Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 12:16

"lest [there be] any fornication, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright." — Hebrews 12:16 (ASV)

Lest there be any fornicator. The sin referred to here is one of those that would spread corruption in the church, and against which they should 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 mentioned here was one that abounded everywhere in ancient times, as it does now, and it was important to guard the church against it (1 Corinthians 6:18).

Or profane person. The word profane here refers to one who, by word or conduct, treats religion with contempt, or has no reverence for that which is sacred. This may be shown by words, by manner, by a sneer, by neglect of religion, or by openly renouncing the privileges that might be connected with our salvation. The allusion here is to one who would 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 . The Jewish writers abundantly declare that this was his character.

In proof that the latter appellation—that of a profane person—belonged to him , it is true that it is known he sustained this character more by inference than by direct assertion.

The birthright, 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 eldest son, all the honor connected with this, and which is now associated with the name Jacob, would have properly belonged 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 food.

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 firstborn 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 commonly is in the Scriptures, in its original English sense to denote food (Genesis 25:34). The phrase here, "morsel of meat," would be better translated as "a single meal."

Sold his birthright. The birthright 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. We can easily understand what Esau parted with by reflecting on the honors that have clustered around the name of Jacob.