Jacob, watching his opportunities, soon found occasion to take advantage of his brother. One day Esau

returned from the chase "faint" with hunger. The sight of a mess of lentils, which to this day is a favorite

dish in Syria and Egypt, induced him, unaccustomed and unable as he was to control the desires of the

moment, to barter away his birthright for this "red" pottage. The circumstances become the more readily

intelligible when we remember, besides the unbridled disposition of Esau, that, as Lightfoot has pointed out,

it was a time of commencing famine in the land. For, immediately afterwards (Genesis 26:1), we read that

"there was a famine in the land," greater even than that at the time of Abraham, and which compelled Isaac

for a season to leave Canaan. From this event, so characteristic and decisive in his history, Esau, after the

custom of the East, obtained the name of Edom, or "red," from the color of "the mess of pottage" for which

he had sold his birthright.

In regard to the conduct of the two brothers in this matter, we must note, that Scripture in no way excuses

nor apologizes for that of Jacob. Accordin g to its wont, it simply states the facts, and makes neither

comment nor remark upon them. That it leaves to "the logic of facts;" and the terrible trials which were so

soon to drive Jacob from his home, and which kept him so long a bondsman in a strange land, are

themselves a sufficient Divine commentary upon the transaction. Moreover, it is very remarkable that Jacob

never in his after-life appealed to his purchase of the birthright. But so far as Esau is concerned only one

opinion can be entertained of h is conduct. We are too apt to imagine that because Jacob wronged or took

advantage of Esau, therefore Esau was right. The opposite of this is the case. When we ask ourselves what

Jacob intended to purchase, or Esau to sell in the "birthright," we answer that in later times it conveyed a

double share of the paternal possessions. (Deuteronomy 21:17) In patriarchal days it included "lordship"

over the rest of the family, and especially succession to that spiritual blessing which through Abraham was

to flow out into the world (Genesis 27:27, 29), together with possession of the land of Canaan and covenant-

communion with Jehovah. (Genesis 28:4) What of these things was spiritual, we may readily believe, Esau

discredited and despised, and what was temporal, but yet future, as his after conduct shows, he imagined he

might still obtain either by his father's favor or by violence. But that for the momentary gratification of the

lowest sensual appetites he should have been ready to barter away such unspeakably precious and holy

privileges, proved him, in the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 12:16), to have been "a

profane person," and therefore quite unfitted to become the heir of the promises. For profanity consists in

this: for the sensual gratification or amusement of the moment to give up that which is spiritual and unseen;

to be careless of that which is holy, so as to snatch the present enjoyment, - in short, practically not to deem

anything holy at all, if it stands in the way of present pleasure. Scripture puts it down as the bitter self-

condemnation which Esau, by his conduct, pronounced upon himself: "and he did eat and drink, and rose

up, and went his way; thus Esau despised his birthright."

Before farther following the history of Isaac's trials and joys, it seems desirable to make here a few general

remarks, for the purpose of explaining the conduct alike of Isaac and of Jacob, and its bearing on the history

of the covenant. It has been common to describe Abraham as the man of faith, Isaac as the model of patient

bearing, and Jacob as the man of active working; and in the two latter cases to connect the spiritual fruits,

which were the outcome of their faith, with their natural characters also. All this is quite correct; but, in our

opinion, it is necessary to take a broader view of the whole matter. Let it be borne in mind, that God had both

made and established His covenant with Abraham. The history of Isaac and Jacob, on the other hand, rather

represents the hindrances to the covenant. These are just the same as we daily meet in our own walk of

faith. They arise from opposite causes, according as in our weakness we either lag behind, or in our haste go

before God. Isaac lagged behind, Jacob tried to go before God; and their history exhibits the dangers and

difficulties arising from each of these causes, just as, on the other hand, God's dealings with them show how

mercifully, how wisely, and yet how holily He knew to remove these hindrances out of the way, and to

uproot these sins from their hearts and lives. Accordingly, we shall consider the history of Isaac and Jacob

as that of the hindrances of the covenant and of their removal.

Viewed in this light we understand all the better, not only Jacob's attempt to purchase the "birthright" - as if

Esau had had the power of selling it! - but what followed that transaction? It seems that a grievous famine

induced Isaac to leave his settlement, and it naturally occurred to him in so doing to follow in the wake of