Genesis

Gospel Light Christian Church
Thru-The-Bible Series (20.2)

The Book of Genesis

Genesis Chapter 25 - Read this Bible passage once through before referring to the notes below.

Abraham’s Death and Isaac’s Inheritance

v.1-6 There is no way to tell for sure when Abraham married Keturah (v.1) but the verbs suggest that it was after the death of Sarah. If that is so, there would have been 38 years for the births of 6 sons (v.2), who were sent away before the death of Abraham. Abraham loved all his sons and gave them gifts before he sent them away (v.6). Abraham had the responsibility of ensuring that the blessing, as God planned it (cf. 17:19), would pass to Isaac (v.5), the true heir.

v.7-11 Abraham died at the age of 175 (v.6), and “was gathered to his people” (v.7, i.e. he left the land of the living). He was buried in the cave of Machpelah (v.10) by Isaac and Ishmael (v.9), which may indicate that some reconciliation had taken place between them.

Death seems to remain the most sobering element in the human struggle for the blessing of God. We must realise, then, that no one is indispensable in God’s programme. Good people die, and others take up the task to continue God’s programme. Therefore, it is important that one does not “personalise” the programme to the point that no thought is given to the next generation. God’s servants must do all that they can to ensure that God’s programme of blessing continues from generation to generation without interruption.

In the case, the work of God to bless the world (cf. 12:1-3) continues from the generation of Abraham to the generation of Isaac, as the report, “that God blessed his son Isaac,” (v.11) indicates that the God of Abraham was to be the God of Isaac as well.

The Descendants of Ishmael

v.12-18 These verses provide the “generations of Ishmael”. The twelve names (v.13-15) attests to God’s faithfulness to His promise to give Ishmael “twelve princes” (17:20) make of Ishmael “a great nation” (17:20; 21:18). Ishmael lived 137 years and the narrative quickly moves on to its primary focus – Isaac and his family.

The Birth of Esau and Jacob to Isaac

v.19-20 The intimate link between Abraham and Isaac is demonstrated by lineage (v.19), which repetition stresses Isaac’s connection to the person who received the promise (12:1-3). They also shared the same problem of the barrenness with their wives. Although Isaac was the son of Abraham and the heir of the promise, and although Rebekah was of good stock, carefully chosen to be Isaac’s bride, these factors are not sufficient to produce the next heir of the promised blessing. It would still take divine intervention. There is a need for a supernatural provision of God for “the seed of Abraham” (cf. Ro. 9:7) to be brought out of a barren womb. In the similar fashion, the spiritual “seed of Abraham” (cf. Ro. 3:13-16) in the New Testament do not exist by natural birth (cf. Jn. 1:12) but are born of the Spirit (cf. Jn. 3:5). They exist solely because God brought them into existence as His people.

v.21 Unlike Abraham, however, who earlier had prayed for the barren wombs of Gerar (20:17) but not for Sarah, Isaac “intreated the LORD for his wife…and the LORD was entreated of him” (v.21). Isaac evidently had learnt that the only solution for such a problem was to pray to the LORD and God was pleased in His sovereignty and grace to remove Rebekah’s barrenness so that she “conceived”.

v.22 The Hebrew word translated, “struggled,” normally signified “crushing” or “oppressed”. It was not a mild discomfort but it was more like a “turmoil” within Rebekah’s womb. She became concerned and perplexed and “went to enquire of the LORD,” revealing that she has also learnt to seek the LORD in prayer when she is faced with problems in life.

v.23 In reply, the LORD revealed to her that in her womb were 2 sons, and they would be the forefathers of two nations. The struggle within the womb would be typical of the great struggle between the two peoples in years to follow. The surprising element was God’s statement that “the elder shall serve the younger”. This was contrary to ancient Near Eastern custom but the elective purposes of God transcend customs. Hence, God declared that the promised line would belong to Jacob, the younger son. Jacob, thus, owed his supremacy over Esau, not to natural order or to human will but to divine election.

v.24-26 When the time of delivery came, the unusual circumstances of the births led to the naming of the twins. Esau’s appearance at birth was more like an animal of the field (v.25, “red, all over like an hairy garment”). The younger twin followed on the heels of his brother – “and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel” (v.26). The name “Jacob” was apparently chosen to retain the memory of this unusual activity of the infant. “Jacob” means “to take by the heel,” which in the view of the parents might have conveyed an affectionate thought. But later developments would reveal that the child was in essence struggling for the best starting position and that thought (“to take by the heel”) came to have the negative meaning of “trip up, defraud,” or as Esau interpreted it “a supplanter” (cf. 27:36). Evidently, the destiny of the two nations, Israel and Edom, is clear from the birth of their ancestors, as the LORD had revealed to Rebekah.

Esau sold his birthright to Jacob

v.27 Esau was the outdoorsman, “a cunning hunter” roaming the fields– a sportsman, rough, wild, free and boisterous. But Jacob was a man of even temperament (“a plain man”) – a settled man, stable, quiet, meditative. A contrast is thus made between the aggressive hunter (“a man of the fields”) and the reflective nomad (“dwelling in tents”).

v.28 Isaac favoured Esau because he loved the taste of Esau’s game (“he did eat of his venision”). The favouritism was thus based on natural senses rather than enduring qualities. A weakness of Isaac is introduced here that will be fully exploited in Genesis 27 – he made his choices on the basis of his senses. Because he loved what Esau gave him to eat, he loved Esau. No explanation is given for Rebekah’s love for Jacob but the entrance of parental favouritism increases the contrasts between the two brothers and sets the stage for the conflict to follow later.

v.29 There is an interesting reversal of role here with the clever hunter laying a trap for the hungry animal in the word-play used in the text. The word used for Jacob’s “pottage” recalls the sounds of the word used to describe the hunter. Esau might have been a cunning hunter but Jacob also knew how to catch game. The word “sod” in the original certainly means “boil” but it was used elsewhere to describe “presumptuous actions” – i.e. Jacob’s boiling the pottage seemed a simple act but by the choice of this Hebrew word, it implied he was hunting his prey, that he was acting presumptuously.

v.30 Esau felt faint from his hunting in the field, appeared and demanded to be fed – “Feed me,” a colourful appeal that conveys the basic idea of gulping down food or the activity of cramming food down the throat of the animal. The description of Esau’s impulsive desire to gulp down the reddish soup Jacob boiled gives a picture of a wild and blustery man pointing and gasping. Esau did not take the name of “Edom” (“red”) but the descendants of Esau were known as Edomites (cf. Gen. 36), which affirmed that the Edomites shared the nature of their ancestor – impulsive and profane.

v.31-33 This was the moment Jacob had been waiting for – rather than give his brother the food, he betrayed his real interest “Sell me this day thy birthright”. The “birthright” probably represents the priority in the inheritance. Jacob apparently believed that if he obtained the birthright, he would occupy the place of the elder son as heir. Being far-sighted and calculating, he pressed the matter.

Esau’s response is desperate (“Behold I am at the point to die”), even though he was nowhere near the point of death. Here we catch a clear view of a “profane” person – he is the man who lives for the moment, without concern for the value of what is important; he lives for the best of this life as he can see it, without concern for the cost. In Esau’s impassioned response, motivated by a great hunger at the moment, he saw no value in the birthright (“what profit shall this birthright do to me?”).

Jacob wished to ensure the agreement for the exchange right away (“Swear to me this day”). Through the exchange, Esau obtained the soup and Jacob the birthright. The calculated manipulation of Jacob on his brother in this act doubtlessly added to the growing conflict between Esau and Jacob.

v.34 The statement “thus Esau despised his birthright” forms the central point of the account. It did not conclude with “thus Jacob supplanted Esau” but “thus Esau despised his birthright”. To “despise” something means to treat it as worthless or to hold it in contempt. This word often describes an attitude of contempt for the things of God, such as the law, the sacrifices, or the temple. In this case, it is the birthright. Esau considered a bowl of lentil soup to be of more value than the birthright of inheriting the promises of God (12:1-3), which will be handed down from Isaac to his heir.

The quiet calculated manipulation of Jacob is not commended in this account and he will soon come under the refining fire of the LORD to learn to depend on God to work out His purposes. Those who earnestly desire spiritual possessions must not seek to attain them through base means. But at least Jacob recognised the value of the birthright. The lesson for believers is not to adopt the methods of Jacob but to avoid the profanity of Esau, who sacrificed spiritual provisions for the satisfaction of physical appetites, of relinquishing eternal things for momentary pleasures. It is thus a matter of priorities and values. Esau lived on the appetites of the present hour and to live on this level is tragic because living only to satisfy appetites inevitably leads to despising things of value.