CRITICAL NOTES.—
Genesis 27:45. Why should I be deprived also of you both in one day? If Esau killed Jacob, she must lose them both, for the avenger of blood would punish Esau with death.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Genesis 27:41-46
ESAU’S RESENTMENT
I. It was carnal. There is a proper resentment which comes of righteous indignation against evil and wrong. It is a noble sentiment in us when we stand up for truth and the law of God, as against the errors and oppositions of unrighteous men. But Esau did not rise to this moral nobility. He only regarded his own personal interests. It was something done against himself that he resented, and not something done against the interests of God’s righteous rule in the world. Yet there was much apparent justice on Esau’s side of this conflict. He was the acknowledged firstborn; he had obeyed the last request of his father. Now there was a bold and heartless attempt to deprive him of his proper rights, against common usage and natural law. His right was unquestionable, and we may well suppose that any jury of his fellow men would support him in the assertion of it. He had his father’s real intention on his side, which might be supposed to cancel any foolish deed he had done in a moment of temptation. Why then should he patiently endure the opposition of his brother? But his conduct was altogether selfish. He had no large and generous views, no regard for the interests of God’s kingdom in the world. He was not seeking true repentance, for then he would have humbled himself for his sin. He would have humbly tried to know what the will of the Lord was, and have been willing to accept a share in the covenant blessing on any terms. The Old Testament regards all human conduct as having relation to the will and pleasure of God, and to be hereby estimated. In this light Esau’s conduct must be considered as carnal, and not spiritual.
II. It was overruled for good. Esau’s enmity against his brother had the effect of promoting the further separation between the church and the world. Jacob is preserved from alliance by marriage with the ungodly. He is put in the way of contracting a better marriage than Esau, such as would ensure the purity and nobility of the chosen race. Rebekah contrives not only to save Jacob from his brother’s anger, but also to save him from falling into the same sin of an ungodly marriage. Thus human passions, and the conflict of private and selfish interests are made to work out the designs of God.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Genesis 27:41. Whatever feeling of commiseration or sympathy we may hitherto have cherished for Esau in seeing him supplanted by the subtlety of Jacob, it is all banished from our bosoms when we behold him inwardly cherishing the most malignant passions, and cooly anticipating the time when he can imbue his hands in the blood of his brother. His guilt in this assumes an awfully atrocious character. His hatred was of the same nature as that of Cain towards Abel, and of Saul towards David, being directed against him, principally on account of his having been a special object of the Divine favour. Under these circumstances, the attempt to take Jacob’s life was virtually waging war with the high purposes of heaven, and an attempt to frustrate the decree of God by a stroke of his sword. The same spirit of hatred seems to have been perpetuated in his posterity against the seed of Jacob. As nothing but the death of Jacob could comfort Esau, so nothing could satisfy his descendants but to see Jerusalem “razed to its foundations.”—(Bush.)
He who cannot feel indignant at some kinds of wrong has not the mind of Christ. Remember the words with which He blighted Pharasaism, words not spoken for effect, but syllables of downright, genuine anger. Very different from this was Esau’s resentment. Anger in him had passed into malice; private wrong had been brooded on till it had become revenge, deliberate and planned vindictiveness. Turn once more to the life of the Redeemer; you find scarcely a trace of resentment for injury done merely to himself. Wrong and injustice he felt; but that it was done to Him added nothing to His feeling.—(Robertson.)
Jacob was held back by respect for his father, but he had no consideration for the grief of his mother.
Genesis 27:42. The unhappy mother begins to reap according as she had sown. The safety of her favourite can only be secured at the price of his banishment. We see from this that though their imposition succeeded, yet it was a success that embittered the whole life both of Jacob and his parents. Rebekah, the contriver of the fraud, was deprived of her favourite son, probably for the rest of her days. Instead of the elder serving the younger, Jacob was now a banished stranger, a wandering fugitive, in continual terror of his enraged brother. The retributive justice of Heaven is seen pursuing him at every step.
1. He who had imposed upon his father is himself imposed upon by his uncle in the circumstances of his marriage.
2. The continual jealousies and hatred between his wives must have reminded him of his own want of paternal affection.
3. Continual feuds prevailed among his own children.
4. He was himself the dupe of an imposture more successful even than that by which he had deceived his father. Joseph, his beloved son, was sold by his brethren, and stated to have been slain. The rest of the life of Jacob was signalised by scenes of domestic trouble and vexation, which had their origin in the unhappy step we are now considering.—(Bush.)
Genesis 27:43-44. These “few days” proved to be a period of twenty years. How little we can do towards the disposal of the times and events of our life!
Genesis 27:45. Rebekah’s repentance is changed into an atonement by the heroic valour of her faith.—(Lange.)
But why does Rebekah fear a twofold bereavement? It is indeed possible that she may have apprehended that a murderous attack from Esau upon his brother might arouse him in self-defence, so that it should be only at the expense of the aggressor’s life that he should lose his own. But a more probable explanation is the following:—If Esau had killed Jacob, he would have been liable either to have been punished with death, according to the law (Genesis 9:6), or to have been driven into exile like Cain, where he would have been virtually lost to her for ever.—(Bush.)
And he forgets what thou hast done to him. With this she both acknowledges Jacob’s guilt, and betrays a precise knowledge of Esau’s character. Let us not despair too soon of men. Are there not twelve hours during the day? The great fury and fiery indignation pass away with time.—(Luther.)
Genesis 27:46. It would appear that Rebekah was here framing an excuse for Jacob’s departure, and concealing the true cause. It was expedient before Jacob’s departure to obtain his father’s concurrence. But in order to do this, she passes over the true reason of the proposed journey in silence, knowing that he, as well as herself, had been grieved by Esau’s wives, she now pretends to fear that Jacob may form a similar connection, and makes this the ostensible reason why he should go immediately to Padanaram—viz., that he might take a wife from among their relations in that country. She does not propose it directly, but merely in the form of a bitter complaint of the conduct of Esau’s wives. But this policy completely answered its end, as is clear from the next chapter.—(Bush.)
How sagacious this pious woman: she conceals to her husband the great misfortune and affliction existing in the house, so as not to bring sorrow upon Isaac in his old age.—(Luther.)
IMPORTANT REFLECTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE FOREGOING NARRATIVE
I. The history furnishes an admonitory lesson to parents. Parents complain of their children when, perhaps, the fault is to be traced mainly to themselves. They have indulged an early partiality, founded upon no just reasons, which has been productive on both sides of the worst effects. Let them guard with anxious vigilance against the symptoms of a week favouritism towards their children. A wise Providence often points out the sin in the punishment, and teaches parents discretion in the discharge of their duties by setting before their eyes the bad effects which flow from the want of it.
II. We may learn from this history not to make the supposed designs of God the rule of our conduct. We say, “supposed designs,” because as to us they can be only supposed. It may please God to foretell future events, but it is not, therefore our duty by crooked means to bring them to pass. God does not give prophecy for a rule of action. He will accomplish His own purposes in His own way. We are to follow what is fair and just, and honourable, and leave the consequences to God.
III. We are reminded that the way to success and to prosperity in our undertakings is often not that which appears the shortest, or even the surest. Jacob was, indeed, for the time being, successful in his fraudulent device; but what fruits had he of his triumph? He sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. Soon was he forced to fly from his brother’s wrath, and years of trouble followed his departure from the parental mansion. Had he permitted God to accomplish His declaration in His own way; had his conduct towards his brother been kind and affectionate, and free from guile, we cannot doubt that his history would have been far different. The true source of prosperity is the blessing of God, and this cannot be counted upon except in strict adherence to the principles of rectitude. A man is exposed to temptation; some great advantage offers itself; a little art or deceit in supplanting another is thought indispensable; excuses are not wanting to justify the act. But what, in general, is the result? Either his arts recoil against himself, and he is utterly disappointed of his aim; or if he apparently succeeds, his success is rather a curse than a blessing. Our highest wisdom and our surest safety lie in the course of plain, simple, undeviating integrity.
IV. We are taught that regret is often unavailing to restore an offender to the privileges of innocence. Esau, having sold the birthright and lost the blessing, discovered his error too late. The blessing once gone was gone for ever; and tears, and prayers, and exclamations were in vain employed to recover it. Let us learn, then, that however momentous the consequences depending upon a single wrong step, they may be irretrievable. Regret, however bitter; entreaty, however urgent, may come too late. In vain shall we look for our former peace of mind, the sweets of conscious innocence, and the fruits of pleasing hope. We may seek for them with tears, but they will not be found. Let us not by yielding to temptation, cast away our confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.—(Bush.)