30 August 2025 (edited 3 September 2025)
Jacob and the Genocide
The Bible story of Esau and Jacob has come to public attention since it has been used to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories by the Jewish State of Israel. However the story itself and its meaning is not well understood among atheists or Christians and in particular it is not well understood among Jews.
The key to the story is found in the line from Genesis 25 "Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents". This is from the King James Version of the Bible which I use throughout, because although the language is archaic that is in some respects an advantage. The Bible itself is an ancient work, the ideas of the Bible are as old as man, and therefore an archaic language is not inappropriate. In other more modern translations "plain man" is rendered as "blameless man". However Jacob was manifestly not "without sin", and to be blameless in this context can only mean that he was regarded with respect by others. The concept of "dwelling in tents" also requires explication. To the modern mind it might seem to make Jacob an outdoors type. In fact, quite the opposite message is being communicated. To dwell means to stay or to persist. It means that Jacob spent most of his time in or around the tent. Therefore Jacob has his modern day equivalent in the "townsman" or "office worker". It is interesting to note that in English the meaning of the word "dwell" has evolved from the original of "to lead astray" through "to hinder or delay" (a meaning still current in the expression "to dwell on the matter") into its modern meaning of "to abide" or "to reside". When the King James Version was written, at the turn of the seventeenth century, all three meanings would have been present in mind.
Esau, however, was most definitely a man of the outdoors, "a man of the field". That is to say he quite literally made his living from physical pursuits. He is the archetype of the hunter but more generally of the labourer, who takes upon himself hard and dangerous work but who is destined to "serve" and "bow down to" the townsman as we shall see in the Bible text in which it becomes Esau's fate to serve and bow down to his brother Jacob, the man "dwelling in tents". Yet that is not the end of the matter. In the final blessing Esau is promised that he will eventually be emancipated from the harsh and ill-gotten rule of his brother Jacob.
There is another story with certain parallels to the story of Esau and Jacob, which is found in Genesis 4, being the story of Cain and Abel, the key to which is the line "Abel became a shepherd of the flock but Cain became a cultivator of the ground".
Both stories center on the subject of God's favor, both employ the device of conflict between the older and younger brother (that is to say, a division within the human family), and both end with a protection being extended to the older brother (who is not favored by God), but there are important differences.
In Genesis 4 Abel is slain by his older brother Cain, but in Genesis 25,27 the younger son Jacob does not die at the hands of the less favored older son. On the contrary he lives on to exercise power and dominion. Esau does not go on to become a builder of cities, as did Cain in Genesis 4. Instead Esau is sent to the margins of civilization. The story of Cain and Abel illustrates the relationship between temporal and spiritual authority (Cain and Abel respectively). On the other hand the story of Esau and Jacob illustrates the relationship between the labouring and the capitalist classes but it also speaks to the relationships between nations when those relationships are shaped by class distinctions, as in the case of relationships between imperial and colonial nations.
So there are elements in common and points of difference between these two stories of sibling conflict. Perhaps the one fact that unites them is that both carry a message that is seriously misunderstood even by those who are familiar with their respective texts.
It is a common mistake to seek moral distinctions between the respective brothers in order to make sense of these stories on our own terms. We fall into that error because in a religious context it is normal for us to make moral distinctions, and in particular we want to find moral virtues or failings which we can see as justification of God's judgements (as we perceive it) upon individuals. Therefore we may struggle to find something which would make Abel's sacrifice morally better than Cain's, or make Jacob morally superior to Esau, or, for that matter, make the State of Israel morally preferable to the people of Gaza. Yet such moral inversions are entirely absent from God's word.
In these two stories the Book of Genesis is not teaching us that the brother who progresses in the world (Cain and Jacob respectively) is the one who will carry God's blessing into eternity. Quite the opposite. There was no sin in Abel, at least none that we are told of, yet he suffers and dies. The story of Esau and Jacob takes the logic of the story of Cain and Abel a step further. In the perception of any normal person Jacob sins grievously. He extorts the birthright of his brother Esau by withholding food from him, and he goes on to deceive and betray his father and the God of his father. Despite that Jacob is blessed because he is "a plain man, dwelling in tents". Esau loses his inheritance because he is "a man of the field" despite the fact that he is a dutiful son who is honest to a fault.
A word of warning. If you regard the story of Jacob and Esau as an exemplary story of moral instruction with Jacob as the hero, then you will be moved to behave like Jacob. You will think it acceptable to covet your brother's inheritance in violation of the Tenth Commandment. You will think it right to extort that inheritance from him. You will go on to deceive and betray your brother and your father and the God of your father. That is what the people of Jacob, who is also known as "Israel", are doing at this moment in history. They, and the Christians cum Jews who range alongside them, have taken the story of Esau and Jacob as their license to sin in a most savage and grievous way.
Therefore we need to have a rational understanding of the story of Esau and Jacob, informed by a genuinely Christian perspective. This will not be the same as the orthodox Christian perspective, which is essentially no different to the Jewish understanding of the meaning and purpose of the story. It will be different to the slant put upon the story by later Jewish writers such as Malachi or the Apostle Paul and it will be true to the original intent of the author.
Paul when writing to the Romans quotes Malachi who had written "“Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert" yet in the next verse Paul asks "What are we to say then? Is there injustice with God?" to which he himself answers "Certainly not. For he says to Moses: "I will show mercy to whomever I will show mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I will show compassion". To the Christians in Rome Paul suggests that the people of Esau, who Jews identified with the gentile Christians, were no more removed from the mercy of God than any other people. When writing to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem he reverts to the more typical Jewish perspective, describing Esau as a "profane person ... who for one meal sold his birthright". Paul overlooks the context (that Jacob extorted the birthright from Esau) and puts the fault on Esau, but he does not condemn Esau to perdition, as Malachi effectively did. It is a curious balancing act before a Jewish Christian congregation. Esau is just a "profane person" (which is to say he is not a Jew) who made a bad deal. There is no suggestion that Esau is deserving of further savage punishment.
This is where things now stand. The State of Israel and its supporters in the states of the west, both Christian and non-Christian, explicitly and accurately follow Malachi "Yet, this is what the Lord of Armies says: They may rebuild, but I will tear it down. They will be called ‘the Wicked Land’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is always angry.’ You will see these things with your own eyes and say, ‘Even outside the borders of Israel the Lord is great.’"
However that is not where Christ stands. It is not even the position of the Apostle Paul. And it is not based on a true understanding of the story of Esau and Jacob.
The facts of the story are not in dispute. They are there in the text and despite certain difficulties of translation (such as whether Jacob should be described as a "plain man" or a "blameless man") they are easy enough to discern. The differences emerge over whether we choose to read the story as a tribal celebration of extortion, deceit and violence, or alternatively as a depiction of human machinations which lead to the dispossession of the innocent but which is followed by the promise of divine redress.
Israel's supposed claim to the land of Palestine is traced back to Jacob (who was later known as "Israel" and is thereby the eponymous ancestor of the nation of Israel) in the Book of Genesis Chapters 25 and 27.
Isaac, the son of Abraham, inherits God's promise to Abraham (the Abrahamic Covenant). Through his wife Rebekah, Isaac has twin sons, Esau and Jacob. In Hebrew, Esau means "hairy" or "rough" while Jacob means "deceiver".
In the womb, Jacob tries to "steal a march" over Esau, grabbing him by the heel. This recalls Genesis 3:15 "You (the serpent or Satan) shall bruise his (the Son of Man's) heel". Thus from the outset the story suggests that Jacob is a conniver, seeking advantage while Esau is a rough, ready and easy going sort.
As a young man, Jacob takes advantage of Esau's hunger to extort his inheritance:
"And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint:
And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.
And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.
And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?
And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright."
This is the tale which gives us the expression "Selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage" which implies that by giving up the heritage of Abraham for a meal of soup or stew ("mess of pottage" in the King James Version which I am using here) Esau made a feckless, reckless and stupid bargain. The final clause "thus Esau despised his birthright" means "in this way" or "by this sequence of events" Esau is taken to have despised his birthright. It does not mean that Esau believed his birthright to be in any way despicable, contemptable or of no value.
However this interpretation needs to be considered in both the immediate and the wider context. The immediate context is that "On one occasion Jacob was boiling some stew when Esau returned exhausted from the field". In the Bible the term "field" has particular meaning as seen in the earlier Genesis story of Cain and Abel, where Cain "took Abel out into the field" where he killed him. A Biblical field signifies more than just a fenced, walled or otherwise defined area of land. Generically, it is a space in which events take place under the influence of the actor, with the field being a property of the actor, as in modern physics. If that seems a little dense, just remember that the concept of "the field" has a depth of meaning in the Bible no less than what it has in the modern era. In the Bible "house" (or "tent") and "field" have distinct symbolic meanings. The house or tent is a symbol of established authority, familial relations, order and security, with "the tent of Jehovah" as its highest form. The field, on the other hand, is associated with labour and subordination, exposure and risk, wildness and disorder. It may be a "field of work" or "a field of battle". Therefore it is not insignificant that Esau was "a man of the field" while Jacob was "dwelling in tents". We know as a practical fact of life that authority, order and civilization tends to prevail over the wild anarchic streak in mankind. A field is a space where unplanned and unexpected things happen. We also know that human beings are divided in their attitudes to those twin aspects of our world, the house and the field. Thus "Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob".
Esau's activity in "the field" signifies more than an afternoon spent hunting game. It speaks to his given role, or if one prefers, the kind of life he has chosen for himself. A hard, demanding life which would frequently bring him to the point of exhaustion and starvation. Contrast that with the easier and more settled life of those who "dwell in tents" or houses. When Esau said "Here I am about to die. What use is a birthright to me?" it should not be taken as exaggeration or evidence of feckless disregard for the important things in life. We have to assume that his condition was serious, that he was in fact in extremis and that the sacrifice of his birthright was the kind of rational exchange that a normal person will make in such extraordinary circumstances. His depleted condition and his consequent capitulation to Jacob should be seen not as evidence of insufficiency of character, but rather as a consequence of the kind of life to which he was destined.
The wider context is even more interesting. The common adverse judgement on Esau is not a Biblical judgement and certainly not a Christian judgement. When Satan showed Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor" saying “All this I will give you ... if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus replied “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’." Was Jesus being feckless when he placed a life of service to God ahead of such power and authority? Many of his Jewish contemporaries believed that he was, and they ensured that he paid the ultimate price for failing to place any value upon worldly wealth and power, but Christians see it differently. Thus even if Esau did not place a high value on the power and wealth that would have been his birthright, that does not reflect badly on his character.
As their father Isaac becomes old and infirm with impaired vision, Esau obediently answers his father's request to go out and find venison for a meal. While Esau is doing his father's bidding, Jacob with the help of his mother Rebekah, sets out to deceive his father Isaac in order to receive Isaac's blessing, misrepresenting Jacob's meal of goat meat as Esau's meal of venison and pretending himself to be his brother Esau. Thus Jacob receives the blessing that Isaac had intended for Esau.
"And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I.
And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:
Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison;
And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.
And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it.
And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying,
Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the Lord before my death.
Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.
Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth:
And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death.
And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man:
My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.
And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them.
And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savoury meat, such as his father loved.
And Rebekah took goodly raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son:
And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck:
And she gave the savoury meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.
And he came unto his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I; who art thou, my son?
And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first born; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.
And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the Lord thy God brought it to me.
And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not.
And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.
And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am.
And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine and he drank.
And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son.
And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed:
Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:
Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting.
And he also had made savoury meat, and brought it unto his father, and said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son's venison, that thy soul may bless me.
And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau.
And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed.
And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father."
The three meals that sit at the centre of this story are symbolic. The first, the meal of lentils that Jacob gives to Esau, is the most basic of staple dishes. It is the minimum required to "keep body and soul together". That is what Esau, the man of labour, receives for his birthright, the riches of the earth. The second meal, that prepared by Rebekah, is made from "two good kids of the goats". Why two? Why not one? The answer is that these two kids are in fact the brothers Esau and Jacob. Both are to be sacrificed. Both will suffer a spiritual loss. Rebekah says "Upon me be the curse, my son" but the curse cannot remain with her. It will be inherited by her posterity. On account of the deception, both Esau and Jacob will suffer in their different ways until the day of redemption. The third meal, the one not yet consumed, is the true joy and sustenance of Isaac and through him, of humankind. It is a meal prepared in love and true filial loyalty, without the deception that tainted Rebekah's meal of two kids, and made from the best that God has given to man, to be found only in the freedom of the field.
In this story, Rebekah symbolizes the world. She is mother to both Esau and Jacob "but Rebekah loved Jacob" as the world loves those who "live in tents", the people of power and authority. She opposes her sons taking foreign wives, and Jacob obeys her wishes by taking Rebekah's nieces, his cousins Leah and Rachel, in marriage while Esau, who is loved by Isaac but not by Rebekah, marries daughters of Heth. Although Isaac ultimately defers to Rebekah, the matter speaks of Rebekah's pusillanimity. There is a literal small-mindedness in the idea that marriage must take place within the narrow confines of family or tribe, an idea which builds upon the notion that wealth should also be retained within one's own tribe and family. Rebekah has a purely worldly desire to ensure that her bloodline predominates, even over the line of Isaac, and she does that by having Jacob marry into the house of her brother Laban. (Jacob goes on to appropriate Laban's wealth to himself, an outcome which would not be displeasing to Rebekah).
At his mother's bidding, Jacob now impersonates Esau: "And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first born; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me".
Jacob then yokes the name of God with a lie ("Because the Lord thy God brought it to me"), at the same time revealing that the God of Isaac ("thy God") is not the God of Jacob: "And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the Lord thy God brought it to me".
Isaac declares that the field in which Esau has his life is blessed by God: "See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed"
The blessing is then given: "Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee". As we have observed, the contest between Esau and Jacob reflects a contest between their parents, Jacob and Rebekah. Therefore on the surface it is a gender contest, but in the Bible gender is used to represent the division between the temporal and spiritual aspects of humankind. Isaac favors Esau, Rebekah favors Jacob. Rebekah is the one most strongly opposed to marriage outside of the family and it is she who arranges for Jacob to marry his cousins. Purity of lineage, whether narrowly or broadly conceived, is a temporal concern. Its intention is to retain power and wealth within the family, tribe or nation. Thus when Isaac blesses Jacob with the words "let thy mother's sons bow down to thee" he is indicating that Jacob's dominion over "people" and "nations" will be of a temporal rather than a spiritual nature.
(This is the same blessing which is frequently invoked by the supporters of Israel in justification of their rule over peoples and nations beyond their own. However the original intent of the story was to indicate that in the affairs of mankind the "tent", the ordering, civilizing aspect would come to dominate over the wildness and freedom "the field". The command "cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee" is, like the mark of Cain, put in place as a protection for civilization and order, rather than to advantage a particular racial group).
Through deception, the side of those who dwell in tents, the side of Rebekah and Jacob, has prevailed over the side of Isaac and Esau. "Isaac trembled very exceedingly" because his blessing has been irrevocably delivered to Jacob and for the same reason Esau "cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry". Esau had walked away from the loss of his birthright without protesting, but the loss of his father's blessing anguished him greatly.
But after Jacob has received the blessing, and the protection of the curse, Esau is offered a blessing of his own.
"And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.
And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?
And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?
And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.
And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;
And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck".
And he (Isaac) said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.
The reference to Jacob's "subtilty" evokes the passage in Genesis 3 in which the serpent tempts Eve and Adam "The serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made"
And he (Esau) said, Is not he rightly named Jacob (the deceiver)?
Isaac's blessing on Esau does three things. Firstly, it disavows exceptionalism with respect to race, class and religion, all three of which are bound up in the story. Esau asks "Hast thou but one blessing, my father?" and Isaac answers by offering a blessing, thus affirming that not only one will be chosen. Secondly the blessing asserts that worldly dominion is only for a time: "and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion" signifies that the dominion of Jacob over Esau will not be for all time. Thirdly, there is the promise of emancipation from his brother's rule, which is the emancipation of nations and peoples, classes and creeds.
In Jewish tradition Esau is variously taken to represent the Christians or the Edomites who include the Amalekites, who Benjamin Netanyahu has identified with the Palestinians and has promised to completely eliminate from the world - men, women, children and all their animals. But that is an interpretation which cannot serve the Jews well, because apart from the problem that it has led some of them into the most horrific atrocities against God and man, which will come to haunt them and their posterity, there is the not so small problem of the final blessing of Esau: "and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck".
If we choose to see the story of Esau and Jacob being replayed in the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, as Mr Netanyahu does, then there is no disputing that Israel is Jacob, the nations of the west have assumed the role of Rebekah, and Esau is Palestine. Esau is being told that he will starve to death if he refuses to surrender his birthright. But let us be clear. The writer of Genesis left many indications that he saw Jacob's behavior as Satanic. Jacob's name is "deceiver", he has the "subtilty" of the serpent, and in the manner of the serpent he seizes his brother by the heel. He covets his brother's birthright, he extorts and he deceives. We must agree on all these things, because they are written in the text. It seems that the only thing we disagree over is whether we should wish to emulate Jacob, and whether God will ultimately withdraw his blessings from those who act like Jacob.
I would say that He has already done so. Isaac's blessing given to Esau promises that he, and through him all of his kind, will be freed from the tyranny of those who covet what is not their own, those who obtain power through fraud and deception, and those who through cunning seek to dispossess their brothers and sisters under God.
Footnote: Certain modern translations differ from the King James Version in significant ways. Most notably, KJV has Isaac's blessing of Esau thus: "Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above" while the Revised Standard Version reads "Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven on high.". Thus the two versions communicate opposite meanings on account of a difference of opinion over the correct translation of the original Hebrew. One camp argues that the first part of Isaac's blessing on Esau is more or less identical to the first part of the blessing given to Jacob. That would make sense, given that the blessing for Jacob was intended for Esau and that the first part of blessing given to Jacob would not exclude the same blessing being given to Esau. (The second part of the blessing given to Jacob could not be given to Esau, because then the two blessings would have contradicted one another).
The other (RSV) camp argues that the first part of Isaac's blessing upon Esau was in fact a curse. That claim sits awkwardly with the fact that Isaac loved Esau and had clearly intended to bless rather than curse him on that day, and there is no logical reason why Isaac would have chosen to curse Esau in the first part and bless him in the second part. Thus simple logic accords with the KJV rendering. It is arguable that the compilers of the RSV went out of their way to choose an interpretation suggesting that Jacob was blessed and Esau cursed by God.
As mentioned above, Genesis 25:27 is usually translated as "Jacob was a quiet man" or alternatively a "plain", "mild" or "simple" man. However the New World (Jehovah's Witness) translation and certain others has "Jacob was a blameless man" which is used to argue that Jacob was blessed by God from birth. That argument may suit Jewish nationalists but is problematic for Christians, does not seem to be widely accepted among Bible scholars and is at odds with the sense of the story taken as a whole.