To those interested in the situation at Westminster Theological Seminary: This week I offer a second section from my forthcoming Genesis commentary which follows the exposition of the episode where Rebekah and Jacob deceive Isaac into blessing Jacob rather than Esau. Next week I anticipate writing an open letter to the Board in anticipation of their meetings November 20-22. The Danger of Manipulation In our exposition of this story, we discussed the ethics of Rebekah’s and Jacob’s actions in deceiving Isaac. As is typical with our reticent narrator, he does not explicitly evaluate or judge whether or not their actions were commendable or not. On the one hand, careful reading of Genesis and other biblical narratives show that deception is not always wrong (see Is Deception Ever Permissible? after Genesis 31:22-55). And there is no doubt that their deception of Isaac leads to the choice of Jacob over Esau that was God’s intention according to the divine oracle at their birth (25:23). That said, on the other hand, we have seen as early as the Abraham story (especially Genesis 15 and 17) that grasping for the fulfillment of the divine promises by manipulating the situation is always wrong. A close reading of our present story would also lead us to believe that Rebekah and Jacob’s ruse was unethical and problematic. But the end result was God’s plan all along. Don’t the ends justify the means? Of course not. In the first place, to manipulate in this way shows an utter lack of confidence in God. As he made clear with the birth of Isaac, God will fulfill his promises and he will achieve his ends no matter how unlikely it looks from a human perspective. In the second place, though Jacob rightly receives the blessing, the deceptive way in which he was chosen and blessed by his father led to undesirable consequences. Those negative consequences will play themselves out in the remainder of the book of Genesis. Indeed, they will play out through the history of the Old Testament and, arguably, into the New Testament. The most immediate consequence is Esau’s threat to the life of Jacob, causing Rebekah to convince Isaac to send Jacob away, and we will see that his sojourn in Paddan Aram (Northwest Mesopotamia) will be a difficult period in his life. More long term, even though Jacob and Esau appear to reconcile later (Genesis 34; 35:29), the latter’s descendants, the Edomites, will become long term adversaries of Jacob’s descendants, the Israelites. As we noted in the Explain the Story section, the rivalry begins at the time the Edomites refuse the wilderness generation to cross through their land to get to the Promised Land (Num. 20:14-21) down to the exilic and post-exilic periods (Ps. 137:7; Lam. 4:22; Ezek. 35:15; Obad. 10-14). It may not be too much of a stretch to see this rivalry continuing into the time period of the New Testament. After all, Herod the Great and his family were Idumeans, the descendants of the Edomites. They came into power when their ancestor Antipater was appointed procurator of Judea by Caesar in A.D. 47. Herod the Great was the procurator at the time of the birth of Jesus, of course a descendant of Jacob. Alerted by the Magi who came looking for the “one who was born king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2), Herod was determined, yet failed, to kill Jesus (Matthew 2). Later, Herod the Great’s son, Herod Antipas, had Jesus’ precursor John the Baptist killed (Matt. 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29). Antipas also tried to kill Jesus, but failed (Luke 13:31-32). Later descendants of Herod the Great, the Idumean (Edomite) also persecuted the early church (Acts 1:1-24). Rebekah and Jacob used unethical means to achieve a good end. God still used them to achieve his redemptive purposes, but he would have accomplished those purposes without their “help.” Their lack of integrity did not hamper God, but it brought unnecessary suffering into their lives and the lives of their descendants. The lesson for us is to avoid using unethical means to achieve God’s purposes. We will later (see Leading with a Limp after Genesis 32:22-21) consider the case of a seminary whose leadership used strong armed techniques to change the ethos of the institution. I have no doubt that these people believe, in my opinion wrongly, that their tactics are saving the seminary. They feel that their “good” ends must be achieved in part by ridding the school of certain tenured and long-serving faculty members. Even if one disagrees with their goals, one could be sympathetic if they made their case publicly and through the normal means provided by the faculty handbook and the ethics of ecclesiastical academic institutions. However, they did not choose that route. Rather than using the seminary’s normal procedure for firing one young professor and hiring another one more to their liking according to the normal channels of hiring and firing, they simply issued an executive order without consultation of the relevant department. They also forced a senior faculty member to “retire” by presenting him with a choice. Sign a severance agreement or suffer a long review process that might result in a financially devastating result. These are just two examples out of many that could be cited. I am a college and seminary professor, so it is not my surprising that my example comes from that world. The business world, the legal world, the medical world, the labor union world, the political world—you name it—have their examples of those who use inappropriate means to achieve their ends. All of us have heard, seen, or even experienced such treatment in our lives. Unfortunately, some of us have perpetrated injustices against others in the service of what we think are important and right goals. What we need to remember if we are tempted to use short cuts to get our desired ends is that often, if not always, as in the case of Rebekah and Jacob, such behavior backfires or has unintended negative consequences. The seminary in my example is now experiencing heavy criticism from former students and retired former professors as well as the general public. Students are deciding not to enroll there; some who are there are considering leaving. Churches and denominational leaders are hesitant to employ their graduates. The reputation of the school has received a major blow. And if we see such injustices perpetrated against us or against others, then it is right and just to protest such behaviors. It is necessary to hold our institutions and their leaders accountable. Even so, while a proper reaction to such injustices is righteous anger and to protest and work to right an injustice, we must also temper that with the knowledge that ultimately the matter is in God’s hands. After all, the most egregious example of injustice known to humanity is that which Jesus suffered. The High Priest Caiphas felt that Jesus was a threat to the stability of Judea when he stated his motivation to pursue the death of Jesus: “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50). Then using trumped up charges, they convicted Jesus of a capital crime. Caiphas thought what he was doing was a good thing, saving his people from turmoil that would force the Roman army to reestablish peace. But what an injustice! Nonetheless, God used this evil act for his good purposes: “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him” (Acts 2:23-24). The knowledge that it is ultimately God who holds people responsible should not lead to a passive approach to injustice, but it will keep our righteous anger from turning into a vindictive bitterness.
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:54:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015