Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated?

TomFL

Well-known member
Are you kidding? The entire book is about Salvation and nothing but Salvation.
Absurd reply

does that mean every sentence is about salvation ?

Salvation is not mentioned

Hello

Thee is no mention of election to salvation concerning Jacob and Esau

ou cannot take one portion of a book and just assume the same thing is in view in another portion

Rom 9 Jacob and Esau is still about service

........................................

god is calling a people who will serve him

In this case Israel

Rom. 9:6–12 —ESV
Ҧ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.””

all Israel (Jacob) was not saved

and we have no evidence all Edom (Esau) not reprobated

Gen. 25:23 —ESV
“And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.””

Mal. 1:2–4 —ESV
“¶ “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob
but Esau I have hated. 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, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.’””

you ignore context and correlation
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Absurd reply

does that mean every sentence is about salvation ?

Salvation is not mentioned

Hello

Thee is no mention of election to salvation concerning Jacob and Esau

ou cannot take one portion of a book and just assume the same thing is in view in another portion

Rom 9 Jacob and Esau is still about service

........................................

god is calling a people who will serve him

In this case Israel

Rom. 9:6–12 —ESV
Ҧ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.””

all Israel (Jacob) was not saved

and we have no evidence all Edom (Esau) not reprobated

Gen. 25:23 —ESV
“And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.””

Mal. 1:2–4 —ESV
“¶ “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob
but Esau I have hated. 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, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.’””

you ignore context and correlation
The whole Book of Romans is solely about Salvation, the first twelve chapters Doctrinal, the final 4 exhortative/practical, thats elementary.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
The whole Book of Romans is solely about Salvation, the first twelve chapters Doctrinal, the final 4 exhortative/practical, thats elementary.
sorry but that is nonsense which just ignores context

god is calling a people who will serve him

In this case Israel

They were not all saved - that is a fact

Rom. 9:6–12 —ESV
Ҧ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.””

all Israel (Jacob) was not saved

and we have no evidence all Edom (Esau) not reprobated

Gen. 25:23 —ESV
“And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.””

Mal. 1:2–4 —ESV
“¶ “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob
but Esau I have hated. 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, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.’””

you ignore context and correlation
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
sorry but that is nonsense which just ignores context

god is calling a people who will serve him

In this case Israel

They were not all saved - that is a fact

Rom. 9:6–12 —ESV
Ҧ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.””

all Israel (Jacob) was not saved

and we have no evidence all Edom (Esau) not reprobated

Gen. 25:23 —ESV
“And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.””

Mal. 1:2–4 —ESV
“¶ “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob
but Esau I have hated. 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, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.’””

you ignore context and correlation
No its not, you are merely giving evidence that you have no clue what the Book of Romans is about.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
No its not, you are merely giving evidence that you have no clue what the Book of Romans is about.
Naturally you just ignore rebuttal, context and scripture

god is calling a people who will serve him

In this case Israel

They were not all saved - that is a fact

Rom. 9:6–12 —ESV
Ҧ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.””

all Israel (Jacob) was not saved

and we have no evidence all Edom (Esau) not reprobated

Gen. 25:23 —ESV
“And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.””

Mal. 1:2–4 —ESV
“¶ “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob
but Esau I have hated. 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, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.’””

you ignore context and correlation
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I have long believed that no one ever comes to understand Romans 9 through a Calvinistic paradigm unless they are first taught to look for Calvinism in the text. Verses 12-13 are a great example.

In Luke 14:26, Jesus says "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." However we interpret Jesus' command to "hate" our relatives, I can be certain He doesn't mean that we are supposed to desire their eternal damnation.


It does not mean to hate your family as men hated Jesus. This was a first century Jewish way of emphasizing preference of choice. See Matthew 10:38-39.

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

At Luke 14:26, Jesus is saying that following him must always come first and always be our priority over everything else. Same idea at Matthew 6:33.

Same thing in Romans 9. It has nothing to do with God hating Esau like men hated Jesus. In the same way, it emphasizes preference of choice. The blessing of God would come through Jacob not Esau.

Yet people read Romans 9:13 and say that it's obvious that God wanted Esau to be condemned to hell forever. Why? Because they are taught beforehand to read the passage through a Calvinistic lens.

In verse 12, Paul quotes Genesis 25:23 which says "the older shall serve the younger." You don't spell salvation s-e-r-v-i-c-e. Why then do people read this and think that the older one goes to hell whereas the younger one goes to heaven? Because they are taught beforehand to read the passage through a Calvinistic lens.

What if that verse is meant to be taken literally? What if, during the eschaton, Esau and his descendants will be raised from the dead and forced to be the slaves of the Jacob and his descendants? Doesn't that scenario fit more naturally with the text?

Keep in mind that Paul's discussion of election does not end with chapter 9...it continues for three chapters. In chapter 11:30-32, Paul gives us the real reason that God chooses some for favor in this lifetime while "hating" others: "For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."

When does this "mercy on all" happen? Since Paul says that the Jews in chapter 9 were given over to disobedience so that his Gentile audience might obtain mercy, when will those disobedient Jews find themselves to be objects of God's mercy? Paul tells us:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”


That's the eschaton!
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
0No its not, you are merely giving evidence that you have no clue what the Book of Romans is about.
Sadly these types attack everything that gives all the glory to God or shows Him as God, Sovereign over all &c. "Can't be! Unfair! That's not right! God has to be like _____________ or He can't be God!" Romans 9:20-21 on display.

They've also given God criteria to meet to be God. One of his and Flowers (Tom got it from him and parrots this and other sayings, being his disciple) biggest blunders is they've tole God He is a "bigger" God if He let's man control things.

Totally asinine, drummed up, unbiblical sacrilege.

Honestly, it is sad to behold and witness it in his posts perpetually. Some need to move on from their "101" misunderstandings. There is a 200, 300, 400, 500...700 understanding that can correct them.

I think it is completely appropriate that Flowers has providentially labeled his errant site "101." Any person who has been to college knows what that means.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Sadly these types attack everything that gives all the glory to God or shows Him as God, Sovereign over all &c. "Can't be! Unfair! That's not right! God has to be like _____________ or He can't be God!" Romans 9:20-21 on display.

They've also given God criteria to meet to be God. One of his and Flowers (Tom got it from him and parrots this and other sayings, being his disciple) biggest blunders is they've tole God He is a "bigger" God if He let's man control things.

Totally asinine, drummed up, unbiblical sacrilege.

Honestly, it is sad to behold and witness it in his posts perpetually. Some need to move on from their "101" misunderstandings. There is a 200, 300, 400, 500...700 understanding that can correct them.

I think it is completely appropriate that Flowers has providentially labeled his errant site "101." Any person who has been to college knows what that means.
More ignorant noise

God gets far more glory from his loving provision for all peoples than he get from determining
most to be reprobate

Care to actually address what i post
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
Sadly these types attack everything that gives all the glory to God or shows Him as God, Sovereign over all &c. "Can't be! Unfair! That's not right! God has to be like _____________ or He can't be God!" Romans 9:20-21 on display.

They've also given God criteria to meet to be God. One of his and Flowers (Tom got it from him and parrots this and other sayings, being his disciple) biggest blunders is they've tole God He is a "bigger" God if He let's man control things.

Totally asinine, drummed up, unbiblical sacrilege.

Honestly, it is sad to behold and witness it in his posts perpetually. Some need to move on from their "101" misunderstandings. There is a 200, 300, 400, 500...700 understanding that can correct them.

I think it is completely appropriate that Flowers has providentially labeled his errant site "101." Any person who has been to college knows what that means.
I think it’s really Soteriology080 myself.
 

armylngst

Active member
So when it was stated

Rom. 9:11–13 —ESV
“though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.””

you believed it was related to eternal salvation ?

Rom. 9:6–13 —ESV
Ҧ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.””

Rather than God's choice to work through a nation of peoples descended from Abraham but not all of Abrahams descendants ?
So, what was the purpose of God's election that was to continue by hating Esau and loving Jacob? Determining the destruction/punishment of a whole people, and determining the blessings of a whole people, which one does not see in the Old Testament, or now? (You would have to be a premillennialist to even begin to make such an idea work. However, premillennialism only works if determinism is true.)
 

TomFL

Well-known member
So, what was the purpose of God's election that was to continue by hating Esau and loving Jacob? Determining the destruction/punishment of a whole people, and determining the blessings of a whole people, which one does not see in the Old Testament, or now? (You would have to be a premillennialist to even begin to make such an idea work. However, premillennialism only works if determinism is true.)
Actually neither are true

but God's purpose was to bless the nations through Abraham's seed

he did
 

TomFL

Well-known member
That does not explain God's purpose for hating Esau, who was of Abraham's seed. What was God's purpose in hating Esau?
Esau is primarily Edom

Mal. 1:2–4 —KJV
“I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.”

Originally it was stated


Gen. 25:23 —ESV
“And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.””

Edom however refused the Israelites returning from the exodus the right to cross through their land

God had promised to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who cursed Israel
 

armylngst

Active member
Esau is primarily Edom

Mal. 1:2–4 —KJV
“I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.”

Originally it was stated


Gen. 25:23 —ESV
“And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.””

Edom however refused the Israelites returning from the exodus the right to cross through their land

God had promised to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who cursed Israel
Even so, you do realize that this all happened because God chose it to happen, chose to hate Esau, and by extension, his progeny Edom? So God could not have Edom blessing Israel, could He?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Even so, you do realize that this all happened because God chose it to happen, chose to hate Esau, and by extension, his progeny Edom? So God could not have Edom blessing Israel, could He?
You are in error God's htred of Edom has do with the fact Edom would not allow Israel passage during the exodus and even attacked Israel
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
You are in error God's htred of Edom has do with the fact Edom would not allow Israel passage during the exodus and even attacked Israel
Gods hatred of easu was not contingent upon his evil. Thats the point of Rom 9:11-14

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.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Gods hatred of easu was not contingent upon his evil. Thats the point of Rom 9:11-14

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.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Gen. 25:23–26 —NIV11-GK
“¶ The LORD said to her, ¶ “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”
¶ When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb.
The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.
After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.”

Mal. 1:2–4 —NIV11-GK
“¶ “I have loved you,” says the LORD. ¶ “But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’ ¶ “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob,
but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”
¶ Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.” ¶ But this is what the LORD Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD.”

Nations one of which God would work to fulfil his promise to bless the nations through the seed of Abraham

Israel not Edom
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Gen. 25:23–26 —NIV11-GK
“¶ The LORD said to her, ¶ “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”
¶ When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb.
The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.
After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.”

Mal. 1:2–4 —NIV11-GK
“¶ “I have loved you,” says the LORD. ¶ “But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’ ¶ “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob,
but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”
¶ Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.” ¶ But this is what the LORD Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD.”

Nations one of which God would work to fulfil his promise to bless the nations through the seed of Abraham

Israel not Edom
Okay. I have no problem with those quotes. Dont change the fact that Paul is writing of two individuals in Rom 9
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Okay. I have no problem with those quotes. Dont change the fact that Paul is writing of two individuals in Rom 9
No two nations whose heads were Jacob and Esau and it was to determine a line through which God would work not unconditional election to salvation

Most of Jacobs line were in fact not saved
 
Top