NOTES for Gen 27:1-41
Today we read the very well-known story of how Jacob, by trickery, drew from his father Isaac the blessing that by human laws "belonged" to the older son, Esau. It continues the still better-known account by the Genesis narrator of the sale of the birthright for lentil stew. Jacob deceives his father in order to receive his blessing, in order to become heir to the covenant with God.
Addressing Moses, the Lord names Himself: "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." But according to the laws, at least according to human laws, it should have sounded: "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Esau"... What is going on? Does God really approve the deception of one's own old, half-blind father, as a result of which Jacob becomes heir to the covenant? Really?..
Disturbing questions of this kind arise for most people who read this story. But God cannot approve untruth, and it must be supposed that it is not deception in Jacob's actions that receives God's blessing. The most reasonable explanation is that there is a chief quality in Jacob that distinguishes him from Esau: Jacob needs this covenant desperately. Esau, as far as one can judge from the Genesis narrator's account, is in essence indifferent to God and the covenant. The benefits due under the covenant can still interest him; he approaches the covenant pragmatically. Jacob, however, even resolves on deception, if only he will not be cut off from the covenant with God.
Perhaps we are called to imitate not the way Jacob obtains the blessing, but how strongly he needs it. After all, "by right" we, of course, are to be considered participants in the New Covenant, by right of baptism or by some other right. But by including this passage among the readings of Great Lent, the Church may be offering us the simple thought that if we rely on what belongs to us by human right, we can lose everything. God does not welcome those like Esau! He takes pleasure in Jacob, with the correction, of course, that falsehood is hateful to Him. Need for God is the main thing we can learn here.
And one more thing draws attention to itself: a certain strangeness in the logic of the Genesis narrator. Could not both brothers have inherited the blessing? Could Isaac not have blessed both? In the end, could God not have blessed both through Isaac? One can answer all these questions affirmatively.
But Isaac is not a machine. His ideas about the covenant and the inheritance of the blessing cannot be changed by a wave of the hand. He is not a passive link in the transmission of the blessing, and God stoops to take this into account. From another point of view, Isaac's position may appear "too narrow." But God adapts Himself to it as much as possible. This is a striking fact that must be remembered so as not to exaggerate the role of one's own ideas.