What do you think when you hear the name Jacob – from "Jacob and Esau" fame? Supplanter? Deceiver? Spiritual crook? "Just his name," they say, "says it all." His very name means "heel-grabber," "supplanter." From that we get the idea of taking what belongs to someone else by grabbing their heel and tripping them." The word describes a man who never gives up in getting what he wants from people. He lied to get his father’s blessing. "Impersonation" is not one of the best characteristics to add to your resume.

What do we do with this man? How can he be the father of the nation of Israel? Why would his name be called Israel and he be given 12 sons who become the 12 tribes of Israel? We could say that God is gracious even to sinners like Jacob and us. That’s true. We could also say that He chooses to use people in spite of themselves. Or we could say that God chose to make Jacob this way, that He loved Jacob and hated Esau, and He determined to bless Jacob no matter what he was like. But maybe we haven’t read Jacob’s story very carefully.

I am going to argue today that the father of the Jewish nation, the man whose name was changed by God to "Israel," was not the Evil Kenievel conniving kind of deceiver he is often made out to be. And I want to talk about three blessings from God, one connected with his earlier days at home, one connected with his trip to his uncle’s, and one connected with his return home. Today we will talk about the first one, "Jacob at home." We can see here Jacob’s concern for the PROMISES of God.

What was Jacob really like?

I. Jacob was the opposite of his brother Esau. We can’t understand Jacob’s character without understanding how he contrasts with his brother Esau. The one sentence description of both boys is in 25:27: "So the boys grew. And Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field; but Jacob was a mild man, dwelling in tents."

Let’s talk about Esau first. Esau was the hunter, the outdoorsman. He was the more daring one who probably lived life on the edge. If he were living today he would be into extreme sports, he probably would be on the cover of "musclebound" magazine. He was a strong, tanned, hairy man. But there are two other words used to describe him in the epistle to the Hebrews 12:16 which are very significant: lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.

The first word, "fornicator" is the word "porno," pornos, from which we get the word, pornography. He was probably an Old Testament pornographer. He was more interested in sex and pleasure than anything else. The word is used for a male prostitute. Esau lived for sex. The second descriptive word is "profane." It means "godless," where nothing is of any value except himself and his experiences. "Don’t talk to me about God; don’t talk to me about religion. I am totally satisfied with life in the field, hunting big game – and sex."

Jacob on the other hand lived in tents. He was probably the computer geek, the bookworm, the diligent student, who wanted to please others, especially his mom. But he is described in the Bible with one word – in 25:27 a "mild" man, dwelling in tents. What do you think of when you hear the word "mild?" That word is very important because it guides us as we interpret Jacob’s actions. The KJV calls him a "plain" man, the NASB, a "peaceful" man. The root idea seems to be that of "complete" or "whole," with nothing missing. When used of events it speaks of events that are "complete" or "finished." But it is used 12 times of people in the Old Testament, Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; 8:20; 9:20, 21, 22 (seven times); Psalm 37:37 "mark the perfect man;" 64:4 "shoot in secret at the perfect;" Proverbs 2:7 "walk uprightly;" 13:6 "upright" and 29:10 "upright." Each time it is translated by "perfect," or "upright." For example, the same word used to describe Job in 1:8, "a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?" What do you think of Job? Wouldn’t you put him in a pretty "high" category? Serious for the Lord? A good heart? That’s the proper way to look at him. But do you put Jacob into the same category as Job? Why not? The same word is used to describe his character. He was described by God as an "upright," "perfect" man. It may be difficult to accept that definition given what we know about Jacob, but that’s the term. He is "upright." He is serious about the things of God, in contrast to his brother who couldn’t care less.

II. Jacob took Esau’s birthright.

"Alright," you say, "if you want to call him that, then why is he so deceptive? This "upright" man went out and "stole" the birthright from his brother, Esau." Let’s look at that charge. The story is in 25:29-34.

Notice first of all that the Bible makes a judgment against Esau after it is all over, rather than Jacob (25:34 – Esau despised his birthright). The truth of the matter was that Esau had no interest in his birthright. It was clutter in his life. He was a man on the go, out and about, into extreme sports, and even though his responsibility was to make preparations for taking over the spiritual leadership of the family, he had made none. His one thought was his pleasure. The birthright contained a responsibility he did not want. If he had not sold it to Jacob, he might have sold it to someone else, maybe someone at the local bar, or one of his wife’s brothers. Jacob knew this. Undoubtedly he and Esau had talked about it.

Jacob, on the other hand, loved the promises of God, and was afraid that this heritage of Abraham, this line of the faithful, was going to die with Esau. He could see Esau’s disdain and wondered whether he would trade it for something else. Perhaps he thought about the possibility of bringing Esau to the place of making a choice between his birthright and some other thing that he might want.

The day comes when Esau comes in "faint." It has been a hard week in the bush, and he enters with a ravenous appetite. He asks not merely for a bite of food, but uses a strong word that we could translate, "give me a big gulp." And he doesn’t even name the food, he simply points and says, "of the red, the red over there" (25:30).

In seeking a trade for the "red," Jacob is testing Esau’s love for his inheritance. He’s saying in effect, "how hungry are you? Hungry enough to sell your birthright?" "We’ve talked about your negative attitude toward it. How important is it to you? Is it as important as this bowl of soup?" And Jacob discovers that Esau’s interest is zero. He could care less. To him, his stomach was of more value. To him present satisfaction was of more value than future blessing.

Jacob raises the ante and says, "swear to me; give your birthright over to me with an oath." Esau’s response is, "I am going to meet death. What good is a birthright to me?" I don’t think that he is saying that he is at the point of death if he doesn’t get a bowl of soup. What he is thinking is that he lives at the point of death, that his life style is such that he doesn’t consider life worth living unless he is in the middle of danger, always on the razor edge of death. Of what value is a promise 100 years off that will give him some property and require him to "become religious?" He is into life now and life is only found in death defying deeds. Spiritual things are intangible, unseen, nebulous, future, to-be-waited-for, hopeful. "I’m living for the here and now, the seen, the vivid, the danger that gives me the rush, the life that I can FEEL. Take the birthright; it’s nothing," he says.

The divine conclusion of this event is, "he ate and drank and went his way. So Esau despised his birthright." He was busy; he had too many worlds to conquer, too much of life to experience to worry about something so inert as a "birthright." He wasn’t into "God’s great promises of blessing by and by," he was into hunting, and life in the open air – and sex.

What do you do with a man like this – who is set to inherit spiritual blessings? It may be parallel to the difficult problem that the Catholic church faces: "what do we do with a priest who is a pedophile?" "Can we trust him with anything spiritual when his mind is so clearly on the physical and carnal?" Do we just let Esau go his way with a birthright he didn’t purchase, never wanted, and couldn’t care less about? Or do we intervene? I think this question kept Jacob awake at night. And he finally decided to make a move to try to protect a holy, God given birthright from being given to a pornographer.

Perhaps the birthright switched hands because of a man who loved God and His promises, who wanted to do right, who wanted to accomplish the will of God. And if his brother will make the trade and he is not drunk or on drugs and is in his "right" mind, why refuse?

III. Jacob took Esau’s blessing.

"OK," you say, "I’ll accept that one, but what about stealing the blessing from his father? You can’t tell me that this event had any redeeming features for Jacob." And you are right. I don’t think there is anything good to say about Jacob’s actions here.

But maybe if we could see the context a little more clearly, we might view Jacob’s actions a little differently. Think about the fact that Isaac his father had determined to give the blessing to Esau, in spite of (1) God’s statement that the elder would serve the younger (25:23), (2) Esau causing his parents grief by his marriages (26:35); (3) the fact that Jacob had purchased the birthright from Esau who had solemnly sworn it over to him with an oath (25:33); and (4) Esau’s obvious disdain for his spiritual heritage (25:34). Isaac knows these things. He knows that the blessing of his father Abraham, is a spiritual blessing. But he likes the food that Esau can cook up (25:28), and he determines to give the blessing to his favorite son.

Try to think of the way Jacob felt. His father has received this great blessing from his father, which focused the blessing of God upon him, to give him the land of Israel, a great nation, to make him a blessing to all the families on the earth, and to bless all who bless him. And his father is determined to pass this blessing on – to a pornographer!!!

In addition, his father excludes the rest of the family from the decision. He doesn’t consult Rebekah, his wife. He doesn’t make a family celebration out of the pronouncement of the blessing. Instead it is going to be a private affair between father and son. Isaac probably knew that Rebekah would disapprove of his actions, and wanted to do them before she could stop him. Amazingly enough, Rebekah happened to overhear the conversation.

And she moved quickly to create an incredibly daring plan. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was motivated not only by her love for Jacob, but also by her love for her husband, Isaac. The way she saw it she had two options. She could sit still and allow her husband to do the wrong thing, by blessing Esau, and come under the judgment of God for disobeying His clear pronouncement (25:23), or she could do something to try and interrupt the process. And even if she and Jacob got "caught," perhaps their radical actions would wake up her husband to the awful move he was making in giving the holy blessing of Abraham to a pornographer.

Do you see that taking the blessing from Esau was not an event planned by a deceiver? Jacob probably wasn’t even thinking about deceiving his father until his mother came in and commanded him to find some goat steaks that she could cook up.

How valid is this picture I have tried to draw? That Jacob was really the good guy trying to obey his mom, protect his dad, and the promises of God? We can see from the rest of the book of Genesis that God did not judge either Rebekah or Jacob for their deceptive actions. Why didn’t He? This was a pretty huge grab – to steal the blessing of Abraham. We are not talking about pennies here. We are talking about the covenant that forms the basis for much of God’s interaction with the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, the New Testament and even today and in the future. Jacob stole the blessing of that covenant!

Or did he? Maybe he didn’t. Perhaps the reason why he and his mother are not condemned by God is because God INTENDED him to have it. Isn’t that what God meant when he said to Rebekah that the "elder will serve the younger" in 25:23 before the boys were even born? God didn’t want Esau to inherit the massive promises He had given to Abraham and Isaac. What’s the problem with Jacob’s actions then, if they accomplished what God promised would happen?

As I see it, the difficulty arises in the way they accomplished God’s design. His plan had a clock, that was ticking, that included a chronology of events. Rebekah and Jacob hadn’t read the schedule – weren’t even interested in the schedule. They felt compelled to help God accomplish what He had promised to do. Anything wrong with that? Doesn’t the Bible say, "God helps those who help themselves?" What does God expect us to do, sit around and wait? No, He expects us to move, but under His direction, and with his timing. Jacob demonstrates here what happens when one sets out to accomplish God’s will in man’s way. In short, everything gets twisted and bent, and confused.

In Jacob’s case, in order to accomplish "God’s will," he has to lie to his father at least six times!! (1) "I am Esau thy firstborn" (27:18). He is compelled to start off with a big whopper. (2) "I have done as you bid me." In actuality, he has done as his mother has bid him. (3) "Eat of my game" (28:19). He had to take his slingshot, go out to the pen and take down a goat. (4) "Jehovah your God, did bring it to me" (28:20). "God was gracious as I was out there in the wilds stalking deer." Jacob is lying in God’s name! "Almost the most flagrant instance of abuse of the divine name recorded anywhere in the Scriptures. This is ‘lying and deceiving by God’s name.’ By making the utterance doubly solemn, ‘Yahweh, thy God,’ the hypocritical pretense is made the more odious" (Barnes on Genesis, 745-46). He is trying to "glorify" God for this amazing example of God’s rapid provision, when in reality it is deception. (5) "Are you really my son Esau?" "I am" (27:24). (6) He kissed him (27:27). The request is a very strong request: "Please come, please kiss me." The word "my son," implies "my favorite" (Barnes 749). Jacob is taking the token of true affection toward his father and using it to deceive him. What would you do if one of your children did that to you? Kissed you in order to deceive you?

SIX BIG LIES! All in the name of God, all for the will of God, all with the desire of helping God do what God wanted to do! Imagine!!! Six bold lies. And this man is called "upright?" How can a man be described as "upright" when he can do something this dirty and deceptive? Part of the reason why translators hesitate to translate the term "upright" by its regular definition is this event. Jacob’s boldness and chutzpah makes one wonder if he even knew the Lord at all.

"How can a Christian" – or "how can an Old Testament believer" – or "how can anyone with any heart for the Lord do such a thing?" you ask. And the answer is, "no one knows." How could David, the man after God’s own heart, commit adultery and murder? How could Jonah, a prophet of God, turn away from God and run? How could Peter, after three years of intimate fellowship with Christ, deny Him with a curse?

I’m sure that you can ask the same question of your own heart. "How could I have done that?" "What possessed me to say that?" "Why in the world did I have to lie about that?" Sin is deadly. And just because we have had success over its more deceptive manifestations for a time, doesn’t mean that it is dead and gone.

Jacob was wrong in what he did. The fact that God intended him to have the birthright does not lessen the sinfulness of his sin. He was the grabber, the tenacious one, the go-getter. The ends do not justify the means. And in his zeal to accomplish what God had promised, he jumped the gun and did it his way. Was it wrong? Absolutely. Did God forgive him? Yes. What did it cost him to lie six big ones to his father? It’s hard to say, but for starters, that’s one reason why the Bible translators call him a "mild" man instead of an "upright" man.

07/11/04, BBC am