Copyright © 2026 Michael A. Brown
Reading:
Genesis 25:19-34, 27:1 – 28:10
The story of how Jacob
inherited the blessing of the firstborn from his father Isaac, related to us in
Genesis 27:1-40, is often misunderstood by those who read this passage perhaps superficially
and fail to understand all of the related dynamics going on in this
family. The conclusion reached by such a
superficial reading is quite commonplace, vis. that Jacob was a
deceiver who tricked his elder non-identical twin brother Esau out of the
blessing. This thinking confuses
many believers and causes them to doubt the spiritual character of the
patriarch Jacob right from the start of his own journey in adult life, and to feel
sorry for Esau.
In order to gain a
better and more accurate understanding of what went on in this family
situation, we need to read the narrative more carefully and take into account
all of the detail which is related to us.
To sum it up briefly, and
as this blog aims to demonstrate, it was not just Jacob who was at fault. In fact, the four family members, Isaac,
Rebekah, Esau and Jacob – all of them! – were each at fault in their own way in
this situation. Any explanation of this
passage which lays the blame, or the majority of it, on Jacob, and fails to see
the wider dynamics at play, displays a deficient understanding of it.
In some ways, I
suppose, if we are honest with ourselves, we can see parallels between this
story and occasional situations in our own family, or in other families that we
know about, which may crop up from time to time. Not in terms of the specific detail of this
story, as it was a situation unique to that particular family at that time, but
in general terms in situations where more than one family member, or perhaps even
all of them, are at fault in what happens in a situation and for the
consequences which transpire as a result, and yet one person is left to carry
all the blame. In what Scripture
relates, we see ourselves and our own lives mirrored in so many ways.
The
passive father and the godless son
To try to gain a more accurate
understanding of this passage in Genesis 27:1-40, the best place to start is not
with Jacob or Esau, but with their parents, Isaac and Rebekah. Authority in a family rests with the
parents, so the parents play a crucial role in much of what happens in the life
of their family. We will begin
with the head of the family, so with Isaac, and we will look at Rebekah later
on. A father is the head of his family,
and it is to him that the family members ultimately look for a sense of wisdom,
guidance and right direction, especially in a time of need, crisis or of
strategic change (Eph. 5:22-23). This
is his God-given responsibility.
The head of the family, certainly in a Christian home, is supposed to be
a man of God, a prayerful man who knows the word of God and its principles, and
who can guide and mentor his wife and children in the ways of righteousness.
Although we do not know
too much detail about Isaac’s life and character, he had the privilege of
inheriting God’s covenant from his own father, Abraham. God appeared to him on two separate occasions
and confirmed this covenant with him (26:2-5,23-25). We are told that on one occasion Isaac
planted crops from which he reaped a hundredfold, and he became very wealthy
(26:12-14). Most commentators think that
Isaac comes across in the wider narrative as a quiet, introverted character.
Isaac married Rebekah,
the sister of Laban (who was the son of Bethuel and therefore Isaac’s first
cousin once removed), and they gave birth to non-identical twin brothers, Esau
and Jacob (11:27-29; 24:25,29; 25:20-26).
As these twins jostled each other in her womb, Rebekah prayed and God
gave her prophetic insight that these two foetuses would eventually become two
separate nations, and the older (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob)
(25:21-23). I have no doubt that Isaac
and Rebekah would have had many conversations from that time on about the
significance of this prophetic insight, just as any parents would. Isaac would certainly therefore have been
aware of what God had shown Rebekah.
Just on this evidence
alone, we would probably expect that Isaac, as God’s chosen covenant bearer, should
have been in a position to discern which of their two children would inherit
the blessing of the firstborn and the covenant after him: it was Jacob,
not Esau. And we would also
expect therefore that Isaac should have demonstrated some prayerful spiritual
leadership in his family when the time came for the blessing to be given.
However, this is not
what we see. Rather the opposite, in
fact. When the time came for the
blessing to be given, Isaac had grown old, and his sight was failing him. The narrative tells us that Isaac was intending
to give the blessing to Esau, rather than to Jacob. Esau was his favourite son of the two. He and Esau had a significant trait in
common: they both loved the food of wild game, so Esau become his favourite,
regardless of his godless attitudes (25:27-28, 27:2-4). By contrast, Jacob was Rebekah’s
favourite. He spent his time among the
tents with the family, rather than going on hunting trips, so he and Rebekah
would have become close, and he became very much momma’s boy (25:27). She was
evidently the person who had the most influence over him.
Now it is true that all
parents continue to love and have a deep natural affection towards their
children, in spite of any weaknesses that their children may have and any ways in
which they may fail as they grow up. However,
as he grew up, Esau developed into a godless man who had no interest in his
birthright, and he had no fear of God nor any desire to follow him in his
life. In fact, it says that Esau
despised his birthright; he considered it worthless and bartered it for just a
bowl of soup one day when he was famished (25:29-34). As for his moral character, who knows what on
earth Esau got up to when he was away from the family home alone on his frequent
hunting trips… Without seeking guidance
from his parents, he went off and married not one, but two, ungodly and carnal Hittite
women who brought nothing but grief into the extended family home, and later he
even went off and married a third!
Rebekah was disgusted with them (25:29-34, 26:34-35, 27:46; 28:8-9; Heb.
12:16).
In fact, Scripture has
nothing positive at all to say about Esau.
He was the archetypal ‘man of the flesh.’ His god was his belly, and all he ever craved
for was this world of carnal sensual pleasure (cf. Phil. 3:19). We should not feel sorry for Esau in any
way. His heart was godless. The blessing and the covenant with God which
came with it, meant nothing to Esau and they could never have been his, despite
that fact that he was the firstborn. It
would have been a catastrophe for God’s covenant to have been given to such a
godless man! Yes, Esau was angry and
felt sorry for himself when he realised that Jacob had received the blessing (27:34-36,
Heb. 12:16-17). He was embittered by
this, and for many years he held onto and nursed a murderous grudge against
Jacob (27:41, 32:6-8). He was impenitent. When Scripture says that God hated Esau, it
is emphasising the fact that he found Esau’s attitudes, actions and lifestyle utterly
repulsive (Mal. 1:2-3). God loves all
people, and he continues to be gracious to them despite their sin (cf. Matt.
5:45), but if a person remains imperviously intransigent and wilfully
impenitent, despite repeated warnings, then this does provoke God’s displeasure
and wrath towards them. In later years,
when Jacob had matured as an adult, he made sure to remove himself from Esau
and to put significant geographical distance between them (25:23,
33:16-17). There can be no future
and no blessing in living near or with the kind of carnal and godless man that
Esau was, there is only irritation, aggravation and grief.
And yet, in spite of
Esau’s godlessness, his father Isaac still loved him, and wanted to give the
blessing to him, rather than to Jacob. So
what are we to make of Isaac’s spiritual state and level of discernment as he
grew older? Had he too become carnal,
loving his food but not seeking God? Had
he decided to completely ignore the prophetic revelation that Rebekah had
received many years before? Had he stubbornly resisted her pleas countless times to the point where Rebekah thought it was
pointless anymore to try to convince him?
Certainly, as a father,
Isaac seems to have been weak. He loved
Esau, yes, but he evidently did not discipline him and rein him in as he should;
he allowed him to get away with almost any kind of behaviour and attitude. An undisciplined child becomes an
unruly adult. Did Isaac confront
Esau at any stage about his regrettable choice in marrying those two Hittite
women? The narrative tells us that it
was only after Jacob had left and gone to Paddam Aram, that Esau finally
understood just how displeasing his two wives were to his parents (28:8). So it seems that this fact had not really
sunk into Esau’s mind and heart until that point. But why not?
Was it simply that Isaac, because of his affection for Esau, had been
afraid to challenge him as an adult son and tell him pointedly and bluntly that
his decision was very wrong and to put him in his place?
It also seems to be
true that Isaac had become spiritually passive, if not altogether asleep and
cold. At the very time that the blessing
was to be given, he showed no inclination to pray and seek God over the matter,
but instead was intending to act simply in accordance with his natural parental
inclination towards Esau. He demonstrated
no real spiritual leadership. But
to have given the blessing to such a godless character would have been nothing
short of calamitous! Could such a man
ever carry the blessing of God and his covenant in this world? Never!! Just imagine it…
This passivity of Isaac
can also be seen later on in the narrative, when he gave instructions to Jacob
about going to Paddan Aram and whom he was to marry (28:1-5). The question is: would he have done this, if
Rebekah had not first burst out in such a pointed way about her disgust with
Esau’s two Hittite wives (27:46)? Rebekah
clearly manipulated Isaac here. Her
sudden and sharp, but calculated outburst, cut into Isaac and goaded him into
action to send Jacob away. Isaac simply
repeated to Jacob pretty much what Rebekah had already said to him (27:42-44), and
so Rebekah got her way in making sure that Jacob was sent away for his own
safety.
In wanting to give the
blessing to Esau, Isaac was on the verge of taking a dreadful step, and it was his
weakness and spiritual passivity which was leading to it. As the head of his family, and as God’s
covenant bearer, it was his responsibility to make sure that the blessing was
given to the right person, i.e. to Jacob.
Isaac should have been seeking God over this matter, but he wasn’t, and he
was about to miss the mark completely! It
is interesting that in a parallel situation one generation further down the
line, when Jacob himself was old and about to give his blessing to the two sons
of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, he crossed his arms and gave the blessing of
the firstborn to the younger of the two, i.e. to Ephraim. Even when he was old and almost blind, Jacob was
still spiritually awake, and he discerned the purpose of God for these two
grandsons, and blessed them accordingly (48:1-20). So why couldn’t Isaac do similarly in this
situation? Because he was no
longer where he should have been spiritually! He was weak and passive, precisely when he
should have been awake and active as the head of the family.
Hence, the buck stops
with Isaac, the father. It was his weakness
and passivity, and not being in the place where he should have been in order to
discern God’s purpose for his two sons, that led to the situation which then
developed. And how many times do we see
this in the lives of families? When
the father is not where he should be spiritually, when he is passive and does
not lead as he should, then things in the family often go awry. But, by contrast, when he does his best
to fulfil his role as he should, then the family home has far more stability
than it would otherwise have. No
matter how much she may try, it is not a mother’s responsibility or role to
bear the mantle which God has purposed that the father should bear. It does not belong to her, and it does
not work.
The
deceiving mother and the obedient mummy’s boy
We cannot
critique passivity for what it does, simply and precisely because it does
nothing, we can only critique it for what it ought to have done, but
didn’t. Isaac’s passivity shifts the spotlight
by its contrast onto Rebekah’s active but erroneous role and brings that into
centre-stage. It is much easier therefore
to make the mistake of pointing the finger at her. However, we should make sure to critique
Isaac first as the father, and uncover his weakness and spiritual passivity as
the primary underlying causes of the mess that was created in this situation.
Rebekah’s
actions were wrong and should be acknowledged as such, but they were secondary
and consequential to Isaac’s passivity. If
he had been the responsible father and spiritual leader he ought to have been,
then Rebekah would not have done what she did.
However, that does not justify what she did nor does it exonerate her
from her own guilt for the part she played in creating this mess.
The
weakness and passivity of her husband Isaac, the fact that he did not seek the
Lord as to whom he should give the blessing of the firstborn, at a time when he
should have been doing precisely that, provoked Rebekah into concocting her
plan to deceive Isaac in order to make sure that the blessing went to
Jacob. She knew what the purpose of God
was, because God had shown it to her many years before (25:21-23), so she tried
to bring it about by purely human means through an act of deception (27:5-10). This ‘flesh act,’ as we call it, a human plan
which tries to bring about the fulfilment of a purpose of God, simply
complicated the situation even further, but it did not however alter God’s
ultimate purpose.
As I said
above, all four of these people were at fault for this situation which
developed in their family life, and for its consequences, each in their own
way. Isaac, as the head of the family,
was the key person, but he did not play his role as he should have. Many people who read this narrative, tend to
blame Jacob for his part in deceiving Issac in order to procure the blessing,
because this was plainly an unrighteous act, and they feel sorry for Esau. However, it is wrong to single out Jacob as
the sole wrong-doer and to blame him for what happened.
To be fair
on Jacob, he did initially object to Rebekah’s plan because he thought Isaac
would easily uncover the deception involved and he himself might well then
inherit a curse, rather than a blessing (27:11-12). Although Jacob did
go ahead with his mother’s plan, yet we can also see how the narrative clearly emphasises
a positive characteristic of his character: he submitted to and was
obedient to his parents. Jacob
submitted to his mother Rebekah, so he dressed himself up like Esau, and went
in and deceived his aged father. Also, later
on, when Jacob was told by his father to go and live with Laban and to marry
one of his daughters, rather than marrying a Hittite woman (as Esau had done)
and bringing further grief into the family home, he obeyed his father (28:5,7). As a general
principle, honouring our parents by submitting to them and obeying them is
something that God himself will always bless.
Jacob’s mistake, of course, was that on this occasion he obeyed his
mother, when he really should have refused to do it. However, his mother clearly had a lot of
influence over him, and as a mother’s boy he seems not to have had the courage
to refuse to implement her deceptive plan.
But what of
Rebekah? Flesh acts always have
consequences, and there is always a price to pay! We cannot bring about the fulfilment of God’s
purpose through flesh acts, and we also have to live with the human
consequences of what we have done. Did
Rebekah stop at all to think that, because of this flesh act, Esau would be
furious and she would then lose Jacob, her favourite son, for twenty long
years, because he was forced to leave home for his own safety (cf. 31:41)? Did she realise that the one who would end up
staying around in the home environment for years to come would be godless Esau
along with his two (and afterwards three) ungodly wives? And of course, she wouldn’t have realised
that as a result of her actions, her son Jacob would carry the blame in many
people’s minds down through the centuries, would she? As a result of her deceptive plan, Rebekah
lost the very son she treasured the most, and, whether she liked it or not, she
had to endure the ungodly behaviour of Esau’s wives for many years. This all brought deep grief to her heart, and
she became disgusted with living (27:46). Rebekah had told Jacob that, if Isaac did
curse him instead of blessing him, then she herself would bear the curse (27:13). However, even
though Isaac did not curse Jacob as he had feared, there were certainly human
consequences to this deception that Rebekah had to bear and endure for many
years.
We might
well ask, how was it that Rebekah was willing to concoct such a blatant plan of
deception against her husband Isaac?
Well, apart from her desire to bring about God’s purpose for Jacob, it
might help if we look closely at her own family background. Her brother Laban, with whom she had been
brought up through childhood in their own household environment in Haran,
proved later in the narrative to be nothing more than a narcissistic deceiver,
cheat and manipulator. So Rebekah would
evidently have been influenced by these traits of Laban’s character as she grew
up with him around her in daily life.
Something of this clearly rubbed off on her as she grew up, and it
became part of her own character. She
therefore had no qualms about deceiving Isaac when the time came for him to
give the blessing. In this sense,
Laban’s character was showing up in Isaac’s household long before Jacob ever
met him, through Rebekah.
What
Rebekah should have done, of course, was to have prayed and gone immediately to
Isaac before Esau returned from his hunting trip and reminded him pointedly,
yet again, about what God had revealed to them when the two twins were jostling
in her womb all those years before, that the elder would serve the younger, and
that the blessing ought therefore to be given to Jacob. Or perhaps, as I have heard it suggested,
Isaac was intent on giving the blessing to Esau because of his parental
affection for him, and had no intention of giving it to Jacob, and that Rebekah
therefore thought that there was no point in going to him to try to persuade
him. As parents they would surely have
talked this point over many times together during the years that their sons
were growing up, as all parents do. Whatever,
it is clear that she thought that deception was the only way to achieve the
desired result.
However, is
lying acceptable to God in such a situation?
Does it really achieve his purpose?
All it did was to unnecessarily complicate this family situation and to bring
about undesirable consequences for everyone.
Yes, Rahab did lie to protect the two spies from certain death (cf. Josh. 2:1-7), but does that justify deception in Rebekah’s case? Could she and Jacob not have trusted God that
he would step in even at the last moment and speak to Isaac to make sure that
he gave the blessing to Jacob? Much as
Jacob himself later gave his blessing to Ephraim, Joseph’s younger son, by
crossing his arms as he was in the very act of blessing them, as I said above. In a situation where four people are all
clearly at fault in some way, little if any sense can be made of it and it is
impossible and wrong to pin the blame on only one person; all four of them were
at fault. We can see from the narrative
that God himself stepped in and revealed his covenant to Jacob when he had him
on his own in the desert, away from Rebekah’s influence (Gen. ch.28).
So is Jacob
really the one to blame for what happened, and should we feel sorry for
Esau? I said above that, no, we should never
feel sorry for a godless man like Esau.
His own attitudes and actions led him to losing his birthright, so he
had only himself to blame. But
Jacob? Should we single him out? Clearly not, since he was simply obeying his
mother. It was Isaac’s passivity in the
first place that led to Rebekah’s flesh act of deception, and she then roped
Jacob into acting out her deception. Jacob’s
actions were the consequence of those of both of his parents.
I would
suggest that the narrative shows us that our view of Jacob should be
essentially positive. It is clear that
Jacob understood and craved the covenant with God which Isaac held. Even when he was in the womb, he was jostling
to come out first and be the firstborn (25:26).
As he grew, yes, he did manipulate Esau in a moment of weakness to get
him to sell his birthright (25:29-34).
And yes, this was also an immature flesh act on Jacob’s part. He should not have done it. But what it did reveal is significant: on the
one hand, that Jacob had spiritual understanding and craved after the
birthright (which was a godly trait), and on the other, that Esau despised his
birthright (which was a godless trait). Both
of them revealed their heart that day.
And even though his actions were wrong, yet we should honour Jacob for
his underlying heart’s desire. He craved
the blessing of God and his covenant from a young age, and this indicated the
trajectory and direction in which his life would eventually go.
People
often make much of his name, Jacob, meaning ‘one who supplants,’ and they tie
this in to his later act of deceiving his father Isaac, and end up seeing him
in a negative way as ‘Jacob the deceiver.’
However, it is preferable to take his name as ‘supplanter’ in a positive
sense. What was it exactly that Jacob
supplanted? Godlessness. Immoral living. The absence of the fear of God. Viewing the birthright as worthless. All these things which were true of Esau. So was it a good thing that Jacob supplanted
these things? Absolutely! Supplanting can certainly be a very positive
trait. As it unfolds, the narrative
shows us that Jacob’s life was signally blessed by God. As he grew, in contrast to Esau, Jacob
honoured and obeyed his parents; he craved God’s covenant; he followed God and inherited
his blessing; his godly life and desires supplanted his brother’s godlessness;
God revealed his covenant to him, together with its promises; God spoke to him
in visions and dreams; God sent angels to guard and oversee him; God prospered
him exceedingly and protected him from the narcissistic rapacity of Laban; he
wrestled with man and with God, and overcame; divine purposes were fulfilled
through him: out of him came the twelve tribes of Israel, the ancient covenant
people of God from whom the Messiah came, and so on. And perhaps most significantly of all, Jacob
is a prophetic type of Christ, the Son of God, the great, divine supplanter who
overcame and brought down the dominion of darkness in this world, by overcoming
the strong man and spoiling his goods
(cf. Mark 3:27).
So our view of Jacob’s character should be essentially positive: godly
and spiritual, but humanly flawed just as we all are.
No comments:
Post a Comment