Originally published in the March 1976 issue of The Testimony magazine
Wrestling Jacob
ONE OF THE most fascinating features of the Bible is its delineation of character. Indeed the Scriptures are to a large extent a series of character studies, the greatest being that of our Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ. In this book Brother Whittaker has looked particularly at the character of Jacob and of those associated directly or indirectly with him. Assessing character from the details supplied is to a certain extent a personal matter and the author makes this quite clear in his text. The book must be read critically; not all will agree with the deductions but all will find stimulus and interest. Some questions are wisely left unanswered or the reader is left with alternative possibilities. This is all to the good provided the reader takes the trouble to weigh up the pros and cons and form his own, possibly tentative, opinion. The author allows himself some flights of the imagination as when he describes Jacob going to receive his father’s blessing “with a quick pulse and flushed cheek”. Leah is described as “bleary eyed”, a term which we are accustomed to use in rather different circumstances; and Jacob is said to have “dubbed” Ben-oni with the name Benjamin.
A great deal is made of the waxing and waning faith of Leah and Jacob, as characterised by the naming of Leah’s children and the actions of Jacob at various times. One wonders how far we are justified in drawing these conclusions. Many Bible characters are the subjects of Divine assessment which include implied praise and also at times condemnation. We have for example the judgement on Moses, the friend of God, who struck the rock when he was commanded to speak to it; and the condemnation of David, a man after God’s own heart, in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. However there are many actions that we might regard as wrong, about which nothing is said at all. Could it be that we are assessing the situations incorrectly with our limited knowledge of the circumstances? On one particular occasion David departed from truthfulness in his dealings with Saul as for example his message, given through Jonathan, about going to sacrifice with his family (1 Samuel 20:6): yet there is no hint of condemnation in the text. To what extent are we justified in condemning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for actions which may seem to us culpable when no such suggestion is given in the inspired account?
The emphasis on the faults of Jacob as the scheming brother seems rather excessive, as also the suggestion that Jacob should trust God and do nothing for himself; this could become a sort of fatalism. I feel that the analysis given by Robert Roberts in his Ways of Providence needs to be remembered. Writing of the incident connected with the arrival of Esau he says, “Here we have a visible conflict in Jacob’s mind; the fear that Esau will do him evil struggles with the belief that such an event would be inconsistent with God’s own promises to him. He pleads those promises: acknowledges their fulfilment so far: confesses his unworthiness: throws himself upon God in prayer, and then proceeds to take further precautions … Why should Jacob resort to such measures if he left the matter to God? Why not trust in the mollifying effect of God’s action on the mind of Esau? Well, because Jacob while committing the matter to God recognised the duty of doing his best to bring about the result he desired; and if the steps of those who thus commit their way to Him are directed, may we not conclude that Jacob was moved to take measures which were needful to avert the impending danger?” Later on when speaking of David he writes, “David’s reliance on God did not, in David’s estimation, release David from the use of what means and measures were at his disposal for the bringing about of what he might desire … furthermore, David’s contribution to the achievement of results by the exercise of personal vigilance did not, in David’s estimation, in the least interfere with his indebtedness to God for those results.”
We would suggest that this book should be read in conjunction with The Ways of Providence (particularly chapters 5 and 6) which cover the same topics and deal particularly with the integration of circumstances with the purpose of God. In this way the reader will benefit from the study of character and motive so well analysed by Brother Whittaker, set alongside the principle of Divine providence so well set forth by Brother Roberts, stressing the underlying principle that God rules not only in the kingdoms of Men but also in the lives of His saints.
This review originally appeared in the March 1976 edition of The Testimony Magazine (pages 92-93), and is reproduced by kind permission.
