Genesis 25:27
And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.
Jump to: BarnesBensonBICalvinCambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsJFBKDKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWParkerPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBWESTSK

(27) The “boys grew.—With advancing years came also the formation of their characters. Esau became a skilful hunter, a “man of the field”: not a husbandman, but one who roamed over the open uncultivated wilderness (see Genesis 4:8) in search of game; but “Jacob was a plain man.” This is a most inadequate rendering of a word translated perfect in Job 1:1; Job 1:8; Psalm 37:37, &c, though this rendering is as much too strong as that in this verse is too weak. On Genesis 6:9, we have shown that the word conveys no idea of perfection or blamelessness, but only of general integrity. Both the word there and in Genesis 17:1, and the slightly different form of it used here, should in all places be translated upright.

Dwelling in tents.—Esau equally had a tent for his abode, but Jacob stayed at home, following domestic occupations, and busied about the flocks and cattle. Hence he was the mother’s darling, while Isaac preferred his more enterprising son. Thus the struggle between the twins led also to a divergence of feeling on the part of the parents. Throughout his history Jacob maintains this character, and appears as a man whose interests and happiness were centred in his home.



Genesis 25:27 - Genesis 25:34

Isaac’s small household represented a great variety of types of character. He himself lacked energy, and seems in later life to have been very much of a tool in the hands of others. Rebekah had the stronger nature, was persistent, energetic, and managed her husband to her heart’s content. The twin brothers were strongly opposed in character; and, naturally enough, each parent loved best the child that was most unlike him or her: Isaac rejoicing in the very wildness of the adventurous, dashing Esau; and Rebekah finding an outlet for her womanly tenderness in an undue partiality for the quiet lad that was always at hand to help her and be petted by her.

One’s sympathy goes out to Esau. He was ‘a man of the field,’-by which is meant, not cultivated ground, but open country, which we might call prairie. He was a ‘backwoodsman,’-liked the wild hunter’s life better than sticking at home looking after sheep. He had the attractive characteristics of that kind of men, as well as their faults. He was frank, impulsive, generous, incapable of persevering work or of looking ahead, passionate. His descendants prefer cattle-ranching and gold-prospecting to keeping shops or sitting with their lungs squeezed against a desk.

Jacob had neither the high spirits nor the animal courage of his brother. He was ‘a plain man.’ The word is literally ‘perfect,’ but cannot be used in its deepest sense; for Jacob was very far indeed from being that, but seems to have a lower sense, which might perhaps be represented by ‘steady-going,’ or ‘respectable,’ in modern phraseology. He went quietly about his ordinary work, in contrast with his daring brother’s escapades and unsettledness.

The two types are intensified by civilisation, and the antagonism between them increased. City life tends to produce Jacobs, and its Esaus escape from it as soon as they can. But Jacob had the vices as well as the virtues of his qualities. He was orderly and domestic, but he was tricky, and keenly alive to his own interest. He was persevering and almost dogged in his tenacity of purpose, but he was not above taking mean advantages and getting at his ends by miry roads. He had little love for his brother, in whom he saw an obstacle to his ambition. He had the virtues and vices of the commercial spirit.

But we judge the two men wrongly if we let ourselves be fascinated, as Isaac was, by Esau, and forget that the superficial attractions of his character cover a core worthy of disapprobation. They are crude judges of character who prefer the type of man who spurns the restraints of patient industry and order; and popular authors, who make their heroes out of such, err in taste no less than in morals. There is a very unwholesome kind of literature, which is devoted to glorifying the Esaus as fine fellows, with spirit, generosity, and noble carelessness, whereas at bottom they are governed by animal impulses, and incapable of estimating any good which does not appeal to sense, and that at once.

The great lesson of this story lies on its surface. It is the folly and sin of buying present gratification of appetite or sense at the price of giving up far greater future good. The details are picturesquely told. Esau’s eagerness, stimulated by the smell of the mess of lentils, is strikingly expressed in the Hebrew: ‘Let me devour, I pray thee, of that red, that red there.’ It is no sin to be hungry, but to let appetite speak so clamorously indicates feeble self-control. Jacob’s coolness is an unpleasant foil to Esau’s impatience, and his cautious bargaining, before he will sell what a brother would have given, shows a mean soul, without generous love to his own flesh and blood. Esau lets one ravenous desire hide everything else from him. He wants the pottage which smokes there, and that one poor dish is for the moment more to him than birthright and any future good. Jacob knows the changeableness of Esau’s character, and is well aware that a hungry man will promise anything, and, when fed, will break his promise as easily as he made it. So he makes Esau swear; and Esau will do that, or anything asked. He gets his meal. The story graphically describes the greedy relish with which he ate, the short duration of his enjoyment, and the dark meaning of the seemingly insignificant event, by that accumulation of verbs, ‘He did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way: so Esau despised his birthright.’

Now we may learn, first, how profound an influence small temptations, yielded to, may exert on a life.

Many scoffs have been directed against this story, as if it were unworthy of credence that eating a dish of lentils should have shaped the life of a man and of his descendants. But is it not always the case that trifles turn out to be determining points? Hinges are very small, compared with the doors which move on them. Most lives are moulded by insignificant events. No temptation is small, for no sin is small; and if the occasion of yielding to sense and the present is insignificant, the yielding is not so.

But the main lesson is, as already noted, the madness of flinging away greater future good for present gratifications of sense. One cannot suppose that the spiritual side of ‘the birthright’ was in the thoughts of either brother. Esau and Jacob alike regarded it only as giving the headship of the family. It was merely the right of succession, with certain material accompanying advantages, which Jacob coveted and Esau parted with. But even in regard to merely worldly objects, the man who lives for only the present moment is distinctly beneath him who lives for a future good, however material it may be. Whoever subordinates the present, and is able steadily to set before himself a remote object, for which he is strong enough to subdue the desire of immediate gratifications of any sort, is, in so far, better than the man who, like a savage or an animal, lives only for the instant.

The highest form of that nobility is when time is clearly seen to be the ‘lackey to eternity,’ and life’s aims are determined with supreme reference to the future beyond the grave. But how many of us are every day doing exactly as Esau did-flinging away a great future for a small present! A man who lives only for such ends as may be attained on this side of the grave is as ‘profane’ a person as Esau, and despises his birthright as truly. He knew that he was hungry, and that lentil porridge was good, ‘What good shall the birthright do me?’ He failed to make the effort of mind and imagination needed in order to realise how much of the kind of ‘good’ that he could appreciate it would do to him. The smell of the smoking food was more to him than far greater good which he could only appreciate by an effort. A sixpence held close to the eye can shut out the sun. Resolute effort is needed to prevent the small, intrusive present from blotting out the transcendent greatness of the final future. And for lack of such effort men by the thousand fling themselves away.

To sell a birthright for a bowl of lentils was plain folly. But is it wiser to sell the blessedness and peace of communion with God here and of heaven hereafter for anything that earth can yield to sense or to soul? How many shrewd ‘men of the highest commercial standing’ are making as bad a bargain as Esau’ s! The ‘pottage’ is hot and comforting, but it is soon eaten; and when the bowl is empty, and the sense of hunger comes back in an hour or two, the transaction does not look quite as advantageous as it did. Esau had many a minute of rueful meditation on his bad bargain before he in vain besought his father’s blessing. And suspicions of the folly of their choice are apt to haunt men who prefer the present to the future, even before the future becomes the present, and the folly is manifest. ‘What doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?’

So a character like Esau’s, though it has many fine possibilities about it, and attracts liking, is really of a low type, and may very easily slide into depths of degrading sensualism, and be dead to all nobleness. Enterprise, love of stirring life, impatience of dull plodding, are natural to young lives. Unregulated, impulsive characters, who live for the moment, and are very sensitive to all material delights, have often an air of generosity and joviality which hides their essential baseness; for it is base to live for flesh, either in more refined or more frankly coarse forms. It is base to be incapable of seeing an inch beyond the present. It is base to despise any good that cannot minister to fleeting lusts or fleshly pleasures, and to say of high thought, of ideal aims of any sort, and most of all to say of religion, ‘What good will it do me?’ To estimate such precious things by the standard of gross utility is like weighing diamonds in grocers’ scales. They will do very well for sugar, but not for precious stones. The sacred things of life are not those which do what the Esaus recognise as ‘good.’ They have another purpose, and are valuable for other ends. Let us take heed, then, that we estimate things according to their true relative worth; that we live, not for to-day, but for eternity; and that we suppress all greedy cravings. If we do not, we shall be ‘profane’ persons like Esau, ‘who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.’Genesis 25:27. Jacob was a plain man — This probably means, that he was of a mild and gentle nature, of a contemplative turn of mind, and delighting in a pastoral life.25:27,28 Esau hunted the beasts of the field with dexterity and success, till he became a conqueror, ruling over his neighbours. Jacob was a plain man, one that liked the true delights of retirement, better than all pretended pleasures. He was a stranger and a pilgrim in his spirit, and a shepherd all his days. Isaac and Rebekah had but these two children, one was the father's darling, and the other the mother's. And though godly parents must feel their affections most drawn over towards a godly child, yet they will not show partiality. Let their affections lead them to do what is just and equal to every child, or evils will arise.The brothers prove to be different in disposition and habit. The rough fiery Esau takes to the field, and becomes skilled in all modes of catching game. Jacob is of a homely, peaceful, orderly turn, dwelling in tents and gathering round him the means and appliances of a quiet social life. The children please their parents according as they supply what is lacking in themselves. Isaac, himself so sedate, loves the wild, wandering hunter, because he supplies him with pleasures which his own quiet habits do not reach. Rebekah becomes attached to the gentle, industrious shepherd, who satisfies those social and spiritual tendencies in which she is more dependent than Isaac. Esau is destructive of game; Jacob is constructive of cattle.27. the boys grew—from the first, opposite to each other in character, manners, and habits. Esau was a hunter of wild beasts, and afterwards an oppressor of men. Compare Genesis 10:9. This course of life was most agreeable to his complexion, fierce and violent.

A man of the field; one that delighted more in conversing abroad than at home, whose employment it was to pursue the beasts through fields, and woods, and mountains, who therefore chose a habitation fit for his purpose in Mount Seir.

A plain man, a sincere, honest, and plain-hearted man; or a just and perfect man, as the word is used, Genesis 6:9;

dwelling in tents, quietly minding the management of his own domestic affairs, his lands and cattle, and giving no disturbance either to wild beasts or men. And the boys grew,.... In stature, became strong and fit for business, and betook themselves to different employments:

and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field: whose business lay in tilling and sowing it, which his father Isaac followed sometimes; or rather he chose to range about the field and hunt after beasts and birds, in which he was very expert, and contrived traps and snares to catch them in; and this course of life was most agreeable to his temper and disposition, being active, fierce, and cruel; according to the Targum of Jonathan, he was also a hunter and slayer of men, Nimrod and Henoch his son:

and Jacob was a plain man; an honest plain hearted man, whose heart and tongue went together; a quiet man, that gave no disturbance to others; a godly man, sincere, upright, and perfect, that had the truth of grace and holiness in him, as well as the perfect righteousness of his Redeemer on him:

dwelling in tents; keeping at home and attending the business of the family, as we afterwards find him boiling pottage, Genesis 25:29; or rather this denotes his pastoral life, being a shepherd, he dwelt in tents, which could be removed from place to place for the convenience of pasturage: Jarchi's note is,"in the tent of Shem and in the tent of Eber;''agreeably to the Targum of Jonathan,"a minister in the school of Shem, seeking doctrine from the Lord;''a student there, where he resided awhile, in order to be instructed in the doctrines of truth and righteousness.

And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.
27. a cunning hunter] That is a skilful, expert hunter. The word “cunning” is used in its old English sense, with no idea of craft or deceit; see 1 Samuel 16:16. The Heb. means having a knowledge of the chase. LXX εἰδὼς κυνηγεῖν, Lat. gnarus venandi.

a man of the field] i.e. a man who spends his days in the open country. But this meaning is missed by the versions, LXX ἄγροικος, Lat. agricola.

a plain man] i.e., as R.V. marg., quiet or harmless, Lat. integer. “Plain,” in Old English, is used for “simple,” “honest”: cf. “For he [Antonius] was a plaine man, without subletie” (North’s Plutarch, Antonius, p. 979); “Plaine, faithful, true, and enimy of shame” (Spenser, F. Q., i. 6, § 20).

The meaning seems to be that of a solid, simple, home-abiding man. LXX ἄπλαστος, Lat. simplex. Cf. the German fromm.

dwelling in tents] Cf. Genesis 4:20. The life of Jacob, the herdsman and the shepherd, is contrasted with that of the fierce and roving huntsman. The ideal patriarchal habit of life seems to be pastoral.Verse 27. - And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, - literally, skilled in hunting; εἰδὼς κυνηγεῖν (LXX.); gnarus venandi (Vulgate); a sportsman - a man of the field; - not a husbandman, homo agricola (Vulgate), who is differently denominated - ish haadhamah (Genesis 9:20); but one addicted to roaming through the fields in search of sport - ἀγροικὸς (LXX.); an indication of the rough, fiery nature and wild, adventurous life of the elder of the two brothers - and Jacob was a plain man, - תָּם = ἄπλαστος (LXX.); simplex (Vulgate); integer, i.e. mitis, of mild and gentle manners (Rosenmüller); blameless, as a shepherd (Knobel); pious (Luther); righteous (Kalisch); obviously intended to describe Jacob as, both in character and life, the antithesis of Esau - dwelling in tents - i.e. loving to stay at home, as opposed to Esau, who loved to wander afield; preferring a quiet, peaceable, domestic, and pious manner of existence to a life of "excitement, adventure, and danger," such as captivated Esau. Isaac's marriage, like Abraham's, was for a long time unfruitful; not to extreme old age, however, but only for 20 years. The seed of the promise was to be prayed for from the Lord, that it might not be regarded merely as a fruit of nature, but be received and recognised as a gift of grace. At the same time Isaac was to be exercised in the patience of faith in the promise of God. After this lengthened test, Jehovah heard his prayer in relation to his wife. לנוכח, Genesis 25:21 and Genesis 30:38, lit., opposite to, so that the object is before the eyes, has been well explained by Luther thus: quod toto pectore et intentus in calamitatem uxoris oraverit. Sicut quando oro pro aliquo, propono illum mihi in conspectum cordis mei, et nihil aliud video aut cogito; in eum solum animo intueor.
Genesis 25:27 Interlinear
Genesis 25:27 Parallel Texts

Genesis 25:27 NIV
Genesis 25:27 NLT
Genesis 25:27 ESV
Genesis 25:27 NASB
Genesis 25:27 KJV

Genesis 25:27 Bible Apps
Genesis 25:27 Parallel
Genesis 25:27 Biblia Paralela
Genesis 25:27 Chinese Bible
Genesis 25:27 French Bible
Genesis 25:27 German Bible

Bible Hub

Genesis 25:26
Top of Page
Top of Page