"Jacob I Have Loved"

[Patti Berg]

Regarding the story of Esau and Jacob, I find it very interesting that Esau did nothing wrong. Jacob took advantage of him when he was exceedingly hungry. Esau is at the point of passing out from hunger and Jacob asks for his birthright before he will feed him. Great guy this Jacob! Then Jacob, with great disception, steals Esau's blessing. This poor guy has done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment from his brother Jacob. Even so, God speaks:
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" saith the LORD, yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau...(Mal 1:2,3)

In the first chapter of Malachi, God is explaining a most important allegory. In the Scriptures and long after their death, Esau represents the wicked and Jacob represents God's people which is why Jacob was given the name Israel.

Patti.....

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Pastor Larry,

In fact, God has always known who He would grant everlasting life with Himself. I am sure Ephesians 1:4 is one of your elevated verses of the New Testament. It is His good pleasure always to give eternal life to all who call on He who provided spiritual benefits on the middle Cross, called Calvary.

I am not sure if this was meant to answer my question. It appears irrelevant to what I was addressing. Perhaps you can look again and answer my question above.

However, this statement of yours shows yet another aforementioned problem. How did God "always know" if man has free will as you define it? Is God's knowledge in danger of being wrong should man change his mind? Or is it impossible for man to change his mind thereby removing his free will?

Eph 1:4 is a great verse, but how do you deal with? It says that God chose us, not that we chose God. Eph 1 is clearly in contradiction to your system, unless you are willing to dispense with the normal reading of Scripture.

 

[Music Man]

I'm just glad I have not read anyone trying to say that it really means, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have loved less"!

SDG,
Chris

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Music Man:
I'm just glad I have not read anyone trying to say that it really means, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have loved less"!

SDG,
Chris

...which is how it may very well be read in the book of Malachi using the Hebrew.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Music Man:
I'm just glad I have not read anyone trying to say that it really means, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have loved less"!

SDG,
Chris

...which is how it may very well be read in the book of Malachi using the Hebrew.</font>[/QUOTE]But alas, it doesn't. It reads "I have loved Jacob, and Esau I have hated."

 

[ScottEmerson]

Can God be capable of pure hate?

I would maintain that an accurate reading of the Hebrew would indicate more that Esau was an enemy of God - not the hate that we think of today. (compare with Luke 14:25-27)

Here's a question: Did God love Satan when he was in Heaven?

If he did, then how is God unchanging? (Just an aside)

[ October 07, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Patti Berg,

I have noticed that you have a better grasp of Jacob and Esau than almost all others on the board. I agree with all of your post except you equate Esau with an alleged evil.

You have a problem with three theologians namely, Drs. J.I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenney and William White, Jr., the first and the last being solidly Calvinistic in perspective. In their edited volume "The Bible Almanac,' they talk about circumcision on pages 452 {left column bottom} and page 447 {right column--A. Circumcising of Males} Quote: ‘Circumcision signified that the infant was being taken into the covenant community. The Lord said to Abraham, "He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you . . . .and My covenant shall be in your flesh and everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:12-13).

Notice after said ordinance the baby was officially an Israelite and not part of conditional covenant but as God has said, an ‘everlasting covenant.' Both Jacob and Esau were marked in the flesh as actual Israelites, the people of God. God welcomed them into the covenant forever. That is why the author of Hebrews in chapter eleven names both men as the covenant people of God who had overcome in their faith. The listing starts in verse four and ends with verse thirty-two. I think you will find about sixteen spiritual men and women designated in this passage. They are marked as spiritual not because of a flawless life here on earth, but because they during their life time trusted in Jehovah Lord/ our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who trusted in Him under both covenants, Almighty God sees through the blood of the enriched New Covenant of grace. This is what made Esau worthy of being listed among the ‘faith of the former covenant fathers.'

From this setting and explanation you will find a horrific error by those who point to Esau out in Romans 9:13 as not only a sinner but one who God autocratically ‘passes by' and sends to the flames of an eternal Hell.

God, in His foreknowledge, knew that Esau would marry pagans and He, therefore, could not use him as an specimen of spiritual purity, because the Son of Promise, Jesus Christ had to be born of the pure stock from Israel. He was relegated to Edom and was never numbered as a leader of one of the twelve tribes of holy Israel.

And like you said, Esau was not the ‘deceiver' and did nothing worthy of the ‘second death' in Hell. He was effectively placed on the shelf and God never used him because of His sovereign designs.

The familiar words are indeed true. ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I resented.' [Romans 9:13 & Malachi 1:3] Dr. James Strong in his concordance indicates that the Greek word for ‘hate' also can be interpreted as ‘to love less.' God did not despise Esau in a matter of His unconditional covenant to this elder brother, otherwise, the Lord would have proven Himself unfaithful [Hebrews 6:17-20] in His promised covenant protection through grace. His oath is secured by two things. Number one: He confirmed His covenant by His oath; and secondly, because God never perjures Himself [Hebrews 6:18] to His people or anyone else.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Scott Emmerson,

I checked the Greek rendering of Romans 9:13 and Luke 14:26 as to the word, 'hate.' Both Greek words can indicate the idea of 'to love less' as defined by Dr. James Strong.

In Luke God would not be telling a missionary to 'hate' his or her father or mother in order to fulfil that commission sent by the Lord. Especially, not when He has also told us to 'love our neighbor as ourselves' and to even 'love our enemies.' In Luke the Greek is 'miseo' meaning to detest or to 'love less.' A missionaries committment and our love to Him has first to be toward the Lord and then the rest follow.

Your point is well taken; I never put that together like you did.

Clearly, God loved Esau less than He did Jacob during their earthly lives, though etched on holy writ as both being sons of God and of Israel. [Hebrews 11:20] And apparently, a Christian's devotion has to be like 'hate' in comparison to our love and reliance on Christ our Lord.

 

[Patti Berg]

--

Interesting research you've done, Ray. I have one point first to clear up regarding my own findings of Esau and his alleged evil. You wrote:

I have noticed that you have a better grasp of Jacob and Esau than almost all others on the board. I agree with all of your post except you equate Esau with an alleged evil.

I do not equate Esau with any evil doing according to the book of Genesis. This is only the beginning where God was setting up his allegory. Note in Obadiah chapter 1 that long after Esau and Jacob are dead, God still speaks of the violence committed against Jacob:

Obadiah 1:10 For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.

What violence? When did Esau ever commit an act of violence against his brother Jacob? Even years later when Jacob parts ways with Laban (Genesis 31) he sends messengers to his brother Esau in hopes to find favor with him after all those years. Perhaps Esau cooled down during the years he spent with Laban and would forgive him? But instead he finds out Esau is coming to get him, he thinks:

Genesis 32:3 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.
4 And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:
5 And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and womenservants: and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight.
6 And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him.
7 Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed: and he divided the people that was with him, and the flocks, and herds, and the camels, into two bands;

But instead of hammering his brother for exploiting him and stealing his blessing, Esau greets him with an embrase and a kiss! How can this guy be evil?!! What is God saying in the book of Obadiah? That Esau performed violence against Jacob? When?

Patti.....

 

[Patti Berg]

--
Ray Berrien wrote:

From this setting and explanation you will find a horrific error by those who point to Esau out in Romans 9:13 as not only a sinner but one who God autocratically ‘passes by' and sends to the flames of an eternal Hell.

I agree with you here totally!

-

God, in His foreknowledge, knew that Esau would marry pagans and He, therefore, could not use him as an specimen of spiritual purity, because the Son of Promise, Jesus Christ had to be born of the pure stock from Israel. He was relegated to Edom and was never numbered as a leader of one of the twelve tribes of holy Israel. And like you said, Esau was not the ‘deceiver' and did nothing worthy of the ‘second death' in Hell. He was effectively placed on the shelf and God never used him because of His sovereign designs.

It is true that Esau was not the bad guy here.

-

The familiar words are indeed true. ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I resented.' [Romans 9:13 & Malachi 1:3] Dr. James Strong in his concordance indicates that the Greek word for ‘hate' also can be interpreted as ‘to love less.'

The word used in Malachi 1:3 is the same word for hate in Isaiah 61:8 and according to Strong's #8130 sane' means: 1) to hate, be hateful 1a) (Qal) to hate 1a1) of man 1a2) of God.

-

God did not despise Esau in a matter of His unconditional covenant to this elder brother, otherwise, the Lord would have proven Himself unfaithful [Hebrews 6:17-20] in His promised covenant protection through grace. His oath is secured by two things. Number one: He confirmed His covenant by His oath; and secondly, because God never perjures Himself [Hebrews 6:18] to His people or anyone else.

This is an excellent point!

Patti.....

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
...as defined by Dr. James Strong.

Ray, you have not yet told us why you, with a ThD, are using Strong. Surely, in your ThD program you were taugh Greek and Hebrew to use the original language resources. Why don't you use them?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
...as defined by Dr. James Strong.

Ray, you have not yet told us why you, with a ThD, are using Strong. Surely, in your ThD program you were taugh Greek and Hebrew to use the original language resources. Why don't you use them?</font>[/QUOTE]I would assume that if he alone said it, many would question his credibility. If he uses someone like Strong, his point is more easily made.

Documentation is a sign of scholarship, more than just spouting off "this means that and that means this."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I would assume that if he alone said it, many would question his credibility. If he uses someone like Strong, his point is more easily made.

Documentation is a sign of scholarship, more than just spouting off "this means that and that means this."

I question his credibility because he quotes Strong. People with legitimate ThDs do not quote James Strong for lexical analysis. Strong is a very surface resource at best. He gives a most basic gloss with no contextual examples and none of the semantic range. It gives no semantic information with regards to stems, forms, or constructs, all of which affect the meaning. It gives no information with regard to its relation to other words, its use in a particular author, etc. It simply is not a good resource for someone who claims the credentials he does.

It should not be used much, if at all, by people who wish to do serious study. There are greatly improved resources that give much more information. A person with a ThD should be using original language sources like BAGD, BDB, NIDOTTE, NIDNTT, TDOT, TDNT, and the like.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
[qb]I would assume that if he alone said it, many would question his credibility. If he uses someone like Strong, his point is more easily made.

Documentation is a sign of scholarship, more than just spouting off "this means that and that means this."

I question his credibility because he quotes Strong. People with legitimate ThDs do not quote James Strong for lexical analysis. Strong is a very surface resource at best. He gives a most basic gloss with no contextual examples and none of the semantic range. It gives no semantic information with regards to stems, forms, or constructs, all of which affect the meaning. It gives no information with regard to its relation to other words, its use in a particular author, etc. It simply is not a good resource for someone who claims the credentials he does. </font>[/QUOTE]Just what I wanted to hear! Let's remember that when anyone uses Strongs to show how the word "world" means elect, since Strong's is virtually the only commentary which states such.

Thanks!

 

[Ray Berrian]

Why trust Dr. J. I. Packer in what he has said. He is merely the product of a 'spoon fed' Calvinistic theology.

I don't even know Dr. James Strong's theology. Apparently, if he were wrong in many cases, the Christian world would have let us know. Start studying carefully both sides of alleged truth. Don't be like another brother who has an avariance to any theological books.

A real scholar and person who interprets Scripture correctly, is one who studies and finds things out comparing both systems of theology. Blindly, accepting what one seminary has taught is hardly and independent thinker.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Apparently, some have remembered some high school methods of debate. Try to destroy someones credibility and you might gain points. Most of this board are more advanced than high school speech class.

Respectfully,

Ray

 

[Pastor Larry]

Scott,

I do not suggest that world means elect. I didn't know Strong said that. I don't look at him. Incidentally and for what it's worth, BAGD says "of all mankind, expeically of believers, as the object of God's love J 3.16, 17c; 6:33, 51, 12:47' (p. 446 3rd ed.)

Ray,

I have not used high school methods of debate. Neither did I fail to notice that you still haven't answered the question. Why do you, as a purported ThD, use Strong's for lexical analysis. Why don't you use BAGD or BDB at least. They are not great but they are better than Strong. Why don't you use them? I am not saying that Strong is wrong; I am saying what I said above -- that it is very surface and insufficient for serious exegetical and lexical work. Someone with a ThD ought to be beyond that. Actually, someone with a baccalaureate degree in Bible or Theology ought to be beyond that.

I am not trying to destroy your credibility. I am hoping that you will defend it. It reminds of someone who is caught in a problem and rather than address the problem, they blame the messenger. The easiest thing you could have done was offer an explanation like "I don't have BDB or BAGD at my home office" or "I didn't have time to look it up in teh book so I used Strong which is on my computer" or "My ThD program didn't include the ancient languages," etc. But you didn't ... you went after me for pointing out an obvious inadequacy in your preparation.

As for not being spoon-fed, I absolutely agree. I would make the same arguments that you have. Yet you bely your own remarks when it is obvious that you do not have many original thoughts. You have been spoon fed some things about Calvinism which is evident because the arguments you make are made in other places outside this forum. You have simply bought into what you were told, whehter it is right or wrong.

I do agree that one needs to study and answer the Scriptures. So let's do that ... fair enough??

[ October 09, 2002, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Peculiar person]

Patti Berg,

My second favorite verse in the Bible is Prov. 16:4. May explain the difference between those who are sinful, but do hear the Word, and those who seem to be unredeemably wicked and never seem to hear the word.

PP

 

[Ray Berrian]

We believe, after studying His Word, that God finds no pleasure by inflicting anyone with the painful, fire of Hell forever. [Ezekiel 18:23; Acts 17:b & I Timothy 2:6] Those who believe that God, of His own design, unleashes punishment on His chosen non-elect have ingested the machinations of Calvinistic theorists.

The wicked end up in Hell because of their rebellion against Christ's saving benefits of grace accomplished at Calvary. A human being has to receive Christ in order to be saved. Without this conscious act of the will, he or she remains an unbeliever, though even possibly knowing a lot of doctrines about the Bible.

I believe that verse four of chapter sixteen of Proverbs means that indeed God has made everything and deals with every human being ever having been born of a woman. Because of the wickedness of people, He has no other choice than to confine them in Hell forever. They end up there not because of some kind of chilling, folly that He has in His Being, but because of turning away from or neglecting His saving covenant.

It is true that God has prepared Hell for three groups according to Matthew 25:41. Lost human beings, the Devil and his fallen angels will end up there.

Think about it. Can our God who tells us to 'love our enemies' [Matthew 5:44], turn around and autocratically decide to hate His alienated, alleged, non-elect insuring they will be His enemies forever? To me it would be very hypocritical, plus it goes against the attribute of God, namely His sense of Divine justice. [Psalm 89:14a; Jeremiah 23:5f; & 50:7e]

Thank God this has never happened and He is still calling people to the only plan of salvation that leads to eternal life with Him. [John 3:16]

 

[Peculiar person]

Ray Berrian,

Since you mentioned it, we believe that God is not involved in causing or inflicting, or allowing to be inflicted torture or torment on anyone, nor will He ever be.
There are three different references in the Bible to the effect that the idea of torturing people in flames never even entered God's mind.

PP