Jacob and Esau
2 brothers. 2 stories.
“Two Nations Are in Your Womb”
(Gen. 25:19–28)
Rebekah’s pregnancy is a difficult one as she feels two siblings struggle with each other in utero. She is pregnant with twins. When she prays to God about her distress, she receives a divine prophecy.
The children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it is to be this way, why do I live?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.” (Gen. 25:22–23)
God delivers a prophecy or a promise to the pregnant woman, similar to the way the messenger of God delivered a promise to Hagar. The prophecy immediately describes the two sons not in terms of their individuality as persons but in terms of their representation of nations and peoples. Rebekah is carrying not merely two people in her womb but two nations! In this declaration, we are given our first indications that we are not to view these brothers solely as individuals. They represent peoples. We might imagine that ancient audiences of these stories knew about these two nations, Israel and Edom, and transmitted that knowledge onto these characters. In fact, the ancient audience of this story would strongly identify with Israel and see Edom as their adversary.
Then the divine promise adds more details to the brothers’ future relationship. English translations of this portion of the prophecy tend to accentuate a division between the siblings. The New Revised Standard Version translates that the two “shall be divided,” which influences the way we think about these sons. However, other translations note that the Hebrew verb here has the sense of spreading out: the two peoples will spread out. This understanding of the promise does not insert animosity unnecessarily into God’s promise to Rebekah. Instead, we are to understand that these two nations will spread across the region as they grow. They will become such great nations that more territory will be needed to contain them.
The final phrase, which the New Revised Standard Version renders “the elder shall serve the younger,” also includes an ambiguity: it is unclear which noun is the subject and which is the object. The odd Hebrew phrase has the first noun, “elder,” and then the verb “will serve,” and finally the second noun, “younger,” without a grammatical indication of how the two nouns function. The sentence could read “the elder will serve the younger” or “the elder, the younger will serve.”[1]This real ambiguity creates a sense of suspense within the story. How will this equivocal prophecy be fulfilled? How we read this phrase will undoubtedly shape how we understand the following verses in which the births occur. It may be accurate to assume that the translation “the elder will serve the younger” is the best understanding of the Hebrew (despite the strange syntax in the original language) since that relationship would be the unexpected one. According to ancient customs and traditions, the elder brother is not likely to find himself in service to his younger brother. However, the text may be inserting a genuine ambiguity into the story. What if we can maintain the prophecy’s unresolved, vague relationship between these twins as we continue to read? Who serves whom?
After the enigmatic divine promise, the brief but significant story of the births of Esau and Jacob occurs:
When her time to give birth was at hand, there were twins in her womb. The first came out red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they named him Esau. Afterward his brother came out, with his hand gripping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them. (Gen. 25:24–26)
Rebekah and Isaac have twins! Esau is the firstborn like Ishmael, his uncle, was. He, therefore, has certain rights to a double portion of the inheritance. So, with two sons in the family, Esau should get two-thirds of the inheritance and Jacob one-third of it.
The birth announcement section concludes with a short note about the siblings’ occupations as adults. Esau is a hunter, and Jacob lives among tents. It is perhaps a connection back to the Cain and Abel story and the focus on their differing occupations. It is unclear what the reader is to infer about the twins’ occupations. The description of Esau is straightforward enough. He is a “knowing hunter.” He is skilled at hunting and is an outdoorsman. Jacob’s description is more difficult to decipher. Jacob is described with the word tam (translated “quiet” by the New Revised Standard Version). The word could imply that he is simpler—that is, quieter or less skilled. But the term can also mean innocent. Jacob prefers to stay inside in the tents. The overall point is clear: these twins are different from each other.
This introductory section of the brothers’ story ends with a simple sentence describing the parental loyalties of Isaac and Rebekah: Isaac loved Esau; Rebekah loved Jacob. Isaac, the second-born, loves Esau, the firstborn. Why? Because Isaac likes game and Esau hunts. No reason is given for Rebekah’s love for her younger son. These fidelities set us up nicely for the subsequent stories in which we see the effects of this division in the family.
Differences can lead to an opposing moral binary: good and bad. We can easily slip into this dichotomy when given two options. Religious differences are often evaluated in opposition to each other instead of appreciated. Indeed, Jacob and Esau are portrayed as different. But our traditional readings have created even more stark divisions than the text grants. Any parent of multiple children knows that each child is different in abilities and interests. We can choose to affirm those differences, or we can choose to compare them in order to judge them. Genesis has undoubtedly introduced these brothers as different from each other. We are reminded of the story of Cain and Abel. Differences exist. But this story has also created some intentional ambiguity around their sibling relationship. We are not told directly in the story to see one brother as morally good and the other as morally bad. Yet we often can’t resist this temptation to label and judge. We are lured into the moral binary.
How does this story translate to our contemporary tendency to prejudge differences?
One way to navigate our religiously pluralistic world is to grow more comfortable with the ambiguity, and even value, of differences. Differences of belief and practice among people of various faith traditions are not automatically points of conflict or animosity. We do not have to take an exclusive position of “I am right, so you are wrong.” We can see differences as opportunities for conversation and possibilities for celebration.
Selling the Birthright (Gen. 25:29–34)
Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!” (Therefore he was called Edom.) Jacob said, “First sell me your birthright.” Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright. (Gen. 25:29–34)
Such a short story with so much interpretive weight resting on it! Esau sells his birthright for a bowl of stew. Readers typically judge Esau harshly for his rash and imprudent decision. How could something so important as a birthright be worth some stew? And what does it mean to sell your birthright? To answer these questions, we focus on the selling of the birthright and Esau’s status and character at the end of this episode.
Selling your birthright seems like an important decision, not one to make lightly or quickly. Genesis 25 assumes its readers understand the additional rights, responsibilities, and honor that come with being the firstborn son in the family. Esau has been criticized throughout history for his seemingly impetuous actions. He is characterized as too concerned with earthly and current matters such as hunger to focus on weightier and future matters like a birthright. However, the story does not clarify Esau’s intentions and thoughts concerning his willingness to sell his birthright. We are given only a few snippets of dialogue between the brothers. It may well be that Esau gives his birthright away rashly for soup. Alternatively, we might consider the possibility that Esau knows his lifestyle as a hunter is dangerous and that he may not outlive his father. (Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Genesis 25:32, .) So he makes a calculated assessment of the situation and regards the birthright as, first, unattainable and, second, tradable. Or perhaps Esau does not take Jacob’s dramatic demand literally in the hunger of the moment. Additionally, we might consider Jacob’s action. He appears to be conniving and opportunistic. We might laugh off this trickster’s action if the stakes weren’t so high. Jacob does seem to play to his brother’s fleeting weakness with a coercive demand.
The story is not as morally clear concerning Esau as we might expect. We are left with valid questions regarding both brothers’ actions. Terence Fretheim summarizes the issues well:
The narrator probably “sets up” the reader with this text. The temptation for later Israel (and all who consider themselves to be God’s elect) would certainly be to side with Jacob against Esau, to somehow justify his behaviors or even to suggest that whatever he did to obtain the birthright was appropriate to or congruent with God’s choice. At one level, such thinking is ethically dangerous, for it suggests that the elect are free to act as they please, without regard for the consequences. At another level, such thinking is theologically wrongheaded, for personal behaviors did not ground God’s choice to have the elder serve the younger. (Terence Fretheim, “Genesis,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 1:523–34.)
Indeed, the enticement to identify with Jacob in this story is strong. However, I would argue that this temptation comes more from our traditional readings of Genesis 25 than from the text itself. At almost every point in the narrative of Genesis 25, the brothers’ differences are presented with nuance and even uncertainty. Nevertheless, if we identify with Jacob, we need to ask ourselves some critical questions concerning the birthright we so readily claim.
Even without the birthright, Esau can be a good person. He is not cursed without the birthright. As we will see later, the birthright is not the same as the blessing. God’s love and favor do not appear to be tied to the birthright. It is an honored ancient Israelite tradition that provides some extra privileges to the firstborn son. It does not signify a moral blessing or a divine blessing. In fact, where is God in this episode? God is not present to affirm or deny the selling of the birthright. The brothers, who are so different from each other, trick and are tricked with no regard for God’s approval of their actions.
Whose side is God on when God does not appear?
God does not take a side in the sibling struggle. Religious pluralism encourages us also not to habitually or stridently take a side. We may assume that God is on the side of Jacob, but that assumption is likely grounded in our tendency to have God identify with the one we identify with. Instead, we might appreciate the way in which this story creates morally complicated characters as we attempt to see ourselves in both brothers. There is not a good side and a bad side, a good brother and a bad brother. We can undoubtedly relate to the morally complex nature of relationships in which actions are rarely pure or simple.
Summer of Genesis
The Revised Common Lectionary provides readings from Genesis this summer. We plan to follow along with insights for those preaching or just curious.
July 23 Genesis 28:10-19a
July 30 Genesis 29:15-28
August 6 Genesis 32:22-31
August 13 Genesis 37:1-4, 12-28
August 20 Genesis 45:1-15
A Benediction (Or Miscellaneous Thoughts)
- If you know someone who might like to read this newsletter, forward this email to them.
- You can read an online version of this newsletter here.