25:27-28 Esau was a nomadic hunter, but Jacob remained in his tents.
". . . they became the personification of the two different ways of life which would have been typical for Palestine at this period of history: that of hunter and nomad (Esau) and that of shepherd and semi-nomad (Jacob) . . . Esau is described as a skilled hunter,' a man of the outdoors;' Jacob, on the other hand, is portrayed as a simple man,' one remaining in his tents,' that is, a man of stable life in contrast to the rootless life of the nomad."633
"The two characters are utter opposites, as the two nations will eventually be."634
The Hebrew word tam, translated "plain,"probably means domesticated, a homebody.635It may imply a quiet, self-contained, detached personality, complete in himself.636
"Descriptions of Jacob's early life in the Scriptures paint an interpersonal portrait of a highly narcissistic individual who grew up in a family of origin ripe for producing such pathology."637
25:29-30 The Hebrew word translated "stew"literally means "lentils."Esau wanted to "gulp it down"(Heb. la'at).
25:31-34 The way Jacob stated his demand suggests that he had long premeditated his act and ruthlessly exploited his brother's weakness. His insistence that Esau swear to him strengthens this impression. Because Esau despised his birthright Jacob obtained it and became what God had promised He would become, the stronger son who would lead (v. 23). Explicit moral commentary is rare in the Bible, so the writer's inclusion of it here marks something about Esau that he did not want the reader to miss.
"The cunning hunter fell into a better hunter's trap, becoming prey to his own appetite."638
The writer showed that the natures of the two sons were very different; they were not identical twins. Esau cared only for physical and material things whereas Jacob valued the spiritual. Esau gave priority to the immediate satisfaction of his sensual desires, but Jacob was willing to wait for something better that God had promised in the future (cf. Heb. 12:16).
"The frivolity with which he [Esau] sold his birthright . . . rendered him unfit to be the heir and possessor of the promised grace."639
The birthright was the privilege of being chief of the tribe and head of the family (27:29). In Isaac's family it entitled the bearer to the blessing of Yahweh's promise (27:4, 27-29), which included the possession of Canaan and covenant fellowship with God (28:4). It included a double portion of the inheritance (Deut. 21:17) and the privilege of being the priest (spiritual leader) of the family.640
"It is quite apparent from the Nuzi tablets that instances of the transference of birthright, such as occurred in the Patriarchal narratives, were not uncommon in Hurrian society. One example concerns a certain Zirteshup, whose father disowned him but later restored his status. . . . Another instance of the transference of birthright from the Nuzi tablets is the exchange by one Kurpazah of his birthright in consideration for three sheep given to him by Tupkitilla, his brother. In the light of this example, Esau's willingness to exchange his birthright for Jacob's mess of pottage (Gen. 25:29-34) is perhaps more understandable."641
Even though Esau was a cunning hunter he placed little value on his privilege as the first-born son. He was willing to trade it to his crafty brother for a meal of "red stuff,"a fitting description of his own nature.642
The structure of the narrative again identifies the writer's emphasis, this time Esau's disdain for his birthright (v. 32).
"AJacob was boiling pottage (29a).
BEsau came in from the field; he was tired (29b).
Cwayyo'mer esaw: Let me eat some of that red pottage . . ., I am so tired!
Dwayyo'mer ya'aqob: First sell me your bkrh(31).
Ewayyo'mer esaw: I depart; I die! Of what use is a bkrhto me? (32).
D'wayyo'mer ya'aqob: Swear to me first. So he swore to him and sold his bkrhto Jacob (33).
C'Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; he ate and he drank (34aa).
B'He rose and went his way (34ab).
A'Thus Esau despised his birthright (34b)."643
There are two important instances of first-born sons relinquishing the rights of primogeniture in Genesis: Esau and Reuben. Esau considered his birthright of so little value that he sold all his rights as first-born to Jacob to realize an immediate physical gratification. Reuben forfeited his birthright through sexual promiscuity (Gen. 35:22; 49:3-4). In Esau's case, his entire birthright went to Jacob. In Reuben's, his went to three of his brothers. Judah obtained the regal right, Levi eventually received the priestly right, and the blessing of the double portion went to Joseph who realized it through his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.644
In reading this pericope many have concluded that God chose Jacob over Esau because He foresaw that Jacob would value the promises and the birthright, whereas Esau would not. This is not correct. Jacob valued the spiritual because God gave him the grace to do so. In the previous generation Isaac was the recipient of God's grace while Lot and Ishmael were not. Abraham was, too, whereas his brothers were not.
In this incident Jacob manifested spiritual perception. Some writers have suggested that he was impatient and took fleshly initiative like his grandfather (cf. 12:10-20; 16; 20). Note, however, that Moses blamed Esau, not Jacob, in this event (v. 34).
"How often do we put the question to ourselves, What is my mess of pottage?' It is important to verbalize the question. We are in constant danger of being tempted to give up something very precious in order to indulge a sudden strong desire. The desire may involve greedy eating and drinking, lusting after money or material things, letting loose our anger in abandonment of reason, succumbing to depression without check, cursing God in despair or disappointment without even thinking of the trap Satan set for Job and is setting for us, giving in to a sweeping sexual desire without waiting for the right framework. The mess of pottage that is dangerous to you and to me is any temptation to gratify the feelings' of the immediate moment in a way that shows we despise' the promises of the living God for our future."645
This section is a warning that profane (secular) people who live to satisfy their fleshly appetites will lose more valuable things of lasting spiritual worth. Christians who live for the present will not lose their salvation, but they will lose some of their eternal reward (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15).
