WHEN PEOPLE THINK OF TWO NATIONS, THEY THINK OF BORDERS, DIFFERENCES, AND POSSIBLY WAR BETWEEN THE NATIONS. Not That Every Nation Goes To War, But When Famine And Fear Become A Factor, Even Water, Then War Becomes Inevitable. In the case of Jacob and Esau the Bible tells that they became two nations because one preferred what God offered him, while the other despised the blessing of his birthright.

What two nations were Jacob and Esau?

Happy Riches, answer requested by anonymous

Actually Jacob was more than two nations himself, if the lost tribes of Israel theory is taken into account. For while we read that Rebekah had two nations in her womb, Esau and Jacob, we also learn that Jacob was to become a company of nations.

• And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.” (Genesis 25:23)

• And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.” So his name was called Israel. And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you. The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your descendants after you.” (Genesis 35:10-12)

Jacob blessed two of his grandsons stating:

• And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father; for this one is the first-born; put your right hand upon his head.” But his father refused, and said, “I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.” So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel will pronounce blessings, saying,‘God make you as E′phraim and as Manasseh’”;and thus he put E′phraim before Manasseh. (Genesis 48:18-20)

Jacob became a metonym for Israel. Esau a metonym for Edom.

A metonym is a figure of speech that is used to represent a much larger category as in the word crown for monarchy, or Wall Street for the financial markets (metonymy).

Interestingly, in the book of Malachi, when God is calling the Israelites to exercise their freewill, by repenting of their ways and returning to Him, instead of  addressing the nation as "sons of  Israel", He refers to them as "sons of  Jacob". Jacob is used as a metonym for Israel.

• For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’ (Malachi 3:6-7)

Earlier in the book of Malachi, we read how one nation is loved by God and the other is hated—although Calvinists distort this truth to bolster support for their doctrine of predestination (which incorporates a view that people have no freewill and the God of Love, who has a split personality that befits the description of the Devil, is really an evil tyrant filled with rage and hatred towards humans).

• “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How hast thou loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” says the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau; I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, till they are called the wicked country, the people with whom the Lord is angry for ever.” (Malachi 1:2-4)

When asking what two nations were Esau and Jacob, what needs to be realized, the truth is Jacob was more than two nations. The British-Israel theorists have written scores of books documenting evidence that supports their claims that the British Commonwealth is Jacob; this is not to mention United States of America and other European nations. (British Israelism - Wikipedia).

The Finger Of God Directs Events On Earth But Not At the Expense Of Freewill