God’s purposes do not fail (Gen 27:1-29)

The story of how Jacob stole Esau’s blessing is fraught with questions. The narrator gives no explicit evaluation, so it is hard to know what to make of it. Does God approve of such deception that Rebekah and Jacob practise on his father? Seemingly, Jacob gets away with it and is never reprimanded by God. Yes, Esau had his faults, too, but taking advantage of a dying and blind father to grasp the blessing is revolting. Although the prophecy given to Rebekah clearly stated that the older son shall serve the younger (Gen 25:23), surely this is the wrong way of going about seeing it fulfilled! What would have happened if Jacob had not taken action? Would God have stopped Isaac blessing the wrong son? While we cannot answer the what-if question, a closer inspection sheds some light on our other queries.

Esau and Isaac

First, note Esau’s marriage prior to our passage (Gen 26:34-35). While Abraham insisted that his son Isaac (also forty at the time) should not marry a local Canaanite (Gen 24:3), Esau marries not one but two such (the Hittites were a people group under the umbrella term ‘Canaanite’, see Deut 7:1). These bring grief (literally ‘bitterness of soul’) to his father and mother. Nevertheless, Isaac favours his firstborn not because of any other merit in Esau but because Isaac has a taste for game (literally ‘game was in his mouth’; Gen 25:28). Even though Esau valued his birthright little and with his marriage went against the family heritage and God’s will, Isaac still preferred him because his son could satisfy his physical appetite. In fact, it is unusual for a father to call in only one son at his deathbed to give a blessing,[1] which suggests that Isaac completely ignores his other son (note how Esau is described as ‘his son’, while Jacob is ‘her son’; Gen 27:5-6). Ironically, Isaac’s blindness is not only physical but also spiritual.

Rebekah and Jacob

This background makes us understand why Rebekah does not let things rest. However, taking advantage of Isaac’s blindness and diminished faculties is still despicable. Moreover, Jacob’s reservations over the plan have more to do with the consequences if it all goes wrong than any moral objections. Nevertheless, it does show that he recognises how wrong such action is and that he would deserve a curse for it (Gen 27:11-12). Rebekah has no power to remove a potential curse from Jacob (Gen 27:13), but her assertion emphasises that she takes responsibility for the consequences. Indeed, she will lose her son when Jacob has to flee later and will never see him again. Isaac’s groping in the dark to establish the identity of his son is pitiful and Jacob’s smooth-tongued lies even more contemptible in comparison. But in the end, the deception works and the dual blessing of fertile land and authority over other groups is pronounced (Gen 27:27-29). Yet, in the aftermath of discovery, Jacob will be exiled for twenty years and cheated in turn (Gen 29:25; 31:7, 38). God is not unjust, and Jacob will learn that desiring the right things the wrong way will lead to consequences. Thus, the events provide us with a value judgment on the characters’ actions in a subtle way.[2]

God’s purposes achieved

What is striking in this narrative is the way God works His purposes even through human sin and moral failure. The later comment in Joseph ‘you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good’ (Gen 50:20) is also true here. More than any other, the cross is an example of this. God sent His Son to all that they may submit and acknowledge Him. Yet the human sin that caused His rejection and death also led to redemption and salvation from sin. When we wonder about what-ifs in our lives, it is good to remember that God is able to work out His purposes no matter what and make all things shape us for our good (Rom 8:28).

---

[1] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, WBC 2 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 205.

[2] Biblical narrative generally reveals such value judgements in what is called ‘show rather than tell’. In other words, the narrator rarely comments in explicit moral terms, but shows through subtle signals and through the consequences that follow whether an action was right or wrong.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.