Why did God hate Esau?

I don't believe this.

We are warned not to be like Esau in selling our birthright for our carnal desires.

Why would we be warned to not be unconditionally hated by God and chosen to be reprobate?

That's not something we have any control over, not something we can do anything about.

Esau had a birthright to sell—and that means he was given a chance and loved.
Why do you think Romans 9:11 says otherwise? It says God did this unconditionally, right? It was not based upon anything God saw in him.
 
No Romans 9 does not tell us God unconditionally hated Esau (Edom)

Rather God chose Israel rather than Edom so that his purpose might be fulfilled

A 1000 years after Jacob -Esau lived it was stated


Malachi 1 (KJV 1900)


1 THE burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
2 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,
3 And I hated Esau,
And laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
4 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.
5 And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say,
The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel.

6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master:
If then I be a father, where is mine honour?
And if I be a master, where is my fear?
Saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name.
And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?
7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar;
And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee?
In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible.
8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil?
And if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?
Offer it now unto thy governor;
Will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
9 And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us:
This hath been by your means:
Will he regard your persons? saith the LORD of hosts.
10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought?
Neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought.
I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts,
Neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same
My name shall be great among the Gentiles;
And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering:
For my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
12 But ye have profaned it, in that ye say,
The table of the LORD is polluted;
And the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.
13 Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it!
And ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts;
And ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick;
Thus ye brought an offering:
Should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD.
14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male,
And voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing:
For I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts,
And my name is dreadful among the heathen.

the reason being

Edom's violence again Jacob (Israel)

Obadiah 10–14 (KJV 1900)

10 For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee,
And thou shalt be cut off for ever.
11 In the day that thou stoodest on the other side,
In the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces,
And foreigners entered into his gates,
And cast lots upon Jerusalem,
Even thou wast as one of them.
12 But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger;
Neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction;
Neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
13 Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity:
Yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity,
Nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;
14 Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape;
Neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress.
No. Romans 9 is clear in verse 11 it is unconditional. I do agree that Esau is a type of Adam and Jacob is a type of Christ.
 
Why do you think Romans 9:11 says otherwise? It says God did this unconditionally, right? It was not based upon anything God saw in him.

It says before they had done anything.

The point of emphasizing what they do here, is to imply that nothing we do is ever enough—we are never saved by our works.

I don't think that logically means foreknowledge is not involved.

It also could be argued—even though salvation is indeed mentioned in the chapter—this particular instance was based on election to a service.

It specifically says the calling was for the elder to serve the younger, and that's not salvific.

This is not being pulled out of thin air. Not only is it directly stated, the context of the OT passages all back it up.
 
No. Romans 9 is clear in verse 11 it is unconditional. I do agree that Esau is a type of Adam and Jacob is a type of Christ.
The hatred according to scripture was as shown Edom violence against Israel not unconditional

The election of Israel rather than Edom was unconditional
 
The election of Israel rather than Edom was unconditional

Even if it were, it is not necessarily a salvific election.

As we know some of Israel are lost, and it is not a stretch to imagine some of Edom was saved.
 
Even if it were, it is not necessarily a salvific election.

As we know some of Israel are lost, and it is not a stretch to imagine some of Edom was saved.
Correct

The Calvinist has a knee jerk reaction to the word election
 
Is this 'election' in regards to salvation or in regards to "12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger."?
In this case, Paul is using it for salvation. Paul is using the example to say that God chose those He would save without condition, that is to say, unmerited. This is why Paul emphasizes that God chose before they were even born, and before they even had a chance to do good or evil. He did not choose Jacob based on something Jacob had done, or would do. He didn't reject Esau because of something he had done, or would do. This is the point that Paul is making. That the purpose of His election (choosing) would be clear. Unconditional.
 
I don't believe this.
Then you disagree with God...I mean Paul, God's writing implement.
We are warned not to be like Esau in selling our birthright for our carnal desires.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with what Paul was saying. He was clear that God made His choice before they were even born, before either had done right or wrong. Unconditional. Neither did anything to make God love or hate. God chose as He pleased.
Why would we be warned to not be unconditionally hated by God and chosen to be reprobate?
This is completely unimportant as t has nothing to do with what Paul was writing. Context is everything, and what you are talking about is not a part of the given context.
That's not something we have any control over, not something we can do anything about.


Esau had a birthright to sell—and that means he was given a chance and loved.
God disagrees through Paul. Did you know that God basically told Edom that they were hated because they were Esau's descendants? And in Hebrews it says that Esau sought a place for repentance, with tears, he was crying even, and God shut him out.
 
God disagrees through Paul. Did you know that God basically told Edom that they were hated because they were Esau's descendants? And in Hebrews it says that Esau sought a place for repentance, with tears, he was crying even, and God shut him out.

I don't think you're interpreting the Bible correctly.
 
I don't think you're interpreting the Bible correctly.
What if I am interpreting it correctly? What does that say of you?

One thing to understand about me. You don't have to be a Calvinist. You just have to understand that they may be right. If they are, you should at least try to understand why. I mean, you aren't even correctly representing what they believe. You have to start with God, and work your way from there. You aren't go to find the truth by starting with man first.
 
What if I am interpreting it correctly? What does that say of you?

One thing to understand about me. You don't have to be a Calvinist. You just have to understand that they may be right. If they are, you should at least try to understand why. I mean, you aren't even correctly representing what they believe. You have to start with God, and work your way from there. You aren't go to find the truth by starting with man first.

Here I explain why I reject Calvinism:

 
What if I am interpreting it correctly? What does that say of you?

One thing to understand about me. You don't have to be a Calvinist. You just have to understand that they may be right. If they are, you should at least try to understand why. I mean, you aren't even correctly representing what they believe. You have to start with God, and work your way from there. You aren't go to find the truth by starting with man first.
If one allows the bible to interpret itself one does not arrive at Calvinism

The problem occurs when you take a verse which may appear to support a calvinistic belief and you do not compare it with all of scripture and its context
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe
In this case, Paul is using it for salvation. Paul is using the example to say that God chose those He would save without condition, that is to say, unmerited. ...
The context says nothing about predestination to salvation; it's in regards as to whom the service of God is given.
 
In this case, Paul is using it for salvation. Paul is using the example to say that God chose those He would save without condition, that is to say, unmerited. This is why Paul emphasizes that God chose before they were even born, and before they even had a chance to do good or evil. He did not choose Jacob based on something Jacob had done, or would do. He didn't reject Esau because of something he had done, or would do. This is the point that Paul is making. That the purpose of His election (choosing) would be clear. Unconditional.
Afraid not

Esau never served Jabob

Not that serve means salvation but

What we have here is Esau (Edom) would serve Jacob (Israel)

Nations

Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.
Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, And two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; And the one people shall be stronger than the other people; And the elder shall serve the younger.


a choice of a nation to be God's servants

Your reading of salvation into this is eisegesis
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe
Why do you think Romans 9:11 says otherwise? It says God did this unconditionally, right? It was not based upon anything God saw in him.

Romans 9:11 says that Esau did not work to merit anything.

Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad....

It is a condemnation of a works based theology. Neither bad works nor good works brought about favor/disfavor in election.

Faith, is not mentioned. Faith or lack-thereof, makes the difference.
 
If one allows the bible to interpret itself one does not arrive at Calvinism

My experience differs from your claim.

The problem occurs when you take a verse which may appear to support a calvinistic belief and you do not compare it with all of scripture and its context

Again, we've compared all the verses to "all of scripture" and it comes up "Calvinism".

I'm sorry that you don't like facts.
 
Afraid not

Esau never served Jabob

Not that serve means salvation but

What we have here is Esau (Edom) would serve Jacob (Israel)

Nations

Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.
Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, And two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; And the one people shall be stronger than the other people; And the elder shall serve the younger.


a choice of a nation to be God's servants

Your reading of salvation into this is eisegesis

Jesus Christ served humanity. The elder serving the younger.
 
Romans 9:11 says that Esau did not work to merit anything.

Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad....

It is a condemnation of a works based theology. Neither bad works nor good works brought about favor/disfavor in election.

Faith, is not mentioned. Faith or lack-thereof, makes the difference.
Hebrews says he sought repentance with tears.
 
Back
Top