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.
No comments:
Post a Comment