Jacob wasn't so bad

[votivesoul]

I don't think Esau was ignorant or being hyperbolic. Hunting then is not like it is now. You went out into the severe wilderness with whatever bit of food you could carry. But if you didn't catch anything, you didn't eat. If Esau was on a long distance hunt, or tracked an animal into a far off place, and got lost, or anything like that, and never succeeded in getting a kill, by the time he got back to base camp, it may have been days since he ate, coupled with severe physical rigor draining him of life. What if he didn't have a source of clean drinking water?

Regardless, if Jacob would have been a bit kinder, he wouldn't have bartered a bowl of lentiles/beans with his brother. He would have fed him without reservation or plot, regardless of the true nature of Esau's health.

Reading some good thing into Jacob at that time in his life, because of what happened afterward, these many thousands of years removed, is a mistake. The man saw an opportunity to scheme and he took it.

Doesn't mean Esau didn't play a part, and ultimately is to blame for what he lost/sold/gave away.

But Jacob doesn't deserve any commendations, either. I mean, ask yourself: Would you do what Jacob did, to your brother (or sister, or friend, or even distant cousin)?

If not, why not? Because it's not right. If your enemy hungers, feed him. The people and culture of that era were honor bound to be hospitable and feed any poor soul who came to them. Jacob flouted that time-honored custom in an ignoble way.

As to why God then visited him and chose him? Election, as has been mentioned. It had nothing to do with Jacob's merit. It had everything to do with God's Master Plan to save the whole world.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I don't think Esau was ignorant or being hyperbolic. Hunting then is not like it is now. You went out into the severe wilderness with whatever bit of food you could carry. But if you didn't catch anything, you didn't eat. If Esau was on a long distance hunt, or tracked an animal into a far off place, and got lost, or anything like that, and never succeeded in getting a kill, by the time he got back to base camp, it may have been days since he ate, coupled with severe physical rigor draining him of life. What if he didn't have a source of clean drinking water?

Although I don't think it was a hyperbole, I do think it was an exaggeration on the part of Essau. There is not anywhere that we can determine it to be factual either way. I think we all are entitled to our opinion here, but there probably is no way to know.

Regardless, if Jacob would have been a bit kinder, he wouldn't have bartered a bowl of lentiles/beans with his brother. He would have fed him without reservation or plot, regardless of the true nature of Esau's health.

Absolutely. The point that I was making on this thread is that he was a supplanter solely for the family rights of the firstborn son and may not be all around trickster he is made out to be. After leaving his father and mother he is not running around deceiving people like many think with Laban. Jacob's name means heal grabber because he came out grabbing at the heel of Essau. It would seem his only interest was in the right of firstborn of his family. PS I would have feed my brother free of charge.

Reading some good thing into Jacob at that time in his life, because of what happened afterward, these many thousands of years removed, is a mistake. The man saw an opportunity to scheme and he took it.

Doesn't mean Esau didn't play a part, and ultimately is to blame for what he lost/sold/gave away.

But Jacob doesn't deserve any commendations, either. I mean, ask yourself: Would you do what Jacob did, to your brother (or sister, or friend, or even distant cousin)?

If not, why not? Because it's not right. If your enemy hungers, feed him. The people and culture of that era were honor bound to be hospitable and feed any poor soul who came to them. Jacob flouted that time-honored custom in an ignoble way.

I don't think that we should overly demean him either. I have heard preachers tell the congregation that his name meant deceiver and God changed his name to Israel and changed who he was, that is not entirely true. I just don't see a big change in the character of Jacob in the overall scope of his life. He wrestled with an angel until he received a blessing? Speaking of hospitality. Jacob must have wanted that blessing right bad. I see Jacob as a man that would go to the extreme to get what he wanted thus supplanter and not deceiver.

As to why God then visited him and chose him? Election, as has been mentioned. It had nothing to do with Jacob's merit. It had everything to do with God's Master Plan to save the whole world.

I am not so sure I agree about that and I think it is dark waters to get into for our finite minds. I wouldn't use the term merits but I do think that God chose people by looking upon their hearts. It seems as though God does look upon people based upon something inward. If you get technical though, God put it there. We are who we are because God has made us that way along with the choices we have made in a life that God has had control over. I think we are getting a little deep and I find it better not to get into those things that I can't comprehend, but I simply trust.