Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 12:16

Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

16. any fornicator ] The word must be taken in a literal sense, since Esau was not “an idolator.” It is true that Esau is not charged with fornication in the Book of Genesis (which only speaks of his heathen marriages, geb 26:34, Gen 28:8), but the writer is probably alluding to the Jewish Hagadah, with which he was evidently familiar. There Esau is represented in the blackest colours, as a man utterly sensual, intemperate, and vile, which is also the view of Philo (see Siegfried Philo, p. 254).

or profane person ] A man of coarse and unspiritual mind (Gen 25:33). Philo explained the word “hairy” to mean that he was sensuous and lustful.

for one morsel of meat ] “for one meal” (Gen 25:29-34).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Lest there be any fornicator – The sin here referred to is one of those which would spread corruption in the church, and against which they ought to be especially on their guard. Allusion is made to Esau as an example, who, himself a corrupt and profane man, for a trifle threw away the highest honor which as a son he could have. Many have regarded the word used here as referring to idolatry, or defection from the true religion to a false one – as the word is often used in the Old Testament – but it is more natural to understand it literally. The crime here mentioned was one which abounded everywhere in ancient times, as it does now, and it was important to guard the church against it; see the Act 15:20 note; 1Co 6:18 note.

Or profane person – The word profane here refers to one who by word or conduct treats religion with contempt, or has no reverence for what is sacred. This may be shown by words; by the manner; by a sneer; by neglect of religion; or by openly renouncing the privileges which might be connected with our salvation. The allusion here is to one who should openly cast off all the hopes of religion for indulgence in temporary pleasure, as Esau gave up his birthright for a trifling gratification. In a similar manner, the young, for temporary gratification, neglect or despise all the privileges and hopes resulting from their being born in the bosom of the church; from being baptized and consecrated to God; and from being trained up in the lap of piety.

As Esau – It is clearly implied here that Esau sustained the character of a fornicator and a profane person. The former appellation is probably given to him to denote his licentiousness shown by his marrying many wives, and particularly foreigners, or the daughters of Canaan: see Gen 36:2; compare Gen 26:34-35. The Jewish writers abundantly declare that that was his character; see Wetstein, in loc. In proof that the latter appellation – that of a profane person – belonged to him, see Gen 25:29-34. It is true that it is rather by inference, than by direct assertion, that it is known that he sustained this character. The birth-right, in his circumstances, was a high honor. The promise respecting the inheritance of the land of Canaan, the coming of the Messiah, and the preservation of the true religion, had been given to Abraham and Isaac, and was to be transmitted by them. As the oldest son, all the honor connected with this, and which is now associated with the name Jacob, would have properly appertained to Esau. But he undervalued it. He lived a licentious life. He followed his corrupt propensities, and gave the reins to indulgence. In a time of temporary distress, also, he showed how little he really valued all this, by bartering it away for a single meal of victuals. Rather than bear the evils of hunger for a short period, and evidently in a manner implying a great undervaluing of the honor which he held as the first-born son in a pious line, he agreed to surrender all the privileges connected with his birth. It was this which made the appellation appropriate to him; and this will make the appellation appropriate in any similar instance.

Who for one morsel of meat – The word meat here is used, as it is commonly in the Scriptures, in its primitive sense in English, to denote food: Gen 25:34. The phrase here, morsel of meat, would be better rendered by a single meal.

Sold his birthright – The birth-right seems to have implied the first place or rank in the family; the privilege of offering sacrifice and conducting worship in the absence or death of the father; a double share of the inheritance, and in this instance the honor of being in the line of the patriarchs, and transmitting the promises made to Abraham and Isaac. What Esau parted with, we can easily understand by reflecting on the honors which have clustered around the name of Jacob.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Heb 12:16-17

Essau, who for one morsel

The character of Esau:

There are certain features of character which, if they do not exactly enlist our admiration, never fail to secure our goodwill, and an instinctive sympathy with those who possess them.

The man who along with his virtues, which by reason of their very nature lift him above many of his fellows, combines a few of those failings which bring him down again to their level, is by far the greatest favourite. Good men are glad to acknowledge his goodness, and for the sake of it are disposed to deal gently with his inconsistencies. The multitude find that they, too, have a share in him, and are pleased to recognise their own features in such respectable and perhaps unusual company. Now it is just such a character as this of which it is most difficult to form an impartial estimate. And it is all the more difficult if the good qualities in question are of that striking sort which almost disarm criticism. For there are qualities that act in such a way. It seems, for instance, almost impossible to resist the impression which energy makes upon our minds, especially the energy that throws itself out upon the broad arena of practical life, and produces visible and manifest results. The same thing holds true, though in a less degree, of all that class of actions which we distinguish by the word impulsive. We pardon a man a great deal for the sake of this particular temperament. If he does what is wrong, it mitigates the wrong that it was done on the spur of the moment, and not by a cool, deliberating wickedness. If he does what is good, it makes the good still better, because goodness that acts spontaneously is more genuine than a habitual calculating virtue. Besides, we give more latitude to impulsive actions, because they break through the routine of things. Hence the popularity of what is vulgarly called dash, a quality we all naturally admire. It serves as a sort of flourish that relieves the monotony of life. And we watch any singular display of it as a man watches a game of chance, knowing there may be some brilliant successes, but just as likely some ruinous catastrophe. The character of Esau, as it is brought before us in Scripture, partakes largely of this element. He was if anything an impulsive man. He had none of those faults which attach themselves to timid and more thoughtful characters, the tendency to equivocate, and compass an end by somewhat doubtful means to bargain, and finesse, and sail close to the wind. A character like this shows, of course, all the more favourably when compared with such as one as that of Jacob. His faults spring, no doubt, from his peculiar temperament, but they are those which we regard with the greatest dislike. His virtues, on the other hand, had none of that spontaneity and freshness which makes an excellence doubly excellent, but were always unpleasantly prudential. They seem to have been developed only by infinite patience and a vast variety of discipline, and not to have come to very much after all. Yet Jacob was the man on whom Gods blessing rested, whose nature was the most susceptible of Divine treatment, and most capable of receiving and transmitting the promise of the covenant. Esau, according to the Scripture, was a profane man, with little or no capacity for the spiritual and unseen, unable to understand it, whose strong earthly instincts and exuberance of life repelled everything of the sort, or hardly admitted of its approach. On what, then, is our sympathy with Esau grounded? He stands out as the representative of the warmhearted, high-spirited man of the world, whose sins, because they scorn the grosset attributes of meanness, seem little more to us than acts of extravagance. The growths of a rich though wayward nature, they carry along with them a certain savour of its richness, that renders them somewhat less unpalatable. And the fact that now and then he can do most liberal things, be touched with poignancy of sorrow, or rise into an ardour of affection, seems to prove that he cannot be a bad man. It shows he has it in him to throw his sin aside, and rise above it, that there must be an inward fountain of goodness, that but for untoward and embarrassing conditions, would be certain to obtain the ascendency. So we are inclined to argue. But the argument may he a mistake. For what determines the nature of a mans life, and stamps his character as good or bad, is the course of it in the main. A few glimpses of sunshine, however bright, will not make a fine day, especially if it pours heavily throughout the intervals. The stream that lingers in its deep pools, and doubles on itself in doubtful windings through the plain, is none the less surely seeking for the sea. So we are not to imagine a man good or bad because the level of his life is broken up by occasional deeds of goodness or the reverse. We are to look at the tenor of the whole and discover, if we can, the sovereign motive that governs its drift. Now it is unfortunately true that much generosity and warmth of emotion may co-exist with serious moral weakness, that a mans nature may break out at times into admirable actions, while its habitual temper is rigidly selfish, nay, that these actions themselves may only be selfishness working in a somewhat unusual way. For what is impulsiveness but the tendency to act at the bidding of ones own feelings? And to indulge our feelings, irrespective of those of other people, what is that but selfishness? A man who habitually lives for himself will, almost unconsciously, act upon the same principle of selfishness even in those very instances in which he seems to have most thoroughly broken away from it. His good deeds are, in all likelihood, so many acts of expiation by which he tries to make up for cases of neglect. Besides, even apart from such considerations, there is a subtle pleasure in being occasionally better than ourselves, in surprising people, and rising above their expectations, which is only another form of selfishness. It is as much as saying, See how much more generous I am than you supposed. What an injustice you have done me in concluding I am hard-hearted and inconsiderate! We must not be deceived, then, by the superficial attractiveness of the warm-hearted, impulsive type of character, nor forget that exceptional actions only prove their opposite to be the rule. Selfishness may disguise itself in a coat of many colours, and take its own way among a multitude of devices that seem to surround it with a contrary atmosphere, but which are all intended only to make room for it, and allow it to go on without interference. It is only when a mans life involves him in self-denial; when it recognises the claims of others and the claims of God, and submits to adjust itself faithfully to these; when it gives up its own waywardness, and curtails its freedom, to add to the happiness and well-being of those around him; only, in short, when he bows himself to the yoke of Christ, and begins to burden himself, as He did, with the sins and sorrows, the toils and struggles, of the world–that he learns the first lesson in the school of Christianity, and truly practises the fear of God. But it is not as a selfish but as a profane man Esau is held up as a beacon of warning; and by a profane man is meant one who has no perception of the sanctity of Divine things. But this profaneness simply describes the selfish mans character on that side of it which is turned towards God. He has no such respect for God as moves him to obedience. He removes religion out of his way as a serious hindrance, or shuts it up within so narrow a compass it never comes into collision with himself. What else can he do, if it only thwarts and annoys him? If it gives him no pleasure, and adds nothing to his resources, is it to be expected that it should be found anywhere except amid the lumber of his life? But there is another reason besides those I have mentioned which has much to do with our sympathy with Esau, and that is his misfortunes. We are apt to look at him as the victim of a fraud, and it seems to us almost a contravention of justice that the impostor should flourish in the favour of God and his victim be disowned and cast aside. But this is a one-sided view of the occurrence and falls short of the truth. No man can be cheated out of a Divine gift against his own will. God does not hold His benefits with so lax a hand, or dispense them with such indifference, as to allow them to be diverted from their destined possessor by the craft or subtilty of man or devil. Esau lost the birthright by his sin, sold it for a mess of pottage, and had himself and not his brother to blame for his calamity. But it was highly characteristic of Esau that he should not have seen this. It is the way of selfish, worldly men to resent exceedingly that their sin should find them out. And having his father on his side, who had the blessing to bestow, it seemed to him a settled thing that he should receive it. The old affair of the pottage was not so serious after all, and it would be absurd to suppose that so trifling a transaction would interfere with the stated rights of the eldest born. But though hand join in hand iniquity shall not go unpunished, and the conspiracy of sin was broken, and its purpose baffled, by an utterly unprecedented trick. It is a terrible illustration of the truth that as a man sows so shall he also reap; that every sin we commit, instead of passing into the past with the time that witnessed it, remains embedded among the forces of our life, that there it works and spreads, and dissipates its influence, till it brings us face to face with the measure of retribution. But even though it be granted that Esau suffered for his own fault, was not the suffering disproportioned to the sin? Was it not too trifling to be followed by so grievous a penalty? It might have been so if his sin had only consisted in the act that was the immediate occasion of his loss. But no sin stands by itself. And it is not the evil action that makes a man bad, it merely reveals the fact that he is bad. It is the outlet by which the inward wickedness issues into broad daylight, and publishes the fact of its existence. Esau was a profane man, not because he sold his birthright; but he sold his birthright because he was profane. And there was nothing for it but to transfer it to some one who should watch over it with becoming pains, and yield himself to be fashioned by the hope of its fulfilment. It happened according to that saying of our Lord, Unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have. And so, let us beware of cherishing a spirit of self-indulgence and of indolent yielding to our desires. Your nature may grow so enfeebled by selfishness you will not be able to rouse yourself to the call of God. Some critical moment may arrive, some day of grace, when there shall be set before you with a freer and more abundant entrance than ever the open door of the kingdom of God, and you will be too easy-going to be disturbed, too enervated by indulgence to seize your opportunity. Or, to keep more closely to the tragic example of my text, some long gratified desire may insist on being satisfied at the expense of fidelity to Christ. You may find that in some hour when you have least expected it you are faced with the alternative of denying yourself, or parting for ever with an interest in Him; and if you have not been bearing the Cross and enduring hardness as a good soldier, if you have not been accustoming yourself to sacrifice your own will to the will of God, how terrible the risk that in that hour of everlasting issues you may fail to stand the test, and barter your birthright for a worldly lust! (C. Moinet, M. A.)

The relation of animal appetites to spiritual prerogatives

There are three classes of sentient life: first, those which have animal appetites, and no spiritual prerogatives–such are the beasts of the field, dec.; secondly, those which have spiritual prerogatives, and no animal appetites-such, probably, are angels; and thirdly, those that are compounded of both–such are men. In men, these two kinds of power occupy two very different relations; in some–the mass–the animal is the sovereign; in others–the few–the spiritual guides and governs all.

I. ANIMAL APPETITES OFTEN COME INTO COLLISION WITH SPIRITUAL PREROGATIVES.

1. Spiritual independency.

2. Moral approbation.

3. Divine fellowship.

II. ANIMAL APPETITES OFTEN LEAD TO THE SACRIFICE OF SPIRITUAL PREROGATIVES.

1. This is foolish.

2. This is criminal.

III. ANIMAL APPETITES, WHEN THEY LEAD TO THE SACRIFICE OF SPIRITUAL PREROGATIVES, REDUCE MAN TO THE UTMOST DISTRESS. (Homilist.)

Esau

I. HIS PROFANENESS IN ITS COMMENCEMENT. Oh, it is a strange parable, that sale of the birthright; a parable fulfilled again and again in the irreligious man selling eternity for time; the man of faith giving all that he now has for a better hope in years to come. It is a parable having its own peculiar lesson for our own days. Now, when natural accomplishments are so highly valued, when intellect, science, energy, skill, win the admiration even of foes; and implicit belief is construed as superstition, a self-denying, meditative life viewed almost as treason to the interests of human fellowship. Now, when even religion is denuded, as much as possible, of everything supernatural; and whilst honour, and benevolence, and generosity are lauded, and a general providence recognised, prayer, meditation, sacramental grace, like the promise of old, are put aside; we call you back to Isaacs tent, and show you the types of our modern life in his twin sons, and bid you note how the man of religious faith, in spite of many faults, won the eternal love, whilst the man of this world, the free, frank hunter of the desert, brave yet Without reverence, affectionate yet without faith, became an alien from the commonwealth of Israel; stamped, for a perpetual warning, as the profane person who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

II. HIS PROFANENESS IN ITS FINAL ISSUE. HOW do men live on year after year foregoing religious privileges, forgetting God, and scarcely remember it! The man who has been baptized, and whose conscience tells him that he dare not die as he is–what is he but one who has verily parted with his spiritual birthright? Once he was sure of heaven, now he is sure no longer; nay, if he reflects has little hope of heaven in his present state; where is his birthright? He means to alter before he dies. He intends to win back his inheritance. What is this but Esau, dimly conscious of a loss, yet continuing in the same career which ruined him at the outset, a cunning hunter, and nothing but a cunning hunter still? We must wait till the next world for the exceeding bitter cry from such men, for it is seldom here that the conviction of being lost for ever is experienced. The same carelessness lasts on to the end. There is, indeed, nothing more alarming than the fearlessness with which the majority meet death. Whenever there is manifested anxiety and dread, the minister of Christ knows what to do. But the difficult case to deal with is that which is the most common case; when the man who has never accustomed himself to make much of God and Christ in his health, appears in his sickness utterly without fear, unable to realise the bitter things that are written against him; unable to imagine that he has gone so far astray, and has so far to return. It is as if the habit of treating religion lightly, once contracted, dislocated the whole moral being, that we can never afterwards see, or hear, or taste aright, the powers of the world to come. And so the thoughtful man, who feels what sin is, what God is, what heaven is, must often fear for those who fear not for themselves; and tremble lest the instant of the death pang should be the signal of a terrible awakening–lest, at the moment when this world hears the faint whisper of the dying no longer, the eternal world may be ringing with the loud, bitter cry of a soul just conscious of a birthright lost for ever. (Bp. Woodford.)

Esaus profanity:

It was the contemptuous treatment of that which should have been held sacred and invaluable. It was the selling of station, honour, influence, power, pre-eminence, for a dish of soup and a little brewed. It was the parting with chieftainship at the bidding of an empty stomach. It was the allowing of the animal to swallow up the man. It was sinking the interest of a great future in the little pressing need of the present.

I. THE ELEMENTS OF YOUR DANGER HERE.

1. The first element of danger which I mention is present stress–urgency of present need. The man who has just risen from a hearty meal and gone out into the street, is under no temptation to steal from the bakers wagon which stands by the sidewalk. But the case is vastly different when the street-boy, who slept last night in an ash-barrel, and whose lips for twenty-four hours have not tasted food, comes along by the bread-cart. Involuntarily his tired feet halt. His eyes, how wide they open upon those loaves! His mouth, how it waters! Now he looks to the right and the left; up the street, down the street; no one in sight, and his hands spring like a steel-trap upon the nearest loaf. Why? Because he is hungry. So oftentimes do children of a larger growth come unto their critical hour. By misfortune, by loss, by squandering, or by the increasing power of an evil appetite (growing by that it feeds upon), the mans desire for money has been made fierce, clamorous, raving. And now he is brought into the presence of his coveted boon. Money is before him, within his reach. It is not his own, but it is within sight. Oh, how he wants it! And so the man stands in the presence of his temptation, weak through the power of the craving within him. The next step is soon taken. The exposed man risks the penalty of the law; ventures honour, character, reputation; sells all these at the bidding of his hungry nature. And there is yet another and more vivid view of the working of this same mighty power. Man is born to a nobler birthright than honour or reputation even. In every sinful human being there vests the possible title to a blessed immortality. But the hour of present and pressing indigence bursts upon the man. He comes back from his long chase after satisfying good. He feels that he must have the desire of his heart–must have it now. And then the world offers it–offers it for a price. Give me your birthright, she says, swear it me, and you shall have what you want. Throw away principle, and wealth is yours. Renounce integrity, and here is honour. Sell me conscience, and I give you success. And the man reasons, Esau like, Behold, I am at the point of death, and of what use is the birthright to a dead man? Heaven is far in the future, a dim, uncertain good. My title to it is not wealth or honour or success. Better have what I can get now. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lintiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way,–without his birthright. So the world gives its victim. He eats, he drinks, he rises up and goes his way; goes his way to meditate upon the words, What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

2. The second element in the danger here is the almost omnipotent power of the present. Esau would not have felt his hunger so keenly if the broth had not been before him. Besides, he would have reasoned, If I must wait until food is prepared by some one, Ill prepare it myself and keep my birthright. But the case was, that to Esaus pressing need Jacob could bring immediate relief, could offer food already prepared. And so he got the birthright; bought it at a low figure, because he was able to pay the price at once. And men always sell at a lower price for cash in hand; and this, whether their merchandise is houses, or lands, or conscience, or character. Take the holders of real estate in our city who wish to sell. They have all of them one price for the buyer who pays all cash, and another and higher price for the buyer who wishes to pay in the future. This is so because the possession of money has value; because there is always more or less uncertainty about promises for the future, whether to pay or to do anything else. And I think I can see this same principle reaching out from this narrow sphere and ramifying all through the conduct of men. A child would rather have one toy to-day than the promise of a dozen to-morrow. And men are but older children. Look at the man who is wrecking his business, his health, and his family with strong drink, He would never pay this fearful price for a distant gratification. The men who are living in the enjoyment of dishonest wealth to-day–of wealth for which they have given their honour, their peace, and their souls–would not have paid this fearful price for riches which should come in a distant day. The uncertainty of the future, the dimness of the distant prize, their own valuation of moral character, would have prevented the foolish and profane transaction. So it is with all sin. It overcomes through the hope, the assurance, of immediate gratification. Heaven is in the future; so is death; so is judgment; and so is God. These all at uncertain distances, while right before them, ready to their hand, is the price of iniquity, the wages of sin. They sell so cheap because they sell for cash.

II. SOME THOUGHTS WHICH SHOULD SAVE A MAN HERE.

1. Today is not all. If the man who, in the midst of his ill-gotten wealth, is now lying upon the bed of death, had thought of this bed in the far off day of his temptation, the thought would have saved him. Out of it would have been born such wisdom as this: The opportunity is most tempting. But I see a long future reaching out beyond it, and I cannot afford to blacken all this. Oh, take into your hearts this preservative thought–to-day is not all. There is a future coming–a future with its days and its years and its ages. A future with its glory, honour, and immortality. A future with its endless heaven, and its blessed and blessing Father God. Mortgage not this future. Sell it not for a temporary gratification. Throw it not into the mouth of a single hungry hour.

2. There are things more important than the gratification of present desire. Principle is better than prosperity. Some sacrifices you cannot afford to make for any results. There are things which you ought not to sell at any price. They are these–usefulness in the world, peace of conscience, purity of heart, the favour of God; a good life, which shall not blanch or quiver in a single nerve, when Death shall lay his hand upon it.

3. The sale of the birthright is irrevocable. There are thousands of the worlds successful ones longing for peace and for happiness, who would give all they have in the world for the approval of conscience and the blessing of God. But it is too late. These things which they desire are the fruits of character; and, having bartered this, these sorrowful ones cannot have its fruits. Neither can tears buy these fruits. No one ever has sold, no one ever can sell, duty for a price, and keep happiness. (S. S. Mitchell, D. D.)

The profane exchange:

The history of the wicked, as well as of the righteous, is useful. By their crimes we are cautioned; and we are warned by their miseries. Anxious for our welfare, the Scripture addresses our fear as well as our hope, and holds forth instances of Divine vengeance, as well as proofs of Divine mercy.

I. Let us view Esau in his original state–and COMPARE YOUR PRIVILEGES WITH HIS PRIVILEGES. To stand supreme in the house of the patriarch Isaac was no trifling prerogative: his house was the house of God, and the gate of heaven. To the birthright belonged pre-eminence over the other branches of the family. Such were the prospects of Esau. And what are yours? It is true, you were not born in the house of Isaac; but you have been brought forth in a Christian country in a land the Lord careth for, where the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. You have the Bible; you have Sabbaths; you have sanctuaries; you have ordinances; you have ministers; you have the throne of grace; you have the promise of the Holy Ghost: and all things appertaining to your everlasting happiness are now ready. You possess much; but all your present advantages are not to be compared with those glorious hopes to which you are called by the gospel. You have the prospect of becoming a kind of firstfruits of His creatures: a birthright which comprehends a better country than Canaan, even heaven. But this pearl is not for the swine, who, ignorant of its value, tramples it under foot; but for those who, conscious of its incomparable worth, prefer it to everything else, and, like the wise merchant, are willing to sell all to buy it. These high advantages may be sacrificed.

II. Let us therefore view Esau in the surrender of his privileges, and COMPARE YOUR SIN WITH HIS SIN. For one morsel of meat he sold his birthright. It is obvious that the loss was voluntary and base.

1. It was voluntary. No one forced it from him–he sold it. And who compels you to abandon your hopes of heaven? Who forces you into perdition? You say that you live in a world of enticing objects; that the dominion of sense is strong; that it is not very easy to resist the impulse of the moment. But is it impossible to resist? Have not many overcome, though placed in the same circumstances, and possessed of the same nature with you? What is goodness untried? Have you not reason as well as appetite? Is not grace attainable by you? Is it not sufficient for you?

2. It was equally base. For what is the price of the birthright? An empire? A crown? A crown sparkles in the eye of ambition: a throne is the highest pinnacle of human pride: nothing like it–but a despicable trifle, one morsel of meat–a mess of pottage–the dearest dish, says Bishop Hall, that was ever purchased, except the forbidden fruit. But I feel ready to dispute this. Are not you more than like him? Do not you surpass him in folly? For what do you sell the treasures of the soul and eternity, but a thing of nought, a fleeting indulgence, a false point of honour, an imaginary interest? Here is your eternal infamy and disgrace! Ye have sold yourselves, says the prophet, for nought.

III. LET US CONSIDER ESAU IN HIS MISERY, AND COMPARE YOUR DOOM WITH HIS DOOM. Nothing could be more affecting than his expostulations, and his bitter cries, but to no purpose does he urge his petition or press his father to retract: the benediction is pronounced, and Isaac acquiesces in the decision of heaven. Are you disposed to pity him? Yea, rather, weep for yourselves. Your loss is inestimably greater than his loss. After all his disappointments he had something left, and could entertain himself with the diversions of the field; but your condition will be destitute of all resources. Sin unavoidably brings a man sooner or later to lamentation and regret. Let us also remark, that there is a repentance which is unavailing. Paul tells us of a sorrow of the world which worketh death. The eyes which sin closes, eternity will open. But then grief comes too late. The blessing once lost, cannot be recovered. (W. Jay.)

Esaus sensuality and profanity:

Esau was, undoubtedly, sensual, or addicted to gross carnal pleasures. His wild, roving character prepares us to find in him imperious passions and an unscrupulous will. The steady tradition of the Jews is that he was an abandoned profligate; and this is sufficiently borne out by what we read (Gen 26:34-35). Again, Esau was profane; as, in truth, all sensual persons are. Show me a rake, and though an oath may never be heard to escape his lips, I will pronounce that man profane; for his sins belong to that class which, more than any other, eat out all fear of God from the human heart, and harden and petrify it into the most reckless godlessness. Esaus profanity sufficiently appears in the brief account of it we have in Gen 25:32-34, and in the flippant levity with which he sold his birthright, clinching the transaction with an oath which he never meant to keep–thus consistently blending blasphemy and fraud. And the chartered treasure he sold was no commonplace one. It was a birthright not only to Canaan, but to all the privileges and distinguished honours of the Messianic people. It was a birthright, therefore, in which the spiritual interests of Esaus children, and childrens children, were most vitally implicated. Of this matchless and marvellous honour, Esau flippantly said, under a passing sensation of hunger, Behold I am at the point to die (which, as we have already said, was not true), and what profit shall this birthright do to me? Well might the inspired historian add, Thus Esau despised his birthright. A passing sense of hunger, which any common soldier would scorn or forget in the pursuit of honour; which the pettiest trader can forget in the eager pursuit of gain; which Esau himself would often despise in the keen urgency of the chase, was now, in his spiritual balance, to make the proudest birthright the world ever saw to kick the beam! What mattered it to profane Esau whether the blood of the chosen holy seed, or of a heathen predatory tribe, was at the time flowing in his veins? Thus the inspired writer has only too good reasons for affirming that Esau was both sensual and profane; and that it was these bad qualities that led him to barter away his birthright, yea, and to pour the utmost contempt upon it by weighing against it a paltry mess of lentile pottage. (T. Guthrie, D. D.)

Sensual and profane

Every gospel rejecter, as such, is both sensual and profane. He is sensual, for he is a lover of pleasure more than a lover of God. He is profane, for he trifles year after year, though deaths darts are flying around him, with the tremendous realities of duty and destiny. So sensual is he that the pleasures of sin for a season bulk larger in his eyes than the pleasures that are for evermore. So profane is he that he worships and serves the creature more than the Creator, whom he dethrones from his conscience and banishes from his heart. Do not cavil at the terms; for if you are still a gospel rejecter, the terms fit you; they mean you. One unbeliever may indignantly say, I am not sensual; another may say, I am not profane; no matter, your place lies somewhere between them; and to flee from one is just to fall into the other, cross and recross each other as you will. You do not need to be an abandoned profligate in order to be sensual: you do not need to be a blasphemer in order to be profane. If there is anything you prefer to God, to Christ, to a present salvation, you are both. And oh remember, that as any object, though only an inch square, if kept over the eye, is large enough to keep the whole world of vision, and all its enjoyments, out of the mind, so a very trifling indulgence, clung to in spite of conscience, is large enough to keep the boundless tide of salvation out of your soul. Lovers of pleasures, beware! Oh, remember that the pleasures of sin will, ere long, be a phrase of greatly altered meaning. It has some meaning now; but ere long the tie, such as it is, that binds pleasure and sin will be in a large degree finally ruptured. There will be pleasure and there will be sin, but the great gulf will roll between. In the preponderating point of view, all the pleasure will be in heaven, but there will be no sin there; all the sin will be in woe, but there will be no pleasure there. (Ibid.)

The unhallowed bargain

I. ESAUS SALE.

1. An instance of the foolish behaviour of men.

(1) They will exchange the greatest blessings for the most paltry considerations.

(2) They will yield up home, friends, happiness, for a moments passion. Eternity is lost, that time may delight.

2. An instance of thoughtless words bringing serious realities. The wise man never speaks at random. The prudent is not overtaken to betray himself by the feelings of the moment.

3. An instance of the little value often set upon the most precious blessings.

4. An instance of the sensual prevailing over the ideal.

5. An instance of the irretrievable character of wrong choice.

II. JACOBS PURCHASE.

1. What he lost.

(1) The confidence of his father.

(2) Peace of mind.

(3) The comforts of home.

(4) The same confidence he had taken from his father.

2. What he gained. The birthright–but with certain penalties attached. It was got by fraud, and the curse of the fraud clung to it.

Learn:

1. The folly of rash and hasty impulses.

2. The folly of trifling with religious matters.

3. The folly of dishonesty. (Homilist.)

The price of birthrights:

There is only one price that can be had for a birthright, and that is one morsel of bread. There are no higher figures; there are no better bargains. If he had received ten thousand worlds they would have constituted but one morsel of meat, when in the other hand there was a birthright. The devil has no more in his counter; the enemy has no more at the bank; he pays you all he can pay you when you sell your birthright–one gulp, one morsel, one flash of pleasure, and then hell! Nothing more is possible. Then why haggle with the old serpent the devil? Why ask for threehalfpence more for your soul? The whole transaction totals up to one morsel of meat. That is all he gave to the mother of the world. She and he struck the first bargain about birthrights. So it comes and goes, age after age, the same temptation, the same bargain, the same price, the same perdition! See if these things be not true in experience, in every degree of the circle of lifes tragedy. You will have pleasure, you will gratify a passion: do it; having done it, what have you got in your hand, in your mouth? In the very indulgence of the passion you consume the compensation; when all is over there is nothing left but fire, shame, reproach, the sting of hell. This is inevitable; this is the law of Providence, the law of experience, the law of justice. The highest rights can be parted with. A man can get rid of his birthright. A man can deplete his soul of itself. One would think it would be impossible to part with anything but that which is material, commercial, arithmetical; but history–and may we not add personal consciousness?–testifies to the fact that we sell our souls. Why do we not say so to ourselves plainly and frankly? Why not confess the crime of suicide? This is the intolerable agony of remorse. If we had sold a hand we could make it up again in some form, but when we have sold the brain, the heart, the soul, how can we recover such birthrights? In the day then eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. That word die has never been explained. It must be terrible beyond the power of language to express, for God hath no pleasure in it; and if He of the infinite heart cannot make room for death, who shall describe it in words or figure it in sufficient symbols? There are possessions without which we could not be men, without which we Could not begin to live, and without which we could not receive the ministries of nature. Is a man deaf? then he cannot receive the ministry of music. Is a man blind? then he is excluded from the ministry of light and colour and form and all that peculiarity of distributed magnitude which constitute the very apocalypse and wizardry of form. And you cannot represent to blindness what a beam of light is like. So you may have got rid of your religious sensitiveness, and now you may say about the hymn-book out of which you used to sing that you can find nothing in it. The book is not dead, but your spiritual sensitiveness is extinct. So with the Divine revelation. You were once accustomed to delight in it, you meditated therein day and night, and now any last critic who is dealing in the expectorations of critics who are already ashamed of their folly can tempt you to leave the Church. Has the Church changed? Not at all. Is the Bible so revised as to have ejected its own wisdom and made room for sonic mans folly? No. Then what is the explanation of it? The birthright is gone, the souls power of vision, the souls responsiveness to appealing heavens and all the nurturing ministries of nature. You can exhaust yourselves. You have sold your birthright. What things are there that may be called birthrights? There are some birthrights that are moral, others that are intellectual, and others that are social. Surely we come into something; surely there is some law of inheritance and some law and discipline of succession. We cannot get rid of instinct, much older than logic; we cannot get rid of aspirations that have no words, Gods own songs in the soul. Let us one and all take care lest we part with our birthright on any terms; and let us especially remember that whatever the terms may be in figures they total up into one morsel of meat in reality. It is a morsel, and it is one morsel, and it never can be more under any circumstances. What is the relation of Christ to these Esaus? Has Christianity anything to say to such poor merchantmen? Christianity first begins with a revelation of their folly; Christianity shows them that if a man should gain the whole world and lose his birthright, he has gained nothing, he has profited nothing, he is a loser by all the transaction. What is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his birthright? (J. Parker, D. D.)

Wisdom of temptation:

The devil doth not know the hearts of men; but he may feel their pulse, know their temper, and so, accordingly, can apply himself. As the husbandman knows what seed is proper to sow in such soil; so Satan, finding out the temper, knows what temptation is proper to sow in such a heart. That way the tide of a mans constitution runs, that way the wind of temptation blows. Satan tempts the ambitious man with a crown, the sanguine man with beauty, the covetous man with a wedge of gold. He provides savoury meat, such as the sinner loves. (T. Watson.)

Dislike to sensuality

His (Antisthenes) contempt of all sensual enjoyment was expressed in his saying, I would rather be mad than sensual. (O. H. Lewes.)

Ruined men

Ruined castles are picturesque, they add charm to a landscape–alas I we cannot say the same of ruined men.

Sin causing degradation

When the followers of Ulysses degraded themselves by the misuse of pleasures, until they fell to the level of the brutes, it is said that Circe, touching them with her wand, turned them into swine. She brought to the surface the inner ugliness; revealed the animal that ruled within. (H. O. Mackey.)

The soul bartered

Esau sold his inheritance for pottage. Lysimachus, besieged by the Goths, suffered so severely from thirst that he finally offered his kingdom to his foes for a supply of water. Having slaked his thirst, lie cried: Oh, wretched man, who for a little joy has lost so great a kingdom! (Preachers Cabinet.)

A bad bargain

Said a thoughtless young man to his sister under deep concern for her soul: Ill give you five dollars if you will quit this nonsense and be yourself again. She took the paltry gift, lived without religion and died without hope. (Preachers Cabinet.)

No place of repentance

No reversal

I. THAT DESPISED AT ONE TIME IS SOUGHT AT ANOTHER.

II. THE VALUE OF SPIRITUAL BLESSING DISCOVERED WHEN UNATTAINABLE. The habit forms the character, Rejection becomes permanent, e.g., an icicle a foot long is formed drop by drop. So repeated indifference forms the permanent state in which it becomes impossible to seek a blessing.

1. Warning here to the indifferent, rash, profane; e.g., Saul offering sacrifice and losing a kingdom.

2. Warning to the hardened. An old man said, concerning religion, There was a time, sir, when I might have turned, it is no use now. I am past even thinking about it.

3. A warning to procrastinators. There are those who believe, but who will not act. Fable of the angel and hermit who constantly saw an old man adding from the wood to his bundle of sticks, and who could not lift and carry it.

4. See your birthright and take the Bible as your possession. Make it, as Hedley Vicars did, by placing a Bible on his table in his quarters, the sign of allegiance to Christ. If this were the first time some heard, there might be hope of some influence being brought to bear. Many times heard, and hardening following, the last opportunity will come when the chance of repentance will be gone. That time is not come if a penitent spirit is now possessed. Christ will grant forgiveness to every penitent soul. (H. De Lynne.)

Things we never get over

There is an impression in almost every mans mind that somewhere in the future there will be a chance where he can correct all his mistakes. Live as we may, if we only repent in time, God will forgive us, and then all will be as well as though we had never committed sin. My discourse shall come in collision with that theory. I shall show you that there is such a thing as unsuccessful repentance; that there are things done wrong that always stay wrong, and for them you may seek some place of repentance, but never find it.

1. Belonging to this class of irrevocable mistakes is the folly of a misspent youth. We may look back to our college days and think how we neglected chemistry, or geology, or botany, or mathematics. We may be sorry about it all our days. Can we ever get the discipline or the advantage that we would have had had we attended to those duties in early life? A man wakes up at forty years of age and finds that his youth has been wasted, and he strives to get back his early advantages. Does he get them back? Oh! he says, if I could only get those times back again, how I would improve them! You will never get them back. When you had a boys arms, and a boys eyes, and a boys heart, you ought to have attended to those things. A man says at fifty years of age: I do wish I could get over these habits of indolence. When did you get them? At twenty or twenty-five years of age. You cannot shake them off. They will hang to you to the very day of your death. I said to a minister of the gospel last Sabbath night at the close of the service: Where are you preaching now? Oh! he says, I am not preaching. I am suffering from the physical effects of early sin. I cant preach now; I am sick. A consecrated man he now is, and he mourns bitterly over early sins; but that does not arrest their bodily effects. The simple fact is, that men and women often take twenty years of their life to build up influences that require all the rest of their life to break down. When you tell me that a man is just beginning life, I tell you that he is just closing it. The next fifty years will not be of as much importance to him as the first twenty.

2. In this same category of irrevocable mistakes I put all parental neglect. We begin the education of our children too late. By the time they get to be ten or fifteen we wake up to our mistakes and try to eradicate this bad habit of the child; but it is too late. That parent who omits in the first ten years of the childs life to make an eternal impression for Christ, never makes it. The child will probably go on with all the disadvantages which might have been avoided by parental faithfulness. When I was in Chamouni, Switzerland, I saw in the window of one of the shops a picture that impressed my mind very much. It was a picture of an accident that occurred on the side of one of the Swiss mountains. A company of travellers, with guides, went up some very steep places–places which but few travellers attempted to go up. They were, as all travellers are there, fastened together with cords at the waist, so that if one slipped the rope would hold him–the rope fastened to the others. Passing along the most dangerous point, one of the guides slipped, and they all slipped down the precipice; but after awhile one more muscular than the rest struck his heels into the ice and stopped; but the rope broke, and down, hundreds and thousands of feet, the rest went. And so I see whole families bound together by ties of affection, and in many cases walking on slippery places of worldliness and sin. The father knows it and the mother knows it, and they are bound all together. After awhile they begin to slide down, steeper and steeper, and the father becomes alarmed and he stops, planting his feet on the Rock of Ages. He stops, but the rope breaks, and those who were tied fast to him by moral and spiritual influences once, go over the precipice. Oh l there is such a thing as coming to Christ soon enough to save ourselves, but not soon enough to save others.

3. In this category of irrevocable mistakes I place also the unkindness done to the departed. When I was a boy, my mother used to say to me sometimes: De Witt, you will be sorry for that when I am gone. Oh, if we could only get back those unkind words; those unkind deeds. If we could only recall them; but you cannot get them back. You might bow down over the grave of that loved one, and cry, and cry. The white lips would make no answer.

4. There is another sin that I place in the class of irrevocable mistakes, and that is lost opportunities of getting good. Esau has sold his birthright, and there is not wealth enough in the treasure-houses of heaven to buy it back again. What does that mean? It means that if you are going to get any advantage out of this Sabbath-day, you will have to get it before the hand wheels around on the clock to twelve to-night. It means that though other chariots may break down or drag heavily, this one never drops the brake, and never ceases to run. It means that while at other feasts the cup may be passed to us, and we may reject it, and yet after awhile take it, the cup-bearers to this feast never give us but one chance at the chalice, and rejecting that, we shall find no place for repentance, though we seek it carefully with tears.

5. There is one more class of sins that I put in this category of irrevocable offences, and that is lost opportunity of usefulness. There comes a time when you can do a good thing for Christ. It comes only once. Your business partner is a proud man. In ordinary circumstances say to him; Believe in Christ, and he will say; You mind your business and Ill mind mine. But there has been affliction in the household. His heart is tender. He is looking around for sympathy and solace. Now is your time. Speak, or for ever hold your peace. There is a time in farm life when you plant the corn and when you sow the seed. Let that go by, and the farmer will wring his hands while other husbandmen are gathering in their sheaves. When an opportunity for personal repentance or of doing good passes away, you may hunt for it, you cannot find it. You may fish for it, it will not take the hook. You may dig for it, you cannot bring it up. I stand before those who have a glorious birthright. Esaus was not so rich as yours. Sell it once and you sell it for ever. The world wants to buy it. Satan wants to buy it. Listen for a moment to these brilliant offers, and it is gone. (De Witt Talmage.)

No remedy:

In the action of every natural law there is a point up to which transgression is punished with a lenient hand that has in it provision for reparation upon repentance and reformation; but beyond that point you come to a line of facts where it makes no difference how sorry you feel, nor what you do, there is no remedy. There is a point beyond which violations of natural law involve suffering that is absolutely permanent. Our children understand this in respect to some things. A child, before it has attained any considerable age, knows that though he may fall down three or four stairs without serious injury, it cannot fall down a precipice three or four hundred feet and survive. If we go up a step higher we come to those silent, unwritten, unthought-of laws, that connect us one with another, in families, in societies, and in states, that are observed with benefit, and violated with regrets and penalties. A man may do many mean, wicked, and cruel things, and get over it. But there are some things which, if a man does once, and is found out, where social laws prevail, he will never recover from as long as he lives. Men may break down under trust and confidence in social connections, and never be able to build up again a state of things that will lead men to trust them. The same is true in economic laws, upon which business and property depend. Not a man lives that does not make mistakes in business. But some mistakes a man may make to-day, and correct to-morrow, and not seem to be a loser in consequence of them. If a man drives a heavily laden wain along the road, and a side-board cracks, he goes on, and the accident does not make much difference; but if an axletree breaks, it makes a great deal of difference. As when a ship is at sea without a forge with which to make a new crank–if the crank breaks, it is broken for the voyage; so in business there are some things that a man cannot do twice, for the reason that the first time kills him. The same is true of moral laws, or those that regulate influence, position, trust, among men. There are some violations of moral law that only limit and hinder mens comfort and usefulness. There are some violations of moral law that put a man out of joint with society, but not so but that the disaster in time may be remedied. And there are some violations of moral law that destroy a man hopelessly, so that there can be no place found for repentance, though it be sought carefully with tears. In each of these departments we come to a line on one side of which repentance will work change and benefit, and on the other side of which it will have no influence whatsoever. Consider, then, some of the things which repentance can but very little change, or change not at all.

1. First, there are bitter injuries that we inflict upon others, which no man can follow after, nor in any wise change. And yet, we are responsible for them. With your tongue you may hew down a mans reputation, and the things you have said will torment him to the very end of his days. You may afterwards see your error, you may go to the man and confess the wrong, and you may go to those to whom you have spoken ill of him, and say, I have learned contrary things; I was false: and now I speak the truth to his credit; but you cannot hunt slanderers. You might as well try to hunt all the flies that are abroad, or all the mosquitoes that covet your blood, in summer. The man that once lets loose these flying, stinging insects, may be as sorry as he pleases, but his repentance will not remedy the evil.

2. Parallel with these, although differing from them, are those things by which men wound the hearts of those whom they should shield. Your anger may sting venomously. Your cruel pride may do a whole ages work in a day. You cannot take back the injuries that you have done to those whose hearts lie throbbing next to yours. Ah! when winter has frozen my heliotropes, it makes no difference that the next morning thaws them out. There lie the heliotropes–a black, noisome heap; and it is possible for you to chill a tender nature so that no thawing can restore it. You may relent, but frost has been there, and you cannot bring back freshness and fragrance to the blossom. It Is a terrible thing for a man to have the power of poisoning the hearts of others, and yet carry that power carelessly. He cannot find place for repentance, though he seeks it carefully with tears.

4. You may have injured, defrauded, and even betrayed men in their worldly estate, and in some cases it will be in your power to make reparation; but in many cases it will not be in your power to make reparation. And here is one of those things that you do not know anything about. It is as if a man should amuse himself by sitting in a window of his house, and shooting arrows into the street, without troubling himself to see whom they smote. He could not tell whom he hit, or what mischief he wrought. Now thousands of men are dealing in life in such ways that they shoot arrows of misfortune at their fellow-men. Men practise what is called fraud; but they do not watch the results of their fraudulent deeds, and they do not know anything about them. I do not doubt that many of every mans troubles and misfortunes may be traced to his own conduct; but I am convinced that a large proportion of the misfortunes and troubles that afflict society may be traced to the heedless, dishonest, and wicked ways of worldly men. Now, when a man is brought to a condition in which he sees that he has done wrong, and says, I have organised and carred on a business whose effects are pernicious, I am sorry I went into it, and I will quit it at once, he may quit it, but he cannot wipe out its effects. They are irreparable. It is a fearful thing for a man to stand on debatable ground, where the question of right and wrong is held in perpetual suspense. Under such circumstances a man may be spending his whole life in the production of mischiefs to be revealed to him hereafter, when he will have no power to recall them.

5. And this leads me still more particularly and solemnly to say that men stand connected with each other in methods that lead to the most awful destruction. As an apple, touched with rot, will, simply by lying its cheek alongside of the glowing, blushing cheek of a sound apple, cause that sound apple to decay; so it is in the power of a man, if his morals are tainted, to damage the morals of another man merely by being with him. He is your disciple till he is drawn into evil; but the moment he is fascinated by it he ceases to be your disciple. Suppose I should preach the gospel in some gambling saloon of New York, and suppose a man should come out convicted of his wickedness, and confess it before God, and pray that he might be forgiven. Forgiveness might be granted to him, so far as he was individually concerned. But suppose he should say, O God, not only restore to me the joys of salvation, but give me back the mischief that I have done, that I may rule it out. Why, there was one man that shot himself: what are you going to do for him? A young man came to Indianapolis, when I was pastor there, on his way to settle in the West. He was young, and very self-confident. While there, he was robbed, in a gambling saloon, of fifteen hundred dollars–all that he had. He begged to be allowed to keep enough to take him home to his fathers house, and he was kicked out into the street. It led to his suicide. I know the man that committed the foul deed. He used to walk up and down the street. Oh, how my soul felt thunder when I met him! If anything lifts me up to the top of Mount Sinai, it is to see one man wrong another. Now suppose this man should repent? Can he ever call back that suicide? Can he ever carry balm to the hearts of the father and mother and brothers and sisters of his unfortunate victim? Can he ever wipe off the taint and disgrace that he has brought on the escutcheon of that family? No repentance can spread over that. And yet how many men there are that are heaping up such transgressions! (H. W. Beecher.)

Lost blessings:

Some blessings which, when lost, are lost for ever.

1. Opportunities for an education.

2. Purity. Sin may be forgiven, but the memory remains. We can have absolute purity only once.

3. Means of grace. We may improve the present, but the means unimproved in the past are for ever lost.

4. Opportunities for doing good. Present work will not make good past neglect.

5. The blessings of a Christian home in childhood.

6. A soul finally lost. There is a time beyond which there is no redemption. The time will come when you will seek these blessings with tears, but it will be too late–for ever too late. (W. M. Hamma, D. D.)

No going back:

There is an old fairy tale about a knight who was riding along a dangerous road. It was dark and lonely, and there were many wild beasts and robbers along the way. So he thought he would turn back, and see if he could not find another road, which would be less dark and dangerous. But when he turned and looked behind, what did he see? All the road that he had ridden on had disappeared, and at his horses heels there was a gulf, so deep that he could not see to the bottom. And so it is in our life. There is no possibility of going back in it. We can never undo what we have done. We use each moment as it comes, either well or ill, and then it is gone, and we can never recall it.

Irretrievable loss

I once had for a brief companionship a sweet friend, a relative, on a visit where I was residing. We used to go out rowing together. She had a way of dallying with her hand in the water over the side of the boat. One time she lost all the rings off from her fingers in an instant. Out of sight of course hopelessly they fell to the bottom. But whenever we rowed across that place again she would gaze restlessly over the edge, trying to search the very lowest depths of the lake. I have even seen her suddenly bare her arm, as if she had caught a gleam of the jewels down in among the weeds, and was going to grasp after them yet l It is a great mockery, this clutching after youth and hope and joy and vanished ambition, when one had come to be an elderly and weather-beaten man. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

A bitter wail:

How bitter is the wail of the mighty Mirabeau, If I had but character, if I had but been a good man, if I had not degraded my life by sensuality, and my youth by evil passion, I could have saved France!
Many a man has felt the same; he has clipped his own wings, he has suffered to be shorn away the sunny locks of the Nazarite who once lay weeping upon his shoulders, and wherein would have lain his strength.

Lost opportunities

A famed German preacher tells that he began life as assistant to a careless old minister. Often he saw the grey-headed man pacing sadly up and down the garden, and overheard him saying, Oh, that God would give me back my past years! (J. Wells, M. A.)

Esaus tears:

Those tears of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man, almost like the cry of some trapped creature, are amongst the most pathetic in the Bible. (A. B. Davidson, LL. D.)

A life lost for eighteenpence!

Some time ago a ship went down, having struck a hidden reef. Fortunately, unlike the sad case of the Teution the other day, there was time enough to get the passengers and crew into the boats, which safely held off from the foundering vessel. Just before the last boat started, the captain and mate, having seen that all were safe, stood upon the gangway ready to leave the ship. She was fast sinking–no time to be lost. The mate said to the captain, I have left my purse below; let me go and get it. Man, replied the other, you have no time for that; jump at once. Just a moment, captain–I can easily get it; and away the mate rushed below. But in that moment the ship went creeping down. I hear the gurgling flood! The captain has barely time to save himself, when, swirling in the awful vortex, the vessel disappears i By and by the body of the mate was found, and in his stiffened hand was tightly grasped the fatal purse. When the purse was opened, what do you think it contained? Eighteenpence! And for that paltry sum he risked and lost his life.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 16. Lest there be any fornicator] Any licentious person who would turn the Gospel of the grace of God into lasciviousness.

Or profane person, as Esau] It is not intimated that Esau was a fornicator; and the disjunctive , or, separates the profane person from the fornicator. And Esau is here termed profane, because he so far disregarded the spiritual advantages connected with his rights of primogeniture, that he alienated the whole for a single mess of pottage. See the note on “Ge 25:34“. The word , which we translate profane, is compounded of , which in composition has a negative signification, and , the threshold of a temple or sacred edifice; and was applied to those who were not initiated into the sacred mysteries, or who were despisers of sacred things, and consequently were to be denied admittance to the temple, and were not permitted to assist at holy rites. Indeed, among the Greeks signified any thing or person which was not consecrated to the gods. Hence, in the opening of their worship, they were accustomed to proclaim,

Procul, O procul, este profani! VIRG.

“Hence! O hence! ye profane.”

And,

Odi profanum vulgus, et arceo. HOR.

“I abominate the profane vulgar, and drive them

from the temple.”

The Latin profanus, from which we have our word, is compounded of procul a fano, “far from the temple,” properly an irreligious man.

Sold his birthright.] The first-born, in patriarchal times,

1. Had a right to the priesthood, Ex 22:29.

2. And a double portion of all the father’s possessions, De 21:17.

3. And was lord over his brethren, Ge 27:29; Ge 27:37; Ge 49:3.

4. And in the family of Abraham the first-born was the very source whence the Messiah as the Redeemer of the world, and the Church of God, were to spring. Farther,

5. The first-born had the right of conveying especial blessings and privileges when he came to die. See the case of Isaac and his two sons, Jacob and Esau, in the history to which the apostle alludes, Ge 27; and that of Jacob and his twelve sons, Ge 49;

In short, the rights of primogeniture were among the most noble, honourable, and spiritual in the ancient world.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

This properly interprets the root of bitterness before, by two special fruits of it.

Lest there be any fornicator: uncleanness, , is not to be taken so strictly, as only to note fornication, uncleanness committed by unmarried persons, but all sorts of pollution and filthiness, as it is used in the general decree, Act 15:29; such defilements as had crept in among them already, to which many were propense and inclined, whence warned of and charged against it by James, Peter, and Jude, in their Epistles.

Or profane person: imports one who had a bitter frame of spirit against the first table, one of an impure mind to God-ward, opposite to godliness, who neglects and spurns at holy things, rolling itself in its own pleasures, riches, honours, with a despising of God, his grace, and glory, 1Ti 1:9; 4:7,16; 2Ti 2:16.

As Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth-right: Esau, the best example to these Hebrews, he being Jacobs brother, who was most notoriously profane, who irreligiously undervalued and despised the blessing of the birthright, to which was entailed by God the double portion, the priesthood and dominion over the family, the blessings of the covenant, and the being a type of Christ; he basely and impiously gave it away to his younger brother, slighting it, and freely and fully making it over to him, and all for one eating, the base gratifying of his sensual appetite but once, Gen 25:32,34. Like to whom were those, Phi 3:18; 2Pe 2:10-19; Jud 1:4-19. In these is his filthy, profane spirit improved.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

16. fornicator (Heb 13:4;1Co 10:8).

or profaneFornicationis nearly akin to gluttony, Esau’s sin. He profanely cast awayhis spiritual privilege for the gratification of his palate. Ge25:34 graphically portrays him. An example well fitted to strikeneedful horror into the Hebrews, whosoever of them, like Esau, wereonly sons of Isaac according to the flesh [BENGEL].

for one morselThesmallness of the inducement only aggravates the guilt of casting awayeternity for such a trifle, so far is it from being a claim for mercy(compare Ge 3:6). Onesingle act has often the greatest power either for good or for evil.So in the cases of Reuben and Saul, for evil (Gen 49:4;1Ch 5:1; 1Sa 13:12-14);and, on the other hand, for good, Abraham and Phinehas (Gen 12:1-3;Gen 15:5; Gen 15:6;Num 25:6-15).

his birthrightGreek,“his own (so the oldest manuscripts read, intensifying thesuicidal folly and sin of the act) rights of primogeniture,”involving the high spiritual privilege of being ancestor of thepromised seed, and heir of the promises in Him. The Hebrews whom Pauladdressed, had, as Christians, the spiritual rights of primogeniture(compare Heb 12:23): heintimates that they must exercise holy self-control, if they wishnot, like Esau, to forfeit them.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Lest there be any fornicator or profane person,…. The first of these is guilty of a sin against the second table of the law, as well as against his own body; and which is opposed to the holiness the apostle had before exhorted to; such who are guilty of it, are not to be continued in the communion of the church; and it is a sin, which, lived in not repented of, excludes from the kingdom of heaven: the latter is one who is a transgressor of the first table of the law; who is an idolater, a swearer, a despiser of public worship and ordinances, and who behaves irreverently in divine service, and mocks at the future state, as Esau; to whom both these characters seem to belong: and this agrees with what the Jews say concerning him: they have a tradition w, that he committed five transgressions on the day he came out of the field weary.

“He committed idolatry: he shed innocent blood; and lay with a virgin betrothed; and denied the life of the world to come (or a future state); and despised his birthright.”

It is elsewhere x a little differently expressed.

“Esau, the wicked, committed five transgressions on that day: he lay with a virgin betrothed; and killed a person; and denied the resurrection of the dead; and denied the root, or foundation, (i.e. that there is a God,) and despised his birthright; and besides, he desired his father’s death, and sought to slay his brother.”

It is common for them to say of him, that he was an ungodly man; and particularly, that he was a murderer, a robber, , “and an adulterer” y; and that he has no part in the world to come z: who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright; the account of which is in Ge 25:29 this includes all the privileges which he had a right unto by being the firstborn; as a peculiar blessing from his father; a double portion of goods; and dominion over his brethren: and it is commonly said by the Jews, that the priesthood belonged to the firstborn, before the Levitical dispensation; and that for this reason, Jacob coveted the birthright a, Esau being a wicked man, and unfit for it. The birthright was reckoned sacred; it was typical of the primogeniture of Christ; of the adoption of saints, and of the heavenly inheritance belonging thereunto; all which were despised by Esau: and so the Jewish paraphrases b interpret the contempt of his birthright, a despising of his part in the world to come, and a denial of the resurrection of the dead: and his contempt of it was shown in his selling it; and this was aggravated by his selling it for “one morsel of meat”; which was bread, and pottage of lentiles, Ge 25:34. The Jewish writers speak of this bargain and sale much in the same language as the apostle here does; they say c of him, this is the man that sold his birthright , “for a morsel of bread”; and apply to him the passage in Pr 28:21 “for a piece of bread that man will transgress”.

w Targum Jon. ben Uzziel in Gen. xxv. 29. x Shemot Rabba, sect. I. fol. 89. 3. T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 16. 2. y Tzeror Hammor, fol. 27. 1. z Tzeror Hammor, fol. 26. 3. a Bereshit Rabba, sect. 63. fol. 56. 2. b Targum Hieros. & Jon. in Gen. 25. 34. Bereshit Rabba, ib. c Tzeror Hammor, fol. 26. 4. & 27. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Profane (). Trodden under foot, unhallowed (1Ti 1:9).

For one mess of meat ( ). Idea of exchange, “for one act of eating” (1Co 8:4).

Sold (). Second aorist middle indicative from Gen 25:31; Gen 25:33, and with irregular form for (regular form).

His own birthright ( ). From Genesis also and in Philo, only here in N.T. From (first born, Heb 1:6).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Fornicator [] . In the literal sense, as always in N. T. Profane person [] . See on 1Ti 1:9.

As Esau. Only the epithet profane is applied to Esau, not fornicator. For one morsel of meat [ ] . Brwsiv, lit. the act of eating, as 1Co 8:4, Rom 14:17 : “one eating of meat.” Sometimes corrosion, as Mt 6:19. Sometimes of that which is eaten, Joh 6:27, 55.

Sold [] . The word occurs in the narrative of Gen 25:31, 33, LXX In N. T. often of discharging an obligation; paying back. To sell, Act 5:8; Act 7:9.

His birthright [ ] . N. T. o, o Class. In this form only in the later Greek translations of the O. T. Prwtotokeion, a very few times, almost all in this narrative.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Lest there be any fornicator,” (me tis pornos) “Lest there should be any fornicator; A moral fornicator is one who commits immoral sex with the opposite sex while unmarried to each other. Spiritual fornication, as a parallel refers to unscriptural conduct of a believer with or before an unbeliever, Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1Th 4:3; Heb 13:4.

2) “Or profane person, as Esau,” (e bebelos hos Esau) “Or profane person like Esau,” the “hairy” one who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. A profane person is one who has carnal, worldly, and low values and views of spiritual matters, Lev 18:11; Isa 36:20; 1Ti 6:20.

3) “Who for one morsel of meat,” (hos anti broseos mias) “Who against one morsel of food,” meat or bread. Esau, like the carnal of today, thought chiefly and covetously of the desires of his own flesh; Men, foolish men, still sell eternal matters for shadows of materialism of the present time, 1Jn 2:15-17.

4)“Sold his birthright,” (apedoto ta prototo kai heautou) “Gave away (forfeited, or gave up) the rights of the firstborn, himself,” . He was here said to have “despised” it, taken it lightly.

The eldest son was due a double portion or two parts of the father’s birthright bequest so that he could equitably make sacrifices of worship as the priest of the family, for all the family, following the father’s death.

But Esau gave a big discount, one half of his double portion of the inheritance, together with the honor of leading family worship, in exchange for one moment of gratification of his hunger – how fickle! Mar 8:36-37.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

16. Lest there be any fornicator or profane person, etc. As he had before exhorted them to holiness, so now, that he might reclaim them from defilements opposed to it, he mentions a particular kind of defilement, and says, “Lest there be any fornicator.” But he immediately comes to what is general, and adds, “or a profane person;” for it is the term that is strictly contrary to holiness. The Lord calls us for this end, that he may make us holy unto obedience: this is done when we renounce the world; but any one who so delights in his own filth that he continually rolls in it, profanes himself. We may at the same time regard the profane as meaning generally all those who do not value God’s grace so much as to seek it and despise the world. But as men become profane in various ways, the more earnest we ought to strive lest an opening be left for Satan to defile us with his corruptions. And as there is no true religion without holiness, we ought to make progress continually in the fear of God, in the mortifying of the flesh, and in the whole practice of piety; for as we are profane until we separate from the world so if we roll again in its filth we renounce holiness.

As Esau, etc. This example may be viewed as an exposition of the word profane; for when Esau set more value on one meal than on his birthright, he lost his blessing. Profane then are all they in whom the love of the world so reigns and prevails that they forget heaven: as is the case with those who are led away by ambition, or become fond of money or of wealth, or give themselves up to gluttony, or become entangled in any other pleasures; they allow in their thoughts and cares no place, or it may be the last place, to the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

Most appropriate then is this example; for when the Lord designs to set forth the power of that love which he has for his people, he calls all those whom he has called to the hope of eternal life his firstborn. Invaluable indeed is this honor with which he favors us; and all the wealth, all the conveniences, the honors and the pleasures of the world, and everything commonly deemed necessary for happiness, when compared with this honor, are of no more value than a morsel of meat. That we indeed set a high value on things which are nearly worth nothing, arises from this, — that depraved lust dazzles our eyes and thus blinds us. If therefore we would hold a place in God’s sanctuary, we must learn to despise morsels of meat of this kind, by which Satan is wont to catch the reprobate. (258)

(258) It is said that “for one morsel of meat,” literally, “for one eating,” or, “for one meal,” as rendered by Doddridge, “he sold his birthright,” or according to Macknight, “he gave away his birthrights.” In this reference the Apostle gives the substance without regarding expressions, though he adopts those of the Septuagint in two instances, — the verb, which means to give away, used in the sense of selling, — and birthrights, or the rights of primogeniture. The word in Hebrew means primogeniture, used evidently by metonymy for its rights and privileges. Not only a double portion belonged to the first-born, but also the paternal blessing, which included things temporal and spiritual. The notion that the priesthood at that time and from the beginning of the world belonged to the first-born, has nothing to support it. Abel was a priest as well as Cain, and a better priest too. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(16) Lest there be.Better (as in the last verse), whether there be. Though Jewish tradition (see, for example, the Targum of Palestine on Gen. 25:29) affirms that Esau was a man of impure life, it is not probable that he is so represented in this verse. Here he is mentioned as a type of the profane, who care not for divine things, but only for the gains and pleasures of this world.

Who for one morsel of meat.Better, who for one meal sold his own birthright (Gen. 25:29-34). We cannot suppose that the writer has in thought the material rights of the firstborn, such as his claim on pre-eminence and, possibly (see Deu. 21:17), on a larger share of his fathers possessions. Tradition relates that, up to the time of Aaron, priestly functions were discharged by each firstborn son (comp. Num. 3:5-12); and to the line of the firstborn would seem to belong that blessing of Abraham (Gen. 28:4) which every one who shared Abrahams faith would earnestly desire to possess.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

16. Fornicator Who would be eminently “a root of bitterness,” defiling the Church. Some so separate fornicator by a comma as to preclude its being an intended epithet for Esau. Esau was said by tradition to have been unchaste, but it is not clearly said here; while it is clearly said that he was a profane person. By that epithet is meant a man regardless of sacred things, perhaps a scoffer. Esau’s profanity was displayed in his undervaluation of his birthright. Among primitive nations the firstborn had eminent secular rights and honours; but in the Abrahamic family it implied a religious continuity of lineage, through which, according to the Abrahamic promise, Messiah was to be born. The act of Esau in selling his birthright, was, hence, based in a contemptuous scepticism, a real apostasy from the Abrahamic faith, (so a proper warning against apostasy,) which apostasy descended in the Edomite line. Jehovah could not be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Esau, for Esau and his line contemned him.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Lest there be any fornication, or profane person, as Esau, who for one portion of food sold his own birthright. For you know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind, though he sought it diligently with tears.’

This root of bitterness is now defined in terms of Esau who ‘sold his birthright’ because it meant so little to him. He was a worldly person. He despised what was spiritual. He looked at present benefit not at future ‘pie in the sky’. Note the implication. What he lost had never been his in any genuine way, for he had always despised it in his heart. It meant nothing to him, and he had casually exchanged it for a dish of soup. He did not have a faith that dwindled, it was a faith that had never existed.

But later when he suddenly realised that it did matter it was too late. He had chosen his path and could not turn back. No amount of tears could change the situation. He had made an irrevocable decision and was now stuck with it. Compare Heb 10:26.

This does not mean that Esau was lost for ever. The writer is not talking about his eternal state. He is making a comparison between the loss of his birthright through folly, with the greater danger of others of losing everything through folly, and stressing how such a situation can become irrevocable. Esau could still repent of his sin and find forgiveness before God, but there was no way in which he could bring about a change of mind concerning his birthright. He had lost it permanently. The danger, however, for those who ‘despise’ Christ is that they may truly reach a stage where they themselves are lost for ever.

‘Lest there be any fornication, or profane person.’ Esau was never described as factually a fornicator, but he did marry a number of foreign wives, wives outside the covenant, which grieved his father and mother deeply (Gen 26:34-35; Gen 27:46; Gen 28:8-9). He was unequally yoked together with unbelievers. That may be partly the idea here. That too demonstrated that, unlike Jacob, he had little concern for ‘the way of promise’. God’s purposes were not important to Him. And that eventually was why he was able to dismiss his birthright so easily and with such disinterest. First he went wrong with his choice of women, and then he demonstrated his contempt for the promises of God. As it turned out he was concerned what his father thought about him, but he was not concerned with what God thought about him.

But moving from the example to the people he was writing to the writer probably has literal fornication in mind for them (compare Heb 13:4). Relationships with women have always been vitally important for the Christian, and fornication and sexual misbehaviour, is always a present danger. Wrong attitudes lead to wrong relationships. Thus they are to avoid fornication, the idolatry of the flesh; and they are also to avoid being profane and worldly minded, the idolatry of the spirit, that is, looking only at what is seen and putting such things before God.

For Let Them Consider What They Are Dealing With. They Are Not Dealing With Earthly Experiences But With Heavenly Realities.

Once again we are brought back to the comparison between the old and new ways, the old and new covenant, the old and new Law (chapters 7-10). His readers have less excuse for failure than Israel of former days, and more to be afraid of. For they have not come to something earthly, fearsome and awesome though it may be, and something which makes men tremble, and made even Moses fear and quake. As well as being a time of great import to Israel it was also a time of exclusion. God was there but they were not to approach Him hidden in the darkness. Only Moses could enter the cloud and even he trembled.

But rather they have come to the glory of heavenly realities, and the wonder of the new Mediator Who mediates the new covenant in Heaven. It is no longer the terror of Mount Sinai, but the glory of the heavenly Mount Zion, with all that goes with it. It is an entrance with joy. But it is still the dwellingplace of the Consuming Fire for those who have turned their backs on Him.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Heb 12:16. Lest there be any fornicator We must not imagine that the apostle here mentions Esau as an example of the crime of fornication; for nothing appears in the history to shew that Esau was more guilty of this sin than any one else, who in those days had many wives; though polygamy is utterly inconsistent with the gospel dispensation. Esau is called a profane person, because, as a prophetic blessing went with the birth-right, there was a most profane contempt of it in the infamous bargain here referred to: and as an eagerness in the gratification of appetite would naturally imply a contempt of spiritual and divine blessings, sacrificed to such gratifications; it was properly expressed by profaneness. Instead of one morsel, the Greek may be more properly rendered one mess. Dr. Heylin renders it a single meal. The apostle keeps in view the point of falling from the grace of God; which if any man do, it may be no more in his power to retrieve it, than it was in Esau’s to recover the blessing which he had despised.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 12:16 . ] sc . ) (comp. Heb 12:15 ): that no fornicator trouble you . Yet we may, with Grotius, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and the majority, supplement merely : that no one be a fornicator . is to be taken in the natural sense, as Heb 13:4 . The taking of it as a figurative designation of one who is unfaithful to Christ, in order to hold unlawful intercourse with Judaism (Bhme, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 155, and others), is unsuitable, because Heb 12:16 is nothing else but the continued amplification of the , Heb 12:14 .

] or a profane person (a man of unhallowed, common mind, centred upon the earthly), as Esau . belongs only to . It is not to be referred also to (so still Delitzsch and Alford), since nothing is related in scripture concerning a of Esau (more, it is true, the later Rabbis have to tell us; see Wetstein at our passage), and the elucidatory relative has respect only to .

. . .] Comp. Gen 25:33 .

] indication of the price , as Heb 12:2 .

] the birthright with its privileges. Classic writers employ for it or .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Ver. 16. Fornicator or profane ] He instanceth in some roots of bitterness. Esau’s profaneness appeared in these particulars: 1. In that he was no sooner asked for the birthright but he yielded. 2. That he parted with it for a trifle, a little red, red, as he called it in his haste and hunger. 3. That he did this, being, as he thought, at point of death. 4. That he went his way when he had done, as if he had done no such thing, he showed no sign of remorse or regret. Hence he is four or five several times branded with, “This is Edom.” This is he that had a low esteem of spiritual privileges, that judged a jewel of greatest price worth forty pence.

Who for one morsel, &c. ] Many such Edomites now-a-days that prefer earth before heaven; a swine sty before a sanctuary, as the Gadarenes; their part in Paris before their part in Paradise, as that carnal cardinal. Vale lumen amicum, said Theotimus; Farewell, eyes, if I may not drink and do worse, ye are no eyes for me. (Ambrose.) He would rather lose his sight than his sin; so will many rather part with heaven than with their lusts. Oh, what madmen are these that bereave themselves of a room in that city of pearl for a few carnal pleasures, &c. Pope Sixtus V sold his soul to the devil to enjoy the popedom for seven years.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

16 .] lest ( there be ) (this is a far more probable filling up of the construction, as an independent elliptic sentence, than to suppose it to furnish another subject to ) any fornicator (to be taken literally, not as alluding to spiritual fornication, cf. Deu 31:16 ; Exo 34:15 f.: for as Del. observes, this sense is foreign to the N. T. except in the Apocalypse: and it is very unlikely that the Writer should have used a meaning lying so far from the context, and not suggested either by the passage of Deut. to which he was before alluding, or by the history of Esau which he is now introducing. Nearly connected with the question of the sense of , is that of the punctuation: whether by a comma after it we are to sever it from connexion with Esau, or not. Most Commentators join it with what follows. So Thdrt., Schol.-Matthi, Isidor.-pelus., Primas., al., and explain it partly of the gluttony of Esau, partly of his having wedded strange women, partly by the character of a fornicator which is given him by later Jewish tradition: cf. numerous testimonies in Wetst. But others divide from what follows. So Chrys., Joh. Damasc. ( , , , cited in Wetst. var. readd.), Thl. ( , , , . . . .): and so Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Sykes, Cramer, Heinrichs, Bleek, De Wette, Bisping, Lnem. It seems hardly possible to decide. The character of Esau, from Scripture as well as tradition, will very well bear the designation : and the balance of the sentence is better preserved by applying both to him, than by leaving insulated. The objection, that the relative clause, . . ., applies only to , does not amount to much: for as Bengel remarks, “libido et intemperantia cibi affines.” On the other hand Delitzsch’s argument, that had been intended to be separate, it would have stood , . . ., is not sound: for the ellipsis might just as well stand in both clauses, as in one. He notices that in Philo, Qust in Gen 27:11 , lib. iv. 201 Potter’s Appendix, p. 404, “Pilosus intemperatus libidinosusque est”) or profane person ( , , , , Thl.: a man of low views, who has no appreciation of any high or divine thing: , , Chrys.) as Esau, who for (on , see on Heb 12:2 ) one meal sold (the use of , middle, for to sell , is common in good Greek) his own birthright (‘rights of primogeniture:’ or – is the usual word in the LXX for the Heb. or , see Gen 25:31-34 ; 1Ch 5:1 ; Deu 21:17 . The Greeks use for it or : Josephus has this last in this narrative, Antt. ii. 1. 1, and the LXX in Gen 43:33 . The reflexive , which must be read, may seem to be superfluous; but it serves to intensify the unworthiness of the act).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Heb 12:16 . specific forms in which roots of bitterness might appear among them. is to be taken in its literal sense and not as signifying departure from God [but cf. Weiss]. Neither is it to be applied to Esau, in spite of the passages adduced by Wetstein to show that he was commonly considered a fornicator, and of Philo’s interpretation of “hairy” as “intemperate and libidinous”; v. Delitzsch. From Heb 13:4 it appears that fornication was one of the dangers to which these Hebrews were exposed. , a profanity which was especially betrayed in his bartering for a single meal [ ] his own rights of primogeniture. Esau lightly parting with his religious privileges and his patrimony for a present gratification is an appropriate warning to those who day by day were tempted to win comfort and escape suffering by parting with their hope in Christ. The warning is pointed by the fate of Esau. “for ye know that even though he was afterwards desirous to inherit the blessing he was rejected, though he sought it with tears; for he found no place of repentance”. “The term ‘repentance’ is here used not strictly of mere change of mind, but of a change of mind undoing the effects of a former state of mind” (Davidson). In other words, his bargain was irrevocable. The words must be interpreted by the narrative in Genesis (Gen 27:1-41 ), where we read that some time after the sale of the birthright ( ) Esau sought the blessing with tears (Gen 27:38 , ) but found his act was unalterable. The lesson written on Esau’s life as on that of all who miss opportunities is that the past is irreparable, and however much they may desire to recall and alter it, that cannot be. It was this which the writer wished to enforce. If now, through any temptation or pressure, you let go the benefits you have in Christ, you are committing yourselves to an act you cannot recall. It must also be observed that the author is confining his attention to the one act of Esau, not pronouncing on his whole life and ultimate destiny. [ . So Pliny, Ep. , x. 97, “poenitentiae locus;” and Ulpian, Digest. , xl. Tit. 7, “poenitentiae haeredis is locum non esse” (Wetstein)].

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

profane. Greek. bebelos. See 1Ti 1:9.

morsel of meat. Greek. brosis. See Rom 14:17.

sold. Greek. apodidomi. Same as “yield”, Heb 12:11.

his. The texts read “his own”.

birthright. Greek. prototokia. Only here.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

16.] lest (there be) (this is a far more probable filling up of the construction, as an independent elliptic sentence, than to suppose it to furnish another subject to ) any fornicator (to be taken literally, not as alluding to spiritual fornication, cf. Deu 31:16; Exo 34:15 f.: for as Del. observes, this sense is foreign to the N. T. except in the Apocalypse: and it is very unlikely that the Writer should have used a meaning lying so far from the context, and not suggested either by the passage of Deut. to which he was before alluding, or by the history of Esau which he is now introducing. Nearly connected with the question of the sense of , is that of the punctuation: whether by a comma after it we are to sever it from connexion with Esau, or not. Most Commentators join it with what follows. So Thdrt., Schol.-Matthi, Isidor.-pelus., Primas., al., and explain it partly of the gluttony of Esau, partly of his having wedded strange women, partly by the character of a fornicator which is given him by later Jewish tradition: cf. numerous testimonies in Wetst. But others divide from what follows. So Chrys., Joh. Damasc. ( , , , cited in Wetst. var. readd.), Thl. ( , , , . …): and so Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Sykes, Cramer, Heinrichs, Bleek, De Wette, Bisping, Lnem. It seems hardly possible to decide. The character of Esau, from Scripture as well as tradition, will very well bear the designation : and the balance of the sentence is better preserved by applying both to him, than by leaving insulated. The objection, that the relative clause, …, applies only to , does not amount to much: for as Bengel remarks, libido et intemperantia cibi affines. On the other hand Delitzschs argument, that had been intended to be separate, it would have stood , …, is not sound: for the ellipsis might just as well stand in both clauses, as in one. He notices that in Philo, Qust in Gen 27:11, lib. iv. 201 Potters Appendix, p. 404, Pilosus intemperatus libidinosusque est) or profane person (, , , , Thl.: a man of low views, who has no appreciation of any high or divine thing: , , Chrys.) as Esau, who for (on , see on Heb 12:2) one meal sold (the use of , middle, for to sell, is common in good Greek) his own birthright (rights of primogeniture: or – is the usual word in the LXX for the Heb. or , see Gen 25:31-34; 1Ch 5:1; Deu 21:17. The Greeks use for it or : Josephus has this last in this narrative, Antt. ii. 1. 1, and the LXX in Gen 43:33. The reflexive , which must be read, may seem to be superfluous; but it serves to intensify the unworthiness of the act).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 12:16. , fornicator) ch. Heb 13:4; 1Co 10:8.-, or) Lust and intemperance in eating are closely connected.-, profane) casting away a spiritual privilege for the enjoyments of the palate; see Gen 25:34 : Esau both ate and drank, and rose and went away. A graphic representation of a profane mind.- , as Esau) An example well fitted to excite horror, which was needed to be struck into the sons of Jacob according to the flesh.-, one) This increases the fault, does not deserve (so far is it from being a ground for claiming) mercy; comp. Gen 3:6. Sometimes one single action has the greatest force on both sides (for good or for evil). This is also evident from the example of Reuben and Saul; and again, on the other hand, of Abraham and Phinehas, etc.- , the rights of the first-born) which were very precious. The right of primogeniture belonged also to the Hebrews, to whom he is writing, before the Gentiles, Heb 12:23, note.-, his) He had therefore really possessed it. Holy sobriety and temperance become those who partake of spiritual primogeniture.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

, , .

. Syr., lest any man should be found among you who is a fornicator. . Syr., , and fainting, or a backslider. . Vulg., propter unam escam. Rhem., one dish of meat. Bez., uno edulio; one morsel, something to be eaten at once. We say, one morsel of meat; but it was broth, which is no less edulium than meat.

. Vulg., scitote enim. For know ye, imperatively. For ye do know. Syr., , you are knowing of it.

Heb 12:16-17. Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

The apostle proceeds to give other instances of such evils as whereby Christian societies would be corrupted, and way made for total apostasy; which were to be diligently heeded and carefully watched against. And the end hereof is, that either such evils may be prevented, or those who are guilty of them be recovered, (the difficulty whereof in the latter instance is declared), or be cast out of the church, that it be not defiled; which are the ends of this inspection.

He puts together fornication and profaneness; and that probably for these three reasons:

1. Because they are, as it were, the heads of the two sorts of sins that men may be guilty of, namely, sins of the flesh, and sins of the mind, Eph 2:3.

2. Because they usually go together. Fornicators, that is, those who are habitually so, do always grow profane; and profane persons, of all other sins, are apt to set light by fornication. These things are written with the beams of the sun in the days wherein we live.

3. They are the especial sins whose relinquishment by sincere repentance is most rare. Few fornicators or profane persons do ever come to repentance.

It is one of these alone, namely, profaneness, whereof we have an instance in Esau. The Scripture mentioneth nothing of his fornication. His taking of wives from among the Hittites, who seem to have been proud, evil, idolatrous persons, in that they were a grief of mind, or a bitter provocation, unto Isaac and to Rebekah, Gen 26:34-35,

cannot be called fornication, as the sense of the word was then restrained, when the evil of polygamy was not known.

There is in the words,

1. The evils to be watched against, in the way and manner before declared.

2. An effectual motive to abstain from the latter of them, taken from the example of one who was guilty of it, and the success of that guilt; which was Esau.

3. In that example we may observe,

(1.) That he is charged with this sin of profaneness;

(2.) The way whereby he manifested himself so to be, or wherein his profaneness did consist;

(3.) The issue of it;

(4.) His vain attempt to recover himself from that condition whereinto he was cast by his profaneness: all which must be opened.

1. The first evil mentioned is fornication. But the caution is given, as unto the church, with respect unto persons in the first place: That there be no fornicator. Reference is had unto the former charge: Look ye to it diligently, that there be no fornicator in your society. Take care that no persons fall into that sin; or if they do, let them be removed from among you. The sin is evil unto them, but the communion of their persons is evil unto you. Now, because the apostle placeth this evil, with that which follows, at the door of final apostasy, and doth more than intimate the difficulty, if not the moral impossibility, of the recovery of those who are guilty of them, we must inquire into the nature of it, and thereon its danger. And,

(1.) This sin is most directly and particularly opposite unto that holiness which he is exhorting them unto, as that without which they shall not see the LORD. And some do judge, that by holiness in that place, the contrary habit unto fornication is intended. However, this is peculiarly opposite unto gospel holiness and sanctification, as the apostle declares, 1Co 6:18-20. And it is that sin which men who are forsaking the profession of holiness do usually fall into, as experience testifieth.

(2.) Though here and elsewhere the sin of fornication be severely interdicted, yet in this place the apostle doth not intend every such person as may, through temptation, be surprised into that sin, nor will one fact give this denomination; but those who live in this sin, who are fornicators habitually, such as are placed at the head of them that shall never inherit the kingdom of God, 1Co 6:9. Such are to be excluded out of the church, as a certain pledge and token of their exclusion out of heaven. It is no wonder, therefore, if the apostle intimates a great difficulty of the recovery of such.

(3.) Under this name of fornicator, or fornication, all sins of the same kind are intended. For the Scripture calls all conjunction with women, not in lawful marriage, by the name of fornication, 1Co 5:9-12; Eph 5:5; 1Ti 1:10. So that by fornicators, whoremongers and adulterers, as it is expressed, Heb 13:4, or all such as sin against their own bodies, be it in or out of the state of wedlock, be it with single or married persons, are intended. Wherefore the warning doth not respect the practice of the Gentiles at that time, wherein the fornication of single persons was lightly set by; nor the licentiousness of the Jews, who thought it no sin to accompany with a heathen, at least if she were not in wedlock; but it is general, as unto all who are so guilty of uncleanness as to come under this denomination.

(4.) This is a sin, which when men are habitually given up unto, they are never, or very rarely, recovered from it. When any sensual lust hath obtained a habitual predominancy in any, it doth contract so intimate a league with the flesh, as it is hardly eradicated. Such sins do usually keep men secure unto the future judgment,. Hence God, for the punishment of idolatry, gave some up unto uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, Rom 1:24-26, namely, that by them they might be secured unto that eternal vengeance which they had deserved.

(5.) There is no sort of sinners that would be so scandalous unto churches, should they be tolerated in them, as fornicators. And therefore the Pagans endeavored, in the utmost of their malice and false accusations, to fasten the charge of adulteries, incests, promiscuous lusts and uncleanness, on Christians in their assemblies. For they knew full well, that let them pretend what else they pleased, if they could fix this stain upon them, they would be the common hatred and scorn of mankind. For the higher mens pretences are unto God and religion, if they issue in such vile lusts, they are the more contemptible, and the more to be abhorred. Whereas, therefore, the church doth make a peculiar profession of a separation and dedication unto God, in holiness, purity of heart and life, nothing can be a greater reproach unto it than that fornicators should be found in its communion. And the carelessness of the visible church herein for some ages, suffering licentiousness of life in the lusts of the flesh to diffuse itself greatly amongst its members, being promoted in the clergy by an interdiction of lawful marriage unto them, proved its ruin. And,

Obs. 1. That church which tolerates in its communion men living in such gross sins as fornication, is utterly, as unto its discipline, departed from the rule of the gospel. And it is also hence evident, that,

Obs. 2. Apostatizing professors are prone to sins of uncleanness. For being overcome of the flesh, and brought into bondage, as 2Pe 2:19, they are slaves and debtors unto it, to serve it in the lusts of uncleanness.

2. The second evil to be watched against is profaneness; or that there be no profane person among them. For it is persons that are firstly intended, as is evident in the instance of Esau. To be profane, may be taken passively or actively. In the first sense, it is a person or place separated and cast out from the society of things sacred. So holy things are said to be profaned, when men take off the veneration that is due unto them, and expose them to common use or contempt. To profane, is to violate, to corrupt, to prostitute to common use, things sacred and holy, either in their nature or by divine institution. Profane actively, is one that despiseth, sets light by, or contemneth sacred things. Such as mock at religion, or who lightly regard its promises and threatenings, who despise or neglect its worship, who speak irreverently of its concerns, we call profane persons; and such they are, and such the world is filled withal at this day.

This profaneness is the last step of entrance into final apostasy. When men, from professors of religion, become despisers of and scoffers at it, their state is dangerous, if not irrecoverable.

3. An instance of this evil is given us in Esau: A profane person, as Esau. That is,say some, he was the type of a profane person; it doth not appear that he was such himself.But the apostle calls him expressly, a profane person, and declares how he evidenced himself so to be, or wherein his profaneness did consist. And the truth is, there are very few in the Scripture concerning whom more evidences are given of their being reprobates. And this should warn all men not to trust unto the outward privileges of the church. He was the first-born of Isaac, circumcised according to the law of that ordinance, and partaker in all the worship of God in that holy family; yet an outcast from the covenant of grace and the promise thereof.

4. The way whereby he exerted and manifested his profaneness is declared: Who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. Many expositors, in the consideration of the sin of Esau, as it is recorded, Gen 25:29-34, reflect on many crimes in him, especially intemperance and gluttony; as far as I can see, without cause. His desire of food from his own brother, when he was hungry and faint, might be harmless. But he fell into his sin on the occasion that then fell out; which the apostle here reports as unto the matter of fact, and chargeth on profaneness. The matter of fact is known, and we must inquire wherein his profaneness acted itself. And it did so,

(1.) In a readiness to part with his birthright, with whatsoever was contained in it and annexed unto it. Though I suppose he was then very young, for the story is added immediately after these words, And the boys grew, verse 27; yet being bred in the family of Isaac, he could not but know what did belong to that birthright, and what was annexed unto it by divine institution. And whereas, as we shall see, this had something in it that was sacred, the undervaluing it was a high profaneness; we must inquire hereon, what this birthright was, and how he sold it, and wherein he manifested himself to be profane thereby. He sold , suum jus primogeniti, Bez;. his right of the first-born. Jus primogeniturae suae, the right of his own primogeniture; the things belonging unto him as the first-born.

It is evident in the Scripture, that there were many rights and privileges of primogeniture in the church; some of them arising from the light of nature, and so common amongst all mankind; and some of them of divine institution.

Among these, the Jews, many of them, do reckon the priesthood; and they are followed herein by most of our expositors. But I am much mistaken if, by the priesthood of the first-born, the Jews intend any thing but their dedication unto God by virtue of the law of the sanctification of every male that opened the womb, Exo 13:2; Exo 22:29; Exo 34:19 : whence they were changed for the Levites, who were taken into the sacred office, Num 8:16-18. The priesthood, therefore, being settled in that tribe, which God took in exchange for the first-born, who were dedicated by the law of opening the womb, they called their state a priesthood. But it doth not appear that there was any ordinary office of the priesthood until the institution of that of Aaron, to be typical of the priesthood of Christ; only there was one person before extraordinarily called unto that office, unto the same purpose, namely, Melchizedek. But the reader, if he please, may consult our Exercitations on the Priesthood of Christ, prefixed unto the second volume of this Exposition, where these things are handled at large, Exercitations 25-34., I shall not therefore admit this among the privileges of the birthright, and can give arguments sufficient to disprove it. But this is not a place to insist on these things.

A double portion of the paternal inheritance was ascertained unto the first- born by the law, Deu 21:17. And this was but the determination of the light of nature unto a certain measure; for a natural reason is given for it: He is the beginning of his strength: the right of the first-born is his. So when Reuben forfeited his birthright, the double portion was given unto Joseph and his sons, 1Ch 5:1. This right, therefore, was certainly sold, what lay in him, by Esau.

There was also in it a right of rule and government, ever the rest of the children of the family; which was transferred to Judah on the forfeiture made by Reuben, 1Ch 5:2. And therefore when Isaac had transferred the birthright and blessing unto Jacob, he tells Esau, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants, Gen 27:37.

These things did ordinarily, yea constantly, belong unto the firstborn. [But moreover, there was a blessing that from Abraham ran in the patriarchal line, which was communicated from father unto son, containing an enclosure of all church privileges, and the preservation of the promised Seed. This, I confess, was distinct from the birthright, and so it was distinguished by Esau, who in his complaint of his brother, cried out,

He hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing, Gen 27:36.

But although it was not annexed inseparably unto the birthright, yet there was a just expectation that it should be conveyed according to the primogeniture. Hence not only Esau calls it his blessing, He hath taken away my blessing, verse 36, but Isaac calls it so too, He hath taken away thy blessing, verse 35. It was not his by divine destination, as appeared in the issue; nor had he made it his by obtaining an especial interest in the promise by faith, for he had it not; but in the ordinary course it was to be his, and in the purpose of his father it was his, and so in his own expectation: but God cut off the line of succession herein, and gave it unto Jacob.

Now, as Jacob, in his whole design, aimed not at personal riches and power, wherein he was contented to see his brother far exceed him, as he did; but at an inheritance of the patriarchal blessing, wherein the promised Seed and the church-state were contained, whereinto the birthright was an outward entrance, a sign and pledge of it: so Esau, by selling his birthright, did virtually renounce his right unto the blessing, which he thought annexed thereunto.

(2.) But it may be inquired how he sold this birthright, or how he could sell that which was not in his own power. The word is , he gave away, or he gave up; but whereas he did it on a price which he esteemed a valuable consideration for it, and did make an express bargain about it, the sense intended in the word is, that he sold it, as it is expressed, Gen 25:33.

He could not by any contract change the course of nature, that he who was the first-born should really not be so; but it was his right by virtue thereof that he parted withal. Now, although this was not absolute, or immediately vested in him, seeing the father, yet living, might on just causes disinherit the first-born, as Jacob did Reuben; yet he had a right unto it, jus ad rein, and an assured interest in it, as unto his fathers affections. This he renounced; and hereby also he virtually parted with the blessing. But this he directly apprehended not. Wherefore although he never sought the recovery of the birthright, whose renunciation he had confirmed with an oath, yet he hoped that he might retain the blessing still.

(3.) It is evident how in all this action he carried it profanely. For,

[1.] He discovered an easiness and readiness to part with his birthright, and all that was annexed thereunto by divine institution. Had he placed his principal interest therein, had he considered aright the privilege of it, had he by faith entertained the promise that went along with it, he would not have been so facile, nor so easily surprised into a renouncing of it. But being a man given wholly to his pleasures, and the love of present things, he seems scarce ever to have entertained serious thoughts about what it was significant of, in things spiritual and heavenly.

[2.] In that he did it on so slight an occasion, and valued it at so small a rate as one mess of pottage, or one morsel of meat; that is, of what was to be eaten.

[3.] In that, without further deliberation, he confirmed the sale with a solemn oath; whereby he discovered the highest contempt of what he had parted withal.

[4.] In his regardlessness of what he had done, after the power of his present temptation was over: for it is said, He did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way, as a man utterly unconcerned in what he had done; whereon the Holy Ghost adds this censure, Thus Esau despised his birthright. He did not only sell it, but despised it, Gen 25:31-34.

This was the profaneness of Esau. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 3. Evil examples proposed in Scripture-light, divested of all colors and pretences, laid open in their roots and causes, are effcacious warnings unto believers to abstain from all occasions leading unto the like evils, and much more from the evils themselves. To this end is the sin of Esau here called over.

Obs. 4. Where there is in any a latent predominant principle of profaneness, a sudden temptation or trial will let it out unto the greatest evils, as it was with Esau; and we see it daily verified to amazement.

Obs. 5. This principle of profaneness, in preferring the morsels of this world before the birthright privileges of the church, is that which at this day threatens the present ruin of religion. What is it that makes so many forsake their profession in a time of trial or persecution? It is because they will not be hungry for the gospel; they will have their morsels, which they prefer before the truth and privileges thereof. What makes the profession of religion in some nations to totter at this day? Is it not because of the morsels of outward peace, with, it may be, dignities and preferments that lie on the other side, and some present hunger or supposed want of earthly things, that they may fall into? Let men pretend what they please, it is from a spirit of profaneness that they forsake the privileges and assemblies of the church for any outward advantage; and what will be their success, we shall see in the next verse.

Heb 12:17. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place for repenance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

1. The efficacy of the example proposed consists in the due consideration of the consequent of the sin exemplified. Such was the sin of Esau, which ye ought to watch against in yourselves and others; for ye know what ensued thereon.This the particle, for, declares to be the reason of the following account of it.

2. The way is expressed whereby they understood this consequent of Esaus sin: Ye know. They knew it from the Scripture, where it is recorded. He supposeth them acquainted with the Scriptures, and what is contained in them; as they were; in like manner as he says of Timothy, 2Ti 3:15; as it is the duty of all Christians to be. Besides, there is a peculiar force of persuasion and conviction, when we argue from mens own knowledge and concessions. Ye know this yourselves; ye know it full well from the Scripture, and therefore let it be of great weight and consideration with you.

3. The general force of the exhortation from the consideration of the event of Esaus profaneness, is taken from the surprisal that befell him when he found what his sin had brought him unto. For he is represented as a man under great amazement, as if he had little thought to fall into such a condition. And thus at one time or another it will befall all profane persons, who have refused the mercy and privileges of the gospel; they shall at one time or other fall under dreadful surprisals, in life, or at death, or at the last day. Then shall they see the horror of those crimes which before they made nothing of. Wherefore the Hebrews are here warned, and all professors of the gospel with them, that they decline not from their profession, lest they fall into the like surprisals, when it is too late to seek for deliverance out of them.

4. What he did upon this surprisal, with the effects of it, are declared,

(1.) The time wherein he did it is noted; it was afterward. This afterward was not less, perhaps, than forty or fifty years. For he sold his birthright when he was young; now, when he designed the receiving of the blessing, Isaac was old, namely, about an hundred and forty years old, Gen 27:2. So long did he live in his sin, without any sense of it or repentance for it. Things went prosperously with him in the world, and he had no regard in the least of what he had done, nor of what would be the end of it. But falling now into a new distress, it fills him with perplexity. And so it is with all secure sinners. Whilst things go prosperously with them, they can continue without remorse; but at one time or other their iniquity will find them out, Gen 42:21-22.

(2.) What he designed; and that was, to inherit the blessing: He would have inherited the blessing. He esteemed himself the presumptive heir of the patriarchal blessing, and knew not that he had virtually renounced it, and meritoriously lost it, by selling his birthright. So the apostle here distinguisheth between the birthright and the blessing. He sold birthright, but would have inherited the blessing; esteemed it to belong unto him by right of inheritance, when he had himself destroyed that right. So he distinguished himself: He took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing, Gen 27:36. He had, no doubt, an apprehension that there were many excellent things contained in it; especially, a flourishing state and condition in this world, in a multiplication of posterity, and power over enemies, which were express in the promise made unto Abraham, Gen 22:17. This made him put in his claim for the blessing, without the least sense of the spiritual privileges of it; for he was a profane person. And herein he was a type of the unbelieving Jews at that time; for they adhered to the outward things of the blessing, the carcass of it, unto the rejection of Him who was the whole life, soul, and power of it. And it is not unusual, that men should earnestly desire the outward privileges of the church, who value not the inward grace and power of them; but they are profane persona

(3.) The event of this attempt was, that he was rejected. He was reprobated. So translators generally. Not that his eternal reprobation is hereby intended, (but this open, solemn rejection of him from the covenant of God, and the blessings thereof, was an evidence of his being reprobated of God, whence he is proposed as the type of reprobates, Rom 9:11-12), but the refusal of his father to give him the patriarchal blessing is that which is here intended.

(4.) There is his behavior under this rejection, and the event thereof: He sought it diligently with tears, but he found no place of repentance. For that which the apostle intends fell out after his rejection, when his father had declared unto him that his blessing was gone for ever, Gen 27:33-38. It is all one whether we refer , in the close of the verse, unto the remote antecedent, the blessing, or unto the next, which is repentance; for that which he sought for in repentance, namely, the repentance of his father, or the change of his mind, was the blessing also. For it is now generally agreed by all, that there is nothing in the words which should in the least intimate that he sought of God the grace of repentance; nor is there any thing in the record that looks that way. And I shall rather interpret this word, with Beza, of the blessing, than of the repentance of Isaac; because his cry in the story was immediately and directly for the blessing.

(5.) The manner how he sought the blessing, is, that he did it diligently with tears. So the apostle expresseth the record, Gen 27:38, 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: as those also of verse 34. No man, considering the intense affections that were between them, can express that conflict of nature which was on this occasion between Isaac and Esau. But in the one, grace and submission unto the will of God overcame all natural reluctancy; in the other, resolution for further sin offered itself for relief, he said in his heart that he would slay his brother, verse 41. So it is in all like cases. Things that are most terrible and convulsive to nature, in them that believe, are brought into order in due time by grace and resignation unto the will of God; and on the other hand, sin, with its deceitful contrivances, will not cease to offer its reliefs unto unbelievers in distress, until all hopes are cut off and vanished for ever.

But because here is an appearance of somewhat more than ordinary severity, in the peremptory denial of a divine blessing unto one who so earnestly sought and cried for it, the manner of his seeking it must be considered. And,

[1.] He did it when it was too late. For he had not only forfeited his right unto it long before, and lived in impenitency under that forfeiture, but the sacred investiture of another in that blessing was solemnly past, which could not be recalled. So speaks Isaac even under his surprisal: I have blessed him; yea, and he shall be blessed, Gen 27:33.

Whatever men may pretend, whatever presumptuous sinners may flatter themselves withal, there is a limited time of the dispensation of grace, beyond which men shall not be admitted unto a participation of it, nor shall ever use the right way of attaining it. And this they may do well to consider who spend their lives in continual procrastination of their conversion to God. They may live, yet their time may be past, and a caveat entered against them, that they shall never enter into Gods rest. See Heb 3:11-15, with the exposition.

[2.] He sought it not at all in a due manner. Outward vehemency in expressions, and tears, may be influenced by such considerations as not to be an evidence of inward sincerity. He sought it not of God, but only of him that was the minister of it. And according to the law of Gods institution, the ministers of gospel blessings may be limited from a communication of them; but there is no law or bounds put unto the infinite treasures of divine goodness, if application be made thereunto in a due manner. But he sought the end without the means: he would have the blessing, but he used not the means for the attaining of it; namely, faith and repentance. For notwithstanding all his sorrow and trouble upon his disappointment, he entertained no thought about any repentance in himself; for he immediately fell into a resolution to follow Cain in his rejection, and to kill his brother. Yet herein lies the great folly that the generality of men are betrayed into through the deceitfulness ,of sin, namely, that they would have the end, the blessing of mercy and glory, without the use of the means, in faith, repentance, and obedience. But it is in vain to desire or endeavor a separation of those things which God, by an immutable constitution, hath conjoined and put together.

Lastly, The reason of this event is expressed: He found no place for repentance. That is, notwithstanding his pretended right, his claim of it, his earnestness with tears about it; notwithstanding the inexpressible affection of Isaac unto him, and his trembling surprisal at an apprehension that he had missed the blessing; yet Isaac did not, could not, might not, change his mind, or repent him of what he had done, in conferring the blessing on Jacob, which God approved of. This sad event had the profaneness of Esau. And we may observe,

Obs. 1. This example of Esau cuts off all hopes by outward privileges, where there is an inward profaneness of heart. He had as much to plead for the blessing, and as fair a probability for the attaining it, as ever any profane hypocrite can have in this world. And,

Obs. 2. Profane apostates have a limited season only, wherein the recovery of the blessing is possible. For although here be no intimation of a mans seeking of repentance from God in a due manner, and being rejected, which is contrary to the nature of God, who is a rewarder of all that diligently seek him, yet there is an indication of severity, in leaving men in an irrecoverable condition, even in this life, who are guilty of such provocations. ordinance for the preservation of them that believe, and the edification of the whole church, Rom 11:22.

Obs. 4. Sin may be the occasion of great sorrow, where there is no sorrow for sin; as it was with Esau. Men may rue that in the consequents, which yet they like well enough in the causes.

Obs. 5. No man knows whereunto a deliberate sin may lead him, nor what will be the event of it. Esau little thought, when he sold his birthright, that he had utterly forfeited the eternal blessing.

Obs. 6. Profaneness and despising spiritual privileges, is a sin that God at one time or other will testify his severity against; yea this, on many accounts, is the proper object of Gods severity. It shall not be spared in the eldest son and most dearly beloved of an Isaac.

Obs. 7. Steadfastness in faith, with submission unto the will of God, will establish the soul in those duties which are most irksome unto flesh and blood. Nothing could prevail with Isaac to change his mind, when he knew what was the will of God.

Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

any fornicator: Heb 13:4, Mar 7:21, Act 15:20, Act 15:29, 1Co 5:1-6, 1Co 5:9-11, 1Co 6:15-20, 1Co 10:8, 2Co 12:21, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:3, Eph 5:5, Col 3:5, 1Th 4:3-7, Rev 2:20-23, Rev 21:8, Rev 22:15

as Esau: Gen 25:31-34, Gen 27:36

Reciprocal: Gen 25:33 – and he sold Gen 25:34 – thus Esau Gen 26:34 – the daughter Lev 13:46 – without Num 5:3 – without Num 14:31 – the land Deu 21:16 – General Jos 7:1 – the anger Psa 106:24 – they despised Psa 139:24 – wicked way Pro 5:4 – her Ecc 9:18 – sinner Jer 17:21 – Take Jer 31:1 – will Mat 4:3 – command Mat 25:11 – saying Mar 4:15 – these Luk 14:18 – I have Joh 6:27 – the meat 1Co 6:9 – fornicators 1Co 6:12 – but I 2Co 7:11 – fear 2Th 3:6 – that ye 1Ti 1:9 – profane

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE WARNING FROM ESAU

Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Heb 12:16

Esau stands out as a solemn warning to us as one who was guilty of the profanity of bartering away his birthright.

I. What is our birthright?To put it briefly, it is that salvation which is offered to us in and through Christ.

II. How we may sell our birthright.Esau sold his birthright for one morsel of meat. Is not this what many do to-day?

(a) We think, for instance, of the many who fall, of the thousands upon thousands who are dragged down to hell, because of what we call the drink.

(b) Are there not others who sell their birthright for carnal, for sensual pleasure, for the lust of the flesh? We may not like to talk about these things, but this is the history of many a man to-day.

(c) And then there are some who sell their birthright for unbelief. There are some who have been brought up in the Christian faith who now tell us in a superior sort of way that they sympathise with such men as Darwin, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer; they tell us that they are not able to believe the truths of the Christian faith, that they are sceptics.

III. What will follow if we sell our birthright?Esau for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. What follows? Time passes and he comes to his father to receive his blessing, but it is gone. Some one has said, that hell will be the truth known too late. That is, the one who like Esau has sold his birthright, the one who has rejected that salvation offered to him by Christ, will in the life to come, when he realises what he has done, suffer the anguish, it may be the eternal anguish, of the lost.

IV. There is hope.There was no hope, humanly speaking, for Esau; but thanks be to God for the hope that there is for us; we know that Jesus Christ the Saviour is still able to save to the uttermost.

Rev. Ernest Walters.

Illustration

There are some honest doubters, and we can sympathise with them; but very often we find that doubt, so called, is the result of some sin, some secret sin perhaps, which keeps one back from God. We do not want to believe in God because of this or that sin. The Bishop of St. Albans at the Anniversary Meeting of the Christian Evidence Society told a story of a man who came to him in doubt, and after a little conversation the bishop came to the conclusion that it was the mans life that was at fault, and so he launched a bold bid and said, Look here, my friend, be honest with me; tell me, do you not give way to some besetting sin? And it was so; it was this that kept him back from God; he did not want to believe in God because of this sin. This is often the case: it is sin that keeps men back from God.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

THE BIRTHRIGHT SOLD

There are thousands of Esaus living at the present time, the favourites of society, easy-going, generous-hearted, not burdened with any anxiety or care, living for to-day, for the flesh, and content to leave the soul alone. They sell their birthright.

Why did Esau part with his birthright?

I. There was a manifest want of appreciation of its value.He said, Behold, I am at the point to die, etc. Evidently he was in a very foolish and wrong state of mind when he could say that concerning his birthright. His privileges were of the highest value.

II. There was a want of consideration.When Esau sold his birthright it was a thoughtless act, done under the influence of excitement. He did not think of the consequence of the deed. In this respect there are many like Esau; they dont think, wont think, carried on by the current of desire or passion.

III. There was a want of self-control.Esau allowed his appetite to become his master, and, for the sake of satisfying that hunger, snatches the savoury pottage even at the cost of his birthright. What an illustration of the power of passion!

Illustration

Rob Esau of the Oriental garb in which his character is clothed in the sacred narrative, bring him to the platform of contemporary history, represent him to your own mind in the garment of to-day: What is he? Well, he stands before us as a genial, kind-hearted, somewhat passionate, but on the whole a popular country gentleman, fond of field sports, passionately addicted to hunting, keeping a good table and a good house, a man who enters heartily and thoroughly into the amusements of society, a man who makes these things the very end and aim of his life; not a man of very great mental culture, of no political aspirations, but a downright good country squire, and a man who does not trouble himself very much about religious matters.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

Heb 12:16. This verse specifies some of the things referred to in general terms in the preceding one. Fornicators should not be permitted to remain among the disciples because of their evil influence (1Co 5:6-7). A profane person is one who makes a temporal use of a sacred thing. That is what Esau did when he sold his birthright (a sacred possession) for a mess of food (a temporal article). In general practice it means any disciple who would try to obtain some earthly advantage out of his profession of faith in Christ.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 12:16. Lest there be any fornicator (taken literally, as is the uniform meaning in the New Testament except in Revelation), or profane person (rather, worldly person; one who has no sense of the value or glory of Divine things) as Esau, who for a single meal sold his own birthright (the double portion which was his share as the eldest son (Deu 21:17), together with the precious inheritance of the great promise that in his seed the nations of the earth were to be blessed). These three clauses are often regarded as describing one character; but it seems better to regard them as describing three. For want of faith men give up the Gospel; for want of faith roots of bitterness spring up in the Church and defile it; and faithless persons become so selfish and so low-minded, that the smallest worldly advantages tempt them successfully to abandon their principles: and yet the course of even the least favoured of them may end in despair

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our apostle proceeds in these verses to warn them against such sins as would occasion their apostasy and falling from the grace of God, and they are fornication and profaneness; together, because they usually go together; fornicators, such especially as are habitually so, do always grow profane, and profane persons do set light by fornication, and they are sins very seldom forsaken; few fornicators and profane persons, do ever come to repentance.

By fornication understand all conjunction with women out of wedlock, be it with single or married persons.

By profane persons, understand such as mock religion, who lightly regard its promises and threatenings, who despise or neglect its worship, who speak irreverently of its concerns.

Note, 2. The instance which the apostle gives of a profane person, in the person of Esau: Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau. The Scriptures make no mention of his fornication; but the way whereby he manifested his profaneness is declared, namely, that for one morsel of meat he sold his birthright. Which birthright had many privileges belonging to him, but especially the honour of priesthood, all which did belong to the first-born. Add to these the blessing which run from Abraham in the patriarchal line, and was communicated from father to son, containing an inclosure of all church privileges, and preservation of the promised seed. Now Esau, by selling his birthright, did virtually renounce his right unto this blessing, wherein the promised seed and the church-state were contained, and doing all this upon a slight consideration, for a mess of pottage, or morsel of meat; and in a regardless manner, utterly unconcerned at what he had done. This was his profaneness; and accordingly the Scripture says, Thus Esau despised his birthright.

Learn from hence, How much it concerns all persons not to glory in their outward privileges. Esau here was the first-born of Isaac, circumcised according to the law of God, and partaker in all the worship of God, yet he proved an outcast from the covenant, and promises thereof.

Profane Esau! The 17th verse acquaints us with the fruitlessness of Esau’s sorrow for parting with his birthright, and the unprofitableness of his endeavours in order to the recovery of it: when he would have inherited the blessing afterwards. This afterwards, say some, was not less than forth tears, for he sold his birhtright when he was young, and when he designed the recovery of the blessing, Isaac was old: Thus long did he live in sin, without any sense of it, or repentance for it: but falling into distress, it fills him with perplexity, and he seeks the recovery of the blessing: And herein he was a type of all unbelievers, and obstinate refusers of the grace of Christ.

Learn from his example, That there is a time coming when the profanest sinners upon earth will be found upon their knees at God’s door, seeking, and that earnestly, with strong cries and tears, for the obtaining of that blessing which they now sinfully undervalue, and scornfully despise. Afterwards Esau would have inherited the blessing, and sought it carefully with tears.

It follows, he was rejected; that is, by his father Isaac; and found no place with him for repentance. Isaac would not change his mind, nor recall the blessing, which as a prophet of God he had conferred on Jacob.

Learn hence then, That such sinners as neglect the seeking of the blessing in God’s time, have great reason to fear that they shall not find it in their own time, though they seek it with tears saltier than those of Esau. Profane contemners of the grace of God, ought to fear being excluded from the mercy of God; and as Isaac did not, God will not repent or alter his righteous sentence upon them. This sad event had the profaneness of Esau, nad the like will they meet with who despise the grace of God.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Verse 16

Fornicator; in a spiritual sense, one who forsakes God, whom he had once chosen, and devotes himself again to his idols; thus, like Esau, selling his birthright for pottage.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

12:16 {11} Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

(11) We must shun immorality, and a profane mind, that is, such a mind as does not give God his due honour, which wickedness, how severely God will at length punish, the horrible example of Esau teaches us.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Esau is a clear example of someone who apostatized; he despised his inheritance and forfeited it to satisfy his immediate desires. That is precisely what the writer warned his readers not to do in this letter. Esau could not regain his inheritance later when he repented. His decision had permanent consequences; he could not repent (cf. Heb 4:1; Heb 6:4-6). [Note: See Ellingworth, pp. 668-69; and Moffatt, p. 212.] His inability to repent was not a matter of forgiveness but of consequences. David is another example of a person who had to bear the consequences of his sins even though God forgave him for those sins.

"To take a very simple example-if a young man loses his purity or a girl her virginity, nothing can ever bring it back. The choice was made and the choice stands. God can and will forgive, but God Himself cannot turn back the clock and unmake the choice or undo the consequences." [Note: Barclay, p. 210.]

The writer warned against two things in Heb 12:16: immorality (Gr. pornos) and being godless (bebelos) like Esau. The Old Testament makes no mention of Esau’s immorality, so probably the writer understood this term metaphorically in the sense of "apostate." [Note: Lane, Hebrews 9-13, p. 445.] Esau was "godless" in that he relinquished his covenant rights for the sake of immediate gratification. Some translators rendered the Greek word bebelos "profane," which means "before (outside) the temple." This paints Esau correctly as a man who lived his life by avoiding God. Today we might know him as a man who did not attend church. He is "the prototype of all who throw away the heavenly reality for the sake of the earthly one." [Note: Thompson, p. 43.]

"Whether or not Esau was saved is not relevant to this discussion. The writer uses him as an illustration of the fact that the saved can lose their firstborn inheritance rights. His example is applied to those who have come to the church of the firstborn ones (Heb 12:23).

"True Christians fully parallel the description of Esau. We are children of God and we are firstborn sons. Because of that we possess the rights of the firstborn. We do not have to earn these rights. They are given to us through the grace of God. However, we must value and keep these rights and are warned by Esau’s example regarding the possibility of not doing so. But even though we cannot forfeit eternal life, we can forfeit our firstborn rights." [Note: Dillow, p. 85.]

"Esau’s willingness to give up all that was his as the firstborn son reflected a contempt for the covenant by which his rights were warranted. By descriptive analogy, he is representative of apostate persons who are ready to turn their backs on God and the divine promises, in reckless disregard of the covenant blessings secured by the sacrificial death of Jesus. The immediate reference is to the objective blessings of ’peace’ and ’holiness,’ specified in Heb 12:14. With the example of Esau, apostasy is further defined as a decisive rejection of God’s gifts." [Note: Lane, Hebrews 9-13, pp. 445-46.]

"In Jewish history, the birthright belonged to the firstborn son in a family simply by right of birth and consisted of three things: 1) ruler of the household under and for the father, 2) priest of the family, and 3) the reception of a double portion of all the father’s goods. Although a firstborn son did nothing whatsoever to come into possession of the birthright, he could conduct his life in such a manner so as to forfeit the birthright. He could not forfeit his position as firstborn in the family, but he could forfeit the rights of the firstborn." [Note: Chitwood, p. 139.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)