The Church Fathers on this verse

Genesis 27:24Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He said: Art thou my son Esau? He answered: I am.

Douay-Rheims

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אַתָּ֥ה זֶ֖ה בְּנִ֣י עֵשָׂ֑ו וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אָֽנִי׃

Hebrew (Masoretic text)

The Church Fathers on this verse

3 Church Fathers comment on this verse

John Chrysostom

4th centuryChurch Father

The sacred Scripture illustrates that even the upright individual had moments of uncertainty; he inquired, ‘Are you my son Esau?’ This reveals how the father acted out of deep natural affection. Yet, God orchestrated all events, foreseeing what was to come and designating His chosen ones in accordance with righteous conduct. Jacob responded, “I am.”

John Cassian

5th centuryChurch Father

What could be more grievous than lying and deceit, especially towards one's own kin or parent? Nonetheless, the patriarch Jacob (Genesis 27:19-24) faced no reproach for his actions; instead, he received the enduring inheritance of blessing. This is justly so, as he sought the blessing meant for the firstborn not out of greed for temporal gain, but in faith for everlasting sanctification. In contrast, Judah condemned the Redeemer of all, not for the sake of humanity’s salvation, but driven by covetous desire. Each received the reward appropriate to their intentions and thoughts, as Jacob acted without deceit and Judah without mercy. Each individual is rightly recompensed based on their true intentions rather than the outcomes, whether good or ill.

Read more (548 words)

Hence, the supreme Judge acknowledged Jacob's act as not only permissible but commendable; without it, he could have never inherited the firstborn's blessing. It is crucial to not label as sinful that which aligns with the pursuit of divine favor. Had Jacob chosen a course that would harm his brother when another was available to attain the blessing, he would indeed have been unjust, deceitful to his father, and sacrilegious. Thus, one can see that God evaluates not the result of our actions but the motivations behind them.

Now, let us return to the query posed, for which this discussion serves as context. I ask you to reflect on why you have bound yourselves to that promise. Lies must be considered carefully and used judiciously, much like a medicine. When utilized in dire circumstances, they can be beneficial; however, outside of extreme necessity, they can inflict great harm. In Scripture, we find examples of righteous individuals acting innocently in deception, such as Rahab, who, despite being noted for her flaws (Joshua 2), was celebrated for concealing the spies, earning a legacy among the faithful. Had she chosen truthfully to protect her city, she most certainly would have faced doom, her household lost, and would not have been part of the lineage leading to the Savior. Similarly, Delilah (Judges 16) betrayed the truth for selfish interests, bringing eternal ruin upon herself, her legacy one of wickedness.

When confronted with peril from revealing the truth, one may rightfully turn to deception. For instance, consider a traveler confronted by robbers inquiring about a pursued individual; if he misdirects them, he may save that person from death. Yet this deceit must come with a humble acknowledgment of guilt, recognizing such situations as trials and temptations, as remarked by St. Dorotheus. Therefore, one should not frequently resort to lying, but consider such actions only in exceptional circumstances.

In the absence of genuine necessity, it is vital to shun lies as though they were poison, akin to taking medicine only during a crisis. Just as certain remedies can harm a healthy body, so too can deception poison the soul if misapplied. This principle clearly applies to both Rahab of Jericho and Jacob. The former’s life hinged on her lie for salvation, and the latter’s hope for the firstborn blessing depended on his perceived deceit. God scrutinizes not just our words and deeds but also our hearts and desires. If He discerns that someone has acted with the intent of eternal salvation, even if their actions appear harsh to humans, He, perceiving the purity of intent, judges not by the surface but by the underlying will; for it is critical to consider the aim of the deed and the disposition of the individual. As previously noted, some may find justification in deception, while others may sin by revealing the truth and earn eternal condemnation. Thus, Jacob did not hesitate to disguise himself as his brother, honoring his mother’s counsel. He understood that this path would yield greater benefits in the pursuit of blessing than mere honesty. He was firmly confident that through the outpouring of his father's blessing, his deceit could be cleansed, and the Holy Spirit would soon erase any shadows it cast, ultimately granting him a reward far surpassing that of unfeigned truthfulness.

Vissarion (Nechaev)

19th centuryCommentator

The voice of Jacob, who identified himself as Esau, raised doubts in his father. However, Isaac's suspicions diminished and ultimately vanished when he felt the hands of Jacob. When asked the question, “Are you my son Esau?” and hearing an affirmative response, his doubts faded. Some defenders of Jacob interpret his actions allegorically, suggesting that Jacob, disguised with goatskin, symbolizes Jesus Christ, who took on our sins to eradicate them. However, if there is a foreshadowing here, it lies in the fact that the sins borne by the Savior were as foreign to Him as the goat's skin was not Jacob's own. Jacob's act of donning goat skin to deceive his blind father does not have a procreative significance regarding Christ's work.

Read more (198 words)

Instead, it was an expression of man's free will, carrying a single moral implication and cannot be justified against the moral law. When Isaac blessed Jacob, he did so with prophetic intent, prompted not solely by paternal affection but by the Holy Spirit's influence. Isaac recognized that he acted as an instrument of divine will, which is evident when he did not revoke the blessing after realizing he had blessed the wrong person, fearing to oppose God's design. Had Isaac questioned more deeply whether Esau was truly the one requesting his blessing, he might have uncovered the ruse. The blessed Theodoret remarks that the Holy Spirit constrained him, preventing any delay in the prophetic blessing. God permitted Isaac’s deception, possibly as a consequence of his favoritism towards Esau, which would have been grievous if he truly understood God’s intentions. God's predestination, established through His foreknowledge, was destined to come to pass; for the apostle speaks of Jacob and Esau, stating, “when they were yet unborn, and had done nothing good or evil, it was said unto Rebekah, The greater shall be enslaved to the less, as it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Cross references

Passages read together with this verse.