GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Did God actually mean it, when He said Jacob have i loved but Esau have i hated?  (Read 979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fearnot87

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Rom 9:13 .Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." and
 Mala1:2-3., “’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’”
 Honestly with such words like these from God,then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
But what other explanations can be dished out to prove otherwise?

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline TonkaTim

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
  • Manna: 64
I believe Paul answers the question a little further into Romans 9;
"19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, "

Ultimately doesn't it boil down to God's sovereign choice?

Plus shouldn't we also understand Esau's sin?
Genesis 25
Esau Sells his Birthright
29 And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: 30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. 31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. 32 And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright."

When one understands that Esau was Isaac's firstborn son, one realises that it was his inheritence to be the progenitor of the Christ. Isaac the son of Abraham surely instructed his firstborn son on the matter. Esau did not not believe which is evidenced by his question; "Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?" therefore "Esau despised his birthright" which is Christ; making Esau a type & shadow of antichrist. Which brings us to our present state in the world. One is either in Christ (vessels of mercy) or antichrist (vessels of wrath).

It is as Jesus said "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:17-21

Christian Forums and Message Board


LexKnight

  • Guest
It's just a Hebraic way of saying God chose Jacob and not Esau to bring about His chosen people.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6308
  • Manna: 336
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Quote
Rom 9:13"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."......Honestly with such words like these from God,then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
"If" one truly desires honestly and sincerity before God, then let God be true and every man a liar.
Quote
Romans 9:13...Reads~"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
"As it is written~When the Apostles refer in this manner to the Scriptures, they do it as adducing authority which is conclusive and not to be questioned. Thus God preferred Jacob before Esau without respect to the goodness or wickedness of either, attaching good things to the one, and evil to the other, before they were born. And this quotation by the Apostle is intended to prove that the purpose of God, in choosing who shall be His children according to election, might stand, not by works, but of Him that calleth, verse 11~ which shows that all along the reference is to spiritual and eternal blessings, shadowed forth, as is usual in the Prophets, by things that are temporal and carnal. In the same place God likewise declares His dealings towards the posterity of Esau; but the words here quoted expressly refer to Jacob and Esau personally. The Apostle is speaking of heads of nations; and in God’s dealings towards them is found the reason of the difference of the treatment of their posterities. The introduction of Jacob and Esau personally, presents an emblem of this, while the design is to show that some among the Israelites were the children of God, and not others. That the Apostle quotes these words in reference to Jacob and Esau personally, is clear, since he speaks of them before they were born, and declares their conception by one mother, of one father, which could not be said of their posterity. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated~Jacob was loved before he was born, consequently before he was capable of doing good; and Esau was hated before he was born, consequently before he was capable of doing evil. It may be asked why God hated him before he sinned personally; and human wisdom has proved its folly, by endeavoring to soften the word hated into something less than hatred: but the man who submits like a little child to the word of God, will find no difficulty in seeing in what sense Esau was worthy of the hatred of God before he was born. For me it is not hard to understand, and it should not be for any believer. God alone is immutable, without the possibility of changing, or being able to be deceived, absolutely an impossibility. Not so with angels, or man, or any other creature that could be named, other than the Godhead. There had to be an election by God, both of angels and man, to preserved them a right to not be destroyed because of their mutability.  Man sinned in Adam, and was therefore properly an object of God’s hatred as well as fallen Adam. There is no other view that will ever account for this language and this treatment of Esau. By nature, too, he was a wicked creature, conceived in sin, although his faculties were not expanded, or his innate depravity developed, which God, who hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardeneth whom He will, and who giveth no account of His matters, did not see good to counteract by His grace, as in the case of Jacob, who originally was equally wicked, and by nature, like Esau, a child of wrath and a fit object of hatred.

It is not unusual to take part with Esau who was rejected, against Jacob who was the object of Divine favor. Everything that can be made to appear either amiable or virtuous in the character of Esau is eagerly grasped at, and exhibited in the most advantageous light. We are told of his disinterestedness, frankness, and generosity; while we are reminded that Jacob was a cool, selfish, designing man, who was always watching to take advantage of his brother’s simplicity, and who ungenerously and unjustly robbed his elder brother of the blessing and the birthright.

This way of reasoning shows more zeal for the interest of a cause than discretion in its support. Instead of invalidating, it only serves to confirm the truth it opposes. While it is evident that Jacob possessed the fear of God, which was not the case with respect to Esau~ and therefore that the one was born of God, and the other remained a child of nature; yet there is so much palpable imperfection and evil in Jacob, as to manifest that God did not choose him for the excellence of his foreseen works. In maintaining, then, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, it is by no means necessary to vindicate the conduct of Jacob towards his brother.

Both he and his mother were undoubtedly to blame, much to blame, as to the way in which he obtained his father’s blessing, to the prejudice of Esau, while the revealed purpose of God formed no apology for their conduct. That sin is an evil thing and a bitter, Jacob fully experienced. His conduct in that transaction led him into a maze of troubles, from which through life he was never disentangled. While Jacob was a man of God, and Esau a man of the world, there is enough to show that the inheritance was bestowed on the former not of works but of grace.

Nothing can more clearly manifest the strong opposition of the human mind to the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty, than the violence which human ingenuity has employed to wrest the expression, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.  By many this has been explained, ‘Esau have I loved less.’ But Esau was not the object of any degree of the Divine love, and the word hate never signifies to love less.  The occurrence of the word in that expression, "hate father and mother," Luke 14:26, has been alleged in vindication of this explanation; but the word in this last phrase is used figuratively, and in a manner that cannot be mistaken. Although hatred is not meant to be asserted, yet hatred is the thing that is literally expressed. By a strong figure of speech, that is  called hatred which resembles it in its effects. We will not obey those whom we hate, if we can avoid it. Just so, if our parents command us to disobey Jesus Christ, we must not obey them; and this is called hatred, figuratively, from the resemblance of its effects. But in this passage, in which the expression, ‘Esau have I hatred’ occurs, everything is literal. The Apostle is reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Besides, the contrast of loving Jacob with hating Esau, shows that the last phrase is literal and proper hatred. If God’s love to Jacob was real literal love, God’s hatred to Esau must be real literal hatred. It might as well be said that the phrase, ‘Jacob have I loved,’ does not signify that God really loved Jacob, but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all that is meant by the expression, is that God hated Jacob less than he hated Esau. If every man’s own mind is a sufficient security against concluding the meaning to be, "Jacob have I hated less," his judgment ought to be a security against the equally unwarrantable meaning, "Esau have I loved less."

But why, it may be asked of those who object to the plain meaning of the words, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,  and insist that their import is that God loved Esau less than Jacob — why should God love Esau less  than Jacob, and that, too, before the children were born, or had done good or evil? Can they explain this? Would it not involve a difficulty which, even on their own principles, they are unable to remove? Why then refuse to admit the natural and obvious signification of the passage? If God says that He hated Esau, are we to avoid receiving God’s testimony, or justified in employing a mode of torture in expounding His words? If, again, Esau, as some insist, were the better character, why was Jacob preferred to him?

Quote
then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
Paul addresses such anticipation of his doctrine in verses: 19-23. 
Quote
then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
May I suggest a powerful book to read for you. You can read it on line I am sure. A.W.Pink's book on the "Sovereignty of God" by Baker house, not by Banner of Truth, who watered it down to make it more pleasing for man to accept.  It is short, powerful and supported with the scriptures. I would be happy to send any person a free copy of it. It would be a great investment for the good of sincere souls searching for answers.
« Last Edit: Tue Jan 26, 2016 - 09:39:09 by RB »

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7063
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
Rom 9:13 .Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." and
 Mala1:2-3., “’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’”
 Honestly with such words like these from God,then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
But what other explanations can be dished out to prove otherwise?


No, that is not what it means. In the Greek the word used here for "hated" does not literally mean hated, and it is a crime in my opinion to translate it as such. The word actually means to love less than someone or something else. What God was saying, is that He loved Jacob more than He did Esau, and historically (and in context of his life) this is because Esau never submitted to God in His covenant.

God loves all people, but He has reserved a special filial love for those who enter into His family through His covenants.

God's choices always boil down to those who enter into covenant relationship with Him. God does not cause people to enter covenant with Him, He has simply ordained that those who do are His elect.

Blessings!


Christian Forums and Message Board


His Kid

  • Guest
Rom 9:13 .Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." and
 Mala1:2-3., “’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’”
 Honestly with such words like these from God,then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
But what other explanations can be dished out to prove otherwise?


No, that is not what it means. In the Greek the word used here for "hated" does not literally mean hated, and it is a crime in my opinion to translate it as such. The word actually means to love less than someone or something else. What God was saying, is that He loved Jacob more than He did Esau, and historically (and in context of his life) this is because Esau never submitted to God in His covenant.

God loves all people, but He has reserved a special filial love for those who enter into His family through His covenants.

God's choices always boil down to those who enter into covenant relationship with Him. God does not cause people to enter covenant with Him, He has simply ordained that those who do are His elect.

Blessings!

How do you enter into God's family through covenants?

Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7063
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
Rom 9:13 .Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." and
 Mala1:2-3., “’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’”
 Honestly with such words like these from God,then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
But what other explanations can be dished out to prove otherwise?


No, that is not what it means. In the Greek the word used here for "hated" does not literally mean hated, and it is a crime in my opinion to translate it as such. The word actually means to love less than someone or something else. What God was saying, is that He loved Jacob more than He did Esau, and historically (and in context of his life) this is because Esau never submitted to God in His covenant.

God loves all people, but He has reserved a special filial love for those who enter into His family through His covenants.

God's choices always boil down to those who enter into covenant relationship with Him. God does not cause people to enter covenant with Him, He has simply ordained that those who do are His elect.

Blessings!

How do you enter into God's family through covenants?


Because of lack of accurate information on the church's part for 1500 years, God will accept a person into covenant with Him on the basis of their faith *IF* they have not been taught how He says they are to enter (because of lack of covenant knowledge). However, the Scriptures teach that one enters into God's covenant by faith and water baptism, which is why the following people said what they have said...

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

God's kingdom is a covenant kingdom, and no one can enter therein except through faith and water baptism...

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This is understood clearer when we understand that Christ is the living embodiment of that New Covenant, and we only enter into Him through water baptism...

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


These are only a few of the passages that address baptism and its real purpose, those who choose to believe false Reformed doctrine over the Scriptures will deny this fact, but that fact will never go away.

Blessings!


LexKnight

  • Guest
Sword, this is speculation but it always made sense to me that born of water was referring to birth of a mother. There is an idiom that says "Blood is thicker than water," but the original meaning is your fellow soldiers who you shed blood with is closed than your own family. So it wouldn't surprise me if born of water was used as an idiom in that regards as well. More importantly, Nicodemus just asked "Am I to be born from my mother a second time?" So that understanding would mean the Lord said "You must be born not only here but from above as well." This isn't me discounting baptism, because it's clearly an essential and a command (And of course Mark 16 and Acts 2).

Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7063
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
Sword, this is speculation but it always made sense to me that born of water was referring to birth of a mother. There is an idiom that says "Blood is thicker than water," but the original meaning is your fellow soldiers who you shed blood with is closed than your own family. So it wouldn't surprise me if born of water was used as an idiom in that regards as well. More importantly, Nicodemus just asked "Am I to be born from my mother a second time?" So that understanding would mean the Lord said "You must be born not only here but from above as well." This isn't me discounting baptism, because it's clearly an essential and a command (And of course Mark 16 and Acts 2).


Hey Lex...your not alone there. Many people think that John 3:5 refers to physical birth, but usually the first thing I tell people is to ask them this question... "Do they think that Jesus thought Nicodemus was so stupid that he needed to be told that before someone can enter into the kingdom of God, they first had to be physically born?"

I mean, when we think about it, Nicodemus didn't have it down as he should have, but surely he wasn't that far out in left field. Plus when we take the other passages dealing with water baptism, and understand that baptism is God's ordained rite of entry into the New Covenant, we can see the link between Christ's word picture "born of water" and water baptism.

It is a given...no one can enter into God's kingdom if they have never been conceived in the womb. This ideology came out of calvinism back in the 1500's because if one has to be baptized, then there is something that we must do in order to get saved, and that smacks too much of "works" for calvinists, so they had to find another meaning for "born of water."

I am not feeling well today, so I hope that I did not come across in an ill-tempered way. If I did, that was not my intent.

Blessings!

BTW, There is a 28 page study on this subject in the book The Gospel According to ANE Covenant Understanding if you have further interest in it. Just an fyi.

Blessings.

His Kid

  • Guest
Sword, this is speculation but it always made sense to me that born of water was referring to birth of a mother. There is an idiom that says "Blood is thicker than water," but the original meaning is your fellow soldiers who you shed blood with is closed than your own family. So it wouldn't surprise me if born of water was used as an idiom in that regards as well. More importantly, Nicodemus just asked "Am I to be born from my mother a second time?" So that understanding would mean the Lord said "You must be born not only here but from above as well." This isn't me discounting baptism, because it's clearly an essential and a command (And of course Mark 16 and Acts 2).


Hey Lex...your not alone there. Many people think that John 3:5 refers to physical birth, but usually the first thing I tell people is to ask them this question... "Do they think that Jesus thought Nicodemus was so stupid that he needed to be told that before someone can enter into the kingdom of God, they first had to be physically born?"

I mean, when we think about it, Nicodemus didn't have it down as he should have, but surely he wasn't that far out in left field. Plus when we take the other passages dealing with water baptism, and understand that baptism is God's ordained rite of entry into the New Covenant, we can see the link between Christ's word picture "born of water" and water baptism.

It is a given...no one can enter into God's kingdom if they have never been conceived in the womb. This ideology came out of calvinism back in the 1500's because if one has to be baptized, then there is something that we must do in order to get saved, and that smacks too much of "works" for calvinists, so they had to find another meaning for "born of water."

I am not feeling well today, so I hope that I did not come across in an ill-tempered way. If I did, that was not my intent.

Blessings!

BTW, There is a 28 page study on this subject in the book The Gospel According to ANE Covenant Understanding if you have further interest in it. Just an fyi.

Blessings.

What do you imagine happens when a faithless person is baptized?

Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7063
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
Sword, this is speculation but it always made sense to me that born of water was referring to birth of a mother. There is an idiom that says "Blood is thicker than water," but the original meaning is your fellow soldiers who you shed blood with is closed than your own family. So it wouldn't surprise me if born of water was used as an idiom in that regards as well. More importantly, Nicodemus just asked "Am I to be born from my mother a second time?" So that understanding would mean the Lord said "You must be born not only here but from above as well." This isn't me discounting baptism, because it's clearly an essential and a command (And of course Mark 16 and Acts 2).


Hey Lex...your not alone there. Many people think that John 3:5 refers to physical birth, but usually the first thing I tell people is to ask them this question... "Do they think that Jesus thought Nicodemus was so stupid that he needed to be told that before someone can enter into the kingdom of God, they first had to be physically born?"

I mean, when we think about it, Nicodemus didn't have it down as he should have, but surely he wasn't that far out in left field. Plus when we take the other passages dealing with water baptism, and understand that baptism is God's ordained rite of entry into the New Covenant, we can see the link between Christ's word picture "born of water" and water baptism.

It is a given...no one can enter into God's kingdom if they have never been conceived in the womb. This ideology came out of calvinism back in the 1500's because if one has to be baptized, then there is something that we must do in order to get saved, and that smacks too much of "works" for calvinists, so they had to find another meaning for "born of water."

I am not feeling well today, so I hope that I did not come across in an ill-tempered way. If I did, that was not my intent.

Blessings!

BTW, There is a 28 page study on this subject in the book The Gospel According to ANE Covenant Understanding if you have further interest in it. Just an fyi.

Blessings.

What do you imagine happens when a faithless person is baptized?


Absolutely nothing.



His Kid

  • Guest
Sword, this is speculation but it always made sense to me that born of water was referring to birth of a mother. There is an idiom that says "Blood is thicker than water," but the original meaning is your fellow soldiers who you shed blood with is closed than your own family. So it wouldn't surprise me if born of water was used as an idiom in that regards as well. More importantly, Nicodemus just asked "Am I to be born from my mother a second time?" So that understanding would mean the Lord said "You must be born not only here but from above as well." This isn't me discounting baptism, because it's clearly an essential and a command (And of course Mark 16 and Acts 2).


Hey Lex...your not alone there. Many people think that John 3:5 refers to physical birth, but usually the first thing I tell people is to ask them this question... "Do they think that Jesus thought Nicodemus was so stupid that he needed to be told that before someone can enter into the kingdom of God, they first had to be physically born?"

I mean, when we think about it, Nicodemus didn't have it down as he should have, but surely he wasn't that far out in left field. Plus when we take the other passages dealing with water baptism, and understand that baptism is God's ordained rite of entry into the New Covenant, we can see the link between Christ's word picture "born of water" and water baptism.

It is a given...no one can enter into God's kingdom if they have never been conceived in the womb. This ideology came out of calvinism back in the 1500's because if one has to be baptized, then there is something that we must do in order to get saved, and that smacks too much of "works" for calvinists, so they had to find another meaning for "born of water."

I am not feeling well today, so I hope that I did not come across in an ill-tempered way. If I did, that was not my intent.

Blessings!

BTW, There is a 28 page study on this subject in the book The Gospel According to ANE Covenant Understanding if you have further interest in it. Just an fyi.

Blessings.

What do you imagine happens when a faithless person is baptized?


Absolutely nothing.

Then I assume you are not in support of infant baptism as no infant is even capable of faith.

Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7063
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
Sword, this is speculation but it always made sense to me that born of water was referring to birth of a mother. There is an idiom that says "Blood is thicker than water," but the original meaning is your fellow soldiers who you shed blood with is closed than your own family. So it wouldn't surprise me if born of water was used as an idiom in that regards as well. More importantly, Nicodemus just asked "Am I to be born from my mother a second time?" So that understanding would mean the Lord said "You must be born not only here but from above as well." This isn't me discounting baptism, because it's clearly an essential and a command (And of course Mark 16 and Acts 2).


Hey Lex...your not alone there. Many people think that John 3:5 refers to physical birth, but usually the first thing I tell people is to ask them this question... "Do they think that Jesus thought Nicodemus was so stupid that he needed to be told that before someone can enter into the kingdom of God, they first had to be physically born?"

I mean, when we think about it, Nicodemus didn't have it down as he should have, but surely he wasn't that far out in left field. Plus when we take the other passages dealing with water baptism, and understand that baptism is God's ordained rite of entry into the New Covenant, we can see the link between Christ's word picture "born of water" and water baptism.

It is a given...no one can enter into God's kingdom if they have never been conceived in the womb. This ideology came out of calvinism back in the 1500's because if one has to be baptized, then there is something that we must do in order to get saved, and that smacks too much of "works" for calvinists, so they had to find another meaning for "born of water."

I am not feeling well today, so I hope that I did not come across in an ill-tempered way. If I did, that was not my intent.

Blessings!

BTW, There is a 28 page study on this subject in the book The Gospel According to ANE Covenant Understanding if you have further interest in it. Just an fyi.

Blessings.

What do you imagine happens when a faithless person is baptized?


Absolutely nothing.

Then I assume you are not in support of infant baptism as no infant is even capable of faith.


That is correct, no where in the Scriptures do we find any support for infant baptism. Dedication, yes...but baptism is not dedication, it is baptism.

 ::thumbup::




 

     
anything