Genesis 25:29-34

CRITICAL NOTES.—

Genesis 25:29. Sod pottage.] “That is, seethed or boiled—a soup. This pottage is a very common dish in that country. It is made up of different grain or lentiles, bruised and boiled as a broth. There was a red pottage, made chiefly of a red grain.” (Jacobus.)—

Genesis 25:30. Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage.] The words run in the Hebrew, “Give me to eat, I pray thee, of the red, the red, the this.” In the weakness and impatience of his hunger, he omits the name and merely describes the dish by its outward appearance. Edom, meaning red, was given to him as a name from this incident. At least, that name might from hence be confirmed which was first given to him on account of the complexion of his hairy skin. “Therefore was his name called Edom.—

Genesis 25:32. Behold I am at the point to die.] “This may be understood in three ways: the words may have

(1) a general meaning—I care only for the present: I shall die, and the birthright will pass on and be of no use to me;

(2) a particular one, referring to his way of life—I am meeting death every day in the field, and am not the man to benefit by the birthright, constantly exposed as I am to the risk of life; or
(3) one belonging to the occasion then present;—“I am ready to die of faintness and fatigue, and so hold a present meal of more value than a distant contingency.” Of these the A.V. by rendering, “I am at the point to die,” chooses the third.” (Alford.)—

Genesis 25:34. Bread and pottage of lentiles.] Heb. “Food, even pottage of lentiles.”

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Genesis 25:29

THE SALE OF THE BIRTHRIGHT

In this transaction Esau is the marked man,—the warning example to all ages. His conduct has given rise to the established expression which denotes the barter of honour and fame for some passing pleasure, some present satisfaction of gross appetite; and in a higher application it denotes that worldly temper by which a man parts with eternal treasures for the sake of the fleeting treasures of this present world. Esau may be regarded as the founder of the Epicurean sort, of all whose motto and philosophy of life is, “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” Such is the chief lesson of this history. But this history, considered in itself, shows us that both the parties to this bargain are to blame. It was an unrighteous business, and altogether discreditable to the two brothers engaged in it. This is evident if we,—

I. Consider the parties engaged in this transaction as ordinary members of society.

1. As to Jacob’s conduct.

(1) It was marked by unkindness unworthy of a brother. Esau came tired and hungry from the violent toil of the hunter’s field. The food which so seasonably appealed to his appetite, and for which he craved so pathetically, was prepared by his brother’s hands who did not need it now. It was natural and seemly that one brother should ask food of another; and surely no one worthy of that name would refuse, especially in the extreme of necessity. To drive a hard bargain at such a time was most infamous. And even if it was necessary at all to bargain, surely something less might have been demanded. Jacob might have been contented with some portion of the proceeds of the day’s chase. He grossly failed in the duty due to a brother. His conduct was most unfeeling.

(2) It was marked by low cunning. To take an unfair advantage of his brother’s need was a mean device.

2. As to Esau’s conduct.

(1) He abandoned himself to the delights and temptations of appetite. He saw the savoury food, and the language he used in asking for it shows how eager and craving was his hunger,—“Give me to eat, I pray thee, of the red, the red, the this” (Heb.). “Let me swallow some of that red, that red there” (Delitzsch). The present satisfaction of appetite overwhelmed all higher considerations, and sunk the nobility within him. We can scarcely regard him as being in very great straits for food, or really perishing for want. He was simply a tired and hungry man. There was surely some other food in his father’s house which he could have provided himself with. But he would have, at all costs, this savoury dish. He had, probably, been accustomed to indulge in the pleasures of the palate so much as to render his principle weak in the hour of temptation from this source.

(2) He was lacking in a true sense of honour and nobility. Had he possessed the honour of a man of the world, such as he was, he would have spurned such a pitiful proposal as this, and preferred a crust of bread and a cup of water to dainties offered to him on such conditions. He would have indignantly rebuked the meanness which dared to make such a proposal. If he had any nobility left in him he should have maintained his position in the family, at any inconvenience to himself.

(3) He was unconcerned for the peace of the future. The transaction of this day could not fail to be a source of endless trouble for his family in the future, giving rise to disputes and bitter recriminations. It would tend to perpetuate enmities, and revive continually the flames of jealousy.

II. Consider the parties engaged in this transaction as religious men.

1. As to Jacob’s conduct.

(1) It was irreverent. This birthright was a sacred thing, dignified with a religious importance; yet Jacob, in a most profane manner, mixes it up with things secular. He makes it a commercial business of the meanest order. And this irreverence is all the more manifest if we consider (what is highly probable), that Jacob does not appear, from the subsequent history, to have enjoyed the rights of the firstborn in any temporal sense. If he then considered the birthright as a spiritual privilege, why does he think to purchase it with money? Is the inheritance of the heavenly Canaan to be bought for a mess of pottage?

(2) It showed a want of faith in God. By the Divine oracle Jacob knew that he was the chosen heir to the highest privileges of the birthright. But he used human means for bringing about the purposes of God. He showed a want of faith in not trusting God to accomplish His own designs. Infinite wisdom has no need of our crude suggestions and poor help. Faith is content to rest upon the promise, and to wait. It is no part of our duty to go out of our way for the purpose of fulfilling prophecy.

(3) It was contrary to the broad free spirit of true piety. No truly pious soul could think of making a purely spiritual matter the subject of bargain and sale.

2. As to Esau’s conduct.

(1) It showed a powerlessness to resist temptation. He was tired and hungry, and this savoury dish meeting his eye at such a time became a strong temptation. When he hears the artful conditions proposed, instead of resisting the tempter, he yields easily and speaks contemptuously of his birthright (Genesis 25:34). Such men may have much good nature in their dispositions, and be equal to the practice of easy virtues, but they are weak in the hour of temptation.

(2) It was profane. This is the special point upon which the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews insists (Hebrews 12:16). He regards Esau as the type of a “profane” or worldly man. (a) He preferred the present to the future. The mess of pottage was there before him, all ready for his enjoyment. The high privileges of his birthright were far away in the future. The claims of the future are vague and indistinct in worldly minds; but those of the present are vivid and powerful, prevailing over every other. This preference of the present to the future is the very essence of worldliness. (b.) He preferred the sensual to the spiritual. The sense of the pure and exalted blessings of the birthright was weak in him, but the desire for carnal indulgence was strong. Such is the temper of the children of this world, and such their choice. The claims of the flesh are paramount. (c.) He preferred the near and certain to the distant and probable. The mess of pottage was before him. There was no question but that it was a present and certain good. He could make sure of it. But the promised advantages of the birthright were far away. He might not live to enjoy them. “Behold,” he said, “I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?” (Genesis 25:32.) A distant and spiritual good can only be realised by a strong faith. With most of the children of this world the things of heaven are either not thought of at all, or they come to be regarded as a great perhaps. The things of this world have the important advantage that they are sure. We know beyond all chance of mistake when we possess them. Such is the tyranny which this present world exercises over its children. Unless a strong deliverer comes to our rescue and saves us, we cannot escape from this house of bondage.

ESAU’S CONTEMPT OF HIS BIRTHRIGHT IMPROVED

Hebrews 12:16

“Lest there be any profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.”

A “profane” person is one who despises or makes light of sacred and Divine things,—as the name, day, or Word of God, His ways and people. “As Esau,” who, though the firstborn of Isaac, circumcised, and partaking of the worship of that holy family, was yet profane. His sin was his making light of the birthright and the blessings annexed to it. “The firstborn, as the root of the people of God, conveyed to his posterity all the blessings promised in the Covenant; such as a right to possess the land of Canaan, and to be the father of Him in whom all the nations were to be blessed, and to explain and confirm these promises to his children in his dying blessing to them.” (Macknight.) These great advantages did Esau profanely despise, and when afterwards “he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected.” Having lived, it seems, forty or fifty years in careless unconcern, he at length began to perceive how unwise a part he had acted, and sought to alter his father’s mind but found no means of doing it, though “he sought it carefully with tears” (Genesis 27:38). Let us consider—

I. Whether there be not a birthright, which we may sell; or blessings to the enjoyment of which we are born, but which we may forfeit. If we compare our state with that of the inferior creatures, and consider ourselves first as human beings, we shall find we are born to privileges far beyond any they are capable of possessing. We are rational, and capable of that knowledge of God, of His nature and attributes, His works and ways, which they have no capacity of attaining; knowledge which enlightens and enlarges, refines and purifies, entertains and delights; nay, and even feasts the mind. But this blessing we may sell. We are capable of loving Him, and being beloved by Him peculiarly, which they are not. The felicity of fixing our esteem and love on an adequate and worthy object, and of knowing ourselves to be noticed, regarded, and loved by a Being infinitely great and good!—this also we may sell. We are born capable of resembling Him, of bearing His image and likeness, which no inferior creature is. (Genesis 1:26.) The glory and happiness of resembling the first and best of Beings!—this also we may sell. We are born capable of fellowship with Him; but how many rest contented without it? Compare our state with that of the fallen angels, and consider us as sinners fallen, but redeemed by the life and death of the Son of God: in consequence of which we are born to enjoy blessings which they are precluded from. (Hebrews 2:16.) Compare our state with that of the heathen, and consider us, called Christians, as born within the pale of the visible Church; and we are born to the privilege of having the Word and ordinances of God, and all the means of grace, in which the heathens have no share. Compare the condition of such as are the children of religious parents, or whose lot is cast among the wise and pious with those who are not so: and consider the privileges of a religious education. Compare the state of those who have obtained a spiritual birth with that of the rest of mankind. And yet these various birthrights, and all the blessings included in them, may be sold.

II. For what consideration they who sell this birthright part with it. “For one morsel of meat”—For sin,—perhaps for one single besetting sin,—as drunkenness, uncleanness, injustice, defrauding, over-reaching, or dishonest gain.—There may be in the carnal heart a desire for this, as in the body an appetite for food, and it may appear desirable, useful, and even necessary; but it is only “one morsel of meat,” its pleasure unsatisfying, and of short duration. The appetite returns as eager as before, and the vicious principle is nourished and increased, and becomes daily more unruly.—For the world, “the desire of the flesh.” The gratifications of sense, the appetite and passion, in eating, drinking, and such like animal gratifications. This is parting with our birthright; which we have above the inferior creatures, viz., the dignity, glory, and felicity of our rational and immortal nature, for the pleasures of brutes; nay, for pleasures which many of them enjoy in greater perfection than we.—“The desire of the eye;” pleasing the eye of the body or of the mind with laying up money, with dress, furniture, planting, building, etc., with things grand, new, and beautiful. This is also unsatisfying, and of short duration. It is parting with heaven for earth, eternity for time, the Creator for the creature. It is parting with an infinite good for what is only at best finite, but is very small, if it be not rather an evil than a good; an eternal for a temporal one; a good belonging to, and necessary for, the soul, the better part of man, for one belonging to the body, the worse part. In other words, it is selling our birthright for “one morsel of meat.”—“The pride of life:” the pomp, show and glitter of the present world; glory, honour, preferment, the praise of men; the gratification of pride, self-will, discontent, impatience, anger, malice, envy, revenge. This is parting with the pleasures of the saint or angel, for (not the pleasures, for pleasures they have none), but for the miseries of a devil. It is selling our birthright, not for one or many morsels of meat, but doses of poison; for what is sure to disorder, enfeeble, and destroy us. Now all this proceeds from, and manifests PROFANENESS. To be profane, taking the word actively, is, to make light of, and despise spiritual and Divine things, which men do because of their ignorance of them; their unbelief; their insensibility, and hardness of heart (Romans 2:4); their carnal, earthly, and devilish mind. To be profane, taken passively, implies a person or place separated, or cast out from the society of things sacred. So holy things are said to be profaned when the veneration due to them is taken off, and they are exposed to common use and contempt. Thus those who reject, neglect, or treat with contempt their spiritual privileges and blessings, are already, like things common or unclean, cast out from the society of things and persons sacred and holy. Continuing to be so, they shall be everlasting outcasts from God, and shall find “no place of repentance, though they seek it with tears” (Matthew 7:22; Matthew 25:11; Luke 13:25).—[Rev. J. Benson’s Sermons, and plans.]

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Genesis 25:29. What a trifing circumstance in human life may lead to the greatest consequences!

Jacob had become a sage in the practical comforts of life. This pottage is a very common dish in that country. It is made of different grain or lentiles bruised and boiled as a broth. There was a red pottage, made chiefly of a red grain. While Jacob had this pottage fresh Esau comes in from hunting, and is faint and weary.—(Jacobus.)

Our appetites expose us to the dangers of temptation, both when they want and when they are satisfied. The greater portion of the trials of human life arise from this question of food.
The people of the East are exceedingly fond of pottage. It is something like gruel, and is made of various kinds of grain, which are first beaten in a mortar. For such a contemptible mess, then, did Esau sell his birthright. When a man has sold his fields or gardens for an insignificant sum, the people say, “The fellow has sold his land for pottage.” Does a father give his daughter in marriage to a low caste man, it is observed, “He has given her for pottage.” Does a person by base means seek for some paltry enjoyment, it is said, “For one leaf (i.e., leafful) of pottage he will do nine days’ work.” Has a learned man stooped to do anything which was not expected from him, it is said, “The learned one has fallen into the pottage pot.” Has he given instruction or advice to others, “The lizard which gave warning to the people has fallen into the pottage pot.” Of a man in great poverty it is remarked, “Alas! he cannot get pottage.” A beggar asks, “Sir, will you give me a little pottage?” Does a man seek to acquire large things by small means, “He is trying to procure rubies by pottage.” When a person greatly flatters another, it is common to say, “He praises him only for his pottage.” Does a king greatly oppress his subjects, it is said, “He only governs for his pottage.” Has an individual lost much money by trade, “The speculation has broken his pottage pot.” Does a rich man threaten to ruin a poor man, the latter will ask, “Will the lightning strike my pottage pot?”—(Roberts.)

Genesis 25:30. Let me feed now on that red, red broth. He does not know how to name it. The lentile is common in the country, and forms a cheap and palatable dish of a reddish brown colour, with which bread seems to have been eaten. The two brothers were not congenial. They would therefore act each independently of the other, and provide each for himself. Esau was no doubt occasionally rude and hasty. Hence a selfish habit would grow up and gather strength. He was probably wont to supply himself with such fare as suited his palate, and might have done so on this occasion without any delay. But the fine flavour and high colour of the mess, which Jacob was preparing for himself, takes his fancy, and nothing will do but the red, red. Jacob obviously regarded this as a rude and selfish intrusion on his privacy and property, in keeping with similar encounters that may have taken place between the brothers.—(Murphy).

Esau becomes Edom, and therefore, still the more remains Esau merely; Jacob, on the other hand, becomes Israel (Ch. Genesis 32:28). Jacob is the man of hope. The possession that he greatly desires is of a higher order; hopes depending on the birthright. He never strives alter the lower birthright privileges. Esau’s insight into the future extended to his death only. But Jacob is as eager for the future as Esau is for the present.—(Lange).

Esau gained a second title to his name, as Jacob did afterwards (Genesis 27:36). Thus the same name may owe its application to more than one occasion; and it is most important to remember this fact in reading these early histories.

Genesis 25:31. These are the principal privileges which constituted the distinction of the firstborn:

(1) They were peculiarly given and consecrated to God (Exodus 22:29).

(2) They stood next in honour to their parents (Genesis 49:3).

(3) Had a double portion in the paternal inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17).

(4) Succeeded in, the government of the family or kingdom (2 Chronicles 21:3).

(5) Were honoured with the office of the priesthood, and the administration of the public worship of God. The phrase “firstborn,” therefore, was used to denote one who was peculiarly near and dear to his father (Exodus 4:22), and higher than his brethren, (Psalms 89:28); and typically pointed to Christ and all true Christians, who are joint heirs with Him to an eternal inheritance, and constitute the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven (Hebrews 12:23). It should be understood that previously to the establishment of a priesthood under the law of Moses the firstborn had not only a preference in the secular inheritance, but succeeded exclusively to the priestly functions which had belonged to his father, in leading the religious observances of the family, and performing the simple religious rites of those patriarchal times. It is certainly possible, but not very likely, that in the emergency, Esau bartered all his birthright for a mass of pottage; but it seems more probable that Esau did not properly appreciate the value of the sacerdotal part of his birthright, and therefore readily transferred it to Jacob for a trifling present advantage. This view of the matter seems to be confirmed by St. Paul, who calls Esau a “profane person” for his conduct on this occasion; and it is rather for despising his spiritual than his temporal privileges that he seems to be liable to such an imputation.—(Bush.)

This brings to light a new cause of variance between the brothers. Jacob was no doubt aware of the prediction communicated to his mother that the elder should serve the younger. A quiet man like him would not otherwise have thought of reversing the order of nature and custom. In after times the right of primogeniture consisted in a double portion of the father’s goods (Deuteronomy 21:17), and a certain rank as the patriarch and priest of the house on the death of the father. But in the case of Isaac there was the far higher dignity of chief of the chosen family and heir of the promised blessing, with all the immediate temporal and eternal benefits therein included. Knowing all this, Jacob is willing to purchase the birthright, as the most peaceful way of bringing about that supremacy which was destined for him. He is therefore cautious and prudent, even conciliating in his proposal. He availed himself of a weak moment to accomplish by consent what was to come. Yet he lays no necessity on Esau, but leaves him to his own free choice. We must therefore beware of blaming him for endeavouring to win his brother’s concurrence in a thing that was already settled in the purpose of God. His chief error lay in attempting to anticipate the arrangements of Providence.—(Murphy.)

The weakness and exhaustion of the body is a time of temptation. Jesus was tempted when He was “an hungred;” so was Esau. Jesus kept His birthright; Esau sold it away.
All temptations to worldliness resolve themselves into solicitations to sell our birthright. We were made for God and to show forth His glory, and to gain the distinctions and heritage of His children. If we serve the world we forfeit all this.
We have liberty to sell our heavenly birthright. It is a glorious gift this of liberty, but still an awful one.

Genesis 25:32. Just because of the faintness that came over him, and his extreme desire to partake of this food, he sees nothing in the future so pleasant as his present repast would be. It seems amazing that he should so have seriously judged and acted. But it is no more amazing than the conduct of men every day, who put their present trifling gratification before eternal blessings. Often, indeed, in more temporal matters, men will sell a promise to pay, or a bond that has a long time to run, for a very small sum, to expend upon present indulgence. They argue as Esau did. Perhaps the idea was included that he could not live on promises. He might die soon, and then the birthright would do him little good; and hence he would prefer a small pleasure in hand. Esau seems to have set no estimate upon the spiritual privileges of the birthright.—(Jacobus.)

1. The good things of this world are present—those of the other, remote and distant. Now, we know that a present good has a great advantage above a far distant and late reversion. A candle that is near affects us more than the sun a great way off. So it is in regard to distance of time—there is more force and virtue in one single now than in many hereafters. The good that is present opens itself all at once to the soul, and acts upon it with its full and entire force. But that which is future is seen by parts and in succession, and a great deal of it is not seen at all; like the rays of a too distant object which are too much dispersed before they arrive at us, and so most of them miss the eye. This makes the least present interest outweigh a very considerable reversion, since the former strikes upon us with the strong influence and warmth of the neighbouring sun, the latter with the faint and cold glimmerings of a twinkling star.

2. The good things of this world are sure and certain. That is, as far as we are concerned. Our senses inform us of this. As for the place of happiness, we have heard the fame thereof indeed with our ears, but have neither seen it ourselves, nor discoursed with those who have; and although it is assured to us with as much evidence as is consistent with the nature and virtue of faith, yet darkness and fear commonly go together, and men are generally very jealous and distrustful about things whereof they are ignorant. Though the principles of faith are in themselves as firm and firmer than those of science, yet to us ’tis not so evident; nor do we ever assent so strongly to what we believe as to what we know.

3. The good things of this world strike upon the most tender and impressible part of us—our senses. They tempt us, as the devil did Adam, in our weaker part, through the Eve of our natures. A sensible representation even of the vanity of the world would work more with us than the discourse of an angel about it; and I question not but that Alexander the Great was more inwardly affected when he saw the ruins of the grave of Cyrus, when he saw so great power reduced to such narrow limits, such majesty seated on such a throne; the monarch of Asia hid, or rather lost in an obscure cave, a stone for his bed, cobwebs for his tapestry, and all his pomp and glory turned into night and darkness; I say, he was more convinced of the vanity of greatness by this lively appeal to his senses than he ever was or could be by all the grave lectures of his master, Aristotle. The Devil, when he tempted the Son of God, might have entertained him with fine discourses about the wealth and glory of the terrestrial globe, and have read Him a geographical lecture upon the kingdoms and empires of it, but he knew his advantage better than that, and chose rather to draw a visionary landscape before him, and present him with a sensible idea of all this, knowing by old experience how much more apt the senses are to take impression than any other faculty of man.—(Norris).

These two lads are figures—Passion, of the men of this world, and Patience of the men of that which is to come; for, as here thou seest, Passion will have all now, this year; that is to say, in this world. So are the men of this world: they must have all their good things now. They cannot stay till next year, that is, until the next world, for their portion of good. That proverb, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” is of more authority with them than all the Divine testimonies of the good of the world to come. But as thou sawest that he had quickly lavished all away, and had presently left him nothing but rags, so it will be with all such men at the end of this world.—(Bunyan.)

Men seldom abstain from anything they are anxious to do for want of some excuse, on the ground of expediency or necessity to justify it. So it was with Esau. He was willing to part with his birthright to obtain this food, though he was too well aware of the value of his inheritance to alienate it without presenting to himself the semblance of a reason for so unequal a barter. He therefore makes the exposedness of his condition a pretence for the step. With this flimsy apology he endeavours to hide from himself the infatuation of his conduct. The spirit of his language was, “I cannot live upon promises; give me something to eat and drink, for to-morrow I die.” Such is the spirit of unbelief in every age; and thus it is that poor deluded souls continue to despise things distant and heavenly, preferring to them the momentary gratifications of flesh and sense.—(Bush.)

Genesis 25:33. With fickle men make all firm and fast.—(Trapp.)

Jacob will make a serious transaction of it, because he is alive to its import, and knew and valued what he was getting, as Esau did not value it. And so the transaction was solemnly concluded. Jacob held the birthright by a lawful tenure, and the transfer was valid. How many baptized youth sell their Christian birthright for such a mess of pottage! For present indulgence they turn their back upon Church privileges, and their covenant heritage, and barter away their future all.—(Jacobus.)

There was never any meat, except the forbidden fruit, so dear bought as this broth of Jacob: in both, the receiver and the eater is accursed. Every true son of Israel will be content to purchase spiritual favours with earthly, and that man hath in him too much of the blood of Esau who will not rather die than forego his birthright.—(Bishop Hall.)

Genesis 25:34. It would have been a strong proof of his indifference to religious privileges had he sold them for all the riches that Jacob could have given him in return; but what can be thought of the infatuation of throwing them away for so very a trifle? How justly does the Apostle, writing as moved by the Holy Ghost, affix the epithet “profane” to the character of the man who “for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” It may, indeed, be said that it was unjust and unkind in Jacob to take advantage of his brother’s necessity and thoughtlessness, but still this affords no real palliation of the conduct of Esau. The scriptures nowhere represent Jacob as a perfect character. There is no apology for Esau, whose criminality was enhanced by his evincing no remorse on account of what he had done. He expressed no regret for his folly, nor made any overtures to his brother to induce him to cancel the bargain. On the contrary, it is said that “he did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way,” as if he were perfectly satisfied with the equivalent, such as it was, which he had obtained. But let us not forget how many there are that virtually justify his deed by following his example. Though living in an economy of light and love, yet what numbers are there who manifest the same indifference about spiritual blessings, and the same insatiate thirst after sensual indulgence as did Esau! The language of their conduct is, “Give me the gratification of my desires; I must have it, whatever it cost me. If I cannot have it but at the peril of my soul, so be it. Let my hope in Christ be destroyed; let my prospect of heaven be for ever darkened; only give me the indulgence which my lusts demand.” Thus they go on in their worldly career regardless of consequences; they do not acknowledge and bewail their sin and folly; they do not repent and pray for pardon; they do not resort to the means which God in mercy has provided for the forgiveness of offenders. Alas, what a fearfully close resemblance in all this to the mad career of their prototype. We can only earnestly beseech all such to reflect deeply on their folly and danger, and to contemplate that moment when they shall be “at the point to die.” Let them think what judgment they will then form of earthly and eternal things. Will they then say contemptuously, “What profit will this birthright be to me?” Will it then appear a trifling matter to have an interest in the Saviour, and a title to heaven?—(Bush.)

Esau was the type of the carna man. He is the man of unbelief, as Jacob is the man of faith. He proves himself by his conduct to be unfit for the birthright, and so the plan of God is justified. We are all, like Esau, heirs of the election until we forfeit it.

Frivolity is the mark of the carnal mind. The children of this world “eat and drink, and rise up to play,” regardless of the claims of God, and of the future.
“Thus Esau despised his birthright.” He counted all the precious blessings of the covenant, both temporal and spiritual, as of less value than a mess of pottage. And thus men despise their spiritual birthright by practically reckoning it as nought.
The privileges of our election are not taken away from us until we learn first to despise them.