Dressed to impress and be blessed:

The story of Esau and Jacob



Part I of III


All Bible enthusiasts have their favorite Old Testament character(s), with this writer’s being the family of Isaac and Rebecca along with their twins Jacob and Esau.

Isaac was directly descended from Abraham and Sarah. Isaac was, in fact, the child of promise from God to Abraham. Good lineage, so far. However, the boys were also in the lineage of Laban, their conniving uncle and his scandalous sister Rebecca, their mother. If there ever was a pirate of the desert, Laban was it, and Rebecca was his first mate. They were both master scam artists. In this family’s story, there is never a dull moment.

But, as with almost every story in the Old Testament, we can find types and shadows of Jesus, the soon coming Messiah. Finding these depictions is a must for the serious student of the Old Testament.

To begin, we should first understand something about the Jewish concept of adoption. It will be important to the story later on.

Adoption was about son-ship. Every Jewish family had to have a male progeny to keep the family name alive. If they could not produce a son, they had to adopt one. Adoption was usually done when the head of the family had gotten old and pretty close to death, and still had no male heir. The male he selected to adopt would have to be an adult—perhaps a nephew, or the chief servant of the house who had proven to be faithful to the family. Babies were not adopted for this purpose.

The adopted son was given permanent first born son status. So, if under these provisions you adopted a son, and later you and your spouse gave birth to a son, the adopted son would still keep his first born privilege.

The first born privilege always included a double portion of the inheritance. This was called the First Born Blessing. The first born privilege granted the son the same authority and headship as the father. That authority was called the Birthright Blessing.

The first born designation came with an immutable adoption contract. No refunds, no returns. No matter what the adopted son did, his son-ship could never be taken away from him. The designation included a historical cleansing of the adoptee’s past. His past was completely erased in everyone’s mind, and was to never be brought up again. The adoptee had to take on the family history of his new father.

Example: You’ve been adopted, and you’re riding along with your dad and you happen to look out and see your old run-down residence. You say, “Look father! That’s the old shack I used to live in!”

Your adopted father then says, “Son, I never lived in that run-down old shack, so neither did you. My blood line is now in you, and your past, present and future is now in me.”

This is the basic essence or Spirit of adoption. (Romans 8:15)


On with the story.

The law had been given to the people a few generations back by Moses, but there was no priest, no local temple. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes, and an annual animal sacrifice ritual atoned for all sins committed The family was dysfunctional. Each parent openly favored one twin over the other. Isaac adored Esau’s ruddiness and manliness. Rachel adored Jacob’s cleverness and intellect.

This would not have been the best family to live in. In this writer’s opinion they might deserve a full hall of shame exhibit. But this story is a vortex of dysfunction and destiny, spinning into purpose, which should bring hope to us all.

Jacob and Esau

God took a proactive part with these boys. According to scripture, He even favored Jacob (Malachi 1:2, 3), and hated Esau. (That’s probably because Esau was so callous about his own first born status that he was willing to give his blessing away for next to nothing.)

God did not choose Jacob because Jacob was a great guy. In fact, He called Jacob a worm (Isaiah 41:14) and said, “I love you, and I am going to protect you—you ‘Worm.’”  This word translated “worm” here, was translated from “maggot” in another passage—not a glowing endorsement from God.

Jacob’s name in Hebrew means supplanter, deceiver, cheat. He was conniving and clever. Esau’s name means brute, rough around the edges, a little rugged. He was hairy, manly, and probably dumb as mud.

The set up—Dad orders takeout: Gen. 27: 1-17

One day, Esau went hunting but returned empty handed, tired and hungry. He stopped off at his brother’s house, begging for the lentil soup he smelled from afar off. Jacob connived the ravenous Esau into giving him his birth- right blessing in exchange for the bowl of soup.

But that was some time ago. Isaac had grown old and feeble, and was near death. He got a hankering for his favorite son Esau’s cooking, and asked him to prepare a meal of wild venison/deer.

Part II continues next week.

White Evangelical Church: Repentance

from Generational Sin, Iniquity


Millions across the world followed the Derek Chauvin case, as

did this writer, and wondered how many on-lookers of the video actually understood what they had witnessed  The Bible calls it iniquity, taken from the Latin in-aequus, meaning without fair- ness, equality, justice.  Old and New testaments treat iniquity as a category of the most wicked and evil sins. Iniquity is defined as sin at its most horrendously gross level, often including satanic demons to assist in the seductive captivation of the will of humans. 


Something decidedly evil, a demonic presence, had commenced to openly express itself through Chauvin. This evil presence has been on American soil for more than 400 years. It was cooperative with its partner racism as a consciousness of gross sin because of race, resulting in grievous injustices. 


What happened that day was egregiously offensive, murderous, self-aggrandizing, despicable, inhumane. This was iniquity at its boldest, taking full occupancy in a  human mind, will, and intel-

lect (the soul), at the cellular level having passed contagiously

from forefathers. The bible labels them generational curses. Racial iniquity relishes in the ease with which a human being can be induced to openly  and publicly commit an atrocious act against another human being. Lynchings, castrations, tar and feathering, kangaroo courts, immolations, stoning, crucifixion—were all crowd gatherers.  


Chauvin allowed his mind to be taken over, and his body followed suit. He was so fully given over that he would not veer from his course. Nor would he allow others to stop him. The demonic presence cared about neither Floyd nor Chauvin. Both men were mere instruments (very much like the three men in the cold blooded Ahmaud Arbery murder case.) Iniquity ruled those two occasions, satiating its rabid hunger and bloodthirstiness. In Floyd’s case, it took the life of one, and putrefied the soul of another. The bonus for Satan’s team included two other officers who were neither strong enough nor good enough men, choosing to do nothing while a treacherous public execution took place. 


The public outcry was instant, the minute the video was aired. Groups and individuals worldwide responded with expressions of unbelief, outcries for justice, anger that such an atrocity occurred in America, in broad daylight. After using Chauvin fully, what/whoever obsessed him immediately discarded him to fend for himself. Before the night ended, he was in trouble.


Many liberal churches and other liberal groups joined the chorus, demanding justice and improved police practices. Conspicuous, however, was the very silent White evangelical church. They tried to appear piously sympathetic in subsequent television broadcasts by putting a few token Black leaders out front to express a personal indignation while the White leadership sat silently in the background, occasionally nodding their heads slowly, as if they wanted to depict their unity with the speaker while saying nothing. 


But the White evangelical church has a history.  It was always on the side of this iniquitous monstrosity called Racism.  This sin category has remained as an intractable indice of the historical iniquities of the White American evangelical church from its onset, with blood on both leadership and their congregations hands, passing from father to son to grandson to great grandson from past to future in the memory of each cell.


Very few historians discuss the sinister details of an 1877 meeting held in secret in the south attended by bankers, plantation owners, judges, lawyers, lawmakers, and clergy, whose agenda was to discuss the best method of getting Blacks to return to a slave-like state in the south. They needed their stoop laborers to work the fields again, for free.  The "for free" part involved a clever and diabolical plan proffered primarily by the bankers, but agreed upon by all in attendance.


It was the secret pact that these men made with the devil that brought about Jim Crow Laws, voting restrictions, and the advent of every other policy and law designed to keep former slaves harvesting one of the greatest wealth building commodities in the south:  Cotton.  Cotton was every bit as much of a cash crop as today’s oil fields.


The bankers had come with a plan. Mostly Jewish, these men knew that they would suffer fates as badly as the Negroes if they did not gain the respect of the leaders in attendance. So they brought a super plan to bear. They introduced a concept that seemed fair, but was never intended to be.


Part II Continues. 


Part II

White Evangelical Church: Repentance from Generation Sin and Iniquity

Black slaves were the descendants of pyramid designers and builders, pharmaceutical apothecary medicines, the geniuses of mummification, mathematics, astronomy, inventors of written languages, creators of one of the first universities in the world (Timbuktu, early 1300’s) among other things. They were an intelligent and noble people.  Yet, owners had imposed restrictions preventing them from using their intelligence. Decrying the brilliance and humanity of Blacks was a ruse.


Slavery was never about having located an inferior, sub-human race who could only do menial tasks for the White man. It was always about discovering  a means for exponentializing man-made wealth. The love of money figured first and foremost in the decision to engage in chattel slavery.


The south suffered great financial loss during the Civil War. Southern aristocrats saw the revival of the cotton industry as the south’s only salvation. They came up with a grand scheme. It meant prosperity for banks, planta- tion owners, and every other business entity that counted. Poor Whites might  be negatively impacted, but its primary purpose was to morph the southern Black man into a slave hybrid.


Sharecropping was the innovative concept. Crop owners could provide a minimal stipend against promised wages for former slaves, while appearing to be benevolent. At the end of the crop season, all debts would then be settled, including everything the sharecroppers had placed on account for food, clothing, and tools. The balance was either what the owner owed or what the sharecropper owed. You can guess who ended up owing.   


But there was an even more diabolical plot. The north had its military foot on the south’s neck, quelling all potential uprisings, and protecting the recently freed slaves. The south wanted the Yankee soldiers out. The bankers, along with a committee of townspeople representing clergy, business, law, educators and land owners concluded that the south had one important thing to leverage: 


Rutherford B. Hayes, a liberal Republican (north) was in a dead heat for the presidency of the US with Samuel B. Tilden, a conservative Democrat (south). They fought over electoral college votes. The compromise was to offer the presidency to Rutherford Hayes, in exchange for autonomy in the south. The north agreed to the compromise and pulled its troops out. Hayes was declared the President of the United States.


The Ku Klux Klan, a radical terrorist hate-group, had already been operational in parts of the south, but spread like wildfire with increased membership, mainly targeting Blacks who tried to vote and Whites who tried to register them. Meanwhile, hoards of repressive laws in the south known as Jim Crow laws accomplished two things: (1) Prevented forward economic progress of Black Americans, and (2) Prevented Black Americans from having the same access as Whites to constitutionally protected rights.


Groups like the KKK did not wait for laws to take effect before exacting their own brand of justice outside of the law and the courts. Lynching, castrations, rapes, mutilations and other atrocities against Blacks and Black sympathizers became their hallmark.


Slavery, which existed from 1619  to 1865, was essentially resurrected in the south under Jim Crow laws from 1877 until 1964, when the federal Civil Rights Act was enacted, guaranteeing protected groups full access to their constitutional rights. Notwithstanding, prior to, during, and even after the CRA of 1964, the saga of mistreatment of Blacks in America flourished in both the north and the south. 


From a Christian point of view, the sin category was racism, but racism was far reaching, entailing a perception

of superiority based primarily on skin color with White skin purportedly belonging to the superior people. It demanded entitlements based on race. This sin against Blacks manifested as rape, mutilation, tar and feathering, lynching, murder, bombing of churches, police brutality, castrations, assassinations of civil rights leaders, and other horrendous crimes. 


Qualified Blacks were refused jobs and fair housing and continued to be brutalized by racists throughout the north and south. It was manifest in public education, housing, churches, restaurants, and in general every institution in the nation. The same spirit continues today in the form of suppressed voting rights, job discrimination and gerrymandering to minimize the effects of the Black block vote, along with police brutality, including senseless murders of Black citizens.


Neither Blacks nor Whites today know much about African History, including the atrocities of enslavement or beyond that. The question is, why did Satan choose Blacks to become slaves to the White world? This writer has one answer for consideration.


Part III continues. 



Black Dating Over 40 (?)


I recently read a Face Book posting from a man who complained that women should know they are
expected to have sex with him when he takes them out for dinner. He actually believed that he was booking an evening of fanciful delight by including a food feature, and was upset at the women who wouldn’t put out after dinner.

Sex is understandably a regular recreational pursuit for singles, because it’s fun and exciting with a compatible partner, and it’s not always readily available without some effort. But there is much more to it than its stimulating property. My rationale is bible-based, but not without some sociological sup- port. I am a practicing Christian, but I haven’t always been, and I don’t want to use this time to be preachy. I just want us all to understand what is happening with mature Black men and women in and out of the church, so that everybody gets it, when it comes to sex.

Sex joins souls. That is its primary purpose, with procreation being secondary, and illustration being the tertiary purpose (as a parabolic type or shadow of the bride of Christ.) The gentleman in ques- tion is saying that a plate of food gives him the right to hitchhike onto my psyche, risk a potential "commemorative human reproduction," and compromise my role as a member of the bridal body of Christ, as he deep dives into my lady parts, exiting only after depositing some wretched hodge- podge essence of witless souls with whom he has randomly bonded in recent months.


I’ve accepted many dinner first dates, where the gentleman brings me home, waits until I get my front door open and says "Goodnight. I had a great time. Can I call you?" A brief follow-up hug is first date decorum for me. Buying dinner for me does not equate with buying or renting my body for the night. You would be disappointed if you expected that. Perhaps you should make your intentions clear up front. Lead with, "I’d like to have dinner and sex with you. Pick you up at 7?"

Your game sounds weak, mister. It speaks to how you regard women as mere playthings. If/when you do get to enjoy the privilege of playtime with a woman on the first date, it will be because she wants the same thing you want, dinner or not. You’d both be mere playthings. Some of you guys on my Face Book feed make my personal choice of abstinence difficult, because you are gorgeous and difficult to resist with all of your attractive accoutrements, including being witty, intelligent, talented, accomplished or a combo of these traits and more, and while the muscles are a value-add to gawk at,  most of us women don’t mind at all if the midriff is cuddly or just a little pudgy.


But attractions notwithstanding, our end goals may greatly differ, so we should start out with some clarity. Neither your gorgeous presence nor your dinner offer would be construed as an equitable incentive for me. I cook gourmet! Most women over 40 are merely looking for that nice guy who doesn’t want to play the field, who wants to hang out with her, who could laugh and talk for hours on the phone with her, teaching her, learning from her, flirting, exchanging sentiments of affection, being sexually exclusive with her, and being open to a possible long term of togetherness.

A woman over 40 wants to get to know you, to size you up, and to see if you fit in her life, and vice versa. Dinner together is a great way to introduce yourselves at your own pace. You could give her a high-end experience, or maybe after a movie, share great tacos from the local street vendor. If she can feel your contentment in being with her, she’s happy. A second dinner date with no strings attached might be refreshing for you both. And remember, after she pays for her hair, mani-, pedi- and make up, she will have paid more to go out with you than you paid to take her out. But some- times more sinister things await.

Sexual hook ups can be serious and life altering. If you are on the constant prowl for sexual smash time, you are skimming along the edge of a dangerous precipice. If you have no concerns about the character of your partner, you raise additional alarms. STD’s are real, owing to the proclivities of encounters in the dating sex-pool. But paradigm down-shifts in your own mental soundness are also real. There’s always that one man or woman that you wish you hadn’t slept with because that person seemed a bit unstable during dinner, and afterwards they kept calling at all hours or doing drive-bys.


You might subsequently find yourself behaving just like that person, perhaps for the rest of your life. Recognize that you cannot shield yourself from a soul tie with a prophylactic. An incorporeal transfer will still occur. A spiritual amalgamation will happen (intentionally designed to bind husbands and wives) and despite your best protective efforts to remain single and free, you will have entered a long term "marriage" contract with that person’s contaminated soul. A cocktail blend of that person’s
multiplicity of poor choices are now operating in you.

There are consequences.


Bon Appetit



1. SOUL TIES Gen. 2:24, Gen. 34:1-3, Matt .19: 4-6
2. PROCREATION Gen. 1:27,28, Gen. 15:1-4
3. TYPES and SHADOWS Eph. 5:32, Matt. 25:10, Rev. 21:2, 9, Rev.

Victoria Grimmett Rabb is a columnist living in Los Angeles.