It does not appear that the brothers again met until the death of their father, about twenty j'ears after- waids. Mutual interests and mutual fear seem to have constrained them to act honestly, and even gen- erously towards each other at this solemn interview. They united in laying Isaac's body in the cave of Machpelah. B. C. 1883. (See Rost, Pic fas Esavi inpa- rentcs, Bautzen, 1788.) Then "Esau took all his cat- tle, and all his substance, which he had got in the land of Canaan" — such, doubtless, as his father, with Jacob's consent, had assigned to him — " and went into the country from the face of his brother Jacob" (xxxv, 29; xxxvi, 6). He now saw clearh' that tlic cove- nant blessing was Jacob's, that God had inalienably allotted the land of Canaan to Jacob's posterity, and that it would be fnlh' to strive against the divine will. He knew also that as Canaan was given to Jacob, Mount Seir was given to himself (comp. xxvii, S9; xxxii, 3; and Deut. ii, 5), and he was therefore de- sirous, with his increased wealth and power, to enter into full possession of his country, and drive out its old inhabitants (Deut. ii, 12). Another circumstance may have influenced him in leaving Canaan. He "lived by his sword" (Gen. xxvii, -10), and he felt that the rocky fastnesses of Edom would be a safer and more suitable abode for such as by their habits provoked the hostilities of neighboring tribes than the open plains of Southern Palestine. Esau is once more presented to us (Gen. xxxvi) in a genealogical table, in which a long line of illustrious descendants is referred to "Esau, the father of the Edomites" (Gen. xxxvi, 43). The country to wliicli Esau, with his in;niense family and flocks, retired, was the tract of Mount Seir, from which they gradually dispossessed the tliinly scattered population that- ]irpceded them in its occupancy, and which thej' continued to hold for man}' generations. It was a region entirely suited to the nomadic and rov- ing character of the race. But in regard to the rela-
ESAir
287
ESCHATOLOGY
tionship between them and the seed of Israel, the re- mote descendants of Esau proved less pliant or gener- ous than their progenitor ; for from tlie time that Israel left the land of Eg3'pt, when the two families again came into contact, the posteritj' of Esau seemed to remember onlj^ the old quarrel between the respect- ive heads of the races, and to forget the brotherly reconciliation. A spirit of keenest rivalry and spite characterized their procedure towards Israel ; through mimy a l)loody conflict they strove to regain the as- cendency which the decree of heaven had destined in the other direction ; and in the times of Israel's back- sliding and weakness they showed themselves ever ready, according to the prophetic word of Isaac, "to break his yoke from off their neck," and to drive the evil to the uttermost. But it was a fruitless struggle ; the purpose of Heaven stood fast; the dominion re- mained with the house of Jacob ; and in the course of the Maccabasan wars the children of Esau finally lost their independent existence, and became substantially merged in the house of Israel. The decree of Heaven, as we have said, had so fixed it ; but that decree did not realize itself arbitrarily ; the preference for Israel and his seed was no senseless favoritism ; from the first the qualities were there which inevitably carried along with them the superiority in might and bless- ing; while, on the other hand, in Esau's carnalism, sensuality, godlessness, the destiny of his race was al- ready indicated. See Idum.ea.
If the historical outline now given is supported bj' the scriptural narrative, the character of Esau has not ordinarily received justice at the hands of theologians. The injurious impression against him may be traced back to a very ancient period. The Targum of Jona- than (at Gen. xxv, 34) sanctioned and spread, if it did not originate, the misjudgment by unwarrantable ad- ditions to tlie account given in Genesis. The reason, it states, wliy Esau did not at once slaj' his brother was lest, as happened in the case of Cain and Aliel, another uian-child mij;ht be born, and thus he should still be deprived of his inheritance ; he therefore re- solved to wait till the death of Isaac, when the murder of Jacob would leave him in safe and undisputed pos- session. Representations made in the Talmud are of a similar tendency (Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 207 ; Wet- stein, iV. T. ii, 437 ; comp. Philo, 0pp. i, 551 ; ii, 441, G75_). The Arabians likewise commemorate him (Hot- tinger. Hid. Orient, p. 53 sq.). Cedrenius gives {Hist. Eccl. p. 34) the story of his having been killed by an arrow discharged bj' Jacob. The fathers of the Churcli, particularly Augustine, regard Esau as the representa- tive of tlie damned, while they admire Jacob as that of the elect (see Stempel, Be salute Esavi, Jena, 1678), bas- ing these views upon an erroneous interpretation of such passages as Rom. xii, IG; ix, 13. (Shuckford's Connections, ii, 174 ; Clarke's Comment, on Gen. xxvii, xxv ; Kitto's Dailij Illustr. in loc. ; Niemeyer, Cliar- iikt. ii, 153 sq. ; Baumgarten, AUr/. Welthist. ii, 50 sq. ; Bauer, Hthr. Gesck. i, 147 ; Hochheimer, Im Orient. 1841, No. 35 ; Sherlock, Works, v ; Dupin, Nouv. Bihl. iv; Evans, /Scryj^ Biog. i; Roberts, Sermons, p. 134; Piickle, Sermons, i, 96 ; Simeon, Works, i, 211 ; Alcock, ApoloQ:/for Esau, Plymoutli, 1701 ; Townsend, Sermons [1849], p. 253 ; Goodwin, Parish Sermons, ii, 1.) See Jacok.