Commentaria in Genesim
EDOM, that is, red, ruddy, blood-coloured, as I said on verse 25.
31. SELL ME THY BIRTHRIGHT, sell me the right of thy primogeniture.
Here it is asked first what the right of the firstborn was in the law of nature. I answer that it was fourfold. The first was that the firstborn was prince of his brethren, and as it were their father and lord, so that his brethren bowed before him, as is plain from chapter 27, verse 29, and chapters 33 and 43; for the firstborn succeeded to the father’s dignity.
And this is what Isidore of Pelusium says in the Catena, that the firstborn succeeded to the kingdom and to the patriarchal dignity.
The second was that in the division of the paternal inheritance each of the brothers received one portion, but the firstborn received a double portion, as is plain from Deuteronomy.
The third was that after the flood the firstborn was the priest of the family; hence also in the law of Moses the Levites were chosen for the priesthood in place of all the firstborn of Israel, Numbers 3:42. Again, the firstborn succeeded their parents in the pontificate, as is plain from Numbers 20:28. So St. Jerome, Rupert, Tostatus and Eucherius, chapter 44. Wherefore the Hebrews, and Eucherius from them, explain it thus: Sell me thy birthright, that is, sell me thy priestly garment (and consequently the priesthood itself), in which the firstborn, clothed as the custom was, like priests, were wont to offer victims to God; and they add that Rebecca clothed Jacob in this garment when he stole from his brother Esau his father’s blessing, Genesis 27:15. This right of priesthood was, however, granted to some who were not firstborn, as to Abraham, and that by the singular disposition and choice of God: because Abraham was faithful and the father of the faithful, whereas his other brethren seem to have been unbelievers and idolaters.
The fourth was that the dying father blessed the firstborn in a special way, as is plain from chapter 27, verse 4: which blessing was then highly esteemed, and was often of great value and efficacy with God. Abulensis and Lipomanus add that the firstborn was accustomed at solemnities and public banquets to bless his brothers and nephews, as being younger. But this is nowhere expressly stated.
Whether Esau sinned by selling, and Jacob by buying, the right of primogeniture. It is asked secondly: The right of primogeniture was in the first place temporal and saleable: for it was the right of pre-eminence among the brethren, and the right to a double portion of the inheritance. Secondarily, however, it had annexed to it a spiritual right, namely the right of priesthood, and the right to the father’s blessing.
Cajetan thinks that Esau sinned only by gluttony, and sold the birthright only in so far as it was something temporal, just as one may lawfully sell a consecrated chalice if he sells it for what it is worth in itself and does not ask more by reason of its consecration.
You will say: how then does the Apostle, Hebrews 12:16, call Esau profane?
Cajetan answers that Esau was materially profane, selling so cheaply the birthright, to which so holy a thing was annexed and which he himself made light of, just as he would be, and would be called, profane who sold a consecrated chalice for some dainty morsel.
But I say first: Esau sinned first by gluttony; he sinned secondly by contempt of sacred things, because he sold the birthright, to which the right of priesthood was annexed, for so paltry a meal; thirdly, he seems to have sinned by simony, because he sold the whole right of primogeniture, and consequently the right of priesthood, which was spiritual; for this reason he is called profane by the Apostle in Hebrews 12: for no one is properly and formally profane except one who violates and profanes a sacred thing by selling or defiling it. Esau therefore sinned because he preferred the belly to virtue, food to honour, gluttony to the priesthood and the blessing.
I say secondly: Jacob, in buying the right of primogeniture from Esau, did not sin. First, because he intended to buy only the primary right of primogeniture, which was temporal and saleable; just as a field to which the right of patronage is annexed can be sold and bought, says Cajetan and Lipomanus. You will say: at least Jacob sinned against justice, because he bought so great a thing at so low a price. I answer that he did not sin, because Esau, willingly and knowingly, chose to sell so great a thing cheaply, since he despised it, as is plain from verse 34. To one who is willing and knowing, indeed who squanders and despises his own property, no injury is done.
Secondly, Jacob did not sin in buying this right, because, taught by his mother, he knew that by God’s disposition this right had been transferred. For Rebecca had heard it from the angel, verse 23. And she pointed it out to Jacob, as is sufficiently gathered from this: that when she herself, in chapter 27, boldly urged Jacob to snatch the blessing from his brother, Jacob did not excuse himself on the ground of injustice, as though the blessing were due not to him but to his brother as the firstborn; which he certainly would have done, had he not known the contrary from his mother’s teaching: for he was a just man, and of tender conscience; but he only objected the danger of his father’s indignation, if his father should discover his fraud. This revelation of God, however, and the disposition and transfer of the birthright from Esau to Jacob, neither Jacob nor Rebecca had hitherto dared to disclose, either to Esau himself, fearing his anger, or to Isaac, lest they should afflict him with sorrow: for Isaac loved Esau above all. Now therefore Jacob, having found an occasion of claiming and confirming his right, by his brother’s voluntary cession, on account of the red pottage given him by his brother on this condition, did not neglect it, but accepted it. Jacob therefore did not here properly buy his brother’s property, but by craft wrested his own property from an unjust possessor. Hence when he says “Sell,” it is the same as give, hand over, indeed restore to me the right due to me. See Cajetan, Summa 2–2, Question 100, article 4.
32. BEHOLD I DIE. Esau pleads necessity as a pretext for his greed and gluttony: for that he sinned by gluttony and by contempt of the birthright is plain from verse 34. For there is no doubt that in the so wealthy house of Isaac, the son Esau could have had bread, meat and other foods to eat. The fragrance, colour and appetite for the lentils which Jacob had cooked were so strong in Esau that he said he would die unless they were given him at once. So Cajetan and Pererius.
See St. Gregory, Moralia, book 30, chapter 26, on the kinds and harms of gluttony.
33. SWEAR THEREFORE TO ME, that thou wilt cede to me the right of primogeniture, and allow me to enjoy it in peace.
34. HE WENT HIS WAY, MAKING LITTLE ACCOUNT. Note the obstinacy and impenitence of Esau; and secondly, his perfidy and perjury: for he made little of having sold this right because he had no mind to keep his bargain, confirmed here by oath. Hence in fact, without any scruple, he wished to claim this right for himself in reality, as if he had not alienated it nor ceded it to Jacob.
Tropologically, sinners are more profane and base than Esau who offend God for a paltry meal, or for the lure of honour and vanity. So they sell to the devil not only the soul, but they sell off also the grace of God and with it the heavenly inheritance: this is the right of primogeniture of Christ and of Christians, which Christ the Only-begotten procured for them by His death and blood, and sealed to them in baptism, as they are born again, by grafting them into Himself. Rightly therefore the Wise Man says, Proverbs 6:26: “The price of a harlot is scarce one loaf, but the woman catcheth the precious soul of a man.” Again Antony in the Melissa, part 1, sermon 16: “The demon,” he says, “says: give me the present, to God the future; to me youth, to God old age; to me pleasures, to Him the useless body. O how great danger, how many unexpected mishaps hang over thee!”
Wherefore St. Chrysostom, homily 50: “Hearing this,” he says, “let us learn never to neglect the gifts given us by God, nor to lose great and lasting things, which will endure for ever, for small and mean ones. For why, tell me, do we prefer momentary things, and those that often do not last even to evening, to the kingdom of heaven set before us and to those ineffable goods? What can be worse than this madness, when we are deprived of those because of excessive love of these, and rave so for desire of riches that we can never enjoy these purely?”