Get your own Free Home PageIf so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---
NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS
If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.
Jacob and Esau
The remarkable relationship between these two men is worthy of notice. They were twins. Esau was the active one and loved hunting, while Jacob preferred a more sedentary life. Esau, as the eldest by a few minutes, had the right to be head of the family and to take over leadership after Isaac died. But, like many active men, he considered this of no great importance. Rather than remain and learn how to administer and control the shepherding of the flocks and herds he went off to enjoy himself, and we learn that he so despised his birthright that he was willing to barter it for food one day when he came in hungry from hunting.
This incident was not to Jacob’s credit, and God had to deal with him severely before He could confirm him in his position. But it does demonstrate that Jacob treasured leadership of the family tribe, while Esau despised it. (The incidents are recorded as facts, and as fulfilling the birth prophecy (25.23), not as showing approval). The phrase ‘Esau ate and drank, rose up and went away’ (25.34) brings out his callous attitude to what he had done.
Jacob’s unscrupulousness comes out again when, at the instigation of his mother, he pretends to be Esau and steals Esau’s ‘blessing’. The deathbed blessing was seen as conferring important rights. It should however be noted that Jacob could justly claim that this was his right now that he owned the birthright (27.37 shows the content of the blessing which parallelled the birthright) and that he was preventing himself from being cheated. It may be that Isaac was not aware of the earlier deal, but it is more probable that he chose to ignore it out of favouritism. Esau presumably had dismissed the situation, possibly at his father’s instigation. But a solemn covenant (notice Jacob’s insistence on an oath - 25.33) was looked on as binding in those days, however obtained, and they were both decidedly in the wrong.
It is noteworthy that the blessing would not have suited Esau. He was not interested in ‘the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine’. He was a hunter. The later blessing which he received (27.39-40) was much more his style, as he seems to have recognised later on when he welcomes Jacob back home (33.4). The whole account is honest and puts everyone in a bad light, but it does suggest that Esau was too happy-go-lucky to make a good patriarch. He was too dismissive of what was important, and too taken up with relative trivialities. He was not of the stuff of ‘management’.
Jacob pays a price in that he has to flee the tribe to escape Esau’s vengeance. But his mother is careful to arrange that it is with Isaac’s approval, lest his position be affected. It should be noted that Isaac now acknowledges Jacob’s position as inheritor of Abraham’s blessing (28.4). But his mother too pays a price. She is never to see her favourite son again.
God also accepts the situation (28.13-15), founded as it is on the customs of the tribe. He is determined that if Jacob is to be leader he will be a good leader. This shows neither approval of what he has done, nor acknowledgement of his worthiness. It demonstrates rather the grace of God in the fulfilling of His promises to Abraham. He knows that Jacob has many lessons to learn, and will ensure that he learns them. God sees men not as they are but as they will be.
When Jacob arrives among his father’s relatives he soon discovers that he is not the only one capable of trickery, and finds himself saddled with an unwanted wife and a lengthy servitude. He too has to accept a fait accompli. Solemn covenants, however obtained, could not be broken. It is ironic that he who supplanted his elder brother contrary to custom now loses out because of a similar custom (that the elder must marry first). The working for a wife and the demand that he take no other wives is testified to in texts elsewhere.
Jacob faithfully carries out his part of the covenant and works as a bondservant for Laban for fourteen years, and so impresses Laban with his success that Laban wants him to remain longer. The resulting manoeuvrings between the two as they constantly seek to outwit each other (with the utmost Eastern courtesy) are, at this distance of time, amusing, although deadly serious at the time, and in the end Laban discovers that he has met his match. After he has cheated Jacob, Jacob gets his own back by making an arrangement, based on specialist knowledge, that results in a large part of Laban’s possessions becoming his own. Not surprisingly Laban is no longer impressed, and Jacob realises it is time to return home. It should be noted that Jacob now presides over a family tribe in his own right (30.43).
It is interesting that Jacob has to discuss with his wives whether they will go with him. He has been a bondservant to Laban and it was customary for a bondservant to leave his wives behind when he left service (compare Exodus 21.4). They belong to the tribe (compare 31.26). But Laban has even cheated his own daughters so that they are in no doubt. He has treated them as ‘strangers’ (without family rights) by utilising for himself his daughter’s possessions once he had passed his daughters over to Jacob (31.15). Thus he had severed any rights the ‘family’ had over them. But Laban might not see it this way so he sneaks away while Laban’s back is turned. He may also have feared that Laban would demand a high price for letting him go. Tribal loyalties were strong, and the tribe possibly now saw him as ‘one of them’. For him to leave was a diminution of the tribe, especially as he bore with him men, women and animals that were a part of the tribe.
His attempt is futile, and the whole wider tribe in combination (31.23 - ‘he took his brethren’) go after him ‘a seven days journey’ (a long journey, compared with a ‘three day journey’ which meant a comparatively short journey - see our Use of Numbers). It would actually take longer than seven days to reach Mount Gilead. This demonstrates how seriously the situation is viewed. It was not just a matter between Jacob and Laban. It was a matter for the whole tribe. He must not be allowed to break free from the confederation with his wives and cattle.
A divine encounter alters the situation. God warns Laban that the matter is out of his hands (he must ‘say’ neither good nor bad i.e. he has no say in what is to happen) and Jacob is under divine protection. It must have been an awe-inspiring experience which left him visibly shaken, for it proves more powerful than the concept of tribal loyalty, which was not a thing taken lightly, and he has to convince his ‘brethren’.
Thwarted, Laban tries to put the best light on the situation. He can hardly have brought the whole confederation with him just over an argument about a farewell party (31.27-28). (There is an interesting contrast here with Rebekah (24.60). She was seen off with a farewell party because the tribe had accepted ‘payment’ in return for her and they were committing her to the protection of a related tribe. Laban pretends he would have done the same. But why then the show of strength?). He then accuses Jacob of stealing his ‘teraphim’ (gods). These were small cultic objects, and according to 1 Samuel 19.13ff must have had the shape of a man or of a human face. They were used in obtaining oracles (Ezekiel 21.21) and elsewhere (at Nuzi) conveyed rights of headship to the family tribe. The latter reason may well have been why Rachel has taken them, as she and Leah clearly felt bitter about the way their father had disinherited them.
Jacob’s reply demonstrates how serious a matter the taking of his wives from the tribe was. He acknowledges that he is thwarting custom, and declares that he knows nothing about the teraphim. Laban (having failed to find the teraphim) stresses in return how he and the tribe will no longer be able to protect his daughters due to Jacob’s defection (31.43). He clearly feels this deeply and insists on a covenant before the gods (the gods of Abraham’s father and the gods of Nahor were not the God of Abraham (Joshua 24.2)), who can watch over it (31.50). In return he guarantees that Jacob will not be molested in the future.
(That the taking of the wives was the prime issue is shown by the fact that the teraphim is only mentioned later, whereas it would have provided a good face-saver if it had been considered a central issue. Laban clearly did not see this as being included in the prohibition to ‘say good or bad’, whereas had it been a central issue he would have done).
The incident where Jacob meets God’s ‘messengers’ at Mahanaim (meaning ‘two camps’) (32.1-2), while briefly recorded, is charged with significance. While Jacob has served Laban he has received no divine visitations. His last vivid experience of God was at Bethel prior to leaving the ‘promised land’ (28.10-22). There he had received assurance that he was in the covenant line. Now this certainty is confirmed. He is welcomed back by spiritual agents, ‘angels (messengers) of God’, and declares ‘this is God’s camp’. Possibly he has in mind that they are there as a military camp, a heavenly guarantee of security from Laban. They are certainly a reminder of his future responsibilities. The idea in the name would appear to be that his camp and God’s camp are side by side in mutual association.
Jacob now has to contend with the fact that he must face Esau again. He sends messengers ahead to Edom to let ‘Lord’ Esau know that he is coming as a wealthy man. He clearly has in mind (as comes out later) that Esau will be flattered by this approach and recognise in it the promise of a bribe, or to put it more kindly, an assurance of some kind of restitution. To his horror he learns that Esau is not safe in Edom but is actually coming to meet him with ‘four hundred’ men (a rounded approximation). To his guilty conscience this can only mean one thing. He thus changes his tactics and prepares emergency plans and makes emergency prayers. Positive proof of his wealth, and his willingness to share it with Esau, is sent before him in sections, with the hope that each section will gradually assuage Esau’s anger (he judges Esau by his own standards). It is probable that we are also to see in these actions a genuine sorrow in Jacob at the way he had previously treated his brother. Twenty years can change a man’s perspective.
Then comes an experience that changes Jacob’s life. This is undoubtedly the significance of his being given a new name. Having organised the crossing of the River Jabbok he finds himself alone at night on one bank of the river. There a man approaches him and he finds himself in a long and arduous wrestling match. It is an even match until the man ‘touches the hollow of his (Jacob’s) thigh’ which instantly cripples Jacob. Jacob immediately recognises that this is a divine visitiation and he clings to the man, demanding a blessing. The blessing is a new name, ‘Israel’ (meaning a prince of God), an assurance that he has been given power both to prevail with God and to rule over men. This is confirmation that his pre-eminence over the people of God (Isaac’s household and tribe) is now accepted. He is at last worthy of the position. He later celebrates the occasion by buying land on which to build a permanent altar to God, naming it ‘God, the God of Israel’ as a reminder of his change of circumstances (33.18-20).
The arrival of Esau is a revelation. He has come with love in his heart for this twin brother who had ‘cheated’ him. It would appear that he is leader of a raiding band of some kind, and is in his element. It is something far more suited to his character than directly presiding over sheep and cattle, and agriculture, and has made him wealthy. He bears no grudge Indeed he even wants to offer Jacob his protection (possibly against bands similar to Esau’s). But Jacob, while relieved, still judges Esau by his own nature as a schemer, and prefers to be on his own.
Jacob’s final restoration in God’s favour comes by his return to Bethel where he had first met God. He has finally woken up to his responsibilities as a leader of the people of God and purges his tribal household of idolatry (35.2-4). Now he is ready to take over tribal headship. There is also an interesting reference to the need to cleanse oneself before approaching God (v.2) but we are not told how. (Water is never a cleansing instrument in the Old Testament except when mingled with sacrificial ashes. The ritual washings were preparatory to cleansing but are always followed by the refrain - ‘and they shall not be clean until -’ showing that it is not specifically the water that cleanses).
Arriving at Bethel he erects an altar to ‘God of the house of God (Beth-el)’ looking back to God’s previous revelation of Himself to Jacob at this very place. 35.9-10 are a recap (‘when he came out of Padan-Aram’) of the fact that his name has been changed by God, referring back to Peniel. This is to connect the change of name with this renewal of the covenant by means of a theophany. The fact of God’s ‘physical’ presence is stressed (v.13). After all his misbehaviour and wanderings he is now back in the covenant line.
The death of Isaac means that Jacob now takes over headship of the whole family tribe, incorporating his own large ‘household’ into it. However he demonstrates his new sense of responsibility in sharing it with Esau, who now need no longer be a gang leader. He is able to return to Edom a wealthy patriarch in his own right. His new importance comes out in the descriptions of his descendants taken from ‘the history of Esau’. He too is re-established.
Joseph
When we consider the record of the lives of Jacob and Joseph we notice a remarkable change in the narrative. No longer do we have just ‘covenant’ records but a continual history. This can be explained by the fact that a history was written up (possibly using ‘covenant records’ - see the colophon in 37.2) after the arrival in Egypt when papyrus was freely available and they no longer had to depend on clay and stone tablets. As a distinguished personage, the record of Joseph’s background and life would be considered as of great importance.
The Joseph narrative is so sprinkled with accurate details of life in Egypt at that time that even sceptical critics have had to admit that the account has an ancient origin.
The presence of Semites in high positions is well attested throughout the 2nd millennium BC, so that Joseph’s rise to power, while exceptional, is not totally unique.
The price of Joseph as a slave at 20 shekels of silver is correct for that period (Genesis 37.28). According to Kenneth Kitchen the price of a slave was 10-15 shekels in the late 3rd millennium BC, and 20 shekels around 1800-1700 BC. In 15th century Nuzi and Ugarit it was 30 shekels (compare Exodus 21.32) and by the 8th century BC it was up to 50-60 shekels (2 Kings 15.20).
Concerning the caravan which purchased Joseph Kitchen says, “This interchange of terms (Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites) is most plainly exhibited by Judges 8.24 which explicitly states that the Midianites beaten by Gideon had golden earrings because they were Ishmaelites.” He comments elsewhere, “The caravan was Ishmaelite, including under this term Midianites and Medanites; the terms overlap. This interchange of terms is most plainly exhibited by Judges 8.24. The spelling Medanites in the hebrew of Gen.37.6 may indicate an overlap of a third term: compare Gen. 25.2 (1 Chron. 1.32), where both Midian and Medan are sons of Abraham by Keturah. The use of multiple terms in a narrative is indicative not of disparate documents but of typical Near Eastern stylistic usage. For similar use of three terms within a few lines compare the Egyptian stele of Sebbekhu (c.1850 BC), who refers to the one general foe of his Pharaoh’s Palestinian campaign as Mntyw-Stt, “Asiatic bedouin”; as Rntw hst, “vile Syrians”; and as Mw, “Asiatics” --- such examples could be multiplied”.
The account of Joseph’s seduction by the wife of Potiphar bears some resemblance to the Egyptian ‘Tale of Two Brothers’ but the details are very different and suggestions that one is based on the other are considerably far-fetched. Seduction of other men by men’s wives is not a rare phenomenon, (especially when the man is in a position of servitude, which was not so in the case of the two brothers), and rejection would often have resulted in an attempt at revenge (there is no fury like a woman scorned), and that is the major similarity between them. The differences are legion.
The following are some of the evidences of familiarity with the Egyptian background of the time:
The Jospeh account tells us how Joseph bought up all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh (47.20), and there is no doubt that over the middle period of 2nd millenium BC Egypt a major change did occur in the position of the people as against Pharaoh, with a change from a feudal system to one of the Pharaoh being seen as owner of all the land.
An interesting example of the importance of the meaning of numbers appears in chapter 46 where the writer is able by manipulation to bring the number of those of Jacob’s family entering Egypt to seventy (intensified seven). This signified a divinely perfect number. The manipulation is not disguised but is clearly admitted to. Joseph’s two sons, born in Egypt, are included. The writer wished to make clear to his readers that the party entering Egypt did so in God’s perfect plan, and this was what the number seventy conveyed. However, it should be noted that they brought their ‘households’ with them, and these consisted of many servants. In all probably well over a thousand, at a conservative figure, (possibly even five thousand), entered Egypt.
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---
NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS
Get your own Free Home Page