Reading Life Through The Principle - Day 8

Good evening, wonderful to see so many of you here again, some new faces as well, which is always nice. Yesterday, we looked at the story of Abraham and Isaac. Last week, I explained the importance of stories in shaping people's lives, not just individuals' lives but also the lives of spiritual communities and nations. Our identity is structured as a narrative, and our spiritual community has been constituted by many stories, particularly those found in the Bible, as these are the stories that the Divine Principle concentrates on and analyses. Yesterday, we looked at the story of Abraham and Isaac and how this story has been used within our own spiritual community. It's been used in quite a powerful way, but I think the meaning was misunderstood because it was all about recovering one's identity rather than being solely about sacrifice.

Another story that has made a big impact in our spiritual community is the story of Cain and Abel. Yesterday, I retold that story in a different way and brought out Father's own comments on it, explaining that not only did Cain have a fallen nature, but Abel did as well. We want to rethink a little bit about Cain and Abel. Father said, 'What impressed me recently is that I have discovered and clarified that the principle of Cain and Abel is the fundamental principle of the cosmos. If one understands this principle, one understands 70 percent of the secret of the cosmos.' All relationships in the cosmos are based on the principle of Cain and Abel, and the centre of it should be exactly in the middle. Some people say we don't need to talk about Cain and Abel anymore, that the age of Cain and Abel is finished, but Father said it is actually the fundamental principle of the cosmos.

In 1975, Father said that if you have the wrong idea about the relationship between Cain and Abel, it will lead you nowhere or to the opposite place where you should be. He said it is an incredibly important principle, and if we don't understand this relationship properly, it may lead us to the opposite of where we should be. We think about Cain and Abel as overcoming fallen nature, but sometimes when people practice it in an inverted manner, I feel it actually reinforces their fallen nature. One of the stories I like best, when I first heard the principle at 18 in 1975, was the story of Cain and Abel. It helped me understand myself, other people, and relationships, and why so many problems took place. However, within about six months, I found it was one of the things that members liked to talk about least, along with indemnity, which I also think was seriously misunderstood.

I explained indemnity recently, and I believe the way it has been used within our community has been wrong and misunderstood. The same goes for the principle of Cain and Abel. It's important to understand it properly. When I teach, I like to reference paragraphs from the Divine Principle book or from Father's speeches because it's interesting to see what the book says or to analyse what Father actually said. I prefer using PowerPoint now because in the past, lectures were often just spoken without being rooted in the text, which I think is really important. It all goes back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were supposed to make the foundation of faith by obeying the commandment, developing their spiritual life, following their conscience, and maintaining their sexual purity. This foundation was to become the incarnation of the Word of God, meaning they should reach maturity or perfection. If they had reached perfection, they would have become the lords of creation and won the love and respect of the angels.

In order to do that, they had to win the love and respect of the angels, who were free beings and spiritual beings like Adam and Eve, except they did not have physical bodies. Adam and Eve had to win their respect. Adam had to become one with God through loving God and maintaining sexual purity. He had to love the archangel and win the archangel's recognition, acknowledging that he was truly the son of God and the heir apparent. Father sometimes said that in order to go to heaven, you need to get the signature from Satan, meaning you have to win the birthright; you can't steal it. The archangel had to acknowledge Adam as God's heir. Abel, instead of thinking that God accepted his offering and therefore he was better than Cain, made a big mistake, which is why he got himself killed. Just because you have been anointed and appointed doesn't mean you can behave like a dictator. You have to think about how to win the love and respect of your older brothers and sisters and bring the family together.

In relationships at every level of society, from individuals to families, communities, societies, and nations, we find one party in the role of Abel and the other in the role of Cain. This is what Father said again in 2011. All relationships are constituted in terms of Cain and Abel. One party is in the role of Abel, and the other is in the role of Cain. One represents the older brother and the other the younger brother, but there's also another dimension to this relationship: one is relatively better at something and one is relatively worse. For example, if you enjoy playing tennis and play with someone you've never played with before, you can quickly tell who's better and who's worse. The better player represents Abel, while the worse player represents Cain. This dynamic exists in all relationships, including between countries, where some are better at certain things than others.

When trying to understand the principle of Cain and Abel, it's important to bracket the whole Unification Church understanding and experience. The principle is either true or it's not; it has nothing to do with the Unification Church. It's like the laws of gravity: either they apply universally or they don't apply anywhere. To understand the principle of Cain and Abel, we need to see how it works in the wider society. God teaches us that fallen people must constantly seek an Abel-type person. By honouring, obeying, and following him, we can accomplish God's will even without understanding every aspect of it. Instead of thinking about fallen people, let's consider learning to play the violin. You need a violin teacher who knows how to play and teach. If you honour and respect your teacher, you will learn how to play even without understanding every aspect of it. If you don't respect your teacher, it's hard to listen and follow their instructions, and you won't learn how to play the violin.

This principle is a universal tendency, not limited to the Unification Church. We all desire good leaders and righteous friends because we want to come before God through an Abel figure who is closer to God. Nobody wants a bad leader, as nothing gets accomplished under poor leadership. A good leader can organise, plan, and motivate a group, leading to a sense of satisfaction. If you have a bad leader, even if they are nice, if they lack organisation and planning skills, tasks won't get accomplished, leading to frustration and wasted time.

A good leader is someone whom others can follow and work together with. This is a person through whom individuals can learn, grow, and gain a sense of accomplishment, both as individuals and as a group. When we have a bad leader, frustration sets in, and instead of becoming better people, we may feel as though we are regressing. Similarly, we seek righteous friends; friends who are better than ourselves elevate us. Naturally, we want to live up to the same standards as our friends, and through this, we become better individuals. Good leaders and friends bring out the best in us, while those of lesser character can lead us to exhibit our fallen nature, causing us to misbehave and act in ways that are not true to our original selves.

The Divine Principle discusses these relationships within a theological context, focusing on God and the pursuit of closeness to Him. However, it is a universal principle that can be recognised in our everyday lives. As Father said, all relationships in the cosmos are characterised by the Cain and Abel relationship. This is not solely a religious concept; it reflects a general tendency we can observe within ourselves. For instance, the dynamics between older and younger siblings can help us understand how the relationship between Cain and Abel ought to function. The younger sibling often looks up to the older sibling with respect and admiration, which fosters love from the older sibling in return. This admiration can lead to a sense of hero worship, creating a bond that is both supportive and nurturing.

When a younger sibling is talented, such as excelling in mathematics, it can create a more complex dynamic. Typically, older siblings are expected to be more capable due to their age, but if the younger sibling surpasses them in skill, it can lead to tension. However, if the younger sibling remains humble about their abilities, the older sibling can respect and love them even more. This respect allows for collaboration, where the older sibling may seek help from the younger one, fostering a cooperative relationship. In a school setting, if a bully targets the younger sibling, the older sibling will instinctively protect them, demonstrating love and solidarity. This mutual respect and support exemplify the original nature of the sibling relationship, where both parties bring out the best in each other.

In an ideal scenario, the older sibling acknowledges the younger sibling's talents and feels proud of their achievements. The older sibling should be able to say, 'My younger brother is better than me,' and genuinely mean it. This humility is essential; the younger sibling cannot boast about their superiority. In sports like tennis, the dynamics are similar. Players often prefer to compete against those who are slightly better than themselves, as it challenges them to improve. The better player must remain humble and generous, sharing their knowledge and skills without arrogance. If the competition is enjoyable and respectful, losing becomes less significant, fostering a positive atmosphere.

However, if the better player is arrogant, it creates a negative experience. The fallen nature of Abel can manifest as arrogance, making it difficult for others to respect or seek guidance from them. Conversely, Cain's fallen nature may lead to frustration and resentment towards the arrogant sibling. This dynamic can be observed in many family relationships, where siblings fall out due to their respective fallen natures. The story of Cain and Abel illustrates how both siblings can exhibit fallen traits, complicating their relationship. The challenge lies in overcoming these traits to foster a loving and respectful bond, despite the inherent difficulties that arise from their fallen nature.

Mustn't be arrogant; one has to be humble. Father explained in great detail how Abel was so arrogant that it is not surprising that Cain killed him. To be perfectly honest, Abel was really hard to love—very arrogant, not at all helpful, and very uncooperative. This stimulated Cain's fallen nature, making it very hard for Cain to see Abel from God's point of view, to love him, to respect him, and to want to listen to him or be guided by him. Therefore, we can say Cain certainly had lots of fallen nature, and he killed Abel. At the end of the day, there is no justification for sin. This is really important; it doesn't matter how arrogant somebody is—there is still no justification for murder. If you kill someone and are taken to court, the judge will not accept 'because he was so arrogant' as an excuse. There is no justification for murder, regardless of how much fallen nature the other person has or how arrogant and provocative they may be. Some murderers might say, 'He had it coming to him; he deserved it because he behaved that way.' This is reminiscent of the original Cain's question, 'Am I my brother's keeper?'

We have two different dimensions in this relationship: Cain is the older brother, and Abel is the younger brother. If the older brother is better at something, which is often the case, then the relationship is relatively peaceful. However, it becomes much more intense if Abel, who is younger, is relatively better at something than Cain. When the youngest is better at something, the relationship becomes more intense, and this is often seen in the stories in Genesis. Talking about fallen nature, Father said that you have to work it out for yourself. The best way to remove fallen nature is to serve millions of people as your Abels. If someone cannot recognise the value of your service, then his blessing will be transferred from him to you. In other words, to see every single human being from God's point of view and to think about what you can learn from every single person is essential.

I remember when one member, Phil Kim, in 1976, was living in England. We had a very crude and wrong understanding of Cain and Abel. One day, while listening to members discussing these concepts, he was asked how to tell if he was Cain or Abel. Phil Kim said he had never thought about that before; he always thought he was Cain because he was older than the others, and he wanted to learn from them all. This was the way he approached it. He was putting into practice what Father taught: 'I am the older brother, therefore I am Cain; you are all younger than me, and there is always much I can learn from you.' Father said the ideal of unification will be fulfilled when you treat everyone as your Abel.

There is a Jewish story about a rabbi with many disciples. One day, the rabbi told his disciples that he had found out the Messiah was on the earth, and they were all excited. They asked, 'Who is it?' The rabbi replied, 'I don't know.' The disciples then asked what they should do, and the rabbi said, 'Go and treat everybody as if they were the Messiah.' This is what Father taught: treat everyone as if they are your Abel, treat everyone as if they are your Messiah, and treat everyone as a person from whom you can hear God's voice and learn. Often, the greatest scholars are like that; they are humble and prefer listening to their pupils and students to see if they have any new ideas.

Father said that if you examine your daily life, there are times when you are Abel and times when you are Cain, even within a single day. The dynamics of the Cain-Abel relationship are always at work; it is not fixed. For example, in one relationship, you may be Abel to a person because you are better at maths than they are, helping them with their studies. However, in the afternoon, you might play golf with them, and they are better than you, making them Abel in that context. These relationships are constantly changing; it is not fixed who is Abel and who is Cain. Father said that all directions—front and back, left and right, up and down—have something to do with the Cain-Abel relationship. The up-and-down relationship is like the relationship between us and our parents. Usually, parents are older and have more knowledge and understanding, so they are in the Abel position because they can teach their children.

In the modern world, this dynamic can be complicated. When it comes to computers and social media, parents often do not know as much as their children. It can be difficult for a young person to teach an older person how to do something. Young people may wonder why their parents are so slow to understand or why they have to keep explaining the same thing repeatedly. In the position of a young person, who is like the younger brother, it can be challenging to be humble and patient. Conversely, it is also difficult for the older person not to become angry or upset. This relationship can become more intense in such situations. In terms of leadership, sometimes leaders know best, and sometimes followers do. A good leader is always interested in finding out who on their team has the best ideas and is willing to follow that person's lead.

Father said that in any relationship between Cain and Abel, the one who loves the other more will be in the Abel position. The one who strikes as Abel is the one who strikes his Cain. Even if you call out rudely to someone who has done you no harm, you become Cain relative to that person. Father also said that the person who lives most fully for the sake of others is the one who is closest to him and to the central figure position. If we have questions about whether to listen to one leader or another, we can evaluate them according to this standard: the one who lives for the sake of others more is the one we should listen to. You can decide which leader you can get spiritual advice and guidance from. However, I often thought that this was impossible; it was not how the Unification Church functioned or how our leaders spoke to us.

Father taught that there is no established seniority within our system. No matter who a person is or what position they hold, if they are living for the sake of others more than anyone else, then they should be the centre of the whole movement. This has nothing to do with titles or positions; the person who loves the most and lives most for the sake of others should be at the centre. This does not mean they are the leader, but they are still at the centre. Because of this standard, there should be no factions or divisions within our church. In 1983, Father said we do not determine our leaders by vote but by asking our consciences which person is living most for the sake of the country and for God. Your own conscience can answer that question for you, and this should be the basis of democracy.

Democracy is supposed to function in this way: by vote, the electorate should evaluate candidates based on their character and policies, voting according to their conscience. They should not vote based on which candidate has the best policies for them personally but rather which candidate has the best policies for the country. This may not be the best for the individual, but their conscience says this person and their policies are best for the country. This is the basis of democracy; people should be educated and vote according to their conscience. Father sent missionaries to 120 nations in 1975, and one of the questions from a missionary was whether there are special roles for Germans, Japanese, and Americans, for example, Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve, etc. This person wanted to know if one of these nationalities is Cain and one is Abel, suggesting that we should unite around one rather than another.

Father does not think that way. He does not believe in the application of the Cain-Abel relationship as often misused or misinterpreted. There is no Cain and Abel; we are three brothers and sisters. Natural leaders will emerge periodically, and if you pray sincerely to God, everything will be okay. Worrying is unnecessary and premature. Within our movement, there was an idea that because of nationality or position, someone is Cain or Abel. This is not how Father understood it. He said these roles will emerge naturally; one person will be recognised as the best leader, and that person will emerge naturally. You cannot designate someone as Cain or Abel; you can appoint someone as a leader, but you cannot appoint someone to be Abel. There has been much confusion about this since 1978. When someone says, 'I am Abel because I am a church leader,' they are actually being Cain. Cain obeys Abel; this is the principle. Often, the way it worked was that a person would say, 'I am the leader, I am Abel; you are all my Cains, therefore you must obey me and unite with me.' However, Father said there is no such principle. A person does not fulfil this mission and become an embodiment of love simply by being in a leadership position. The one who loves the most is Abel. You may be a leader and not a very loving person; you are still a leader, but you are not Abel. Someone else may be Abel. Father said he does not understand where the idea that Abel is the central figure and in a position to command Cain came from. Many young members have left the church because of their leaders, and to be honest, many of my friends left during the early 80s due to a misunderstanding of this Cain and Abel principle. It really damaged many people's emotional and spiritual lives, and instead of helping people overcome their fallen nature, it often made their fallen nature stronger. The leaders' fallen nature became stronger, and members' fallen nature became stronger, leading to resentment. This is why many people left; it is dreadful what happened, and hardly anyone has joined since then in the West. Young Kim, one of the earliest members, was a theologian from a women's college and the first missionary to Britain and Europe, as well as the first missionary to America. She was involved in the beginning of the seminary in 1977, and she noted that the Cain and Abel model can easily be misused and often has been to foster egotistical authoritarianism when people lack understanding.

Inner spiritual power leads individuals to rely on external factors such as titles, positions, or reputations to exert influence. They often resort to coercive methods to enforce obedience rather than convincing people to cooperate voluntarily. Such methods tend to breed resentment, ultimately causing leaders to be despised rather than respected. This misunderstanding of the Cain and Abel relationship has persisted from very early on. Father spoke about this, emphasising that those who raise their heads high and order others around are like Cain, while those who strive to fulfil their responsibilities, even in difficult circumstances, embody Abel's spirit. The one who speaks beneficial words is akin to Abel, while the one who speaks harshly resembles Cain. Just as God loves fallen man, Abel must have the heart of love towards Cain and strive to restore him, even at great personal risk. This principle is crucial; if you excel in something, you should seek ways to help others understand and improve rather than looking down on them. Abel's role is to assist Cain in overcoming his fallen nature, even at the risk of his own life, shedding blood and tears to pave the way for Cain's survival. The foundation of victory lies in how much we fulfil our responsibilities for the sake of others, particularly in witnessing.

The relationship we are focusing on here is about restoring the connection between Adam and the archangel. We observed the first attempt at this in Adam's family, particularly between Cain and Abel, which ended in disaster due to their fallen natures. The next attempt we examine is the relationship between Jacob and Esau. Isaac and Rebecca's story is significant here; after a long wait, Rebecca became pregnant, enduring a painful pregnancy. She lamented that had she known the pain, she would not have prayed for children. However, she received a revelation that two nations were in her womb, with the elder serving the younger. This revelation is somewhat ambiguous in the Hebrew text regarding who serves whom. The restoration here involves Jacob, in the position of Adam, needing to win Esau's respect, who represents the archangel, to become the head of the family.

The boys grew up with distinct characteristics; Esau was a hairy man and a skilled hunter, while Jacob was smooth-skinned and preferred staying at home. Isaac favoured Esau for his love of wild game, while Rebecca loved Jacob. This familial dynamic created tension, as it is painful for a child to feel less loved than a sibling. Rebecca's preference for Jacob stemmed from her belief that he was closer to God, as indicated by her revelation. This led to jealousy and conflict between the brothers. As they matured, Isaac informed them about the birthright, which traditionally belonged to the eldest son. Jacob desired the birthright, while Esau, uninterested in the spiritual responsibilities it entailed, was more focused on physical needs.

One day, when Esau returned hungry from the field, he asked Jacob for some stew. Jacob seized the opportunity to propose a trade: his stew for Esau's birthright. Esau, impulsively prioritising immediate satisfaction over long-term benefits, agreed, trading his birthright for a meal. This act demonstrated Esau's impulsive nature and lack of foresight. Jacob, being clever and crafty, effectively acquired the birthright, but one must question whether this was the best way for him to gain it. Did he truly win Esau's love and respect through this transaction? The biblical account describes what happened, but it does not imply that it was the only possible outcome. Choices could have led to different results, and we can imagine a scenario where Jacob approached the situation differently.

Jacob, being more intelligent, could have respected Esau's hunting skills and admired his bravery. Instead of viewing Esau as lazy or foolish, Jacob could have looked up to him and offered support. If Jacob had expressed admiration for Esau's abilities, it might have fostered a loving relationship, encouraging Esau to work harder and succeed in his hunting. Jacob could have also thought of ways to assist Esau in becoming a more successful hunter. By collaborating, they could have formed a partnership, cornering the market in providing meat. Over time, Esau might have recognised Jacob's intelligence and wisdom, leading him to willingly offer his birthright to Jacob, believing that his younger brother would be a better leader. This would have been a more harmonious resolution, where Jacob earned the birthright through love and respect rather than through cunning.

As time passed, Isaac grew old and blind. He called Esau, his eldest son, and asked him to hunt game and prepare a meal for him, intending to bless him before he died. Rebecca overheard this conversation and devised a plan to ensure Jacob received the blessing instead. This moment marked a significant turning point in their family dynamics, setting the stage for further conflict and the unfolding of their destinies.

Rebecca said to Jacob, "Now my son, listen to me. Do what I tell you. Go and get me two young goats, and I'll make a nice meal, the kind your father loves. Then you'll take it to your father; he'll eat and bless you before he dies." Jacob replied, "But mother, my brother Esau's a hairy man and I have smooth skin. What happens if my father touches me? He'll think I'm deceiving him." Rebecca insisted, "If it comes to that, I'll take the curse upon myself. Now just do as I say; go and get the goats."

This event raises important questions. What is going on here? Rebecca tells Jacob to take Esau's blessing, and Jacob dresses up, makes the food, and deceives his father to receive Esau's blessing. Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau, your firstborn." The Hebrew text is more ambiguous, but it essentially states that he is Esau. If we analyse this situation, we see that it is not how things should have happened. The relationship between Jacob and Esau is clearly problematic; there is not much love lost between them. They do not get along well.

Now, let us consider the relationship between Isaac and Rebecca. How did Rebecca find out about Isaac's plans? She overheard Isaac telling Esau to go hunting and prepare a meal for him. Ideally, they should have communicated about their plans. In the morning, they could have discussed their intentions, with Isaac saying he planned to bless Esau, and Rebecca questioning that decision. This lack of communication is a significant issue in their relationship.

I experienced something similar when my wife, Ruth, mentioned that she loves listening to me talk to my friends on the phone. I asked her why, and she replied, "That's the first time I find out what your plans are." This reflects a lack of communication similar to that between Isaac and Rebecca. They should have blessed their sons together, rather than Isaac blessing them separately. This lack of communication led to Rebecca overhearing Isaac's plans without any discussion.

When Rebecca overheard Isaac, she should have approached him respectfully. Instead, she went behind his back, which showed a lack of respect. She must have thought Isaac was making a terrible mistake by planning to bless Esau, as she had a dream that Jacob should receive the blessing. Rather than discussing her concerns with Isaac, she devised her own plan, believing Jacob deserved the blessing more than Esau. Jacob, on the other hand, should have questioned his mother about whether she had discussed this with Isaac.

Jacob was uncomfortable with the idea of deceiving his father and feared the consequences of being cursed. He should have followed his conscience and suggested that Rebecca speak to Isaac about it. Instead, he allowed himself to be dominated by his mother, which was not the right decision. When Rebecca assured him that she would take the blame if anything went wrong, Jacob went along with the plan. This demonstrates a lack of maturity on Jacob's part; he was not taking responsibility for his actions.

The relationships in this family are dysfunctional. Jacob and Esau have not overcome their fallen nature, and there is a lack of communication between Isaac and Rebecca. Rebecca does not respect Isaac, and she dominates Jacob, who fails to follow his conscience. When Jacob deceives Isaac, it is not a kind act. The four great realms of heart—conjugal, parent-child, sibling, and individual relationships—are all problematic. This dysfunction allows for the possibility of wrongdoing and invites negative influences.

Jacob's actions resulted in theft; he stole Esau's blessing. Is such deception justified? No, God never condones unethical behaviour. The relationship between husband and wife is also problematic. A man needs the respect of his wife, and Isaac lacked that respect from Rebecca. Perhaps she felt unloved, which contributed to their communication issues. A husband should love his wife, and a wife should respect her husband. This balance is essential for a healthy relationship.

When Rebecca first met Isaac, she covered herself with a veil, which may indicate something about their relationship. There could be a significant age gap, or perhaps Isaac was not very communicative due to his past experiences. This lack of communication may have created issues in their relationship. The blessing Isaac intended to give to Esau was significant; it included wealth and power, but lacked spiritual content. When Esau returned and realised what had happened, he was understandably devastated. Isaac trembled with shock, and Esau cried out for a blessing, demonstrating the depth of his pain. Despite his anger, Esau chose not to kill Jacob out of respect for their father, showing a model of filial piety. This complex situation highlights the consequences of Jacob's actions and the dysfunction within the family.

Esau's blessing is significant in the context of the events that unfolded. After Esau's fall, his nature became even more pronounced. When Rebecca learned of Esau's anger towards Jacob, she advised Jacob to stay with her brother, Uncle Laban, until Esau calmed down. Jacob agreed to this plan but wanted to say goodbye to his father first. In Isaac's tent, Jacob expressed his intention to stay with Uncle Laban for a while, and Isaac, before Jacob left, offered him a blessing. This blessing was profound: 'May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and increase your numbers until you become a community of peoples.' Isaac also wished for Jacob to inherit the blessings given to Abraham, which were the same blessings given to Adam and Noah. This blessing was essentially the birthright blessing that Jacob received from Isaac.

The situation was complex. Jacob needed the birthright blessing, and Isaac was aware that Jacob had purchased it from Esau. Furthermore, Isaac had been informed that Jacob was more qualified to be his heir. However, Isaac also recognised the strained relationship between the brothers. He feared that if he blessed Jacob first, Esau would become jealous. Isaac believed that by blessing Esau first, he could satisfy Esau's desires for wealth and power, thus preventing jealousy when Jacob received the more significant birthright blessing. Isaac was wise in his intentions but failed to communicate his plan to Rebecca, which led to further complications.

Rebecca, acting on her own, devised a plan that ultimately went awry. Jacob ended up with both his own blessing and Esau's, but instead of helping Esau overcome his fallen nature, it intensified. Esau's anger grew to the point where he wanted to kill Jacob. Some may dismiss this interpretation as merely my own, but it aligns with insights from others, including Mrs Yu, the wife of the first president of the Korean church. She commented that Jacob tricked Esau twice to gain the elder sonship, first with lentil stew and then by receiving Isaac's blessing. She argued that Jacob should have inherited the rights of the elder son through service and good behaviour towards Esau, which would have moved Esau's heart.

The role of a mother in such situations is crucial. A mother often mediates conflicts between siblings, teaching them to communicate and share. In the biblical context, Rebecca should have helped Jacob and Esau to love each other rather than favouring Jacob based on her dream. While she did save Jacob's life by sending him away, she missed the opportunity to foster reconciliation between the brothers. This reflects a broader principle that mothers should guide their children towards cooperation and love, especially in the context of sibling rivalry.

In the divine principle, Jacob is seen in the position of Abel, while Esau represents Cain. Rebecca, as their mother, was in the position of Eve. The expectation was that she would assist Jacob in restoring his heavenly position by fostering love between him and Esau. The ultimate goal was not to help Jacob steal his brother's birthright but to enable both brothers to unite. Jacob should have won his blessing in harmony with Esau, not through deception. However, due to the circumstances created by Esau's anger, Jacob had to flee to Haran, which was a consequence of the failure to resolve their relationship properly. This situation illustrates the importance of winning love and respect naturally, rather than through manipulation, to achieve true blessings.