Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: March 9
Today is: Saturday, April 20th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of March: (Show All Months)
Genesis 31
Previously, in regard to Abraham’s deception in Egypt, recorded without any animadversion on the evil of it, he remarks: “Though morality is, in the abstract, unchangeable, it looks as if, in the concrete, there was a progressive morality from one era to another—an accommodation to the earlier and ruder periods of humanity, distinctly intimated by our Savior, when he tells of polygamy being allowed before the times of the Gospel, because of the hardness of their hearts.” He adds: “It is worthy of remark, that there is no example, as far as I can recollect, of any deception or imperfect morality of any sort being recorded of Christian disciples in the New Testament, without a prompt and decided condemnation.” And again, in reference to Jacob’s dealing with the cattle of Laban, Dr. Chalmers remarks: “Altogether, our notion is very much confirmed with regard to the low standard of virtue in those days—not that we have a higher morality, but a higher rule of morality, than in the patriarchal ages of the world. ‘You have heard that it was said’—not done, but said—‘by them of old time; but I say unto you,’ etc. They had a worse system of virtue in those days, even though at present we should fall short of them in practice. They had an inferior schooling to what we now have—a dimmer moral light—whether they were before or behind us in actual observances.”
All this is admirably just and true, and our readers cannot do better than carry these ideas with them, in considering the doubtful conduct of some personages in the early scriptural history. With regard to Jacob’s bargain with Laban, which he was enabled by his superior craft to turn to such advantage, as greatly to enrich himself from the produce of Laban’s flock—we have been accustomed to regard it as entitled to serious reprehension. But, on further consideration, we incline to think that the transaction admits of an interpretation which, without leaving the conduct of Jacob altogether free from reproach, may leave it doubtful, whether he be liable to all the blame which on this account has been laid at his door. We are indebted for the outlines of this view to the Hebrew commentators, whose observations on the subject have been collected in the commentary on Genesis, published in 1844, by the Jewish ministers, De Sola, Lindenthal, and Raphall; but it is right to state, that even among Jewish expositors there are some who take quite as unfavorable a view of Jacob’s conduct in this affair as any Christian interpreters have ever done. We must embody this view, presented, in the work indicated, in detached notes, in the form of a connected statement.
The fourteen years which Jacob had agreed to serve Laban for his two daughters, expired about the time that Rachel—who had so long been childless—gave birth to a son named Joseph. As soon as mother and child were sufficiently strong to undertake so long and fatiguing a journey, Jacob asserts his right and declares his wish to return to Canaan. The happy return to his native land, which had been promised to him at Bethel, was the end and aim of all Jacob’s hopes and wishes; and the Jews have an opinion, or tradition, that Rebekah about this time fulfilled her promise of sending for him, as soon as he could return with safety, Gen_27:45, which made him the more desirous to return. As anticipated, Laban received this intimation with much disturbance. He knew well the value of Jacob’s services, and now that he can no longer command, he bends himself to entreaty and acknowledgment: “I pray thee, if I have found favor in thine eyes, tarry; for I perceive that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.” He also said: “Name to me thy wages, and I will give it.”
In this proposition, Jacob sees the means of securing an independent provision for his family—for now, after fourteen years’ services, he has no wealth but four wives and twelve children. It was usual in that age, and is still usual in the East, for those to whom the charge of a flock is entrusted, to obtain their remuneration from the produce or increase of the flock, and Jacob shapes his proposition for the remuneration of his future services on that basis.
Sheep are generally altogether white in the East, and goats wholly black. Sheep of the latter color are very scarce, but some of a dark red are found. Such as are parti-colored, are very rare indeed—far rarer than even with us. Jacob proposed that all the parti-colored young, hereafter born in the flock entrusted to his charge, should be his perquisite—after all the present lambs and kids thus as marked had been removed, and placed under separate care. Thus far it would seem that Jacob relied on the blessing of God upon the natural increase of the animals thus distinguished, under the condition, to his own disadvantage, that the parti-colored young should be removed. Laban consented to this arrangement. But the very day that it was completed, Laban caused to be separated from the flock not only the parti-colored young of the sheep and goats, as Jacob contemplated, but all, whether old or young, that had any variation of color in them; and placing the small flock thus composed under the charge of his sons, directed that it should be removed three days’ journey apart from the large flock that Jacob fed. This is alleged to have been a clear infraction of the agreement, since Jacob had only consented to the reduction of his probability of large gains, by the removal of the parti-colored young, but required the old bucks and ewes to remain in the flock, as without this there was little human probability of his reaping any benefit from the contract. The proportion of spotted or parti-colored animals born in an oriental flock is usually very small; and by removing the few spotted rams and ewes, the proportion was reduced to nothing. This first great deviation of Laban’s from the original terms of the agreement, compelled Jacob, it is urged, to abandon those fair and regular means which he at first contemplated, but of which Laban deprived him by removing the rams and ewes.
The means he did resort to, was of acting upon the imagination of the animals, by placing parti-colored rods before their eyes, so as to induce the production of parti-colored young. It was quite successful. The question is, whether, at the time he entered into his contract, he knew that he possessed the means of turning it to his advantage, to an extent which Laban could not foresee, and would not have allowed. If he did, and if he entered into the contract with this intention, his conduct deserves the worst things that have been said of it. But it is assumed by one class of vindicators, that it was one part of the agreement between Laban and Jacob, that the latter was to be at liberty to employ any means in his power of increasing his own remuneration, and that Laban consented to these terms, in the conviction that no artificial means could be available for producing such a result as Jacob eventually succeeded in obtaining.
But others, without insisting upon any such understanding, urge, that Laban’s removal of the rams and ewes was such an infringement of the treaty, as, by depriving Jacob of any hope of remuneration by ordinary means, reduced him to the necessity, either of using reprisals, or of submitting a second time to be the dupe of his unprincipled uncle. He was then driven to the resources supplied by his intimate acquaintance—acquired by long and intelligent experience in pastoral pursuits—with the nature, instincts, and susceptibilities of the animals under his care. But although his knowledge might have led him to conjecture, that the means which occurred to him might be effectual; yet, as the experiment had never been tried, it was, at the best, a very hazardous one, which he could not in the first instance have contemplated, and which he did not employ until Laban’s selfishness and injustice left him no other choice. The conclusion drawn from this view of the case is, that “although Jacob’s conduct on this occasion may not be praiseworthy, it does not merit the harsh interpretation with which it has been assailed.”
It must be admitted, that there is sufficient in this explanation to permit us to regard the case as doubtful. But allowing Jacob all the benefit of the doubt, and all the advantage of this explanation, it may be asked, Why the injustice of Laban rendered his case so hopeless, as to drive him to this questionable expedient? His refuge from Laban was with God, who had promised to make his way prosperous. It is to be feared that in this ease, as in that of the blessing, Jacob was but too prone to find expedients for helping God to accomplish His own purposes. Then, again, if all the rest were right, or at least not blamable, what shall we say to the eagerness which urged him so to manage his proceedings, by subjecting only the strong ones to the operation from which he was to reap advantage, that all the strong animals became his, and all the weak ones Laban’s? This is revolting; and we do wrong if out of respect to the character of a man whom the sacred Scripture represents to us with all the light and shade of natural character, we suffer our young ones to receive the impression, that right and wrong are matters of conventional interpretation, and not clear and certain facts, to be known and read of all men. Our rising generation must not thus learn the lessons which the Bible was given to teach. We love Jacob with all his faults; we love him more as he grows older. But it is better that Jacob’s character should suffer, than that one of these little ones should perish, through any unwise attempts to prove that his wrong was right.