Hebreos 12:16

Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright.

On the question of whether or not Esau was a fornicator, it may be observed that the Old Testament does not so designate him, nor is the deduction that he was, mandatory from the teaching of this verse. The answer turns upon the intent of the modifying phrase, "as Esau." Does it apply to "fornicator" as well as to "profane person"? Relying solely upon the Genesis account of Esau and the ordinary implications of the word "profane," it would appear to be a safe speculation that Esau was both profane and an adulterer, each sin being inherent in the other.

FORNICATION

The command, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," as it stands in the Decalogue, is likewise binding upon Christians, with the added condition that the thoughts and attitudes antecedent to that sin are also forbidden. No situational ethics can justify transgression of this law of God. People may not, therefore, decide that under circumstances pleasing to themselves and their companions in sin, and because of the mutual approval of their actions by the sinners themselves, they thereby have the right to take the law into their own hands. Even if such a sin should be seen as no sin against either of the partners to it, there is a third partner involved in all human actions, namely God himself; and God has forbidden it. Joseph, while a slave in the house of Potiphar, refused to commit adultery with his master's wife, not on the grounds that it would have been a sin against a woman like her, but as he said, "How can I sin AGAINST God and do this wickedness?" (Genesis 39:9). The sin of fornication, or adultery (and for all practical purposes, the sins are one), is destructive and antagonistic. It is AGAINST the following: (1) primarily against God, as noted above; (2) against one's body (1 Corinthians 6:18) (this being true no matter how "body" is understood, whether the physical body, the body of the family, the social body, or any corporate body, many a corporation having been wrecked by adultery); (3) the church, as stated in the text; (4) marriage, that institution being able to survive any assault except this (Matthew 19:6); (5) the life of the nation; and (6) against one's very soul (Proverbs 6:32).

Profane person is the opposite of a holy person. Horace wrote, "Odi profanum vulgus, et arceo", which translates, "I abominate the profane vulgar and drive them from the temple." Our word "profane" still carries the inherent meaning of unfitness to enter the temple. Adam Clarke, wrote, "The Latin `profanus', from which we have our word, is compounded of `procul a fano', `far from the temple'."[14]

Esau ... sold his birthright. This remarkable incident (Genesis 25:29ff), involving the transfer of the birthright for the smallest considerations, only a pot of lentils, prompts a look at just what the birthright entailed. It was the most extensive right that could change hands on the basis of heredity and included: (1) the right of primogeniture, that is, the right of the firstborn to receive a double portion of his father's earthly possessions. Under it, Esau would have been the head of Isaac's house, and in a sense the ruler of his brethren. (2) The right to convey the blessing to his own posterity. (3) The right of the priesthood, making its possessor the patriarchal religious leader of his people. (4) The right of custodianship of the sacred promises regarding Messiah and the promised "seed" of Abraham. It seems nearly unbelievable that any man with any regard at all for sacred and holy things should have despised them all and bartered them away for a bowl of beans.

But the lesson in this is very pointed for the readers of Hebrews. They too were on the point of giving up something even more valuable than the bartered inheritance of Esau. In their threatened return to Judaism, they would have been giving up all the realities of which Esau's forfeiture has been only typical. Furthermore, if they went back, it would prove to be just as irrevocable as was the tragic decision of Esau, a point that he elaborated immediately in the next verses. The irreversible nature of such a defection would have sprung not from any inability of God to forgive and restore them, but from the very nature of people themselves. In the course of man's moral defections, there are some thresholds which, once crossed, admit of no returning.