But he said again: Rightly is his name called Jacob; for he hath supplanted me lo this second time: my first birthright he took away before, and now this second time he hath stolen away my blessing. And again he said to his father: Hast thou not reserved me also a blessing?

“LXVIII. But the words, " shall watch," intimate two things : in the first place it means as it were " shall keep," and " shall preserve." And, in the second place, it is equivalent to "shall watch for the purpose of destroying." Xow it is inevitable that the mind must be either bad or good. Now, if it be bad, it would be but a foolish guardian and dis- Exodus xvii. 11. + Numbers xziv. 20. £ Genesis iii 15. 158 penser of pleasure, for it rejoices in it. But the good man is an enemy to it, expecting that, when he once attacks it, he will be able utterly to destroy it. And, indeed, on the other hand, pleasure watches the footsteps of the foolish man, but endeavours to trip up and undermine the standing ground of the wise man, thinking that he is always meditating its destruction ; but that the fool is always considering the means by which its safety may be best secured. But, nevertheless, though pleasure appears to trip up and to deceive the good man, it will in reality be tripped up itself by that experienced wrestler, Jacob ; and that, too, not in the wrestling of the body, but in that struggle which the soul carries on against the dispositions which are antagonistic to it, and which attack it through the agency of the passions and vices ; and it will not let go the heel of its antagonist, passion, before it surrenders, and confesses that it has been twice tripped up and defeated, both in the matter of the birthright, and also in that of the blessing. For " rightly," says Esau, " is his name called Jacob, for now has he supplanted me for the second time ; the first time he took away my birthright, and now he has taken away my blessing." But the bad man thinks the things of the body the more important, while the good man assigns the preference to the things of the soul, which are in truth and reality the more important and the first, not, indeed, in point of time, but in power and dignity, as is a ruler in a city. But the mistress of the concrete being is the soul.”

“"And Esau said, 'Rightly is his name called Jacob.' " Tripping up is what Jacob means. And not even tripping up is empty of meaning, because it is to be taken figuratively, like guile. Jacob, you see, was not yet so malicious as to plan to trip his brother up, when he was given his name. He was called a tripper-up when as his brother was being born he held his foot with his own hand. That is when he was called "Tripper-up." Now tripping up the materialistically minded is the very life of the spiritually minded. All the materialists are tripped up when they envy the spiritual people in the church, and they thereby become worse. Listen to the apostle saying this very thing, especially because he there mentions the smell that Isaac talked about here, saying, "Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of an abundant field, which the Lord has blessed." So the apostle says, "We are the sweet smell of Christ in every place," and he says, "For some indeed the smell of life, for life; for the others the smell of death, for death. And for this who is sufficient?" Sufficient, that is, to understand how we can be the smell of death for the death of other people, without any fault of ours. Spiritual people walk their ways, knowing nothing except how to live a good life. And those who are spiteful about their innocent lives commit grave sins, which is why God will punish them. And thus a person who is a sweet smell for life to others becomes to them a smell for death. For the Lord himself was the first to become a sweet smell for life to believers and a bad smell for death to persecutors. Because so many people had believed him, the Jews were full of spite and committed that enormous crime of killing the innocent one, the saint of saints. If they had not done this, the sweet smell of Christ would not have meant death for them. So Esau was tripped up in his father's blessing.”

“Now this is the first lust which conquered the world, and because of it the first transgression of the law took place. It dismissed from Esau his birthright and his blessings. For the lust of the belly is the captain of the host of the left side, and to it are fettered all the hosts of sin, and as captains of hosts go forth to war at the head of their companies against the enemy, even so also doth it, as the captain of the host of all wickedness, go forth to war against that which is good.”

“הכי קרא שמו IS IT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN CALLED [JACOB]—This is a question, like (29:15) “Is it because (הכי) thou art my brother?” Perhaps that is why they have given him the name Jacob — in reference to what was to happen in the future — that he would some time or other supplant me (יעקבני)? (Tanchuma). Why did Isaac tremble? He thought: Perhaps I have sinned in blessing the younger before the elder, thus changing the order of relationship between them. But when Esau began to cry out, “for he hath supplanted me these two times”, his father asked him, “What did he do to you?” He replied, “He took away my birth-right”. Isaac thereupon said, “It was on account of this that I was grieved and trembled: perhaps I had overstepped the line of strict justice. Now, however, I have really blessed the first-born — ‘And he shall indeed be blessed’”. ויעקבני THAT HE HATH SUPPLANTED ME — Explain it as the Targum renders it, וחכמני, which means “and he lay in wait for me.” The word (Deuteronomy 19:11) וארב “and he lies in wait” is rendered by the Targum וכמי. There are some who read in the Targum not וכמני but וחכמני which means “he showed himself clever against me” (outwitted me). אצלת HAST THOU NOT RESERVED — the word means “separating״, “setting aside״, like (Numbers 11:25) “And he separated.”

“And he said, is not he rightly named Jacob?.... As he was by his parents, and those that were at his birth, because he took his brother by the heel as he came out of his mother's womb; for Jacob signifies "heeler", a supplanter, and was given him to keep up the memory of what he had done, to which Esau here refers: for he hath supplanted me these two times; to supplant another is to put his foot under the heel of another, in order to trip him up, to which Esau alludes; but uses the word in a figurative sense, for circumventing him, and dealing fraudulently and deceitfully with him, though he is not able to support his charge; for if he dealt fraudulently with any, it was with his father, and not with him, and the two times he refers to prove it not: he took away my birthright; which is not true, he did not take it away from him either by force or fraud, Esau sold it to him for a mess of pottage, Gen 25:29; he had despised and made light of it himself, and had parted with it at so mean a price, and now falsely charges his brother with taking it away from him, and wrongly accuses him of being a supplanter on that account: and behold, now he hath taken away my blessing; this also is not true, he had not taken it away; it was given him by his father; and though he had used some artful methods with him to get it, Gen 27:15, he had neither supplanted Esau, but if anyone, his father; nor had he done any injustice to Esau, since as he had bought of him the birthright, the blessing annexed to it went along with it, and of right belonged to Jacob: and he said, hast thou not reserved a blessing for me? is the whole fund of blessings exhausted? are all bestowed upon Jacob? is there not one left for me? he hoped there was, and that as good a one as he had bestowed on his brother, and entreats he might have it.”

“Jacob. That is, a supplanter. (Challoner) — My blessing. Both Isaac and Esau speak of this blessing, according to the dictates of nature. But God had disposed of it otherwise. The profane and cruel manners of Esau rendered him unworthy of it; and he could not maintain his natural claim, after having freely resigned it even with an oath. He seems to distinguish the blessing from the birth-right, though one necessarily followed the other. (Haydock)”