And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.
31. this day ] Rather, as R.V. marg., first of all. So also in Gen 25:33. See 1Sa 2:16, “they will surely burn the fat presently,” where “presently” = Heb. “this day,” i.e. “first of all.” The same idiom explains 1Ki 22:5, where “to-day” should be rendered “first of all.”
Jacob seizes his opportunity: Esau is too faint to question or oppose: the coveted privilege may be won at once by a bold bid.
thy birthright ] i.e. the rights and privileges of the firstborn. What these were is not defined. In 27 the blessing of the firstborn is chiefly regarded as a religious privilege rather than as a transfer of property. But it is clear from Gen 43:33, Gen 48:13-19, that the firstborn was regarded as entitled to a more honourable position and to a larger share of the inheritance than his brethren (cf. Deu 21:17). Jacob’s action on this occasion is recorded without disapproval. There is probably a touch of humour in the tradition, that by a stroke of cleverness Jacob, the younger, deprived his elder brother Esau of the advantage of the birthright; and, hence, Israel obtained a richer and more fertile land than Edom. The carelessness of Esau rather than the meanness of Jacob seems to meet with the contempt of the narrator.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 31. Sell me this day thy birthright.] What the bechorah or birthright was, has greatly divided both ancient and modern commentators. It is generally supposed that the following rights were attached to the primogeniture:
1. Authority and superiority over the rest of the family.
2. A double portion of the paternal inheritance.
3. The peculiar benediction of the father.
4. The priesthood, previous to its establishment in the family of Aaron.
Calmet controverts most of these rights, and with apparent reason, and seems to think that the double portion of the paternal inheritance was the only incontestable right which the first-born possessed; the others were such as were rather conceded to the first-born, than fixed by any law in the family. However this may be, it appears,
1. That the first-born were peculiarly consecrated to God, Ex 22:29.
2. Were next in honour to their parents, Ge 49:3.
3. Had a double portion of their father’s goods, De 21:17.
4. Succeeded him in the government of the family or kingdom, 2Ch 21:3.
5. Had the sole right of conducting the service of God, both at the tabernacle and temple; and hence the tribe of Levi, which was taken in lieu of the first-born, had the sole right of administration in the service of God, Nu 8:14-18; and hence we may presume, had originally a right to the priesthood previous to the giving of the law; but however this might have been, afterwards the priesthood is never reckoned among the privileges of the first-born.
That the birthright was a matter of very great importance, there can be no room to doubt; and that it was a transferable property, the transaction here sufficiently proves.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
1805
i.e. Speedily, without delay. So this Hebrew word is used 1Sa 2:16; 9:13,27; 2Ch 18:4. The birthright then had divers singular privileges; as,
1. Dignity and authority over his brethren, Gen 4:7; 27:29,37; 49:3.
2. A double portion, Deu 21:17; 1Ch 5:1.
3. A special blessing from his father, Gen 27:4.
4. The priesthood and chief government of the affairs of the church in his fathers absence, or sickness, and after his death, Num 8:16,17, &c.
5. The first-born was a special type, both of Christ, who was to be a first-born; and of the church, which is called Gods first-born, as Exo 4:22; and of the great privileges of the church, particularly of adoption and eternal life. See Heb 12:23. And therefore he is justly called profane, Heb 12:16, for slighting so sacred and glorious a privilege.
Quest.
1. Could the birthright be lost?
Answ. Yes. See Gen 4:7; 1Ch 5:1.
Quest.
2. Did Jacob well in this matter?
Answ. No; because he tempted his brother to an act of profaneness and folly, and so was guilty of his sin. And though God had designed and promised this privilege to him, yet he should have waited till God had executed his promise in his own way, as David did till God gave him possession of Sauls kingdom; and not have anticipated God, and snatched it by an irregular act of his own, as Jeroboam did the kingdom from Rehoboam.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31. Jacob said, Sell me . . . thybirthrightthat is, the rights and privileges of thefirst-born, which were very important, the chief being that they werethe family priests (Ex 4:22) andhad a double portion of the inheritance (De21:17).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Jacob said, sell me this day thy birthright. Which had many privileges annexed to it, as honour and authority in the family next to parents; a double portion of inheritance; some say the exercise of priesthood, but that is questioned; the parental blessing, and especially in this the promises of the Messiah, and of inheritance of the land of Canaan, and which was typical of the heavenly inheritance: all which Rebekah knew by the divine oracle were designed for Jacob, and which no doubt she had acquainted him with, and advised him to deal with his brother about parting with his birthright as he had opportunity; and very likely they had talked together about it before in a distant manner, and Esau had shown some indifference to his right, and made no great account of it; and now, an opportunity offering to get him in the mind to part with it, he takes it, and moves for a sale of it immediately, at once, without any more delay, and even before he had his pottage; thus taking the advantage of his brother’s necessity: or, sell it me “as the day” x, let the bargain be as clear as the day, as Jarchi interprets it; let it be made in plain and full terms, that there may be no dispute about it hereafter, or any revocation of it: but the former sense seems best, as appears from Ge 25:33, where the same way of speaking is used.
x “juxta hunc diem”, Fagius, Drusius.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
31. Sell me this day thy birthright “This birthright not only embraced the authority and honour of the patriarchal headship of the chosen family, but made its possessor heir to the Abrahamic covenant, and thus the channel of God’s great revealed mercies to mankind a mediator between God and the race typifying the God-man. Jacob, who was on a much lower spiritual plane than Abraham, by no means comprehended the vastness and dignity of these spiritual blessings, but he appreciated them far more than the worldly and sensual Esau. He knew that he was predestinated to this heir-ship, although he was the younger son. Dreading a collision with his ferocious brother, which seemed inevitable in the event of his father’s death, when the succession would be contested, and lacking faith in God’s unfolding providence, he resolves to avail himself of Esau’s weakness to obtain the birthright by peaceful purchase. The cautious Jacob knows well that Esau will repent as soon as his hunger is sated, and takes care to have the contract ratified by a solemn oath.” Newhall.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 25:31. Sell me thy birth-right To judge rightly of the profaneness of Esau, (Heb 12:16.) we must consider what rights were attached to primogeniture. Now these were, 1st, Pre-eminence over the rest of the family; 2nd, A double portion of the paternal inheritance; 3rdly, The priesthood; 4thly, The paternal blessing, the blessing which contained the promise of the seed, in which all the nations of the earth were to be blessed; privileges not confined to a person’s self, but descending to his posterity. Whatever doubt there may be among the learned concerning the former, the latter incontestibly belonged to the birth-right; and in this view, we want no further proof of Esau‘s profaneness. “The Apostle to the Hebrews,” says Bishop Sherlock, “accounts it profaneness in Esau, that he sold his birth-right; it must be because he sold the blessing of Abraham, and the promises of God: upon any other account there is no room for his charge; for it was never reckoned profaneness to sell mere temporal rights, nor was Esau excluded from the blessings of the temporal promises by that scandalous bargain.” See Use and Intent of Prophecy, p. 117.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gen 25:31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.
Ver. 31. Sell me this day thy birthright. ] Which he knew, by the instruction of his mother, to be his by God’s appointment; and therefore takes this opportunity to get it. A well chosen season is the greatest advantage of any action.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
this day. Hebrew “as on this very day. “Figure of speech Simile. App-6. Compare Luk 23:43.
birthright. Included (1) the Father’s blessing and supremacy (which went to Jacob, Genesis 27, and Jud 49:8. 1Ch 5:1, 1Ch 5:2); (2) a double portion (which went to Joseph, Genesis 48; 1Ch 5:1, 1Ch 5:2); and (3) the Domestic Priesthood (which after going to the firstborn of each family was vested in Levi for the whole nation. Num 3:6, Num 3:12. Compare Num 16:1-3).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
birthright
The “birthright” had three elements:
(1) Until the establishment of the Aaronic priesthood the head of the family exercised priestly rights.
(2) The Abrahamic family held the Edenic promise of the Satan-Bruiser Gen 3:15. –Abel, Seth, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Esau.
(3) Esau, as the firstborn, was in the direct line of the Abrahamic promise of the Earth-Blesser Gen 12:3.
For all that was revealed, in Esau might have fulfilled those two great Messianic promises. This birthright Esau sold for a momentary fleshly gratification. Jacob’s conception of the birthright at that time was, doubtless, carnal and inadequate, but his desire for it evidenced true faith.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Reciprocal: Gen 27:36 – Jacob Gen 32:28 – with men Deu 21:17 – the right Heb 12:16 – as Esau
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The way Jacob stated his demand suggests that he had long premeditated his act and ruthlessly exploited his brother’s weakness. His insistence that Esau swear to him strengthens this impression. Jacob’s lack of compassion and hospitality contrasts with that of Abraham (Gen 18:1-8) and Lot (Gen 19:1-8). It was right that he valued the birthright, but it was wrong that he obtained it as he did. Because Esau despised his birthright Jacob obtained it and became what God had promised He would become, the stronger son who would lead (Gen 25:23). Explicit moral commentary is rare in the Bible, so the writer’s inclusion of it here marks something about Esau that he did not want the reader to miss.
"The cunning hunter fell into a better hunter’s trap, becoming prey to his own appetite." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 449.]
The writer showed that the natures of the two sons were very different; they were not identical twins. Esau cared only for physical and material things whereas Jacob valued the spiritual. Esau gave priority to the immediate satisfaction of his sensual desires, but Jacob was willing to wait for something better that God had promised in the future (cf. Heb 12:16).
"The frivolity with which he [Esau] sold his birthright . . . rendered him unfit to be the heir and possessor of the promised grace." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:269.]
"From one human perspective, Esau, who functions as a foil to Jacob, is much more likeable than Jacob. From the divine viewpoint, however, he is rejected because he rejects his right to inherit the divinely given vision of his fathers." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 352.]
The birthright was the privilege of being chief of the tribe and head of the family (Gen 27:29). In Isaac’s family it entitled the bearer to the blessing of Yahweh’s promise (Gen 27:4; Gen 27:27-29), which included the possession of Canaan and covenant fellowship with God (Gen 28:4). It included a double portion of the inheritance (Deu 21:17) and the privilege of being the priest (spiritual leader) of the family. [Note: See Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 185; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, pp. 41-42, 53; and I. Mendelsohn, "On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 156 (December 1959):38-40.]
"It is quite apparent from the Nuzi tablets that instances of the transference of birthright, such as occurred in the Patriarchal narratives, were not uncommon in Hurrian society. One example concerns a certain Zirteshup, whose father disowned him but later restored his status. . . . Another instance of the transference of birthright from the Nuzi tablets is the exchange by one Kurpazah of his birthright in consideration for three sheep given to him by Tupkitilla, his brother. In the light of this example, Esau’s willingness to exchange his birthright for Jacob’s mess of pottage (Gen 25:29-34) is perhaps more understandable." [Note: West, p. 71.]
Even though Esau was a cunning hunter he placed little value on his privilege as the first-born son. He was willing to trade it to his crafty brother for a meal of "red stuff," a fitting description of his own nature. [Note: See Richard D. Patterson, "The Old Testament Use of an Archetype: The Trickster," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 (September 1999):385-94, for a helpful discussion of instances of trickery in the Old Testament.]
The structure of the narrative again identifies the writer’s emphasis, this time Esau’s disdain for his birthright (Gen 25:32).
"A Jacob was boiling pottage (Gen 25:29 a).
B Esau came in from the field; he was tired (Gen 25:29 b).
C wayyo’mer ’esaw: Let me eat some of that red pottage . . ., I am so tired! (Gen 25:30)
D wayyo’mer ya’aqob: First sell me your bkrh (Gen 25:31).
E wayyo’mer ’esaw: I depart; I die! Of what use is a bkrh to me? (Gen 25:32).
D’ wayyo’mer ya’aqob: Swear to me first. So he swore to him and sold his bkrh to Jacob (Gen 25:33).
C’ Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; he ate and he drank (Gen 25:34 aa).
B’ He rose and went his way (Gen 25:34 ab).
A’ Thus Esau despised his birthright (Gen 25:34 b)." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 446.]
There are two important instances of first-born sons relinquishing the rights of primogeniture in Genesis: Esau and Reuben. Esau considered his birthright of so little value that he sold all his rights as first-born to Jacob to realize an immediate physical gratification. Reuben forfeited his birthright through sexual promiscuity (Gen 35:22; Gen 49:3-4). In Esau’s case, his entire birthright went to Jacob. In Reuben’s, his went to three of his brothers. Judah obtained the regal right, Levi eventually received the priestly right, and the blessing of the double portion went to Joseph who realized it through his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. [Note: See Arlen L. Chitwood, Judgment Seat of Christ, pp. 138-40.]
In reading this pericope many have concluded that God chose Jacob over Esau because He foresaw that Jacob would value the promises and the birthright, whereas Esau would not. This is not correct. Jacob valued the spiritual because God gave him the grace to do so. In the previous generation Isaac was the recipient of God’s grace while Lot and Ishmael were not. Abraham was, too, whereas his brothers were not.
In this incident Jacob manifested spiritual perception. Some writers have suggested that he was impatient and took fleshly initiative like his grandfather (cf. Gen 12:10-20; Genesis 16; Genesis 20). Note, however, that Moses blamed Esau, not Jacob, in this event (Gen 25:34).
"How often do we put the question to ourselves, ’What is my mess of pottage?’ It is important to verbalize the question. We are in constant danger of being tempted to give up something very precious in order to indulge a sudden strong desire. The desire may involve greedy eating and drinking, lusting after money or material things, letting loose our anger in abandonment of reason, succumbing to depression without check, cursing God in despair or disappointment without even thinking of the trap Satan set for Job and is setting for us, giving in to a sweeping sexual desire without waiting for the right framework. The mess of pottage that is dangerous to you and to me is any temptation to gratify the ’feelings’ of the immediate moment in a way that shows we ’despise’ the promises of the living God for our future." [Note: Edith Schaeffer, "What Is My Mess of Pottage?" Christianity Today (March 14, 1975), p. 50.]
This section is a warning that profane (secular) people who live to satisfy their fleshly appetites will lose more valuable things of lasting spiritual worth. Christians who live for the present will not lose their salvation, but they will lose some of their eternal reward (cf. 1Co 3:10-15).