Genesis 27:4Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Nevertheless, Israel, as previously mentioned, received the divine command and pledged to fulfill it; he spoke at Horeb, while gathered in assembly, as God descended upon Mount Sinai in fiery splendor, proclaiming with one voice, “All that the Lord hath said, we will fulfil” (Ex. 19:8; cf. Ex. 24:3, 7). Despite this, he was revealed to be rather negligent, albeit quick to promise. Consequently, he made way for another and received a warning from Jacob, the supplanter—symbolizing a new, faithful nation. This nation offered to God what He desired, while the original firstborn people were hesitant and sluggish; instead, they produced the fruits of faith, which the Divine essence cherishes over physical sustenance. Likewise, the Saviour foretold the conversion of the Samaritans to His holy Apostles, saying, “I have food which ye know not” (John 4:32). He elaborated, stating, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work” (John 4:34). It served no purpose for the Israelites to be poised for a promise if they failed to act upon it, whereas it was wholly beneficial for the Gentiles to arrive later in faith, recognizing and honoring the Redeemer through obedience to all that is good. This truth was conveyed by Christ through a parable: “A certain man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work in my vineyard today.’ He replied, ‘I will not,’ but afterward, he repented and went. Coming to the other, he said the same. This one answered, ‘I go, my lord,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” (Matthew 21:28-31). It is clear that the son who ultimately entered the vineyard, despite initially hesitating, fulfilled his father's wishes. Here we can see a reflection of Esau, who set out eagerly to hunt and promised to do so, contrasted with Jacob, who initially declined but ultimately was blessed by his father.

The call given by the prophet to Esau for sustenance manifests the appeal the Word extends to the earlier generation, urging them for the fruits of righteous actions, which rightfully belonged as nourishment owed to the Father (cf. John 4:32-34). The command to “Go into the field, and catch me game,” represents existence in this temporal realm, whereas the instruction to “Take thy quiver and thy bow” underscores that the people aimed to attain personal glory rather than be justified through faith. In their pride of martial deeds and weaponry, they sought a tyrant to reign over them (See 1 Samuel 8:9-20), as Moses declared, “And the sword is thy boast” (Deuteronomy 33:29 (LXX)).

This is in line with the apostolic teaching, as the holy Apostle remarked in his letter to the Romans: "I am going to Jerusalem to serve the saints. It is good for Macedonia and Achaia to make some kind of fellowship with the poor saints who dwell in Jerusalem; it is good for them, and they owe them" (Rom. 15:25-27). These words highlight that the people of Achaia and Macedonia contributed alms through the Apostle Paul for the sustenance of the impoverished saints in Jerusalem. Who were these saints? Primarily, they were James, the Lord’s brother, an apostle and the first bishop of Jerusalem, along with the other apostles who had yet to travel far and wide but preached Christ in neighboring regions, returning frequently to Jerusalem, as well as other consecrated servants of Christ who served as educators and spiritual leaders in the early Church. Paul brought the alms from Macedonia and Achaia to support them. Notably, the Apostle Paul stated: "They have favoured, and owe them" (Rom. 15:27). This is the Apostle's declaration: worldly individuals are to provide for their spiritual shepherds and instructors through generous offerings from their resources. He explains why they have this obligation: "But if the Gentiles be partakers of their spiritual things, they must serve them in their fleshly things" (Rom. 15:27). The citizens of Macedonia and Achaia were Gentiles who had been enlightened by the holy Apostles and their successors in Jerusalem; from them, they acquired faith, were guided in the way of salvation, and received spiritual grace. Therefore, they must support their spiritual leaders with material provisions, ensuring that these leaders are not hindered in their divine assignments and can continue their ministry without interruption. "Owe them what is due!" The same holy Apostle Paul elaborates on this in his letter to the Corinthians with greater detail. He asks, "Or do I and Barnabas alone have no authority to do anything?" (1 Cor. 9:6), meaning they do not have the right to seek sustenance from their labor or, as St. John Chrysostom interprets, to derive support from those they educate. While Saint Paul sometimes worked to meet his own physical needs, saying, "My requirement and those who are with me, these hands of mine will serve me" (Acts 20:34), he acknowledged that the other apostles and their successors were not engaged in manual trades; rather, they devoted themselves entirely to preaching and teaching, depending on the support of those whom they instructed. Hence, he expressed, "Or do I and Barnabas not have authority, like the other apostles in the Church of Christ, to focus solely on preaching and receive sustenance from those they taught?" The holy Apostle Paul further illustrates this role with various examples: "Who," he asks, "warrieth with his own money?" (1 Cor. 9:7). Just as a king must furnish his soldiers with provisions collected from the subjects under his rule, so also must Christian nations honor those clergy who serve as soldiers of Christ. In the same passage, the Apostle states: "Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not drink of its milk?" (1 Cor. 9:7). Just as a gardener reaps the harvest and a shepherd enjoys the milk of his flock, so too must clergy receive their sustenance from the faithful. The Apostle also cites the Old Testament law, declaring, "It is written in the Law of Moses, 'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn'" (1 Cor. 9:9). St. Chrysostom explains this statement by saying it points to the necessity for working teachers to receive their due. Chrysostom clarifies that he does not refer to recompense as a wage confused with spirituality, as spiritual gifts cannot be bought; rather, he addresses recompense as sustenance. Just as a farmer ensures the animals pulling the plow are well-fed, the faithful must also ensure that those who labor in the Church, tending to spiritual fields and sowing the Gospel’s seeds while bearing the burdens of humanity, receive adequate support. The Apostle continues with, "If we sow spiritual things to you, how much more shall we reap your bodily things?" He emphasizes: we are more generous to you through the spiritual gifts that nourish your souls than you are to us when you provide for our material needs; it is of little value for us to receive your physical support since you obtain far greater benefits from us: eternal spiritual gifts such as teachings that assist your souls, absolution of sins, purification of your spirits, guidance toward salvation, continual intercessions for you, and blessings. Finally, after recalling the Old Testament priests, the Apostle concludes with the Lord's command, stating, "Know ye not that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? And they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:13-14). Such are the arguments presented by the holy Apostle regarding the obligation of worldly individuals to nourish the spiritual order.

This notion aligns with the well-known Jewish teaching that the spirit of prophecy does not reside with a sorrowful person. While the prophetic spirit generally demands purity and restraint, it is clear that merely consuming food does not elevate it, as shown by the example of the prophet from Bethel (1 Kings 13:20). Hence, others propose that tradition required some form of merit before the blessing was pronounced (Gen. 22:16, 17). A more favorable interpretation might be that when Isaac observed Esau, in his unwise trade of his birthright, he sought through this act whether it was God's intention to restore to him what he lost. Thus, the request for a sign from Esau became a quest for divine confirmation; and although God responded to Isaac, it was not in the exact sign he anticipated; rather, He provided an answer through Esau's delay and by subtly guiding Rebekah toward Jacob.

The privileges of the firstborn included a certain degree of honor and authority above his siblings, a special blessing from his father, and a specific portion of the inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17). Some even believed that there was a privileged right to communal worship among his brothers. Esau carelessly traded these significant rights for a single meal and confirmed this exchange with an oath (Genesis 25:31-34). Isaac was likely aware of all this and may have had multiple reasons to be frustrated with Esau's character and conduct. Esau's choice to marry foreign women revealed his profound disregard for authentic faith, and his threats against Jacob—who had received his father's blessing—highlighted his indifference. Additionally, his willingness to trade his birthright for a trivial meal illustrated the dominance of his base instincts, rendering him similar to a beast that ignores valuable treasures. He failed to recognize the worth of inheriting the privileges of the firstborn. Nevertheless, due to his affection for Esau, Isaac intended to confer the blessing to uphold the birthright that Esau had willingly surrendered in favor of Jacob. When Isaac was ready to bless Esau, he instructed him to hunt and prepare a special meal, not as a means to validate the blessing—given that Esau had forsaken his birthright over a meal—but to ensure that he bestowed the blessing in a joyful state of mind: he sought to rejuvenate this spirit, which had been diminished by the challenges of old age, through the enjoyment of his favored dish.