Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Genesis 27:30 - 27:30
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jacob had hardly left his father, after receiving the blessing (יָצָא אַךְ, was only gone out), when Esau returned and came to Isaac, with the game prepared, to receive the blessing. The shock was inconceivable which Isaac received, when he found that he had blessed another, and not Esau-that, in fact, he had blessed Jacob. At the same time he neither could nor would, either curse him on account of the deception which he had practised, or withdraw the blessing imparted. For he could not help confessing to himself that he had sinned and brought the deception upon himself by his carnal preference for Esau. Moreover, the blessing was not a matter of subjective human affection, but a right entrusted by the grace of God to paternal supremacy and authority, in the exercise of which the person blessing, being impelled and guided by a higher authority, imparted to the person to be blest spiritual possessions and powers, which the will of man could not capriciously withdraw. Regarding this as the meaning of the blessing, Isaac necessarily saw in what had taken place the will of God, which had directed to Jacob the blessing that he had intended for Esau. He therefore said, “I have blessed him; yea, he will be (remain) blessed” (cf. Heb 12:17). Even the great and bitter lamentation into which Esau broke out could not change his father's mind. To his entreaty in Gen 27:34, “Bless me, even me also, O my father!” he replied, “Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.” Esau answered, “Is it that (הֲכִי) they have named him Jacob (overreacher), and he has overreached me twice?” i.e., has he received the name Jacob from the fact that he has twice outwitted me? הֲכִי is used “when the cause is not rightly known” (cf. Gen 29:15). To his further entreaty, “Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?” (אָצַל, lit., to lay aside), Isaac repeated the substance of the blessing given to Jacob, and added, “and to thee (לְכַה for לְךְ as in Gen 3:9), now, what can I do, my son?” When Esau again repeated, with tears, the entreaty that Isaac would bless him also, the father gave him a blessing (Gen 27:39, Gen 27:40), but one which, when compared with the blessing of Jacob, was to be regarded rather as “a modified curse,” and which is not even described as a blessing, but “introduced a disturbing element into Jacob's blessing, a retribution for the impure means by which he had obtained it.” “Behold,” it states, “from the fat fields of the earth will thy dwelling be, and from the dew of heaven from above.” By a play upon the words Isaac uses the same expression as in Gen 27:28, “from the fat fields of the earth, and from the dew,” but in the opposite sense, מִן being partitive there, and privative here, “from = away from.” The context requires that the words should be taken thus, and not in the sense of “thy dwelling shall partake of the fat of the earth and the dew of heaven” (Vulg., Luth., etc.).
(Note: I cannot discover, however, in Mal 1:3 an authentic proof of the privative meaning, as Kurtz and Delitzsch do, since the prophet's words, “I have hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste,” are not descriptive of the natural condition of Idumaea, but of the desolation to which the land was given up.)
Since Isaac said (Gen 27:37) he had given Jacob the blessing of the super-abundance of corn and wine, he could not possibly promise Esau also fat fields and the dew of heaven. Nor would this agree with the words which follows, “By thy sword wilt thou live.” Moreover, the privative sense of מִן is thoroughly poetical (cf. 2Sa 1:22; Job 11:15, etc.). The idea expressed in the words, therefore, was that the dwelling-place of Esau would be the very opposite of the land of Canaan, viz., an unfruitful land. This is generally the condition of the mountainous country of Edom, which, although not without its fertile slopes and valleys, especially in the eastern portion (cf. Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 552), is thoroughly waste and barren in the western; so that Seetzen says it consists of “the most desolate and barren mountains probably in the world.”
The mode of life and occupation of the inhabitants were adapted to the country. “By (lit., on) thy sword thou wilt live;” i.e., thy maintenance will depend on the sword (עַל as in Deu 8:3 cf. Isa 28:16), “live by war, rapine, and freebooting” (Knobel). “And thy brother thou wilt serve; yet it will come to pass, as (כַּאֲשֶׁר, lit., in proportion as, cf. Num 27:14) thou shakest (tossest), thou wilt break his yoke from thy neck.” רוּד, “to rove about” (Jer 2:31; Hos 12:1), Hiphil “to cause (the thoughts) to rove about” (Psa 55:3); but Hengstenberg's rendering is the best here, viz., “to shake, sc., the yoke.” In the wild, sport-loving Esau there was aptly prefigured the character of his posterity. Josephus describes the Idumaean people as “a tumultuous and disorderly nation, always on the watch on every motion, delighting in mutations” (Whiston's tr.: de bell Judg 4; 1:1-21:25; 1). The mental eye of the patriarch discerned in the son his whole future family in its attitude to its brother-nation, and he promised Edom, not freedom from the dominion of Israel (for Esau was to serve his brother, as Jehovah had predicted before their birth), but only a repeated and not unsuccessful struggle for freedom. And so it was; the historical relation of Edom to Israel assumed the form of a constant reiteration of servitude, revolt, and reconquest. After a long period of independence at the first, the Edomites were defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:47) and subjugated by David (2Sa 8:14); and, in spite of an attempt at revolt under Solomon (1Ki 11:14.), they remained subject to the kingdom of Judah until the time of Joram, when they rebelled. They were subdued again by Amaziah (2Ki 14:7; 2Ch 25:11.), and remained in subjection under Uzziah and Jotham (2Ki 14:22; 2Ch 26:2). It was not till the reign of Ahaz that they shook the yoke of Judah entirely off (2Ki 16:6; 2Ch 28:17), without Judah being ever able to reduce them again. At length, however, they were completely conquered by John Hyrcanus about b.c. 129, compelled to submit to circumcision, and incorporated in the Jewish state (Josephus, Ant. xiii. 9, 1, xv. 7, 9). At a still later period, through Antipater and Herod, they established an Idumaean dynasty over Judea, which lasted till the complete dissolution of the Jewish state.
Thus the words of Isaac to his two sons were fulfilled-words which are justly said to have been spoken “in faith concerning things to come” (Heb 11:20). For the blessing was a prophecy, and that not merely in the case of Esau, but in that of Jacob also; although Isaac was deceived with regard to the person of the latter. Jacob remained blessed, therefore, because, according to the predetermination of God, the elder was to serve the younger; but the deceit by which his mother prompted him to secure the blessing was never approved. On the contrary, the sin was followed by immediate punishment. Rebekah was obliged to send her pet son into a foreign land, away from his father's house, and in an utterly destitute condition. She did not see him for twenty years, even if she lived till his return, and possibly never saw again. Jacob had to atone for his sin against both brother and father by a long and painful exile, in the midst of privation, anxiety, fraud, and want. Isaac was punished for retaining his preference for Esau, in opposition to the revealed will of Jehovah, by the success of Jacob's stratagem; and Esau for his contempt of the birthright, by the loss of the blessing of the first-born. In this way a higher hand prevailed above the acts of sinful men, bringing the counsel and will of Jehovah to eventual triumph, in opposition to human thought and will.