Q9. Why Did God Bless Jacob even though he cheated his Dad and Brother?

One of the more familiar Bible stories that I came across as a kid in Sunday School was the one involving Jacob and Esau.

Jacob and Esau were the 2 sons of Isaac and Rebekah.  We read in Gen 25:28 about how dad Isaac doted on the elder son Esau because he was the outgoing type who would hunt for game, while mom Rebekah doted on the younger son Jacob because he was the typical mummy's boy, a homebody who loved cooking.

We read also how Jacob (H3290 יַעֲקֹב Yaakob), which is Hebrew for "supplanter"

• tricked his brother into selling his birthright for a bowl of stew (Gen 25:29-34)

• tricked his dad into giving him the first-born blessing by disguising himself as his brother (Gen 27)

Yet we read later on how, in spite of his cunning ways, God chose to bless him, even more so than He did Esau.

In Gen 33, Moses records the reunion of two brothers.  In verse 9, we read Esau saying that he had "plenty" (H7227 רב rab). But Jacob replied in verse 11 that God had given him "everything" (H3605 כל kol).

Those of us with a sense of justice would feel a sense of injustice.  Esau was the victim of fraud, while Jacob was the confidence trickster.  Yet, Esau was penalised while Jacob got away scot-free.  Not only that, Jacob's name was changed to Israel, and he became the ancestor to what we know as the nation with that same name today.

To understand why God chose to do what He did, again we need to use that "scarlet thread" to "connect the dots".  (See the blog entry entitled "Connecting the Dots Via the Scarlet Thread")

I was having a discussion with my sister-in-law a week ago, and she used the phrase "God's perfect will".  Amen to that!  God's perfect will was to fulfil that first prophecy He declared to the devil in Gen 3:15 that a seed of Eve will defeat him.  Anyone that was in His "perfect will" of being in the genealogy of Jesus would somehow be protected, even though they may not have been perfect beings.  We can think of Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Tamar, Perez, Rahab, David, Bathsheba, and so on.  Those not in His "perfect will" (or even going against His "perfect will") would not be offered such undeserved favour of His protection, and we see the likes of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Esau, Reuben, Onan, Zerah and the elder sons of Jesse (ie. David's  brothers) falling into this category.

Having said that, those in the lineage of Jesus did not exactly get away scot-free if one looks at the bigger picture.  God is a God of justice, and a good judge does not sweep things under the carpet.  Rather, there is to be punishment for their wrongdoings, and this was meted out on the body of Jesus when He hung on the cross 2,000 years ago.  In that moment in time, Jesus became the bronze serpent.

He became the sum total of the worst sins ever committed in the history of mankind (and whatever sins to be committed).  Every rape, murder, act of adultery, etc was (and will be) inputed to Him, if that rapist, murderer, adulterer, etc turns to Him as the solution to their crimes.

On the cross, Jesus became the worst sinner and that was why God the Father had to turn His back on His Son.  This is evidenced by Jesus crying out, "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?"(Matt 27:46).

In conclusion, why did God bless Jacob even though he cheated his dad and brother?  It was because Jacob was part of God's "perfect will".

Next up, I will blog about one of, if not the most stumbling passages in the Bible -- Gen 38 -- about Judah and Tamar.  Stay tuned!  :-)

Q8. Wasn't God Cruel to Test Abraham by Asking Him to Sacrifice Isaac?

Abraham attempting to sacrifice Isaac.

One of the Bible passages I struggled a lot with was the story in Genesis 22, whereby God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a way to prove to God that he loved God.

I recall reading an article that appeared in the Sunday Times more than a decade ago whereby the writer made reference to the abovementioned portion of Scripture and said that she would never believe in a God who would be so cruel enough as to test a person's faith by asking him to give up a child that he had waited so many years for.

If one were to put himself in Abraham's shoes, one must have agonised over the situation.  Here was the promised son that took 100 years to come to pass.   In a modern day Singapore context, it was as though that dream bungalow or dream sports car one had to slog 20 years to get, was suddenly going to be taken away overnight.

To understand why God asked Abraham to do the above (and also the significance of many other seemingly confusing events that are recorded in the Old Testament), one has to again use that "scarlet thread" to "connect the dots".  (See the blog entry entitled "Connecting the Dots Via the Scarlet Thread")

There is this saying that "The Old Testament is in the New revealed.  The New Testament is in the Old concealed."  In other words, the Old Testament contains hidden truths that get uncovered and unveiled when one reads the New Testament passages that make reference to those Old Testament passages.

Another way of putting this is that the Old Testament contains types and shadows that point towards the antitype and substance, which is the person of Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross.

A good example of this was used by Jesus Christ Himself.  We are all familiar with the verse John 3:16.  But let's look at the context of that verse:

"14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life." (John 3:14-15)

Jesus was having a conversation of Nicodemus, a Pharisee who was very familiar with the Old Testament.  He made reference to the event that took place in Numbers 21, whereby the Israelites were bitten by snakes in the wilderness.  The cure was for them to look at a bronze serpent on a pole that God had asked Moses to make.  Jesus was in essence telling Nicodemus that He was just like that bronze serpent!

That bronze serpent being the solution to the Israelites' snake bites in the wilderness was the "type and shadow" which pointed to the antitype and substance, which is Jesus on the cross being the solution to mankind's sins.

Now back to Abraham and Isaac.  Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son would be a picture of God the Father being willing to sacrifice God the Son. God had told Abraham in Gen 22:2 to "take his son, his only son, the son that he loved" was an indication that He would in time to come take His son, His only son, the Son that He loved.

While Abraham was willing to give up his son, he eventually did not have to do so because Jehovah Jireh provided a ram. While Abraham and Isaac had made their way up one side of the mountain, God's provision had made its way up the other side.

So, Abraham giving up Isaac was something that pointed to Daddy God giving up Jesus Christ. Note that no one else in the Scriptures, be it Jacob or David or Solomon or Peter was asked to make such a sacrifice.

So was God cruel to ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?  Not if we understand that Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was but a type and shadow of the ultimate sacrifice that took place on the cross 2,000 years ago.  While Isaac was ultimately spared, Jesus was not.