Mirrors of Rivalry and Redemption
⸻
1. Esau/Edom in the Tanakh: Foundational Context
In Genesis, Esau—renamed Edom (Gen 25:30; 36:1)—is Jacob’s twin brother, representing fraternal conflict over birthright and blessing (Gen 25:19–34; 27:1–45). Esau’s descendants settled in Seir (Gen 36:6–8), forming the nation of Edom/Idumea, which often opposed Israel—blocking passage in Numbers 20:14–21 and betraying Judah in Obadiah 10–14. Prophets such as Malachi (“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” Mal 1:2–3) and Obadiah portray Edom under divine judgment for pride and violence, though a hint of remnant hope remains (Obad 17–18).
In Genesis, Esau—renamed Edom (Gen 25:30; 36:1)—is Jacob’s twin brother, representing fraternal conflict over birthright and blessing (Gen 25:19–34; 27:1–45). Esau’s descendants settled in Seir (Gen 36:6–8), forming the nation of Edom/Idumea, which often opposed Israel—blocking passage in Numbers 20:14–21 and betraying Judah in Obadiah 10–14. Prophets such as Malachi (“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” Mal 1:2–3) and Obadiah portray Edom under divine judgment for pride and violence, though a hint of remnant hope remains (Obad 17–18).
By the Second Temple period, Idumeans were forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus I (ca. 129–104 BCE).¹ This historical blending of Edom and Israel set the stage for later identity tensions that would surface in the Herodian era and the New Testament.
⸻
⸻
2. The Esau/Edom–Herodian Connection
The Herodians—the family and supporters of Herod the Great (Matt 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13)—were Idumeans, ethnic descendants of Esau/Edom. Herod’s grandfather Antipater was an Idumean convert who rose under Hasmonean rule, and Herod himself identified as Jewish while serving as a Roman client king (37–4 BCE).² Yet his Idumean ancestry made him a perpetual outsider, and his Roman allegiance reinforced perceptions of him as an Edomite usurper.
The Herodians—the family and supporters of Herod the Great (Matt 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13)—were Idumeans, ethnic descendants of Esau/Edom. Herod’s grandfather Antipater was an Idumean convert who rose under Hasmonean rule, and Herod himself identified as Jewish while serving as a Roman client king (37–4 BCE).² Yet his Idumean ancestry made him a perpetual outsider, and his Roman allegiance reinforced perceptions of him as an Edomite usurper.
Rabbinic literature later linked Edom symbolically with Rome, partly due to Herod’s tyranny: massacring Hasmoneans, rebuilding the Temple as self-glorification, and oppressing his own people.³ In the Gospels, Herod personifies Edomite hostility—slaughtering Bethlehem’s infants (Matt 2:16, echoing Pharaoh), Herod Antipas executing John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29), mocking Jesus (Luke 23:6–12), and the Herodians conspiring against Him (Mark 3:6). These acts fulfill the prophetic imagery of Edom’s violence against “brother Jacob” (Obad 10; Amos 1:11).
Scholars note this as a literary “mirror,” with the Herodians representing Esau’s line in the NT: integrated yet antagonistic brothers opposing God’s redemptive plan.⁴ Early Christian writers such as the Epistle of Barnabas(13:1–3) and Tertullian recast Christians as the “younger Jacob” supplanting Jewish “Esau,” while rabbinic polemics later reversed the typology, identifying Rome and Christianity with Edom.⁵
⸻
3. Romans 9–11: Election and the Jacob–Esau Motif
Paul employs the Jacob–Esau narrative to illustrate divine sovereignty in election (Rom 9:10–13), quoting Gen 25:23 (“The older will serve the younger”) and Mal 1:2–3. His point concerns corporate vocation, not individual predestination: God chose Jacob/Israel for covenantal blessing over Esau/Edom before either had acted. The verbs “loved” and “hated” express covenant preference, not emotional hostility.⁶
Paul employs the Jacob–Esau narrative to illustrate divine sovereignty in election (Rom 9:10–13), quoting Gen 25:23 (“The older will serve the younger”) and Mal 1:2–3. His point concerns corporate vocation, not individual predestination: God chose Jacob/Israel for covenantal blessing over Esau/Edom before either had acted. The verbs “loved” and “hated” express covenant preference, not emotional hostility.⁶
Paul applies this typology to Israel’s mixed response to the gospel: not all physical descendants are covenant heirs (Rom 9:6–8). Unbelieving Israel becomes analogous to Esau/Edom—kinsmen estranged through unbelief, not ethnicity.
Throughout Romans 9–11, Paul redefines election in light of mercy: Israel’s stumbling (9:30–33) is not final; a remnant remains (11:1–6), while Gentiles are grafted in (11:17–24). This recalls both Esau’s subjugation under David (2 Sam 8:14) and the Torah’s allowance for Edomite inclusion after three generations (Deut 23:7–8). The Herodian rule—Edomites reigning over Israel under Rome—ironically fulfills “the older shall serve the younger,” while Paul’s conclusion (11:30–32) extends mercy even to Edom-like outsiders.⁷
⸻
⸻
4. Acts 15: Gentile Inclusion and the Edomite Remnant
At the Jerusalem Council (ca. 49 CE), the apostles debated whether Gentile converts must observe Mosaic law. James resolved the matter by citing Amos 9:11–12 (Acts 15:16–18): the restoration of David’s “fallen tent” allows “the rest of mankind” to seek the Lord.
At the Jerusalem Council (ca. 49 CE), the apostles debated whether Gentile converts must observe Mosaic law. James resolved the matter by citing Amos 9:11–12 (Acts 15:16–18): the restoration of David’s “fallen tent” allows “the rest of mankind” to seek the Lord.
In the Masoretic Text, Amos predicts that Israel “will possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations” (Amos 9:12 MT), implying conquest; but the Septuagint reads “the rest of mankind” (anthrōpōn), suggesting inclusion rather than domination.⁸ Luke follows this LXX reading, transforming subjugation into fellowship—a hermeneutical move that reverses Hyrcanus’ forced conversions and models voluntary covenant participation.
Thus the “remnant of Edom” becomes a figure of Gentile inclusion. Mark 3:8 even notes that Idumeans followed Jesus—a literal foretaste of Amos 9:12’s fulfillment.⁹
⸻
5. The New Testament Mirror: From Rivalry to Reconciliation
Taken together, the Esau/Edom–Herodian motif operates as a symbolic thread running beneath the New Testament. Edom, the proximate brother—integrated yet opposed—embodies the paradox of nearness and estrangement that marked first-century Jew–Gentile relations.
Taken together, the Esau/Edom–Herodian motif operates as a symbolic thread running beneath the New Testament. Edom, the proximate brother—integrated yet opposed—embodies the paradox of nearness and estrangement that marked first-century Jew–Gentile relations.
In Romans 9–11, Paul reframes this tension through the mystery of election, where divine mercy overturns rivalry. In Acts 15, James reinterprets Edom’s conquest as its redemption. The Herodians’ htility becomes the negative image of what God intends: reconciliation of brothers once divided.
Though implicit, this Edomite mirror reinforces the NT’s covenantal logic—turning enmity into inclusion, judgment into mercy, and history into hope. Paul’s vision of “one new humanity” (Eph 2:14–16) ultimately unites Jacob and Esau, Israel and the nations, within the Messiah’s peace.
⸻
⸻
EndNotes
1. Josephus, Antiquities 13.9.1 (§257–258); cf. Wars 1.6.2.
2. Antiquities 14.1–9; 15.7.3.
3. See b. Bava Batra 3b; Genesis Rabbah 63:7–8 for the symbolic merging of Edom and Rome.
4. Craig A. Evans, Herod and the New Testament Context, in Dictionary of the New Testament Background (IVP, 2000), pp. 488–493.
5. Barnabas 13; Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos 1–3; cf. Jacob Emden, Seder Olam Rabbah ve-Zuta, p. 32.
6. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale, 1989), pp. 53 –56.
7. Cf. Deut 23:7–8 (LXX/MT); Rom 11:30–32.
8. See James A. Sanders, “Text and Canon: Amos 9 in Acts 15,” Novum Testamentum 6 (1963): 47–57.
9. Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8 (AB 27, 2000), p. 240.
