We always do what we most want to do. We are choosy beings, meaning that we think through the options available to us and then choose according to our preference, whether for or against. Who knows how many decisions any given person makes in a day, but the sum of all our choices define who we are. Sometimes just one choice demonstrates it all.

Five main characters in Genesis 25:19-34 make revelatory choices, choices that foreshadow tension, rivalry, and conflict for chapters to come.

We finished studying Abraham’s story at the beginning of chapter 25. We met Keturah, his wife-concubine, and six sons through her that were not chosen by Abraham or by God to receive the inheritance. Then we briefly saw “the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s servant bore to Abraham” in verses 12-18. Moses already explained the birth and banishment of Ishmael in chapters 16 and 21 respectively. Ishmael was also not the choice of Abraham or the LORD to carry on the covenant promises.

The son of promise was Isaac, and his “generations” cover Genesis 25:19-35:29. His is a story primarily filled with brotherly bitterness between Isaac’s sons, Jacob and Esau. This morning we’ll see the birth troubles (19-28) and the birthright transfer (29-34).

From Barrenness to Birth (verses 19-26)

Sometimes in the middle of a trial we think we see so clearly how that trial could be resolved. And sometimes the resolution turns into a bigger pain than the original problem.

These verses are the introduction to the eleven-plus chapter story of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Abraham fathered Isaac through Sarah, who isn’t mentioned by name, which is sort of interesting since both Keturah and Hagar are in the previous paragraphs.

The attention is now on Isaac’s story, and he was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean, to be his wife . We studied that arranged marriage in chapter 25, and learned that Rebekah comforted Isaac in Sarah’s absence. She apparently will be the woman through whom the covenant blessings will continue.

However, there is a problem. Those offspring who are to be as numerous as the stars of the heaven (Gen. 15:5) and like the sand on the seashore (Gen. 22:17) are slow in coming. They are so slow that we might begin to wonder if God had forgotten His promise. Like his mother, Isaac’s wife was unable to have children. Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife because she was barren . How could this be? Hadn’t the LORD made it clear to Abraham’s servant that Rebekah was the right one for Isaac? And hadn’t the LORD Himself said that Isaac was the chosen offspring? Had the LORD chosen wrong?

In verse 21 we’re not sure how long Isaac prayed for children. In the same verse, but a second sentence, he prayed and the LORD granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived . So it initially seems that the answer from God didn’t take too long. But look at the end of verse 26: Isaac was sixty when she bore them . Forty to sixty means that Isaac prayed for twenty years. It means that Isaac and Rebekah waited two decades. There was no quick, let alone automatic, fulfillment.

Not too long after new life started to grow in her womb, Rebekah wondered why she was even alive. The children struggled together within her . Already we, the readers, know more than Rebekah, the mother, knew. There are children , not a “child.” Rebekah didn’t have ultrasound technology, but at some point a few months in, the babies struggled , they “jostled” (NIV), they brawled and battled, they were engaged in an “intestinal war” (ha! thanks for that image, John Calvin). Even as wombmates they couldn’t get along. Some kind of conflict was raging in the battlefield of her belly and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” But the question is probably more severe than that. “If it is going to be like this, I’m not so sure I want to be pregnant!” (NET Bible) Being barren would be better than this. The ESV note offers an alternative translation: “Why do I live?” Being dead would be better than this. She wasn’t only sick, she was sick of it.

It got so bad that she went to inquire of the LORD . Moses doesn’t say where she went or in what way she inquired, though it seems more liturgically formal than Isaac’s prayers.

She asked, God answered. His answer explained what was happening and provided explanation about what would happen once she gave birth. The fighting wouldn’t stop for a while, though they would eventually take it outside.

And the LORD said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall
be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger.”
(Genesis 25:23)

The LORD told her that she’s going to have twins! And those twins are going to be trouble. That trouble will include a reversal of roles, since the older would usually be stronger.

We would imagine that that wasn’t exactly the diagnosis, or comfort, that Rebekah was looking for. And even though it was short, she may not have understood it all.

On labor day the first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak so they called his name Esau . The name Esau may not be that descriptive itself, but red and hairy will become key plot points. As one commentator proposed, maybe it was hypertrichosis, or in layman’s terms, werewolf syndrome.

Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob . The name Jacob (ya’a’qob) is close to the Hebrew word for heel, aqab, and it describes more than the object of Jacob’s first grasping. Even in English a “heel” is an inconsiderate or untrustworthy person.

The section ends with another mention of how old Isaac is; now he is sixty.

From Rivalry to Reversal (verses 27-34)

Knowing their names, now we read a brief description of their different natures. When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents . The hairy one was a hunter, a competent one, and he was at home outdoors. He is sort of like Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh; “Shaggy with hair is his whole body” and as a “hunter, a trapping-man” (Hamilton). He was a man’s man; he made his own bow and arrows; he shopped at Cabelas. His younger brother was quiet , but that probably means more like a homebody. He wasn’t a camper; he stayed with the tents because they didn’t have more permanent structures to stay in. Guests from out of town probably didn’t observe enough similarities between Esau and Jacob to identify them as brothers, let alone twins.

If those guests stayed for a while they would have noticed dissimilarities between the boys and disfunction in the family. Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob . Nothing is wrong with enjoying barbecue, but playing parental favorites because of it doesn’t show great maturity on Isaac’s part. Isaac appears to be motivated by his belly. Moses does not say why Rebekah loved Jacob. Was it because he was a momma’s boy? Was she compensating for her husband’s favoritism? Was it due to the LORD’s prophecy? Regardless, it could not have helped the home be more happy. Barrenness really was better in a way.

Though only five verses long, the final paragraph in the chapter is one of the most famous stories in Genesis. It also took place in minutes, yet neither brother forgot it, especially Edom/Esau.

Once (upon a time) when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field and he was exhausted. So far nothing too surprising, except that Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted! Esau the “skillful hunter” and cooker of game is apparently back from the hunt with empty hands, and an empty stomach. He’s tired and starving, though more in an impatient and impulsive panic than a dangerous condition. He walked up to the campfire on his own. He’s not dying for real.

Esau asked for some of that red (stuff) . It looked hot, thick, and maybe even looked meaty. The color was so significant that Esau called the dish by it, and then became called by that color himself. His choice of red soup over his birthright was a defining choice. (Therefore his name was called Edom). (Imagine that you forgot your lunch and money at home, that after driving home from your long commute you entered your house and saw your brother eating a Snickers. You’re so on edge that you say, “If you give me that Snickers you can have the whole house.” Then imagine that everyone called you “Snickers” for the rest of your life.]

If Esau and Jacob were five, we would tell Jacob just to share. “He’s your brother.” Or maybe we could imagine a bargain for future ingredients; one bowl now for three game birds later. But Jacob, as if he’s been plotting it, immediately asks for the highest possible payment. This is price gauging, an abuse based on an apparent meal monopoly. **”Sell me your birthright now.”**That’s not a reasonable response, nor one that Jacob would have heard all the younger brothers in the neighborhood making. It is so quick and brash that he must have been scheming about it already. The “spontaneous” reply comes from a settled selfishness.

Maybe more surprising is that Esau gives no resistance. If anything, he argues for Jacob, not against him. This demonstrates that he was also in a settled place. In other words, this is not when Esau started to despise his birthright.

He said, ”I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” He was right about one thing. He was not about to die, but his birthright was of no use to him. The problem wasn’t his growling belly, it was his hard heart. The birthright was worth a bowl of stew, and that’s what he got for it. He was no doubt hungry, but the repots of his dying were greatly exaggerated. He overstated his physical condition as much as he undervalued his birthright position. He was in line for twice as much material inheritance as his brother, and more than that, he was in line to be the representative of the family. But he didn’t care.

Jacob made him swear; there would be no returns. Esau swore. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. All it took to get him back on his feet was a little food. He left like it was no big deal. He didn’t cry out, “Oh no! What have I done?!” He didn’t try to change the agreement with Jacob, he just walked away. It showed that Esau despised his birthright . It had no value to him.

Conclusion

The author of Hebrews drew moral application from Esau’s choice (Hebrews 12:). He said we shouldn’t be slaves to our physical passions, to our immediate tongue hunger. Moses concludes that Esau chose wrong.

But so did Jacob. This is not a story told for us to be like one brother instead of the other. Both brothers chose wrongly. Jacob’s choice to take advantage of his brother and supplant his brother’s position wasn’t righteous. Isaac’s choice to favor Esau because he cooked meat was wrong. Perhaps Rebekah’s preference was also wrong. The only character in this story whose choice was not motivated by selfishness was God when He chose Jacob over Esau, the younger instead of the older. God chose for His own purposes, but not grasping purposes.

The moral of this story is: don’t be like anyone in this story.

There will be more selfishness, more rivalry, more disunity in the family in the coming chapters. Jacob has a lot of growing up to do before he becomes the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. This is the start of Israel’s life and, were it not for God’s grace, we would continue to behave in only selfish ways as well.