the ancients (Romans 15:4). But much may have been said to them which would in no way benefit us; and which was, therefore, excluded from the Canon by Moses, Ezra and other inspired writers. The origin of sacrifice, for instance, is nowhere expressly mentioned in the Old Testament; nor is there anything said in it respecting the origin of the Patriarchal priesthood. Information, clear, full, and explicit, on all such matters, was of course needed by the ancients; but for us the more general instructions of the Bible are quite sufficient. And so, also, we think it was with respect to the heavenly country. The Patriarchs seem to have received revelations concerning it which have never been transmitted to us; for it is obvious that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, lived in constant expectation of entering it at the close of their earthly pilgrimage. They were satisfied to live here as strangers and pilgrims, knowing that they had in heaven a city having permanent foundations whose Architect and Framer is God. This city is manifestly the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:28, Hebrews 12:22; Hebrews 13:14), which for the present is located in heaven, but which will hereafter descend to the earth after the latter shall have been renovated by fire (Revelation 21). Then will be fulfilled in its full and proper sense the promise made to Abraham, that he and his seed should be the heirs of the world (Romans 4:13) (Milligan, ibid.).

In the land of fadeless day,

Lies -the city four-square-';

It shall never pass away,

And there is -no night there.-'

God shall -wipe away all tears,-'

There’s no death, no pain nor fears,

And they count not time by years,

For there is -no night there.-'

(5) By faith he anticipated the birth of the child of promise (Hebrews 11:11-12, Galatians 4:23, Genesis 17:15-21; Genesis 18:9-15; Genesis 21:1-7). The miraculous conception and birth of Isaac, typical in respect to its supernaturalness of that of Jesus, were direct fulfilments of the promise of Jehovah which Abraham believed. In this respect Abraham’s faith was even greater than Sarah’S, who, on being told, at ninety years of age and long after she had passed the age of child-bearing, that she should give birth to a son, received the announcement at first with considerable incredulity (Genesis 18:9-15).

(6) By faith he offered up Isaac on Mount Moriah, accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a figure receive him back (Hebrews 11:17-19). Abraham’s faith was such that he knew that the promise of God (Genesis 17:21; Genesis 21:12) could not and would not fail, and as he could not anticipate that God would interfere, as He did, so as to prevent the immolation of his son, there was really left for him no alternative other than simply to conclude that God would restore Isaac to life. This conviction seems to be implied in the remark which he made to his servants, -Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again.-’ The word rendered come again (we will return) is in the plural number, and seems to indicate a belief on the part of Abraham, that God would immediately raise Isaac up again from the dead (Milligan, ibid.) The account of this, the severest trial and consequently the supreme manifestation of Abraham’s faith, is related in Genesis 22:1-14).

(7) Having walked in faith, he likewise died in faith, not having received the promises but having seen them and greeted them from afar, etc. What were the promises? (a) That Abraham should have a, numerous offspring (Genesis 13:16; Genesis 15:3-5; Genesis 17:2-4; Genesis 22:16); (b) that God would be a God to him and to his seed after him (Genesis 17:1-8); (c) that He would give to him and his seed an everlasting inheritance (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 15:18-21; Genesis 17:8); (d) that through him and his seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed (Genesis 2:3; Genesis 22:18). With respect to these four details, Abraham looked beyond their literal to their spiritual fulfilment. To each of these God attached a double significance.. They each consisted, so to speak, of two elements, one of which had reference to the carnal side of the covenant, and the other to the spiritual side; one to the type, and the other to the antitype. Thus Abraham was made the honored father of two families: to each of which an inheritance was promised, and through each of which the world was to be blessed (Milligan, ibid.). Abraham, it would seem, understood all this, understood by faith that the spiritual side of the promise would be realized through his seed, the Messiah, and consequently rejoiced to see his day, and he saw it, and was glad (John 8:56). (Cf. Galatians 4:21-31; Galatians 3:6-13, etc.) Hence, he died in faith, knowing that the promise in its various details would be worked out according to God’s eternal purpose and plan. Hence, too, by his constant life and walk of faith, he admitted that he did not seek a home on this earth, that here he considered himself merely a stranger and sojourner, that he did not expect to enter into possession of his true home until he should have reached the end of his pilgrimage and been received into a better country than this, i.e., heaven itself. Wherefore God approved and rewarded the faith of Abraham, and of Isaac and Jacob as well, by preparing for their inhabitation, and for all the redeemed of all ages, a city whose foundations had, even in their day, been laid prospectively in the blood of Jesus Christ (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24).

2. Note, in the second place, that Abraham’s pilgrimage of faith was designed to be typical of the believer’s journey.

(1) A voyage to a distant landsuch is the life of every Christian believer.

Our life is like the hurrying on the eve Before we start on some long journey bound, When fit preparing to the last we leave, Then run to every room the dwelling round, And sigh that nothing needed can be found; Yet go we must, and soon as day shall break; We snatch an hour’s repose; when loud the sound For our departure calls; we rise and take A quick and sad farewell, and go ere well awake.

(2) Here we walk by faith, and not by sight, if we are true Christians. Though in the world, we are not of the world. The worldly spirit deals with things present, but the spirit of faith anticipates the more glorious things to come. The worldly spirit is neither far-reaching nor far-sighted. Its range is bounded by the horizon of time and sense. It has no wings with which to soar into realms invisible. It is of the earth, earthly. Whence comes the manna? why gushes the water from the rock? whither guides the pillar of cloud and fire?these are questions it never asks. It knows not how to soar, how to anticipate and trust and wait, how to endure as seeing Him who is invisible, how to repose under the shadow of His wings, unmindful of the dangers of the wilderness and unalarmed by foes. But the heavenly-minded man walks by faiththat faith which is the substance of things hoped for, and a conviction with respect to things not seen. And, among all the great verities which possess his soul there is none greater, none nobler, none surer, than his conviction with respect to the saints-’ everlasting home. All the circumstances of his present journey, all the remembrances, all his reasonings, all his aspirations, point to a Better Land. By faith he sings:

There is a land of pure delight,

Where saints immortal reign,

Infinite day excludes the night,

And pleasures banish pain.

There everlasting spring abides

And never-withering flowers;

Death, like a narrow sea, divides

This heavenly land from ours.

(3) We realize that as far as this present life is concerned we are but strangers and sojourners on the earth. We dwell in tents, as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; in the tabernacles of a night-time. We are here today, and gone tomorrow. There is nothing that we possess here that we can really call our own. All that we shall have in the end is a few square feet of earth in which our mortal remains will be laid away to mingle with the dust. This is not sentimentaityit is plain fact. We can-’t take anything material with us into the next world, for the simple reason that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. No matter how diligently we may toil and strive to accumulate houses and lands and worldly goods, of what value will these things be when we reach the end of the road? We are pilgrims, nothing more, walking by faith in the direction of the heavenly country which we expect to reach beyond the swelling of the Jordan, the country that will truly be, Home, Sweet Home. The true Christian philosophy is expressed by Phoebe Carey in these lines:

One sweetly solemn thought

Comes to me o-’er and o-’er:

I am nearer my home today

Than I have ever been before.

Nearer my Father’s house

Where the many mansions be;

Nearer the great white throne,

Nearer the crystal sea.

Nearer the bound of life,

Where we lay our burdens down;

Nearer leaving the cross,

Nearer gaining the crown.

(4) Observation teaches us that much in this life is inequality and injustice. As far as this world alone is concerned, honesty is not always the best policy, Judas fares about as well as John, and Nero quaffs more of the wine of living than Paul. The voice of experience speaks to us that if this life is all, it is scarcely worth the living. In the words of Robert Browning:

Truly there needs be another life to come! If this be all And another life await us not for one, I say, -Tis a poor cheat, a stupid bungle, A wretched failure, I for one protest Against, and I hurl it back with scorn.

(5) Life as we live it here is largely illusion. (See F. W. Robertson, Sermons, The Illusiveness of Life). Our senses deceive us. They deceive us with respect to distance, shape, and color. That which, afar off, seems to be oval, turns out to be circular when modified by the perspective of distance; that which appears to be a speck, becomes a vast body, on nearer approach. Stand in the middle of a railroad track, and look in either direction, and the rails appear to converge; but they do not actually do so. Look at what we call the horizon and it seems that the earth and sky meet, but they do not actually, meet. The beautiful berry turns out to be bitter and poisonous; that which apparently moves is in reality at rest; that which seems to be stationary is in perpetual motion; the earth moves, but the sun, which appears to be moving, stands still. All experience here is but a correction of life’s illusionsa modification or reversal of the judgment of the senses. Our natural anticipations deceive us. Every human life starts out bright with hopes that will never be realized. These hopes may be different in nature: finer spirits may look on life as an arena for good deeds, while the more selfish regard it as a place only for personal enjoyment; but the results are usually the same. Regardless of the nature of these hopes, the majority will fail of fruition. It would seem almost a satire on life to compare the youth in the outset of his career, flushed and sanguine, with the aspect of the same man when he is nearly done, worn, sobered, covered with the dust of life, confessing that its days have been few and evil. Where is the land flowing with milk and honey? Not on this earth. With our affections it is even worse. Man’s affections are but tabernacles of Canaan, the tents of a nighttime, never the same, always changing. Where are the charms of character, the perfection and purity and truthfulness which seemed so resplendent in our friend? Association has rendered them sordid. They were only our conceptions and they proved false; hence we outgrow friendships. Life as we live it here is an unenjoyable Canaan with nothing real or substantial about it. Our expectations, resting on divine revelation, deceive us. For example, the attitude of the church with respect to the second coming of Christ. The apostles expected Him to return while they were yet here, and the early churches were vitalized by this hope of seeing the great and notable day of the Lord. John, in penning the last words of the New Testament, expressed this hope, Come, Lord Jesus. The church, throughout the centuries of the Christian era, has revived and revitalized this hope many times; in fact it has never died away. And even today, if it should turn out that we who are alive shall remain unto the coming of the Lord, we would consider ourselves fortunate indeed. However, He has not come. He will comebut not as yet. The promise, This Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven, remains unfulfilled. What is the meaning of all this illusiveness of earthly life? Faith replies that it is not delusion, but illusion; that the non-fulfilment of the promises literally, is a pledge of their spiritual fulfilment later; that God, by their very non-realization, lures us onward and upward to nobler things. Suppose, for instance, that the spiritual side of the Abrahamic promise had been revealed to ancient Israel at first; suppose they had been informed at the outset that God’s rest is inward, that the land of promise is to be found only in the Jerusalem which is above; not material, but immaterial; not visible, but invisible. That rude, gross people, yearning after the flesh-pots of Egypt, willing to go back into slavery so only they might have enough to eat and drinkwould they have quitted Egypt on such terms? Would they have taken one step on that pilgrimage which was to find its meaning in the discipline of the ages? Nothey had to be lured on by something visible, something tangible. So we are lured on through life as upon a journey. Could man see the route before hima flat, straight road, unbroken by tree or eminence, with the sun’s heat burning down upon it, stretching out in dreamy monotonyhe could scarcely find either the inclination or the energy with which to begin his journey. It is the very uncertainty of that which is not seen, that which lies just around the bend, that keeps expectation alive. The view we think we may get from yonder summit, the landscape that may be glimpsed as the road winds around yonder knoll, hopes like these beguile the weary traveler on. So our heavenly Father leads us on, educating us day by day, and hour by hour, to walk in faith, ever holding up the seen as an incentive to the unseen. So He deals with us, luring us on by means of life’s unsatisfactory and illusive rewards, ever schooling us in the art of waiting, of enduring as seeing Him who is invisible. Canaan first; then the hope of a Redeemer; and finally the Better Land. It was in this manner that the ancient saints interpreted this mystery of the illusiveness of life. They did not regard life as a dream, nor as a bubble, nor as a delusion. Though they no doubt felt as keenly as any moralist could feel; the brokenness of its promises, yet by faith they pressed on, confessing that they were pilgrims and strangers here, that they had no continuing city, never mournfully moralizing about it, but admitting it cheerfully and even rejoicing that it was so. They felt that all was right; they knew that the promise had a deeper than material significance; so they looked for the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. They even died in faith, not having received the promises, not expecting to receive them here, but hereafter. Now observe the glorious result that comes from the indestructible power of believing and continuing on, in spite of apparent failure. The primitive Christians, for instance, believed in their day that the millennium was at hand. They had heard the apostolic warning, brief and clear, to watch. Now suppose, instead of this, they had been able to look into the future and see all the dreary pages of church history unfolded, with its heresies, its apostasy and divisions; suppose they could have known that even after two thousand years the world would scarcely know the alphabet of the Christian religion; knowing all these things, what would have become of their gigantic and heroic efforts, their sacrifices, their persecutions and their martyrdoms? With such knowledge of the future, do you suppose there ever would have been what we consider the heroism, the sacrifice, the passionate zeal of primitive Christianity? It is in this way that God leads His children on, on to realization and achievement through the illusiveness of the past; as a father educates his child, holding up the seen, all the while nurturing the thought of the unseen. Thus we shall continue to the endto that day when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ. Thus the non-fulfilment of God’s promises becomes to the man of faith an earnest of their deeper and nobler fulfilment.

(6) Finally, as in Abraham’s case, heaven is the goal of our pilgrimage. We expect to find illusion here, and we expect to find reality hereafter. We know that things here are seen and temporal, and we know, too, that the things we shall enjoy hereafter, the things that are now unseen, will be eternal. Interpreted, then, in the light of faith, life’s illusions are not disappointing; in fact nothing is disappointment if spiritually discerned. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called our God; for he hath prepared for us a city (Hebrews 11:16).

There’s a land that is fairer than day,

And by faith we can see it afar,

For the Father waits over the way,

To prepare us a dwelling-place there.

Just recently Dr. F. B. Meyer, one of England’s greatest preachers, entered into rest. Writing to a friend just three days before his death, this is what he said: Dear Friend: I have just been told, to my surprise, that my days on earth are numbered. It may be that before you receive this letter, I shall have passed within the Palace of the King. Do not trouble to write. I will meet you in the morning. Yours, with much love, F. B. Meyer. I will meet you in the morningwithin the palace of the King. This is Christian faith. This is conviction. Death isn-’t the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of greater growth, greater progress, greater service, and greater joy. As Louise Chandler Moulton has written:

At the end of Love, at the end of Life, At the end of Hope, at the end of Strife, At the end of all that we cling to so The sun is settingmust we go?

At dawn of Love, at Dawn of Life, At dawn of Peace that follows Strife, At dawn of all we long for so The sun is rising*let us go!

Conclusion:* Wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city. This is the promise! And God keeps His promises!

How beautiful to be with God,

When earth is fading like a dream,

And from this mist-encircled shore

To launch upon the unknown stream!

No doubt, no fear, no anxious care,

But, comforted by staff and rod,

In the faith-brightened hour of death,

How beautiful to be with God.

Beyond the partings and the pains,

Beyond the sighing and the tears,

Oh, beautiful to be with God

Through all the endless, blessed years

To see His face, to hear His voice,

To know Him better day by day,

And love Him as the flowers love light,

And serve Him as immortals may.

My sinner friend, will you not turn now, and start upon your pilgrimage of faith?

Genesis 27:1-45

**PART THIRTY-NINE

THE STORY OF ISAAC: THE TWINS AND THE BLESSING**

(Genesis 27:1-45)

The Biblical Account 1 And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his elder son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Here am I. 2 *And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death. 3 Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me venison; 4 and make me savory food, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

5 And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it. 6 And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying, 7 Bring me venison, and make me savory food, that I may eat, and bless thee before Jehovah before my death. 8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee. 9 Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savory food for thy father, such as he loveth: 10 and thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, so that he may bless thee before his death. 11 And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man. 12 My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and 1 shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing. 13 And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son; only obey my voice, and go fetch me them. 15 And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savory food, such as his father loved. 1*5 *And Rebekah took the goodly garments of Esau her elder son, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son; 16 and she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck: 17 and she gave the savory food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.

18 And he came unto his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I; who art thou, my son? 19 And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first-born; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me. 20 And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because Jehovah thy God sent me good speed. 21 And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not. 22 and Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. 23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau’s hands: so he blessed him. 24 And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am. 25 And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank. 26 And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son. 27 And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son Is the smell of a field which Jehovah hath blessed:

28

And God gave thee of the dew of heaven,

And of the fatness of the earth, And plenty of grain and new wine:

29

Let peoples serve thee,

And nations bow down to thee: Be lord over thy brethren, And let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: Cursed be every one that curseth thee, And blessed be every one that blesseth thee 30 And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting. 31 And he also made savory food, and brought it unto his father; and he said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son’s venison, that thy soul may bless me. 32 And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy first-born, Esau. 33 And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who then is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed. 34 When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with an exceeding great and bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father. 35 And he said, Thy brother came with guile, and hath taken away thy blessing. 36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me? 37 And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with grain and new wine have I sustained him: and what then shall I do for thee, my son? 38 And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me even also,* O *my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept. 39 And Isaac his father answered and said unto him,

Behold, of the fatness of the earth shall be thy dwelling, And of the dew of heaven from above;

40

And by thy sword shalt thou live, and thou shalt serve thy brother;

And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt break loose, That thou shalt shake his yoke from off thy neck. 41 And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob. 42 And the words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah; and she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said unto him, Behold, thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth comfort himself, purposing to kill thee. 43 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother to Haran; 44 and tarry with him a few days, until thy brother’s fury turn away; 45 until thy brother’s anger turn away from thee, and he forget that which thou hast done to him: then I will send, and fetch thee from thence; why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?*

1. Significance of the Patriarchal Blessing. The modernistic critical explanation of this section is clearly stated by Skinner (ICCG, 368) as follows: This vivid and circumstantial narrative, which is to be read immediately after Genesis 25:34 (or Genesis 25:28), gives yet another explanation of the historical fact that Israel, the younger people, had outstripped Edom in the race for power and prosperity. The clever but heartless stratagem by which Rebekah succeeds in thwarting the intention of Isaac, and diverting the blessing from Esau to Jacob, is related with great vivacity, and with an indifference to moral considerations which has been thought surprising in a writer with the fine ethical insight of J (Di). [Di here stands for the German critic Dillmann]. It must be remembered, however, that -J-’ is a collective symbol, and embraces many tales which sink to the level of ordinary popular morality. We may fairly conclude with Gu. [272: Gu is for Gunkel] that narratives of this stamp were too firmly rooted in the mind of the people to be omitted from any collection of national traditions. The student should not forget that these hypothetical writers are all hypothetical; that the hypothetical Codes are likewise hypothetical, since no external evidence can be produced to confirm their existence or that of their authors or redactors. All phases of the Documentary Theory of the Pentateuch are completely without benefit of evidential support externally, and there is little or no agreement among the critics themselves in the matter of allocating verses, sentences and phrases to the various respective writers and redactors. Hence, it follows that all conclusions drawn from the internal evidence of the text is based on inference, and that the inference is not necessary inference. I insert this explanatory statement here to caution the student to be wary of these analytical theories which have been spun out of the critics-’ separate imaginations much in the manner in which a spider spins its web out of its own being (to use an illustration offered by Sir Francis Bacon in his Novum Organon). There is no valid ground for not accepting these accounts of the significant events in the lives of the patriarchs at face value. They certainly serve to show us that human character (motivations, attitudes, virtues, faults and foibles) is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Cornfeld (AtD, 81) writes: Ancient belief held that words spoken in blessing, or in curse on solemn occasions, were efficacious and had the power, as though by magic, to produce the intended result. The blessing of the father was binding, and when Isaac discovered the deceit he held his blessing to be effective, even though it had been granted under false pretences.. In patriarchal society, the effectiveness of the blessing was well understood. In Nuzu a man repeated in court the blessing his father had given him on his death-bed, willing him a wife. The terms of such a blessing were upheld by the Court. The Nuzu tablets recognized oral blessings and death-bed wills.

Acts of blessing may be classified as follows: (1) Those in which God is said to bless men (Genesis 1:28; Genesis 22:17). God’s blessing is accompanied with that virtue which renders his blessing effectual, and which is expressed by it. Since God is eternal and omnipresent, his omniscience and omnipotence cause His blessings to avail in the present life in respect to all things, and also in the life to come. (2) Those in which men are said to bless God (Psalms 103:1-2; Psalms 145:1-3, etc.). This is when they ascribe to Him those characteristics which are His, acknowledge His sovereignty, express gratitude for His mercies, etc. (3) Those in which men bless their fellow-men when, as in ancient times, under the spirit of prophecy, they predicted blessings to come upon them. (Cf. Jacob and his sons, Genesis 49:1-28, Hebrews 11:21; Moses and the children of Israel, Deuteronomy 33:1-29). Men bless their fellow-men when they express good wishes and pray God in their behalf. It was the duty and privilege of the priests to bless the people in the name of the Lord. The form of the priestly benediction was prescribed in the Law: see Numbers 6:24-26: here the promise was added that God would fulfil the words of the blessing. This blessing was pronounced by the priest with uplifted hands, after every morning and evening sacrifice, as recorded of Aaron (Leviticus 9:22), and to it the people responded by uttering an amen. This blessing was regularly pronounced at the close of the service in the synagogues. The Levites appear also to have had the power of conferring the blessing (2 Chronicles 30:27), and the same privilege was accorded the king, as the viceroy of the Most High (2 Samuel 6:18, 1 Kings 8:55). Our Lord is said to have blessed little children (Mark 10:16, Luke 24:50), Note also that blessing occurred on the occasion of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:26). (See UBD, s.v., p. 134).

Leupold obviously gives us the clearest explanation of the subject before us. He writes (EG, 737): Esau, knowing his father’s love for game, had no doubt shown this token of love many a time before this and had noted what pleasure it afforded his father. In this instance the momentous thing is that the father purposes -to bless-’ his son. Esau well understood what this involved. This was a custom, apparently well established at this time, that godly men before their end bestowed their parting blessing upon their children. Such a blessing, had it been merely a pious wish of a pious man, would have had its worth and value. In it would have been concentrated the substance of all his prayers for his children. Any godly son would already on this score alone have valued such a blessing highly. However, the blessings of godly men, especially of the patriarchs, had another valuable element in them: they were prophetic in character. Before his end many a patriarch was taught by God’s Spirit to speak words of great moment, that indicated to a large extent the future destiny of the one blessed. In other words, the elements of benediction and prediction blended in the final, blessing. It appears from the brief nature of Isaac’s statement that this higher character of the blessing was so well understood as to require no explanation. From all this one sees that the crude ideas of magic were far removed from these blessings. (Italics mineC.C.). For similar instances, see Genesis 48:10 ff; Genesis 50:24 ff.; Deuteronomy 33; Joshua, 23; 2 Samuel 23:1 ff.; 1 Kings 2:1 ff.; 2 Kings 13:14 ff.

2. Isaac Purposes to Bless Esau (Genesis 27:1-5). We have here the first reported instance of the infirmities of old age and consequent shortening of life. Isaac was then in his 137th year, a figure based on the following calculation: Joseph was thirty years old when he was first introduced to Pharaoh (Genesis 41:46), and when Jacob went into Egypt, thirty-nine, as the seven years of abundance and two of famine had then passed (Genesis 41:47, Genesis 45:6); but Jacob at that time was 130 years old (Genesis 47:9); this means that Joseph was born before Jacob was 91; and as his birth took place in the fourteenth year of Jacob’s sojourn in Mesopotamia (cf. Genesis 30:25 and Genesis 29:18; Genesis 29:21; Genesis 29:27); it follows that Jacob’s flight to Laban occurred in the 77th year of his own life and the 137th of Isaac’S. (See KD, BCOTP, 273, 274, fn.). Murphy finds that Isaac was 136 years old at the time of the bestowal of the blessing. Joseph was in his thirtieth year when he stood before Pharaoh, and therefore thirty-nine when Jacob came down to Egypt at the age of one hundred and thirty. When Joseph was born, therefore, Jacob was ninety-one, and he had sojourned fourteen years in Padan-Aram. Hence Jacob’s flight to Laban took place when he was seventy-seven, and therefore in the one hundred and thirty-sixth year of Isaac (MG, 381). What was the cause of Isaac’s failing sight at this relatively early age? The Rabbinical speculations are rather fantastic and indeed amusing. Isaac’s eyes were dim, according to one view, from old age; according to another as a punishment for not restraining Esau in his wickedness, as happened to Eli; according to other notions, through the smoke of the incense which his daughters-in-law offered to idols; or, when Isaac lay bound on the altar for a sacrifice, the angels wept over him, and their tears dropped into his eyes, and dimmed them; or, finally, this happened to him that Jacob might receive the blessings (SC, 150).

The approach of infirmity of sight certainly warned Isaac to perform the solemn act by which, as prophet as well as father, he was to hand down the blessing of Abraham to another generation. Of course he designed for Esau the blessing which, once given, was the authoritative and irrevocable act of the patriarchal power; and he desired Esau to prepare a feast of venison for the occasion. Esau was not likely to confess the sale of his birthright, nor could Jacob venture openly to claim the benefit of his trick. Whether Rebekah knew of that transaction, or whether moved by partiality only, she came to the aid of her favorite son, and devised the stratagem by which Jacob obtained his father’s blessing (OTH, 94). Isaac had not yet come to the conclusion that Jacob was heir of the promise. The communication from the Lord to Rebekah concerning her yet unborn sons in the form in which it is handed down to us merely determines that the elder shall serve the younger. This fact Isaac seems to have thought might not imply the transference of the birthright; and if he was aware of the transaction between Esau and Jacob, he may not have regarded it as valid. Hence he makes arrangements for bestowing the paternal blessing on Esau, his elder son, whom he also loved (MG, 381). In the calmness of determination Isaac directs Esau to prepare savory meat, such as he loved, that he may have his vigor renewed and his spirits revived for the solemn business of bestowing that blessing, which he held to be fraught with more than ordinary benefits (MG, 381). It must be observed that Isaac was in the wrong when he attempted to give Esau the blessing. He could not have been ignorant of God’s decree about the sons before they were born. However much we deplore the acts of Rebekah and Jacob, the greater fault was with Isaac and Esau (OTH, 94). We suggest that the proper title for the study before us would be, The Parents, The Twins, and the Blessing. *Both parents were more deeply involved in these transactions than were the sons themselves.

Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death,* said Isaac; yet he lived forty-three years longer (Genesis 35:28). Without regard to the words which were spoken by God with reference to the children before their birth, and without taking any notice of Esau’s frivolous barter of his birthright and his ungodly connections with the Canaanites, Isaac maintained his preference for Esau, and directed him therefore to take his things (hunting gear), his quiver and bow, to hunt game and prepare a savory dish, that he might eat, and his soul might bless him. As his preference for Esau was fostered and strengthened by, if it did not spring from, his liking for game (Genesis 25:28), so now he wished to raise his spirits for imparting the blessing by a dish of venison prepared to his taste. In this the infirmity of the flesh is evident. At the same time, it was not merely because of his partiality for Esau, but unquestionably on account of the natural rights of the firstborn, that he wished to impart the blessing to him, just as the desire to do this before his death arose from the consciousness of his patriarchal call (BCOTP, 274).

He [Isaac] seems to have apprehended the near approach of dissolution (but he lived forty-three years longer, Genesis 35:28). And believing that the conveyance of the patriarchal benediction was a solemn duty incumbent on him, he was desirous of stimulating all his energies for that great effort, by partaking, apparently for the last time, of a favorite dish which had often refreshed and invigorated his wasted frame. It is difficult to imagine him ignorant of the Divine purpose (cf. Genesis 25:23). But natural affection, prevailing through age and infirmity, prompted him to entail the honors and powers of the birthright on his eldest son; and perhaps he was not aware of what Esau had done (cf. Genesis 25:34). The deathbed benediction of the patriarchs was not simply the last farewell blessing of a father to his children, though that, pronounced with all the fulness and energy of concentrated feeling, carries in every word an impressive significance which penetrates the inmost parts of the filial heart, and is often felt there long after the tongue that uttered it is silent in the grave. The dying benediction of the patriarchs had a mysterious import: it was a supernatural act, in performing which they were free agents indeed; still mere instruments employed by an overruling power to execute His purposes of grace. It was, in fact, a testamentary conveyance of the promise, bequeathed with great solemnity in a formal address, called a BLESSING (Genesis 27:30; Genesis 27:36; Genesis 22:17-18 [Greek, eulogese]; Hebrews 11:20). which, consisting partly of prayers and partly of predictions, was an authoritative appropriation of the covenant promises to the person who inherited-’ the right of primogeniture. Abraham, indeed, had not performed this last ceremony, because it had been virtually done before his death, on the expulsion of Ishmael (Genesis 25:5), and by the bestowment of the patrimonial inheritance on Isaac (Genesis 25:5), as directed by the oracle (cf. Genesis 17:21 with Genesis 21:12, last clause). But Isaac (as also Jacob) had more than one son in his family, and, in the belief of his approaching death, was animated by a sacred impulse to do what was still unperformed, and his heart prompted as rightthat of transmitting the honors of primogeniture to his elder son (Jamieson, CECG, 194).

Note especially Genesis 27:4, last clause: that my soul may bless thee before I die. That is to say that, invigorated with the savory meat, I may bestow upon thee my blessing, constituting thee heir of all the benefits promised to me and my father Abraham: Genesis 27:27-29; ch. Genesis 28:3-4, Genesis 48:15; Deuteronomy 31, 33; Hebrews 11:20 (SIBG, 258). Isaac intended to bless him that God’s promise to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the land, should be fulfilled through Esau. Presumably Rebekah had never told Isaac of the prophecy that the elder would serve the younger, Genesis 25:23 (SC, 150). The expression -that my soul may bless thee-’ does involve a bit more than the bare fact that the word -soul-’ is used as a substitute for the personal pronoun. The expression actually indicates the participation of one’s inmost being in the activity involved (Leupold, EG, 738). As if the expiring nephesh gathered up all its forces in a single potent and prophetic wish. The universal belief in the efficacy of a dying utterance appears often in the New Testament (Skinner, ICCG, 369).

3. Rebekah’s Stratagem (Genesis 27:6-17). Rebekah happened to be listening (JB, 45) when Isaac was talking with his son Esau (cf. Genesis 18:10). Butdid she just happen to be listening, or was she eavesdropping, constantly on guard to protect the interests of her favorite? Her jealousy aroused by what she overheard, she instantly devises a scheme whose daring and ingenuity illustrate the Hebrew notion of capable and quick-witted womanhood (ICCG, 370). Apparently her plan was formed quickly: indeed the likelihood is that she had the plan ready in case of just such an eventuality as this. Everything that follows makes Rebekah’s initiative in the scheme more obvious. She is a woman of quick decision, as she was from the moment of her first meeting with Abraham’s servant as well as on the occasion of her assent to the proposition to go back to Isaac at once (EG, 740). (Cf. Genesis 24:15-27; Genesis 24:55-60). As she unfolds her stratagem, Jacob obeys her at once. The fact that he sees a possible flaw, however, makes it crystal clear that he is not averse to carrying out her orders. His objection shows enough shrewdness on his part (Genesis 27:11-12) to throw his mother’s resourcefulness into bolder relief. But it is obvious that his demurrer was not on any moral ground, but solely on the ground of expediency, namely, that he might get caught red-handed in trying to perpetrate the deception. To this Rebekah replied, Upon me be the curse, my son, to which she added the demand that he obey her voice, that is, without question. Evidently she knew what she was doing, and so had made preparation for any eventuality. Rebekah was truly in command of the situation: no doubt about it. Jacob views the matter more coolly, and starts a difficulty. He may be found out to be a deceiver, and bring his father’s curse upon him. Rebekah, anticipating no such issue, undertakes to bear the curse that she conceived would never come. Only let him obey (Murphy, MG, 381). Jacob’s chief difficulty was removed. He had been more afraid of detection than of duplicity. His mother, however, proved more resolute than he in carrying through the plan. Jacob provides the materials, Rebekah prepares them. After more than ninety years of married life she must have known pretty well what -his father loved-’ (Leupold, EG, 743). Rebekah takes the festal raiment and puts it on Jacob: the fact that this would have been put on Esau proves once more that the blessing was a religious ceremony. Since the clothes were in Rebekah’s charge, Esau must have been still an unmarried man (ICCG, 370). Rebekah’s part is now ended and Jacob is left on his own resources. Genesis 27:13The maner in which she [Rebekah] imprecates the curse cannot be justified; but, from the promise of God, and from Jacob’s having obtained the birthright, ch. Genesis 25:23; Genesis 25:33, she was confident of a happy issue (SIBG, 258). The narrative stresses throughout that Esau was the elder and Jacob the younger, and this is done to the credit of Rebekah. Although a mother would normally recognize that the blessings and birthright belonged to the firstborn, she was determined that they should go to Jacob, because she perceived Esau’s unfitness for them (SC, 151).

4. Jacob Obtains the Blessing (Genesis 27:18-29). Jacob, without further objection, obeys his mother. She clothes him in Esau’s festal raiment and puts the skins of the kids on his hands and his neck. (The camel-goat affords a hair which bears a great resemblance to that of natural growth, and is used as a substitute for it, Murphy, MG, 382). The strange interview between father and son now begins. The scheme planned by the mother was to be executed by the son in the father’s bed-chamber; and it is painful to think of the deliberate falsehoods, as well as daring profanity, he resorted to. The disguise, though wanting one thing, which had nearly upset the whole plot, succeeded in misleading Isaac; and while giving his paternal embrace, the old man was roused into a state of high satisfaction and delight (CECG, 195). Isaac is reclining on his couch, in the feebleness of advancing years. His first reaction is to express surprise that the visitor could have had such good fortune in his hunting and in the preparation of the savory meal so quickly, Jacob blandly replied, hypocritically it would seem, Because Jehovah thy God sent me God speed, that is, Yahweh has providentially come to my assistance, To bring God into the lie seems blasphemous to us but the oriental mentality would see no wrong in it, being used to ascribe every event to God, ignoring -secondary causes-’ (JB, 47). (It is difficult, I think, for us to dismiss the matter so nonchalantly). By making the utterance doubly solemn, -Yahweh, thy God,-’ the hypocritical pretense is made the more odious (EG, 745). On hearing Jacob’s voice Isaac became suspicious, and bade Jacob come nearer, that he might feel him. This Jacob did, but because his hands appeared hairy like Esau’S, Isaac did not recognize him; so he blessed him. In this remark (Genesis 27:23) the writer gives the result of Jacob’s attempt; so that the blessing is mentioned proleptically here, and refers to the formal blessing described afterwards, and not to the first greeting and salutation (BCOTP, 275). The bewildered father now puts Jacob to a severer test. He feels him, but discerns him not. The ear notes a difference, but the hand feels the hairy skin resembling Esau’S; the eyes give no testimony. Still there is lingering doubt: Isaac puts the crucial question: Art thou my very son Esau? The issue is joined: there is no evasion of this question (cf. Jesus and the High Priest, Matthew 26:63-64) Jacob now resorts to the outright lie: I am (Genesis 27:24). Isaac, his doubt now apparently allayed, calls for the repast and partakes of it.

The Kiss, Genesis 27:26-27. Originally the act of kissing had a symbolical character. Here it is a sign of affection between a parent and a child; in ch. Genesis 29:13 between relatives. It was also a token of friendship (2 Samuel 20:9, Matthew 26:48; Luke 7:45; Luke 15:20; Acts 20:37). The kissing of princes was a symbol of homage (1 Samuel 10:1, Psalms 2:12). The Rabbis permitted only three kinds of kissesthe kiss of reverence, of reception, and of dismissal. The kiss of charity (love, peace) was practised among disciples in the early church (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26,1 Peter 5:4).

The kiss appears here for the first time as the token of true love and deep affection. Isaac asks for this token from his son. The treachery of the act cannot be condoned on Jacob’s part: the token of true love is debased to a means of deception. The Old Testament parallel (2 Samuel 20:9) as well as that of the New Testament (Matthew 26:49 and parallels) comes to one’s mind involuntarily (EG, 749). The kiss of Christian brotherhood and the kiss of Judas are here enclosed in one (Lange).

The Perfumed Raiment, Genesis 27:27. But the smell of goatskin is most offensive. This, however, teaches that they had the fragrance of the Garden of Eden (Rashi). This comment is to be understood as follows: According to tradition, the garment had belonged to Adam, and had passed from him to Nimrod and thence to Esau. Adam had worn it in Eden, and it still retained its fragrance (Nachmanides). It was perfumed (Rashbam) (SC, 152). (But, we must not think of our European goats, whose skins would be quite unsuitable for any such deception. -It is the camel-goat of the East, whose black, silk-like hair was used even by the Romans as a substitute for human hair-’ BCOTP, 279, fn.). And Isaac smelled the smell of Jacob’s raiment: not deliberately, in order to detect whether they belonged to a shepherd or a huntsman, but accidentally, while in the act of kissing. The odor of Esau’s garments, impregnated with the fragrance of the aromatic herbs of Palestine, excited the dull sensibilities of the aged prophet, suggesting to his mind pictures of freshness and fertility, and inspiring him to pour forth his promised benediction; and blessed him (not a second time, the statement in Genesis 27:23 being inserted only by anticipation (PCG, 338). The aromatic odors of the Syrian fields and meadows often impart a strong fragrance to the person and clothes, as has been noticed by many travelers. This may have been the reason for besmearing the -goodly raiment-’ with fragrant perfumes. It is not improbable, that in such a skilfully-contrived scheme, where not the smallest circumstance seems to have been omitted or forgotten that could render the counterfeit complete, means were used for scenting the clothes with which Jacob was invested, to be the more like those of Esaunewly returned from the field (CECG, 196). The smelling of the garments seems to have a twofold significance: on the one hand it is a final test of Esau’s identity (otherwise the disguise, Genesis 27:15, would have no meaning), on the other it supplies the sensuous impression which suggests the words of the blessing (ICCG, 371). (Note: the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which Yahweh hath blessed, Genesis 27:27). Isaac regarded the smell of Jacob’s garment as a token that God had intended to bless him abundantly, and to render him a particular blessing to others (SIBG, 258). After eating, Isaac kissed his son as a sign of his paternal affection, and in doing so he smelt the odor of his clothes, i.e., the clothes of Esau, which were thoroughly scented with the odor of the fields, and then imparted his blessing (BCOTP, 275)*.

The Blessing,* Genesis 27:27-29. Isaac now gives the kiss of paternal affection and pronounces the benediction. Murphy (MG, 382) notes the threefold character of the blessing. 1. It contains, first, a fertile soil. The smell of a field which Yahweh hath blessed (cf. Deuteronomy 33:23). The dew of heaven (an abundance of this was especially precious in a land where rainfall is limited to two seasons of the year). Fatness of the earth (Numbers 13:20, Isaiah 5:1; Isaiah 28:1: a proportion of this to match and render available the dew of heaven). Plenty of grain and new wine (often combined with -oil-’ in pictures of agricultural felicity; cf. Deuteronomy 7:13, Hosea 2:8; Hosea 2:22). 2 It contains, second, a numerous and powerful offspring. Let peoples serve thee (pre-eminence among the neighboring nations: cf. Genesis 25:23, 2 Samuel 8). Be lord over thy brethren (pre-eminence among his kindred: Isaac does not seem to have grasped the full meaning of the prediction, The elder shall serve the younger, (Murphy). Butcan we be sure that Rebekah had told Isaac of this prediction, Genesis 25:23?) 3. It contains, third, temporal and spiritual prosperity. Let everyone that curseth thee be cursed; and let everyone that blesseth thee be blessed. This is the only part of the blessing that directly comprises spiritual things. In this blessing Isaac at once requested and predicted the benefits mentioned. These temporal favors were more remarkable under the Old Testament than under the New, and represented the spiritual and temporal influences and fullness of the New Covenant and of the church of God: cf. Deuteronomy 32:2, Isaiah 45:8; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Corinthians 3:22; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10; Ephesians 1:3 (SIBG, 258). On the whole, who would not covet such a blessing? Bestowed by a godly father upon a godly and a deserving son in accordance with the will and purpose of God, it surely would constitute a precious heritage (Leupold, EG, 751). The blessing is partly natural and partly political, and deals, of course, not with the personal history of Jacob, but with the future greatness of Israel. Its nearest analogies are the blessings on Joseph (Genesis 49:22-26, Deuteronomy 33:13-16) (ICCG, 371).

5. Esau’s Bitterness and Hatred (Genesis 27:30-41). Note how very nearly Jacob was caught redhanded (Genesis 27:30). He had just about closed the door, divested himself of the borrowed garments and the kidskin disguise, when his brother appeared on the scene (EG, 751). Scarcely had the former scene been concluded, when the fraud was discovered. The emotions of Isaac, as well as Esau, may easily be imaginedthe astonished, alarm, and sorrow of the one, the disappointment and indignation of the other. But a moment’s reflection convinced the aged patriarch that the transfer of the blessing was -of the Lord,-’ and now irrevocable, The importunities of Esau, however, overpowered him; and as the prophetic afflatus was upon the patriarch, he gave utterance to what was probably as pleasing to a man of Esau’s character as the honors of primogeniture would have been (CECG, 197). Esau comes in, but it is too late, He uses practically the same words that Isaac had used (cf. that thy soul may bless me, Genesis 27:19; Genesis 27:31): this fact shows how carefully Jacob (or Rebekah) had planned the deception: he knew about what Esau would say when stepping into his father’s presence. Pained perplexity stands out in Isaac’s question, Genesis 27:33, who then is he that hath taken venison? etc. But by the time the question is fully uttered, the illusion is dispelled: Isaac knows who has perpetrated the deception. Isaac knows it was Jacob. Isaac sees how God’s providence checked him in his unwise and wicked enterprise. From this point onward there is no longer any unclearness as to what God wanted in reference to the two sons. Therefore the brief but conclusive, -yea, blessed shall he be.-’ But his trembling was caused by seeing the hand of God in what had transpired (EG, 753). Jacob had no doubt perpetrated a fraud, at the instigation of his mother; and if Esau had been worthy in other respects, and above all if the blessing had been designed for him, its bestowment on another would have been either prevented or regarded as null and void. But Isaac now felt that, whatever was the misconduct of Jacob in interfering, and especially in employing unworthy means to accomplish his end, he himself was culpable in allowing carnal considerations to draw his preference to Esau, who was otherwise unworthy. He knew too that the paternal benediction flowed not from the bias of the parent, but from the Spirit of God guiding his will, and therefore when pronounced could not be revoked. Hence he was now convinced that it was the design of Providence that the spiritual blessing should fall on the line of Jacob (MG, 383). Genesis 27:33: and blessed shall he be: not that Isaac now acquiesces in the ruling of Providence, and refuses to withdraw the blessing; but that such an oracle once uttered is in its nature irrevocable (ICCG, 372). (This is undoubtedly the meaning of Heb 12:16-17).

Genesis 27:34-38: The grief of Esau is distressing to witness, especially as he had been comparatively blameless in this particular instance. But still it is to be remembered that his heart had not been open to the paramount importance of spiritual things. Isaac now perceives that Jacob has gained the blessing by deceit. Esau marks the propriety of his name, the wrestler who trips up the heel and pleads pathetically for at least some blessing. His father enumerates what he has done for Jacob, and asks what more he can do for Esau, who then exclaims, Hast thou but one blessing? Had Esau in the interim between his bartering the birthright for a mess of pottage, and this incident of the blessing, come to have a more adequate understanding of these institutions and privileges? We must doubt it. Esau’s conduct in this case does not impress us favorably. His unmanly tears are quite unworthy of him. His -exceedingly loud and bitter outcry-’ is further evidence of lack of self-control. He who never aspired after higher things now wants this blessing as though his future hopes depended all and only on the paternal blessing. We cannot help but feel that a superstitious overvaluation of the blessing is involved. In fact, he now wants, as though it were his own, that which he had wilfully resigned under oath. The right to the blessing which Esau now desires was lost long ago. In fact, up to this point there was a double conspiracy afoot. Isaac and Esau, though not admitting it was so, were conspiring to deflect to Esau a blessing both knew he had forfeited, in fact, was never destined to have. But at the same time Rebekah and Jacob were consciously conspiring to obtain what God had destined for Jacob and what Jacob had also secured from Esau (EG, 753).

What an emotional scene this was! How intensely dramatic! Old Isaac trembled very exceedingly (Genesis 27:33): was he not keenly conscious now of the carnality (his love of well-cooked venison) which had all along prompted his preference for Esau? Was he aware of Esau’s bartering away of the birthright? Was he aware of the Divine prediction that the elder should serve the younger? If so, did He now realize that he was presuming to obstruct God’s Eternal Purpose respecting Messiah? If so, no wonder that he trembled! As for Esau, he cried with an exceeding great and bitter cry (Genesis 27:34) and bawled out the words, Is he not rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. (Jacob means Supplanter, literally, Overreacher). What a clear case of what Freudians call projection: Isaac could not have taken his birthright, if he, Esau, had had any respect for it! Isaac’s gain was the direct consequence of Esau’s profanity. And what of Jacob in this incident of the blessing? He has slunk away from the scene entirely, having accomplished his deception, We cannot help thinking he was somewhere with his mother awaiting developments, but inwardly gratified that their plans had succeeded. The purely literary aspects of this vivid account require little comment. Tension mounts constantly as Isaac, sightless and never altogether convinced by the evidence of his other senses, resorts to one test after another: his visitor sounds like Jacob, but says he is Esau, yet the hunt took much less time than expected; the skin feels like Esau’s and the food tastes right; the lips betray nothing, but the clothes smell of the chase; so it has to be Esau after all! The reader is all but won over by the drama of Jacob’s ordeal, when Esau’s return restores the proper perspective. The scene between Isaac and Esau, both so shaken and helpless, could scarcely be surpassed for pathos. Most poignant of all is the stark fact that the deed cannot be undone. For all the actors in this. piece are but tools of fate whichpurposeful though it must becan itself be neither deciphered nor side-stepped by man (ABG, 213). (See infra on the subject of Divine *election).

The Blessing of Esau,* Genesis 27:39-40. My brother has supplanted me twice, cried Esau, haven-’t you any blessing left for me, father? Though there is truth in what Esau says, he does not do well to play the part of injured innocence. His birthright he sold right cheerfully, and was far more at fault in the selling of it than Jacob in the buying. The blessing, on the other hand, had been destined for Jacob by God long ago, and Esau knew it (EG, 755). But did Esau know this? We are told by some that Rebekah would never have kept secret from Isaac the Divine oracle of Gen 25:23. But can we be sure about this, considering the strong-willed woman that Rebekah was? However, the meaningful blessing having been bestowed on Jacob, there was no calling it back. A blessing in the sense in which Esau wants it cannot be bestowed, for that would require the cancellation of the blessing just bestowed (i.e., on Jacob). Poor Esau’s grief is pathetic, a startling case of seeking a good thing too late. The blessing of the father seems to be the one thing of the whole spiritual heritage that has impressed Esau. Unfortunately, it is not the chief thing (EG, 755). So Esau lifted up his voice, and wept. So shall the lost, when they find it is everlastingly too late, cry for the rocks and the mountains to fall upon them and hide them from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb (Revelation 6:15-16).

Genesis 27:38: Is that the only blessing thou hast? cries Esau. He does not even imagine that the blessing can be revoked, but he still hopes that perhaps a second (inferior) blessing might be granted him, -Those tears of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive manalmost like the cry of some trapped creatureare among the most pathetic in the Bible-’ (Davidson, Hebrews, 242, quoted ICCG, 373). His importunity elicits, says Skinner, what is virtually a curse, though put in terms similar to those of Gen 27:29. Literally, it reads:

Away from the fat places of the earth shall thy dwelling be;

And away from the dew of heaven above!

Here, after a noun of place, the preposition denotes distance or separation; for example, Proverbs 20:3. The pastoral life has been distasteful to Esau, and so shall it be with his race. The land of Edom was accordingly a comparative wilderness, Malachi 1:3 (MG, 383). The blessing imported that Esau and his seed should inhabit Mt. Seir, a soil then only moderately fertile (cf. Genesis 36:1-8, Deuteronomy 2:5). Seir was the rather rugged region extending southward from the Dead Sea, east of the valley of Arabah: far from the fatness of the earth and dew of heaven from above (Unger, UBD, 991, 992). The rest of Isaac’s pronouncement was predictive, signifying that Esau’s progeny should live much by war, violence, and rapine; should be subjected to the Hebrew yoke, but should at times cast it off. And so it was; the historical relation of Edom to Israel assumed the form of a constant reiteration of servitude, revolt, and reconquest. After a long period of independence at first, the Edomites were defeated by Saul (1 Samuel 14:47) and subjugated by David (2 Samuel 8:14); and, in spite of an attempt at revolt under Solomon (1 Kings 11:14 ff.), they remained subject to the kingdom of Judah until the time of Joram, when they rebelled (2 Kings 8:16 ff.) They were subdued again by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7; 2 Chronicles 25:11 ff.), and remained in subjection under Uzziah and Jotham (2 Kings 14:22, 2 Chronicles 26:2). It was not until the reign of Ahaz that they shook the yoke of Judah entirely off (2 Kings 16:6, 2 Chronicles 18:17)-’, without Judah being ever able to reduce them again. At length, however, they were completely conquered by John Hyrcanus about B.C. 129, compelled to submit to circumcision, and incorporated in the Jewish state (Josephus, Ant. 13, 9, 1; 15, 7, 9). At a still later period, through Antipater and Herod, they established an Idumean dynasty over Judea, which lasted till the complete dissolution of the Jewish state. (See BCOTP, Keil and Delitzsch, 279).

Esau’s Vindictiveness, Genesis 27:41-45. Esau hated Jacob: and hate is a passion never satisfied until it kills. It is scarcely to be wondered at, however, that Esau resented Jacob’s deceit and vowed revenge. Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father is at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob. The days of mourning for my father: a common Oriental expression for the death of a parent. This, we are told, was a period of seven days. It very frequently happens in the East that brothers at variance wait for the death of their father to avenge amongst themselves their private quarrels (CECG, 197). He would put off his intended fratricide that he might not hurt his father’s mind (BCOTP, 280). Another view: In this manner Esau hoped to recover both birth-right and blessing; but Isaac nevertheless lived about forty-three years after. Esau was afraid to attempt any open violence during his father’s life. The disease under which Isaac was laboring had brought on premature debility, and it appears to have greatly affected his sight. He must have in a great measure recovered from it, however, for he lived for forty years after Jacob’s departure (SIBG, 259). He did not wish to grieve his father by taking revenge while he was alive (SC, 156).

Rebekah to the Rescue. In some way, or by someone, Esau’s threat was made known to Rebekah, and, as usual, she was prepared to meet the crisis. She advised (in reality, ordered) Jacob to protect himself from Esau’s threatened vengeance by fleeing to her brother Laban in Haran, and remaining there a few days, as she mildly put it, until his brother’s wrath was subdued.

Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day? This refers to the law of Goelism, by which the nearest of kin would be obliged to avenge the death of Jacob upon his brother (CECG, 198). The writer has in view the custom of blood-revenge (cf. 2 Samuel 14:7), though in the case supposed there would be no one to execute it (ICCG, 374). (But would not Jacob’s offspring be required to do this? (Cf. Genesis 4:14-15). Killing Jacob would expose Esau to the death penalty, through blood vengeance or otherwise (ABG, 210). In order to obtain Isaac’s consent to this plan, without hurting his feelings by telling him of Esau’s murderous intentions, she spoke to him of her troubles on account of the Hittite wives of Esau, and the weariness of life that she should feel if Jacob also were to marry one of the daughters of the land, and so introduced the idea of sending Jacob to her relatives in Mesopotamia, with a view to marriage there (BCOTP, 280).

The recapitulation of this incident by Keil-Deiltzsch is so thorough and so obviously accurate that we feel justified in including it at this point: Thus the words of Isaac to his two sons were fulfilledwords which are justly said to have been spoken -in faith concerning things to come-’ (Hebrews 11:20). For the blessing was a prophecy, and that not merely in the case of Esau, but in that of Jacob also; although Isaac was deceived with regard to the person of the latter. Jacob remained blessed, therefore, because, according to the predetermination of God, the elder was to serve the younger; but the deceit by which his mother prompted him to secure the blessing was never approved. On the contrary, the sin was followed by immediate punishment. Rebekah was obliged to send her pet son into a foreign land, away from his father’s house, and in an utterly destitute condition. She did not see him for twenty years, even if she lived till his return, and possibly never saw him again. Jacob had to atone for his sin against both brother and father by a long and painful exile, in the midst of privation, anxiety, fraud, and want. Isaac Was punished for retaining his preference for Esau, in opposition to the revealed will of Jehovah, by the success of Jacob’s stratagem; and Esau for his contempt of the birthright, by the loss of the blessing of the first-born. In this way a higher hand prevailed above the acts of sinful men, bringing the counsel and will of Jehovah to eventual triumph, in opposition to human thought and will (BCOTP, 297).

6. The Problem of Divine Election. We need recall here certain facts about Divine knowledge and election. We must start from the fact that man is predestined only to be free, that is, to have the power of choice. (In the final analysis, it is neither heredity nor environment nor both, but the Ithe self, the personwho makes the choice. Hence, a man’s choices, and the acts proceeding therefrom constitute God’s foreknowledge, or to be specific, His knowledge. Therefore, the acts of the parents and the twins, in the story before us, were not the consequences of an arbitrary foreordination on God’s part, nor of the influence of some such non-entity as fate, fortune, destiny, and the like, but of the motivations, choices, and acts of the persons involved. Though known by Him, as He knows in a single thought, the entire space-time continuum, they were not necessarily foreordained. He simply allowed them to occur by not interfering to prevent their occurrence. (See Part Thirty-seven supra, under Genesis 27:23, of ch. 25, caption, The Prophetic Communication). To hold that God necessitates everything that man does, including even his acceptance or rejection of the redemption provided for him by Divine grace, is to make God responsible for everything that occurs, both good and evil. This is not only unscriptural: it is an insult to the Almighty. (Cf. Ezekiel 18:32, John 5:40, 1 Timothy 2:4, James 1:13, 2 Peter 3:9). Although it may appear at first glance that the choice of Jacob over Esau was an arbitrary one, our human hindsight certainly supports God’s foresight in making it. True, Jacob’s character was not anything to brag about, especially in his earlier years, but after his experience at Peniel he seems to have been a changed man with a changed name, Israel (Genesis 32:22-32); certainly it was of nobler quality all along than that of Esau, as proved by their different attitudes toward Divine institutionsrights and responsibilitiessuch as those of the birthright and the blessing (Exodus 13:11-16, Deuteronomy 21:17). Hence the Divine election in this case was not arbitrary, but justly based on the Divine knowledge of the basic righteousness of Jacob by way of contrast with the sheer secularism (profanity) of Esau.

Hurrian Parallels. We are especially indebted to Dr. Speiser for his information regarding Hurrian parallels of the Hebrew stories of the parents, the twins, and the transference of the birthright and the blessing. These Hurrian sources from Nuzi, we are told, mirror social conditions and customs in the patriarchal center at Haran. Birthright, for instance, in Hurrian society was often a matter of the father’s discretion rather than chronological priority. Moreover, of all the paternal dispositions, the one that took the form of a deathbed declaration carried the greatest weight. One such recorded statement actually safeguards the rights of the youngest son against possible claims by his older brothers. Another is introduced by the formula, I have now grown old,-’ which leads up to an oral allocation of the testator’s property, or, in other words, a deathbed -blessing.-’ (For further details, Dr. Speiser refers the student to his discussion in the Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 74[1955,], 252f.).

Again: Isaac’s opening words in the present instance reflect thus an old and authentic usage. The background is Hurrian, which accords with the fact that Haran, where the patriarchs had their roots, was old Hurrian territory. On the socio-legal level, therefore, the account is a correct measure of early relations between Hebrews and Hurrians. With Seira synonym of Esauassigned in Deuteronomy 2:12 to the Horites (even though not all of them can be equated with Hurrians), it would not be surprising if the same account should also echo remote historical rivalries between the same two groups. At any rate, tradition succeeded in preserving the accurate setting of this narrative precisely because the subject matter was deemed to be of great consequence. In essence, this matter was the continuity of the biblical process itself, a process traced through a line that did not always hold the upper hand. Legally, the older son was entitled to a double and preferential share of the inheritance, especially in Hurrian society. But since the status of the older son could be regulated by a father’s pronouncement, irrespective of chronological precedent, and since the legacy in this instance had been established by divine covenant, the emphasis of tradition on the transfer of the birthright in a deathbed blessingwith Yahweh’s approval (cf. Genesis 27:7)can readily be appreciated (ABG, 212-213). Hurrian parallels of various details of the story of the relations between Jacob and Laban will be found in subsequent sections.

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

An Unpleasant Picture of Family Life

All four of the participants in the domestic drama paid, in one way or another, for their sins of parental bias, outright deception, indifference to sacred institutions, disregard of family unity and welfare, mediocre fatherhood and overzealous mother-love. A family of four, all of whom were in the wrong. Note the following outline:

1. The father’s scheming, Genesis 27:1-4. Isaac evidently was not near death, for he lived on for more than forty-years. It may be assumed that he knew God’s will (Genesis 25:23); otherwise, it must be assumed that Rebekah could never have reported to him regarding this Divine pronouncement. (Of course this latter view is not outside the realm of possibility by any means). If Isaac knew what was God’s will in the matter, he deliberately set about to thwart it. Esau probably also knew, in which case he showed himself more than ready to fall in with his father’s scheme. In any case Isaac could hardly lay claim to any great measure of family control. He was without doubt a genuinely henpecked man.

2. The mother’s counter-plot (Genesis 27:5-17). Rebekah’s aim was commendable, we might agree, but her methods were wrong. Jacob saw the risk involved (Genesis 27:12) but was overborne by his domineering mother.

3. The younger son’s deception (Genesis 27:18-29). The lies were terrible, one might well say, unpardonable. It was in response to these lies, that the father’s benediction, with some misgiving, followed.

4. The elder son’s humiliation (Genesis 27:30-40). Sympathy for Esau cannot hide the fact of his profanity. He had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. If he had, in the meantime, come to realize the true nature of the blessing, it was too late: he could not change that which, once given, was irrevocable. This we believe to be the meaning of Heb 12:17.

5. The denouement (Genesis 27:41-46). Esau’s anger was to be expected: it was natural. However, because Isaac did not die, he could only vent his rage on Jacob. Rebekah, of course, took action immediately to thwart his threatened revenge, but with all her resourcefulness she could not foresee either that she might never meet Jacob again or that her brother Laban would prove to be as great a plotter as she had been.

All in all, it was a family mess. But it is also another case of the Bible’s realism. The Bible is preeminently the Book of Life! It pictures life exactly as men and women live it in this world, never exaggerating their virtues, never ignoring their faults.

The Result of the Deception. The blessing of a dying father was believed by Oriental peoples to exert an important influence over the life of his descendants. Probably Rebekah and Jacob feared that Jacob might thereby lose the advantage he had already gained by his bargain with Esau. The steps they took to deceive the aged patriarch were wholly discreditable from the standpoint of a modern conscience. Jacob and his mother did not attempt to justify their act. The guilty pair did not remain unpunished. A train of bitter consequences ensued. Jacob’s punishment was exile from the family home. He had deprived himself at a stroke of everything on which he set great value. 3. It was the sort of retribution he needed. His scheming mother suffered too. Despite her masterfulness and whole-souled devotion, she never saw the face of her favorite son again (HH, 40).

For Meditation: Some very solemn and searching lessons for us all. (1) The end does not justify the means. (2) The results of sin are inevitable (all four suffered irreparably). (3) The will of God will be done in spite of man’s effort to thwart it (Psalms 33:10; Proverbs 16:9; Proverbs 19:21) (TPCC, 54). In addition to all this, there was the terrible threat hanging over the household (Genesis 27:45). This is not a rhetorical question. By the laws of blood revenge, if Esau killed Jacob, the clan would in turn kill him. We have a parallel in the tragedy of the woman of Tekoa (2 Samuel 14:5-7) (Cornfeld, AtD, 81). The prospect of a bloodbath that might ensue within the tribe was not an improbable one: hence Jacob’s flight, at the command of his mother, to her distant kinsman in Haran. Learn: 1. That those who attempt to deceive others are not infrequently themselves deceived. 2. That those who set out on a sinful course are liable to sink deeper into sin than they expected. 3. That deception practised by a son against a father, at a mother’s instigation, is a monstrous and unnatural display of wickedness. 4. That God can accomplish His own designs by means of man’s crimes, without either relieving them of guilt or Himself being the author of sin. 5.That the blessing of God maketh rich and addeth no sorrow therewith. 6.That the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (PCG, 340); that is without variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning (James 1:17) according to the demands of Absolute justice tempered with mercy. Finally, The prediction of a nation’s or a person’s future does not interfere with the free operation of the human will (ibid., 343).

The Parents and the Twins: Characterizations

(1) Rebekah and Jacob deceived Isaac in order to obtain the blessing. Esau, long before this, had sold the birthright. (Genesis 25:27-34) to his brother. God would undoubtedly have worked out His will for Jacob to obtain the blessing in the end without resort to fraud. This incident is a sad illustration of what happens when believers seek to promote the will of God by dishonest means. Jacob had to pay the price in long years of exile (HSB, 45).

(2) The ethics of the case should be scrutinized a bit more closely. That Jacob was in part at fault has not been denied. That Esau was far more at fault has been pointed out. This contrast is usually overlooked. Jacob has been criticized quite roundly, and the greater sinner, Esau, is pitied and represented as quite within his rights. That the whole is a most regrettable domestic tangle cannot be denied, and, as is usually the case in such tangles, every member involved bore his share of guilt. But if it be overlooked that Jacob’s aspirations were high and good and in every sense commendable, and besides based on a sure promise of God, a distorted view of the case must result. They that insist on distorting the incident claim that the account practically indicates that Jacob was rewarded with a blessing for his treachery. The following facts should be held over against such a claim to show just retribution is visited on Jacob for his treachery: 1. Rebekah and Jacob apparently never saw one another again after the separation that grew out of this deceit an experience painful for both; 2. Jacob, deceiver of his father, was more cruelly deceived by his own sons in the case of the sale of Joseph and the torn coat of many colors; 3. from having been a man of means and influence Jacob is demoted to a position of hard rigorous service for twenty years (EG, 758).

(3) It is quite common, in reviewing the present narrative, to place Rebekah and Jacob too much under the shadows of sin, in comparison with Isaac. Isaac’s sin does not consist alone in his arbitrary determination to present Esau with the blessing of the theocratic birthright, although Rebekah received the divine sentence respecting her children before their birth, and which, no doubt, she had mentioned to him; and although Esau had manifested already, by his marriage with the daughters of Heth, his want of the theocratic faith, and by his bartering with Jacob, his carnal disposition, and his contempt of the birthrightthus viewed, indeed, his son admits of palliation through several excuses. The clear right of the first-born seemed to oppose itself to the dark oracle of God, Jacob’s prudence to Esau’s frank and generous disposition, the quiet shepherd-life of Jacob to Esau’s stateliness and power, and on the other hand, Esau’s misalliances to Jacob’s continued celibacy. And although Isaac may have been too weak to enjoy the venison obtained for him by Esau, yet the true-hearted care of the son for his father’s infirmity and age, is also of some importance. But the manner in which Isaac intends to bless Esau, places his offense in a clearer light. He intends to bless him solemnly in unbecoming secrecy, without the knowledge of Rebekah and Jacob, or of his house. The preparation of the venison is scarcely to be regarded as if he was to be inspired for the blessing by the eating of this -dainty dish,-’ or of this token of filial affection. This preparation, at least, in its main point of view, is an excuse to gain time and place for the secret act. In this point of view, the act of Rebekah appears in a different light. It is a woman’s shrewdness that crosses the shrewdly calculated project of Isaac. He is caught in a net of his own sinful prudence. A Want of divine confidence may be recognized through all his actions. It is no real presentation of death that urges him now to bless Esau. But he now anticipates his closing hours and Jehovah’s decision, because he wishes to put an end to his inward uncertainty which annoyed him. Just as Abraham anticipated the divine decision in his connection with Hagar, so Isaac, in his eager and hearty performance, of an act belonging to his last days, while he lived yet many years. With this, therefore, is also connected the improper combination of the act of blessing with the meal, as well as the uneasy apprehension lest he should be interrupted in his plan (see Genesis 27:18), and a suspicious and strained expectation which was not at first caused by the voice of Jacob, Rebekah, however, has so far the advantage of him that she, in her deception, has the divine assurance that Jacob-’ was the heir, while Isaac, in his preceding secrecy has, on his side, only human descent and his human reason, without any inward spiritual certainty. But Rebekah’s sin consists ill thinking that she must save the divine election of Jacob by means of human deception and a so-called white-lie. Isaac, at that critical moment, would have been far less able to pronounce the blessing of Abraham upon. Esau, than afterward Balaam, standing far below him,-’ could have cursed the people of Israel at the critical moment of its history, For the words of the spirit and of the promise are never left to human caprice. Rebekah, therefore, sinned against Isaac through a want of candor, just as Isaac before had sinned against Rebekah through a like deceit. The divine decree would also have been fulfilled without her assistance, if she had had the necessary measure of faith, Of course, when compared with Isaac’s fatal error, Rebekah was right. Though she deceived him greatly, misled her favorite son, and alienated Esau from her, there was yet something saving in her action according to her intentions, even for Isaac himself and for both her sons, For to Esau the most comprehensive blessing might have become a curse. He was not fitted for it. Just as Rebekah thinks to oppose cunning to cunning in order to save the divine blessing through Isaac, and thus secure a heavenly right, so also Jacob secures a human right in buying of Esau the right of the firstborn. But now the tragic consequences of the first officious anticipation, which Isaac incurred, as well as that of the second, of which Rebekah becomes guilty, were soon to appear. The tragic consequences of the hasty conduct and the mutual deceptions in the family of Isaac: Esau threatens to become a fratricide, and this threat repeats itself in the conduct of Joseph’s brothers, who also believed that they saw in Joseph a brother unjustly preferred, and came very near killing him. Jacob must become a fugitive for many a long year, and perhaps yield up to Esau the external inheritance for the most part or entirely. The patriarchal dignity is obscured; Rebekah is obliged to send her favorite son abroad, and perhaps never see him again, The bold expression, -Upon me be thy curse,-’ may be regarded as having a bright side; for she, as protectress of Jacob’s blessing always enjoys a share in his blessing. But the sinful element in it was the wrong application of her assurance of faith to the act of deception, which she herself undertook, and to which she persuaded Jacob; and for which she must atone, perhaps, by many a long year of melancholy solitude and through the joylessness which immediately spread itself over the family affairs of the household. With all this, however, Isaac was kept from a grave offence, and the true relation of things secured by the pretended necessity for her prevarication. Through this catastrophe Isaac came to a full understanding of the divine decree. Esau attained the fullest development of his peculiar characteristics, and Jacob was directed to his journey of faith, and to his marriage, without which the promise could not even be fulfilled (Lange, CDHCG, 516).

(4) How could Isaac have been so grossly deceived by Jacob and his mother? He was not only blind, but old, so that he could not distinguish with accuracy, either by the touch of his shrivelled hand or by the ear, now dull of hearing. It must be further remembered that Esau was from his birth a hairy person. He was now a man, full grown, and no doubt as rough and shaggy as any he-goat. Jacob was of the same age, and his whole history shows that he was eminently shrewd and cunning. He got that from his mother, who on this occasion plied all her arts to make the deception perfect. She fitted out Jacob with Esau’s well-known clothes, strongly scented with such odors as he was accustomed to use. The ladies and dandies in ancient times delighted to make their raiment smell like the smell of a field which the Lord had blessed-’; and at this day they scent their gala garments with such rich and powerful spicery that the very street along which they walk is perfumed. It is highly probable that Jacob, a plain man, given to cattle and husbandry, utterly eschewed these odoriferous vanities, and this would greatly aid in the deception. Poor old Isaac felt the garments, and smelled the still more distinguishing perfumes of Esau, and though the voice was Jacob’S, yet he could not doubt that the person before him waswhat he solemnly protested that he washis firstborn. The extreme improbability of deception would make him less suspicious, and, so far as the hair and the perfume are concerned, I have seen many Arabs who might now play such a game with entire success. All this is easy and plain in comparison with the great fact that this treachery and perjury, under most aggravating accompaniments, should be in a sense ratified and prospered by the all-seeing God of justice. It is well to remember, however, that though the blessing, once solemnly bestowed, according to established custom in such cases, could not be recalled, yet, in the overruling providence of God, the guilty parties were made to eat the bitter fruit of their sin during their whole lives. In this matter they sowed to the wind and reaped the whirlwind. We set out on this line of remark by saying that in several of the known incidents in Isaac’s history, few though they be, he does not appear to advantage. Even in this transaction, where he, now old, blind and helpless, was so cruelly betrayed by his wife and deceived by his son, he is unfortunately at fault in the main question. He was wrong and Rebekah was right on the real point of issue; and, what is more, Isaac’s judgment in regard to the person most proper to be invested with the great office of transmitting the true faith and the true line of descent for the promised Messiah was determined by a pitiful relish for -savory meat.-’ Alas, for poor human nature! There is none of it without dross; and mountains of mud must be washed to get one diamond as large as a pea (Thomson, LB, 561-562).

(5) In the case of Rebekah we have a case of emotion evilly used. One of Frederick W. Robertson’s notable sermons was on the subject, Isaac Blessing His Sons. In this, as he touched upon the words of Rebekah, Upon me be thy curse, my son, he set forth unforgettably the truth that even the most passionate human devotion, if unprincipled, will not bless but destroy. In her ambition for Jacob, Rebekah stopped at nothing. If evil means seemed necessary, she would assume the consequences. Said Robertson: -Here you see the idolatry, of the woman: sacrificing her husband, her elder son, high principle, her own soul, for an idolized person.. Do not mistake. No one ever loved child, brother, sister, too much. It is not the intensity of affection, but its interference with truth and duty, that makes it idolatry. Rebekah loved her son more than truth, i.e., more than God.. The only true affection is that which is subordinate to a higher.. Compare, for instance, Rebekah’s love for Jacob with that of Abraham for his son Isaac. Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son to duty, Rebekah sacrificed truth and duty to her son. Which loved a son most?which was the nobler love?-’ Though Rebekah was willing to take the consequences of the wrong entirely upon herself, she could not do it. They involved Jacobas the punishment of the evil which Lady Macbeth prompted involved Macbeth. The sin of deception was not originally Jacob’S, but when he acquiesced in his mother’s suggestion, it became his too. So he went on to increasingly gross and deliberate falsehood until he became capable of the blasphemous lie of telling his father, Isaac, when the old man asked how he could so quickly have secured the venison which he, Jacob, was offering under the pretense that he was Esau, -The Lord thy God brought it to me-’ (Genesis 27:20). So the lesson of Jacob’s relationship to Rebekah is summed up in Robertson’s vivid words, -Beware of that affection which cares for your happiness more than for your honor-’ (IBG, 681-682).

A character study of Rebekah is significant more in the questions it provokes than in the answers. The O.T, writers do not often draw a neat moral at the end of a description. They give the facts even though they may be inconsistent and confused, and leave us to interpret them as best we can.. The story of Rebekah had an idyllic beginning. [Note at this point the picture given us of Rebekah as a girl, ch. 24, as follows; Her natural charm and winsomeness (Genesis 24:16); her swift and kindly friendliness (Genesis 24:18); the happy-heartedness which made her do not only what was asked of her but more (Genesis 24:19); her quick and sure decisiveness (Genesis 24:58); her ability to command a great devotion. Isaac loved her when he first saw her (Genesis 24:67), and apparently he loved no other woman but Rebekah all his life, Here, in an age and in a society where polygamy was familiar, is monogamous marriage. So in the marriage service of the Book of Common Prayer through many generations there was the petition that -as Isaac and Rebekah lived faithfully together, so these persons may surely perform the vow and covenant betwixt them made.-’] But what followed was not idyllic. It was the uncomfortable realization of this that made the revisers of the American Book of Common Prayer omit in the 1920’s the reference to the mutual faithfulness of Isaac and Rebekah which had been in the inherited book for centuries. That reference was put there originally because Isaac and Rebekah were the one notable pair among the patriarchs who were monogamous. But the fact that a man or woman has only one mate does not of itself make a marriage successful. Divorce is not the only thing that destroys a marriage; there may be a gradual divergence so wide and deep that the essential marriage is destroyed even though the shell of it remains. It takes more than staying together to keep a man and woman -faithful.-’ To be faithful they must create and cherish mutual sympathies, mutual convictions, mutual aims.. The only road of faithfulness is when both are humbly and truly trying to walk God’s way. Any preparation for marriage is hollow unless it is filled with that conviction. The divergence between Isaac and Rebekah came out of their different regard for their two sons. For that divided favoritism perhaps both were to blame, but Rebekah more aggressively so than Isaac. Her love for Jacob was so fiercely jealous that it broke loose from any larger loyalty. As between her twin sons, she wanted Jacob to have the best of everything, no matter how he got it; and to that end she would not scruple at trickery and unfairness both toward her husband and her son Esau. There was something of the tigress in Rebekah, instinctively protecting the cub that by physical comparison was inferior. So she could come to the point of saying to Jacob, -Upon me be thy curse, my son; only obey my voice-’ (Genesis 27:13). Thus the Rebekah at the well has become an altogether different woman; scheming for Jacob to steal the birthright, pushing both Esau and Isaac for the moment out of her regard, unscrupulous because one purpose only obsessed her. It was not that she wanted to hurt anybody, she might have said. It was just that she was so determined to do what she thought would help Jacob that she was blind to anything or anybody that might get hurt. And all the while what she was doing was in the name of love. A study in character here, and of the way in which an emotion essentially beautiful may become perverted. It is instinctive and right that a woman should love passionately. But the greatest love must always be subject to a greater loyalty: loyalty to truth, to honor, to the relationship of life to God. Rebekah forgot that, and she corrupted Jacob as she tried to cherish him. As it is the passion of her love than can make a woman wonderful, so it is the failure to keep that love purified by the light of God that can make love ruinous. Jezebel is pictured as one of the evil women of the Bible, but it may be that originally she was not deliberately evil. She loved Ahab, proudly, fiercely, but with blind disregard for everything except what Ahab wanted; and see what she did to Ahab. Consider Lady Macbeth; read the story of Steerforth and his mother in David Copperfield. In every congregation there is a woman who is repeating the story of Rebekaha mother who secretly encourages her son in self-indulgence and extravagance, or presses her unworthy scheme in order that her daughter may be -a social success.-’ She is expressing what she thinks is her devotion, but that does not make it the less demoralizing. What ought to be great qualities of heart can end in deadly hurtfulness if love is not purified and disciplined by principles that have come from God. Yet even out of the unlovely chapter of Rebekah’s life there emerges something fine. Why did Rebekah. prefer Jacob? Was it because of a woman’s insight which can be more sensitive to unseen values than a man is likely to be? Isaac preferred Esau, the bluff and virile son, the full-blooded and physically more attractive man. But Jacob, in spite of limitations and glaring faults, had something which Esau did not have In the Hebrew family, the birthright was at least in part a spiritual privilege. It meant that the holder of it would be a shaper of ideas and ideals. Esau, who lived mostly by the lusty dictates of the body, was indifferent to these: not so Jacob. He had a belief in spiritual destiny, dim and distorted at first, but nevertheless so stubborn that ultimately it would prevail. Rebekah saw this, and she was determined to protect it. Thus the thought of Rebekah ends like an unsolved equation. She represents the woman’s greatest contribution to the race, viz., the ability to recognize and to cherish those qualities in her child by which the future may be shaped. In that primitive family she advanced her purpose by the stratagems of a relentless shrewdness that laid all other loyalties aside. How can the relationship between husband and wife in this Christian Era be so developed that the insights of Rebekah may not have to stoop to dishonesty in order to be expressed? (IBG, Exposition, 655, 667-669. The Exposition section, by Dr. Bowie, of this volume on Genesis is certainly outstanding and makes it worth having in every preacher’s library-C.C.).

(6) That the story before us poses a moral problem, among many others, was already clear in biblical timesalthough this point has been suppressed by many of the later moralizers. Both Hosea (Hosea 12:4) and Jer. (Jeremiah 9:3) allude to Jacob’s treatment of Esau with manifest disapproval. What is more, the author himself, by dealing so sensitively with the hapless plight in which Isaac and Esau find themselves through no fault of their own (cf. especially Genesis 27:33-38), demonstrates beyond any doubt that his personal sympathies are with the victims. It is, furthermore, a fact that Jacob himself did not think up the scheme; he acted, though not without remonstrance and uneasiness, under pressure from his strong-willed mother; and he had to pay for his misdeed with twenty years of exile.. The fate of individuals caught up in the mainstream of history will often seem incomprehensible; for history is but the unfolding of a divine master plan, many details of which must forever remain a mystery to mortals (Speiser, ABG, 211). (Concerning Hebrews 12:17, Milligan writes, correctly we think, as follows: What is the meaning of this? Does the Apostle mean repentance on the part of Esau, or on the part of his father Isaac?. In either case the lesson taught is about the same. For whatever construction is put on the several words of this sentence, it must be obvious that the object of the Apostle is to remind his readers, that the mistake of Esau, once committed, was committed forever: that no possible change of his mind could in any way affect a change in the mind and purpose so obtained forgiveness, is I think possible; but not so with regard to his despised birthrights. These by one foolish and irreligious act had been irrecoverably lost (Commentary on Hebrews, 356) of God.. That he may have afterward repented of his sins, and

(7) Finally, this excellent summation: The moral aspect of the transaction is plain to those who are willing to see that the Bible represents the patriarchs as -men compassed with infirmity,-’ favored by the grace of God, but not at all endowed with sinless perfection. It is just this, in fact, that makes their lives a moral lesson for us. Examples have occurred in the lives of Abraham and Isaac; but the whole career of Jacob is the history of a growing moral discipline. God is not honored by glossing over the patriarch’s great faults of character, which are corrected by the discipline of severe suffering. We need not withhold indignant censure from Rebekah’s cupidity on behalf of her favorite sonso like her familyand the mean deceit to which she tempts him. Nor is Isaac free from the blame of that foolish fondness, which, as is usual with moral weakness, gives occasion to crime in others. What, then, is the difference between them and Esau? Simply thisthat they, in their hearts, honored the God whom he despised, though -their piety was corrupted by their selfish passions. Jacob valued the blessing which he purchased wrongfully, and sought more wrongfully to secure. But Esau, whose conduct was equally unprincipled in desiring to receive the blessing which was no longer his, was rightly -rejected, when he would have inherited the blessing-’ (Hebrews 12:17). His selfish sorrow and resentment could not recall the choice he had made, or stand in the place of genuine repentance. -He found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears,-’ and he is held forth as a great example of unavailing regret for spiritual blessings wantonly thrown away (Smith-Fields, OTH, 95-96).

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY-NINE

Why should we accept these accounts of incidents in the lives of the patriarchs at face value? What do they prove concerning human character?

In patriarchal society how was the paternal blessing understood?

List the various kinds of acts of blessing mentioned in Scripture, and explain the meaning of each kind.

What elements were blended together in the final patriarchal blessing?

What special significance attached to the patriarchal blessings of Abraham and Isaac?

6*.*

Do we find any evidence of magic in these blessings?

What caused Isaac to decide to bestow the blessing at once? How explain this, in view of the fact that he lived more than forty years longer?

How old was Isaac at this time? What are some of the rabbinical explanations of Isaac’s infirmities, especially his failing eyesight?

What did Isaac wish to do for his eldest son, and why? What does the text indicate about Isaac’s gourmet taste as a factor in his decision?

Is it likely that Isaac knew about the Divine oracle, Genesis 25:23, concerning the respective destinies of the twins? Give reasons for your answer.

May we assume that Isaac knew about Esau’s barter of the birthright for a mess of pottage? If so, on what grounds?

How did Rebekah learn of Isaac’s conversation with Esau regarding the bestowal of the blessing on him?

Explain what the statement, that my soul may bless thee before I die, means?

What opinion prevails generally regarding the efficacy of a dying utterance?

Explain Rebekah’s stratagem in detail. To what extent, do you think, Jacob participated in it willingly?

What light does Rebekah’s statement, Upon me be thy curse, my son, throw upon her attitude and character. Are we not justified in calling this a form of blasphemy?

What shows that Jacob was more afraid of detection than of the duplicity? What light does this cast upon the distinction between morality and expediency?

What was the Divine oracle with respect to the separate destinies of the twins?

State the details of the scene between Isaac and Jacob. How is Isaac’s lingering doubt finally dissipated? What caused him to be suspicious in the first place?

When Isaac expressed surprise at what he thought was Esau’S unusually quick return with the cooked venison, what hypocritical explanation did Jacob make to reassure his father?

Give examples of situations in our time in which such hypocritical invocations of God’s help are offered as explanation. Would not this be what the Freudians name projection?

Of how many outright lies did Jacob become guilty in his scene with his father?

What three kinds of kisses were permitted by the rabbis?

How does the kiss (Genesis 27:26-27) remind us of the New Testament parallel (Matthew 26:49)?

How account for the perfumed raiment which Jacob donned on this occasion? How did this determine Isaac’s decision?

What were the three parts of the paternal blessing? What significant spiritual development was implicit in this blessing??

How did Isaac become aware finally of the deception which had been perpetrated?

What were the emotional reactions of both Isaac and Esau when they learned the truth? What caused Isaac to tremble very exceedingly?

What was the long-term relation between this paternal blessing and our Christian faith?

What was the significance of Esau’s cry, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

Can we say that Esau’s reaction was a manly one? Or would you say that he acted like a spoiled brat?

Have we any reason for supposing that Esau had gained a deeper appreciation of the import of the blessing than he had manifested with reference to the birthright?

Explain the sheer drama that was present in this scene between Esau and his father.

Analyze the personal blessing now bestowed on Esau. Show how the details of this blessing were actualized in subsequent history. Who were the Edomites? The Idumeans?

What revenge did Esau threaten to wreak upon Jacob? What prevented his execution of this vengeance at once?

Show how Rebekah again came to Jacob’s rescue. What did she tell him to do?

Explain her statement, Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?

What were the ultimate consequences of this event for Esau and for Jacob?

What punishment did each of the four principals suffer?

Were not the parents more responsible for what happened than the twins were? Explain

Explain fully the problem of the Divine election of Jacob over Esau for inclusion in the Messianic genealogy.

On what grounds are we justified in concluding that Jacob was the more worthy of the two to be included in the Messianic Line?

What was Esau’s besetting sin? Explain how this sin occurs today in the attitude of so many toward the ordinances of Christian baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Is not the professing church in our Era persistently guilty of disrespect for Divine institutions?

Explain the Hurrian parallels of the details of this Old Testament story. How account for these facts?

Explain how this story is truly an unpleasant picture of family life.

Why is this designated another instance of Biblical realism?

What are some of the important lessons for us to derive from this story?

Explain how the schemes of the parents in no wise altered the actualization of God’s Purposes.

Why do we say that Rebekah’s part in this entire transaction was essentially a lack of faith? In what sense can the same be said of the other three principals?

Explain how that in Rebekah’s case we have an account of a laudable emotion evilly used.

What charges can we rightly bring against each of the four members of this dramatis personae?

What good can we say of each of them?

How is the fact to be explained that the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah, completely out of line with the common practice of the time, was a monogamous marriage? Does this mean that it was necessarily one of devoted love?

In what sense must deep personal love be devoted to higher values than personal satisfaction? What should these higher values be? In what sense can such deep personal love become ruinous?

Is there such a thing as smother love? Explain

Give Milligan’s interpretation of Heb 12:17.

On what continuing values does monogamous marriage depend?

What elements stand out in the character of Jacob to give him the higher moral and spiritual status?

What elements stand out in Esau’s character to justify God’s rejection of him?

THE PATRIARCHAL PERIOD

**LIFE AND JOURNEYS OF JACOB

Beer-la-hai-roi; Genesis 25:19-34**

a.

Birth of Jacob and Esau.

b.

Birthright sold.

**2.

Gerar; Genesis 26:1-21**

a.

Accompanies parents.

**3.

Rehoboth; Genesis 26:22**

a.

With father here.

**4.

Beersheba; Genesis 26:23 to Genesis 28:9**

a.

(Jehovah’s appearance to Isaac; The covenant with Abimelcch)

b.

(Esau’s two wives)

c.

Jacob obtains the blessing. Genesis 27:1-45.

d.

Jacob sent away; Genesis 28:1-9.

**5.

Bethel; Genesis 28:10-22.**

a.

Jacob’s dream.

**6.

Haran; Genesis 29:1 to Genesis 31:21**

a.

Jacob’s dealings with Laban.

b.

Jacob’s wives and children.

**7.

Mizpah; Genesis 31:22-55**

a.

Final meeting and covenant of Laban and Jacob.

**8.

Mahanaim; Genesis 32:1-21**

a.

Meeting with the angels.

b.

Preparations to meet Esau.

**9.

Peniel; Genesis 32:22 to Genesis 33:16**

a.

Wrestling with angel; Genesis 32:22-32.

b.

Meeting with Esauffi Genesis 33:1-16.

**10.

Succoth; Genesis 33:17**

a.

House and booths built.

**11.

Shechem; Genesis 33:18 Genesis 35:5**

a.

Purchase of ground; Genesis 33:18-20.

b.

Sin of Shechem; 34-1-31.

c.

Command to go to Bethel; Genesis 35:1-5.

**12.

Bethel; Genesis 35:6-15**

a.

Altar built.

b.

Deborah dies.

c.

The blessing of God.

**13.

Bethlehem; Genesis 35:16-20**

a.

Death of Rachel and birth of Benjamin.

**14.

Hebron; Genesis 35:21 to Genesis 45:28**

a.

Sin of Reuben; Genesis 35:21-22.

b.

Death of Isaac;

c.

Descendants of Esau; Ch. 36.

d.

The story of Joseph; Genesis 37:1 to Genesis 45:28.

**15.

Beersheba; Genesis 46:1-7**

a.

God appears as Jacob goes to Egypt.

**16.

Egypt; Genesis 46:8 to Genesis 50:6**

a.

Jacob’s family sojourns in Egypt.

**17.

Hebron; Genesis 50:7-13**

a.

Burial of Jacob.

Genesis 27:45-46

PART FORTY THE STORY OF JACOB; THE JOURNEY TO PADDAN-ARAM

(Genesis 27:46 to Genesis 28:22)

1. *The Biblical Account

46 And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these, of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me? 1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother. 3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a company of peoples; 4 and give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land of thy soojournings, which God gave unto Abraham,* 5 *And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Paddan-aram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother.

6 Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan; 7 and that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Paddan-aram: 8 and Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; 9 and Esau went unto Ishmael, and took, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife. 10 And Jacob went out from Beer-sheba, and went toward Haran. 11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep. 12 And he dreamed; and, behold, a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and, behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it. 13 And, behold, Jehovah stood above it, and said, I am Jehovah, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land where on thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; 14 and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. 16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely Jehovah is in this place; and I knew it not. 17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. 19 And he called the name of that place Beth-el: but the name of the city was Luz at the first. 20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21 so that 1 come again to my father’s house in peace, and Jehovah will be my God, 22 then this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee. 2. Jacob’s Blessing and Departure* (Genesis 27:45 to Genesis 28:5). We are told by the critics that we have here two accounts of Jacob’s departure differentiated by dissimilar motivations; In one version, the motive is fear of Esau’s revenge; in the other, it is Rebecca’s aversion to Hittite women and her determination that Jacob shall choose a wife from among her own Aramaean relatives. In their eagerness to find material for separate documents, or evidence of duplicate accounts, the critics seem to be ever ready to sacrifice the force and beauty of the narratives with which they deal. They dissect them to the quick, rending them into feeble or incoherent fragments, or they pare them down by the assumption of doublets to the baldest forms of intelligible statement, and thus strip them of those affecting details, which lend them such a charm, because so true to nature. This involves the absurdity of assuming that two jejune or fragmentary accounts, pieced mechanically together, have produced narratives which are not only consistent and complete, but full of animation and dramatic power. An attempt is made to establish a difference between J and E on one hand, and P on the other, as to the reason why Jacob went to Paddan-Aram. According to the former (Genesis 27:1-45), it is to flee from his brother, whom he has enraged by defrauding him of his father’s blessing. According to the latter (Genesis 26:34-35; Genesis 28:1-9), that he may not marry among the Canaanites, as Esau had done, to the great grief of his parents, but obtain a wife from among his own kindred. P, we are told, knows of no hostility between the brothers. But all this is spoiled by the statement in Genesis 28:7, that -Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Paddan-Aram.-’ His father sent him to get a wife (Genesis 28:1-9), but his mother to escape Esau’s fury (Genesis 27:42-45); and there is no incompatibility between these two objects. In order to gain Isaac over to her plan without acquainting him with Esau’s murderous designs, Rebekah simply urges her dissatisfaction with the wives of Esau, and her apprehension that Jacob might contract a similar marriage with someone of the daughters of the land. Isaac had one object in mind, Rebekah another. There is nothing for the critics to do, therefore, but to pronounce the unwelcome words, -and his mother,-’ an interpolation. In order to prove their point they must first adjust the text to suit it. But tinkering the text in a single passage will not relieve them in the present instance. The hostility of Esau is embedded in the entire narrative, and cannot be surrendered from it. Why did Jacob go alone and unattended in quest of a wife, without the retinue or the costly presents for his bride, befitting his rank and wealth? When Abraham desired a wife for Isaac he sent a princely embassy to woo Rebekah, and conduct her to her future home. Why was Jacob’s suit so differently managed, although Isaac imitated Abraham in everything else? And why did Jacob remain away from his parents and his home, and from the land sacred as the gift of God, for so many long years till his twelve sons were born (Genesis 35:26 P)? This is wholly unaccounted for except by the deadly hostility of Esau (UBG, 330, 331). (It should be recalled that J stands for the Jahvistic Code, E for Elohistic, and P for the Priestly. See my Genesis, I, pp. 47-70)

In order to obtain Isaac’s consent to the plan, without hurting his feelings by telling him of Esau’s murderous intentions, she [Rebekah] spoke to him of her troubles on account of the Hittite wives of Esau, and the weariness of life that she should feel if Jacob also were to marry one of the daughters of the land, and so introduced the idea of sending Jacob to her relations in Mesopotamia, with a view to his marriage there (BCOTP, 280). The true state of Esau’s spirit is shown by his resolve to kill his brother as soon as his father should die. To avert the danger, Rebekah sent away Jacob to her family at Haran. Isaac approved the plan, as securing a proper marriage for his son, to whom he repeated the blessing of Abraham, and sent him away to Paddan-aram (Genesis 32:10) (OTH, 96). The first verse of ch. 28 so obviously follows the last verse of ch. 27 that we see no pertinent reason for assuming separate accounts of the motive for Jacob’s departure.

Note also the blessing with which Isaac sent Jacob on his way, Genesis 28:1-4. The Jehovah of the blessing is at the same time the God of universal nature, Elohim, who from his general beneficence will bestow -the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine,-’ In taking leave of Jacob, Isaac pronounces upon him the blessing of Abraham (Genesis 28:4); he is thus led to borrow the language of that signal revelation to Abraham when Jehovah made himself known as God Almighty (Genesis 17:1), and gave him promises with a special emphasis, which are here repeated. Hence the El Shaddai (Genesis 27:3) and Elohim (Genesis 27:4) (UBG, 332). The blessing to Abraham was that he should teach man the knowledge of the true God which would become a blessing to him. Isaac now blessed Jacob that his seed might be worthy to give such teaching, in the merit of which they would possess the Promised Land (SC, 157). Note the phrase, company of peoples, Genesis 27:3. This would seem to point forward to the tribes that were to spring from the loins of Jacob. By the words of Gen 27:4, Isaac conveys the most important part of the patriarchal blessing, the part relative to the Messiah, which he had not quite ventured to bestow previously when he still thought he was dealing with Esau. Sobered by the failure of his attempt and made wiser, he freely gives what he fully understands to have been divinely destined for Jacob. -The blessing of Abraham-’ is fully as much as was promised to him but no more. Since previously (Genesis 27:27-29)Isaac also had not ventured to bestow the land of promise on the one who presumably was Esau, now he unmistakably bestows it on Jacob, that which is now a -land of sojourning-’ where the patriarchs have as yet no permanent possession except a burial place.. God -gave-’ this land to Abraham, of course, only by promise but none the less actually (EG, 767, 768).

Note well the aftermath of treachery in this case: Rebekah and Jacob never saw each other again. Jacob had lost a mother’s love, a father’s love, and a brother’s loveall sacrificed to selfish ambition. He was almost like Cainall alone in the world. We may be certain that, our sins, sooner or later, find us out (Numbers 32:23).

Review Questions

See Genesis 28:20-22.