The biblical doctrine of election seems abstract at best to many Christians, if not a doctrine that implies unfairness on God’s part. Why should God condemn people just because he has not chosen them? Genesis 25 points us to a fuller understanding of election, beginning with the question of fairness. Jacob is not chosen for his spirituality or moral character, nor is Esau rejected for his failings, since the choice is made in the womb, before they have the chance to develop in either of these directions. In fact, as rapidly becomes clear, Jacob is no better than Esau. The question is therefore not “Why does God reject innocent Esau?”; it is “Why does God choose guilty Jacob?” Ultimately, there is no answer to this beyond the freedom of divine choice. Since no human being deserves to receive God’s favor, as all are polluted by the effects of the fall, God is under no obligation to choose anyone for a relationship with him. That he does so is part of his mercy, and he has the absolute right to show mercy to whomever he wishes (Ex. 33:19; Rom. 9:15).
The practical value of election ought to be to free us from the kind of insecurity that drives Jacob to cheat, steal, and lie his way into a birthright and a blessing that has already been promised to him by God. This is a lesson that Jacob, like many of us, is slow to learn. If God has chosen us for himself, then nothing in all creation can separate us from the fulfillment of his loving purposes for us (Rom. 8:38–39). Since we are chosen by God not because of our merit but because of his love, there is nothing we can do to undo that choice. This is a very comforting reminder for Israel much later in its history, as the exiles return to the land after the catastrophe of Babylonian exile. Because God has chosen Jacob, they can be confident that he will rebuild their city and their community after the exile, while the fate of Edom will have no such positive outcome (Mal. 1:1–5). As the rest of Malachi shows, the doctrine of election is not a recipe for licentious living; on the contrary, knowing that God has loved and chosen us in spite of ourselves gives us the boldness to face up to the reality of our sins and to look to him for our cleansing, as well as the incentive to pursue greater faithfulness to him in the future.
God chooses the weak to shame the strong. He chooses the powerless, who know that they have no righteousness of their own in which to boast—not those who think themselves able to earn their own way to heaven. Our salvation depends on the fact that God chose us first, out of pure grace, long before we chose him. Indeed, left to ourselves, we would never have chosen him. Because our salvation depends on God’s choice, not our obedience, there is no room for human boasting but only humble praise of his incomparable mercy.Genesis 25:19–34
Or why do I live?
Or from birth
Jacob means He takes by the heel, or He cheats
Edom sounds like the Hebrew for red
25:19–21 Isaac’s history is relatively brief in Genesis, highlighting the fact that the book is in no sense a modern biography. Isaac’s struggles, such as they are, are largely the same as his father’s, as we shall see reiterated in Genesis 26. As a result, his relevance is primarily as a demonstration of the Lord’s continued faithfulness to the next generation, a point that requires relatively little elaboration. The narrative of Jacob and Esau, however, is much more complex and will be unfolded in far greater detail. This transition is marked in the standard way in the book of Genesis, by means of the toledot formula (“generations”; cf. comment on 2:4–7). In this case Isaac’s descent as the heir of Abraham (and Sarah) is highlighted by the additional, formally redundant notice that “Abraham fathered Isaac.” In contrast, in 25:12 Ishmael’s descent was explicitly derived from “Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s servant.”
One aspect of similarity between Isaac and his father, Abraham, lies in the fact that they both have barren wives (Gen. 11:30; 25:21), a reality that once again threatens the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham of numerous descendants. Sarah’s barrenness formed a major motif in the Abraham narrative, with its resolution taking no less than ten chapters of the narrative (twenty-five years in real time), as well as a major subplot involving Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 16–21). Rebekah’s barrenness, on the other hand, is no sooner mentioned than it is reported as resolved: Rebekah is barren; Isaac prays for her; Rebekah conceives (25:21).
Although Rebekah is not beyond normal childbearing years, her pregnancy is nonetheless an answer to many prayers. The issue is resolved rapidly only in a literary sense. From the details of the text it is clear that Rebekah’s barrenness lasts almost twenty years (cf. vv. 20, 26). Yet the only significant action that takes place during these twenty years is Isaac’s prayer for Rebekah. It appears that Isaac has learned from Abraham and Sarah’s experience and trusts that, even though he does not see an immediate answer to his prayers, God will nonetheless answer his prayers and fulfill in his own time all that he has promised. As a result, the Genesis narrative simply highlights the prayer and the Lord’s answer, rather than the significant waiting period in between.
25:22–23 Rebekah’s pregnancy is hardly problem-free, however. The two children are already engaged in conflict before birth, attempting to crush one another (form of ratsats) in her womb (v. 22). This internal conflict is so great that Rebekah seeks an explanation from the Lord (v. 22). Her question (“If it is thus, why is this happening to me?”) is very difficult in Hebrew, reading literally, “If thus, why this I/me?” The Syriac adds an explicit reference to “living” (“Why do I live?”; cf. NRSV), but the ESV is equally plausible in reading the question as reflecting her attitude. Twins were often thought to be portentous in the ancient world, and violently struggling twins even more so, raising the question of the significance of this struggle.
It is not clear precisely how Rebekah inquires of the Lord. Later Israelites might find answers through a priest, perhaps by means of the Urim and Thummim (Ex. 28:30; 1 Sam. 28:6; cf. Hannah’s encounter with Eli in 1 Sam. 1:10), or through a prophet (Ezek. 20:1). With the exception of Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20) there is no mention of priestly service by anyone outside the patriarchal family. Since Abraham served as a prophet in interceding for Abimelech (20:7), and Isaac has already interceded on behalf of his wife (25:21), it seems most likely that Isaac himself serves as the intermediary with the Lord in this matter as well, seeking and receiving an oracle about the two children on Rebekah’s behalf.
The response from the Lord shows that this conflict is significant in instructing Isaac and Rebekah about the nature of their children. Thus, even though the oracle is addressed to Rebekah, it is of relevance to both parents. The two boys represent two peoples or nations, highlighting the fact that Esau and Jacob together represent a fulfillment of God’s earlier promise to bring many nations from the line of Abraham (17:4–5). However, just as Abraham and Lot could not live together in peace (13:9, 11, 14), nor Isaac and Ishmael (21:10), so too Jacob and Esau will be divided, with the older son (Esau) being subjugated by the younger (Jacob). God’s promise will descend through the line he himself has chosen, according to the pathway he has chosen, not through a descent established by human categories, such as that of the firstborn son. In this way election is all of grace and not at all by merit (Rom. 9:14–16). Jacob’s victory over Esau is the result not of his morally dubious trickery but of prior divine choice—a choice that applies not merely to the two individuals concerned but to the nations that will come from them as well (cf. Mal. 1:1–5).
This theme of conflict between brothers is not a departure at this point in Genesis. A similar struggle takes place between Cain and Abel in Genesis 4; there too the younger child is the one favored by God. This motif continues throughout the book of Genesis, that of a constant pattern of rivalry and discord within the family, flowing from election. Those whom God has not chosen, or those who are living out of step with God, are always at war with those whom God has chosen, even when they grow up within the same household.
25:24–26 In due course the two boys are born, and from birth onward they are easily distinguishable. Esau, the firstborn, comes out of the womb ruddy in appearance and covered with body hair. Although a ruddy complexion was often regarded as a positive feature (cf. Song 5:10), excessive hairiness was generally associated with boorish and uncouth behavior in the ancient Near East. These features are also associated with a nickname for Esau, “Edom” (“Red”; cf. Gen. 25:30), and the name of the principal mountain in Edom’s territory, Mount Seir (“Hairy”).
Jacob, meanwhile, is born grasping his brother’s heel, as though seeking to trip up Esau in order to get out of the womb first (Gen. 25:26; cf. Hos. 12:3). This posture is linked to his name, since “heel” (Hb. ʿaqeb) sounds like “Jacob” (yaʿaqob), though the actual derivation of the name is more properly from the verb ʿaqab, which means “to protect.” The brothers’ names are significant precursors of their subsequent history, as so often in biblical narratives. Edom (“Red”) points forward to the red stew for which Esau will barter his birthright (Gen. 25:30), while Seir (“Hairy”) foreshadows Jacob’s use of animal skins to impersonate his brother and steal his blessing (27:11, 15); these become the means by which Jacob successfully trips up his brother and forges ahead of him in the race for the birthright and the blessing.
Since Isaac is sixty years old at the birth of the Esau and Jacob (25:26) and Abraham was one hundred years old at the birth of Isaac, Abraham would still be alive when the twins are born (cf. v. 7). Although the biblical text does not mention their interactions, it must have been a great comfort to Abraham to see the birth of the next generation and the continuation of God’s promises through them.
25:27–28 In the light of the oracle’s declaration that “the older shall serve the younger,” Isaac and Rebekah should have trained the boys to fulfill their callings. Esau should have been prepared for his need to find a blessing in Jacob and particularly in Jacob’s descendant through whom salvation would come. Jacob should have been prepared for his role as godly ancestor of the Messiah, recognizing in humility that he had been given a high calling not because of his greatness but through God’s choosing. Unfortunately, instead of being trained for God’s calling, however, the boys are allowed to develop in their own ways.
Esau is a natural hunter who loves the outdoor life, as presaged by his ruddy complexion from birth (v. 27; cf. v. 25). Jacob, on the other hand, is described with the ambiguous Hebrew word tam (v. 27), which the English translations usually render as “quiet.” This term normally means “whole” or “complete,” with positive overtones describing a person of physical beauty or high moral character. It describes someone whose desires and actions are thoroughly unified, as in the English word integrity. In Jacob’s case, however, his single-mindedness will lead him in a far less positive direction, as we shall see. Unlike with his brother, Esau, Jacob’s natural habitat is the tent, not the field. Once again there is a certain ambiguity in this description. It could describe his occupation as a (civilized) nomadic shepherd rather than a rough-and-ready hunter like his brother. But in what follows Jacob’s perpetual presence in the tent will also be crucial to his efforts to rob his brother of his birthright and his blessing. Because of Jacob’s preference for staying at home, he is able to be in the right place at the right time to pursue his single-minded schemes.
The differing respective aptitudes of the two boys lead to favoritism within the family: Isaac values the fruits of Esau’s hunting abilities and the tasty food they provide, while Rebekah favors Jacob, who is never far from the tents that are her domain (v. 28). In time, however, the sin of Isaac and Rebekah in playing favorites will be fittingly returned on their own heads: Isaac will be deceived by his passion for wild game, while Rebekah will find her stay-at-home son propelled far away from her.
25:29–34 The boys’ respective aptitudes form the backdrop for the next scene. Esau has been out in the fields hunting and comes home famished (v. 29; Hb. ʿayef can mean faint from hunger or tiredness, hence “exhausted”). Meanwhile, Jacob has been hanging around the tent, cooking a stew, most likely of lentils, given its color—an ironic occupation, given Esau’s famed ability to provide meat for his father (v. 28). Esau requests a portion of Jacob’s food, albeit in a rather rough manner; literally we might translate, “Let me stuff my face with the red stuff, this red stuff, for I am starving” (v. 30). The color of the stew aligns with Esau’s own color at birth and the name of the nation that will come from him: Edom.
In itself Esau’s request seems fairly simple, one that in most families would receive a positive answer: “Of course, brother! Sit down and let me serve you a bowl. What would you like to drink?” But this is no ordinary family, as seen in Jacob’s response: “Sell me your birthright now” (v. 31). Jacob has evidently been looking for an opportunity to acquire the birthright of the firstborn, which the oracle has already promised him (cf. v. 23). He is not content to await God’s provision but wants to gain the favored position through his own cleverness. Meanwhile, Esau should on no account be willing to trade the valuable right to be the heir of the blessing that God has promised should descend through Isaac’s line.
However, Esau regards the right of inheritance as of less value than a bowl of lentil stew, claiming that, since he is about to die of hunger, the birthright will be of no use to him (v. 32). The deal is sealed with Jacob’s requiring a formal oath on Esau’s part (v. 33), so that he cannot change his mind later when he is no longer quite so hungry. Meanwhile, Esau quickly downs his food and leaves; the sequence of four vav-consecutive verbs in rapid succession in the Hebrew matches the speed with which Esau eats, drinks, gets up, and goes on his way again. This thoughtless action on Esau’s part is not merely an aberration; it reveals his heart. He despises his birthright (v. 34), selling it for a pittance and subsequently giving the deal no further thought. This episode also demonstrates the fact that God’s election of Jacob to inherit the promise and his correlative passing over of Esau do not rob Esau of anything he values; on the contrary, what Esau loses means nothing to him. It is not surprising that Hebrews 12:16 highlights Esau as the classic example of an unholy person. Yet at the same time Jacob’s actions are hardly noble; he treats God’s promised blessing to Abraham as something that might be bargained for, bought and sold for a pittance. Neither brother comes out of this episode with any credit.