Over the years, I've had several conversations with non-Christian friends and relatives that have gone something like this -- "The Bible is filled with inaccurate stories about men who did horrible things and got away with it."

Usually, the people making this statement are quite unfamiliar with the Bible. They are simply parrotting something they learned somewhere, often on some atheist website. My argument is always that they should go and read the Bible for themselves before making such judgments.

Occasionally, however, I run across someone who has done their homework. Frank is such a person. He compared Hebrews 11, which speaks of the patriarchs like a roll-call of the faithful with Genesis and found the Bible wanting.

At first glance, Hebrews leaves out a lot of information about the patriarchs. Just focusing on the examples of Noah and Abraham, there is almost a disconnect between the treatment the writers of Hebrews gave to them and the real accounts found in Genesis. Noah was a reverant man, but he also cursed his grandson for the crimes of his son and got drunk. Abraham did follow God in faith, but he committed adultery and polygamy and several times failed to trust God. Doesn't that make the BIble seem contradictory and untrustworthy?

First, when one looks at history -- any history -- one takes only a snap shot of that history. Trust me, as one who loves to study history, there is no more boring historical treatment than something attempting a comprehensive study of any era or event. The writers of Hebrews (I have presented the not-original-to-me theory that it was Barnabas and Apollos writing in partnership following Paul's death) were not seeking to revisit history that had already been recorded in Genesis. They were, instead, focusing on specific examples of faith in HUMAN BEINGS.

The Bible is HISTORY, recording the events of PEOPLE and people are never perfect. Thus, Hebrews focuses on those saints in the Bible who failed, which encourages those of us who are not perfect and know it. Genesis was very candid in revealing the failures and flaws of the patriarchs, then Hebrew assured us that these very human men and women will be there in heaven. That gives me a great deal of hope for my own sorry self.

Scoffers who seek to convince themselves and others that there is no coming judgment will often point out the fact (and it is a fact!) that nothing catastrophic has happened to sinners in many years. It's been a while since there have been whole civilizations burned into oblivion or lightning bolts striking particularly egregious individuals. I think they overstate this by ignoring the very real judgment of the Flood. Noah's generation scoffed at the ark until the water rose above their hips and then they wanted on. God had told Noah that his family would be rescued by the ark, but there is no recording that God indicated that anyone else would believe and enter the ark. All the rest of mankind would be destroyed. Noah preached "righteousness", but not as an evangelist. He was not called to save that generation, only to tell them why they were condemned. Noah's faith was evident in his obedience to God's instructions, not because he was a perfect man. The authors of Hebrews focused on Noah's faith. They didn't indicate that Noah's family shared his faith. Ezekiel 14 inferred that Noah appealed to God to spare his family and God granted his request. Ezekiel also indicated that the coming final judgment would not be handles so mercifully. Unbelievers will face God's judgment, because faith is an individual matter -- we don't inherit it from our parents. We can only accept what they believe or not.

Just because Noah had faith does not mean he was free from sin and failure. The Bible tells us of one particular failure, when Noah got drunk and exposed himself to his sons (Genesis 9). Noah had faith, but he wasn't perfect.

Similarly Abraham showed great faith by leaving his homeland to go to a land that God had promised him that was as yet unknown to Abrham. He sojourned in that land like a foreigner, but never possessed it in his lifetime. It is not at all inaccurate for the writer of Hebrews to say that Abraham obeyed God in his actions, though the Genesis account recorded quite a lot of failure to obey. Abraham tarried in Ur and then Haran for quite some time and only departed with the death of his father. His obedience was not immediate, but when he finally did obey, it was by faith. Then in Genesis 12, we find Abraham's faith faltered as he fled the Promised Land for Egypt to avoid a famine. There, he feared for his own life and lied to Pharoah, who caught him in the lie and rebuked him for it. He and Sarah returned to the Promised Land only to repeat the same lack of faith in Gerar. Later, Sarah convinced Abraham to "cheat" God's plan with her servant and thus provide an heir for his line. Clearly, Abraham was not a perfect man. So how can the writer(s) of Hebrews call him a man of faith? Did he just not know about them? Was he in denial?

No, the writer(s) remembered the failures of Noah and Abraham, but chose not to mention them. Every human being is a fallen, fallable creature. The only thing that seperates Christian sinners from non-Christian sinners is the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses our sin. This does not keep us from failing in this life. If you look at the 11 apostles of Christ, you find men of faith who served God through failure. Peter and Barnabas broth failed regarding Gentile Christians, giving in to the Judaizers and Paul had to rebuke them (Galatians 2:11-21). Men and women of faith fail. Jesus sympathize with our weaknesses, comes to our aid, and gives us mercy and grace in our time of need (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:14-16). Living by faith means trusting God when we fail, knowing that only our Great High Priest has lived a perfect human existence.

Remember that the readers of Hebrews were steeped in the Old Testament stories. They would have immediately recognized the omission of these failures and pondered the reason for their absence. The writer(s) of Hebrews emphasized their faith in such a way as to bring their failures to mind for consideration and careful review.

What is the basis of our faith? The author(s) of Hebrews spent a good deal of ink establishing that Jesus Christ is the foundation of our faith. Yet we know the patriarchs experienced failures. How can that be?

I submit it is because God had forgotten their failures. The old Mosiac covenant was about remembering sin from sacrifice to sacrifice, year after year (Hebrews 10:3-4), but under the new covenant in Christ's blood, all sins are covered for all time. The writer(s) of Hebrews consistently applied faith as they understood it. Those who trust in God's provision for sin by faith are fully forgiven and their sins are not remembered.

Since this is true, why would any reasonable person turn from trusting in Christ and try to return to the Old Covenant? To forsake Christ for the Old Covenant would be to abandon a salvation that cannot fail to save us for one that cannot ever save us.

Being a Christian is not about trying harder to please God; it's about God being peased because of the work of His Son on the cross. It's not about us living perfect, sinless lives so that we can stay saved; it's about Christ's once-for-all sacrifice that saves us and keeps us saved. This kind of salvation is so certain that we can endure all of life's trials with absolute confidence that the good work of salvation will be brought to completion by Him, no matter what our failures.

Faith in Christ does not require our perfection, only our perseverence. Faith in Christ rests solely on His perfection, not our own. The greatness of our faith is unimportant. The greatness of Christ is the object of our faith. A small, faltering faith in a great God is vastly superior to a great faith in the wrong object.

The patriarchs were not perfect. Christians today are not perfect. Jesus Christ is the only perfect Man and He is the only worthwhile object of faith. This is the lesson of Genesis and the reaffirmation of Hebrews ... if we will only learn it.

Nearly thirty years had passed since Jacob vowed to return to Bethel, the place where God had revealed Himself to him during his flight from Esau to Paddan-aram. Far worse, it had been 10 years since Jacob had left Laban and returned to the land of promise. In the interim, Jacob built a house in Succoth and formed alliances in Shechem with the Canaanites, which would have ruined the nation that was to emerge from Jacob’s descendants. It was 30 years after Jacob’s vow to return to Bethel that he determined to fulfill it ... though Shechem was only 30 miles - three days' journey -- from Bethel.

From outward appearances Jacob was not that far from God. Thirty miles isn't much and he'd built an altar in Shechem, so there must have been some kind of religious observance there. Spiritually, though, Jacob was not at all near to God. Jacob told Esau he would meet him at Seir, then went in the opposite direction, first to Succoth, then to Shechem. Jacob passively accepted the rape of his daughter and even entered into an agreement that would have cost the purity of God's covenant people. Preoccupied with prosperity and security at the expense of purity and piety, Jacob dwelt near Bethel but not near to the God of Bethel—at least not in chapter 34.

Lest we become judgmental, Jacob’s condition was not that different from many Christians in our own time. We may appear to be walking close to God by keeping the forms and rituals of piety, while in reality we have "denied its power" (1Timothy 3:5). Like the church in Ephesus, we may have lost our first love (Revelation 2:4) or come, like the Laodiceans to consider ourselves doing well spiritually when in fact we are destitute, cold and indifferent (Revelation 3:15-17).

The truth is that every one of us will face times when we have strayed from an intimate walk with God and Genesis 35 provides us with a pattern for finding our way back. Jacob is our guide to returning to the place of promise we should all inhabit.

"Then God said to Jacob, "Go up at once to Bethel and live there. Make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau." So Jacob told his household and all who were with him,

"Get rid of the foreign gods you have among you. Purify yourselves and change your clothes. Let us go up at once to Bethel. Then I will make an altar there to God, who responded to me in my time of distress and has been with me wherever I went."

Moses did not tell us about any revelation Jacob might have received from God during the nearly 10 years since He had commanded he leave Paddan-aram and return to Bethel. Moses might have failed to record these communications, but I think it was more likely that Jacob wasn't listening. Despite his dramatic encounter with the Angel of Jehovah (the pre-incarnate Christ), Jacob quickly lost any sense of urgency about doing God's will. He probably planned to eventually go to Bethel, but there was no hurry in his mind. God had clearly spoken and Jacob knew His command. There was little value in God speaking again until Jacob was willing to obey.

Perhaps the tragic events surround Dinah's rape improved Jacob's ability to hear and obey God. His sons' revenge made it impossible to remain in Shechem, so Jacob might have been more inclined toward Bethel. Sometimes we follow God's commands as much through sin as through obedience.

Christians have free will in the sense of being able to choose whether or not we will obey what God commands. We can resist the commands of God, but we cannot thwart His ultimate purposes. God allowed Jacob to go his own way and reap the consequences of his disobedience. Eventually, we will do what God has purposed. God does not, like many of us do as parents, yell and holler, fuss and fume, over the disobedience of His children. While deeply grieved by our disobedience, He allows us to go our own way and reap the painful price of sin. When we have gotten our fill of sin and come to the end of our rope, He will speak to us again, reminding us of what He has previously commanded. God’s will can be resisted for a season and at a great price, but ultimately God will create an atmosphere in which we will gladly hear and obey. Then His purposes will be realized in our lives.

Jacob was to return to the place of his spiritual beginnings and dwell there. Perhaps he was hesitant to return to Bethel because of the foreign idols in his camp (of which, I believe, he was aware). For his love of Rachel, he allowed her to keep her family gods, but this set a precedence for other idols in his camp, especially among the captured Canaanites from Shechem. Remarkably, Jacob had tolerated a high level of idolatry and impurity in his entourage during his years in Succoth and Shechem, but suddenly, when God called him to return to Bethel, he became greatly concerned about purity. Jacob had always understood that there could be no approach to God in an impure condition, which may explain why he wandered anywhere but Bethel for 10 years. Following Christ is always costly and people shouldn't do it without counting the cost (Luke 9:57-62).

Don't be too quick to condemn Jacob, however, because most Christians today are hesitant, if not downright unwilling, to fully commit themselves to God for fear of what that commitment will cost them. Some of us would rather go on a mission trip among head hunters than have the folks where we work know that we're Christians who actually live as Christians.

Jacob feared reprisal from the relatives of those Shechemites his sons had put to death for raping Dinah and he now had a large number of Canaanite captives in his entourage as well. Yet, contrary to his fears, he departed for Bethel without incident. Although the Canaanites might have been wary of the military prowess of Jacob's sons, their victory had been more due to trickery than skills at arms; yet, the Canaanites seemed to fear Jacob's God more than they feared his sons' swords. In this experience, Jacob learned a lesson which we should learn as well -- safety is not found in our own strength nor in alliances with pagans (non-Christians), but in fear of God, which causes us to maintain the purity He demands (Proverbs 29:25; Exodus 14:13-14; Proverbs 8:13; 10:27; 14:26; Isaiah 8:13-15).

Finally in obedience to the command of God, Jacob returned to Bethel and built an altar. Moses didn't record if Jacob gave a tithe as he had promised years before. God doesn't seem to have reminded him of this promise as He did of the commitment to return and build an altar. There was no need of a tithe, truly. What use would it have served, rotting on a an altar in the middle of nowhere? Besides, I think the tithe was Jacob's idea during his bargaining phase and God doesn't bargain with people. Thus, God let this part of the promise pass unmentioned. Some commitments are rashly made and we should be glad that God overlooks them.

Oddly, Genesis 35:9-15 seems to skip over the 10 years of spiritual wilderness as if it hadn't happened. That bothers some people. But consider this -- God is not bound by time and space as we are. Moses, under inspiration, wrote in this fashion to suggest something significant for us from Jacob's life. Those 10 years were of little or no spiritual value because they were a time of independence and disobedience on Jacob's part. No real growth or progress occurred in Jacob's spiritual life, so for God, they were lost years -- years not worth reviewing.

The blessings God spoke to Jacob were remarkably similar to those given to Abraham in Genesis 17:4-7. Jacob receive no new promises. God was simply reminding him of the existing covenant. He then confirmed the covenant by ascending before Jacob's eyes. This event served as a rededication to God for Jacob, his sons and all his household. For the younger members of the family, this may have been the first clear evidence and explanation of the faith which Jacob had possessed, but practiced poorly before them. The faith of Jacob must become the fait of his children if they were to be the chosen nation.

Please read GENESIS 35:16-29 for the text here.

Somewhere between Bethel and Bethlehem, Rachel went into hard labor. The midwife tried to encourage Rachel by informing her that the child was the second son she wanted so badly. She'd named Joseph ("add to me") to express her desire for yet another son. With her dying breath Rachel named this second son Ben-oni, meaning "son of my sorrow." Jacob would not allow that name to stand, however, and changed it to Benjamin, "the son of my right hand." Rachel was buried on the way to Bethlehem, and Jacob and his household proceeded on, having set up a pillar along the way.

Significantly, Moses added that this pillar was still standing in his day. While this may mean little to us, it was probably of great interest to his first readers, the Israelites, who were about to enter into the land of Canaan. If they looked for this pillar when they possessed the land, they would find it and validate Moses' historical accuracy.

You might miss it if you read too fast, but Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, initiated an illicit sexual union with Bilhah, Rachel’s maid and Jacob’s concubine. This report prepares us for the time when Jacob will take away from Reuben the rights of the firstborn (Genesis 49:34).

Careful analysis of the event suggests there is more to the story. A casual reading implies a single act of morality rather than an ongoing relationship. Jacob knew about it, but did nothing. The act is not described as lustful, such as Shechem's rape of Dinah. Bilhah was not a young woman. It appears that at the time it was no big deal, but it appears that Jacob remembered it when it came time to name the successor to his inheritance.

Inevitably, Jacob reconciled with Isaac and Esau. Anyone who has ever totally trashed a family relationship can empathize with Jacob. It must have been the most difficult act of his life to stand before his father and request reconciliation, yet reconciliation with God and the renewal at Bethel necessitated reconciliation with Isaac.

Scholars tell us that Jacob spent about 10 years with his family before Isaac's death, but Moses did not stress this fact. It was time for Isaac to step aside and Jacob to take over. The hostility with Esau seems to have been a thing long dead and Isaac's burial was a cooperative effort.

This is a powerful commentary on the imporance of Christian renewal. Often modern Christians seem to wait for some new and exhilirating experience to put them back on the right path, but the Scriptures record few such experiences. What Jacob did at Bethel was hardly novel and what God said to him at His second appearance was nothing new. We should learn something from that! Jacob needed to gain a deeper appreciation for what he had already experienced, but not fully grasped. He needed no new revelation, but a better understanding of that which he had already received.

The most precious favors of heaven often come to us, not as new blessings or promises, but in repetition or revival of those we have already experienced in the past. Serving God may not be something brand new and novel, but repetitive and commonplace. For example, Jesus commanded believers to frequently and systematically observe the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, which takes us back to our initial encounter with our Savior, reminding us that all we are, all that we will be and all that we ever accomplish of eternal value rests on the work of Calvary 2000 years ago.

Of course, urging anyone to return to Bethel assumes that they have been to Bethel in the first place. Jacob came to Bethel the first time in recognition of his sinfulness and accepting that the only way to God's heaven was through God and not self-effort. That was his born-again moment, even though it took him 30 years to fully realize it. If you've never been to Bethel (the cross of Christ) in the first place, there's not much use to rededicating your life. There must be a first commitment involving a recognition of sin and acceptance of Christ as Lord.

I pray that you will do this now by simply acknowledging your sin and your utter inability to gain God’s favor or admission into His kingdom. The way has been provided in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Who died in your place and Who offers His righteousness to all who will believe on Him alone for salvation.

This event speaks loudly to the need for sanctification. That's a church word that means to grow in being more Christ-like. Salvation seems easy. Admit, believe and confess. Jacob's renewal at Bethel necessitated that he stop going his own sinful way and once again obey the will of God. There can be no renewal without obedience. Jacob had also to put away those foreign gods he'd tolerated for so long because they were offensive to God. Finally, his renewal involved reconciliation with those he had injuried and offended by his sins. We cannot be reconciled to God without being reconciled with men (Matthew 5:23-24).

The later events in Jacob's life remind Christians that a renewal of our relationship with God does not mean our lives will go smoothly. Even a Spirit-filled life is full of sickness, suffering and sorrow (Philippians 2:25; 2Corinthians 6:4-5; 12:7-10). The Christian life is no bed of roses ... of if it is, the roses have not been de-thorned. Adversaries and afflications are the very things that draw us nearer to God and strengthen our faith (James 1:2-4). Dinah's rape was a tragedy that set Jacob toward Bethel. Otherwise, he might have remained in Shechem and become a Canaanite.

Christians, like everyone else, reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7). The heartache Jacob experienced in Chapter 35 was largely the result of his previous sins. I am not saying that Jacob suffered the penalty for his sins. No Christian ever suffers the penalty for sins, for Jesus Christ has borne our sins on the cross. When Christ died on the cross, He died for believers past and future. However, while the guilt and condemnation are absolved, the consequences of sin remain. David sought God’s forgiveness for his sin and received it (Psalm 51), but the consequences for his acts were not held back (2Samuel 12:9-12).

God had purposed that Jacob would someday return to Bethel and to his father. While Jacob dilly-dallied for ten years, he finally arrived. We cannot thwart the purposes of God for our lives. We may resist them, but we cannot prevent them. This does not mean that what we do does not matter. It matters a great deal! Jacob experienced much needless sorrow because of his waywardness. Sin is never worth the price. However, what God has begun, He will finish (Philippians 1:6). We can do things His way or the hard way, but God's purposes will be achieved (Romans 8:28-30).

Jacob was not an example of a fine Christian man. He was an example of a Christian man who was also very human. His example should motivate us to be faithful and encourage us when we have failed in the attempt because we know that God loved Jacob despite his flaws, so He is able to love us in the same way.

Nothing is more devastating to an athlete, an artist, a corporation or a church than to be making progress in a particular area and then to be overwhelmed with a sense of pride and complacency. We tend to rest on our laurels and fail to press for greater growth and maturity.

The same principle applies to the matter of security. Christians are forever secure in the salvation of Jesus Christ, but there is a complacency which can be destructive and counter-productive in our spiritual lives. We can wrong conclude that eternal security means there is no need to press on, no urgency and no imminent danger in our Christian experience. Ironically, the moment we feel secure, we are in the greatest danger. When we become aloof to the intensity of the spiritual warfare in which we are engaged and start to ignore the enemy who seeks to destroy us, we are beginning to fall into the enemy's grip. This is all too common for Christians, as Jacob illustrated.

Jacob expected the worst when his brother was coming his way, but once the danger passed, he became forgetful of the divine command and his own vow to return to Bethel. A false sense of security made Jacob careless in his actions and brought him to a point of very grave spiritual and physical anger. Except for the questionable actions of his sons and the providence of God, Jacob coudl ahve been virtually destroyed.

We modern American Christians have been lulled into a false sense of security by our comfortable and easy way of life. Americans live in a nearly cradle-to-grave protective shell, never wondering when our next meal will come or where we will sleep tomorrow night. Christians can feel even more comfortable because of pre-Tribulation theology that teaches that that we won't be around the face the really bad times anyway because Christians will be raptured before then. Some, believing this, begin to live carelessly and find ourselves in danger of some serious spiritual defeats. We can learn much from Jacob about how to avoid complacency and over-confidence in our spiritual walk.

Please read Genesis 33:1-16 for the text of Jacob and Esau's meeting. It would seem that the moment the wrestling match with the Angel ended, Jacob saw Esau coming. He immediately moved to the very vanguard of his entourage, reasoning that it was him whom Esau hated, so any harm done should fall on him first. As Jacob went out to meet his brother, he genuflected repeatedly in a token of his newly found humility.

As a writer, I can imagine this scene. Esau perhaps rode up rapidly to Jacob. Leaping from his mount, he ran toward his brother while Jacob watched with great anxiety, gaze fixed upon the weapons Esau carried. How shocked, how stiff he must have been when Esau wrapped him in a warm and tender embrace with tears of genuine joy. To his great relief, Jacob realized that Esau had come as a forgiving friend and brother rather than an avenging foe.

They talked over family and then turned their attention to the droves of livestock. Jacob reiterated that these were a gift, an expression of love. Esau tried to politely refuse the gift as unnecessary, but Jacob persisted and prevailed.

"No, please take them," Jacob said. "If I have found favor in your sight, accept my gift from my hand. Now that I have seen your face and you have accepted me, it is as if I have seen the face of God." Genesis 33:10

Jacob had learned very recently that to prevail with God was also to prevail with men. Now Esau had welcomed him with open arms, Jacob saw God's protection in the face of his brother. The one was the result of the other. God, not Esau, had been the obstacle to Jacob's entry into Canaan. Now that he had prevailed with God by means of petition and clinging to Him in faith, Esau was no longer a foe, but a friend.

Esau is a magnificent picture of graciousness and forgiveness. In remarkable similarity to the words of teh father of the prodigal son at his return (Luke 15:20), Esau accepted Jacob's generous gifts and offered to accompany his brother on the journey to Canaan. Jacob appreciated the offer, but explaiend that he could not travel as the same pace as Esau. His entourage were women, children and flocks, not men at arms. Esau still offered an escort for the journey, but Jacob turned it down, assuring Esau that all he wanted was his brother's favor. Esau failed to recognize that Jacob had resorted to his old habit of deception. He said he would meet Esau at Seir, but it seems he had no intention of actually doing so. The disasterous results of Jacob's side trip would indicate that Jacob took another wrong turn in life.

Jacob traveled to Succoth and built a farm there. This was, in a very real sense, a step backward for Jacob. Geographically, Succoth was in the opposite direction from Seir, and more importantly, from Bethel, where Jacob had been instructed to return. Moses did not provide a reason for Jacob's move, but we can make some guesses. Jacob may not have been eagar to face Isaac who he had deceived and from who he must seek forgiveness. Jacob may not have wanted to spend much time in close proximity to Esau, who seemed quite able to protect his own interests. Jacob had promised God a tithe when he returned to Bethel, so he may have been reluctant to part with some of his prosperity. Finally, the most practical reason is that the Jordan Valley where Succoth was located is far superior pasturage than the mountainous area around Bethel.

More distressing than the direction of Jacob’s travels was the duration of his stay at Succoth. Historians say that Dinah could not have been older than 6 or 7 when Jacob left Paddan-aram, but by the time Jacob moved to Shechem, she was of marriageable age, which would have been at least 12 or 13. Several years must, therefore, have passed between the meeting of Jacob and Esau and the events of chapter 34. Some of those must have passed at Succoth, where Jacob built a house and became a settler rather than a sojourner.

We are not given any reason for Jacob’s departure from Succoth to Shechem. All Moses told us was that Jacob arrived "safely" at the city of Shechem (verse 18). His camping near the city is reminiscent of Lot’s ever closer attachment to the city of Sodom, until he was a citizen. Again, Jacob did not appear to be a man passing through, for he purchased a piece of property from a man whose name he would some day like to forget.

Outwardly, Jacob appears to have been a religious man like Abraham. He built an altar, for example. However, while Abraham built altars "to the Lord" and both he and Isaac called upon the name of the Lord in worship, Jacob built his altar when he got around to it, as if it were a religious formality rather than an act of faith. It is extremely difficult to worship God where we are not supposed to be.

Jacob's daughter Dinah struck up a friendship with some of the girls in Shechem, which drew attention from an admirer, named Shechem, who was the son of Hamor, the man Jacob bought land from. While she was alone, Shechem raped her. The rape was an abomination, but the boy claimed to love Dinah and want to marry her. His father sought to assuage the rage of Dinah's brothers by stressing Shechem's great love for her and noting that such a marriage would pave the way for many other benefits. They could marry Canaanite women, for example, and engage in local business more easily. Hamor was willing to pay any dowry to appease they rage.

Jacob's sons were not content with such an offer, but they were willing to exact revenge in a different way.

"Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor deceitfully when they spoke because Shechem had violated their sister Dinah. They said to them, "We cannot give our sister to a man who is not circumcised, for it would be a disgrace to us. We will give you our consent on this one condition: You must become like us by circumcising all your males. Then we will give you our daughters to marry, and we will take your daughters as wives for ourselves, and we will live among you and become one people. But if you do not agree to our terms by being circumcised, then we will take our sister and depart." Genesis 34:13-17

To me, it's odd that these words are attributed to Jacob's sons rather than Dinah's brothers, but it may be that Moses was calling attention to their deceit. They had learned well from their father. The only concession Jacob's sons required could only be declined with great difficulty. Circumcision would unite the Canaanites with the Israelites so that intermarriage would be acceptable and permissible. If this rite were not followed, then no intermarriage could take place.

Of course, circumcision would physically incapacitate the Canaanites, making the slaughter of Hamor, Shechem adn all the inhabitants of the city much easier to accomplish. There is no defense for what they proposed.

Jacob’s silence is even more evil than his sons’ schemes. His sons proposed intermarriage with the Canaanites only as a means to induce them to be circumcised so that they could be overcome more easily. Jacob silently and passively accepted the agreement with the people of Shechem, fully expecting to carry it out. Jacob planned to allow his descendants to intermarry with the Canaanites, but his sons had no such intention. Jacob, in comparison with his sons, was even more guilty than they! His willingness to allow this intermarriage was not only contrary to the purposes ad promises of God in the Abrahamic covenant, but it is also a direct violation of the instructions which his father had given him in Genesis 28:1-4.

On good faith, Hamor and Shechem went to their fellow citizens and convinced them to comply with the proposal of Jacob’s sons. It seemed a reasonable offer and Shechem was eager to have the marriage performed. The other men of the city were convinced on financial grounds. A temporary inconvenience would eventually offer substantial profits. What was the downside?

Little did the people of Shechem realize the intentions of Dinah’s brothers, whose anger could not be appeased by anything less than the revenge of blood. Weakened by their circumcision, the men of the city were virtually helpless when attacked by Simeon and Levi. They killed every male, and the rest of their brothers were quick to share in the spoils. All of their wealth along with the women and children was taken.

The shallowness of Jacob’s stern rebuke was exposed by his sons response: "Should he treat our sister as a harlot?" The issue of morality had never been raised by Jacob. Granted, the sons’ deception and destruction hardly seems moral, but they had some sense of the abomination that had taken place concerning their sister, while Jacob was strangely silent and passive on this point.

Reviewing Jacob's life is interesting. Whenever he was in the greatest danger, God was with him. As he fled Esau's wrath, he met God in Bethel. While hotly pursued by his frustrated father-in-law, God curtailed Laban's plans with a warning. Upon returning to face his brother, Jacob met a host of angels. In truth, Jacob was always safest when his life seemed in greatest peril.

On the other hand, he was never in greater danger than when he felt safe. Jacob felt safest when hsi brother was out of sight, yet Esau would have provided him with an escort of armed and loyal men. Jacob felt secure when his cattle coud feed on the lush grass of Succoth, near the city of the Canaanites, where his daughter was raped.

Most of us are inclined to trust God and obey Him when we sense grave danger and feel that our only hope is in God. Sadly, we all tend to slack up on our diligence and devotion when things are going smoothly. We think we can handle the easy times by ourselves and let God handle the crises. Most Christians are foxhole Christians.

The Israelites learned a powerful lesson from reading this as they were about to enter the land of Canaan. Their only security was in God. Their greatest danger in the promised land was not the size of the inhabitants or their military prowess, but in becoming carelessly complacent about spiritual purity and resisting false pride. Of course, they had the powerful memory of being trapped between the Red Sea and the soldiers of Egypt and discovering they were perfectly safe because they were where God wanted them to be.

The great danger for Israel was what would happen once they were in the land. During the years in which they wandered in the desert, they were, humanly speaking, in a most dangerous situation, but God miraculously provided for them and used those circumstances to teach them that the most important matters of life were not food and drink, but obedience to the will of God and the keeping of His word (Deuteronomy 8:1-6). The greatest danger which Israel would ever face was not the persecution of the Egyptians, for that kept them pure. The greatest danger Israel would face was their prosperity and apparent security once they possessed the land (Deuteronomy 8:11-18).

Man’s security has always been in God, and in God alone. This is not just a New Testament truth; it is an eternal truth. There is no security in the "arm of the flesh," only in the "arm of Jehovah." If we trust in our own devices, we are exceedingly vulnerable. If we trust in God, we are invincible.

The slaughter of the Canaanites by the sons of Jacob, while done in deception, was a necessity. Had Simeon and Levi not slaughtered the men of this city, Jacob’s sons and daughters would have intermarried. Jacob had already consented to it, viewing their friendliness and openness as an evidence of safety and security. In reality, it was the opposite. The willingness of the Canaanites to adopt Jacob, the Israelites, and their religion into their way of life would have defiled the purity which God required for this race. While Jacob did not take such activity as defiling and disgraceful, his sons did, agreeing with God. Later He would instruct the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites due to their depravity and decay (Deuteronomy 20:17-18). From this incident in the life of Jacob the Israelites could see the consequences of cohabitation with the Canaanites.

Safety is not something we can provide for ourselves. We are never secure apart from God. Every non-believer must be warned of this truth (Acts 4:12). Safety comes only from God (Psalm 4:8). The true believer is most secure when he/she is follow the Word of God (Proverbs 1:33). Safety is not the absence of danger, but the acknowledgment of it and subsequent turning to God for protection (Daniel 3:13). Times of apparent safety which lead to complacency are occasions when danger is greatest. Real dangers are most often not seen by human eyes because they are spiritual in nature, including unbelief, apathy, carnality, compromise and complacency. This is why Christians are urged to be on the alert, attentive to dangers that are always present, especially in times of prosperity and peace (1Corinthians 10:12; 1Thessalonians 5:3-6; 1Peter 5:8; Revelation 3:17).

The trials and sufferings of life look very differnet in the light of these truths. Life's trials are not given by God for our destruction, but for our defense. They cause us to cling ever closer to Him Who gives us strength in times of need (Hebrews 4:14-16). The trials of life are God's gift of grace (Philippians 1:29), intended by a loving Father to strengthen our faith (Hebrews 12:7-13).

I think most Christians in America prefer to dwell in comfort and complacency rather than to live on the cutting edge of Christianity. Like Jacob, most of us prefer peace to purity, prosperity to piety, and safety to spirituality. The commands and principles of the New Testament, like the laws of the Old, were designed to cause us to live on the cutting edge of life. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. The man could not trust both God and money. Money isn't evil by itself, but trusting in it for security is (1Timothy 6:17). God desires to remove anything from our lives which stands in the way of our total trust in Him.

While noting that many Christians avoid God's way, I also believe that many Christians desire to live the kind of life God intends for us to live. Doing so is intensely simple -- trust and obey. Trust leads to obedience to the will and Word of God. Obeying the Word of God forces us to trust in Him to provide for our every need. To rely on one or the other is to backslide and become lost from God's true path.

Presupposition underlie most of our thinking and provide a framework for logic that is extremely important. Presuppositions concerning the natural world -- for example, that gravity has sway over everything on the planet -- allow scientific inquiry to exist. However, presuppositions can sometimes be wrong.

Preconceived ideas can be very difficult to shed, even in light of undeniable facts. This causes difficulty for some of us when we approach Genesis 32. How is it possible that God could imply that Jacob had contended with Him and won? How can a human prevail over God? And how could Jacob, the con artist, be said to have contended with men and won? Based upon our preconceived theological stance, many of us would insist that this must be a contradiction in the Bible. Men cannot prevail with God, therefore, Genesis 32:28 must either be wrong or contradictory.

Genesis 32 is the pivotal chapter of Jacob's life. He is a vastly different person from the man we have come to know in previous chapters because at this juncture in his life, Jacob faces the demons of his past and lays them to rest.

When Jacob had left Canaan for Paddan-aram, his mother had told him that he would only need to be gone for "a few days". When Esau’s anger had cooled, she would send for him. Twenty years later, it appears Jacob had never heard from his mother. No doubt he concluded that Esau was still angry. Jacob thus had good reason to fear a confrontation with his brother.

Chapter 32 was also the turning point of Jacob’s spiritual life. Jacob had been a bargainer, even with God, up to this time. In Genesis 28:20-22, after the vision of the heavenly ladder Jacob made a vow, but it was much more of a bargain with God than a surrender to Him. In return for God’s presence, protection, and provision, Jacob would let God be his God. Of all that God gave to him in the form of wealth, Jacob would return 10 percent. In effect, Jacob has made God his agent and offered Him the normal fee. What a far cry from what a man’s response to the living God should be!

All of Jacob’s deceitful practices over the years were the result of a fundamental misconception that spiritual blessings could be secured by carnal methods and means. Jacob rightly believed that God had promised to make him, not Esau, the heir of promise with the rights of the first-born. He valued this blessing while Esau despised it. What he did not yet know was that he did not have to connive and scheme to obtain the promised blessings of God. The incident of Peniel would settle this issue forever and give Jacob a new view on life.

"So Jacob went on his way and the angels of God met him. When Jacob saw them, he exclaimed, "This is the camp of God!" So he named that place Mahanaim." Genesis 32:1-2

Jacob had encountered God before. In chapter 28 it was the presence of God that was stressed. While God promised to be with Jacob, to provide and protect him in the land of Laban, nevertheless God was present in a special way in the land of Canaan. Jacob must someday return. Now as Jacob returned to the land of Canaan, God sent His angels to meet him in a special way, intended to underscore the power of God. As Jacob departed Canaan, God highlighted the significance of the land so that he would always look forward to his return. Now, returning to the land, Jacob feared Esau's rage and violence. What more reassuring experience could Jacob have than to meet a host of angels, reminding him of God's infinite power to protect him from Esau just as He had protected him from Laban.

As they camped that night, Jacob could see a second camp -- God's camp -- where the angels met him, so he named it "Mahanaim" (two camps). From this point of security, Jacob sent messengers ahead to prepare Esau for his arrival. The events of the rest of the chapter take place in this camp.

"Jacob sent messengers on ahead o his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the region of Edom. He commanded them, "This is what you must say to my lord Esau: ‘This is what your servant Jacob says: I have been staying with Laban until now. I have oxen, donkeys, sheep, and male and female servants. I have sent this message to inform my lord, so that I may find favor in your sight.’"

"The messengers returned to Jacob and said, "We went to your brother Esau. He is coming to meet you and has four hundred men with him." Genesis 32:3-6

Jacob felt compelled to reach out to Esau in the spirit of reconciliation. He didn't want to surprise Esau and he wanted Esau to know that he was returning with his own wealth, so would not need a share of Isaac's inheritance. His return was a friendly and non-threatening one. He sought Esau's favor. Perhaps Jacob had gained an appreciation of Esau's feelings by being victimized a few times himself. His recent brush with danger may have pushed him toward becoming a different kind of person. His dealings with Esau appear to point in that direction.

"Jacob was very afraid and upset. So he divided the people who were with him into two camps, as well as the flocks, herds, and camels. "If Esau attacks one camp," he thought,"then the other camp will be able to escape."

"Then Jacob prayed, "O God of my father Abraham, God of my father Isaac, O Lord, you said to me, ‘Return to your land and to your relatives and I will make you prosper.’ I am not worthy of all the faithful love you have shown your servant. With only my walking stick I crossed the Jordan, but now I have become two camps. Rescue me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, as well as the mothers with their children. But you said, ‘I will certainly make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand on the seashore, too numerous to count.’" Genesis 32:7-12

The report from the messengers was frightening. Esau approached with 400 men at arms. Assuming the very worst, Jacob divided his company into two divisions, hoping that if one group was attacked, the other might have a chance of escape. It was an act stemming from fear, not faith, but it does make sense. Jacob wasn't much of a prayer warrior. His prayer in Chapter 28 has been criticized by theologians. At this desperate moment, however, Jacob urgently prayed for rescue. However, this prayer evidences humility, something not seen in Jacob before. The smug self-confidence was gone along with the bargaining mentality. Jacob had no way to manipulate God as he had done others. God's promises were the only foundation upon which he could make his petition.

Genesis 32:13-21 indicates that Jacob made preparations for his brother's approach. Vital faith does not need to be idle faith. He'd offered a gift as a sign of reconciliation, but Esau had no reason to accept it. Long years of experience with his conniving brother had no doubt taugh Esau to be distrustful of Jacob's apparent change of character. Jacob commenced to send wave upon wave of gifts to Esau, stressing the new nature he possessed that prompted him to give rather than to receive and to serve rather than supplant. His gifts were designed to prosper Esau over time. As Esau approached Jacob, he must pass by each drove of lifestock. The drovers had been instructed to answer Esau's questions. Hopefully, by the time Esau reached Jacob, his wrath would have eased.

Waitng for Esau, Jacob sent his wives and children across the Jabbok. It may be that he was alone on the final trip when he was confronted by a "man" who could oppose his crossing and threaten to keep Jacob out of the promised land. Biblical scholars admit there is much mystery in this episode. There are some observations we can make, however.

The person was the "angel of Jehovah", the pre-incarnate Son of God, Jesus before human flesh (Hosea 12:3-4). This was not just an angel. This was God Himself, which Jacob understood (verse 30). The struggle was not a dream or nightmare. Jacob walked away with a limp, which means he didn't just dream the wrestling match.

Esau proved to be no barrier to Jacob's entrance into Canaan. Esau was not Jacob's opposition. God was. To many of us, it is amazing that God did not prevail against Jacob, who was an old man by this time. Shouldn't the God of the Universe have won this match against a mere mortal? Moses did not tell us that God could not overcome Jacob, only that He did not. He did, however, disable Jacob by dislocating his hip. Oddly, at this point, Jacob seemed to gain the upper hand. The Angel (might as well call Him the Word) plead him to let him go, for dawn was breaking. Despite Jacob's injury, the Angel implied that Jacob had the winning edge. Jacob was tested, encouraged to make a request of the Angel which He was in no position to refuse. For Jacob, the bargainer, this was a tempting situation. Unlike his previous actions, Jacob asked only for a blessing (verse 26). Jacob had finally come to realize that the only important thing in life is to be blessed of God.

"Then the man said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." "I will not let you go," Jacob replied, "unless you bless me." The man asked him, "What is your name?" He answered, "Jacob." "No longer will your name be Jacob," the man told him, "but Israel, because you have fought with God and with men and have prevailed." Genesis 32:26-28

Jacob's name meant "the supplanter", a painful reminder of his past. As God changed Abram's name earlier, now He changed Jacob's name. Yet how could God possibly bless Jacob based upon his previous trickery and deception? Jacob's past behavior had been deplorable. Surely verse 28 is a mistake!

Consider that God, Who is not bound by linear time as we are, referred to Jacob's future confrontations. Jacob did prevail with God in their wrestling match, but he did not really overcome God. He'd merely clung tenaciously to his Savior. For this, he was assured of victory no matter what opposition men might offer, including his rapidly approaching brother Esau.

This is a vital lesson for every Christian. A transforming truth, it explains the reason why God’s blessings can only be obtained by godly means. It revealed to Jacob the reason why all of his previous "victories" were really disasters, resulting in discord, hatred, and hostility. The Christian life (and make no mistake, Jacob was a Christian) is spiritual warfare. All of Jacob's life to that point had been characterized by carnal striving to secure divine blessing, usually resulting in disaster. Now Jacob had learned the folly and futility of such self-effort. Entrance into a life of blessing can only be achieved on the basis of Jacob's blessing from the Angel of Jehovah -- by clinging to God to fulfill His promises.

This does not imply that man should therefore be inactive and passive. Jacob was hardly passive in his struggle with the Angel. Our activity should be rightly directed and motivated. We must seeki that which God has promised. We must begin by striving with God for His blessing. Only then should we engage in other activities, consistent with a genuine faith in God. Just as our goals are to be godly, so must our means.

The lesson for us is the same. Our warfare is a spiritual one that cannot be won by carnal means. Spiritual victory can only be obtained by spiritual means (Ephesians 6:12-20).

The great tragedy in Christian circles today is that much of what we do is by carnal means. We employ these means because that is what we, by our old nature, are inclined to do. It appears to work and, we think, the ends justify the means. We do not pray and let God change men’s hearts (Philippians 3:15); we try to politically outmaneuver the opposition. The blessings of God are spiritual, and they cannot and will not be obtained through carnal methods.

Since God is sovereign, all men must do is to prevail with Him. If He is for us, we have the victory. Neither human nor demonic opposition can thwart the purposes of the sovereign God (Romans 8:31-39), and since God has purposed to bless men as they prevail with Him, we must devote ourselves to this task.

We must trust God for the blessing of salvation. We are unworthy of this gift, and yet God has offered it to all men (Romans 10:13). We deserve only the eternal wrath of God (Romans 6:23). God has promised to save men on the basis of faith in the work of Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins and Whose righteousness will save any who calls upon His name (John 1:12; Acts 4:12, 16:31; 2Corinthians 5:21). By clinging to God and trusting Him to do what He has promised, you can have the blessing of eternal life. All subsequent blessings will come in the same way: by self-distrust and faith in God to accomplish what He has promised.

I work for a social service organization where we occasionally run up against ethical issues. I am always amazed that the secular liberals I work with don't understand the continuum between morality and legality with ethics sitting in the middle. Thus, in my office, I have a placard posted that reads "Ethics is the difference between morality and legality, between what I ought to do and what the law demands I must do." The placard was a gift from a now-retired social worker who felt that I was the only long-time employee who would not put it in a drawer.

Jacob totally lacked any ethical system as he headed back to Canaan. Legality equated with morality in his mind. That which was not contrary to the law was not a problem for his conscience. The purchase of birthright from Esau, for example, was meticulously legal, but extremely unethical. Clearly, 15 years later, he was still acting on this principle of legality when he manipulated the flocks in order to prosper at Laban's expense. Jacob's actions were usually quite legal, but no where near ethical.

This lack of an ethical framework to guide and govern his conduct resulted in a painful incident as Jacob left Paddan-aram to return to Canaan. As we study this, we might want to recognize our own similarity to Jacob.

The relationship with Laban was quickly souring, so that Jacob thought it a good idea to return home. Rachel and Leah agreed and God had sent a confirming dream. Hastily, Jacob packed all their goods and headed for home. I doubt it was an accident that Laban was shearing the sheep -- Jacob wanted to avoid a confrontation that might result in Laban refusing to release his daughters or the flocks.

We could speculate on Rachel's motives for stealing Laban's household idols, but I'm going to just appeal to the text and archeology. Household gods were a token of righteful claim tothe possessions and headship of the family. Rachel may have felt it secured some claim to Laban's inheritance. Interestingly, she didn't tell Jacob of her theft.

I am not going to post the complete text, but suggest that people read Genesis 21 themselves

Jacob had not counted on the impact his stealthy retreat would have upon Laban when combined with the theft of his gods. Laban assumed Jacob had stolen them. While Laban attempted to conjure a smoke screen by playing the part of the offended father and grandfather, his real interest was in regaining possession of his gods, because the gods were considered a claim on the inheritance.

It took seven days for Laban to catch up to Jacob. I think Laban intended to battle Jacob for the gods and the girls both, but a dream of divine warning changed his plans. God warned Laban not to attempt Jacob's course of action or attempt to cause him harm.

Laban was not upset about the departure itself. Jacob had stated before that he wanted to return home when his term of service was up. What upset Laban was the manner of the departure, which deprived him of any farewell, and the theft of the gods. Most of Laban's protest sounded like that of a loving father and grandfather, but there is insincerity underlying it. Rachel and Leah had noted that they were no longer greatly loved by him. He did not pursue them for seven days just to say goodbye. The gods were at the crux of this matter. If Jacob got away with his gods, he could someday return and make a claim to his estate. This could not be tolerated.

Jacob’s response was not made from a position of strength. His first words are a rather weak defense of his stealthy escape, while his remaining words are in response to the matter of the stolen gods, of which he had no personal knowledge. Jacob did not have sufficient faith that God would deliver him from the hand of his own father-in-law. In his fear he had to question the truthfulness of the words which God had spoken to him at Bethel (Genesis 28:15). Jacob had not yet accepted that he could trust God to accomplish His word without some back-up plan that included Jacob's manipulation or deception.

Since he had little to justify his behavior on the departure and feeling certain that he was innocent of the charge of stealing Laban’s gods, Jacob turned the conversation to this issue, urging Laban to make a diligent search of Jacob’s goods for his gods. Whoever was caught with them would die. Jacob obviously had no idea that his beloved Rachel was the culprit.

Laban clearly didn't suspect Rachel either. He searched Jacob's tent first. That's understandable, since Laban knew to what extremes Jacob had gone to in claiming the inheritance in Canaan. He was the natural suspect in a theft that would give him preeminence over Laban's household.

Laban then searched Leah's tent and the two maids, turning his attention last to Rachel. She successfully concealed her theft by claiming her period. Given the ancient Near-East feelings about blood, it is understandable that Laban did not want to press the matter. Had Rachel's deed been discovered, things might have turned out quite differently. Jacob's sheepishness over his covert escape was overshadowed by his righteous indignation over being accused of something he hadn't done.

Jacob recognized Laban’s "hurt feelings" as a mere facade. Laban had concluded that Jacob had finally stepped over the line. Before, he'd bent to rules mercilessly, but he hadn't broken them. The only problem was that Jacob hadn't taken the gods, so now Laban had been caught empty-handed. Unable to produce the evidence, Laban had to stand there while Jacob took his inventory. Delighting in the upper hand, Jacob reminded him that Laban's herds had not suffered from neglect under Jacob's care and that Jacob himself had not eaten at Laban's expense. Jacob even replaced the animals lost to natural causes. Jacob worked hard, suffering the hardships of a shepherd's life while Laban had changed his wages repeatedly.

Expending his store of frustration, Jacob then asserted that God was on his side. All his prosperity, Jacob maintained, was God's blessing on his life. Jacob overstated here, because God had never indicated to Jacob that His blessing was in anyway related to Jacob's works. In fact, God had revealed just the opposite (verses 10-13). The warning which God had issued to Laban on the previous night was proof to Jacob that God was on his side. God had rendered judgment, and Jacob maintained that he had been proven innocent.

While I do believe that God did see all of Laban's abuses of Jacob, I do not believe that Jacob's prosperity was a reward for his piety or productive genius. God blessed Jacob because God chose to bless Jacob, not because Jacob deserved it. Though unable to prove that Jacob had stolen his gods, Laban was not overly impressed with Jacob's righteous indignation. I will post this section because I think it is an oft-quoted passage that is much misunderstood.

"Laban replied to Jacob, "These women are my daughters, these children are my grandchildren, and these flocks are my flocks. All that you see belongs to me. But how can I harm these daughters of mine today or the children to whom they have given birth? So now, come, let’s make a formal agreement, you and I, and it will be proof that we have made peace."

"So Jacob took a stone and set it up as a memorial pillar. Then he said to his relatives, "Gather stones." So they brought stones and put them in a pile. They ate there by the pile of stones. Laban called it Jegar Sahadutha, but Jacob called it Galeed.

"Laban said, "This pile of stones is a witness of our agreement today." That is why it was called Galeed. It was also called Mizpah because he said, "May the Lord watch between us when we are out of sight of one another. If you mistreat my daughters or if you take wives besides my daughters, although no one else is with us, realize that God is witness to your actions."

"Here is this pile of stones and this pillar I have set up between me and you," Laban said to Jacob. "This pile of stones and the pillar are reminders that I will not pass beyond this pile to come to harm you and that you will not pass beyond this pile and this pillar to come to harm me. May the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor, the gods of their father, judge between us." Jacob took an oath by the God whom his father Isaac feared. Then Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain and invited his relatives to eat the meal. They ate the meal and spent the night on the mountain.

Laban reminded Jacob that everything he'd taken with him had been given to him by Laban -- his wives were Laban's daughters, his children were Laban's grandchildren, the flocks were from Laban's flocks. Unable to retrieve his gods, Labam made a covenant with Jacob that assured Jacob could never make use of those gods to encroach upon Laban's possessions in the future. Wisely, Laban called upon Jacob's God to hold Jacob in check. They set a monument to remember the covenant and shared a meal to celebrate it. Laban managed to get Jacob to swear before his God to several particulars. He would never mistreat Laban's daughters or take other wives in addition to them. They'd never cross the marker boundary to harm one another. Having received these assurances, Laban bid farewell to his daughters and grandchildren and returned to his home.

Jacob seems to have come away from this encounter with Laban as the unchallenged winner, but did he, really? Jacob may have convinced himself and his wives of his innocence, but he has not convinced us nor had he changed the mind of Laban. Laban felt certain that Jacob was a crook, but being warned by God, he could do little to stop him. The treaty which he initiated was no tribute to Jacob’s character.

Consider this! Laban had lived in close association with Jacob for 20 years, and was convinced of his lack of integrity. He believed that Jacob stole his gods, that he'd underhandedly gotten possession of his flocks. He felt compelled to get Jacob to swear a holy oath that he would not mistreat his wives or someday return to Laban with hostile intent. Does this sound like a man who was convinced that Jacob was a godly man? Just as the covenants between Abimelech and Abraham (21:22-24), and later Abimelech and Isaac (26:26-31), were evidence of the carnal state of these patriarchs, so this treaty with Laban reveals the character flaws of Jacob. He was a man who could not be trusted. He would, at least, keep the letter of the law, which is why Laban held him to it. What a poor testimony to Jacob's character.

Sadly, Jacob seems to have been convinced of his own integrity, certain that God was on his side because of his uprightness. Being a legalist, Jacob prided himself on keeping the letter of the law. He had made a deal with Laban, and he had always lived up to it. Oh, he had peeled those poles all right, but that was not a breach of their agreement.

Jacob, I believe, had no real system of ethics. He equated morality with legality. Whatever was within the law was morally right, thus, he could stand before Laban with justified righteous indignation and demand that any evidence of wrongdoing on his part be put forth. He could claim with great assurance that God was on his side. How could this not be true when Jacob had always lived within the law?

The error of legalism is that it equates morality with legality, believing that righteousness and keeping the law are the same thing. A man may have no system of ethics whatever, but so long as he does not break the law he feels morally pure. He feels confident of the approval and blessing of God.

Jacob was much like the Jews of Jesus' day who felt that their descendance from Abraham assured them of God's favor (John 8:39), believing that a meticulous keeping of the law made them acceptable to God. This puts the Sermon on the Mount in an entirely different light for me. Jesus spoke these words to Jewish legalists who felt that merely living within the law was sufficient to merit them a righteousness acceptable to God. Jesus illustrated that a much greater righteousness was necessary (Matthew 5:20). A genuine faith was not about form but faith. Genuine members of the kingdom were those whose hearts were pure before God. Thus our Lord dealt more with motives than with methods, with function over mere forms. The law was only a minimum standard; it was not intended to make men feel righteous but to demonstrate to men how far from God’s holiness they fell. The New Testament does not tell us that the standards set by the Old are no longer valid (Matthew 5:17), for those who walk in the Spirit will fulfill the requirement (singular) of the law (Romans 8:4). Legalism is sinful because men love to set human standards which, if they are kept, produce human righteousness. Christian liberty views the standard for our thoughts and actions as requiring conformation to Jesus Himself (Romans 8:29).

Jacob may have felt self-righteous, but Laban was totally unconvinced. He resorted to a legal covenant because that was all he could trust Jacob to do—keep a few rules.

Many Christians today are no different than Jacob. Often, we too are legalists. We think that we are pious and holy because we do not smoke or drink or curse. Ask those who have to work for us or employ us and they may do just as Laban did—get it all down in writing. You see, even with all our pious talk the world knows better, for they have to live with us too. While we may keep a certain list of do’s and don’t’s, we may undermine and manipulate; we may deceive and destroy; we may seek our success at the expense of others.

True righteousness involves much more than keeping a few rules to the letter. It is a matter of the heart. No wonder so many unbelievers (and Christians) are reluctant to do business with Christians. They know that while God may be with us, we do not always act in a godly way.

Ethics is the difference between legality and morality. We live in a day when Christians and non-Christians alike think that whatever is legal is legitimate Christian activity. Like Jacob, we have our own pole-peeling and wheeling and dealing, which we think God is obliged to bless. No wonder the world is trying to legalize homosexuality and abortion. To them, legality is morality. If it is not illegal, how dare we call it immoral, they suppose.

The Bible does draw clear at times. There are absolutes and rules. Above all these, however, is another standard of conduct which we call ethics. Many Christians seem to have few of these, yet ethics is what sets a true Christian apart in the eyes of the world. How many of us have convictions that cause us to avoid certain practices, even if they are legal? Christian ethics should be so high that legalistic rules are never necessary, at least for those who are righteous (1Timothy 1:9-10).

The bottom line for Jacob was faith. He tried to sneak off without telling Laban because he was afraid (verse 31). He trusted God but not enough to do that which was honorable. He did not think God could spare him and his family if he acted honorably before Laban. His God was too small. For many of us, this is the reason why we are reluctant to live by firm convictions -- we do not trust God to be able to bless us under these added restrictions. It seems we have forgotten how Elijah had barrels of water poured on his sacrifice so that those who watched could only give God the glory (1Kings 18). A faith that is firm does not fear to live in such a way that only God can be given the glory.

Finally, Jacob’s actions remind us that Christian can do the will of God in a way that is offensive to the character of God. God had commanded Jacob to leave Paddan-aram and return to the land of promise (verse 3). He obeyed the command, but he did not do God's will in God's way. Sometimes we get so caught up in the fact that what we are doing is right that we forget to ask if how we are doing God’s will is right. Our methods must always be consistent with our Master if our actions will be honoring to Him.

A relative made the money to build a construction company in Texas by getting into business arrangements with folks who have money, talking them into investing in a construction project, then taking the whole of the first check (meant to pay the sub-contractors) and skipping town, leaving his business partners to pay the subs off before they could get the rest of the money. He made a great profit while his business partners frequently ended up bankrupt and looking like fools. He would pull these "cons" in another state and then return home to Texas to build his legitimate business.

Several years ago, this man allowed his son-in-law to become a manager in his business. He then scaled back on his own duties to start semi-retirement. Imagine his surprise when his step-daughter, who worked as a bookkeeper in the business, and son-in-law suddenly announced they were opening a business of their own in another town. See you later, dad! An audit of his books showed that his son-in-law had been skimming off the top of the business for a long time. Being as they were family, this man ended up hurt financially and looking like a fool, yet unable to do anything about it.

My experience is that con artists are often more blind to the cons of others than are the people who are their habitual victims.

Genesis 30 depicts two con artists trying to out-con one another. In the grace and provinence of God, Jacob came out the winner, but for reasons that were completely different than he intended. Many of us, like Jacob, tend to give God the credit for prospering our sinful efforts to get ahead, yet in this case, it was in spite fo Jacob's conniving that he left Laban as a wealthy man. Neither his spirituality nor his shrewdness afforded him benefit here.

GENESIS 30:25-36

The 14-year contract of service for Leah and Rachel must have been fulfilled shortly after Joseph's birth. Jacob sought his release to return to his homeland and family. I think time was of the essence. Jacob missed his family. Isaac was still alive (though we don't know if Rebekah was) and Jacob probably wanted to see him and introduce him to the family before he died.

Jacob had fulfilled his obligation to Laban and was free to go, but Laban was reluctant to allow it because he had recognized that his prosperity resulted from Jacob's presence. To get Jacob to remain, Laban appealed to his profit motive. Jacob had nothing monetary to show for 14 years of labor. That had all gone toward a dowry. Laban suggested they renegotiate their contract and Joseph name the terms.

Jacob was a good con artist. He first strengthened his position by emphasizing his past value. Jacob now had a family and his wages must be adequate to support them. Laban will have to enrich the pot.

Expecting a hard deal, Laban must have been shocked when Joseph offered easy terms. Normally goats in the ancient Near-East were either black or dark brown, seldom white or spotted with white. Sheep were nearly always white, infrequently black or spotted. Jacob offered to continue to tend Laban's flocks in exchange for the rarer of the offspring of those flocks.

Everyday Jacob would examine the flocks and remove any specked or spotted animals. The newly born spotted or striped antimals would become Jacob's property, kept seperate from Laban's flocks. Since spotted and striped animals were considered of lesser quality, this removed them from the breeding pool and improved Laban's chances of a prized flock.

Jacob and Laban must both have departed while chuckling to themselves, thinking they'd entered a deal they could manipulate to their own advantage at the expense of the other. Rather than conscientiously tending the flocks of Laban while looking to God for the increase, Jacob decided to resort to schemes and devices.

GENESIS 30:37-40

I am not particularly up on sheep and goat farming, but it would appear that the first technique of the peeled poles had some sort of prenatal influence on the flocks. Jacob apparently thought that the dappled sunlight during mating and conceiving would produce offspring that resembled their parents' environment. It appeared it worked. I suppose setting up the flocks so that the normal sheep could see the speckled sheep was meant to do the same thing.

The third phase of Jacob's plan was genuis because it employed selective breeding. Lambing occurred in the spring and the fall. Those born in the fall were thought to be hardier since they must endure the winter. Jacob placed his peeled poles only in front of the superior animals, assuring (at least in his mind) that the strong animals went to him.

We assume that Jacob's great prosperity (verse 43) was due to his shrew techniques in manipulating the mating of the flocks. Jacob certainly assumed that. We know today that that Jacob's techniques would have had not affect on the offspring of the sheep and goats. Visual impressions at the time of concept do not affect the outcome at birth.

From a spiritual perspective, it did not work because God does not bless carnal effort. Jacob did not prosper because he pulled one over on Laban. Jacob’s success was not the product of his schemes.

GENESIS 31:1-2

Jacob had arrived at Paddan-aram penniless and had now become prosperous at Laban's expense. Laban apparently had daughters at the time, but no sons (else why would Rachel be herding the sheep). It had seemed like a good idea at the time to adopt a near relative. Thinking of Jacob as a son and potential heir, Laban had liked Jacob's materialist ways -- especially when they benefited him. Now that Laban had sons of his own, however, he could see their inheritance being snaked by a con artist. He suddenly didn't like Jacob so much.

GENESIS 31:3-16

As far as the Bible records, Jacob had not received a revelation from God for 20 years, not since he left Canaan. Now he received divine direction to return home. What circumstances suggested Jacob do, God instructed Jacob to do. Jacob did not worry about convincing his father-in-law, but he did find it necessary to discuss the matter with his wives who must choose between their father and their husband. They convened the family conference in the field, which says that Jacob expected eavesdroppers.

Jacob explained that their father's attitude had changed strangely recently. Jacob cast himself in a very favorable light. He was the knight errant while Laban was the real villain. Jacob had worked hard while Laban had cheated him, continually changing the terms of their agreement. The evidence of Jacob's integrity ws that had had made him prosperous. That proved his innocence. Besides, God had spoke to Jacob, confirming His blessing and directing him to return to Canaan. He'd had dreams to the same end. Convinced that they were no longer in their father's favor, Rachel and Leah chose Jacob. In their defense, Laban had treated them like prize breeding sows, so they may no longer have trusted him.

Of course, Jacob's scheme had nothing to do with his prosperity. Look at the words describing the dream. The males who were mating were striped, speckled and mottled (verse 10, 12). In the dream there were no peeled poles or segregated flocks, but only male goats with striped or mottled coats were mating. What determined the offspring of the flocks was not the circumstances (visual impression) at conception, but the characteristics of the males who mated. The Bible, while not a book of science, presents a scientifically correct explanation here. God had appointed that only the mottled males would mate and therefore conceive offspring. All of Jacob's efforts had been wasted. The hand of God had operated in spite of Jacob's scheming, not because of it.

Again, we return to the first readers of this book. The parallels between Jacob's sojourn in Paddan-aram and Israel's bondage in Egypt must have been starkly evident to them. Jacob's sin necessitated this departure just as Joseph's journey was the result of many sins. Jacob went to Paddan-aram a poor man, but left with a large family and great wealth. Joseph was sent to Egypt a slave, but when the nation emerged at the exodus, they were many and had considerable wealth. As Laban was judged by God by his wealth being given to Jacob, so Egypt was judge by the wealth the Israelites carried out at the exodus.

Of primary importance is the understanding that Jacob's wealth did not come through his scheming, but in spite of it. Jacob was not blessing by God because of his godliness, but due to God's grace. The Israelites needed to understand that their blessings were a gift from God, apart from the sin-stained work of their own hands. God deals with His people in grace.

Jacob never fully grasped the folly of his efforts to outwit Laban. It seems he never fully perceived the sinfulness of his motives and methods. The end justified the means and he believed that one who prospered was blessed by God. Prosperity, to Jacob, proved piety. Moses, perhaps because he'd given up the courts of Pharoah for faith in God, saw this more deeply. Success cannot be equated with spirituality.

For us today, there are important lessons here as well, speaking about ritual and right behavior. Religion is as distinct from Christianity as Jacob's pole-peeling was from God's sovereign grace in his life. Countless people are trying to work their way into God's heaven by their own devices -- including church membership, baptism, confirmation, communion, charity, etc. All of these activities may have great value for one who is already a Christian, but they are useless to one who is trying to win God's approval and blessing by doing them. The appearance of benefit may be there, but not the reality of it. Those who attempt this route to God may appear to be Christians and their devotion to duty may seem commendable, but self-effort is mere pole-peeling in God's estimation.

The only way to enter God’s heaven is to recognize that we are undeserving of it. We must come to distrust anything we are or do to merit the favor and blessing of God. The work of salvation is God’s sovereign work, accomplished by His Son, Jesus Christ when He bore the penalty for our sins. Salvation comes when we trust in nothing more and nothing less than the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for our eternal blessings.

There are genuine Christians who foolishly conclude that the success which they experience is proof of God’s blessing and approval of their carnal and unspiritual methods. Like Jacob they suppose that any method that appears to work must be acceptable to God. You see it throughout evangelical churches today. Results are often more important to us than righteousness. We can fool the world, but God knows our hearts. Eventually, He will make us stand and give account for our deeds. We have not been commanded to be victorious, only obedient (John 15:1-8). Will we try to excuse our deceitfulness by insisting we live in a "crooked and perverse generation" (Philippians 2:15)? We have come to believe that the only way to survive in such a society is to out-con the cons, despite what the Bible teaches (Philippians 2:14-16).

Many of us, like Jacob, fail to "adorn the doctrine of God" (Titus 2:10) in our work lives. We contract for labor with our employer but then conclude he is not so interested in our future as we are. We begin to look out for our own interests at the expense of our boss. We begin to build our own little empires just as Jacob set his flock apart from Laban’s. We begin to spend an enormous portion of our time trying to figure out how we can get more of what belongs to the company. Rather than working diligently and leaving our well-being in God’s hands, we take matters into our own hands. While we may, like Jacob, stay within the letter of the law, we get ahead at the expense of another.

Such conduct by Christians is not to the glory of God. Such does not "seek first the kingdom of God" (Matthew 6:33). May God enable us to trust in Him and His grace rather than in our schemes and the work of our hands.

Some modern commentators have taken the examples of polygamy in the Old Testament to mean that this was God's ideal marital situation or at least proof positive that God is okay with serial monogamy. I think they don't read this passage for its message, so much as for the agend they want to promote.

Polygamy in the Bible never resulted in good. Oh, good things might come from these relationships, but true good without complications never did.

Jacob had two women and a house full of children, but it came with the price of discord, jealousy and, later, outright hostility. The two sisters competed with each other in child-bearing, and sex, and eventually treated Jacob like he was a prize stud to go to the highest bidder.

"When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he enabled her to become pregnant while Rachel remained childless. So Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben, for she said, "The Lord has looked with pity on my oppressed condition. Surely my husband will love me now." Genesis 29:31-32

I think Leah must have had a rough time. She was married to a man who never wanted her and refused to give her the love she desperately wanted. God, in His mercy, gave her children as a substitute. It was Leah, not Rachel, who gave Jacob his first son, his heir. The evidence of Leah's fertility meant that Rachel at least had to wait for sex, if not for love. Sadly, fertility did not gain Leah any of Jacob's love. Please read verses 33-35 to note that she came to realize that God loved her far more than Jacob ever could and that became enough for her. At the birth of Judah, her fourth son, she essentially named him "praise the Lord."

Leah found it easy to praise God with four sons at her side. Meanwhile, Rachel fumed with jealousy.

"When Rachel saw that she could not give Jacob children, she became jealous of her sister. She said to Jacob, "Give me children or I’ll die!" Jacob became furious with Rachel and exclaimed, "Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?" Genesis 30:1-2

Both Rachel and Jacob were frustrated with the situation. I don't know that Rachel was actually threatening suicide (as some commentators contend), but that she was miserable and taking it out on Jacob. Neither responded in a godly manner. They blamed each other. Jacob was right in recognizing that God had kept Rachel from bearing children, which was something he could not change. However, his attitude needed adjustment. He blamed God rather than take responsibility on himself. Just because our argument sounds pious doesn't mean we're right spiritually.

When Rebekah had not produced an heir for Isaac, Jacob's father had prayed on Rebehak's behalf and God gave his wife children (Genesis 25:21). Jacob doesn't seem to have done that. God heard the petition of the wives, inferring that Jacob did not pray for them.

Jacob clearly loved Rachel, but she was insecure in that love because her husband was clearly spending a great deal of time with his other wife. In desperation, she offered Bilhah, her maid, to produce an heir for Jacob on Rachel's behalf.

There are clear similarities here to Sarai's proposal in Genesis 16. Rachel intended to adopt the child as her own, for example. However, Sarai offered her proposal when Abram had no children. Jacob already had sons through Leah. Sarai proposed from circumstances that seemed to demand desperate measures while Rachel's demand stemmed from pride and jealousy. She must have children of her own, even adopted ones, because she feared the loss of Jacob's affections.

Bilhah did produce two children for Rachel at a time when Leah appears to have entered menopause. Rachel acted as though she'd done a most wonderful and sacrificial service by giving her maid to Jacob. In reality, she could only see that that she was beating her sister at the breeding game. She saw herself in a great struggle with Leah rather than asking herself why God had blessed Leah's womb and not hers. Rachel was clearly not a spiritual woman in humble submission to the will of God. She was a cat in a fight with her rival.

Leah, apparently, fell into the cat fight as well. She'd given Jacob four sons; that should have been enough, but now she gave her maid Zilpah to Jacob as if to win the next round in this breeding war with her sister. In the fervent heat of the bride battles, the two women have little thought to religious devotion or marital ethics. Leah had previously recognized her children as gifts from God; now Zilpah's children became pawns in her fight with Rachel.

"At the time of the wheat harvest Reuben went out and found some mandrake plants in a field and brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Give me some of your son’s mandrakes." But Leah replied, "Wasn’t it enough that you’ve taken away my husband? Would you take away my son’s mandrakes too?" "All right," Rachel said, "he may sleep with you tonight in exchange for your son’s mandrakes." When Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, "You must sleep with me because I have paid for your services with my son’s mandrakes." So he had marital relations with her that night. God paid attention to Leah; she became pregnant and gave Jacob a son for the fifth time. Then Leah said, "God has granted me a reward because I gave my servant to my husband as a wife." So she named him Issachar." Genesis 30:14-18

This passage makes me shudder. The two wives bargained over Jacob like he was a prize stud. While this resulted in the birth of a fifth son for Leah, it shows how depraved this polygamous relationship had become.

It should be noted that mandrakes are berries that were considered aphrodesiacs. The women now had resorted to lust rather than a contest of breeding. I suspect Rachel had Jacob with her almos every night, even though she seemed unable to get pregnant. Leah longed for his touch if not his affection. People think the Bible doesn't get down and dirty, but these are real people acting in very real ways. Leah was the first wife who felt that Rachel had stolen her husband. Knowing what it was that Leah wanted from the mandrakes, Rachel proposed a bargain. She would assure Leah that Jacob would sleep with her that night in exchange for the mandrakes that Rachel hoped would make her more fertile.

Poor Jacob! He comes in from the field and is essentially told that he's been sold to stud. What a miserable existence! Sadly, despite her scheming, Rachel did not become pregnant. Leah did! She later produced a sixth son and a daughter.

The incident iwth the mandrakes must have finally brought Rachel to the end of her schemes. Like Sarai before her who had abandoned hope of children of her own, Rachel received the blessing of God when she least expected it. Prayer never seened to occur to Rachel as the solution to her barrenness, but it did become her last resort. How very much like us she was!

Imagine being the first readers of this book. The Law forbade a man to marry sisters (Leviticus 18:18); this was why. The origins of 12 tribes of Israel were hardly a source of national pride. The twin miracles of the exodus and the conquest of Canaan would have made some think too highly of themselves and their nation. They might falsely conclude (as they later did) that God had blessed them because they were noble and great with wonderful roots. This story reminded them that their roots were convoluted and messy. They must not trust to their heritage (as the Jews of Jesus' day did), but in the God of their heritage (Deuteronomy 26:5).

We have a tendency to think of the Bible as "long ago, in the sweet by-and-by" and not look for application to our own time, but doesn't this series of events remind anyone else of the Jerry Springer Show? No, I'm not a fan, but I have tuned in a couple of times -- just enough exposure to be appalled. Despite the difference in culture, there are many similarities to those twisted people on Springer. Jacob lived with four battling wives simulanteously, while we live with ours consecutively. We do with divorce what Jacob did with polygamy. Reading what we've just read, do any of us think this man was any happier than the one today with four ex-wives and all sorts of child support payments?

I don't!

Sex, love, marriage and family can never be fully satisfying unless enjoyed within the confines of the will of God and the Word of God. Jacob's family life was a disaster! Jacob was outside the land of promise. He belonged to God and had been assured of His presence, protection, provision, and future promises; but he could never be happy in Haran. Love, sex, marriage, and family are all gifts from a good and loving God, but their enjoyment cannot be complete apart from fellowship with Him.

While love without sex may be frustrating, sex without love is folly. Those years with Rachel where sex was not possible or permissible were frustrating (Genesis 29:21), but sex without love with Leah was just as bad. It degenerated to mere prostitution. This occurs today as it did than. Sex without love is tragedy.

Neither sex nor children can create love. Leah learned no amount of sex could ever earn the love of her husband. Even after six boys, she was still unloved. Love cannot be manufactured through sex. Additionally, children will not save a marriage that is already in trouble. Producing children does not produce love. Children consume love; they don't create it.

When a man or a woman places sex on an extremely high level of priority they comes slaves. Jacob’s love for Rachel seems to be largely based upon her physical attractiveness, on his hormonal response to her rather than on any sort of enjoyment of her mind or personality.

Our society informs men and boys that their masculinity resides in their sexual conquests. The more they make, the more of a man they are. Jacob did rather well by these standards. He must have had sex every night and plenty of children to prove it, but look at what happened to him in the process. He was not the master of his harem. Pushed from bed to bed by his wives, he was eventually purchased for the night. He was a slave of sex and marriage, not its sovereign leader.

Marriage cannot run for long on the fuel of romantic love. Romantic love such as Jacob and Rachel experienced is not necessarily wrong, it's just insufficient to carry most peope through the humdrum and pressures of married life. That romantic dinner with candles fades away when you wake up in the middle of the night to deal with a sick child. Romance can quickly come and go.

Jacob got four wives and a household full of kids. Eventually he seems to have learned somewhat beneficial from that, but we certainly can't say that this experience was an endorsement of polygamy or serial monogamy. It was a mess of Jacob's own making, the result of his sin and disodience. We should heed the warning rather than try to use it to glamorize a lifestyle choice that the Bible always depicts as resulting in tragedy.

My husband and I were out garaging saling with a bargain-minded friend one day when we found a man's dream of a sale. Lots of really good manly stuff -- tools, toys, and a really nice truck ... all for low, low prices. Our friend loves a great bargain -- we were on this expedition mainly to have PJ entertain us with his dickering skills. These prices were so low for such great stuff, however, that PJ's Christian conscience bothered him, so he struck up a conversation with the woman running the sale on why the prices didn't match the quality. The woman explained that her husband had run off with another woman and initiated divorce proceedings. The house had been hers before the marriage (Alaska is not a community property state), so the only thing she owed him was his tools, toys and truck ... or the proceeds of their sale. He'd agreed she should sell them and send him the money, less whatever he owed on them. She was, therefore, selling them at a garage sale for fire sale prices -- just enough to cover the balances owed.

Poetic justice! I think most of us recognize a similar situation in Genesis 29. Jacob, the double-dealing con artist, got a double deal when he met his tricky uncle Laban. It was his just desserts! Most of us view Leah as some sort of old maid dud and we are amused to find Jacob is stuck for life with her, even though he did eventually get to marry the woman he loved.

I think there is truth to that interpretation, but I think we miss the true spiritual point if that is what we focus on. It's not the main theme! Remember, the whole Bible is an examination of God's gracious dealings with mankind. It's about mercy and forgiveness far more than it is about justice.

Jacob fairly danced out of Bethel with a new lease on life. Before his encounter with God there, Yahweh had been the god of his father, but after the vision of the ladder from heaven and the promise of God's presence, provision and protection, Jacob had a new sense of direction, hope and meaning to life. He was still going to Haran, but God was with him.

As he approached Haran, Jacob found a field with a well in it. This was not the same well where Abraham's servant had first encountered Jacob's mother Rebekah. That one was a spring located outside the city, close enough for women to come for the daily water. This one was in a field some distance from the city. It was covered by a large stone, indicating it was used as a stock trough. More importantly, it was restricted to use at particular times and only to authorized people. The shepherds had gathered by teh well waiting for the time when they could water their sheep. Like all travelers, Jacob engaged them in coversation.

"Jacob asked them, "My brothers, where are you from?" They replied, "We’re from Haran." So he said to them, "Do you know Laban, the grandson of Nahor?" "We know him," they said. "Is he well?" Jacob asked. They replied, "He is well. Now look, here comes his daughter Rachel with the sheep." Then Jacob said, "Since it is still the middle of the day, it is not time for the flocks to be gathered. You should water the sheep and then go and let them graze some more." "We can’t," they said, "until all the flocks are gathered and the stone is rolled off the mouth of the well. Then we water the sheep." Genesis 29:4-8

Jacob learned that he was very near Haran, that his uncle Laban was doing fine and that his daughter Rachel would be bringing the sheep soon. That struck Jacob as odd, because sheep were usually gathered at dusk, but apparently it was earlier in the day. Why were these men sitting about waiting rather than getting the watering done, so they could return their sheep to the pasture. Apparently, the well wasn't a public well to be used for their convenience. There were rules to its use. Apparently, this well could be used only once a day. It was opened by the owner and his servants and then watering commenced in an orderly fashion. This was probably to prevent pollution of the well, but it served an important spiritual point in the story.

The life-giving water was available only by folloiwng the rules of the well owner. That life-giving water and the restrictions upon it brought Jacob and Rachel together. Salvation for mankind is available only by following God's rules for attaining it, but salvation itself is often the source of many wonderful things in life that would not be available to us if we were not saved.

It seems that Jacob was immediately taken with Rachel. He presented himself with heroic and gentlemanly behavior, then he kissed her before announcing that he was a relative of her father. I think it was love at first sight for Jacob and that Rachel was swept off her feet by this romantic behavior. She ran to tell her father of this meeting.

"When Laban heard this news about Jacob, his sister’s son, he rushed out to meet him. He embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his house. Jacob told Laban how he was related to him. Then Laban said to him, "You are indeed my own flesh and blood."

So Jacob stayed with him for a month." Genesis 29:13-14

In the ancient near-East, family was important and treated as such. Laban's behavior can be seen as the normal hospitality expected when a near relative appeared at the door step. Jacob's report to Laban probably touched on the health of the family back in Canaan and that Jacob was seeking a wife. It was sufficient for Laban to determine that Jacob was who he claimed. There are some commentators who believe that the report also included Jacob's real reason for being upon the road. If so, it might explain some of Laban's later behavior without resorting to character assassination. I honestly am neutral on the subject.

Jacob remained at Laban's home for a month, bringing him into close contact with Rachel, resulting in a deepening affection. During that time, Laban learned that Jacob was a valuable worker. He would make a fine son-in-law and could stay on to work for Laban in place of the traditional dowry. A continuing relationship between Jacob and Laban was of mutual advantage to both of them. At the end of the month, Laban sought to formalize the relationship between them.

"Then Laban said to Jacob, "Should you work for me for nothing because you are my relative? Tell me what your wages should be."

(Now Laban had two daughters; the older one was named Leah, and the younger one Rachel. Leah’s eyes were tender, but Rachel had a lovely figure and beautiful appearance.)" Genesis 29:15-17

Few women have been so misunderstood as Leah, Rachel's older sister. Even her name does her a great disservice, for it means "wild cow". The KJV rendering that she had "weak eyes" suggests to us moderns that she was nearly blind and quite homely, but my Hebrew scholar friend suggests -- in keeping with the interpretation from the NET Bible -- it meant "fragile" or "delicate". The word (rak) was used to describe children and choice veal calves. In contrast with Rachel, who may have had fire or a sparkle in her eyes, Leah had gentle eyes. I think the soul behind them was a great deal more tender as well.

It is an established fact that the eyes are used in the Old and New Testament as a window into the mental qualities, such as arrogance, humility, mockery, and pity (Psalm 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; Revelation 2:23; Deuteronomy 15:9; 28:54-56). I conclude that Leah's disposition was gentle and tender while Rachel had more fiery and agressive temperment. That's taking the text a little far because Rachel was described only by her physical attractiveness (verse 17). Jacob liked those physical features. Yet Moses contrasted Rachel's physical features against Leah's spiritual features. Remember that Rebekah, Jacob's mother, had been selected her for her character by divine guidance. Her attractiveness was the cherry on the top of the far more important character. Jacob, on the other hand, selected Rachel because she was beautiful. Red warning lights should already be flashing in our minds!

"Since Jacob had fallen in love with Rachel, he said, "I’ll serve you seven years in exchange for your younger daughter Rachel." Laban replied, "I’d rather give her to you than to another man. Stay with me."

So Jacob worked for seven years to acquire Rachel. But they seemed like only a few days to him because his love for her was so great." Genesis 29:18-20

Jacob selected the girl he wanted and seems not to have noticed that Laban's answer was vague. Perhaps Jacob was so used to being the trickiest one around that he wasn't suspicious of others. I don't know certainly that Laban was already planning to deceive Jacob by switching wives, but there is room for that interpretation here. Seven years was likely a steep price, but Rachel was worth it in his mind. He was eagar to consummate the marriage.

"Finally Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife, for my time of service is up. I want to have marital relations with her." So Laban invited all the people of that place and prepared a feast. In the evening he brought his daughter Leah to Jacob, and Jacob had marital relations with her. (Laban gave his female servant Zilpah to his daughter Leah to be her servant.)

"In the morning Jacob discovered it was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, "What in the world have you done to me! Didn’t I work for you in exchange for Rachel? Why have you tricked me?" Genesis 29:21-25

Seven years is a long time to be in love and not join together physically. There are some who would wonder that they waited. I think they didn't have much choice. Ancient near-East society guarded them women folk carefully. I also suspect that Rachel and Leah were fairly young, probably very young teenagers, when Jacob joined the family. He might be in love with Rachel, but he was not a child molester. Jacob waited for the planned wedding day and from Moses' wording, it would seem he was pretty anxious by that time.

Moses discretely described the wedding night. Hollywood likes to elaborate on Moses' careful statement, but really, it doesn't require a lot of poetic license. Marriage was a public affair then. The wedding feast was held outside the tent of matrimonial tent. After a sufficient amount of revelry, including wine, Jacob would have entered the tent and had sex with his wife. The whole party would have seen him exit, indicating the consummation. Why didn't Jacob notice he was with the wrong woman? He was probably drunk and appears very anxious to join with his bride. I don't think he bothered to light a lamp. The same passion which had dominated his selection of his bride characterized his consummation of the marriage.

I think Jacob woke up with the equivalant of "Oh, What a Night!" ringing in his head. In the light of the day, however, he realized his mistake. He'd married Leah, not Rachel! Nobody deserved this double cross more than Jacob after what he'd done in Canaan. I think Jacob knew that!

""It is not our custom here," Laban replied,

"to give the younger daughter in marriage before the firstborn. Complete my older daughter’s bridal week. Then we will give you the younger one too, in exchange for seven more years of work."

Laban had planned this for a long time, so his response to Jacob's rebuke shouldn't really surprise us. And, I cannot help but think that Rebekah had learned how to scheme right along with her brother and she had taught the art to Jacob. This was fitting justice. Jacob knew that! He accepted Laban's answer because his own heart told him that he had received his just desserts for what he'd done in Canaan. The end result was that Laban married off both of his daughters and extracted a premium price from Jacob.

Wow, what we can learn in life from this passage!

Sin has consequences. Jacob's sin had resulted in his physical and emotional seperation from his family. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, in human relationships as well as in the law of motion. Jacob chose to get ahead in life by means of deception and learned that those who seek to deceive will be themselves deceived.

The tragedy here is that none of this was necessary. Abraham's servant had been able to acquaire Rebekah for Isaac because he had access to Abraham's vast resources. Jacob's sin had made him little more than a begger. Seperated from the wealth of his family, he had only his labor to sell. If he hadn't deceived Isaac, Jacob would not have needed to spend 14 years of his life to get what he wanted. This whole incident was the result of sin.

Jacob did eventually get, through his hard work, what he wanted. Hard work, in this instance, eventually won out over the consequence of sin, though not without difficulty. That isn't how it works for us today. We cannot work our way into God's blessings or salvation (Isaiah 64:8; Titus 3:5). The gospel tells us that we who are sinners cannot help ourselves, but we can be saved by trusting in the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf (Ephesians 2:8-10).

While we could view the events here as God's getting even with Jacob, I think they are evidence of His marvelous grace at work in Jacob's life. God wasn't punishing Jacob, so much as He was instructing him.

Jacob needed 14 years of delay in Haran. If he'd returned home immediately, I think, Esau would have killed him. Had he gotten what he wanted immediately, he would have died an early and deserved death.

Moreover, consider the incredible grace of God in the gift of Leah as Jacob's wife. We're not used to thinking that way, but consider it. Leah became the mother of Judah, who was the progenitor of Jesus. Levi, another of her sons, would provide the priestly line of Israel. Rachel died at a yong age, leaving two motherless children to raise, which Leah did. Rather than a blight on Jacob, Leah proved a blessing in many ways.

We live in a romantically-oriented day, so we find ourselves cheering for Rachel and disliking Leah. God had the opposite view and likely still does. What is romantic is not always right. Young people in the throes of romance make foolish decisions. Few things in our day are more important than beauty, which would make Rachel highly prized. There is nothing wrong with beauty; many of the women in the Bible are described as beautiful. Outward beauty is no substitute for character, however (Proverbs 31:30; 1Timothy 2:9-10; 1Peter 3:1-6). This passage, contrasted with the earlier passage concerning Isaac's marriage, indicates that we should look to character in a mate first and then consider beauty like a condiment.

This is as true for women as it is for men. Our ultimate worth comes from God, Who was not impressed with Rachel's good looks. He looked at the heart and blessed Leah. Her worth, while never fully realized by her husband, was great in God's eyes. So should it be with us.

Again, Rebekah took a lead in planning this family activity. Jacob would go to visit her brother Laban in Haran. The time needed for the journey, the visit and the return journey would provide Esau and Isaac time to cool down. She provided a convenient excuse that she really didn't like Esau's wives and wanted Jacob to marry someone from their own tribe.

"So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him. Then he commanded him, "You must not marry a Canaanite woman! Leave immediately for Paddan Aram! Go to the house of Bethuel, your mother’s father, and find yourself a wife there, among the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother." Genesis 28:1-2

There are two striking details found here and in verses 6-9. It would appear that Isaac had never before instructed his sons not to marry Canaanite women. In other words, Esau had married in ignorance of his parents' wishes. He tried to correct this by also marrying one of Ishmael's daughters. The second is that marriage was, of course, a secondary reason for Jacob's abrupt departure to Haran. Both indicate that spiritual instruction for his sons was not a high priority for Isaac.

"May the sovereign God bless you! May he make you fruitful and give you a multitude of descendants! Then you will become a large nation. May he give you and your descendants the blessing he gave to Abraham so that you may possess the land God gave to Abraham, the land where you have been living as a temporary resident." Genesis 28:3-4

Here we see that Isaac had accepted, however reluctantly, that Jacob held both the birthright and the blessing of the heir. Isaac resigned himself to the reality of God's blessing on Jacob rather than Esau. His words here reflect this acceptance of things as they must be and as God said they would be.

Television and movies wrongly condition us to delight in the destruction of the villain, who gets his just desserts in some way that befits his evil deeds. The good guy wins in most movies, but we all wait with baited breath to find out how he'll pull it off. This cultural training tends to make us think of Esau as the villain in this event. We expect to see his downfall and we plan to savor it when it comes.

Remember, though, that Jacob was not chosen because he was the hero or Esau rejected becaue he was the villain. Genesis 25, expecially in light of Paul's commentary in Romans 9, forces the conclusion that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau withour regard to their deeds (Romans 9:11-12). Esau was no different than any other unbeliever whose spirit has not been quickened and mind enlightened to respond to divine realities. In his unbelief, Esau was no less sensitive to spiritual things than any other sinner (Romans 3:10-12).

But for the grace of God go we. Esau could not comprehend the love of God and was unconvinced about the love of his father. He failed to grasp spiritual realities because his parents had never instructed him in spiritual matters. He'd married the wrong women without even realizing what he'd done and then, upon realizing it, he married a third woman who still was not acceptable to his parents or God. Rather than relish Esau's destruction, we should pity him and pray for those we know like him.

Jacob's journey was a lonely one. He had a lot to think about, so privacy might well have been in order. I think this may well have been his first rock bottom, when he came to realize that he would never prosper from conning people. This was an ideal time for God to break into his life.

"...and the Lord stood at its top. He said, "I am the Lord, the God of your grandfather Abraham and the God of your father Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the ground you are lying on. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west, east, north, and south. All the families of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using your name and that of your descendants. I am with you! I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I promised you!" Genesis 28:13-15

You can take this vision in several ways and scholars have. It's been pretty well tortured by interpretation. As a simple person, I'm just going to take it at its words because I think that's the way Jacob would have taken it.

God had made similar statements to Abraham and Isaac in the past, so it's clear that Isaac's pronouncement of the Abrahamic blessing on Jacob was now confirmed by God. Jacob immediately perceived the significance of this place of meeting (Bethel); it was a significance that he remembered for the rest of his life (Genesis 31:13; 32:6, 11-12). These statement by God and Jacob fit together nicely in context with the vision. Jacob was about to leave the land of promise and be absent from it for about 20 years. He might be tempted to never return. This dramatic vision assured him of the significance of the land of Canaan. This was the place where heaven and earth met, where God would come down to man and men would find access to God. Jacob called it "the gate of heaven". Canaan was where God's blessings would be poured out upon God's people. Jacob must leave it for a while, but he must return in time.

Imagine! The first readers of this account were inbound to Canaan, not knowing what they would find. What a sense of anticipation the Israelites must have felt as they looked across Jordan, knowing that God's presence was to be revealed in Canaan.

"Then Jacob woke up and thought, "Surely the Lord is in this place, but I did not realize it!" He was afraid and said,

"What an awesome place this is! This is nothing else than the house of God! This is the gate of heaven!"

Early in the morning Jacob took the stone he had placed near his head and set it up as a sacred stone. Then he poured oil on top of it. He called that place Bethel, although the former name of the town was Luz. Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God is with me and protects me on this journey I am taking and gives me food to eat and clothing to wear, and I return safely to my father’s home, then the Lord will become my God. Then this stone that I have set up as a sacred stone will be the house of God, and I will surely give you back a tenth of everything you give me." Genesis 28:16-22

Jacob's subsequent actions remind me a bit of Isaac's activities upon reaching Beersheba. Isaac built an altar where he felt God's presence. Jacob set up a pillar to mark the location and made a profession of faith, worshipping in that spot. Furthermore, he made a promise to return that was consistent with the vision. He promised to then build an altar and give a tithe to God.

As a parent, I found some sobering lessons in this chapter. Isaac's apathy in spiritual instruction of his children sounds uncomfortably familiar. I am not all that I would or should be in that department. Additionally, Isaac's love for Esau appears contingent upon performance while Rebekah seems to have genuinely loved Jacob. Esau's insecurities in the face of disapproval are heartbreaking. He could never measure up, even as the favored son, in part because there appears to be a gross lack of communication by his father in terms of discipline. How hard would it have been to say "We don't want you to marry Canaanite women. Go to Haran and find a wife from among our people"? I suspect that Jacob noted his parents' reaction to Esau's marriages and that is why he delayed matrimony for a later date.

Both Jacob and Esau illustrate the futility of scheming and self-effort in achieving divine acceptance. Esau’s sincere and diligent efforts to win approval by marrying a daughter of Ishmael were worthless. While his sincerity was evident, his actions did not conform with the requirements of faith. Sincere effort which is not based upon divine revelation is folly.

All of Jacob’s efforts to achieve the blessing of God were also in vain. Only by entering into a relationship with the covenant God of Abraham and Isaac could Jacob experience the blessings of God. Such a relationship is based on the revealed word of God. Ironically, Jacob could not find God by striving, but found Him while sleeping. That speaks volumns to me. The path of blessing from God is in rest in Him and His word. That does not mean a absence of activity, but an avoidance of self-effort.

A profession of faith does not bring an immediate entrance into the Elysian Field. Jacob still had to pay the price for his behavior. Although he "accepted Christ" (so to speak) as he exited Canaan, he would be dosed with his own bitter medicine for the next 20 years. Entering into a relationship with God does not guarantee good times and happy experiences. Christians are not perfected, just forgiven.

"A little lie is like a little pregnancy," C. S. Lewis

How apt! In Genesis 27 Isaac, with Esau's cooperation, conspired to thwart God's purposes to fulfill His covenant through Jacob, while Rebekah, aided by Jacob, sought to outwit and outmanuever Isaac and Esau to maintain Jacob's right of the firstborn purchased from Esau. Amid a web of deceit and double-crosses, the family was split into two factions, each headed by a parent with his/her own agenda. The tragedy of this story should move us, because it strikes us where we live in the 21st century.

"When Isaac was old and his eyes were so weak that he was almost blind, he called his older son Esau and said to him, "My son!" "Here I am!" Esau replied. Isaac said, "Since I am so old, I could die at any time. Therefore, take your weapons – your quiver and your bow – and go out into the open fields and hunt down some wild game for me. Then prepare for me some tasty food, the kind I love, and bring it to me. Then I will eat it so that I may bless you before I die." Genesis 27:1-4

Several overriding themes are interwoven in these four verses. There was a seemingly well-founded urgency to these events. Isaac was about 137 years old, suffering from poor eyesight and clearly nearing death's door (though he would not actually die for 40 more years). Normally the blessing would be given before the entire family because it was, in effect, a living will that legally determined the heir. Distribution of family wealth and headship were best carried out in public to avoid conflict, but now we see all this occuring in secrecy and conspiracy. Isaac intended to confer his blessing on Esau at a clandestine feast, despite the plan and purpose of God for Jacob (Genesis 25:23). There's little doubt that Rebekah had not shared the divine revelation concerning Jacob with Isaac. She favored Jacob. Why wouldn't she let Isaac know that God did also? Certainly, Isaac knew that Esau had sold his birthright to Jacob. Moreover, his two Canaanite wives disqualified him for the spiritual headship of God's chosen family. Despite all these negatives, Isaac sought to overrule the verdict of God that the elder serve the younger. Normally the birthright belonged to the eldest son for it entitled him to a double share of the property in addition to the privilege of assuming the father’s position of headship in the family. For the descendants of Abraham it determined the one through whom the covenant blessings would be given. Under certain circumstances the possessor of this birthright could be dispossessed. Such a change would normally occur at the oral blessing near the time of the father's death. It appears that Isaac intended to manipulate God by reversing the decree of God and the rightful ownership of the rights of the first-born as unethically purchased by Jacob by giving his oral blessing to Esau.

"Now Rebekah had been listening while Isaac spoke to his son Esau. When Esau went out to the open fields to hunt down some wild game and bring it back, Rebekah said to her son Jacob, "Look, I overheard your father tell your brother Esau, ‘Bring me some wild game and prepare for me some tasty food. Then I will eat it and bless you in the presence of the Lord before I die.’ Now then, my son, do exactly what I tell you! Go to the flock and get me two of the best young goats. I’ll prepare them in a tasty way for your father, just the way he loves them. Then you will take it to your father. Thus he will eat it and bless you before he dies." Genesis 27:5-10

Rebekah was eavesdropping on Isaac and Esau's meeting The Hebrew form of this passage indicates this was a regular habit of hers. As soon as Esau left, Rebekah began plotting to overthrow his plans with an incredible plan of her own. I doubt it was conceived on the spur of the moment; I think she'd been considering it for some time and had already gathered many of the props she and Jacob used to pull it off.

"But Esau my brother is a hairy man," Jacob protested to his mother Rebekah, "and I have smooth skin! My father may touch me! Then he’ll think I’m mocking him and I’ll bring a curse on myself instead of a blessing." So his mother told him, "Any curse against you will fall on me, my son! Just obey me! Go and get them for me!" Genesis 27:11-13

Jacob's protests are interesting because of their utter absence of morality. Jacob did not rebuke his mother at all for what she proposed. His only considerations were how they might pull this off. Situational ethics always seem to boil down to the premise that emergencies override ethics. Pragmatically, if Jacob was to rule over Esau, they must fool Isaac into giving his blessing to Jacob, but how could that be accomplished, considering how different they were from one another? Jacob feared what might happen if they got caught, but neither of them seems to have considered the consequences of their sin if they succeeded. The results of their plan were the opposite of their goal.

Since we are talking about situational ethics, it is reasonable to ask what Rebekah should have done in the situation of discovering that her husband was conspiring to cheat God's purposes. Honesty and forthrightness might have gone a long way toward rectifying the situation. We are supposed to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15), even to those in authority over us (Acts 16:35-40). Having warned her husband of the consequences of his planned evil, Rebekah might have been content to leave the disposition of the matter to God. Her actions betrayed her lack of faith in the sovereignty of God. If God is God, then let Him act on His own behalf, particularly in those times when we are unable to act in a way that is consistent with His word.

I'd like to think Jacob never intended this lie to become as big as it did, but nevertheless, it grew bigger and bigger with every statement he made. It began with the words "I am Esau your first-born" (verse 19). From this, lie began to be piled upon lie: "I have done as you told me" (verse 19); "eat of my game" (verse 19). In response to Isaac’s penetrating question, "Are you really my son Esau?," Jacob replied, "I am" (verse 24). However, the lie that virtually sends chills up my spine as I read it is found in verse 20:

And Isaac said to his son, "How is it that you have it so quickly, my son?" And he said, "Because the LORD your God caused it to happen to me."

In a movie, there'd have been a bolt of lightning to remove this deceiver from the scene. Chillingly, this is not unlike how Christians today conduct ourselves. Jacob excused his sin by claiming that God was his partner in its performance. We do the same when we say "The Lord led me to" when we're often talking about something we always wanted to do and finally worked up the courage to accomplish. Be careful with such statements. They may be evidence of the same kind of thinking that caused Jacob to tell Isaac that God had prospered him by giving him a goat rather than wild game. Pious words can conceal sin!

His judgment impaired by haste and deception, Isaac rushed to do the very thing he had set out not to do -- bless Jacob. He knew something was wrong, but he kept going forward, despite his misgivings. God's will was accomplished by the very man who attempted to thwart it -- Isaac himself.

The Bible is a wonderful book in that what is true can also be beautiful. While the Scriptures edify and exhort us, they do so with literary eloquence. Note the distinctive sense of drama in this narrative! We are kept in suspense till the very last moment to see if Jacob can survive the interrogation and inspection of his father. The blessing is not pronounced until the last, causing us to fear that at any moment Esau will barge into the room, expose the fraud of his brother, and bring a curse upon him, while he receives the blessing for himself. Jacob had just left when his brother came to his father with his meal. While Isaac loved the taste of Jacob’s "game," Jacob savored the taste of his victory over Esau. He left triumphant and with a sigh of relief. Esau must have arrived at his father’s bedside with an expectant look, knowing the blessing was almost in his grasp, perhaps smugly satisfied.

"He also prepared some tasty food and brought it to his father. Esau said to him, "My father, get up and eat some of your son’s wild game. Then you can bless me." His father Isaac asked, "Who are you?" "I am your firstborn son," he replied, "Esau!" Isaac began to shake violently and asked, "Then who else hunted game and brought it to me? I ate all of it just before you arrived, and I blessed him. He will indeed be blessed!" Genesis 27:31-33

Imagine Esau's puzzlement at the terrified look in his father's eyes as he trembled on his bed! A sense of dread must have slowly fallen over Esau as it became more and more clear that his brother had once again gotten the best of him. The irony of it all was that since Isaac had tried to give everything to Esau, there was nothing left that could be considered a blessing to his favorite son. He'd given it all to Jacob.

The consequences for Rebekah and Jacob are recorded in verses 41-45, but the tragic results of the conspiracy of Isaac and Esau are seen sooner. Isaac had sought to give all to his favorite son Esau at Jacob’s expense. Instead, he gave all to Jacob at Esau’s expense. Having set his heart contrary to God's will, Isaac saw his world come crashing down upon him when God’s purposes prevailed. Esau despised spiritual things and thus sold his destiny for a dinner, then attempted to get it back by renouncing his solemn oath and conspired with his father to dishonestly regain what he had lost through his own profanity. Esau learned that there comes a point of no return in every man’s life when regret cannot bring a reversal of past decisions. All who have rejected Christ as Savior will live in eternal regret and remorse, but this will not overturn the consequences of living with their decision to live in independence from God (Luke 16:19-31; Philippians 2:9-11; 2Thessalonians 1:6-10; Revelation 20:11-15).

For Rebekah and Jacob the price tag for their success was as costly as for Isaac and Esau in their defeat. I have never seen anyone come away from the end results of sin with a smile on their face. Sin does not pay. Jacob and Rebekah could tearfully testify to this fact.

Rebekah loved Jacob more than life itself and, seemingly, more than Isaac. She sought his success (which happened to correspond with the revealed will of God) at any price, even deception and deceit. The price she paid was separation from her beloved son, apparently for the rest of her life. As far as the Bible records, Jacob left for Haran and never saw his mother again. Rebekah underestimated the consequences of this sin, for she thought that Jacob would only need to be gone for a short time—until the death of Isaac, but Isaac lived for 40 years after this.

Jacob faced the inevitable results of sin also. Alienated from his father and despised by his brother, he had to leave the mother he loved. Every material thing he had thought to gain was unavailable to him because he had to flee for his life. Jacob learned the hard way that sin does not pay!

Human beings make plans, but God is in complete control of His unverse, even when men attempt to override Him (Proverbs 16:9; 19:21; Psalm 76:10). Man's sin can never frustrate the will of God, but it can fulfill it.

The purpose of God as expressed to Rebekah in Genesis 25:23 was perfectly accomplished without a single alteration. The sins of Isaac, Esau, Rebekah and Jacob did not prevent God's will from being done. It didn't even slow it down. Their sins were used by God to achieve His will. We cannot stand in God's way. God is able to achieve His purposes by employing our sinful acts to further His plans.

This is not to say that God makes us sin in order to achieve His purposes. Don't get the idea that God regards disobedience any less sinful because He turns evil into good. The sins of the four in this chapter are not glossed over or excused. No one has passed the responsibility for their actions on to God. No one can place the burden of guilt on God because of His decree. Their sin was due to their own depravity. Had all acted in obedience, God would have employed some other means to bring about the blessing of Jacob instead of Esau. God did not create a situation in which men had to sin in order for His will to be done. That's not how God works. We never have to sin as Christians (1Corinthians 10:13; James 1:13). While God "causes all things to work together for good" (Romans 8:28), He does not create evil in order to bring resulting good. We are responsible for our sin, not God. He allows it; He uses it; but He does not necessitate it.

How, then, might God have achieved the blessing of Jacob apart from the sins of this patriarchal family? Frankly, I do not know and I don't need to know. I am fully assured that Isaac could no more have pronounced a blessing upon Esau contrary to the will of God than Balaam could have cursed Israel (Numbers 22-24). God would have put a "donkey" in his path. God will not allow men to frustrate His purposes.

Sin always produces separation. It separates men from men, and men from God (John 15:18; 2Thessalonians 1:5-10). Our sinfulness distorts every area of our lives -- intellect, emotions and will. Even science with its grand notions of empirical evidence can twist our thinking so that we take right facts and turn them into wrong conclusions. We can only expect to rightly interpret the facts before us when our true motive is to learn the will of God and do it and our minds have been transformed (Romans 12:2) by the Spirit of God working through the Word of God.

An overwhelming truth screams from Genesis 27. It is possible to practice faith in a way that is inconsistent with faith!

We normally suppose that action based upon faith would be righteous while all things done apart from faith are evil. This is true for the most part, but Hebrews 11:20 identifies that Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau "by faith". How could this ill-conceived mess of deceit and disobedience be an act of faith? Read Hebrews 11:31 for another commentary on this by the writer of Hebrews. Rahab, an ancestoress of Jesus, lied about the two spies (Joshua 2:3-7), believing that God was with them and the nation of Israel. She had faith in the God of Israel (which saved her from destruction), and her lie, while not commended by God and not anything less than sin, stemmed from her faith. The same can be said of Isaac, who believed in God and the covenantal promises of God. He believed that the one he pronounced blessing upon would be blessed indeed. He believed this so confidently that he was willing to deceive and disobey to have those benefits fall upon his favorite son Esau. In faith, he pronounced the blessing so that God would honor it and that its recipient would be blessed. Isaac’s actions stemmed from faith, but they were not appropriate to that faith.

This is all too common for Christians today. Our faith in God may lead us to witness, but often we may use methods inconsistent with the gospel we proclaim. Our faith may cause us to share salvation even as we corrupt the gospel in order to not offtend those with whom we share. We suppose we further the cause of Chrsit, but we corrupt the gospel. Our goal may be Biblical and our motivations pure, but our means may be totally wrong.

This especiall speaks to Christian ethics. Jacob practiced situational ethics, considering his mother's plan from the position of practicality, but but from the vantage point of Biblical principle. He worried if the plan woudl work, but not if it was right. He agonized over the consequences should the plan fail, but not of the morality of such a plan in the first place.

There are parallel in our own times in the matter of sexual conduct and morality. We moderns see sexual conduct mostly in light of availability and opportunity rather than Biblical morality. Sexual immorality is often discouraged because of the consequences of disease and pregnancy, but we now live in a time when that is fairly easy to avoid, so the current generations feel little reluctance to avoid immorality because they see no negative consequences.

Let us study this event in the life of God's patriarchial family and teach our children what is right. Sin always has a price tage that is far too great to justify disobedience to God.

Sports fans know there is a world of difference between a rerun and an instant replay. A rerun is simply seeing the same thing over again while an instant replay is seeing something over, usually much more carefully. While reruns are historically interesting, athletic winners have been chosen on the basis of instant replays. This difference is critical when considering Genesis 25. Critics have tended to view the events recorded here as a bad rerun of similar events in Abraham's life and have even questioned there historicity of these events in Isaac's life. Yet, if one views it as an instant replay, the conclusion is quite different. Genesis 26 is the only chapter devoted exclusively to Isaac (he's mentioned in others, but not the primary focus). It's almost as if Isaac's entire life can be summed up in the events described here, all of which strikingly parallel events in Abraham's life.

"There was a famine in the land, subsequent to the earlier famine that occurred in the days of Abraham. Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines at Gerar. The Lord appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; settle down in the land that I will point out to you. Stay in this land. Then I will be with you and will bless you, for I will give all these lands to you and to your descendants, and I will fulfill the solemn promise I made to your father Abraham. I will multiply your descendants so they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them all these lands. All the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants. All this will come to pass because Abraham obeyed me and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Genesis 26:1-5

Early in Abraham's life a famine set in motion events which greatly shaped the life of the patriarch. Likewise, a famine occurred early in Isaac's life. This famine was different from the one in Abraham's life, even on face value. Obeying God's instructions, Isaac migrated to Gerar, hoping to avoid the famine and preserve his large herd of cattle. He then decided to go to Egypt, in disobedience to God's instructions. So far as the Bible records, this is the first time God spoke to Isaac, and He chose this time to reiterate the Abrahamic covenant, making it Isaac's covenant as well. This blessings of the covenant were, to some degree, a result of Abraham's faithfulness and obedience to God, but was mostly based upon God's faithfulness to Abraham. Isaac had witnessed this in Chapter 22. Verse 5 implies that it was necessary for Isaac to believe God's promise, accept it as a personal relationship, and live obediently as his father had. The first step in this life of obedience was to remain in Gerar, which Isaac did. God has no grandchildren. Isaac was God's man in his own generation. He could not claim the promises of God through his parentage.

"When the men of that place asked him about his wife, he replied, "She is my sister." He was afraid to say, "She is my wife," for he thought to himself,

"The men of this place will kill me to get Rebekah because she is very beautiful."

"After Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines happened to look out a window and observed Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah. So Abimelech summoned Isaac and said, "She is really your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?" Isaac replied,

"Because I thought someone might kill me to get her."

"Then Abimelech exclaimed, "What in the world have you done to us? One of the men might easily have had sexual relations with your wife, and you would have brought guilt on us!" So Abimelech commanded all the people, "Whoever touches this man or his wife will surely be put to death." Genesis 26:7-11

What? Again? Yes! Sadly, the same old sin of deception raised its ugly head. The sins of the father are visited on the son because the son learned at Daddy's knee. Frightened for his own safety, Isaac tried to pass off his wife as his sister, willingly risking Rebekah's purity for his personal protection.

Both Abraham and Isaac sinned before Abimelech and both were rebuked by the Philistine ruler. Both had a beautiful wife and feared for their own safety, thinking they might be killed so that someone could marry their wife. Both lied to saying their wife was their sister and neither seemed to recognize the gravity of their sin or fully repent of it.

While the similarities are many, the differences cannot be overlooked because they verify that two different deceptions took place in Gerar. There are clearly two different "Abimelechs" in these events. More than half a century had passed since Abraham's deceit. The custom of the day dictated that sons were often named after their grandfathers, but Abimelech might have been a hereditary title. Abraham's policy of deception was established before he entered into any danger (Genesis 12:11-13; 20:13). Abraham introduced Sarah as his sister from the outset. Isaac, however, waited until he was approached concerning Rebekah. At this point his confidence left him, and he resorted to a lie (verse 7).

Moses did not record if Rebekah played an active role in this deception. One of the reasons I believe that the Bible is true is that it portrays men of faith as flawed humans and shows pagans acting nobly, which is very much like the world in which I live. Abimelech learned of the deception by observing Isaac and Rebekah together and recognizing rather unsibling-like intimacy. His ethics were apparently higher than Isaac's. This Abimilech did not need God to threaten him; he viewed the taking of a man's wife as sin of great consequence. I'm going to hazard to guess this ethic had been passed down from his ancestor who learned it in the incident with Sarai. Perhaps also learned from his ancestor, Abimelech 2 ordered that Isaac and Rebekah not be harmed; they were even encouraged to remain in the desmesne. The deception was rebuked and then forgiven.

In spite of Isaac’s deception, God poured out His blessings on him. Abimelech failed to recognize Isaac’s prosperity as the blessing of God; he saw Isaac as a powerful figure who threatened him and worried his people. In fact, they seem to have recognized that a dynasty was forming.

Digging a well was considered a claim of ownership to the land on which it was located because it enabled a man to sustain herds there. Rather than recognize this claim, the Philistines sought to wipe it out by filling up Abraham's wells. Wells were a great asset in such an arid land, but to allow such a claim to remain unchallenged was something the Philistines could not allow. Now Abimelech tersely suggested Isaac leave Gerar (verse 16), which Isaac did. The meek would inherit this land, but in God’s good time.

Isaac developed a strategy of refusing to stay where there was conflict and hostility. He left Gerar, but to sustain his herds with abundant water, he re-opened Abraham's wells and dug more. If the well produced water and did not produce conflict, Isaac remained in the area. While Isaac may not have realized it for some time, the disputes over the ownership of the wells served to guide him in the direction of the land of promise. To Isaac these wells were a necessity for survival, but to the Philistines these were a claim to the land. Opposition was thus a humanly explainable, divinely ordained means of guidance.

In the valley of Gerar Isaac dug a well that produced "living water," that is, water that originated from a spring—running water. The Philistine herdsmen disputed with the herdsmen of Isaac over it, so Isaac moved on. Another well was dug and disputed (verse 21). Finally Isaac dug a well to which there was no opposition. He was probably far enough from Philistine territory that they had lost interst, but Isaac called the well "Rehoboth" (hope) because this seemed to be the place God had designated for him to settle. As Abraham had done with Lot, Isaac settled disputes by giving preference to the other party.

"From there Isaac went up to Beer Sheba. The Lord appeared to him that night and said, "I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham."

Then Isaac built an altar there and worshiped the Lord. He pitched his tent there, and his servants dug a well." Genesis 26:23-25

Up to this time Isaac’s settlement decisions were based upon availability of abundant water and the absence of hostilities. However, having found both, Isaac moved to Beersheba and the move is not explained. This may signify a change in Isaac's spiritual maturity. Circumstances had previously shaped most of his decisions, but Beersheba was the first place that Abraham had gone with Isaac after they came down from the "sacrifice" on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:19). Isaac knew that God had promised to give him the land promised to his father Abraham. Perhaps he had finally come to see that through all the opposition over the wells he had dug, God had been guiding him back to the land of promise where Abraham had walked in fellowship with God. God had previously been "driving" Isaac through opposition; now it seems, Isaac was willing to be led.

The decision proved to be the right one, for God immediately spoke words of reassurance. In verse 25, we learn that Isaac built an altar and called upon God BEFORE he pitched his tent and dug a well. Previously the touchstone for knowing the will of God had been circumstances—sufficient water with no opposition. Here, the sequence of events was reversed. Isaac settled after he spoke to God.

I see a great lesson in faith and guidance here. God's people belong in God's presence. The place for Christians to abide is wherever intimacy, worship and communion with God are most possible. We should dwell there and be reassured of God's provision for our needs. Spiritual needs are primary; materials needs can thus be considered last (Matthew 6:33).

"Isaac asked them, "Why have you come to me? You hate me and sent me away from you." They replied, "We could plainly see that the Lord is with you. So we decided there should be a pact between us – between us and you. Allow us to make a treaty with you so that you will not do us any harm, just as we have not harmed you, but have always treated you well before sending you away in peace. Now you are blessed by the Lord." Genesis 26:27-29

There's a different hue to events after this point -- the blessings and guidance of God were far more evident in Isaac's life. The nobles of the area paid a state visit to Isaac, who didn't particularly appreciate the attention. The situation was unusual. When he was in very close contact with Abimelech and the Philistines, the blessing of God on Isaac was present (verse 12) and the people responded with envy and animosity. Abimelech asked Isaac to leave the country. Now they were willing to come all this way simply to enter into a treaty with Isaac? Why?

Isaac's conduct while with the Philistine's hadn't been praiseworthy -- he lied about his wife and passed her off as his sister. I doubt the Philistines thought his prosperity was due to divine blessing. They probably attributed it to good luck. Now that Isaac’s priorities were changed and his life operating along spiritual guidelines, the blessing of God was evident. God's covenant with Abraham was understood as having passed to his son, at least in a practical way. Abimelech recognized God's blessings upon Isaac and a favorable relationship with a blessed one was highly desirable.

"That day Isaac’s servants came and told him about the well they had dug. "We’ve found water," they reported. So he named it Shibah; that is why the name of the city has been Beer Sheba to this day.

Surely Beersheba was the right place for Isaac. All indicators pointed that way, but serving God does not guarantee a trouble-free life of rose-strewn paths. Esau would bring Isaac and Rebekah great grief. Trouble remains a part of the Christian experience, sometimes as a result of our own sinfulness and sometimes because it is common to mankind.

Critics see little or nothing new or authenic in the events of Isaac's life, but I hope that serious Christians won't be so enamored of the literary scholars. Recognize Isaac for what he was -- a son following in the footsteps of a great, but imperfect father. God made a covenant with Abraham and confirmed it with Isaac. Abraham lied about his wife to Abimelech 1 and Isaac repeated this sin before Abimelech 2. Abimelech 1 sought a treaty with Abraham, seeking God's hand of blessing was upon him. Years later, Abimelech 2 did likewise with Isaac.

Isaac's life serves as a commentary on the Christian life. God employs a long and extensive process in our lives to bring us, first, to Him, and then to maturity. We too enter a covenantal relationship with God, instituted by Jesus Christ when He shed His blood on Calvary to provide for our forgiveness from sin, establishing our salvation (Luke 22:19-20).

Everyone must begin his relationship at the place of personal relationship with God through acceptance of the covenant He has offered. From there, we embark upon a spiritual voyage that is very similar to that of previous saints. When we are able to look back over our lives from the vantage point of eternity, I suspect we will be amazed how similar our path has been compared to Isaac and others. There are no shortcuts in the sanctification process.

The passage is an awesome challenge to me as a parent. Our children must walk in our footsteps if they are to be a part of the kingdom of God. They begin at the same point we did, coming to a personal relationship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. They must be allowed to make the same mistakes we did in order to come to a more mature faith and trust in God.

I would prefer that my children not make the same mistakes I did, and I hope it is not necessary. Yet I must acknowledge that Isaac walked a path nearly identical to Abraham's. Despite our personal preferences, Christian parents must allow our children to fail in order to grow in the way that God has purposed because our children cannot begin to relate to God based upon our walk. They must start at the beginning. fresh and new!

We can best help our children by making certain that our footsteps are ones we'd want them to walk in. If our children’s lives are to mirror our own, what an awesome responsibility we have as parents to walk a path of obedience and submission to the will of God.

This brings us to a cold hard look at the effects of sin on the modern church. Are you as bothered as I am that God did not come down on Abraham and Isaac harder for their deception? Deception is in and God hates a lying tongue (Proverbs 6:17), but He barely seemed to confront them on it. Why?

Lying was a symptomatic sin for these men. It stemmed from deeper issues, which God was more interested in addressing. They resorted to deception because of unbelief or lack of faith. They were afraid because they had an inadequate concept of God. They did not grasp the sovereignty and omnipotence of God as s to believe that God could protect them under any and every circumstance. Having solved the problem of too little faith, the sin of deception was not an issue later on. I think we sometimes become preoccupied with "symptom sins", rushing around the church trying to stomp these out when in fact we need to address our lack of faith, which is a problem not just for the unsaved, but also for the truly saved.

A friend of mine once took over a successful and succeeding (yes, there can be a difference) company from its founder. The board of directors had decided that this man was "old school" and needed to be retired. George knew what was coming and knew that whomever popped to their feet at a critical moment would be the person who won that vote and the person who won that vote would become the new CEO that day. So did the CEO and founder. Despite his best efforts, George got to his feet second (it's on tape!), but the chairman of the board took a deep breath, waited a beat and called on George because he had already decided who he wanted as the future CEO. George admits that he felt incredible smugness at being called first, at knowing that his motion would be the critical move to change the direction of the company.

Some people view the doctrine of divine election as operating in the same way. They see God as the chairman of the board Who knows who is going to do what and, on the basis of His prior knowledge, He chooses the person who will do what He desires. The chosen under such a system may feel the same smugness about their "calling" as George did on that afternoon when he was recognized by the chairman.

Another view of election places the matter almost entirely in man’s hands. In its most blatant form it is stated: God votes for us; Satan votes against us; and we cast the deciding vote.

Neither of these views is completely consistent with the Biblical doctrine of election. No Old Testament passage puts the whole matter into its proper perspective more clearly than Genesis 25. The Apostle Paul agreed, choosing to use these events in Romans 9 as the best illustration of the doctrine of divine election.

Abraham took another wife, Keturah. Scholars debate whether this marriage took place after Sarah's death or before. Keturah was referred to as a concubine in 1Chronicles 1:32, which also fits nicely with the word "concubines" in verse 6 of our passage. In Amorite society (and Abraham was an Amorite), a concubine held a position somewhat above that of a slave, yet she was not free, nor did she have the status or rights of a wife. The master had sexual relations with the concubine. Her children held an inferior status to those born of a wife, but they could be elevated to the position of a full heir at the will of the master. Why would Keturah be called a concubine unless Sarah were still alive and this marriage was of a lesser type? The sons of this union were said to have been "sent away" (verse 6), which would hardly be true of the children of a full marriage, but it would be completely consistent with the children of a concubine. These children would have been sent away in just the same fashion as Ishmael. According to the Code of Hammurabi the sons of a concubine could be sent away, the compensation for which was the granting of their full freedom. Abraham was very old by the time Sarah died, so any children born after that time would be considered more of a miracle than Isaac. Let's be realistic here! Abraham was, in fact, the father of many nations, but it was through Isaac that the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic Covenant would be realized.

Yes, Abraham was a polygamist! This does not mean the Bible condones polygamy! It simply means that Abraham was a sinner! Let's not kid ourselves. All human beings are sinners, even the heroes of the faith.

Consistent with his faith in the promises of God, Abraham gave gifts to his children and sent them off, out of Isaac's way (verse 6) and then, after a rich and full life, Abraham died. He was 175. Why wasn't Ishmael included among those who received gifts while he was living? I don't know. Ishmael did return for his father's funeral with Isaac's cooperation (verse 9). Abraham had always had a special place in his heart for his first son. Reluctantly and under great pressure, Abraham sent him away. Abraham would have been content for God’s purposes and promises to have been fulfilled in Ishmael. He petitioned God to look with favor upon this boy (17:18). God refused to substitute this child of self-effort for the child of promise, but He did promise to make him a great nation. Verses 13-16 record the names of the sons of Ishmael, who were the 12 promised princes. Once again God kept His promise to His servant Abraham.

Ishmael died at the age of 137 and was buried. Notice that he was not said to have been placed in the cave of Machpelah, for this was a monument of hope for the people of the promise. The land of Canaan was not to be the possession of Ishmael nor his descendants; his people settled from Havilah to Shur (Genesis 25:18).

The process of election has been apparent in the previous verses. God chose Sarah, not Hagar or Keturah, to be the mother of the child of promise. God likewise chose Isaac long before he was ever born to be the heir of Abraham. While Abraham had several wives/concubines and many children, only Isaac was to be the one through whom the promised blessings would come. Isaac married Rebekah when he was 40, but it was 20 years later before she bore children. Isaac interceded with God on Rebekah’s behalf and she became pregnant in answer to his prayers (verse 21). During her pregnancy Rebekah was perplexed by the intense struggle that took place within her womb, so she inquired of God to determine the reason.

It turned out she was pregnant with twins who were destined not to get along. Each of the children would be the father of a nation of people and one would prevail over the other. Of these two sons, the older would not, as was the custom, become preeminent. Normally, the first-born son would have been the heir through whom the covenant blessings would have passed. While the father could designate a younger son to be the owner of the birthright (Genesis 38:13-20), this was an exception, not the rule. Also, the oldest son could sell his birthright, as Esau eventually did.

This prophecy is significant revelation not only for Rebekah but for Christians today because it indicates the principle of divine election. Before the birth of the children God determined that it would be the younger child who would possess the birthright and thus be the heir of Isaac so far as the covenant promises were concerned (Romans 9:10-12).

While we must acknowledge that God in His omniscience knew all of the deeds of both these sons from eternity past, Paul wrote that the choice of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with their works. Jacob was chosen in the womb and without regard to the works he would do in the future. In other words, God’s election was not based upon "foreknowledge" as it is sometimes taught. God’s choice was determined by His will, not by man’s works. Personally, I think that Esau was the more likeable of the two. He was at least honest, while Jacob was a con artist. Certainly, Isaac found Esau more pleasant and ethical.

Esau was born first, and he came from the womb red and hairy. Jacob came forth from the womb grasping the heel of his brother. Jacob’s name was suggested by the Hebrew word for ‘heel.’ Later events, such as the barter of the birthright in verses 27-34, indicate that the name, taken in its negative sense, referred to Jacob’s grasping and conniving nature.

The boys had very different dispositions. Esau seems to have been a masculine, outdoor-type man who loved to do the things a father could take pride in. He was a skillful hunter, and he knew how to handle himself in the outdoors. (As an Alaskan woman I can appreciate that type of man because those are the type of men I grew up with and who still live around me today). Jacob was entirely different. Instead of being aggressive, daring and flamboyant like Esau, Jacob appears to have been quiet and pensive and more interested in staying at home than making physical conquests. Oh, he had ambition to get ahead, but he just wasn't into hunting and living rough. In the solitude of his tent Jacob could mentally reason out how to get ahead without getting his hands dirty and without taking dangerous risks.

The second factor which tended to separate the two sons was the divided loyalty between their parents. Isaac seems to have been the outdoor-type himself; at least he had an appetite for the wild game that Esau brought home (verse 28). Esau was the kind of son that Isaac could proudly take with him wherever he went. Rebekah, on the other hand, favored Jacob. She probably thought Esau was crude and uncultured. Jacob was a much more refined person, gentle and kind, the type of son a mother would be proud of. Besides, Jacob probably spent more time at home than Esau did. Each parent seems to have identified too much with a particular son, thus creating divisions which would be devastating. This favoritism also brought about disharmony between Isaac and his wife. Later Rebekah was to conspire with Jacob to deceive her husband (chapter 27).

Then there was the underhanded means by which Jacob wrested the birthright from his brother. While Esau had been out in the field, Jacob was at home preparing a stew. Weary and famished, though hardly at death’s door, Esau was enticed by the fragrant aroma of the meal. Esau greedily pled for some of "that red stuff" (nutritional anthropologists suggest it was a lentil soup). Rather than showing his brother the hospitality due even a stranger, Jacob saw an opportunity to gain advantage. Here Jacob’s greedy, grasping disposition rose to the forefront.

"But Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright."

"Look," said Esau,

"I’m about to die! What use is the birthright to me?"

"But Jacob said, "Swear an oath to me now." So Esau swore an oath to him and sold his birthright to Jacob.

I think Esau thought it was a joke or something that could be casually bantered about, but Jacob made him swear a solemn oath declaring the sale of the birthright, showing that he had no appreciation for spiritual and eternal things (Hebrews 12:15-16).

The birth of Ishmael taught Abraham that God's blessings were not wrought by self-effort, but by trusting God. In Jacob's life, tricking his brother into selling his birthright served the same purpose. Jacob struck a shrewd bargain, but it was not the means for God's blessing.

It's fairly impossible to avoid the fact that this chapter clearly teaches the principle of divine election. Out of all of Abraham's sons, God chose Isaac to be the heir of promise rather than Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan or Medan. Sarah, not Hagar or Keturah, was to mother the child of promise. God’s choice was not determined by His knowledge of the good works that the chosen would later accomplish. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob all had very visible faults, exemplified by by less than sterling conduct. At times pagans even appeared more righteous than they (Abimelech in Genesis 20).

While Christians are chosen "unto good works" (Ephesians 2:10), it is not because of our good works that we are chosen. Jacob was chosen before his birth without regard to future deeds (Romans 9:11). In theological terminology, God "elects" men and women "unconditionally" without regard to our past or future actions. Our selection is pure grace.

Some conclude from this fact that those who are not among the elect are forever lost because God did not choose them. There is truth in this statement (Proverbs 16:4; Revelation 17:8; 1Peter 2:6). While election to salvation is never on account of works, election to eternal damnation is. The emphasis of the Word of God is not that men go to Hell because God did not choose them, but that men suffer eternally because they have not chosen God.

Moses stressed that truth in Genesis 25. The principle of election is clearly evident here, yet, at the conclusion of the account Moses did not report that Esau sold his birthright because God had predetermined this to happen, but because Esau "despised his birthright" (verse 34).

Election is unconditional. God chooses men because of His love and grace, not because of man’s future good deeds. While good works do not earn election to a place of blessing in God’s program, evil deeds are adequate reason for rejection by God.

The message of the whole Bible tells us that all of us deserve the eternal wrath of God for our sins (Romans 3:10-18, 23; 6:23), but the gospel informs us that God has provided a solution for the sins of mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross of Calvary because Jesus bore the punishment we deserve (Romans 3:21-26; 2Corinthians 5:21). God chose those who are saved in eternity past (Acts 13:28; 16:14; Ephesians 1:11), but it is also true that those who are saved have personally believed in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Every person who calls upon Him for salvation will be saved (John 1:12-13; Romans 10:13).

Like Isaac, the world we live in prefers the Esaus and dislikes the Jacobs. Consider the media's models. They are not Jacobs, but Esaus, macho tough guys who grab all the gusto they can get and are willing to trade off eternity for a beer or a some other short-lived physical pleasure.

While we cannot condone that hedonism, it is worth noting that the biggest "crook" in this passage is a believer. Esau may have been crude and impulsive, but he was honest. I'm ashamed to admit that I know many Christian businesspeople and quite a few Christian employees are are crooked in the same way that Jacob was. We call ourselves shrewd, but that's just a ephemism for unethical practices. Often these Christians are quite convinced of the importance of the ends that they will seek success by any means and feel justified by their achievement.

Jacob valued the birthright more than Esau did; he valued it so highly he was willing to stoop to any level to obtain it. How often do we justify sinfully-earned money by giving it to a worthy cause -- be it church, missions, or the poor. The goal is never more important than godliness (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 4:15). Jacob needed half a lifetime to learn that blessing results from prevailing with God, not over men.

We too, Christians, must learn this lesson!

There are many practices of the modern Christian church that adhere, with a modern twist, to the practices of the original churches, but marriage would not be one of them. In our modern society, we allow young people to select their mates with little or no input into their decision from parents or other adults and we encourage them to make their selection on criteria like physical appearance and salary. Most of us will find the selection process for a bride for Isaac to be demeaning and artificial. I know people who would say that this was a relationship doomed to failure. They would be wrong.

Abraham was 140 years old and had been a widower for three years. Not knowing that he had 35 more years, Abraham began to set his estate in order for his inevitable passing. His greatest concern was that Isaac marry a woman who would help him raise a godly seed as God had told him in Genesis 18:19. He commissioned his oldest and most trusted servant to secure a wife for Isaac. This wife could not be a Canaanite and Isaac must not return to Mesopotamia. Otherwise, the man seems to have been given full discretion in the matter. These two requirements promote separation while preventing isolation. Isaac’s presence in the land of Canaan, even when he did not possess it, evidenced his faith in God and developed dependence upon God alone. It also proclaimed to the Canaanites that Yahweh alone was God. Abraham and his offspring were missionaries in this sense. While they lived among the Canaanites, they were not to become one with them by marriage. They must remain seperate from the ungodly tribes around them. On the other hand, returning to Mesopotamia would be isolation. To live among the Canaanites but marry a God-fearer would serve to insulate Isaac from too close a relation with these pagans. Thus, a wife must be secured from among the relatives of Abraham while, at the same time, Isaac was not allowed to return there himself.

"The Lord, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and the land of my relatives, promised me with a solemn oath, ‘To your descendants I will give this land.’ He will send his angel before you so that you may find a wife for my son from there. But if the woman is not willing to come back with you, you will be free from this oath of mine. But you must not take my son back there!"

So the servant placed his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and gave his solemn promise he would carry out his wishes." Genesis 24:7-8

While marriage can be seen as a practical matter, Abraham’s actions were based upon revelation. God had promised to make Abraham a great nation and bless all nations through him. Obviously, Abraham’s son must himself marry and bear children. While not a specific command, it was the will of God for Isaac to marry and remain in the land of Canaan since God had promised this land to Abraham and his offspring. Having learned from past experience (both negative and positive), Abraham trusted that God would provide divine guidance to his servant in this task.

What a wonderful example of faith in God as One Who guides His people! Abraham sent out his servant, assured that God had led by His Word. Abraham sought a wife for his son, assured that God had prepared the way and would make that way clear. Abraham also allowed for the fact that God might not provide a wife in the way he had planned to procure her and thus made allowance for divine intervention in some other way.

Imagine for a moment that you had been given the commission of Abraham’s servant. How would you possibly go about finding an acceptable wife for Isaac? What an awesome task this must have been -- somewhat akin to finding a needle in a haystack. A younger servant would probably have gone about this task in a very different manner -- advertising with a matchmaker, for example. He would have sought the most beautiful and talented girl in that area of Mesopotamia. Being older and wiser, the godly servant sought God's will and guidance through prayer.

"He prayed, "O Lord, God of my master Abraham, guide me today. Be faithful to my master Abraham. Here I am, standing by the spring, and the daughters of the people who live in the town are coming out to draw water. I will say to a young woman, ‘Please lower your jar so I may drink.’ May the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac reply, ‘Drink, and I’ll give your camels water too.’ In this way I will know that you have been faithful to my master." Genesis 24:12-14

The servant was seeking a woman of character to mother a godly line. How should he go about such a task? He sought to test her intelligence and character in order to find a woman of generousity and foresight.

Rebekah, the dauther of Bethuel (Abraham's nephew) was very much the right woman for Isaac. A beautiful woman who had maintained her sexual purity (essential to the preservation of a godly seed), she was the first and apparently only woman to appear there at that moment. Everything the servant saw suggested that this woman was a candidate for the test he had devised and it seemed as though God had dropped her in his lap. When the servant asked for a drink, Rebekah also watered the camels. While Rebekah's evident beauty may have satisfied the standards of lesser men, the serant allowed the test to run its course.

"We have plenty of straw and feed," she added, "and room for you to spend the night." The man bowed his head and worshiped the Lord, saying "Praised be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not abandoned his faithful love for my master! The Lord has led me to the house of my master’s relatives!" Genesis 24:25-27

Adorning the woman with golden gifts, the servant proceeded to determine her ancestry. When this qualification was satisfied, the servant bowed in worship, giving the glory to God for His guidance and blessing. While the servant worshipped, Rebekah ran on ahead to report what had happened to her brother Laban and to begin preparations for the guests who would be coming. It appears Laban liked bling (Genesis 24:30-31) and the servant had provided plenty. Now that he'd found the right woman to become Isaac's wife, the servant had to convince the family that Isaac was the right man for Rebekah. Rebekah would have to move away from her family, so this was a delicate task. His refusal to eat until the negotiations were taken care of indicates the urgency of his mission.

Bethuel, of course, knew or knew of his uncle Abraham, which probably set aside many objections to this marriage proposal. The servant assured them that Abraham had prospered in the years since leaving Haran, infering that Isaac's ability to provide for Rebekah was well established. The most compelling argument, however, was evidence that it was the will of God for Rebekah to become the wife of Isaac. He accomplished this by recounting all that took place from his commissioning by Abraham to the conclusion of his search at the spring.

"Then Laban and Bethuel replied, "This is the Lord’s doing. Our wishes are of no concern. Rebekah stands here before you. Take her and go so that she may become the wife of your master’s son, just as the Lord has decided." Genesis 24:48-51

Laban and Bethuel granted permission for Rebekah to marry Isaac and the dowry gifts were brought forth and presented to the members of the family (vs. 53). Again the servant acknowledged the hand of God in these affairs and worshipped Him gratefully (verse 52). With these matters disposed of, they ate and drank, and the servant and his party spent the night.

In the morning, as the servant prepared to leave, Rebekah’s mother and brother wanted to delay her departure, perhaps realizing they would never see Rebekah again. The servant, however, pressed them to let her go immediately and Rebekah was willing to go without delay, so they sent her off with a blessing.

That blessing makes me believe that Abraham's relatives in Mesopotamia must have shared some faith in the God of Abraham. The blessing they pronounced too closely parallels God’s covenant promise to Abraham to be coincidental:

"They blessed Rebekah with these words: "Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands of ten thousands! May your descendants possess the strongholds of their enemies." Genesis 24:60

We know from verse 67 that Isaac took Rebekah into Sarah's tent as his wife and loved her so much that it consoled him in his mother's death. The servant had chosen wisely and Isaac soon knew this for himself.

More than just commentary on a human marriage, this passage speaks to the role of servanthood and guidance in the Christian life. The servant could be considered a model for every Christian (Mark 10:43-44). Marked by his eager obedience and attention to instructions, the servant diligently pursued his task with a sense of urgency. His diplomacy was evidence in his dealings with Rebekah and her relatives. Abraham had obviously given him a great deal of authority in other matters and freedom of discretion in this. His trust was not misplaced.

This servant was devoted to his master, but also devoted to God. Prayer and worship marked him as being superior to his peers, for he possessed a personal trust in God, to Whom he gave all the glory.

Most of us have already found the mate for our married lives, so that this passage should be understood in the broader context of God's guidance to His children. No Old Testament passage illustrates the guiding hand of God better than this portion of Genesis.

God directs men to get under way through the Scriptures. God never directly implored Abraham to seek a wife for his son, but wisdom dictated that he do so. Revelation had promised Abraham that his offspring would become a mighty nation through his son Isaac; obviously Isaac must have children and that necessitated a wife. Since his offspring would need to be faithful to God and keep His covenant (Genesis 18:19), the wife would need to be a godly woman, not a Canaanite. Also, since God had promised "this land", Isaac must not return to Mesopotamia.

All true Christians are led by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:14). He prepares the way for us to walk in His will and sense His leading. We must proceed in faith just as Abraham did, knowing that God does guide.

The will of God was discerned through prayer. The servant submitted a plan to God that brought the right woman to evidence through a test of character. God providentially (through circumstances) brought the right woman to the servant; by her generous act of watering the camels she evidenced that she was His choice for Isaac’s wife.

The will of God was discerned through wisdom. No doubt Abraham sent this servant because he was known for his discernment. He obediently went to the "city of Nahor" and stationed himself beside the well where all the women of the city must come daily. Humbly he prayed for guidance, but wisely he proposed a plan which would test the character of the women he would encounter. There was no spectacular revelation. That was not needed! Wisdom could discern a woman of great worth.

When considering the Biblical ideal of marriage, particularly as parents giving advice to teen and young adult offspring, most people turn to the love story of Ruth and Boaz (and there is certainly much worthy to study there), but there are some considerations of marriage that are evident here as well.

A godly mate is a wonderful thing, but should only be sought if marriage will achieve the purposes God has for our lives. Isaac needed a wife because he must become a husband and father to fulfill his part in the Abrahamic covenant. While most of us will marry, the Bible informs us that sometimes God wants some of His servants to remain single (1Corinthians 7:8-24). Marriage should only be sought for those who will achieve God's purpose by having a mate. This is not always the case and we should remember that.

I have a friend who is in a frenzy about how old her children are and they haven't yet had children. In fact, most of them haven't married yet. I want my children to wait for God's timing, so that they can have a godly mate. I would not want them to marry unbelievers in haste just to satisfy a biological time table. Isaac was 40 years old when he married, but it was well worth the wait for God's chosen woman.

Significantly, we must seek a godly mate in the right place. Abraham instructed his servant not to look among the Canaanites, but to go to his God-fearing relatives. I don't know why Christians sometimes think they will find a godly mate in a bar or an online dating service. If we wish a godly mate, we should look where godly Christians normally hang out -- church, Christian college, etc. If God does not provide one through something along those lines, He may be making something clear to the seeker -- namely, that they should not marry or that they should delay marriage to a later time. A friend of mine whose first husband abandoned her, refused to date for six years after the divorce, and then met her second husband at church on a Sunday night. A Christian man who had been married briefly in his 20s (his wife had died), he'd been out riding his motorbike when he just felt the need to go to Sunday evening church at the first church he saw, which happened to be where my friend was attending. They've been together 23 years now. God's own timing may surprise us!

Most importantly, those seeking a godly mate must seek godly qualities. Abraham's servant did not evaluate Rebekah by her physical appearance. Apparently, she was beautiful, but beauty was not fundamental -- he sought a woman who trusted in the God of Abraham and who had maintained sexual purity, but also someone with "Christian" character. Wisdom and experience had taught the servant that such qualities were the most important to a successful marriage. Just being a woman who believed in the God of Abraham was not sufficient. Both parties being Christians is essential for a good Christian marraige, but just because one is a Christian does not make them a good candidate for Christian marriage.

Recognizing that may require a willingness to listen to the counsel of older and wiser Christians. Isaac was barely consulted in the process of finding a wife for him. On his own, I doubt he would have found Rebekah. He probably would have chosen the first pretty girl or woman who professed faith in God. The servant, however, was unwiling to settle for second rate. He wanted the best possible bride for Isaac. Abraham and the servant were certainly central to the process, but Rebekah's family was also consulted and needed to be convinced of God's leading. Older, wise Christians should be heeded because their experience has taught them what the path of heartache looks like. It's always best to have a knowledgable guide.

Probably the hardest lesson to learn here (and one I, frankly, struggle with) is the recognition that a godly mate is best assessed by putting emotional feelings last. Isaac learned to love his wife in time. Love came after marriage, not before it. Romantic love was not the basis of their marriage; their marriage was the basis for romantic love.

This is why Christian young people are encouraged never to date an unbeliever. We ask our daughter never to consider dating someone without first knowing their spiritual condition because dating frequently leads to emotional involvement and physical attraction. We will do the same with our son when he is old enough for such considerations. Romantic love is a wonderful feeling, but it cannot sustain a marriage! Do not put yourself in a situation where romantic love can grow until you are certain that you want it to grow. Encourage your children to be as wise.

This is totally counter to our culture where romatic feelings are exploited by Madison Avenue and Hollywood. Love is a wonderful thing, a gift from God, but let love come last, not first, if we seek a godly mate. I believe that God will surely guide us to that mate by using Scripture, prayer, counsel, wisdom, and providential intervention. We will be able to recognize this person, convinced most of all by the fact that they have manifested a godly character.

May God help us to encourage our children and our friends to trust God and obey Him in the selection of a mate. For those of us who are married, may God enable us to be the godly mate that His Word says we should be.

I don't think there can be any question that Sarah was the love of Abraham's life. Several times over the course of their life journey together, he faced the prospect of losing her and responded in totally inappropriate ways -- mostly, lying to potentates who had done him no harm and intended none.

So the report of events in Genesis 23 might seem a little unemotional upon casual observance. We want to see Abraham grieve for Sarah, but are denied this. Why?

The events of Genesis 22 provide the answer. The ram was already in the bush. God had taught Abraham about loss through the "sacrifice" of Isaac. Moreover, Abraham knew that his seed through Isaac would continue thanks to the wife that God had provided for Isaac many years before at the birth of Rebekah (Genesis 22:20-24). This reminder of home (Ur) must also be seen as a temptation to turn from the path of faith. God had commanded Abraham to dwell in Canaan, but often when our spouse dies we want to return their body to our homeland. Abraham still had strong family ties there, which illustrates the significance of his decision to bury Sarah's body in Canaan.

Fairth is neither divorced from emotion nor should it be bound by them. Sarah had lived 127 years and Abraham grieved for her in a manner common to most loving spouses. We should not take the Bible's brief mention of his grief as a sign that it was not true grief, but that God had other matters in view in the recording of this event.

Sarah's death brough Abraham to a point of decision. Wherever Sarah would be buried, would be where Abraham would also be buried. Up to this point, he'd been a sojourner in Canaan, a nomad without any land of his own. Now, if he was going ot bury Sarah in Canaan, he was compelled to buy a portion of the land God had promised to give him and his descendants from the Canaanites. How ironic that Abraham should humbly bow before these people and strike a legal contract over land God had promised to simply give him.

The purchase of the cave at Machpelah was an expression of Abraham's faith in God, according to the writer of Hebrews (11:13-16). Abraham's burial of Sarah in Canaan "staked his claim" in the land which God had promised. Canaan would be the homeland of his descendants. No longer would he be a sojourner and stranger in Canaan; he now owned land there.

According to Hittite law, Abraham was not obligated to the king of Canaan if he only purchased the cave rather than the field located outside its mouth, but Abraham deepened his commitment to the land and his faith in God (as well as extending his worldly obligations) by also purchasing the field. In effect, he became a citizen of two worlds with that purchase. His son was still getting a wife from Mesopotamia, but Abraham and his heir now owned land in Canaan.

Similarly, Christians are citizens of two worlds. Our inheritance is in heaven (1Peter 1:4), but we have obligations in this world. We must submit to earthly authorities and institutions (1Peter 2:11) and obey the laws of the land and pay our taxes (Romans 13:1-7). While Christians have been often accused of being "so heavenly minded [we're] no earthly good", our heavenly mind is what makes us truly useful in this world. Abraham's future inheritance did not lessen his present obligations; it established his priorities. Just because he'd been promised to inherit the land of Canaan did not mean he would not own property and bow before the present authority of that land.

Abraham’s purchase of a burial plot provided Israel with roots in the promised land. Jacob, who died in Egypt, was buried in the cave which Abraham purchased (Genesis 50:1-14). When the Israelites were freed from Egyptian bondage, where else would they return but to their fatherland? Interestingly, the land of Canaan had not yet been possessed when Genesis was written. Those who read it first looked forward to the conquest of Canaan. Caleb was given the privilege of taking the land which Abraham had purchased as an "earnest of his inheritance" (Joshua 14:13).

The cave of Machpelah stood for centuries as a monument to the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob just as the empty tomb of Jesus guarantees the Christian that the grave is not our final resting place but an abode for the body until Christ returns for His church (1Corinthians 15; 1Thessalonians 4).

The grave, for the Christian, is not an end, but a beginning -- a page turned in the story of our life. The burial of a loved one is a significant opportunity for a Christian to publicly express faith. The sons of Heth knew Abraham as a "price of God" (23:3, 7, 9, 10). In a Christian family, death of a loved one is an opportunity for Christian witness. I hope when I pass my non-Christian friends and family will attend my memorial service and I have left instructions that it should be a glorious time of celebration of God's grace in my life, not a time of mourning. My husband and children being Christians, I trust, will follow my wishes and, I have faith, will recognize that my absence from them means my presence with the Lord and therefore, my funeral should be a party, not a wake.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770 -- US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

I posted the above statement because it really illustrates a point that is salient concerning Abraham's faith journey. Interpretations may vary, but facts are the never-changing bedrock of reality and sooner or later, our interpretation of them must be correct or we will be woefully in error for all eternity. God, in His mercy, may allow a particular problem of faith to continue for sometime, but sooner or later, the problem will become an issue of importance which must be resolved.

Such was the case with Abraham. At the very outset of his relationship with God he was given a clear command concerning his family (Genesis 12:1) that emphasized that he must seperate from them. We know that it took years for Abram to leave his father and that seperation was as a result of Terah's death, not deliberate obedience. Abram was reluctant to seperate from Lot after that and then there was the painful act of sending away Ishmael, whom Abram deeply loved. Thus, in Genesis 22, Abraham came to his ultimate test of faith. And elderly man whose wife would soon die, Abraham's love was now focused upon Isaac, his only remaining child. God brought Abraham to a point where he must give priority to either his faith or his family by confronting Abraham with the greatest test of his faith.

Non-Christians frequently cite this incident as "proof" that God is "anything but family-oriented or pro-life." Their observation is, frankly, wrong. They focus on the test rather than the results and therefore, miss the entire point of the event. Let us not do that. Let us understand that God tested Abraham to demonstrate his faith in tangible terms, to prove his godly character. God never solicits men to sin (James 1:12-18). As James the younger brother of Jesus pointed out, this event in Abraham's life was evidence of a living faith, not of a capricious deity (James 2:21).

"Some time after these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am!" Abraham replied. God said, "Take your son – your only son, whom you love, Isaac – and go to the land of Moriah! Offer him up there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will indicate to you." Genesis 22:1-2

God’s command to Abraham must have caught him totally unprepared. Perhaps logically, non-Christians (even some Christians) find their greatest difficulty here not with Abraham's conduct, but with God's command. How can a God of wisdom, mercy, justice, and love command Abraham to offer up his only son as a sacrifice? Infant sacrifice was practiced by the Canaanites, but it was condemned by God (Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31). Such a sacrifice would have had no real value (Micah 6:7). Point out that God stopped Abraham short of carrying out the command does not really solve the problem to satisfaction. How could God have given the order in the first place if it were immoral? To hold that God could ever command His children to do wrong, even as a test, is to open the door to all kinds of difficulties.

Let's admit a strong bias in this discussion. As a parent, I am repulsed by the thought of sacrificing my children upon an altar. I think we all are. We thus project our abhorrence upon God, supposing that He would be equally sickened. We also view this command through the cultural lens of the day, which did practice child sacrifice as a pagan practice. God condemned it, so (from our perspective) it must be wrong in any context.

Unfortunately, we are forced to accept that the sacrifice of Isaac could not have been wrong regardless of the outcome, because God is incapable of evil (James 1:13; 1John 1:5). Let us remember that God actually did sacrifice His only begotten Son (Isaiah 53: 6, 10; John 3:16) for a higher purpose. In this sense, God did not require Abraham to do anything that He Himself would not do. Indeed, the command to Abraham was intended to foreshadow what He would do centuries later on the cross of Calvary.

We can only grasp the holiness of God's command if we understand the symbolic significance of the "sacrifice of Isaac". Abraham’s willingness to give up his only son humanly illustrated the love of God for mankind, which caused Him to give His only begotten Son. Abraham's heart-felt agony reflected God the Father's heart-felt agony at the suffering of His Son just as the obedience of Isaac typified the submission of Jesus to the will of God the Father (Matthew 26:39-42).

God halted the sacrifice of Isaac for two reasons. First, such a sacrifice would have no benefit for others as the lamb must be "without blemish," without sin, innocent (Isaiah 53:9; Micah 6:7). Isaac, being human, did not qualify. Second, Abraham’s faith was amply shown in that he fully intended to carry out the expressed will of God. Had God not intervened, Isaac would have been sacrificed. Isaac had already been sacrificed in attitude, so the act was unnecessary. The Christian life is often a great deal more about attitude than action.

I have a friend who strongly protests that Abraham interceded with God for Sodom, but said nothing for Isaac. She sees Abraham as a deluded sociopath because of this. Remember that the Scriptures are selective in what they report, choosing to omit non-essentials in the development of any given passage (John 20:30-31; 21:25). For example, God told Abraham to He would indicate the particular place to "sacrifice" Isaac (verse 2). Abraham somehow wen tot that spot (verse 9), but but we are not told when God revealed the location to him.

It seems that Moses, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, omitted Abraham’s initial reaction to God’s command in order to highlight his ultimate response—obedience. Personally, I believe Abraham argued and pled for the life of his son, but God chose not to record this point in Abraham’s life because it would not have inspired us to obey Him at any cost. How many of us would prefer that God not report our first reactions to unpleasant commands, especially if we carried them out and everything turned out okay? We would argue that it is our final response that truly matters (Matthew 21:28-31).

"On the third day Abraham caught sight of the place in the distance. So he said to his servants, "You two stay here with the donkey while the boy and I go up there. We will worship and then return to you."

"Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac. Then he took the fire and the knife in his hand, and the two of them walked on together. Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father?" "What is it, my son?" he replied. "Here is the fire and the wood," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" "God will provide for himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son," Abraham replied. The two of them continued on together.

Regardless of any unreported struggles, Abraham arose early to begin the longest journey of his life. The early hour may reflect Abraham's resolve to do God’s will or it may simply indicate that Abraham hadn't been able to sleep anyway. I would note that, while Abraham was resigned to do God’s will, Sarah apparently was not informed of this test (so far as Scripture records). As a mother, I can tell you that history would have recorded my protests, so I rather think Abraham did not tell Sarah what was to come.

After a heart-breaking three-day journey, Abraham spied the mountain of sacrifice and he and Isaac left the servants behind (verses 5-6). In the midst of soul anguish Abraham expresses beautiful hope and faith in verse 5 and then again in verse 8. I do not believe these words were idly spoken; they reflected a deep inner trust in God and His promises. The God Who had commanded the sacrifice of Isaac had also promised to produce a nation through him (17:15-19; 21:12). At every step Abraham must have hoped for some change of plans, some alternative course of action. When there was nothing left but to bind Isaac and place him upon the wood and plunge the knife into his heart, Abraham's heart must have been breaking.

"But the Lord’s angel called to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am!" he answered. "Do not harm the boy!" the angel said.

"Do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me."

"Abraham looked up and saw behind him a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. So he went over and got the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place "The Lord provides."

It is said to this day, "In the mountain of the Lord provision will be made." Genesis 21:11-14

At the point of death it was evident that Abraham would willingly to forsake all, even his son, for God. While God certainly knew the heart of Abraham, Abraham’s reverence was now evident TO ABRAHAM from experiential knowledge. At this point of total obedience, God did NOT halt the sacrifice; He provided a ram as a substitute for Isaac. I would note that the ram was already there, just unnoticed, before Abraham prepared Isaac as a sacrifice. It was similar to the well that Hagar didn't notice until after she'd settled things with God.

In deep testiment to his own understanding of this event, Abraham named that place of sacrifice "The Lord will Provide". Abraham had known by faith that God would provide; now he KNEW by experience that God DOES provide. He could never have known God's provision for certain had he not first accepted it by faith.

"The Lord’s angel called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "‘I solemnly swear by my own name,’ decrees the Lord, ‘that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies. Because you have obeyed me, all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants.’"

God then confirmed His promises to Abraham through Isaac. While there was no real new revelation in this confirmation, God now told Abraham that the blessings promised to him were because he had obeyed God in this test. God’s choice of Abraham included not only the end God purposed (blessings) but also the means (faith and obedience). After his ultimate test on Mount Moriah God can say that the blessings are a result of the obedience which stems from faith. This same sequence of faith is evident in the New Testament (Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 8:28-30). The work of God begins with a promise which must be accepted by faith. Ultimately this faith, if it is genuine, will be demonstrated by good works (James 2). The promises of God are sure to every believer because God is sovereign at every step—from faith to obedience to blessing.

This incident in Abraham's life dealt with a problem that had plagued Abraham all along -- his unhealthy attachment to family. When Abraham had to choose between Isaac and God for his first loyalty, his obedience finally put this problem to rest. This obedience to the revealed will of God justified his profession of faith (James 2:17-23). A faith which is professed but not practiced is mere lip-service. While Abraham was justified before God by believing the promise of God (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3), he was justified before men by his obedience. God could look on Abraham’s heart and know that his faith was genuine; we must look at his obedience to know if his profession was genuine.

Abraham's obedience resulted from spiritual growth and deeper insight into the person and promises of God. No experience in Abraham's life made the person and work of Christ more evident. Before, he'd known by faith that God provided; after, he KNEW that God provided. This event prepared Abraham for the future, for the death of Sarah, his beloved wife. God’s tests are often preparatory for greater things ahead.

God used this incident on Mount Moriah to instruct the nation Israel, who received this book from the pen of Moses while wandering in the desert before reaching the Promised Land. For those who had just received the Law with its complex sacrificial system, this event in Abraham's life ave a much deeper understanding of the significance of sacrifice. Sacrifice, they would understand, was substitutionary. The animal died in place of man just as the ram was provided in Isaac’s stead. They should also perceive that ultimately an only Son must come to pay the price for sin which no animal can possibly do. The sacrifice on Mount Moriah gave a deeper and fuller significance to the whole sacrificial system of the Law.

This incident was also intended for our edification and instruction (1Corinthians 10:6-11). It is a beautiful foreshadow of the death of Jesus Christ. Abraham equals God, the Father, Who out of love for mankind, gave His only Son as a sacrifice for sinners (John 3:16). Isaac equals Christ, Who submitted to the will of His Father, bearing the wood as Jesus bore His cross (John 19:17). The three day journey of Abraham and Isaac signified the three days between the death of Jesus and His resurrection (John 20; 1Corinthians 15:4). Isaac was "sacrificed" at the place where Jesus would give His life centuries later -- Mount Moriah outside of Jerusalem (which is also where God appeared to David and Solomon built the Temple). What a beautiful illustration of the infinite wisdom of God and of the inspiration of God’s holy Scripture!

Beyond anything else, this passage reminds Christians of the importance of obedience. Because Abraham obeyed God the promised blessings were confirmed once more. While our works never save us, saving faith must inevitably be shown by good works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

In a way, this explains the seeming contradiction of the Christian life. Abraham gained his son by giving him up to God. Christians "get ahead" in God's eyes by putting ourselves behind others (Matthew 23:11; Philippians 2:5). We lead by serving and save our lives by losing them (Matthew 16:25). God's ways are not man's ways.

However, the Christian life is not devoid of reason or rationality. That should never be the message we take from this passage. Though some critics suggest that Christians must leave their brains at the churchhouse door, this is an erroneous premise. Yes, Abraham was commanded by God to do something that seemed unreasonable. How could Abraham become the father of multitudes through Isaac if Isaac was dead? That seems so beyond the character of God (as it must have seemed to Abraham at the time). The writer of Hebrews (11:17-19) noted that Abraham acted upon reason (Greek word logizomai). This was no blind "leap of faith". Non-believers like to believe that they act according to reason while Christians act without thinking -- even against rationality. This is completely false! The truth is that worldly reason and Godly reason to totally different from one another (Matthew 16:23; Romans 8:5-7; 12:1-3). Worldly reason is based on the presupposition that the material world is all that we can know and all that exists, while Christian reasoning is based upon the presuppositional belief that there is a God, Who is both our creator and redeemer (Hebrews 11). We hold that God's Word is absolutely true and reliable. Abraham believed that God had promised a son through Sarah through whom blessings would be given; when God commanded that Abraham sacrifice that son, Abraham believed God and obeyed even though human reasoning would question Godly wisdom.

Remember, Abraham's reasoning was based on many years of experience with God, Who had continually proven Himself as provider and protector. Abraham did not understand why God had commanded him to sacrifice his son nor how God would accomplish His promises if Abraham obeyed, but he did know Who had commanded it and therefore, trusted that God could do it.

Abraham assured Isaac that God would provide a lamb (verse 8), and God did (verse 13). The principle is not that God will provide at a certain place, but under a certain condition. At the point of faith and obedience, at the point of helplessness and dependence, God will provide. Perhaps, we do not see God’s provision because we are not at a point of despair. God sometimes must bring us to Abraham's position on Mount Moriah—totally depending upon God for deliverance. There we must acknowledge that God has provided. This is the point men and women must come to in order to be saved. We must see ourselves as lost sinners, deserving of God’s eternal wrath. We must forsake any faith in ourselves and any work we might do to win God’s favor. We must look only to God to provide the forgiveness of sins and righteousness required for salvation. God’s provision has been made by the death of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Only by reaching the point of despair and the end of ourselves can we also reach the point of salvation where we will cast all our hope upon Jesus and find salvation.