This is the third time we see this ruse in scripture:  first with Abraham and Sarah involving Pharaoh in Genesis 12; then with Abraham a second time, this time involving King Abimilech in Genesis 20; and here with Isaac and Rebekah, again with King Abimilech.

I see the repetition of this recurring theme being recorded as having two possible explanations, of which both may be true.

1 – On one hand it lends to the credence that it was an actual concern; that men would be willing to kill another man in order to take his wife as their own.  This raises a question however, as it infers that such a man would have a stronger conviction about committing adultery than taking someone’s life.  Perhaps this is why in the New Testament contains this interesting passage:

“For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.”   James 2:11

2 – The repetition of the story however, also reinforces the likelihood that neither Abraham nor Isaac were very good at judging the motives of others.  Perhaps in their cases, it was not a valid concern, and their lives may not have been in danger.  In the case of Pharaoh, it becomes fairly clear that Pharaoh would not have taken Sarah in the first place if Abraham had been honest about their relationship:

“Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her and go.”  Gen. 12:19

I explored the incident between Pharaoh and Abraham much more thoroughly in a previous post.

Additionally, what the repetition of this theme helps us to see is the character of those involved.  Isaac had a choice: handle the situation with honesty, or do the same thing his father did, and he chose the latter.  What may be more surprising in this case, however, is the integrity of character shown by Abimilech.

What is important to ultimately glean from the text in my opinion, is that those of us who believe in God often misjudge the moral standing of those we assume do not believe in God.  In doing so, our distrust of others translates into a lack of faith.  Our actions that follow may then be skewed by our perception of those we judge.

In the case of Pharaoh with Sarah, and the case of Abimilech with Rebekah, the actions of Abraham and Isaac nearly caused Pharaoh and Abimilech to sin, but God in His mercy prevented them from such guilt because He knew they were both innocent in the circumstances.  Further, God then saw to it that both Abraham and Isaac were called out on their dishonesty.

Isaac was heading to Egypt via Gerar when God told him to stay in Gerar, that by doing so God would be with him, bless him, and establish the oath made to Abraham.  The oath included multiplying their descendants and giving them the lands.  God had called Abraham from Haran to Canaan, so Isaac was already where God wanted him to be.

Gerar may not have been the ideal destination for escaping the famine, but it was sufficient; and as we see, God did bless Isaac and he prospered there greatly.  So much so, in fact, that King Abimilech sent him away from Gerar proper, telling Isaac “you are too powerful for us.” (v. 16)  Some rabbis believe that Isaac ultimately had more wealth than the king, and Abimilech was embarrassed.

Isaac’s role as a patriarch was an interesting one, largely representing a transition between Abraham and Jacob.  Abraham was mostly nomadic, and Jacob was for the most part settled, but Isaac is a bit of both; semi-nomadic then later settled.  Just as God accomplishes His will in each of us individually, His larger plan looms.  One could argue that it began with Abraham’s father Terah, who ultimately left Ur and ended up in Haran.

In many ways, Isaac’s job was to stay where he was at and watch God’s blessings unfold before him.  There is something to be said of contentment here.  All too often we want to race forward with our lives, but in our hurrying we fail to see that sometimes we just need to accept our current circumstances and resist our desire to “move on” to the next chapter of our lives too quickly.  When we race forward like this, it is much like hurrying through the previous chapter of a book, only to realize in a few chapters we must have missed something crucial because now the story isn’t quite making sense.

Through Isaac’s obedience to stay in Gerar for a time, he likely gained much more than God’s material blessings.  Things like patience by learning to wait on God; Trust, by seeing that God’s promises were coming to pass in time;  Contentment by staying in Gerar and not merely pressing on to Egypt, and quite possibly humility, in seeing that God’s plan for him worked out better than the plan he had for himself.  In Isaac’s dealings with Abimilech, we even see more of a willingness to reconcile with others than in the case of Abraham (compare Gen. 20:24-32 to Gen. 26:30-31)

In Isaac, God is cultivating positive traits beyond those of Abraham which will be further carried and refined through Jacob.

The famine and the encounter with Abimelech are just the first two of many parallels between the Isaac and Abraham narratives.  And just as with Abraham, Isaac was going to head to Egypt due to the famine, by way of Gerar.

We may make the assumption that God did not want Isaac to go to Egypt due to what transpired between Abraham and Pharaoh regarding Sarah, that perhaps the people of Egypt are more wicked than Gerar.  However The second time that Abraham was not honest about Sarah being his wife, the same thing happened here, in Gerar, with king Abimelech, in very similar fashion.

Despite this, it appears God was alright with Isaac going to Gerar.  Gerar is still within the land of Canaan, the area that would become known as the Promised Land.

Previously in Genesis 24, Abraham calls upon his oldest servant to go and find a wife for Isaac.  The servant then asks “Suppose the woman is not willing to follow me to this land; should I take your son back to the land from where you came?” (Gen. 24:5)

 Abraham’s response explains much:

Then Abraham said to him, “Beware that you do not take my son back there!  “The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from the land of my birth, and who spoke to me and who swore to me, saying, ‘To your descendants I will give this land,’ He will send His angel before you, and you will take a wife for my son from there.  “But if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be free from this my oath; only do not take my son back there.”  (Gen. 24:6-8)

Abraham was so adamant about Isaac not going, that he would rather his son be without a wife, despite having a great promise from God concerning the number of his descendants.  This appears to be less about preventing Isaac from going to Egypt and more about Isaac staying in Canaan.   Abraham’s point is that his journey led up to this: he is now in Canaan, the land promised to him and his descendants; thus he wants Isaac to establish himself here thoroughly, and does not want him to leave.

The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 64:3) explains that an offering to God must stay in the temple courtyard, and thus, because Isaac was an offering to God, he must stay within the bounds of the Promised Land.

It is a chapter about coming to God in our own way, not merely rediscovering the faith of our father.  Although surprisingly little is written about Isaac, we can glean much about who he is on a personal level from his actions and reactions, and his dealings with others.  He appears to be a fairly quiet man, yet seems to want to live vicariously through his burly soon Esau.  He trusts more in his senses than his intuition.  He is more of a peacemaker than his father Abraham, yet he is naive.

Most scholars believe that Isaac is essentially the generational link between Abraham and Jacob, and as such his primary role is to establish himself in Canaan, and keep the tradition of the faith intact.  I would take this a step further, that God was refining the line of Abraham until all the necessary qualities would be in place for the man to be born who would become Israel.

The sale of the birthright is mentioned in legal terminology (Rashi, Plaut), Jacob was not kidding around.  Plaut’s Modern Commentary on the Torah also notes that birthrights in scripture, have not only been sold, as in the case of Esau, but also canceled through blessings as in the case of Manasseh (Gen. 48:13-20), or lost due to a sinful act, like Reuben’s (1 Chron. 5:1).

We often forget that God is God; He can do as He pleases.  His sovereignty goes beyond the natural world we know.  He reaps where He does not sow, He gathers where He did not scatter (Matt. 25:24), and so it should not be that amazing of a thing to us to say he can cause us to no longer be the firstborn.

Likewise, He can cause us to be born again:

“Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”  (John 3:7-8)

Author R’ Bachya speculates that Esau did not even know for sure what he was selling his birthright for, as it is not revealed to the reader until after the deal is done – that he sold his birthright for a mere pot of beans.  No wonder Esau despised his birthright.

Everett Fox notes Esau’s hasty nature, reinforced by the string of four verbs in the last verse of the chapter – that he ate, drank, arose and went.

Though Jacob was born within minutes of his older brother Esau, Jacob seemed determined to usurp him.  I explored the birthright in the previous post, which sheds some light on why Jacob wanted this role.  But even so, at the end of Isaac’s life, Jacob is willing to deceive his father (at his mother Rebekah’s direction) into receiving Esau’s blessing as well!

This seems odd because logically one would think that it is not possible to actually ‘be’ the firstborn if one is not; further if Jacob is not really entitled to the blessing, why does Isaac not recant what was said, prove Jacob a liar, and give the blessing to Esau?  But none of this happens.  Instead it is as if a divinely ordained path was forged for Jacob, even if he used questionable means to stay on that path.

There is a fascinating rabbinical explanation for Jacob’s favor:  That perhaps he was actually conceived first, though he was born second.

Even today we do not know what a child is thinking in the womb, but we know that Jacob and Esau were struggling with one another.  If Jacob knew he was conceived first, this could explain the struggle; further it would explain why Jacob was holding the heel of Esau while being delivered as if to say “Get back here, I’m supposed to be first!”  If Jacob somehow knew he truly was first, it may explain his drive for the birthright, as he actually would have felt it belonged to him.  And the transaction happens without divine intervention to stop it.  Perhaps even more telling, later God acknowledges Jacob as firstborn, in the words of Moses to Pharaoh:

“‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.”  Exodus 4:22

As we know, Jacob is later renamed Israel by God (Gen. 32:28).  Last of course we see Jacob get away with stealing Esau’s blessing, somehow without obvious divine punishment, though it results in his brother wanting to kill him of course.

And so this is a rabbinical story that cannot be easily dismissed, as if offers plausible explanation to otherwise seemingly disconnected elements of the story.

There is an over-arching theme in the scriptures of the younger son being used mightily by God.   Perhaps this is in part why Jesus said ‘But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.” (Matthew 19:30)

This passage is often read without understanding as to what the birthright is, so any significance is usually missed.  Instead we are left with an overly dramatic Esau, and confusion about why Jacob would want something he can’t really seem to have, but somehow gets.

The birthright is not merely ‘being born first’, but rather has several aspects.  In the familial aspect, we see that Isaac favored Esau (25:28), and the firstborn had a preferred place as planned successor of the head of the household.

However there was also a spiritual aspect of the birthright, a responsibility that comes with being born first.  The first child was like the firstfruits of an offering; the sacrificial responsibilities fell to Esau (Rashi, also, midrash), and so in this way he could be viewed as the high-priest of the family, and a type of the Levitical priesthood to come.

Knowing what we know later of the Levitical priesthood and the seriousness of the task, it is fair to speculate that perhaps Esau was not merely exaggerating that he was going to die because he was hungry – he may have known his own heart and felt he was not prepared to live such a life of service to God.   Jacob, on the other hand, felt he was able to perform these responsibilities.  When it tells us in v. 27 that Jacob ‘lived in tents’, the rabbis say this refers to the tents where the teachings of God took place, hearkening back to ‘dwelling in the tents of Shem’ from the Noah story.  Thus Jacob took God seriously, and perhaps Esau did not, and he knew.

We often forget that others were following God at this point, not just Isaac and his family.  All the way back in Genesis 14, we see Melchizedek seemingly come out of nowhere, but yet he is a priest of God Most High, long before any official temple and before Levitical law was instituted in the scriptures.

As we began to explore in the previous post, there is speculation, at least in rabbinical stories, that Esau had a murderous nature.  In addition, I argue the case that this portion of the Genesis narrative contains some strong allusions to the Cain and Abel story – some elements are parallels, while in other cases the roles are switched.

First we have brothers.  Jacob and Esau are twins.  Cain and Abel may be twins as well, though we are not told explicitly.  We should consider this possibility due to the text, which tells us of one conception and two births:  ”…she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said “I have gotten a manchild with the LORD.”  Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel.”  Or as another translation reads “…she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain, saying “Both I and the Eternal have made a man.” She then continued, giving birth to his brother Abel.” (Gen. 4:1-2) Ultimately we do not know how much time passes in between these births, if any.  At the very least we are dealing with siblings.

One of the brothers is associated with animals, the other with vegetables.  In the case of Abel we see he was a shepherd, taking care of the animals, which we contrast with Esau who traps and kills animals.  Jacob is not a hunter; instead we see him cooking lentil stew.  Cain brought his offering from the harvest.

In both cases, the firstborn seems to be prone to impetuousness.  Cain was filled with rage when his offering was not accepted before God, and later kills his brother in a fit of anger.  With Esau, the narrative is filled with action verbs: He returns from hunting; he declares he is famished and wants to gulp down Jacob’s stew hastily.  So hastily in fact, that he was willing to sell his birthright for mere temporary hunger.  Alter’s commentary tells us that this verb used here for gulping down the food in rabbinical Hebrew would be used for feeding animals.  Then, he ate, drank, arose, and left (Fox).

Upon the tragedy of the murder of Abel, God confronts Cain, then pronouncing his punishment says “Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.” (Gen. 4:11).  Bear in mind that Esau also went by the name Edom, which means “red” but is also closely related to Adam/Adamah, which means “ground”.  So when Esau says  ”Pour into me, now, some of that very red stuff”, there is a picture of “red stuff” being poured into Edom/the ground.  This portends what is about to unfold; after all the deceit of Jacob taking the birthright, and later the blessing also, Esau determines to kill his brother Jacob.

Ultimately we see a beautiful picture of reconciliation in the case of Jacob and Esau. When Esau is coming toward Jacob with 400 men, Jacob decides to show his brother lovingkindness and respect by sending forth gifts to ‘master Esau’.  This disarms him, showing us that love can overcame hatred and anger, and that things can end in reconciliation instead of death.

In most English translations of the scriptures, repetitive words and redundant phrases tend to get omitted presumably because they seem superfluous and unnecessary to understand a given passage.  Each of these verses (vv 29 and 30) contains such a repetition.  Verse 29 may be read as if Jacob was “boiling boiled stew”, and Esau’s request in v. 30 actually reads more like “give me some of that red, red stuff”.  In the case of Esau’s statement, the original Masoretic text contains the word “red” twice.

If we venture to read between the words, as is often helpful, we see the very same Jacob which we were just told a few verses ago was wholesome and innocent is now cooking up not just stew – but also a plot – to get the birthright from his brother. (Fox)  The very structure of the Hebrew is designed to steer our thinking in this direction, but this style is often not carried over to most English translations.

As for Esau, there is an obvious theme going on regarding the color red, from his reddish appearance at birth, to the repetition here of the color of the stew he asks for, and ultimately he earns the moniker ‘Edom’ which simply means red.  This also hearkens to Adam, as Adam’s name not only means “man” but also “red”, to which Josephus attributes to the first man being taken out of red clay, which he termed ‘virgin earth’. (Antiquities, Book I)

It may be surprising that some rabbis and scholars speculate that Esau is a murderer. This is for at least two reasons: 1) the theme of ‘red’ in his life portends blood, and 2) it mentions Esau being ‘famished’ or ‘exhausted’ twice in these verses, and the root word of this was used in Jeremiah 4:31 regarding a soul being wearied on account of murderers. (Bereishis Rabbah 63:12, also, Rashi)  No murder by Esau is recorded in the scriptures, though he does threaten to kill his brother Jacob.

The allusions do not stop there.  This portion of Jacob and Esau’s story has an eery number of similarities to the story of Cain and Abel, which we will explore in the next post.

Favoritism of a child by the father is a running motif in the the book of Genesis.  Here we see that Isaac loves Esau.  Looking back to Abraham, it appears he favored Ishmael (Gen. 17:18 “Oh that Ishmael may live before you!” and Gen. 21:11 where Abraham did not want to send Hagar and Ishmael away, “on account of his son”).  Even going back as far as Cain and Abel, God had regard for Abel’s offering, but not Cain’s.  Not that God was necessarily being partial, but it was perceived that way by Cain.   Looking forward we see Joseph with his coat of many colors.

In the original Hebrew it is not clear as to who had a “taste for game”, it may have been Esau.  Another rendering may be ” he had a taste for trappings in his mouth”.  Thus, because Esau liked to hunt and Isaac liked to eat it, Esau was the favorite in his eyes.

We must note the Hebrew play on words in the phrase “a taste for trappings in his mouth.” which may indicate deceitful words of Esau that were pleasing to Isaac’s ears.  There are rabbinical stories about Esau pretending to be pious to his father.