J.J. Blunt's Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE VERACITY OF THE HOLY BIBLE
Introduction
Part One:
The Books of Moses
Part Two:
The Historical Scriptures
Part Three:
The Prophetical Scripture
Part Four:
The Gospels and Acts
Appendix:
The Gospels, Acts
and Josephus

IV. BETHUEL AND REBEKAH

There is another indication of truth in this same portion of patriarchal story. It is this—The consistent insignificance of Bethuel in this whole affair. Yet he was alive, and as the father of Rebekah was likely, it might have been thought, to have been a conspicuous person in this contract of his daughter’s marriage. For there was nothing in the custom of the country to warrant the apparent indifference in the party most nearly concerned, which we observe in Bethuel. Laban was of the same country and placed in circumstances some-what similar; he, too, had to dispose of a daughter in marriage, and that daughter also, like Rebekah, had brothers [Gen. 31:1.]; yet in this case the terms of the contract were stipulated, as was reasonable, by the father alone; he was the active person throughout. But mark the difference in the instance of Bethuel—whether he was incapable from years or imbecility to manage his own affairs, it is of course impossible to say, but something of this kind seems to be implied in all that relates to him. Thus, when Abraham’s servant meets with Rebekah at the well, he inquires of her, “whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee, is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in?” [Gen. 24:23.] She answers, that she is the daughter of Bethuel, and that there is room; and when he thereupon declared who he was and whence he came; “the damsel ran and told them of her mother’s house” (not of her father’s house, as Rachel did when Jacob introduced himself [Gen. 29:12.] ) “these things.” This might be accident; but “Rebekah had a brother,” the history continues, and “his name was Laban, and Laban ran out unto the man, and invited him in [Gen. 24:29.] . Still we have no mention of Bethuel. The servant now explains the nature of his errand, and in this instance it is said, that Laban and Bethuel answered [Gen. 24:50.]; Bethuel being here in this passage, which constitutes the sole proof of his being alive, coupled with his son as the spokesman. It is agreed, that she shall go with the man, and he now makes his presents, but to whom? “Jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, he gave to Rebekah.” He also gave, we are told, “to her brother and to her mother precious things;” [Gen. 24:53.] but not, it seems, to her father; still Bethuel is overlooked, and he alone. It is proposed that she shall tarry a few days before she departs. And by whom is this proposal made? Not by her father, the most natural person surely to have been the principal throughout this whole affair; but “by her brother and her mother.” [Gen. 24:55.] In the next generation, when Jacob, the fruit of this marriage, flies to his mother’s country at the counsel of Rebekah, to hide himself from the anger of Esau, and to procure for himself a wife, and when he comes to Haran and inquires of the shepherds after his kindred in that place, how does he express himself? “Know ye,” says he, “Laban the son of Nahor?” [Gen. 29:5.] This is more marked than even the former instances, for Laban was the son of Bethuel, and only the grandson of Nahor; yet still we see Bethuel is passed over as a person of no note in his own family, and Laban his own child designated by the title of his grandfather, instead of his father.

This is consistent—and the consistency is too much of one piece throughout, and marked by too many particulars to be accidental. It is the consistency of a man who knew more about Bethuel than we do or than he happened to let drop from his pen. It is of a kind, perhaps, the most satisfactory of all for the purpose I use it, because the least liable to suspicion of all. The uniformity of expressive silence—repeated omissions that have a meaning—no agreement in a positive fact, for nothing is asserted; yet a presumption of the fact conveyed by mere negative evidence. It is like the death of Joseph in the New Testament, which none of the Evangelists affirm to have taken place before the Crucifixion, though all imply it. This kind of consistency I look upon as beyond the reach of the most subtle contriver in the world.