The Jacob Commandment
If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. Deuteronomy 21:15 NASB
Unloved – Do you remember the lesson of Genesis 29:30? “So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah . . .” We discovered that “more than” was really a gloss for the verb śānēʾ, “to hate.” Jacob loved Rachel but hated Leah. Now substitute śānēʾ in every occurrence of “unloved” in this Mosaic instruction and you will recognize that this as the “Jacob commandment.” This ethical requirement exists precisely because of Jacob’s animosity toward Leah. We might think of this as just a piece of ancient Israelite history, a way to ensure that inheritance was not a matter of favoritism. Of course, there are complications. What about Isaac’s favorite, Esau? God seems to have violated His own commandment when it comes to Jacob. While the text doesn’t say Isaac hated Jacob, this commandment does say that the blessing should have gone to Esau. But God had other plans. Throughout the history of the patriarchs, God seems to choose those who don’t fit later instructions.
Can we learn anything from this other than the troublesome questions about God’s own ethics? Well, not many of us have two wives these days, and inheritance has become a matter of legal definition, not cultural ethics. Nevertheless, if we step back a bit, we see something in this commandment that is deeper than polygamist inheritance concerns. The commandment is basically about the human penchant to treat others according to likes and dislikes rather than according to ethical principles. Every parent struggles with this. We love our children, all of them, but some are just more difficult to like, some are harder to emotionally embrace. That’s just how life is. Perhaps we fight this inclination with attempts to make sure we treat our children equally, but if the truth is told, there are often favorites. In fact, when we were children we probably experienced the same thing. We knew our parents loved us, but if we had siblings, we also knew the “pecking order.” Not all people are treated the same way, even if they are our own offspring. What was true for Isaac and Jacob is just as true of David and for us. The Jacob commandment might have been intended to resolve Israelite cultural issues, but at its heart is a common human matter.
Now let’s apply Paul’s dictum. In the kingdom, there is no difference between rich and poor, slave and free, man and woman. That sounds great, but have we actually engaged this idea in our own families? In the kingdom there is no difference between first and second, son and daughter, loved and “less” loved. It’s easy to think we apply this kingdom principle when it comes to people outside the family. It’s not so easy when they are blood. Maybe we need a “Jacob commandment” for modern times too.
Topical Index: loved, unloved, śānēʾ, Jacob, Deuteronomy 21:15
Skip,
It seems you are conflating two separate issues. The verse you chose had to do with a man loving one wife and hating the other. Yes, this can result in the child(ren) of the loved wife being treated better than the hated wife’s child(ren); however, to make a comparison of this verse with Esau and Jacob — children of the same (and only wife) — seems to be taking your the verse you use out of context.
Yes, I see your point, but . . . this Mosaic commandment certainly applies to Jacob’s two wives, and that seems to be its origin. We agree on that, I’m sure. Now, can we extend the idea of favoritism to Jacob’s family of origin? That’s the question. Sure, it’s a “one wife” circumstance, but doesn’t the heart of this commandment reach into the distinction between Esau and Jacob as well? Are these two also victims of parental favoritism? My point was the extension of the Hebrew sane. You’re technically correct, but I’m not sure that is the end of the matter. Of course, I could be wrong.
I definitely agree with the first point.
I also agree that there is favoritism by parents towards children (meaning one set of parents towards their offspring).
After re-reading your post, I can see where you are going with the underlying principle.
Do you see an application for Israel, the first born and the Gentile believer, the second?
It’s my understanding (from a Torah class I took) that God loves Jews and gentiles equally…He just has different roles for each. No favorites…just differences. That certainly made sense to me when I heard it explained.
That brings up the question of if there were different roles for Jews and Gentiles after the resurrection: if so, where in the New Testament do we see these roles?
Hmm…good question Laurita. I would have to do some asking around and/or research to answer that one. Perhaps someone else will respond. But, I’ve also heard that there will be different roles in the next life as well.
If so, then why did Paul bother to make a (then meaningless) statement about there being “no difference” if, in fact, there still is one?
Maybe we’re confusing “differences” with “favorites”
Is that what Paul ‘meant’ to say, then?
Hopefully, we’ll get to ask Paul someday. In the meantime, I can certainly ask some people who are more knowledgeable than I am. If I glean any new insights, I’ll pass them along.
I’ve also heard it taught that boundaries and borders (in countries) are God ordained. We often resist them, forgetting who created them in the first place.
Except that God didn’t choose the first born, did he? Not Isaac, not Jacob, not Joseph. Something strange here.
Thoughts – Israel rejected/despised their birthright in the same way Esau did, giving it to Jacob for a pot of lentils (material, worldly things). God “divorced” Israel, giving the blessing to the Gentiles. Firstborn is about rank, privilege and authority as well as birth order and Israel will always be favored in God’s eyes, will be reestablished as such in the New Jerusalem. I’m studying the marriage supper and finding some interesting things about Israel (God’s wife) ? and the Church (Messiah’s bride) ? and think there is connection in all of it.
Playing favorites has disastrous consequences in the family because it can teach children not only that love is based upon certain characteristics that are more ‘desirable’ (thus establishing the base for us to try to mimic others in an attempt to gain love), but also that we are competing with each other – on an uneven playing field, no less. I think it it this perception of unfairness that leads us to seek to ‘level’ that field. Jacob learned that leveling concept in his family of origin. I believe this is the cradle of “the ends justify the means”: the supposedly ‘ethical’ underpinning of how we tell ourselves that deception, etc. is somehow ‘necessary’ to get love. This can be so subtle we can’t even see it.
A child can learn to completely subsume their own personality in a quest for their equivocating parent’s love: self deception at an unconscious level. It can drive performing for love, which is founded upon the (self)deception that we are not ‘worthy’ of love in our own right. It can feed jealous natures that in turn light fires of internal rage so deep a person has no idea that they are even bitter. This, I think, especially applies to females, who are taught that anger is not acceptable, so they stuff it down, where it turns into self-bitterness: “I am not worthy”. And then we hide all this, because bleeding holes in the soul are punished cruelly by the world, who can pick and peck those lower on the pecking order to death.
I think parents who are playing favorites can do far more damage than just teaching their children to fight each other instead of protecting each other and working together. Not only does this deprive them of family unity; I think it can also set them up to fail to thrive in the world and send them on a downward spiral of dangerous self-defeating behavior at the same time, for, after all, we are wired to do to ourselves what has been done to us.
A child who is a victim of EITHER favor or disfavor is set up for disaster. The favored sons in Abraham’s line, after all, not only lost or forfeited birthrights for their subsequent cruelty (Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Manassah); they (the victim-complex picked-on sons?) ended up on sacrificial altars (Isaac), or as slaves in foreign lands (Joseph). These are fearful lessons!
Hi Lauretta, I really loved this. Thanks for sharing. Sometimes I don’t always follow your points. But this is superb.
Eric, that’s ok. Sometimes I don’t follow my points, either!
We are so driven by our attachments and aversions. The Way of YHVH invites us to transcend those base inclinations. We are called, and then equipped, to live as children of the King. The Kingdom Way is so difficult! (but not too difficult) The fleshly way such bondage. If we truly wish to live, though, we will fear YHVH and obey His commandments. Those things we avoid are often the very things we would benefit from the most.
I have three chillins. Each is my favorite!
The question a parent needs to ask themselves is, “why is it that one child is harder to love than another?” or Why are they harder to emotionally embrace? Some children are not as emotionally open as others. Some children are maybe more independent than others. I think a parent’s job is to figure this out so they can help their child to develop in a healthy manner. But more important is for a parent to see if they are projecting any of their “shame” or ‘stuff” onto their child. As maybe their parents pass along their shame and stuff onto them.
I thought I was asking about the protected promise of the inheritance for the firstborn. Not so much whether God loves one over another. It is interesting where the comments went.
If I had children, I know I would want to open up the lines of communication. Dr. Gabor Mate and his son have done a few presentations together about their own father and son relationship. It is interesting to note the dynamic between them. Even with great psychological awareness, it is no easy task. Sometimes we cannot help how we feel about people. I thank you for the honesty in this daily word. You cannot address a problem until you acknowledge it. I noticed you italicized the word like. Maybe we could say that some children are harder to connect with and they probably feel the same.