Let's look at Esau. He liked hunting. His father, Isaac, liked that he liked hunting. It's a man thing. Does that make Esau suspect? I don't think so. Is it somehow a blot on a person's character because they like hunting? How could that be? It's a legitimate method of obtaining food, a demonstration of skill and courage. The fact of hunting is not what casts a shadow on Esau's character. It casts a shadow on Isaac's because he allowed that factor, along with Esau being his firstborn, to prejudice him against the true chosen one - Jacob. It is Isaac's character that is at issue when the bible points out that part of Esau's life.
The more serious issues begin with his sale of the birthright, which I've discussed in length. Then there's his marriage to two Canaanite women,the same Canaanites whom God would instruct the Israelites to utterly annihilate because of their religious, moral, and societal perversity. Again, Esau's ability or refusal to make judgments according to God's standards is demonstrated. Ultimately, Esau doesn't care about God or His standards. Nowhere in the narrative does the reader see Esau seeking anything higher than filling his belly and getting what he thinks is his due - the birth right and the Blessing. Yet, he can sell the birthright and comment on it as if it's not worth his time or concern. When he gets what is his due, that is, what God considers his due, he reacts with the attitude of Cain - kill the brother whom God favored. Actually, Cain is presented as a more admirable character. At least, God warned Cain about not submitting to temptation, as if there was hope for him. With Esau, the status of hunter gains bad press; he's a hunter in the worst sense of the word - he will hunt a human who displeases him.
This is a picture of complete selfishness, self-absorption, narcissism, and and spoiled-brattism. So, why do teachers and preachers accuse Jacob of selfishness and cunning and being spoiled?
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Why we slander Jacob 2
Let's be perfectly clear. No matter what you may think of any of my other posts on this blog, the bible clearly teaches that Esau's sale of the birthright was the evidence of his rejection by God, not the cause. On the other side of the coin, Jacob's purchase of the birthright was the evidence of God's choosing him, not of him being fraud. Jacob purchased what was most valuable, what was passed down from Abraham. It had nothing to do with selfishness or cheating or greed or money or inheritance of lands or flocks. It had everything to do with the blessing of God.
It meant that a man who was unlike the entire world, including his own brother, because he knew that what counts is not land, or property, or money, or power, or even a father's favor. What matters is the favor of God. Strangely, Esau knew later that what he had lost was valuable. Yet, he thought he could treat it lightly and not suffer for it. That's another thing that scares us - the one-time decision he made was unchangeable. I am not sure of all that this event means for us, but I do know that we should emulate Jacob, not Esau, and value what God values. Yet, the majority of teaching about Jacob seems to favor a negative view of his positive choice.
I know why I have had a prejudice against Jacob in the past. He's chosen. That's right, I envy him because he's chosen. In other words, he did nothing to receive God's blessing. He was chosen before birth. But this is the Christian message - we do nothing to deserve our salvation. How can Christians, who above all others should acknowledge the message of unearned salvation, have a problem with Jacob?
Perhaps we have been too much like Esau, not valuing what God values. Perhaps we envy Jacob, who unlike Esau valued what God valued. We must overcome our own fleshly failure of the past and believe that Esau's destiny is not our destiny, that we have been born again to a living hope. If Christ's atonement means anything, it should mean we can accept our failures, no matter how Esau-like, and recognize that we have been born again to be like Jacob, valuing what God values.
It meant that a man who was unlike the entire world, including his own brother, because he knew that what counts is not land, or property, or money, or power, or even a father's favor. What matters is the favor of God. Strangely, Esau knew later that what he had lost was valuable. Yet, he thought he could treat it lightly and not suffer for it. That's another thing that scares us - the one-time decision he made was unchangeable. I am not sure of all that this event means for us, but I do know that we should emulate Jacob, not Esau, and value what God values. Yet, the majority of teaching about Jacob seems to favor a negative view of his positive choice.
I know why I have had a prejudice against Jacob in the past. He's chosen. That's right, I envy him because he's chosen. In other words, he did nothing to receive God's blessing. He was chosen before birth. But this is the Christian message - we do nothing to deserve our salvation. How can Christians, who above all others should acknowledge the message of unearned salvation, have a problem with Jacob?
Perhaps we have been too much like Esau, not valuing what God values. Perhaps we envy Jacob, who unlike Esau valued what God valued. We must overcome our own fleshly failure of the past and believe that Esau's destiny is not our destiny, that we have been born again to a living hope. If Christ's atonement means anything, it should mean we can accept our failures, no matter how Esau-like, and recognize that we have been born again to be like Jacob, valuing what God values.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Most Difficult Defense
Perhaps, the defense of Jacob's reputation I've found most difficult is Laban's switch of Leah with Rachel. It is one reason why I have posted nothing for a month. It appears to be a reaping of what Jacob had sown by his deception of his father, Isaac. This is a superficial similarity and a careful analysis will demonstrate the significant differences and similarities.
First, we need to recognize that Jacob's conduct is not at issue here. In other words, when people point to his marriage to Leah as some type of punishment for what he had done earlier with respect to the Blessing, they are arguing from an end result, not from actual conduct by Jacob. Of course at this point in a chapter by chapter study of Genesis, most teachers have already indicted Jacob instead of seeing his acts as necessary and justified. As far as Jacob's conduct is concerned, his conduct is impeccable from the time he leaves Canaan until the marriage ceremony, which in itself argues against the charge of scoundrel that gets placed upon Jacob by so many, but that issue is for another defense at another time.
Second, how did Jacob behave when he left Canaan? He obeys his parents by leaving Canaan, and he obeys God by consenting to travel hundreds of miles to find a wife from his mother's family. The night of his departure, Jacob sees a vision of Christ (the ladder for the angels), upon seeing Rachel, he exercises leadership and service in removing the stome from the well to water the flocks. Upon meeting Laban, he agrees to work for his keep. And upon being asked what his wages will be, he declines any monetary gain and tells Laban he'll work 7 years for his daugher's hand in marriage. Jacob expresses nobility, sacrifice, valuation of his bride similar to the valuation of Christ of his bride, and love all at once.
Laban, on the other hand, sees nothing but dollar signs. From the time Abraham's servant first showed up with jewels and gifts of all kinds, so that Rebecca's family would allow her to leave and marry Isaac, Laban has seen the family of Abraham as some kind of mark or target for scamming. That is proven later by the manner of his treatment of Jacob, his own son in law.
Third, what are the similarities between the deception of Isaac and the substitution of Leah for Rachel in the marriage bed? The two deceptions involved permanent relationships - one a covenantal relationship with God, the other a covenant with a woman. Also, deception was involved, specifically deception as to physical appearance.
Fourth, the differences, or at least the correct understanding of the similarities, are enormous. Remember, the deception involved in the Blessing and Esau was actually an attempted fraud by Esau and his father upon Jacob. Jacob's deception was a correction of that fraud. Let me ask you something. With respect to a relationship with God, who is the initiator? Man or God? Who chooses whom? How about ministry? Does man choose to be a called minister (a contradiction in terms), or does God choose who will minister for Him? The answer is contained in the question.
Here's an example: What if I told you that I was going to choose whether you would be saved? Or that you would or would not be called to be an ordained minister of the gospel? You would think I was crazy. But what if I was your father? What if I told you that your brother, not you, would get the calling? While still a questionable or even arrogant position for even a father to take, you might be swayed somewhat to believe that perhaps your own father might have insight into which of his sons should get saved or be a minister. But what if your father had clear guidance from God, with the concurrence of his wife (your mother), that you were to be the one to be saved or be a called minister, but he still told you your brother was the one? This was Isaac's sin; he was attempting to usurp from God the very decision that only God can make, that is, the decision as to what relationship He will have with a human being. The Westminster Confession of Faith calls this election, or effectual calling. It is a privilege of God's sovereignty. Any attempt by man to interfere with God's sovereignty is a severe transgression of the pregative that belongs to God Almighty alone.
There are other biblical examples. It is like Cain being jealous of Abel, whose sacrifice God found satisfying and acceptable. It is like King Saul being jealous of and attempting to kill David, whom God had chosen to replace Saul as King. It is like Jezebel attempting to kill all the prophets of God, including Elijah, and replace them with the prophets of Baal. It is like the false prophets of Israel inventing prophesies to counter Jeremiah's prophecies about the coming judgment upon Jerusalem; God told Jeremiah, "I never sent them." It is like Jesus' parable about the vineyard keepers who kill the owner's heir, thinking they will inherit the vineyard when they actually inherit execution. It is like the execution of Jesus, the true Son, who was labeled a false son. It is like the martyrdom of those upon whom God had placed his special love through salvation, and whom Rome tried to replace with Caesar's sons. The replacement of the true with the false is the basis for the persecution of God's people from the beginning of time until today, and it is an honor to be persecuted, even to die, because you have a special relationship with the true God. This relationship can be contrived, but if so, it is a false one.
To bring the analogy home for the modern reader, it is like taking your spouse from you and replacing her or him with another. The person taking your spouse justfies the taking with high sounding law and justification, but you feel violated nonetheless. You have been told with whom you will have the most intimate relationship a person can have. And that is what Laban did to Jacob. Thus, what Isaac and Esau failed to do toward Jacob, Laban succeeded in doing. The one relationship - with God - was under God's control; therefore, man, i.e., Isaac and Esau, could not succeed in arresting that covenant. However, the other was under the father of the bride's control. The father determines whom his daughters marry.
So, Laban determined which daughter would marry, but he did not do it the right way, nor does his deception against Jacob mean Jacob is reaping what he sowed. It means that those who persecute use the same tactic - try to take what only God can give. In Laban's case, it worked to the good of Jacob - he gets two wives. Remember that Leah was mother to half of Jacob's twelve sons. God turned Laban's deception against Jacob into a blessing for Jacob; that's what He does for His children. Quite a blessing she turned out to be. Yet, Rachel was his love, the one with whom he wanted a relationship. As the man, Jacob should have determined who that would be and initiated the relationship. And he did, just not in the order and way he wanted. It does not mean he was reaping what he had sown. The incident simply means that Laban was a deceiver, he as the father determined which daughter would marry, and he also tried to usurp the relationship hierarchy, but only temporarily. He had promised Rachel to Jacob, and he eventually had to make good on that promise.
First, we need to recognize that Jacob's conduct is not at issue here. In other words, when people point to his marriage to Leah as some type of punishment for what he had done earlier with respect to the Blessing, they are arguing from an end result, not from actual conduct by Jacob. Of course at this point in a chapter by chapter study of Genesis, most teachers have already indicted Jacob instead of seeing his acts as necessary and justified. As far as Jacob's conduct is concerned, his conduct is impeccable from the time he leaves Canaan until the marriage ceremony, which in itself argues against the charge of scoundrel that gets placed upon Jacob by so many, but that issue is for another defense at another time.
Second, how did Jacob behave when he left Canaan? He obeys his parents by leaving Canaan, and he obeys God by consenting to travel hundreds of miles to find a wife from his mother's family. The night of his departure, Jacob sees a vision of Christ (the ladder for the angels), upon seeing Rachel, he exercises leadership and service in removing the stome from the well to water the flocks. Upon meeting Laban, he agrees to work for his keep. And upon being asked what his wages will be, he declines any monetary gain and tells Laban he'll work 7 years for his daugher's hand in marriage. Jacob expresses nobility, sacrifice, valuation of his bride similar to the valuation of Christ of his bride, and love all at once.
Laban, on the other hand, sees nothing but dollar signs. From the time Abraham's servant first showed up with jewels and gifts of all kinds, so that Rebecca's family would allow her to leave and marry Isaac, Laban has seen the family of Abraham as some kind of mark or target for scamming. That is proven later by the manner of his treatment of Jacob, his own son in law.
Third, what are the similarities between the deception of Isaac and the substitution of Leah for Rachel in the marriage bed? The two deceptions involved permanent relationships - one a covenantal relationship with God, the other a covenant with a woman. Also, deception was involved, specifically deception as to physical appearance.
Fourth, the differences, or at least the correct understanding of the similarities, are enormous. Remember, the deception involved in the Blessing and Esau was actually an attempted fraud by Esau and his father upon Jacob. Jacob's deception was a correction of that fraud. Let me ask you something. With respect to a relationship with God, who is the initiator? Man or God? Who chooses whom? How about ministry? Does man choose to be a called minister (a contradiction in terms), or does God choose who will minister for Him? The answer is contained in the question.
Here's an example: What if I told you that I was going to choose whether you would be saved? Or that you would or would not be called to be an ordained minister of the gospel? You would think I was crazy. But what if I was your father? What if I told you that your brother, not you, would get the calling? While still a questionable or even arrogant position for even a father to take, you might be swayed somewhat to believe that perhaps your own father might have insight into which of his sons should get saved or be a minister. But what if your father had clear guidance from God, with the concurrence of his wife (your mother), that you were to be the one to be saved or be a called minister, but he still told you your brother was the one? This was Isaac's sin; he was attempting to usurp from God the very decision that only God can make, that is, the decision as to what relationship He will have with a human being. The Westminster Confession of Faith calls this election, or effectual calling. It is a privilege of God's sovereignty. Any attempt by man to interfere with God's sovereignty is a severe transgression of the pregative that belongs to God Almighty alone.
There are other biblical examples. It is like Cain being jealous of Abel, whose sacrifice God found satisfying and acceptable. It is like King Saul being jealous of and attempting to kill David, whom God had chosen to replace Saul as King. It is like Jezebel attempting to kill all the prophets of God, including Elijah, and replace them with the prophets of Baal. It is like the false prophets of Israel inventing prophesies to counter Jeremiah's prophecies about the coming judgment upon Jerusalem; God told Jeremiah, "I never sent them." It is like Jesus' parable about the vineyard keepers who kill the owner's heir, thinking they will inherit the vineyard when they actually inherit execution. It is like the execution of Jesus, the true Son, who was labeled a false son. It is like the martyrdom of those upon whom God had placed his special love through salvation, and whom Rome tried to replace with Caesar's sons. The replacement of the true with the false is the basis for the persecution of God's people from the beginning of time until today, and it is an honor to be persecuted, even to die, because you have a special relationship with the true God. This relationship can be contrived, but if so, it is a false one.
To bring the analogy home for the modern reader, it is like taking your spouse from you and replacing her or him with another. The person taking your spouse justfies the taking with high sounding law and justification, but you feel violated nonetheless. You have been told with whom you will have the most intimate relationship a person can have. And that is what Laban did to Jacob. Thus, what Isaac and Esau failed to do toward Jacob, Laban succeeded in doing. The one relationship - with God - was under God's control; therefore, man, i.e., Isaac and Esau, could not succeed in arresting that covenant. However, the other was under the father of the bride's control. The father determines whom his daughters marry.
So, Laban determined which daughter would marry, but he did not do it the right way, nor does his deception against Jacob mean Jacob is reaping what he sowed. It means that those who persecute use the same tactic - try to take what only God can give. In Laban's case, it worked to the good of Jacob - he gets two wives. Remember that Leah was mother to half of Jacob's twelve sons. God turned Laban's deception against Jacob into a blessing for Jacob; that's what He does for His children. Quite a blessing she turned out to be. Yet, Rachel was his love, the one with whom he wanted a relationship. As the man, Jacob should have determined who that would be and initiated the relationship. And he did, just not in the order and way he wanted. It does not mean he was reaping what he had sown. The incident simply means that Laban was a deceiver, he as the father determined which daughter would marry, and he also tried to usurp the relationship hierarchy, but only temporarily. He had promised Rachel to Jacob, and he eventually had to make good on that promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)