Reconciled for a Time

The picture we now have of Jacob is of a maturing believer, just as we saw with Abraham and with Isaac. Of course that does not mean that the Patriarchs would ever reach a state of sinless perfection in this life, any more than we will.

But Jacob’s words and actions here in Genesis 33:1-20 are preserved in Scripture for us as an example. They are not simply moving the story along. There would have been countless ways to do that.

Henry takes the view that Esau’s forces were not just for show, nor were four-hundred men simply wandering aimlessly, but we make sense of Jacob’s prayer by understanding this as a real, potential threat. The glory goes to God for effecting Esau’s heart—as Henry comments:

“[God] can, of a sudden, convert enemies into friends, as he did two Sauls, one by restraining grace (1 Sam. 26:21, 25), the other by renewing grace, Acts 9:21, 22.”1

Pink sees this as an example of how the Bible is honest about the sins of the saints, as Jacob’s prostrating himself before reprobate Esau allegedly showed that he “was ready to take the place of complete submission to his elder brother.”2 But I think Jacob’s twofold refusal of Esau’s offers challenges that view.

Beyond that, his deliberate strategy concerning his family is not necessarily a lack of faith, but a basic Christian duty. If, as Paul says, “anyone [who] does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8)—if such is true of food, clothing, and shelter, much more is it true of their very lives in the teeth of physical violence. Jacob is keeping short accounts with outside people so he can move on building the covenant people; and this takes on three forms as the narrative progresses.

• Gestures of the Christian’s short account

• Outward effects of the Christian’s short account

• Inward effects of the Christian’s short account

Doctrine. God’s people should always keep our accounts short, even with the reprobate.

Gestures of the Christian’s Short Account

The first gesture of all is moving in the right direction. Everything else is details. Jesus said,

“So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Mat. 5:23-24).

Now those words regard the reconciliation of Christian to Christian, that is, to be a “brother” is a greater sense. However, the spiritual principle is the intensification of a natural principle.

There is a difference between sinful appeasement and fitting deference. Here, Jacob is seen ‘bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother’ (v. 3). This is not the three Hebrew boys refusing to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol in Babylon (cf. Dan. 3:12-18). There is a world of difference between taking a knee to the spirit of the age and showing good faith to our neighbor.

Humility of words is good—“A gentle tongue is a tree of life” (Prov. 15:4). Humility in one’s whole approach is good. Paul says, “Let your reasonableness be known to everyone” (Phi. 4:5), and elsewhere, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18). That’s all Jacob was doing with these gestures. In and of itself, these are depicted as good.

Outward Effects of the Christian’s Short Account

Esau’s change of heart toward Jacob was perfectly real. Now, we should note that this change was owing to God’s power and that Jacob’s prayers were answered. On this point, we can agree wholeheartedly with Pink—“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will” (Prov. 21:1). Much more, God is in the business of turning the hearts of any of those who have taken offense at His children. We see Esau’s change clearly in his actions in the text.

“But Esau ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept … Esau said, ‘I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself’” (vv. 4, 9).

Kidner makes the observation that the words of verse 4 here are, almost verbatim, those of Jesus to describe the father’s reaction in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk. 15:20).3 Do not overextend that point. Esau cannot function as a type in the way of God’s grace in any way that points to a spiritual change for him. On the other hand, the change toward Jacob was real enough. So if this is a genuine change of heart, why call it an “outward” effect? Because the heart was turned only for a time and only toward a biological brother.

So, there is also a difference to be observed between Esau’s change of heart toward Jacob and his non-change of heart toward God. Again, the biblical evidence:

“If Edom says, ‘We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,’ the LORD of hosts says, ‘They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever’” (Mal. 1:4).

“For you know that afterward, when [Esau] desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears” (Heb. 12:17).

This recalls the fact discussed in a pervious chapter, that there are seasons of favor with man (cf. Lk. 2:52; Acts 2:47). So, at one extreme, we don’t want to conclude that doing our duty before man doesn’t matter. Paul’s prayer in 1 Timothy 2 for rulers is specifically so that the gospel can go out—remember, those “peaceful and quiet lives” (v. 2)—the implication being that the actions of the civil magistrate has an effect on the advance of the kingdom. But, at the other extreme, we don’t want to put pleasant relations even among kin as proof that Jesus is the source of that peace. So, these are external effects of our short accounts.

Inward Effects of the Christian’s Short Account

Causing an effect in Esau didn’t stop Jacob from being Jacob. With acceptance from Esau, he regained his confidence. Now his natural inclination toward craftiness could be sanctified. Notice, the two distinct refusals of Esau’s offer to help with the journey. The first is given a simple explanation: ‘the children are frail … If they are driven hard for one day, all the flocks will die’ (v. 13). The second just hangs there, with the words: ‘What need is there?’ (v. 15). While this risks rudeness, it does show, as Belcher explains, in his commentary, the need to be separate:

“Although reconciliation has taken place, Jacob seeks to separate himself from Esau. It is apparent that the offer to travel together includes the common destination of Esau’s home of Seir, a city in Edom (v. 14). According to the vow that Jacob had made to God, he had promised to return to his father’s house (28:21).”4

It is interesting that his explanation to Esau—‘For I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of God’ (v. 10)—comes so quickly after his impression from wrestling with the man, “I have seen God face to face” (32:30).5 This is yet another clue that the previous encounter was not an unveiling of the divine essence. But in this place, the point of it is to show what comfort Jacob took from God Himself through Esau.6 As the man with whom he wrestled was an angel in the strict sense of the term, his reprobate brother did the work of an angel, at least on this one day. Esau’s reconciliation in time served as a sounding board from God’s reconciliation and favor of Jacob in eternity.

Sometimes what is done in peace is done for conscience sake alone, to ensure that all has been done that could otherwise be used against us. In the Apostle Paul’s instructions to Christians in Rome concerning the civil magistrate, he grounds civil obedience in two motives. The first is God’s own wrath which is manifested, partly, on the temporal plane, through civil penalties. But there is a second, which holds whether one lives under a tyranny or not—namely, “one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience” (Rom. 13:5). In other words, a kind of peace in time, sufficient that you not be held liable for things that aren’t worth it. So, Jacob makes this kind of peace with Esau.

The altar he builds puts the exclamation point on his inward maturity. In calling the name of the altar, ‘El-Elohe-Israel’ (v. 20), in that settlement of Shechem, he (now known as Israel) was saying GOD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, so that this God is not only the true God over all, but that Jacob was personally owning the substance of the covenant of grace.

Practical Use of the Doctrine

Use 1. Instruction. One might still ask, “But why is it so important to settle accounts with the reprobate?” One answer is given by Jesus in the very next words of that passage in Matthew:

“Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny” (Mat. 5:25-26).

I mentioned the Romans 13 text about the agent of God’s wrath and living within that order for the sake of conscience. It is the same with any allowing of our accounts with others grow. Paul continues that same thought: “Owe no one anything, except to love each other” (v. 8). This is clearly a general principle.

Use 2. Correction. Getting back to that statement by Jesus: Note the identity of the person as simply “your accuser.” Ultimately, Satan is the “accuser of the brothers”(cf. Rev. 12:10); but we often make “mini-satans” of our neighbors by giving offense for no good reason. There are good reasons to give offense (e.g., proclaiming the gospel and adherence to God’s law); but we live in a culture in which publicly “going off on people” is practically considered a virtue. I have known many professing Christians who have a persecution complex that is really the result of not keeping their accounts short. Instead, it’s their tempers that are short, or at least, their instinct to make a scene. After Peter tells us we are blessed for being persecuted for Christ, he turns to say, “But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler” (1 Pet. 4:15). Ultimately, we can’t control other people’s grievances against us, but we can do our part by keeping the account short on our end.

Use 3. Consolation. I will go with Pink on one more point of Jacob’s sinfulness lingering. The insistence on the gift-giving in spite of Esau refusing. And this is linked to his saying that this ‘is like seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me’ (v. 10). So Pink comments,

“None will receive a present from the hand of an enemy. The same principle underlies God’s dealings with us. He will receive no offering from His sinful creatures until they are reconciled to Him by faith in the Atonement of His Son … Many there are who suppose they must first bring something to God in order to win His favor. But no matter how beautiful their offering may be, no matter what self-sacrifice it has entailed, if Christ is still rejected God will not accept it.”7

Paul asks rhetorically, “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” (Rom. 11:35) It is not just that you cannot earn God’s love and acceptance. It is that you must not try. You must not approach Him with a gift as if get a repayment. In and of ourselves, we are owed nothing but the wages of a traitor. But in Christ, it is what Christ has earned that makes us approach without fear.

___________________

1. Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 72.

2. Pink, Gleanings in Genesis, 297. He also points to the bowing seven times (v. 3), referencing Esau as “my lord” (v. 8) and to himself as “your servant” (v. 5), and dependence on the gift to appease Esau (vv. 8, 10). Any one of these may indeed be called sinful, at least in Jacob’s motives, and yet it would still be the case that he does what he must do and finishes well.

3. Kidner, Genesis, 182.

4. Belcher, Genesis, 206.

5. Kidner sees “the two encounters, with his Lord and his brother, as two levels of a single event: cf. 10b with 32:30” (Genesis, 182). Belcher remarks that Jacob “alludes to the incident the night before when he wrestled with the messenger of God” (Genesis, 206), but then makes no further explanation of how exactly this allusion functioned. This makes it difficult to conclude that it was such an “allusion,” rather than that a different kind of common thread.

6. Henry lands in this place, at least as one of two possibilities: “I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, that is, ‘I have seen thee reconciled to me, and at peace with me, as I desire to see God reconciled.’ Or the meaning is that Jacob saw God’s favor to him in Esau’s: it was a token of good to him that God has accepted his prayers.” Commentary on the Whole Bible, 72.

7. Pink, Gleanings in Genesis, 298-99.