The Man of Peace
***************************************************************************
CHAPTER 1 - THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC AND REBEKAH
CHAPTER 2 - THE CYCLE OF PAIN PASSED ON
CHAPTER 3 - THE PAIN CYCLE CONTINUES
CHAPTER 4 - HISTORY REPEATED - THE SAY YOU ARE MY SISTER
EPISODES - ISAAC, REBEKAH, ABIMELECH, PHICOL
CHAPTER 5 - ISAAC AND ABIMELECH AND ANOTHER WELLS INCIDENT
CHAPTER 6 - THE PAIN OF SEPARATION
CHAPTER 7 - THE FOUR MAIN CHARACTERS IN THE ISAAC STORY -
REBEKAH, JACOB, ESAU, ISAAC
***************************************************************************
In the five chapters, recorded in Genesis, which introduce the story of Isaac and his family, there is a man more sedentary than his relatives, quiet, and gentle, and probably much given to meditation.
***************************************************************************
CHAPTER 1
THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC AND REBEKAH
“... and she became his wife, and he loved her”, Genesis 24:67.
FOCUS:
In the story of Isaac, the first long chapter, Genesis 24, contains a moving and exciting story of the choosing of a wife for Isaac.
1. ABRAHAM’S CONCERNS ABOUT A WIFE FOR ISAAC
Abraham was fully convinced that God would bless a journey to Haran, and was quite confident that a suitable wife would be found for his son, Isaac, and it was so. Abraham had very special concerns about this wife for Isaac, and spells them out to his servant in verses 1 to 9. He had two concerns, marrying “out”, that is, amongst the Canaanites, and the problems that would bring to his protection of the seed line, both religiously and geographically. There were political concerns as well.
1. Abraham was fearful for Isaac’s well being if he married at home among the Canaanites. Such a union could have enhanced the Israelites future property rights (part of God’s promises), but Abraham viewed the familial and religious considerations to far outweigh any territorial advantage.
There is never any question of Isaac marrying into the righteous of Salem, which peoples Abraham had befriended, so perhaps, to Abraham, the Ur family line meant better marriage partners in terms of familial considerations.
2. Abraham might have regarded the act of returning his son in person, out of the land, to Haran or Ur, as an act of unbelief and disobedience. Perhaps Isaac’s safety was in question if he went to choose his own wife, or perhaps, Abraham was fearful that he would not return to this Promised Land. Abraham is quite definite about that, verses 6 to 9.
3. So as a third choice, the servant was sent instead.
This servant was willing to make an oath to Abraham, “touching his thigh”, (a symbol of the reproductive organs, or organs of generation, and so very sacred), making a solemn obligation to carry out a superior’s wishes, in a matter of great concern. It was Abraham’s concerns for his posterity that he would get a suitable wife for Isaac. The thigh touching is a token of submission by the toucher for him so touched. The man, Abraham’s servant, obviously knew of Abraham’s special faith, and was even himself, possibly, of that persuasion. This incident brings to mind a later momentous incident in Jacob’s life, (Isaac’s son), when an angel touched his thigh.
The occasion is beautifully narrated in a high literary style, and forms the conclusion of the Abraham saga. The story is told in great detail, and the conversations are very realistic. The dialogue lends itself to theatre, with a narrator, a servant, the intended wife, Rebekah, the family, and the entourage (who return with the servant).
There are contrasts here with Jacob’s choosing of a wife, when he comes later to this family. This present instance is a much happier one, and a joyful, expectant scenario, full of grace and promise for Isaac, on the strength of the reputation of his worthy father, and the wonderfully credible presentation of the loyal and gracious servant.
2. ELIEZER SETS OUT FOR HARAN TO GET A WIFE FOR ISAAC
So Abraham sent his trusted, oldest servant, probably Eliezer, (as Abraham had named him as his majordomo in Genesis 13), with presents of gold and silver and clothing and costly gifts and ten camels to Haran. Interesting that silver and golden ornaments and clothing are valuable and acceptable presents on such a Godly mission, probably as evidence to the family in Haran of Abraham's prosperity.
As Eliezer set out now, he was as confident as Abraham, that he would return with a mother for the promised seed, next in line, and that he would conduct a marriage by proxy. If it did not happen as they both planned, Abraham had offered an escape clause to release Eliezer from the mission, verse 8. Here are the last recorded words of Abraham, although his death is not imminent, over thirty years hence. However, Abraham is at pains to ensure the continuation of his posterity, and the land that God promised them, and will do all that is in his power to ensure that. He is setting his affairs in order. He was doubtful at first how God would manage it all, Genesis 15:2 and 15:8, but he is now more confident in God’s ability to ensure that. It is interesting to note that if the trusted servant was Eliezer, it was him that the childless Abraham had offered to God as an heir. God said “This shall not be thine heir”. If it was not the trusted and God fearing Eliezer from Damascus, then there must have been another willing and faithful servant easily persuaded by Abraham to perform this duty, which seems highly unlikely. The evidence seems to be strong that it is Eliezer, so it will be assumed here to be so.
At the city of Nahor, (probably named after Abraham’s brother, that is, Nahor’s city), south of Haran, but still in the Haran district in Mesopotamia, this special servant made his camels kneel without the city, at a well, so that he can unload them, and he prays to God, the first recorded prayer for personal guidance in the Bible, verses 12 to 14. Eliezer makes a detailed pact with God, for he is concerned that he will know the right wife for Isaac. With this prayer (and its answer), we may conclude that this servant had a special relationship with God, and that God had sent an angel with him on the journey.
He prayed that God would speedily answer the request of his master, Abraham. He asked God that the wife for Isaac would be the woman who readily answered his request for water and offered water to his camels also, Genesis 24:14. God did answer his prayer in all the detail and more.
In the evening Rebekah came down the steps, and filled her pitcher with water. Wells fed by natural springs were reached by a flight of steps. Cisterns were fed by rains and were narrow at the top and wider at the bottom. Rebekah was beautiful to look at, a virgin, verse 16, whom no man had known. The last phrase is a Hebrew poetical repeating to emphasis the foregoing statement. Eliezer did not know this detail, though he would know of Abraham’s requirements in the matter. This comment by Moses in the text is significant. Perhaps there is some detail in her dress, say, veiled in a particular way, which gives Eliezer the clue of her sexual status. However as God had guided him so far, it may be that God said, “this is the one”, as He did to Samuel at the anointing of David from among Jesse's sons, 1 Samuel 16:12.
It is important to note that the word for “damsel” is of common gender, of either sex, and signifies that this is indeed an ancient text, for the feminine or masculine gender is not used by Moses in any of the Pentateuch books, and only comes into stylistic writing in later books. This is a reason to disallow a more recent author of the book.
Eliezer watched Rebekah closely, when he first saw her at the well, and when she was kind enough to let him drink from her pitcher, and filled the trough twice for his camels to drink, he was sure God had guided his searching. He gave her the gifts he had brought for this special person, a golden nose ring (usually placed in the left nostril), and two bracelets, verses 21 and 22, and she offered him accommodation in her family compound. Eliezer was amazed and astonished, and already felt that God had made his journey prosperous, and that he had found what he was looking for. He had not asked for a vision, or for a miraculous event, he had asked for God’s guidance through clear signs, in natural circumstances. When he later tells Laban and Bethuel, son of Nahor, (her brother and father, who are arranging the matrimonial proposal), verses 33 to 49, his awe and excitement are obvious, that God has blessed him. This Haran family is impressed, not only with the servant’s integrity about his belief in God, but in his anxiety to do as his master, Abraham, had asked him. Eliezer would not sit to eat, until he had stated his mission and had some sort of understanding. Eliezer’s anxiety is understandable, but it was also the custom to state a request before the obligatory meal, so that the meal became a sort of celebration of the decision. It was considered courteous to grant the request, if possible.
In the matter of the wonderful choosing of Rebekah, encouraged, no doubt, by the angel, who travelled with Abraham’s trusted servant, we can see how appropriate she was for the duty ahead. She was considerate and gracious, kind and courteous. She had led a sheltered life, was anxious to please and do her duty, a fitting bride for a God blessed patriarch’s son.
Eliezer had prayed to God for guidance, at the well. Later when he recounts his story, he repeats his prayer inexactly, verses 12-14 and 42-44. This is another indication of the inspired word, because someone else initiating the story would, probably, have quoted from the previous incident more accurately. However the Spirit, through Moses, records the prayer and the remembrance of it, inaccurately as it was from Eliezer’s lips. The important place that prayer has in this story indicates that Abraham’s prayer life was well established in his compound, that is, it was a natural activity, not hidden from others, and emulated by his servant.
3. REBEKAH’S DESTINY IS SEALED AFTER HER QUICK RESPONSE
Eliezer made an amazing request of this family in Haran. Genesis 24:33-49. They were probably surprised and stunned by his words, when he asked to take Rebekah back to Abraham’s family, to marry Abraham’s only son, Isaac. Hopefully Rebekah had joy in her heart, when she heard of the request, and not fear.
Rebekah may have recognised, with great relief, the God loving servant (after her initial courtesy). She could have married successfully “out”, among the Hittites round about. Her wealth, her station, her high living and learning could have enhanced any family if she linked with the neighbours round about. But her family did not press the point, verses 50 and 51, nor even raise the issue. They told Eliezer to take her.
Eliezer was so overcome that he worshipped God, then and there, thanking Him for his loving care over the mission he had from Abraham. He bowed down, and the family observing this impressive behaviour of Eliezer, must have felt confident in the planned journey, and comforted in the impending loss of their prized daughter. Eliezer must have had with him, among the ten camels, adequate provision for the safety of Rebekah during the return journey, and sufficient evidence of a skilled and influential family, to whom they sent her. Then there where were more gifts, for Rebekah and her parents and brother. These gifts all help to indicate Abraham's success and wealth in the land to which he migrated. There are three generations noted here, Nahor, Bethuel and Laban, Abraham and Isaac are only two generations, but Isaac's parents were very old.
At last, they all sat down to the meal that awaited them. Laban seems to be the main consultant in the matter, for Bethuel, Rebekah’s father, may have died, or was incapacitated in some way. He is mentioned in the text, but not as having any pronouncements. So it was Laban and Rebekah’s mother who asked Eliezer to wait for ten days, or a long period of time, (the time period is obscure), and we are reminded of the much more stringent conditions which Laban called for in the later generational call for a wife for Isaac’s son Jacob.
So they all asked Rebekah would she agree to the plan, and she said, “I will go”, verse 58, meaning she would go immediately.
Consider:
* Why did Rebekah respond so quickly?
* Did God speak to her?
* Or was she waiting for a God directed union, and she could see that, in this proposal?
* Did her family also see a divine purpose for their daughter, or were they already slipping in their worship of the true God towards their later eclectic worshipping practices?
* Or was the waiting plan so that she would be sure?
* Or so that they may savour their final days with her,
* Or was there a trick in store, which never eventuated, like Laban later played on Jacob?
********************
The family gave Rebekah a gracious blessing, verse 60, which indicates they knew also of the promises to Abraham. They blessed her with fruitfulness and victory in war.
This is the promise to Sarah, Genesis 17:16, at her name change, and the promise to Abraham, Genesis 22:17, at the time of the near sacrifice.
Rebekah was waiting for her own religious class to claim her - to be bound with a fellow Hebrew seems her goal. Her decision was swift, within a day, for she recognised it as providential, and so she and her maids mounted the camels and waved away their previous life, Genesis 24:61. As the caravan moved off, she must have held great hopes in her heart, but there were tragic disappointments ahead. The precious nurse, Deborah, was with her. The lament at her death, Genesis 35:8, shows how Rebekah and her son, Jacob, cherished her.
The journey may have taken several months, and Abraham would have been shifting his herds around from station to station, though his location would have been known. It is therefore likely that Rebekah visited all of these compounds, moving south to Beersheba, before coming near Beer Lahai-roi. They were searching for Isaac. He was returning to Hebron to his mother’s old compound, from the wells, where he may have been already pasturing flocks and herds. This remote southern station was Hagar’s well, before she went off into the Wilderness of Paran. It became Isaac’s favourite residence, Genesis 35:11.
Consider:
* Where are these compounds?
* Did Abraham remain in Hebron, where Sarah had died? This was where her compound was, for Isaac had taken over her tent, into which he invited Rebekah.
* or did Abraham return to Beersheba?
* Where was the well of Lahai-roi of Genesis 25:11, compare Genesis 16:14, which Isaac favoured?
* Or is only the meaning of the name “Well of the living One who sees me” important?
* When did Isaac set up this compound much further south?
* If it is Hagar’s well, and so close to Egypt, on the trade route actually, why choose that spot to settle?
********************
4. ISAAC IS WAITING FOR HIS WIFE
And Isaac was waiting for her. He had waited a long time for a wife arrangement. He was in the fields meditating, or mourning his mother. When Rebekah saw Isaac, she got down off the camel, and veiled herself. It was a custom, and still is in some countries, for women, or inferiors, to walk, not ride, in the presence of men, or superiors. Unmarried ladies were enveloped in a body and face veil, when approaching their bridegrooms, and Rebekah did so, because she was respectful and courteous, and also because Isaac needed to identify her as his bride. It is thought that married ladies did not wear veils, for the Egyptians and Abimelech saw the beauty of Sarah and Rebekah. There were many types of veils for women to use for different occasions. It is interesting that, today, Christian women are not veiled, while other religions have differing practices with reference to female face veiling.
Isaac took Rebekah to his mother’s tent and she became his wife. His mother’s tent was in Hebron, and so together Isaac and Rebekah built their family life together there, until the move to Gerar. By the death of Abraham, at least 35 years later, Isaac had moved to Beer Lahai-roi, where he had a compound. If Abraham had stayed in Hebron after Sarah’s death, (for he had come to bury her from Beersheba), there would have been two families there, and this seems untenable, and not the usual custom when families were not interdependent. Isaac had herds of his own already. Close family proximity engenders too much strife between herdsmen, as happened with Lot. Abraham probably moved back to Beersheba with his immediate family, but he sent away the sons of his concubines to the east country, away from Isaac. We know that Hagar and her child went to the border with Egypt, and Keturah’s people went to Midian, south eastern Sinai.
Abraham must have been comforted, that the plan to marry off Isaac worked so well. Eliezer told him all about the journey, about the family in Haran, about their history, since Abraham’s departure, about their wealth, and no doubt about their spiritual well being.
But as Isaac glanced around, in the distance
A far off train of camels meets his eye.
And as they come nearer, he can see,
- A maiden veiled
- His unseen God sent bride.
Many poets over the centuries have been roused to write of this wonderful story and that sombre story moves us as well.
CONCLUSION:
It reads for us in Genesis, as a great love story beyond Isaac’s greatest dreams. The little space in his heart for hope had been nurtured by his father who had made a grand plan for him, and sent Eliezer to Haran. The little space had grown larger as he saw the approaching camels, and he was more pleased still, as he realised who and what Rebekah was. He was blessed with a lovely wife. Truly this was a blessing from God. Isaac’s heart was now filled, not with hope, but with gladness, and he was at rest.
Here is a chance for the dysfunction that has plagued this family to be repaired, and we wish this newly married couple many blessings and pray that God’s way will be shown through them.
CHAPTER 2
THE CYCLE OF PAIN PASSED ON
“Because thou hast not withheld thy son ... I will bless thee”, Genesis 22:16, 17.
FOCUS:
The section of Scripture about the closing days of Abraham, Genesis 25:1-18, with its genealogical lists, detailing his descendants, is a witness to God’s faithfulness in fulfilling his promises. Abraham’s entire biography is framed in promise and fulfilment. The intent of this chapter is to bring to a conclusion Abraham’s life with his loved son, Isaac.
1. THE CLOSING DAYS OF ABRAHAM
The chapter opens with the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, which we have already discussed in relation to Sarah. We are at a loss to understand when that event took place, and the text is no help. We have our predilection, of course, and hope that it was after Sarah died.
The details here are not in chronological order, and serve only to tell us what happened to Abraham after Isaac’s wedding, and thence to Abraham’s death, which is fifteen years away, at least. The section about Abraham and Ishmael closes off a big Genesis section, making way for the section about Isaac's family life. The two sections are written quite differently and the genres reflect the characters of the two men. Perhaps it was an oral history passed down in two separate family lines, or perhaps the histories were recorded at different times, or initially by different people, before Moses took charge of the inspired recording.
Tucked in, in verse 11, there is a comment about Isaac’s wealth and his sedentary nature, for he did live by the well, in Lahai-roi. Finally there comes a history of Ishmael, verses 12-18, all before the birth of the twins to Isaac and Rebekah. The twins were 15 years old when Abraham died.
2. THE CONSEQUENCE OF ABRAHAM'S AND ISAAC’S OBEDIENCE
We would not question “why” God required of Abraham the sacrifice of Isaac (and here remember with gratitude God’s sacrifice of His own Son). We are content with the Hebrews 11 explanation. But we are able to discern, without implied judgement or criticism, the two contrasting characters of Abraham and Isaac, and speculate the impact that the mighty Mount Moriah incident had on both men.
It is as if the two men have been painted by two artists on two different continents. Abraham’s and Jacob’s momentous lives, not without conflict, with their conspicuous life experiences and grand God blessed journeys, contrast with Isaac’s quiet peaceful existence, obedient, submitting, trusting God. Isaac knew of Abraham’s growing lifetime faith, and would have heard, and realised, later in his life, of Jacob’s learned faith through God’s discipline, his misplaced self will and purging disappointments. Surely Isaac in his family concern would hope that Jacob would overcome the deceit that Rebekah and her brother Laban would later weave into his character.
* It is interesting to note that in the near sacrifice incident, Isaac could see, but not wholly understand.
* In the later deception of Isaac, by Rebekah and Jacob, Isaac could not see, but understood that something was wrong, “Is it really you, Esau?”
The holiness of the Bible is not confirmed by a record devoid of painful stories. They are there for the purpose of strengthening our resolve to be like Him. So many of the stories have no God condoning, or God condemning judgment, but that does not prevent us from prayerfully deciding what is right and wrong, and how we should behave from what He has revealed of His mind in other sections of His Word. However, it does prevent us from making our own judgments from our own standards and beliefs, rather than from those of God.
The pattern of pain passed on from the Abraham and Sarah generation is present in the Isaac family unit, but we shall see there are future characters in this family not yet born, who can recover from this disorder. God provided very special circumstances for this family, but men and women often behave dishonourably. Still from this special family dynasty comes a character who literally saves them all and they do, against their inclination, bow down to him.
1. Isaac was the son of a famous father
2. And became the husband of a clever woman.
3. He was under the hand of a gracious God,
4. and the management of Abraham,
5. And as well, Rebekah.
6. Never master of his own life,
7. Or of his house, so it is recorded, no harm there for we are leaders/followers.
8. He was cared for, in his failing sight,
9. And organised in this or that,
10. And in a great humiliation, cheated.
Consider:
We could assess the following statements.
* Did Isaac surrender too much for peace?
* Did he degenerate into apathy and thus easily became the tool of the more active members of his family?
* Was Isaac at liberty to be at peace, because of his acquiescence to God’s command of Abraham to sacrifice his son, that is, the then young Isaac?
********************
In the three years since Sarah’s death, with Abraham his only company, Isaac, an only child, was saddled with enormous wealth and an immense inheritance - for Ishmael had long been sent away with his settlement (though Muslims have it that the future promised inheritance belongs to them, through Ishmael).
This might have contributed to Isaac being given to much solitude and meditation. He was overwhelmed by the faith of his father, his goodness, his great and mighty deeds with kings and counsellors, his wealth, his influence and his enormous extended family - a specially chosen man. If Sarah had been away from the main family home, and Isaac had been alone with Abraham, at her death, the bond with Isaac would have been a close one, and would have been even more enriched after her death.
The certitude of Isaac’s mother and her forceful personality also contributed to his character, (for we are all conditioned by both parents, as well as our environment). Since Hagar and Ishmael had been banished, and in Abraham’s absence on company business, Sarah would have shared with Isaac the reflected glory of his father, and that would have influenced him as well.
While Isaac was a single man, but mature, he helped with the family herds and went on to establish his own herds, at Lahai-roi, even further south than Beersheba in the Negev region. This existence would have shored up his independent streak and given him steel in his backbone to be a lone person. To be happy alone is not a possibility for some of us, but perhaps it was for Isaac.
And when he was older, Isaac’s blindness, would have contributed to his inactivity. His incapacity for 40 to 50 years may not have so distressed his demeanour, or his character, for he naturally, and without effort, was a partaker in the high thoughts that accompanied the patriarchs, sharing in this knowledge of God, and His plan of Redemption. He appears to be an accessory to the great dramas that went before and after him, and that happened round about him. He was probably very content with his spiritual thoughts and his priestly activities, for with Abraham's gift of all his wealth and possessions (Genesis 25:5) he had more than enough for comfort, and therefore no concern apart from management, about the family daily existence.
It is possible to note two high points in Isaac’s life from the record available to us.
Firstly: the birth of the twins must have been a high point after the long childless years.
Secondly: when the twins were 15 years old at the death of Abraham, when Ishmael had returned to help Isaac bury their father in the expensively acquired cave of Machpelah.
It was the first landed property of the patriarchs for a great specific purpose, and can be seen to this very day. However, it was purchased land, and not inherited, as God had promised the land possession would be.
Abraham had been a sojourner in the land for 62 years and the laying of Sarah in the tomb became the first real occupation of the land. For this mighty occasion 48 years later (the laying of Abraham in the cave) Ishmael, 14 years the senior, and Isaac perform the duty - with or without Abraham's other sons by Keturah. We are not told. This occasion would have been a hiccough in Isaac’s placid life, Genesis 25:9, and perhaps he would have been grateful when life settled into routine again. It would have been a considerable journey for Ishmael depending how many wives and progeny and servants accompanied him. The occasion would have been a family reunion, as funerals often are, for the two great families may have not seen one another in between times.
There are later low points in this family life of which Isaac may have felt ashamed.
However we could conclude from the record that Isaac's life was generally commonplace.
3. COMMONPLACE LIVES
Those of us who live commonplace lives with a hiccough now and again can take heart that we are represented in Holy Writ by Isaac. Life for some seems so plain and ordinary that sometimes they question their importance in the scheme of things, why God has not chosen them for higher things. It need never be questioned, if those (commonplace) lives are lived for God’s glory. Isaac (with the details we are given) does glorify the commonplace, except for five or six recorded occasions. His comfortable existence, after the crowning obedience to his father’s will of the near sacrifice, and then 3 years after his mother’s death, begins with the coming of Rebekah and the beginning of his family life.
4. WELL FUNCTION/DYSFUNCTION MAY BE A MULTI GENERATION INFLUENCE
However, we are about to begin to see that there is a multi generation transmission process at work here in this story, crossing the generations in an alarming way. We begin to see how the Godly heart works, but also how human goodness and human flaws are learned, and how the generations can influence one another for good, but also for evil. Families are complex structures and from being part of the family unit we can learn positive vibes and behaviours, but also negative ones.
It is often in this way, that “the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children”, Exodus 20:5, and perhaps there is something of that in our patriarchal story. Certainly physical attributes can be transmitted, we know that, but often just by modelling, emotional and behavioural problems can be transmitted, as well. Punishment often works itself across the generations, and certainly consequences do, so that the children are “visited”.
Comment:
Spiritual worth can also be transmitted, if great care is taken in valuing Godly things, without extreme. Extremity with self righteousness is not good modelling.
********************
Meantime our Bible readings about this family teach us not only the facts, but lessons as well, so that our lives may not repeat the mistakes. If mistakes do occur we ought to do everything we can by lengthy discussion, and loving care, and earnest understanding to repair
breaches and prevent re occurrences. We should talk openly about predilections towards generational family dysfunctions that work themselves across the generations - it is a known fact that it can occur. To be aware is, hopefully, to prevent. May God bless our efforts to prevent re occurring family, or indeed, community worshipping dysfunction.
It is interesting that dysfunction is more likely transferred than well function, for so quickly disorder can come from order, before you know it, really; but order from disorder is more difficult, and takes great skill and perseverance.
CONCLUSION:
Now that all the Abraham’s family lineage and history and inheritance details have been dealt with, we can move on in Isaac’s story.
CHAPTER 3
THE PAIN CYCLE CONTINUES
“Two nations are in thy womb ... and the elder shall serve the younger”, Genesis 25:23.
FOCUS:
Some mighty and deceitful incidents are discussed here, and the results indicate that God forgives the unspoken or unrecorded contrition that must have been in evidence, Genesis 25:19-34.
Isaac, Rebekah, Esau, and Jacob comprised a small family unit of four characters where all the evil passions show that man “is deceitful above all things and his heart is desperately wicked”. Isaac was a passive family head, making little effort for influence over the two boys who were so contrary in disposition and lifetime pursuits, not taking control as his father Abraham had done, not keeping in touch with God over the problem, as Abraham had done over his problems. This family situation is described in Genesis 25 to 28.
1. FAMILY DYSFUNCTION IN ISAAC'S FAMILY
Rebekah replaced Sarah as the mistress in this next patriarchal group and as she learned to live without her family, she and Isaac, who had married at age 40 years, waited patiently for 20 more years for an heir through which the promises could proceed. Rebekah repeated the childlessness experiences of Sarah, which must have been no less of a trauma for her, unfulfilled as she was in her cultural role. They knew the promises depended on the birth of a son, and the long waiting period was of no less concern than Abraham’s and Sarah’s, although Rebekah’s waiting time was much shorter. The people of God often require more than one lesson, and it is significant that this couple did not resort to surrogacy, or any other way around the problem. Their full dependence on God was critical and it seems they learned the lesson. Eventually Isaac's prayer is heard and his wife becomes pregnant.
Perhaps Isaac was slight of stature and not physically strong, as he was the son of aged parents, for his birth was almost as miraculous as our Lord’s birth, (and Isaac’s return from certain death almost as miraculous as our Lord’s resurrection). We do not know of any physical differences in beings born of aged parents, and if it is so, God, in this case, would have made up for any disadvantages.
In any case, it would not have been a physical weakness that prevented the birth of his sons for 20 years, but rather that God needed time to emphasis that the continuance of Israel depended upon His intervention.
Rebekah’s delight in her pregnancy is overshadowed by the answer from God when she enquires about the children fighting in her womb. She is dismayed. Her inquiry about the movements in her womb is answered. “Two nations, (peoples) are in your womb, one will be stronger than the other and the elder will serve the younger”, Genesis 25:23 - not so important today - but the last statement would have set up a cultural deviation, which in those days, would have required great skill to achieve without trauma or family dysfunction.
Consider:
* Knowing this prophecy and Rebekah as an intelligent woman (assuming she told Isaac of God’s message) and both enlightened and humbled by the tragedies gone before in Isaac’s family, why didn’t Rebekah and Isaac plan, with God as their guide, towards this momentous event, so that the brothers would understand and accept their reversed roles?
* Did God use Abraham to tell Rebekah about the two nations in her womb?
* Or, did God speak to her directly?
* Or in a dream?
********************
When the time came for Rebekah to have her babies, she gave birth in the privacy of her tent. She straddled two cushioned stones, as countless generations had done before her, above a space intended to receive the newborn. Midwives and maidservants helped with the birth and cut the umbilical cords with a copper knife and washed the babies in water. Then they rubbed them with cleansing salt and oils, and wrapped them firmly in clean strips of woollen cloth.
An interesting phenomenon happened as the first twin was passing through the birth canal. The waiting to be born twin had already grasped the heel of his brother and was struggling also to emerge, and as the midwife lifted the first twin, the other brother also came to birth. The first twin, “red and hairy” was called Esau, and the second twin, “the grasper of the heel”, Jacob. In a reversal of this God was later to grasp Jacob’s “heel”, that is, the thigh sinew that ran down to the heel, to keep him at His side.
Jacob grew to be a slightly built like the average Semite, tough, but Esau was a mountain of a man.
* Jacob was a “plain man”, (rendered “perfect” for Job), and much later, much older
* He grew to be a “complete” man, with all his personality developed, (for the root of “tam” means “to be complete”), and
* He became the alternately rendered “upright”.
Jacob is contrasted here with the description of Esau, as a “wild man” or “skilful in hunting”, Genesis 25:27.
Both Isaac and Rebekah must have felt blessed after such a long wait for their family, but dysfunction began to fester to spoil this loving picture. Each boy grew in a different direction, exactly according to how God had predicted. Jacob was more a homebody than Esau. Jacob helped his mother grind the grain, and churn butter, and baked the flat bread on hot flat stones. He knew about spinning the wool into woollen thread to weave their colourful clothes, and the coats of many colours, (one of which became a gift to a favourite son much later in his life). He knew about the great pieces of goat skin and hair to make and mend tents. With all this activity, close to his mother’s side, Jacob became his mother’s boy.
Esau was the strong farmer type, but his character was not too much influenced by his father, Isaac. Their own animals were slaughtered for ceremonial occasions, but if Esau was a skilful hunter, Genesis 25:27, it was because he killed animals while protecting his sheep, or for food to supplement the grain diet, using a poisoned sharp arrow. Deer, bears, gazelles and wild goats were still common in this area.
2. FAVOURITES IN FAMILIES
The model of Ishmael and Isaac was before them where the elder had to give way to the younger in unpleasant circumstances, and the taste of family resentment, would surely still be present.
The Companion Bible, “Chronological Chart, Appendix 50”, reckons that Ishmael had died at 137, when the twins were 63. This means that the whole family structure and the preferences, and their predilections for one another would have been discussed openly and privately, both with, and within, each family group. Now, incident by incident, the case builds up, and the two parents each favouring one child, allows resentment to build like pressure from a boiling kettle, Genesis 25:28.
Surely long term planning and loving discussion, under God, with a united consistent approach, by both parents, could have cushioned the disappointment and strengthened the self worth, so that Esau could have been highly valued in this family unit. Isaac tried to do it alone and almost turned, in his anxiety for Esau, against God's explicit instruction.
Consider:
* Did Isaac favour Esau, because he knew Esau would miss the blessing- to cushion the blow?
* Did he overvalue Esau because he, Isaac, was not the strong outdoor risk taker type that Esau was?
* Did Esau lobby Isaac over the years, to change God’s predilection?
* Or was he ignorant of it?
Isaac knew the life of a promised child and heir, as he was that himself.
* Why did he not sympathise with, and so sparingly love Jacob, who had that same role?
* Can Isaac be excused, that he did not know of God's will in the matter, that Rebekah never told him?
********************
Isaac’s characteristic of not dealing with things unpleasant, leads us to think he probably did know. Moreover, he blessed Esau with the words “thou shalt serve thy brother”, Genesis 27:40, which was part of the promise from God to Rebekah, “and the elder shall serve the younger”, Genesis 25:23.
If Isaac and Rebekah had worked together on the problem, this family disorder so hard to solve, might have been avoided, and both boys could have learned to act in a Godly way without rancour.
Comment:
All parents fail, sometimes, even often. We know disappointment, and that family disagreements and wrong perceptions are very hard to correct. Children have a great capacity to quarrel and have not much wisdom in confrontation avoidance techniques. They have not the maturity to repair relationships. These techniques need to be specifically taught to children. These become useful tools in living skills, especially for worshipping communities, see -
“You and Your Child” B. Russell,
“Dimensions of a Disciple”, S Dawes,
“Living together”, S. Dawes,
“Choosing to Love”, O. Dawes.
It is possible for relationships to blossom again after disintegration, but we need to learn how to achieve that.
Devaluing of what is important always underlies family mischief and contributes to dependency on addictions or compulsive behaviour. It develops co dependency - the need to have someone else responsible for your irresponsible behaviour - a distinct lack of self discipline, like Jacob, in his early days.
Isaac had two major family problems, favouritism and competition.
Favouritism is quite common in families, but can be so unjust and destructive. Every child should be loved, no more no less than another - but each loved differently for its own specialities by its parents. Some fit better in families than others, but it's up to parents to fit and refit the “ugly duckling”, making him/her special too. Competition is healthy, if everyone has a turn at winning - and losing.
********************
3. THE SOLD BIRTHRIGHT IN ISAAC’S FAMILY
One day at the age of 24, Esau came into the compound empty handed and saw Jacob cooking a red soup. He asked for some of it, remarking that he was famished. Jacob agreed to give him some, only if he would trade it for his birthright. Esau agreed immediately, saying that a birthright was useless if one was dying of hunger anyway. We have to accept the fact that Esau did not give it away, it wasn’t taken away from him, he SOLD it, and ratified the sale with an oath. We need to consider whether there is any virtue either way, - a gift or a sale, they each shows his disinterest.
Jacob was mean to sell his soup, but Esau could hardly have been dying of hunger within the family compound. It is an ignoble and ignominious story.
It is thought that Esau did not think of lentil soup when he saw the rich red soup, but of blood soup which was thought by some to have magical virtues. This was before the Mosaic legislation against such things. The Noachic prohibition of Genesis 9:4 was probably forgotten, or ignored. One feature of the magic was that the name of the vital element should not be mentioned. This information, from “Fathers of the Covenant”, by H. L. Ellison, page 65, illuminates this Scriptural text and makes the story more understandable, though we are astonished at the performance of such a ritual, as well as the result.
Esau objected to the firstborn blessing being transferred to Jacob, when he was 77 years old, Genesis 27:27-29, but sold the birthright on impulse, much earlier, say when he was 24 years old, Genesis 25:31-33. See Companion Bible, “Chronological Chart, Appendix 50”.
Consider:
* Without wishing to downplay the despised birthright incident, is it possible that famine in the land (recorded at the time) did indeed so seriously affect Esau that he was so very hungry?
* Was he taught the import of the birthright ownership by his parents?
* Was Esau immature for his age?
* Why was food being bought and sold within the family - an odd way for Jacob to obtain the birthright?
* Is this a record of an uncharitable twin brother unable to share, or just a mean brother waiting to make capital wherever he could?
* Was God working in these momentous incidents to secure the birthright and then the firstborn blessing for Jacob, or was He content to give one advantage to each twin?
Job told his friends - “God has made my heart faint (with unfair suffering) yet I am not silenced”.
* Did Job cry “unfair”, or did he only want to understand the “why”?
* Why did Esau cry “unfair”?
* Is it the same as the seemingly unfair problem of suffering in our world today?
********************
Possibly God would have preferred to have His will worked out another way, if it was a loving family. Hebrews 12 records Esau as “godless” for rejecting his inheritance, and notes that his tears (at the blessing time) brought no reversal.
The tawdry depths to which this family sank from such a (loving) beginning could have been avoided (in principle) if Isaac had been less passive and Rebekah had been less scheming, and if God had been consulted and invited to help the difficult situation. The shout of “unfair, unfair” should never have been made by such a mature family member - Jacob and Esau were 77 years old. The message that it is not our prerogative to decide on rewards and blessings or sufferings and persecutions, should have been long taught, (God's instruction was not a recipe for disaster), and that it is not ours to decide “fair”, or “unfair”.
A united and loving approach by the parents in this patriarchal story, would have cemented the group, rather than create favourites, which brought abnormal dependencies and inappropriate behaviour. We know Hagar and Ishmael had cried (to God) “unfair, unfair” and God saw fit to provide. With God’s help and Esau’s acceptance, Isaac could have emerged from this momentous, God blessed occasion at the pinnacle of his life, with dignity and self worth, but it was not to be.
Abraham, their grandfather, died when these boys were 15 years old - he was spared the spectacle, in the next 62 years, of this family’s disintegration into jealousy and strife that should never have been present in such a sacred group. Although the death of Abraham is recorded in Genesis 25:8, before the story of the birth of Rebekah’s twins, verse 24, we know that this part of the chapter, verses 1-10, is not a sequentially told story, but a record of Abraham’s life from Isaac’s marriage until Abraham’s death. The same applies to verses 12-18, which tell the family history of Ishmael.
4. THE RESULTS OF COMPETITION IN FAMILIES
The birthright exchange in this particular family was not a problem, for it was so devalued, but the competition for the blessing must have been enormous. Perhaps Esau did not devalue that, and did not wish it to be thought that he did. By now his wives and sons would have been encouraging him to enlarge his inheritance, and the family prime blessing would seem an ideal way to achieve that.
This family needed, and all families with enormous problems, need
- Especial strength (from God),
- Support (from community members) and
- Help to formulate a success plan.
They needed to avoid confrontation and to learn to negotiate responsibly, to discipline and disciple their children, so that any plan would work with Godly supervision.
CONCLUSION:
Here, in Isaac’s family dynasty, is the first record of a changed birthright and firstborn blessing incident. The manner of the change was not God directed though the interests of God were better served by it. It is better to achieve His end in a God directed way, for this way engendered terrible strife.
CHAPTER 4
HISTORY REPEATED - THE SAY YOU ARE MY SISTER EPISODES ISAAC, REBEKAH, ABIMELECH, PHICOL
“What is this that thou hast done unto us? One of the people might lightly have lien with they wife, and you thou shouldst brought guiltiness upon us”, Genesis 26:10.
FOCUS:
Now is recorded another surprising incident. The proud Rebekah is subjected to Isaac deceitfully passing her off, not as his wife, but as his sister, another say you are my sister incident. The intent in this chapter is to highlight the deceitful incidents that bring worry and trouble, Genesis 26: 1-11.
1. “SAY YOU ARE MY SISTER” - THIRD TIME NOW
Rebekah must have tumbled to inner turmoil, insecurity and a mistrust of the family structure on this occasion. If they had both been fearful in this situation, it doubles the fear for Rebekah, especially as concubinage is not a stable state, and she would know that she could be sold on. As has been shown, slander was/is a consequence upon God's people in the stories of wife giving or taking. The twins, seeing the incident, learn another generational sin lesson, as their father had learned from his father. This then is another consequence of all three instances, yet neither Abram/Abraham nor Isaac seems to have suffered any consequences.
# Abraham did it twice to Sarah
- once in Egypt, where she was kept from a sexual experience but great plagues came upon the king, so that he knew what Abraham had done, Genesis 12:13,
- Once in Gerar, Genesis 20:2, with the dire consequences in the concubine’s house, where reproduction and related bodily functions all ceased,
# And now Isaac does it to Rebekah, Genesis 26:9.
The terrible sin lesson is
“It’s O.K. to tell lies”
“It’s O.K. to deceive the gentiles”
“It’s O.K. to give your wife away in adultery to save your own life”
“It’s O K. to double your wife’s fear to allay your own”
“It’s O.K. to multiply your wife's husbands”
and it all causes slander on the Name of the Lord and His people.
With Isaac it is the same place as Abraham’s second incident - Gerar. History would have recorded the previous say you are my sister incident. It is unbelievable that it would happen again, here.
Consider:
* Does this incident change the hitherto generous nature of Rebekah that had been in evidence at the wife choosing?
* Is it the same king Abimelech and his same captain, Phicol?
* Or are they fathers and sons?
* Or are they titles, and these two men of the next generation are not necessarily related?
********************
Whatever, the Hebrew’s name must "stink" - as Jacob put it, when his sons misbehaved.
In this instance the king does not require Rebekah, but his men servants had made the inquiry of Isaac about the beautiful woman, Rebekah, Genesis 26:7. So the lying sin consequence had not moved very far. As well, there are no presents this time from Abimelech, after he had sorted the matter. But rather, after a quarrel, there was a withdrawing by Isaac, away from the Philistines. In all three instances the kings react remarkably charitably to Abraham and Isaac, for the deception did cause trouble.
In the matter of Sarah, God told Abimelech in a dream, “You have taken a married woman”. God had kept Abimelech from touching Sarah, and shut up the wombs of all the women in his family because Sarah was in the household.
Abimelech pleaded his integrity, and asked Abraham why he had done such a thing. Abraham's excuse is unbecoming. He equivocates that Sarah was indeed a relation. Now Isaac commits the same folly. Surely on reflection in a saner moment, he would not commit such folly.
These Abimelechs certainly appear to be (at least partial) believers, and not idolaters
2. ISAAC AND ABIMELECH DISCUSS REBEKAH
One day Abimelech, the king looks out of a window in the palace and sees Isaac embracing his wife, in a sexual context. The king then understands that this is no sibling, or social relationship, and so he rebukes Isaac, for saying that his wife was his sister, “for someone may have been unknowingly guilty of a great sin”. Isaac had used the same family excuse as his father, to save his own skin, because Rebekah was very beautiful. Abimelech tells his men not to molest Isaac or his family and the family, for a time, lives peaceably and prosperously in the land. Twice this Philistine family has been tricked by God’s family, the representatives of God on the earth, the chosen race, the missionaries about God to their neighbours. Isaac never defended himself and we need not do so. It’s useless to palliate Isaac’s conduct, it was unworthy. As with David, it must have caused the enemies of God to blaspheme, if not the generous king, and his subjects. The three patriarchs of God artfully played with the lives of loved women, and are recorded as dealing in stealth and deceit to preserve their own needs. We are grateful that the Old Testament culture has moved to a higher New Testament culture where our Lord Jesus Christ elevated women to their rightful place.
In the matter of wife devaluing,
Abraham’s actions, and
Isaac’s actions, and
David’s actions
are really all of a piece,
in the context of moral values.
3. THE DEVALUATION OF REBEKAH
There is no hint of blame recorded over the say you are my sister incidents, as there was over David’s murdering a man to gain his wife. The former (Abraham, Isaac) gave their wives to other men, the latter (David) takes a wife from another man.
Both are humiliating incidents for the women concerned, if they did have a sense of self worth, but probably both incidents were equally acceptable culturally. It may be that the murder of Uriah was the consolidating wickedness for David’s denunciation by the prophet Nathan, when David took the wife of another man.
The lesson of Bathsheba’s washing is available today in third world countries, especially if one is accommodated in high rise hotels. Sometimes the only privacy available for those who live in poverty is for us to avert our eyes.
Comment:
It was culturally acceptable for women to be used to cement political alliances, and to demonstrate goodwill to neighbours. Women had few rights and as they had no means of support they went where they were told, and did what others decided they should. The actions of Abraham and Isaac may be better understood in this context, as there were no unmarried female relatives to hand, with whom they could bargain. This may seem a more legitimate reason for the bad behaviour, in some people’s eyes, that Abraham and Isaac compromised their wives for political reasons, rather than that they were afraid. It was a well established practice to renew treaties with each succeeding generation, and we have another instance in the wells incident, of Abraham and Isaac. If viewed in this light, it is a better explanation, than the excuse for the repeating bad behaviour, that the story has been confused from one instance, and somehow separated into three stories, and placed in the text as three separate stories, and is no more than literary repetition. For obvious reasons this is a poor choice, for we remember our belief in inspiration (except for the transcription and translation errors) and therefore find this a difficulty.
Fear or political alliance seems the only reason for this lack of confidence in God by these two patriarchs.
As women were so degraded in all cultures and nations as the centuries rolled by, it is no wonder that Jesus, in his teachings, elevating women to their creation status with man, was able to free half of creation and give women freedom to learn, and to live, and to worship together, in complementary roles in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the family and in the spiritual community. At last both men and women could make an outward sign of commitment, in baptism, rather than the restricting circumcision. The old Jewish prayer of thanks that he “was not born a woman”, was answered by Paul in Galatians 3:16 that male and female were “one in Christ”, for he also supported the new, (originally ordained), role for women.
(See end chapter note for Digression)
********************
Consider:
* To what extent is the cultural position of women, that is, their devaluation, responsible for the behaviour of these two women in the patriarchal family?
* Can it be used as an excuse, or only a reason - for bad behaviour?
* So much harm can be done, can it ever be undone?
********************
These deceitful incidents in Abraham’s and Isaac’s lives, and those of the twins, are inexcusable. What care parents must take for lessons in devaluation of each other. Deceit and lying are easily learned and hardly eschewed, but a lie cannot be a base for Christian fellowship - the end never justifies the means. Those who tamper with the truth, tamper with vital forces in human endeavour.
Down through the centuries
we read of restoration,
that is never complete,
until the Son of Man did come.
We know
that those who love him,
can be forgiven,
and made perfect again,
“in Christ”,
under God's healing Hand.
CONCLUSION:
Deceit has moved into the family life of Isaac, and continues the dysfunction. That is the price we pay for deceit.
____________________
Digression:
Sadly, soon after our Lord Jesus Christ made the concessions to women, the new and growing church reverted to the old oppressions. The history of women, from the first century, now well documented by women such as Susan Dowell in “They Two Shall Be One - Monogamy in History and Religion”, reveals the extent of the injustices practised upon women. The Bible records some for us, but the records of the Catholic Church and secular history from the first century reveal the effects of division, degradation, divorce, polygamy and slavery. We are told of women, desiring so much to be holy, being told by the priests, that a female child was the result of a defect sperm, that women were required to subdue their femaleness, and so they become anorexic, with amenorrhoea, desexing themselves as best they could. Virginity and chastity were not enough, salvation was by maleness. In the end it was impossible, because they could not eliminate all their feminine traits. They were told to be content that they could never reach the standard, that is, the male standard, which God required.
Although the anti discrimination laws of our times have mostly eliminated injustices in the Western World, rural Indian and African women are still trying to win self determination. The women of Afghanistan are more oppressed than the blacks of South Africa ever were.
The Lord Jesus Christ did not preach new ideals, he preached original ideals, see Genesis 1:27, where we learn that God created man and woman in His own image. Although the Law of Moses had, within it, laws for divorce and polygamy and slavery, the New Testament writers remind us that in the beginning “it was not so”, for example, Matthew 19:8.
Competition over whose was the first Edenic sin, are odious, for God's image was upon them both. One was deceived, one acted in full knowledge. The sin they committed created a terrible conflict between them, which we are bound by the Lord Jesus Christ to overcome.
CHAPTER 5
ISAAC AND ABIMELECH AND ANOTHER WELLS INCIDENT
“And Isaac digged the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham, for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham”, Genesis 26:18.
FOCUS:
There is a short story in Genesis 26:12-33, that provides the Beersheba setting for this family of Isaac, and the deceitful blessing incident between Jacob and Esau. Isaac lived near the king of the Philistines, in Gerar and became very prosperous, a fact that angered some of the Philistines.
1. THE WELLS INCIDENT
Isaac had come, in a weakened state from famine, where he may have lost many of his animals. He came from the well, Lahai-roi, closer to the coast, to Gerar, prospering greatly there under the Philistine king, Abimelech. God warned him not to go down into Egypt, to wait out the drought, and at the same time reiterated the blessings. After the say you are my sister incident, Abimelech generously passed a law that on pain of death Isaac’s family were to be unmolested. Isaac’s diligence with inherited wealth and possessions, and good business practices here, made him a wealthy man again, verse 12. This wealth indicates that the blessings were beginning to take shape. It caused unrest amongst the Philistines, so Abimelech asked Isaac to move further down the valley of Gerar, from the place where he had sown crops.
The Philistines had stopped up some wells previously dug by Abraham, and Isaac unstopped them. He called one Esek (strife) and another Sitnah (enmity), because of the Philistines objections. They were Isaac's family wells. It may be that the wells treaty should have been negotiated again by the next generation, Isaac, in accordance with the custom at that time, and he had neglected to do so. The digger of a well was really a public benefactor, and so the Philistines quite rightly regarded the water as theirs, if and when they wanted it. Isaac, with increasing wealth in his flocks, could not do without it, so he as well, is rightly concerned.
Comment:
It is interesting that Abraham did not inherit land, yet he dug wells. He held a dialogue document for Machpelah which he obviously passed on to his children. He did not inherit land from elsewhere is what is meant in Acts 7:5. Whether he “owned” the wells, as well as the field/cave, (Machpelah) is conjecture. Genesis 21:30 to 26:18 seem to indicate that he did “own” them, but the general opinion is that he certainly dug them, but they became community wells at his death. Perhaps Isaac did not claim them at Abraham’s death, nor ever used them, and they had dried up in drought times. Perhaps a dialogue deed was not active in the land of the Philistines.
********************
To solve the problem Isaac graciously moved on from strife and enmity, and dug Rehoboth (room) and prospered here as well. This well is still there, being identified at the waddy Ruhaibeh, though it is stopped up. It is twelve feet in diameter and cased with hewn stone. Moving again, Isaac found water at Shiba. Isaac asked his servant to try to activate these Abraham wells and was pleased when his servants cried out that they have found water. To this day the well there is called Beersheba, Genesis 26:23. Here God speaks to Isaac again, and repeats the promises. God generously gives Isaac plenty of cause to feel blessed, as God keeps repeating His covenant to him. This compensates Isaac for leaving Lahai-roi where he had long resided.
Abimelech (again we question, idolater or believer), saw that God was with Isaac and came with Phicol from Gerar, to make a treaty of peace, almost as if Abimelech wants God’s blessings, as he sees that Isaac has. It is an act of homage. On the other hand it may have been that Abimelech wanted to retain the friendship with Isaac, when he feared that Isaac may be influenced against him by his new neighbours. This is hardly a cynical thought, but rather that the Abimelech dynasties valued the relationships with Abraham and his son, Isaac. It may be that the two ideas applied to the Isaac/Abimelech relationship, priest/worshipper and friendship/treaty. If so this is indeed a valuable friendship with many facets.
Comment:
We need to note that, in Genesis 21, just after Isaac’s birth and Hagar’s final dismissal with Ishmael, to the Wilderness of Paran, an Abimelech and Phicol had a discussion over a well that Abimelech’s servants had stopped up, causing Abraham to complain. That Abimelech and Phicol, some sixty years earlier had come from Gerar, and made a treaty, here in Beersheba, with Abraham, using God as witness. The relationship of these stories to one another is unnerving, and the questions should be dealt with. We can omit the literary repeating idea, but we need to assess in our minds again, whether
- They were fathers and sons, or
- The same king and captain, or, rather,
- There was a necessity to remake treaties every generation, according to the custom.
Beersheba never lost its name again, and is so called today, although the exact town location is a difficulty. It is a tribute to the impressive reputation that Abraham and Isaac enjoyed, that their well and its water there, represents the covenant of promise and security made between God and the patriarchs, in return for their obedience. Also that the water of Beersheba, as discussed in relation to Abraham, was available to General Allemby of the Allied Forces, even in this century, during World War 1, when twenty four hours after capturing Beersheba, he was pumping and supplying four hundred thousand gallons of water a day to his famished troops.
********************
CONCLUSION:
The repeating of the covenant to Isaac at Beersheba emphasises that God has been gracious again, and forgiven the indiscretion against Rebekah.
CHAPTER 6
THE PAIN OF SEPARATION
"And Esau hated Jacob ... and Isaac sent away Jacob”, Genesis 27:41.
FOCUS:
Deceit finds its way into the Isaac family once more, and the resulting dysfunction destroys this family in such a way that its unity never recovers. The long story is told in Genesis 26:34 to 28:10.
At the end of chapter 26, and of chapter 27, there are two verses that indicate the state of mind of Isaac and Rebekah about Esau. His two marriages to Hittite women were a constant source of grief to them, and no doubt their presence, and that of their children, caused no little stress in Isaac’s family compound. On the basis of this little piece of information the story of the blessing incident is then narrated by Moses.
1. THE DECEITFUL BLESSING INCIDENT SETTING
After we are told of the wells incident comes the deceitful blessing incident, Genesis 27. It is a story so often told with relish, for children enjoy the sneakiness of it, and adults appreciate the sensitivity with which Moses handles the moral ambiguity. The author of this incident story makes no judgement and allows the narrative to flow to its sad conclusion.
2. REBEKAH DETERMINES THE BLESSING ARE MEANT FOR JACOB
Esau, dutiful, but self satisfied, so much a counterpart of Ishmael, is despatched by Isaac, who fears an imminent death, to prepare some tasty dish, so that he may gather strength to bless his heir, before his death. It is as if Isaac follows the carnal, and not the spiritual desire of his nature. Isaac favours Esau for his heir and intends to so bless him.
At this point
1. It is difficult for Isaac to remember, or
2. It is blurred in his mind, or
3. It is a fact he never knew, that the blessings would come through Jacob. However, it is almost impossible for us to think that Rebekah never told him of God’s predilection.
Isaac’s wife Rebekah, hiding in the tent curtains, overhears the request, and because she wants her favourite son, Jacob, to have the blessing, as well as the birthright which he obtained from Esau earlier, she tells Jacob what he can do to deceive his father. So many of us think we are indispensable to God’s will. We accept God’s will, but we cannot trust Him to carry it through. Rebekahs - all of us.
Consider:
* Is Rebekah motivated by a high spiritual motive, that God wants the blessing for Jacob, so she helps that along?
* With the knowledge of Abraham’s response to God’s call being in the Haran family sagas, (and so well known to Rebekah), and with her own enthusiastic response to be part of that in her marriage to Isaac, can we excuse Rebekah, that she so desperately wants Isaac to do God’s will?
********************
Whatever her motive, the crisis has come, and Rebekah is willing to pay the price, for she says she will accept the curse (from Isaac, but more probably Esau), and she advises Jacob that the curse is not to deter Jacob from the plan - so now he has a true partner in crime.
We are not told what the curse would be, but perhaps it turned out to be
- The life she lived later with Isaac, without her sons and their families,
- Or even her early death,
- Or obscurity for her, of some sort, until her burial in the family tomb.
3. GOD IS IN THE TERRIBLE DEED
By covering his skin with goat’s hair and wearing Esau’s garments, Jacob easily deceives his father, even using the name of God to verify it. Jacob affirms that Esau and God are together present in this unholy incident. Esau was not, but certainly God was. Deceit accompanied by a kiss is otherwise known in Scripture as well, but here it is accompanied by the deceit of clothes. Isaac’s sight was impeded, but he heard the lie and touched and smelled Esau, and it all helped to emphasise this deceitful kiss. Indeed God’s sovereignty is present in the deed, even if it is deceitful, for nothing could make the deed Godly if God did not wish it so. God’s hands are not bound beyond His will. To steal such a blessing is to steal trash, that is, it is no blessing. That it eventuated as a blessing, and not trash, we must concede then, hard though it is, that it is a God blessed deed.
Consider:
* What are Esau’s garments, held in his mother’s tent? They could not be his home or farm garments, for they would be in his own tent.
* Were they priestly garments, and had he been doing priestly duties as his father grew older?
* But as he had sold the birthright, did that mean he sold with it the right to be the family priest?
* If Esau had been doing priestly duties, is that why Isaac is confused over the blessing?
* Or had the priestly duties been cancelled?
* Is this making too much about the clothes in Rebekah’s tent?
* What is the order of placement on Jacob, of the garments and the hairy skin “garment”?
* Does Jacob really deceive Isaac?
* And is Isaac so amiable, that he will participate in the deceit?
* Will Isaac pretend to be deceived, because he remembers how the blessing should be placed?
* Or when does he realise that he has been deceived?
* Is the blessing cut short, when Isaac realises his mistake?
The “trembling” of Isaac in verse 33, seems genuine enough, and so we should probably take the story on face value, though there are alternatives.
* Does Isaac recognise now that he has sinned?
* Because Isaac had tried so hard to do God’s will, does he tremble because he realises God has been present at this terrible deed?
********************
There is no record that Isaac ever reproved Rebekah or Jacob, but later, he may have reproved Rebekah, in the tragedy of the childless life that they now entered into. No curse by Isaac is recorded, but probably Esau (and his wives and family), did curse his mother, (and their grandmother).
Comment:
The meaning of “Who are you my son?” is “How did it go?” that is, “How did the hunting and preparation go?” The same applies in Ruth 3:16, where the aged Naomi asks Ruth how she fared with Boaz. She knows it is Ruth, and would not have been requesting her to identify herself. In answer to the question Ruth describes the happy outcome. So here, Isaac assuming it is Esau, asks him to describe the hunting scene. Jacob quickly adapts his answer and regains his confidence, and persists in the deceit. But blind Isaac doubting his auditory sense, must touch and smell, as well.
********************
Rebekah uses an age old shepherd’s trick to convince Isaac that it is Esau. The mother ewe cannot be convinced to suckle another's lamb, unless that lamb is dressed in the skin of her dead lamb. So Rebekah’s trick is a well known livestock trick.
In Bible Review Magazine, November/December 1998, Bertram Rothschild puts forward an interesting point of view. He canvasses that Isaac was not really deceived, and knew all along that Esau was really Jacob. Isaac “discerned him not”, but Rothschild questions Isaac’s judgement, and he questioned us as well, asking us to think about, whether “an intelligent man would ask a son to go out, and hunt, and kill, and prepare, and cook, a task of many hours, perhaps even a chancy task, and that Esau would find a suitable animal. And all of this because he felt ill, or felt himself on the brink of death, or that he had a great need to proceed with a blessing ceremony. There would be quite enough food in such a camp, to restore Isaac’s strength, if that was all that was necessary. The voice and hairy skin and venison deceit persuaded Isaac too easily, for he proceeded without very much investigation. Isaac would have to be senile to accept the deception, and so he is more likely part of the conspiracy”.
There is nothing in the text to obviate Rothschild’s idea, though it is difficult to accept deception by Isaac, as well as Rebekah and Jacob, in this story.
It may be that Isaac was party to such a conspiracy, because the Esau camp at home was too numerous and powerful. We do not hear about any of the family’s reaction to the deceitful blessing incident, but no doubt there was considerable disquiet, with no small family rift. Considering Esau’s unsuitability, and the predilection of God, Isaac conceded that Jacob should have the blessing, but he also knew that he needed to move in a circumspect manner. If Esau fully understood the intention of Isaac, he certainly showed incompetence in being absent for such a long time, at such a crucial time in his life. Isaac needed to show he doubts that it is Esau, and with his question, “Who are you?” any bystander would think he obviously needed reassurance. But with that question he ironically makes Jacob complicit in the plot, by openly asserting the lie. If Jacob is not willing to be part of the conspiracy, then everyone would have had to wait for Esau’s reception of the blessing. But Jacob tells a lie and sets the deceit.
We need to consider the merits of this idea. It certainly cuts across our usual understanding, but that does not discredit the idea. The text is not helpful in the decision.
4. THE POST BLESSING SCENE
The post blessing scene, when Esau cries out in bitterness, must surpass any other Bible incident for pathos. It is an heart rending scene when Esau brings the soup for his father, so that he will be strong enough to give him the blessing. He thinks physically, not spiritually, but is angry at what he hears. He is just in time to hear the closing words of his father to Jacob. He hears Isaac say to Jacob, “Let thy mother's sons bow down to thee”, and the dominion prerogative for Jacob, angers Esau, and he is filled with murderous intent to kill Jacob after the anticipated death of Isaac.
The scene is piteous, and
Esau cries -
“He (Jacob) is rightly named,
He is a supplanter,
He took the blessing,
Like he took the birthright.
What about my blessing?
Is there any blessing left?”
Isaac -
“What can I do my son?
I have given the blessing”.
Esau -
“Hast thou one blessing left?
Only one?
Something, my father?
But bless me with something”.
“And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept”, verse 38.
Comment:
It is because of the tears of Esau, and the fact that they did not value the blessings of Jacob, that his “brothers”, the Jewish people, have shed so many of their own tears in their life of suffering, that has been their lot over the centuries. Still, in this time now, they are in conflict, they are not Esau’s descendants, they are Jacob’s heirs. They had a tremendous opportunity, but they, in their sinful rejection of God’s plan, have not taken advantage of that. They rejected both the birthright and the blessing so generously given by God to Jacob, (and they then were “allowed” to stand by God in the deceit).
It is interesting to note that those of Esau’s family in the Middle East today have been known to say, “Who said Esau gave up the blessing, it isn’t in our Scriptures. He never did give it all up for it was wrenched from him, and is being wrenched from us again today, at this time”. This makes their claim for land, legitimate in their eyes, and for us a consideration, before we condemn them outright.
********************
It might seem to us that Esau never really overcame the hurt, that began with his careless appreciation and ended with this deceitful blessing, but later in his life, when we meet him again, there are incidents that lead us to think he may have recovered and understood.
It is here that Esau’s cry, of “deceitful”, “supplanter” indicates the alternate meanings of the name Jacob, and in this context of Esau's anguish, Genesis 27:6, it is certainly true. The heel man had grasped him three times now
firstly - at his birth,
secondly - over the birthright, and
thirdly - now, with the blessing.
Esau probably forgot that he readily sold away the birthright and he probably never knew that the blessing was not to be his. So he wept, when he was left with nothing - and insisted on something from his father.
Esau’s great anxiety over the blessing, (no doubt encouraged by his wives of thirty years, and his sons), may have been motivated by the fact that it could have been a means of resecuring the birthright. With inheritance rights, that is the birthright, would come a double blessing. Perhaps this was better understood at this stage in Esau’s life, than when he hungered, and readily sold away his right. But it was not to be.
Perhaps the Spiritual import of the blessing had never greatly concerned him, so really it was possessions for which he hungered now. Later he became rich with possessions, so he may have felt the hatred fading and was then more reconciled to his brother
5. ISAAC’S REACTION TO THE DECEIT
Isaac now confused and concerned, tried to demonstrate to Esau his love for him.
Esau did get a blessing from Isaac, because Esau implored him so, but it would not be enough to placate Esau. We wonder at the feelings and expression of this large extended family of Esau after this incident, and even in later generations of the family.
The land that Esau would inherit would be “far from the fatness and well watered land”, (that is a preferred translation). He would inherit a land, “which by its barrenness forced him to a life of adventure, military service and free booting”, comment from commentary by Ellicott. The richest blessing had been given to Jacob, so Esau had to be content with earning his existence in another fashion. God kept faith with this blessing and the Edomites, in Edom, where he went, did well for some time, but they were later yoked to “Jacob”. They later succeeded in breaking the yoke, but generally Edom served his brother.
Comment:
The Old Testament prophecies tell us a considerable amount about the Edomites, especially in the book of “Obadiah”. The selfish incident, that we might remember well, was the Edomites forbidding the Israelites to come through their land, “only on the highway, we will not touch anything, and if we do, we will repay”, when they were journeying into the Promised Land, Numbers 20:14-21. But the Edomites would not relent.
********************
The final blessing for Esau was “the time will come when you grow restive and break off his yoke from your neck”. If anyone thinks that a blessing will come to those who throw off the yoke of the God appointed one, they are much mistaken, and it meant ultimate destruction, for this was not a blessing - but a curse.
Rebekah, hopefully, tinged the triumphant satisfaction, over her success, with sympathy for Esau’s disappointment. But we wonder if maybe she had lost all feelings for him. He had been half her longed for treasure. It seems difficult to contemplate that she had lost her feelings for this precious God given gift.
6. THE AFTERMATH OF THE TERRIBLE SCENE
Jacob was now fearful over the fury of Esau, and his murderous intent, but Rebekah was beside him, thinking up an extension to her plan, to cover this new contingency. “Get away, get away”, advice, tinged with cover up, “go, and tarry there a few days ... til fury and anger turns away... til he forget... then I will send and fetch you”. “Why should I be deprived of you both in one day”? She must have thought, and become fearful, about Esau being a target for blood revenge, if he killed Jacob, 2 Samuel 14:6, 7, or, she may have, thought that the offended Esau would take his family and go, after this incident. Either way she reckoned she stood to be deprived of both sons until after the mourning days for Isaac’s death.
Isaac lived another 43 years after this terrible incident, and that leads us to wonder whether Esau would have made the condition, if he had known of the extended life of his father. The length of time diluted the murder intent, and gave Esau occasion to shrug it off. An imminent death would have brought a murder scene out of pure unadulterated revenge, and all that would result from that Cain like murder. Still we are thankful that Esau is only a Cain head in the making, and he is prevented from fulfilling his intention by Jacob’s flight.
Perhaps Jacob did not know of the condition laid on the intent, (the stay of execution for a more suitable time, after the mourning days for Isaac).
However, with the blessing, came the imperative for Jacob to marry within the Nahor family, so that the blessed line would continue, rather than taking a wife from round about, the same constraint (or privilege) that had been upon Isaac, his father. It is the emphasis on family again, for righteous women would have been available amongst Melchizedek’s family in Salem. Still it is more preferable for Jacob to escape north on this occasion.
So Isaac’s scheming wife and her favourite submissive son ignited a quarrelling situation into an explosive affair which resulted into a terrible threat of murder of one of the twins, the only children of a patriarch. Shades of another God blessed family. This shadow is a Cain and Abel shadow. In the story of Cain, we remember his possible remorse over the murder of his brother, and the consequence of that sin. We do know however that this Cain head, Esau, was provoked by deceit and favouritism on the part of his parents. That is no excuse, only a reason for his murderous intent. To his credit he later retreated from that intention.
Consider:
* Is the threat as good as the deed?
* Does Esau become Cain like, with a mark on his forehead, to save him from extinction?
* Did he, Cain like, ever have feelings of regret and repentance, when he retreated from the murder intent, or was it time that wore the murder intent thin?
* Did Esau/the Edomites now depart “from the presence of the Lord” as Cain did?
********************
To our disappointment there are other Cain heads in this story, and we will hear about them subsequently. Meantime, this murderous intent may have been kept from Isaac, as Rebekah struggled to keep the situation under control, and find a way out for Jacob. It would have been extreme cruelty for Isaac to know of Esau’s plan and hopefully he was spared that indignity, for the situation must have been, without that knowledge, distressing enough for Isaac. To have knowledge of some terrible deed to be committed at your death would be intolerable. Mother and favourite son would be at great pains to hide the true reason for Jacob’s hasty exit from the compound, for Esau, of a more basic nature, would have blurted out his intent to whoever would listen. Rebekah never doubted that he was capable, being strong enough, of carrying out such a threat. Since they had not trusted God to carry out His plan for blessings, she would not now trust him to save the blessed one. So it was left to Jacob to learn from the family far away that personal cleverness and wisdom was not God’s way.
7. THE PRESENT HAS FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES
Birthrights and blessings were status symbols within the family. They appeared to be the rights of the eldest child, but that was not necessarily so. In our story the issue was turned upside down and caused considerable angst.
Comment:
The birthright was the status of the firstborn, which bestowed headship of the family and a double portion of the estate. Here, in this family, this status has a special significance of both privilege and responsibility in continuing the line of Abraham, and fulfilling the promises made to him. Ancient documents show that among contemporary Hurrians, (probably the ancient non Semite Horites of Genesis 14:6), the birthright was transferable, either by a decision of the father (see also Genesis 49:3, 1 Chronicles 5:1) or purchase by another brother, (Lifeguard Bible Study, “Genesis”, Charles and Anne Hummel, page 105).
********************
We do not need to say -
“Oh well birthrights were being sold all about them”.
We do not need to equivocate and say,
“Well, the blessing had to be acquired by the younger Jacob in some way, therefore
Jacob’s treachery and Rebekah’s deceit are justified”.
That argument obviates Abraham’s statement (at the near sacrifice of Isaac), “The LORD will provide”. God would have provided, if Sarah and Rebekah had waited. It seems God’s hand is forced, and the result is not ideal, for two women in two generations have tried to “commit” God to work how they thought best. God “accommodated” Himself to the circumstances that prevailed, but He could have arranged things otherwise, if He had wished. God allowed Rebekah’s scheme to succeed. He did not allow Sarah’s scheme. In each case the consequences were far reaching, but for Sarah’s scheme we are troubled even today.
We must remember that much earlier (37 years before this incident) Esau, marrying, had probably felt, with Rebekah favouring Jacob, the lack of a mother's love. He turned more quickly than Jacob for the love of other women, - Hittites. Perhaps Esau had not favoured going north for his first wives, or Isaac did not request it of him. There would have been opportunity then, to go to Salem for a wife as well, if he, or the family, had been so inclined.
However at this time, seeing Jacob going to the Haran family for a wife, Esau feels urged to conform in the same way, and marries the daughter of the firstborn of Ishmael and Ishmael’s first wife, Mahalath, and therefore marries into the family as well (only in a different direction). Still no one turns to the righteous Melchizedek’s Salem family for a wife, and the Haran bloodline is still favoured, perhaps only for circumspect reasons at this time.
********************
Both Isaac and Rebekah were unhappy with the Hittite women Esau had married, Genesis 27:46. Grandchildren from this marriage would be around the dwelling of Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob. Perhaps these offspring had learned the customs of their mothers and were speaking their language, a foreign tongue. Later in Nehemiah 13:24, this “mother tongue”, by the children of Israel’s mixed marriages, was a confusion in Israel, causing untold problems. Here, not only would there be language confusion, but as well, they would be learning the ungodly family lessons modelled by this family. It is confusing for children to have Godly lessons mixed in with so much godlessness.
If Isaac and Rebekah were impotent in the matter, the Hittite influence can only be imagined by us, for those grandchildren would be married and reproducing themselves now. The situation must have become a great source of irritation, especially to Rebekah, who though the matriarch, would be entirely outnumbered. One can only imagine the little petty incidents that would cause irritation among the women. Probably Isaac would not care to listen to such trivia.
8. JACOB GOES TO HARAN TO ESCAPE ESAU’S WRATH
None of these four characters knew that Isaac would live for another 45 years, blind and incapacitated. Esau and Jacob at this time were 77 years old. After Rebekah had hatched a plan with Jacob to escape the murderous intent of Esau, she came to Isaac and suggested that Jacob go to Haran, to seek a wife from among their own people. It appears that Jacob never wanted the wealth of Isaac for himself, and to go away now ensures that he never would receive it. His return, as a wealthy man many years later, is still no match for the wealth of Esau.
Isaac is happy to send Jacob on his way with a further blessing, of fruitfulness of progeny and with Abraham’s land blessings, Genesis 28:3, 4. There is no suggestion here that a trusted servant be sent to secure a suitable wife and, of course, Rebekah would be anxious to avoid such a suggestion, as she knew Jacob himself must depart from this place.
“And Isaac sent Jacob on his way”, Genesis 28:5. Rebekah thought it would be only for a while and she would soon send for him but, although Esau’s fury did subside, and he welcomed Jacob back generously, it was not for 20 years, and Rebekah had died and Isaac was old and frail, living alone for many years.
The struggle between Jacob and Esau had begun in Rebekah’s womb, and caused her to ask God about it. He told her there were two nations in her womb, one would be stronger than the other, and that the elder would serve the younger. So Isaac had repeated this message from God to both Jacob and Esau, as his blessings, Genesis 25:23 - one, red and hairy Esau, being held back by the other, heel grasper, Jacob.
Comment:
We can look back upon the repercussions from the Isaac/Ishmael incident, and then compare that with this struggle between these two brothers, (which went on for 77 years), and we see another Trans generational condition. The sibling struggles in these two families, are the basis of the struggles now in the world, between the Jews and the Arabs over the Holy Land. It was a family conflict, it is a family conflict, and will remain so until the Saviour’s second coming, and until Israel along with all peoples, repents of the wickedness that has enveloped them. They will then accept His son and God will change their “stony heart”. For they are now “not” His “sheep”, John 10:26-27, for they “do not hear” His “voice”. Our world history tells us that it is not only the Arabs that hate the Jews. The white supremacy movements especially in Europe and America hate the Jews with a positive hate. “Our hate for the Jews (and blacks and others) is not destructive like a negative hate, it is a positive hate”. Really? That hate certainly could destroy the Jews, as such sentiments in the past have done. Only God will save them.
********************
Rebekah would have deemed her blessing scheme successful, though it was clothed in misery for her.
Sarah also saw misery, but she never saw from her action with Hagar the rise of the God promised nation and the consequential rise of Islam.
Rebekah never saw any manifestation of the blessings she lured Jacob to attain.
Parental partiality increased the natural rivalry in this family, and the parents took sides and worked against each other. The rivalry was never contained, or dealt with consistently and fairly, and so the struggle became malignant, and almost fatal for this family. The joy of the births of not one, but two sons, is gradually dissipated by the jealousies within the family, so that in the blessing scene each of the four characters neglect the spiritual mind that should have been present on such an occasion. But despite it all, God's love and mercy remains as He works out His purpose.
Consider:
* How could this family not suffer a tremendous fracture, under these circumstances?
* Was there any hope any other way?
* Was Isaac’s command, verses 1-5, manipulated by the complaints of Rebekah, also instrumental in galvanising Jacob to depart?
Rebekah was sorry when Jacob left, thinking it was only for a short time, Genesis 27:43-45,
* How did she feel about Esau’s departure the same day, Genesis 27:45?
* Did he travel away en famille, wives, children, servants, and possessions?
* With no family left, no sons, no Esau families, just the two of them, did Rebekah still believe that the end justified the means?
It was good advice to Jacob, (to go and marry at Haran), commanded as it was, but the saving of Jacob’s life, as well, for it reinforced Rebekah’s idea for escaping Esau’s murderous fury. Jacob would not have wanted to go, being such a homebody, but he could probably see no other way.
********************
9. GOD’S INITIAL EVEN HANDEDNESS IN JACOB'S FAMILY
There seems to be an initial even handedness about God’s arrangement for these two sons, a birthright for Esau and a blessing for Jacob. But it was not to be. God’s plan was discarded over a mess of pottage. Laban, Jacob’s mother’s brother, continues the deceit, as Rebekah had done weaving it into Jacob’s life. His character is shaped by the deceit taught him by Rebekah and Laban, and, of course, there is an effect on his later life. We wonder why we do not avoid deceit when it brings so much unhappiness. Perhaps, with disappointment, his self will is strengthened, and he becomes more purposeful and generous. We shall see.
CONCLUSION:
There remains for us to assess the outcome of this terrible story and the impact it had on the four main characters.
CHAPTER 7
THE FOUR MAIN CHARACTERS IN THE ISAAC STORY -
REBEKAH, JACOB, ESAU, ISAAC
"Why should I be deprived also of you both in one day?" Genesis 27:45.
FOCUS:
If you climb into each of these four characters (Rebekah, Jacob, Esau, and Isaac) and allow their characteristics to wash over you for a minute or two, you’ll feel uncomfortable. It is the intent of this chapter to explore their characteristics, and assess the outcome of the break up of the Isaac family. Genesis 27:40-46 is a good indication of the relationship of these four characters to one another.
When you think of the Isaac family as an ideal family, with God promised unique goals, sympathy and empathy for His ways, supportive of one another’s weaknesses and strengths, each moving for the unity of the group, living in an alien land (a description of our family, or our worshipping communities), we are ashamed to say that their group experiences are often common to us too. The carnal mind overtook the spiritual, at this great moment of patriarchal history. Jacob learned a lesson here, that he, later, (under the patronage of his wise son, Joseph), was able to conduct the blessings of his sons with great dignity and reverence, with prophetical language, and under the influence of the Spirit.
1. REBEKAH
Rebekah’s fanaticism, rather like Saul of Tarsus, created terrible destruction in the family relationships. She became the focal point of purposeful activity. She manipulated situations and devised plans to achieve her purpose. Her integrity was compromised, for she was duplicitous. Integers have nothing to hide or fear, but Rebekah did. She was the cleverest of all of the four matriarchs.
She epitomised beauty and was attractive as a virgin at the beginning of her relationship with the patriarchs. She was courteous and self assured, and had an energetic and eloquent gift of speech. The story unfolds for her almost as divine providence, and she seems to accept it as such. The importance of the diplomatic negotiations of the formal treaty between the two families of Terah, and the royal like departure did not escape her.
1. Rebekah’s gift of (life giving) water to the servant at his coming
2. The fertility blessing at her departure from Haran,
3. Then the joy of her arrival in Abraham’s compound,
4. The consummation of her marriage with Isaac, must have meant for her an immediate gift blessing of family, but that was not to be for twenty years. That may have soured her. She later learned the certitude and power, which Sarah learned later in her life.
Rebekah believed - the end justified the means because the cause was right.
She endorsed this by calling down a curse on herself, not on Jacob, if their ploy did not work. It could be interpreted that her curse was that she never saw her sons again, and her life ended, if not quickly, in obscurity - she was working for God, His was her cause - she was working for God, and God was on her side.
(See end chapter note for Digression)
In this story Rebekah did not, and could not, in conscience pray for success of her plan, nor could she praise God for its ‘success’, even though it achieved providential ends. We know He would have it otherwise. Rebekah must indeed have been weary of her life, Genesis 27:46.
Rebekah was buried in the grave of Machpelah, with Abraham and Sarah, more probably before Isaac and that grave near Bethlehem, is today an holy place for Jews, and often desecrated by those who fear the Jewish soldiers who protect it.
We need not criticise God - but we may question whether if He had acted sooner, without the interventions of Rebekah, the family disintegration and such long suffered sorrow, may not have followed. However, we should consider how God works, seemingly delaying, to us endlessly delaying, the expression of His will, or using ready made human situations, or creating His own sets of circumstances. We need to discuss why this is so.
Consider:
* Why are our time frames too short for God?
* Or, why are God’s time frames too long for us?
* Why can’t we be content with God’s time frames?
* Was Rebekah’s attitude confirmed in her mind as right, because she was the leader in Isaac’s passivity?
* Did not Isaac’s priestly function help him in the matter of wise judgment for his family?
* How disadvantageous was this family dysfunction in the goals that God had for this family?
********************
The Biblical record does not condone Jacob’s heartless exploitation of his brother's hunger, and the crafty deception of his blind old father. He suffers the consequences for cheating, but Rebekah’s anxiety over the promise, at the twins’ birth, in Genesis 25:23, seems to be the catalyst. However Jacob’s claim on the birthright and the blessing is God’s election and He may take 77 years or more if He wants. Rebekah must take the consequences also. There is a useful article in “Women of the Bible”. by Margaret Fowler, page 26, about “Rebekah”, which is hardly critical of her at all. However we do need to be realistic about her example, and understand why it is there for our consideration.
Comment:
There is a continual need to examine and re examine our motives for the paths we take, whether end justifies means. In this day when Christianity is so detested by some other religions, we need to carefully consider in our Mission work, in foreign countries, whether
- We are acting in a circumspect way, or
- Whether we are just equivocating, and thus circumventing the law, or
- Whether in fact we are acting in an unlawful way, by converting people, for it is now against the law to “convert” in many countries.
We need to carefully consider
- Whether our good works in foreign countries, are faithful works, or
- Whether we do them in a circumspect way to eventually “convert”, or
- Whether we are indeed circumventing the law by our actions,
- And whether that is behaving unlawfully.
The boundary is blurred in the work of missionaries, in Christian resisting cultures. It is only God who can decide, for it is only by God’s blessings that we can continue.
We need to carefully consider, whether we are doing God's will, for the means to an end may be against His will.
********************
Rebekah was resourceful and she handled change to the best advantage. She had observation and insight and imagination. She was motivated to go with the opportunities of life, to better herself and those she loved. She did not let life’s experiences pass her by for she grasped them and used them for her gain. All of this makes great character for those who work in God’s service. And in a sense she did just that, but she was not careful enough to keep her act clean for God. However, like “righteous Lot”, there is a New Testament statement. It is an eloquent and powerful reference, which over rides the self determining, which seems to us unwise, and which we would not recommend.
Paul refers to Rebekah to demonstrate God’s divine elective purpose and grace and mercy and compassion, in Romans 9:10-15, and argues the righteousness of God in choosing the way He did, for He will decide these things, and “will have mercy on whom” He “will have mercy”. For all our arguments about her faults, God does “not remember”, that is, “hold accountable”, the negative outcomes of her/our self determination. We are grateful
because Paul uses this, as an elegant way to conclude the story of Rebekah.
2. JACOB
Jacob did not express remorse - he did what his mother told him - he did not exercise responsibility for his own actions - at 77 years - no self discipline here. The dynamics existed for the explosion that followed when two members of the four in the family moved outside their assumed roles. There followed unresolved, unfinished, unaddressed, undiscussed conflict - and off Jacob went to Haran.
He is not to be excused from the terrible act of treachery and deceit. At 77 he was old enough to decide on his own path in working out God’s will, trick or wait. He said to his father, “I am Esau”. It was a lie, yet it was not a lie. He actually was like the “profane” person that Esau was, not an “upright, perfect” man, but a playboy, a hypocrite, as an actor is. Like Esau in character. He wore a lot of make up, a hairy costume, and changed his voice. No Godly characteristics in this deceitful act. Later when the angel asked him his name at the Jabbok, he said rightly, “I am Jacob”, and the angel immediately changed his name to “Israel”. He then redeemed his former deceit. But for now Jacob has to escape this present situation, Genesis 28:5. After this, he has many adventures and disappointments and tricks played against him.
So, he began, at last, to learn self discipline from these incidents. He learned how to foster better relationships than he had hitherto been able to forge. Deceit continued to be worked into Jacob’s character, through his mother’s brother. Through the working in, the grinding in, Jacob learned to eschew it. We always think how it must have felt to have deceit turned against him. The main point, though, is whether we learn by the example of others, as they treat us. If we stay long enough with the story of Jacob we find his days were long, though he thought that they were “few”, and “evil”. They were evil for a very long time, but gradually this character was refined and grew to a golden old man, even if he spent his last days in “the Land of Mud”, he turned to God and God blessed him.
3. ESAU
Esau, loving Isaac, vowed to kill Jacob after Isaac’s seemingly imminent death. Cain he would have been. That vow diluted with time.
Consider:
* Was it God’s will, that Isaac lived so long after this deceitful incident, to save Jacob from being murdered?
* Did God want to save Esau from the Cain sin, Genesis 27:41, and the sin of revenge, or was the oath taken for the deed by God?
********************
The term “mess of pottage” has come to mean something insignificant, in the Eastern vernacular, Barbara M. Bowen comments on the incident in “Strange Scriptures”, page 89, for it is a well known story of a despised significant privilege.
In Romans 9:4-15 Paul reminds us that God may decide Himself who will receive mercies and compassion, and that no unrighteousness may be attributed to Him. Before these twins were born, or had done any good or evil, the election of Jacob was assured over the older child, Esau. Even in the end of this terrible story Esau did what he could, in his limited vision, to please his mother and father as he left for Egypt (the opposite direction to Jacob) to marry an Ishmaelite - Mahalath, for he knew they disliked his thirty seven year old marriages to Hittite women, Genesis 28:9. Surely Esau’s limited vision is a lesson to us all in being inclusive of all our children, giving them all a true and unlimited Godly vision.
4. ISAAC
Isaac, sad Isaac, two sons gone, grew weaker and weaker, but lived for another 43 years, most probably a widower in decline, for a great deal of that time, with no family around him.
We are grateful to know of the willing sacrifice that the young man, Isaac, made in obedience to his father, Abraham, who was responding to God’s request of him, as a demonstration of his faith. The Aqedah, or near sacrifice, is considered a sacrifice, though it did not in the end come to pass, and later Jewish writing relate it to the Paschal sacrifice. They see it as the reason for God’s election of the Israelites, Genesis 18:18 and 19, for the blood of Isaac consequently sealed the covenant with His people. It is the reason, they say, why the golden calf episode, of Exodus 32, was pardoned, and there is the possibility that the near sacrifice acquired a redemptive import for the Jews prior to the Christian era. The immolation of the son of Abraham has never ceased to inspire not only commentators, but poets, artists, playwrights, records of which we have from the Middle Ages to our present day, of which some recent ones have been quoted in the Aqedah section of the “Kith and Kin”, Book 1 text.
It is a crowning incident for Isaac, as well as Abraham, and affects all that comes afterwards, so that a golden glow of acceptance by God sits upon Isaac. There is another, Joseph, his grandson, not far away, whose golden glow enhances all around him, and indicates God’s pleasure. Later, there is, of course, God’s Son, also precious in His eyes. Both of these two precious ones, Isaac and Joseph, walked passively and silently on towards their fate, Isaac beside his father, in complete accord, on that three day journey, and Joseph all the way to Egypt. In that they represent the patient obedience of God’s own precious son.
Isaac passively waited for his wife to be chosen for him, and really had no noteworthy initiatives on his own account. Perhaps we have no need of knowing any initiatives in his life, for the greatest incident of all his life, is enough. If Genesis 26 was excluded, we would be the poorer for any detail about Isaac, and would not be summoned, as we are, in Genesis 22, to give account of ourselves in the same sacrificing light as this child of Abraham. It is this passivity (notably to sacrifice and self denial) that the later Jewish tradition sought to amplify.
Isaac, together with his father Abraham, and his son Jacob, do attract criticism, from the nihilists, the so called revisionists. They claim that these are only stories, hortatory in purpose, and edited much later than their proposed date. They describe the patriarchs as three polygamous nomads, who get cattle and revenge by prostituting their wives, or cheating foreigners or relatives. As this cannot be gainsaid, we need to accept the criticism in its own context, and in knowledge that higher motives were eventually learned and more spiritual motives pursued. There are obvious exhortation lessons for us.
Isaac’s prosperity under divine blessings led to envy and contention over water rights; he had to move several times, thus surrendering valuable digged wells in the process, before finding space to expand. He seemed to have a sacrificial determination to occupy the land amicably, and peaceably, an attitude we would envy and seek to emulate.
The Pentateuch is divided into several sections by the scholars, and it is significant that Isaac is mostly ascribed to the priestly milieu, which gives an outline and shape to the patriarch’s life, but is nevertheless reflected in a priestly genre by the inspired Moses. Robert Martin-Achard in The Anchor Bible Dictionary gives us a lengthy piece about the opinions of scholars on the Isaac record in Genesis, “Literary Structures of Isaac”.
It would be a comfort for Isaac, if he came to Jacob’s compound with the trusted Eliezer, for his elder and later years. Perhaps Jacob persuaded him to come, to help with the responsibility of managing the remaining sons, and to comfort him after the loss of Joseph. Isaac could have helped in the re establishment of the priestly intercession role which
- With the despised birthright, and
- With the deceitful blessing incident, and
- With the Haran experiences, and
- With the Shechem incidents, as well as
- With the Belah/Tamar sexual relapses,
(all preceding the sale of Joseph)
seems to have been, or must have been, on the wane.
Some of these incidents are still in the future in our story, but nevertheless are part of Isaac’s own grandsireship. There is no record of Rebekah’s death, only of her burial in the cave, Genesis 49:31, in Hebron, together with Abraham and Sarah, and Isaac, and Jacob and Leah.
Isaac lived long enough to welcome Jacob from Haran and to hear of his adventures there, though he had never visited himself, and to “see” the extended family of blessed ones. He died, Genesis 35: 29, 12 years after Joseph went down into Egypt, at 180 years old. So as a widowed grandfather, he was part of the joys and sadnesses of Jacob’s great family, whether he lived with Jacob or not.
Of all the patriarchs,
Isaac -
Was the least migratory
Was the least prolific
Lived the longest
Was least favoured by revelations from God
Has the least mention in the canonical texts of the Old Testament,
And Isaac -
Was prepared to be the sacrificial lamb his father asked him to be,
Was prepared to live the sort of nomadic tent dwelling life his father did.
Perhaps he came to a point in his life that he felt he had full knowledge of God, and God’s will, and was content. Perhaps there was no danger in Isaac arriving at that point, as there would be for us. We would hope that the priestly duties in this now tiny aging Patriarchal family would have been continued by Isaac, and that would have revived him with the trouble and sadness that had come upon him and with this would come a returning to the guiding hand of God.
The “Abraham cycle” and the “Jacob cycle” are often rated by commentators to be of more significance than the “Isaac cycle”, which is mostly confined to Genesis 26. This poorly conveys the significance of Isaac’s priestly life, which he seems to have enjoyed. The historicity of Isaac may be in question with some, from the evidence available, and the comparatively minuscule Genesis record, but they would do well to remember, that their view may be beclouded now by the lack of evidence, but that evidence is continually unfolding, with more and enriched readings of the patriarchal texts, with greater clarity of the milieus from which they came, and these readings are linked with the study of archaeological documentation. All this is not without consequence. Beer Lahai-roi, Gerar and Beersheba are the three geographical locations that establish the cultic centre, or point of attachment of Isaac, and are not yet fully discovered.
However it must be emphatically stated that there is much more to the story of Isaac than meets the eye in Scripture, and because God has not chosen to reveal it, nor thinks it necessary for us to know, the fact should not attract criticism.
We know of Isaac’s sedentary existence in the three locations, so that his missioning to those people, who knew of him as faithful and obedient to his father, his father’s teaching, and his father’s God, would have been full and meaningful. He was a man of peace and his lifestyle would have shown them that.
Isaac knew the veracity of God’s promises to Abraham and himself, but he had not received the inheritance of the land. So, together with the other patriarchs, he must have believed in the resurrection, his own resurrection. He would recognise his sins, and repent of them, and request forgiveness and continue on the looking up to God that was required for his own participation in the promises laid out for him, and which he greatly treasured. He is most often mentioned as part of the patriarchal triad, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and so is esteemed by God as part of that royal company. God Himself is often described as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, as in Exodus 3:6.
CONCLUSION:
We, being Abraham's adopted children, are privileged to be part of that family. We are living in a different cultural setting that produces in us (as it did for them) weaknesses more than we ought to have. God “winks” at those, too, we pray. We do not condemn the characters in this story, only wonder why so many things are so. We do condemn our own story and pray that we might refrain from the way of the anti Christ and do better. May it be that we do learn from these dynamic stories, for that is why we are told them, so that we may live in Him and be truly Abraham's children.
Digression:
Many times in history we see men and women who compel others to do their bidding, not because they are righteous in the matter themselves, but because they “know” what God wants, and will have others conform, that is the required end, as they perceive it, justifying the means.
The pages of the history of the church, from the first century, are littered with the dead bodies of those who were destroyed by judgemental, “righteous overmuch” churchmen, who wished to work for God and set conforming standards for others, doing “what God wanted”, which they themselves often did not do. They did not see themselves as the weaker vessels in God’s service, Romans 14. The beauty of diversity in unity escaped them, for all men had to conform, and so punishments thundered out from the pulpits in Europe, and the loved of God were eliminated, because they did not conform to the standards and traditions set by perverse men. “God does not love sinners”, they said, the loved of God were disfellowshipped and alienated. Women especially were told they were unworthy to make a relationship with God, because they were not male. Anyone different was “cut off”, and reconciliation never attempted. The New Testament was forgotten, along with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is another godless phenomenon in life, where sometimes men and women compel others to do their bidding in religious matters, because it, (some restraint) was done to them, as a sort of outlet to their own frustrations. For example, female circumcision is often perpetrated, in the face of opposition, by older women, because it was performed on them. “Why should they escape the humility that was ours” or “it was good enough for us”.
It may be the lust for power, which comes with age, which constrains men and women to organise things, in an ungodly way, as they think best, against the wishes of others. It may be that it is easy to slide from doing things right for God, into doing things wrong, as the lust for power emerges.
So often we are constrained
- By the possibility of us causing offence, and
- By the offended, and
- By our bowing to power structures.
Sure, we must not despise the offended (of Romans 14), the weaker ones, and must try to educate them in the Godly way. God does not want disunity, or dissension, or fanatical and judgmental behaviour. Hopefully in time people can move to be more comfortable in the different freedoms we can enjoy, and the way in which we express them.
To justify actions because of a perceived Godly end, to act “in lies and deceit” is not God's way. We have a desperate need “in Christ” to act according to well thought out standards, to take strength from the study of His word, and with well founded Godly guidance, to act - not by threat and fears, - but to act by taking hold of our freedoms “in Christ”, and enjoy them, as Christ meant us to.
But God does want us continuing sinners to constantly renew our contracts with Him, and so that is the method of ensuring that we still walk in His ways and with His guidance.
SOURCES - BOOK TWO
Isaac, The Man of Peace
Chapter 3
1. Companion Bible - “Chronological Chart, Appendix 50”, Lamp Press, London, n. d.
2. Russell, Beverley - “You and Your Child”, Sydney, 5th edition 1991, ISBN 0 9590 407 14.
3. Dawes, Stan - “Dimensions of a Disciple”, Kiama, NSW, 1992.
4. Dawes, Stan - “Living Together”, Kiama, NSW, 1995.
5. Dawes, Olive - “Choosing to Love”, Sydney, 1997, ISBN 0 646 28204 2.
6. Ellison, H. L. “Fathers of the Covenant”, Paternoster Press, Exeter UK, 1978, ISBN 085364 220 6.
7. Companion Bible - “Chronological Chart, Appendix 50”, op cit.
Chapter 4
1. Dowell, Susan - “They Two Shall Be One - Monogamy in History and Religion”, Collins Religious Division, London, 1990, Copyright, ISBN 0 00 5992115 X.
Chapter 6
1. Bible Review Magazine, Rothschild, Bertram - “Was Isaac Deceived”, November December, 1998, Red Oak, IA, USA, ISSN 8755 6316.
2. Ellicott, John Charles - “Commentary”, Cassell and Company, London, 1884.
3. Hummel, Charles and Anne - “Genesis”, Lifeguard Series, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, USA, 1973, ISBN 0 8308 1022 6.
Chapter 7
1. “Women of the Bible”, Fowler, Margaret - “Rebekah”, Christadelphian Office Publication, Birmingham, UK, 1982.
2. Bowen, Barbara M. - “Strange Scriptures”, in “His Birthright for a Mess of Pottage”, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, M., USA, 1980, ISBN 0 8028 1511 1.
3. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Martin-Achard, Robert - “Isaac”, Editor in Chief - David Noel Freedman, Double Day, New York, 1992, Volume 1, ISBN 0 385 19351 3.
