Jacob and Esau

[Davy]

What i said is accurate- it’s much more about nations than Esau and Jacob personally, for example Paul quotes from Jeremiah 18 in Romans 9, which most people have no clue about, and in that potter and clay chapter, it’s the nation of Israel on the potters wheel, not Jacob, not Esau.

And Paul’s quote in Romans 9 about God having mercy on whom He wills, that also is from Jeremiah 18, and it is also referring to nations, not any individuals, where we find that God has mercy on nations that repent, and takes back His mercy from favored nations that turn to evil.

Thus Romans 9 is about the nations of Israel and Edom, much more than about Esau and Jacob.

It's about the individuals Jacob and Esau also, which is why Paul quoted from Malachi 1, because Paul was revealing the idea of God's election, that He chooses whom He will. And without understanding how He chose Jacob over Esau, even when Esau was the firstborn, which the firstborn is entitled to the birthright, then what the "company of nations" that Jacob would become, vs. the nation of Edom which God destroyed, would not be understood. It's all about God's election.

 

[Curtis]

It's about the individuals Jacob and Esau also, which is why Paul quoted from Malachi 1, because Paul was revealing the idea of God's election, that He chooses whom He will. And without understanding how He chose Jacob over Esau, even when Esau was the firstborn, which the firstborn is entitled to the birthright, then what the "company of nations" that Jacob would become, vs. the nation of Edom which God destroyed, would not be understood. It's all about God's election.

It is absolutely not about the election of Jacob to salvation and the damnation of Esau, in any way.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy kluth said:
Gen 27.36 indicates there is a difference between the birth right and the blessing of the elder. Esau was the true elder of the two, and Rebekah conspired to have Jacob dishonor Esau by taking away even his honor of being the first born. Esau had given up much of his inheritance. But he had not given up being blessed and honored for being the firstborn.[/Quote\]

I disagree, the blessing that Isaac gave Jacob was the firstborn blessing. Isaac certainly didn't give the firstborn blessing to Esau, otherwise why was Esau so upset about, if Jacob didn't get the firstborn blessing here at Genesis 27:28,29. So I disagree, the scriptures at Genesis 27:28,29, 37,38 show that the blessing that Jacob got, was the blessing of firstborn. Isaac had gotten old and Isaac wanted to bless Esau with the firstborn rights before his death. That's how it was back then.

I understand, and it's a legitimate point. What I can't get around is the fact that we have this verse:
Gen 27.36 36 Esau said, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!”

Again, this makes a positive distinction between the sale of the birthright and the robbing of the blessing of the firstborn. These were declared to be *two separate events,* and not one. And if they are two separate events, it appears that they have two different meanings, unless they were two separate incidences in which the same thing was taken from Esau. And that doesn't make much sense to me.

Furthermore, the 2nd event Isaac called a "blessing"--not the firstborn blessing. But it is true that Esau claimed he was to receive this "blessing" as the firstborn, although it may be that he never told his father that he had sold this blessing to Jacob? Jacob may have let the blessing stand not because he realized Esau had sold his birthright, but rather, because he recognized the blessing had been inspired by God and arranged, circumstantially, by God. So there's that.

I don't understand how Jacob or Rebekah dishonored Esau when Esau was the one who sold his firstborn rights to Jacob. That was a legal transaction between Esau and Jacob when Esau sold his firstborn rights. Esau didn't have to sell them to anybody. He was wrong for accusing Jacob of anything because Esau sold his right as firstborn.
The blessing of firstborn is tied up with God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:2,3) Jacob was interested in the passing on of spiritual things to his family, the promise given to Abraham concerning the seed.Gen. 28:3, 4, 12-15.

Again, the passage itself indicates that Rebekah was being shrewd.
Gen 27.12 What if my father touches me? I would appear to be tricking him and would bring down a curse on myself rather than a blessing.”

13 His mother said to him, “My son, let the curse fall on me. Just do what I say; go and get them for me.”

Randy Kluth said:
However, I don't think deceiving his brother Esau was the noble way to go about it. He apparently lacked faith that God would make him the greater of the two, and so tried to obtain his called position in an underhanded[/Quote\]

I disagree that Jacob deceived anyone. God is against deceit. As I said Esau sold his firstborn right, that's nobody's fault but his. Esau didn't have to sell them. Esau by trying to get what he had sold to Jacob was the deceptive one. Also if Jacob was so wrong with how he handle this situation why doesn't the scriptures say so. There's nothing in the scriptures that show that God censored him or punished him in any way for handling the situation the way he did, and as I said we all know how God feels about deceit.

Both Jacob and his Mother recognized that they were "tricking" Isaac, and thus potentially bringing upon themselves a "curse." How can you not see this as deceit?

Isaac saw it that way, as well...
Gen 27.35 But he said, “Your brother came deceitfully and took your blessing.”

But you may be right that they are two events involving the same thing--the 1st born blessing. It seems that Esau may have divided the events up into two, having dismissed the 1st event as having failed, or as having been nullified as a form of duress. But God apparently let it stand because of Esau's irreligious nature.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Randy Kluth said:
But you may be right that they are two events involving the same thing--the 1st born blessing. It seems that Esau may have divided the events up into two, having dismissed the 1st event as having failed, or as having been nullified as a form of duress. But God apparently let it stand because of Esau's irreligious nature.[/QUOTE\]

It seems to me that going by the scriptures at Genesis 25:27-34; 27:3,4, 28,29 that first of all Isaac loved Esau because Esau became a man of the field and a skilled hunter and it meant game in Isaac mouth. I'm thinking that maybe Isaac loved the taste of wild meat. Rebekah she loved Jacob because he was a blameless man who dwelled in tents. Jacob basically lived a quiet life compared to his brothers wild adventurous life. Growing up Jacob could see for himself that his brother wasn't that keen on pleasing the true God or of caring about what God cared about. Esau had married two foreign women who worshipped false gods. So Jacob was convinced that when he had the opportunity to convince Esau to sell his birthright he would sell it. I also think that although Esau swore to Jacob he would sell his birthright, but because he wasn't a spiritual man, he didn't tell his father that he had sold his birthright to his brother, after all I honestly believe that if Esau had told his father that he had sold his birthright to his brother Isaac would not have gone to Esau to give Esau the birthright blessing, but would have went to Jacob to begin with. Anyway Esau was reneging on what Esau swore he would do- giving the birthright to Jacob which would include the blessing. So when the time came when his father was going to give the firstborn blessing to Esau, Rebekah and Jacob maneuvered things so that Jacob would get the firstborn blessing since they did belong to him because Esau did sell him the birthright.

 

[Ancient]

Blessings

Shalom

 

[Davy]

It is absolutely not about the election of Jacob to salvation and the damnation of Esau, in any way.

Sure it is.

 

[Cassandra]

The trickster, in fact was Esau, who, according to the Book of Jasher, as a teenager, possibly around the age of 16 years old, killed Nimrod and then stole Adam's skins, made by God, from him, when Nimrod was dead, as a sign of Esau's presumed authority over people, that the skins gave.

So Noah carried the skins God made for Adam on the ark? I don't think so.

 

[Davy]

What Apostle Paul showed about Jacob and Esau, quoting from Malachi 1 in Romans 9, presents a mystery. Paul said before either child was born, neither having done good or evil, God said, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Rom 9:11-13
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, 'The elder shall serve the younger.'

13 As it is written, 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.'
KJV


That showed God's election in the old world, like Paul pointed to...

Rom 9:22-24
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,

24 Even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
KJV

 

[Jay Ross]

So Noah carried the skins God made for Adam on the ark? I don't think so.

You are welcome to your opinion. The book of Jasher should be read with caution, however, it does provide a glimpse of the back story to the Book of Genesis. The story of Esau killing Nimrod, in the Book of Jasher, makes sense, and taking the skins made by God for Adam within the context of Esau demanding some stew from Jacob as a cover for himself at that time. It is claimed in the ancient tradition, that the person who had the Skins made for Adam at the time of the fall, was anointed by God for the leadership role over the people of the earth. This we know is not true, however, Esau may have considered it differently.

The Bible is silent as to the back story behind this portion of the Genesis account, as recorded.

Like many people today believe that they have no need for God, and, that they will receive God's blessing because God loves them. There is a little more to the salvation covenant than that. The same is also true of how God loved Jacob and hated Esau because of the attitude of their respective hearts. The untold Biblical stories were available to Abraham because he spent time with Noah and Shem. Abraham's life overlapped Noahs life by around 59 years and Abraham spent many years with Noah during this early part of his life.

Abraham's life also overlapped the lives of both Esau and Jacob lives during the first sixteen years of their lives, however we are not told that directly in the Genesis account nor are we told that they even interacted at all as Isaac did not return with his father Abraham after they both went up to the mountain to worship God and Abraham placed Isaac on the wood to offer him up as a sacrifice to God as God asked him too.

There is much to be learned from the Book of Genesis, but it also raises many questions for me that are left unanswered, however, with respect to the Salvation Covenant storyline, answering those question is not as necessary for our understanding of God's workings in our lives.

Shalom

 

[Curtis]

Gen 27.36 36 Esau said, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!”

It quotes what Esau claimed were the facts, it wasn’t a ‘thus sayeth the lord’ revelation, because he gave up his birthright for stew, it wasn’t stolen by Jacob.

 

[Curtis]

Perhaps you need to reflect a little longer on the story of Jacob.

The issue was with Isaac wanting to go against God and God's choosing of Jacob as the line through which the Abrahamic covenant would flow, while Jacob and Esau were still in the womb.

I can see God's hand in the events that enabled Jacob to receive Isaac's blessing. The trickster, in fact was Esau, who, according to the Book of Jasher, as a teenager, possibly around the age of 16 years old, killed Nimrod and then stole Adam's skins, made by God, from him, when Nimrod was dead, as a sign of Esau's presumed authority over people, that the skins gave. That was why Esau sold his birthright to Jacob, because he was fearful that if Nimrod's servants caught up with him that they would kill him out of revenge and the bowl of food from Jacob would provide a convincing cover for him if they did.

In the Bible, we are not given all of the possible facts that surround this part of the story of this particular interchange between the two twin.

Esau was the only accuser that Jacob was a trickster to cover the real reason why Esau gave up his birth right.

Shalom

Jacob means supplanted and heel catcher.

H3290 (Strong)

יַעֲקֹב

ya‛ăqôb

yah-ak-obe'

From H6117; heel catcher (that is, supplanter); Jaakob, the Israelitish patriarch: - Jacob.

Total KJV occurrences: 349

 

[Curtis]

There is a little more to the salvation covenant than that. The same is also true of how God loved Jacob and hated Esau

God loved Esau less, and didn’t literally hate him. It’s an idiom.

 

[Stumpmaster]

23 And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory,

. . . DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE of all things, who will do what and why.
. . . DIVINE PREDETERMINING of some for glory, some for wrath.

 

[Jay Ross]

God loved Esau less, and didn’t literally hate him. It’s an idiom.

Please consider that I did quote scripture when I made the statement that you have disagreed with: -

Malachi 1:2-3: - Israel Beloved of God

2 "I have loved you," says the Lord.

"Yet you say, 'In what way have You loved us?'
Was not Esau Jacob's brother?"
Says the Lord.
"Yet Jacob I have loved; ​

3 But Esau I have hated,

And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness."​

NKJV​

Now if you objected to my embellishment, "because of the attitude of their hearts," then I am happy to consider your rational, but the claim that it is an "idiom," that does not stack up with the quoted passage above.

Shalom

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy Kluth said:
But you may be right that they are two events involving the same thing--the 1st born blessing. It seems that Esau may have divided the events up into two, having dismissed the 1st event as having failed, or as having been nullified as a form of duress. But God apparently let it stand because of Esau's irreligious nature.[/QUOTE\]

It seems to me that going by the scriptures at Genesis 25:27-34; 27:3,4, 28,29 that first of all Isaac loved Esau because Esau became a man of the field and a skilled hunter and it meant game in Isaac mouth. I'm thinking that maybe Isaac loved the taste of wild meat. Rebekah she loved Jacob because he was a blameless man who dwelled in tents. Jacob basically lived a quiet life compared to his brothers wild adventurous life. Growing up Jacob could see for himself that his brother wasn't that keen on pleasing the true God or of caring about what God cared about. Esau had married two foreign women who worshipped false gods. So Jacob was convinced that when he had the opportunity to convince Esau to sell his birthright he would sell it. I also think that although Esau swore to Jacob he would sell his birthright, but because he wasn't a spiritual man, he didn't tell his father that he had sold his birthright to his brother, after all I honestly believe that if Esau had told his father that he had sold his birthright to his brother Isaac would not have gone to Esau to give Esau the birthright blessing, but would have went to Jacob to begin with. Anyway Esau was reneging on what Esau swore he would do- giving the birthright to Jacob which would include the blessing. So when the time came when his father was going to give the firstborn blessing to Esau, Rebekah and Jacob maneuvered things so that Jacob would get the firstborn blessing since they did belong to him because Esau did sell him the birthright.

Yea, that's definitely a possibility--perhaps even a likelihood. Thanks.

 

[Curtis]

Please consider that I did quote scripture when I made the statement that you have disagreed with: -

Malachi 1:2-3: - Israel Beloved of God

2 "I have loved you," says the Lord.

"Yet you say, 'In what way have You loved us?'
Was not Esau Jacob's brother?"
Says the Lord.
"Yet Jacob I have loved; ​

3 But Esau I have hated,

And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness."​

NKJV​

Now if you objected to my embellishment, "because of the attitude of their hearts," then I am happy to consider your rational, but the claim that it is an "idiom," that does not stack up with the quoted passage above.

Shalom

From my post on another thread:

Romans 9 states that God hated Esaus but loved Jacob, which is used as proof that Esau was of the non elect, thus predestined to hell, and damnation.


But in reality that statement by God about Esau is a well known saying of the Jews of that day, that means to love less - not to literally hate - which is easily proven by Jesus telling us in Luke 14, that unless we hate our mother and father, and whole family, we aren’t worthy to be His disciples.


Jesus isn’t teaching us to violate the command to honor our mother and father, or violate the law of love that Jesus proclaimed, that we must love our neighbors as ourselves, and to hate them, instead.


Jesus is actually saying that we must love Him so much that we hate our family in comparison:


Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


God loved Esau less than Jacob, and did not actually hate him: therefore another Calvinist proof text for their version of election and predestination, bites the dust.

 

[Curtis]

. . . DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE of all things, who will do what and why.
. . . DIVINE PREDETERMINING of some for glory, some for wrath.

God predestines no one to damnation. Calvinism is an insult of Gods character and nature.

 

[Stumpmaster]

God predestines no one to damnation. Calvinism is an insult of Gods character and nature.

True.
My thought is that DIVINE PREDETERMINATION means God has already decided the reward for righteousness and punishment for sin, not that He has predetermined who will come to faith and who will remain reprobate.

 

[Curtis]

True.
My thought is that DIVINE PREDETERMINATION means God has already decided the reward for righteousness and punishment for sin, not that He has predetermined who will come to faith and who will remain reprobate.

I can agree with that.

 

[Jay Ross]

From my post on another thread:

Romans 9 states that God hated Esaus but loved Jacob, which is used as proof that Esau was of the non elect, thus predestined to hell, and damnation.


But in reality that statement by God about Esau is a well known saying of the Jews of that day, that means to love less - not to literally hate - which is easily proven by Jesus telling us in Luke 14, that unless we hate our mother and father, and whole family, we aren’t worthy to be His disciples.


Jesus isn’t teaching us to violate the command to honor our mother and father, or violate the law of love that Jesus proclaimed, that we must love our neighbors as ourselves, and to hate them, instead.


Jesus is actually saying that we must love Him so much that we hate our family in comparison:


Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


God loved Esau less than Jacob, and did not actually hate him: therefore another Calvinist proof text for their version of election and predestination, bites the dust.

So be it. There is no point in continuing this conversation as I hold no Calvinist bias in what I might write, and you have an axe to grind/dull.