Why would God say:  "I Have Hated Esau..."?

Hello lindell very nice to meet you.

Thank you for the feast. I offer one back to the others.

DT 29:2 Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:

Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. 5 During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.

Ecc 12:11 The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails--given by one Shepherd. 12 Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.

PS 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.

2000 posts has helped me formulate my belief and shown me what else is on offer, not a lot. That He should have dealt with me in this way is beyond expression.

john.

 

Hello Johnv.

You are in direct conflict with scripture. Is this an act of an all loving God? But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. They all died in the wilderness bar two.

You lot are like conjurers turning gold into base metal. (translated hate in most translations) And those translations that do not say hate are what? How many are there please?

john.

 

What is so hard about this passage. It requires no interpretation. It means what it says, unless your a dispensationalist who is trying to avoid the truth:


Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.


Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Rom 9:9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.


Rom 9:10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;


Rom 9:11 (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


Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.


Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.


Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.


Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.


Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?


Rom 9:20 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?


Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


Rom 9:22 [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:


Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.


Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.


Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:


Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut [it] short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

 

...Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."

Praise His Name.

john.

 

This might help some with Rom. 9. Gal 3!


Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

The first position is scriptural. Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

It is imperative that we allow Bible to explain Bible. It is imperative that we allow words to have their meanings.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]What was stated before they were born was that the elder would serve the younger. The statement about hating Esau was not part of that prophecy to Rebekah.

You have to go to other parts of the Bible to find out why God made that statement. And He makes it very clear, as I showed in my post.

 

Yes it is.

 

Not at all. The word in Hebrew is simple to understand.

Dunno, to be honest. But that's not the point. The point is not how many say "hate". The point is that the verse does not say that God withholds his love from Esau (if he did, then scripture lies). God obviously has hate towards Esau. But he is not withholding his love froom him in doing so.

 

John,

Did God "hate" "Adam/Eve" after they sinned, they didn't just sell their birthright, they also sold your/mine.

Why would God hate Esau more for selling his birthright, than Adam/Eve for selling the birthright of the whole world???

 

I would say that in Romans chapter 9, when it is referring to Jacob and Esau, it is indeed referring to individuals who are "loved" and "hated" respectively. However, what it appears to me is that this is first an account of the history of Israel and how the nation of Israel came to be and was being maintained by several illustrations of God's direct sovereign choices in how it all came to pass. Election does not always refer to salvation.
God chose Jacob, the secondborn, instead of Esau, the firstborn, to be the child through which the nation of Israel would come. Why? So that you would know that it was God's unique sovereign choice that it be so. Why? Because.
Jacob have I preferred to be Israel and not Esau, so that the purpose of My choice might stand. Period.

 

What is this text discussing? Is it discussing the election of nations? No. The question Paul is asking is why some Jews do have faith in Christ and some do not.

why does he wish himself to be cut off? Think for a minute. Does Paul want to be cut off because God will keep his promise and save every Jew? If you’re reading Rom 11 to say that God will save every Jew anyway, then Paul’s passion here to be accursed for the sake of his kinsmen makes no sense. Why should Paul be accursed if the Jews are saved without any question?

Paul wants to be accursed for the sake of his kinsmen because they are not all of the same faith as Abraham; they are not all children of the promise.

Is his answer: God is electing Gentiles? If so, then you have a problem, because his first argument is that election is not based on genetics. If one is not a "child of Abraham" through hereditary descent from Abraham, then the converse is true as well. Gentiles are not being elected based on their inherent genetics either.

The point here is that God elects period. He elects individuals as well as nations and groups.

Paul takes the text of Malachi and applies it to the election of individuals in order to explain why some Jews are coming to Christ (indeed by this point in Paul's ministry, more Gentiles than Jews) and some are not if all the promises belong to them. His answer is that God elects individuals to faith from both Jews and Gentiles and these, not because of their genetics, not because of merit, e.g. not because of anything good or bad they do or don't do (for before they did anything good or bad), but because of His sovereign will.

Helen's post on the OT origin of the quote is nice, but completely irrelevant to Romans 9, for she's overlooked a key issue. Simply put, Helen, that's not how Paul is using it here and Paul's entire discussion is centered on denying that genealogy has anything to do with salvation.

There is no doubt that God is telling Rebekah that two nations will arrive from her womb. There is also no doubt that God is saying that ”the {people descended from} older will serve the {people descended from} younger”.

But does that answer the question that is asked? Is Paul Talking about a corporate election as he cites this passage? The answer is no: it does not answer that question.

It escapes answering the question by failing to observe a basic tenet of sola Scriptura: the word of God is the best interpreter of the word of God; tota Scriptura is necessary to rely on sola Scriptura.

Ironically Helen notes this in her essay. However, she hasn't considered the ramificaitons of what she wrote. If we apply her hermaneutic consistently, then we lose key Christological passages. Helen, will you seriously argue that the OT usage dictates NT usage? Let's see what happens if you do that.

By asserting that the passage in Genesis in its primary context only refers to the positions of two nations, the non-Reformed advocate forgets that the passage in Romans has the authority to inform our view of Genesis. I want to underscore this point by demonstrating other places where Paul does this again – where he makes a point critical to Christian theology which is not necessarily evident in a first-pass, one-context reading of the OT.

In Hebrews 9, Paul (if you want to debate it’s Paul, that’s fine: start a new thread, and there are plenty of other instances of this in his non-disputed writing) spends half of the 28 verses in this chapter describing the work in the temple that the priest did for the sins of the people.

But he then takes the detail of that work and says Heb 9: 23Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

In this, Paul says that what was imperfect but present in the Old Covenant is manifest and made clear in the New Covenant.

Moreover, in Heb 1, Paul says this:
Heb 1: 7Of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire."

8But of the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;

therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

10And,
"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,

and the heavens are the work of your hands;

11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,

12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,and your years will have no end."

Now think on that: no Jew would look at these passages and deny that they are about God Almighty – but Paul here says, “wait: these are not just about God the Father, but implicitly about God the Son, the savior Jesus Christ” – and the Jew plainly would deny any such thing.

If we take the approach that the passage in the OT can only mean what it meant to the Jew who first wrote it or first read it and not what Scripture itself reads the passage to mean in a later revelation, we are left without some of the greatest passages on Christology in the NT.

All of that is said to indicate that l is making a different application in Rom 9 than was made in Gen 25.That application can be summed up in a single phrase which he himself uses: “in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”. That purpose of “election” was evident in the birth of Isaac (not in the birth of Ishmael), and was made evident in the birth of Esau and Jacob.

“But,” comes the objection, “Aren’t Jacob and Esau types, or patriarchs, of two people? Doesn’t that indicate that God is electing nations and not individuals?” They certainly are patriarchs of two people. The problem is that Paul has already eliminated the idea that this patriachical relationship is the basis of salvation, the basis of the promise: he has already said as much, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Who is “Israel” here – the nation? No: it is Jacob. There can be little doubt that in v. 6 Paul is talking about the individual persons descended from one man (Jacob, who is called Israel {Gen 32}), as he is talking about the individual persons descended from one man in the conclusion of the sentence in v. 7 (Abraham).

God makes a promise to Abraham that is manifest in Isaac; God makes a promise to Isaac, and it is manifest (not in the son Isaac loved more, but) in Jacob – and God’s promise is not because of something Jacob did, but before either Jacob or Esau had done anything at all.

Consider it, please: if Paul were talking about the election of the nation in Jacob, Paul would here be saying, “God chose Israel before the nation had done anything good or evil.”

The reader must consider that Paul has already said, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. Paul has already said that the fulfillment of God’s promise is not in every Jew but only in those who are Jews inwardly. If Paul is here asserting that His promises are fulfilled in all of the Jews – all those descended as a nation from Jacob – then he is simply ignoring or overturning what he has already said.

The purpose of Paul so far is undeniable: to enumerate that God did not make a promise or an election of a “nation” in the sense that all the descendants of Abraham of Isaac were shoo-ins. Paul is saying that God’s promise is fulfilled in all who are of like faith to Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

When we read that, Paul realizes there is an objection:

Rom 9: 14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?

Now why is that question evident? Why would Paul bring it up? It is because some Gentiles are saved? No: it is because some Jews are not saved. It is a reiteration of the theme in Rom 1-2-3 that man is not saved by his works, which Paul expands here to be that man is not saved by his father’s works, either.

The book of Romans is a great revelation of the Gospel because it is consistent to exclude all man’s boasting in the face of God’s perfection. Man cannot be justified by what he does – because his work is unrighteous. Man also cannot be saved by what God promises to somebody else – righteousness is not a birthright.

What Paul says in 9:13 is that God chooses those whom He will “love” by His own counsel and not by what man does to draw attention to himself. That is the basis of the question “is there injustice on God’s part?” -- not that God has somehow also saved the Gentiles, but that some of the sons of the patriarchs are not saved at all in spite of the promises made.

In that, Paul continues:

By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Paul here underscores that it is strictly God’s prerogative to have mercy, and that man does not earn or deserve mercy. How does he do that? By referencing Gen 33:19, which I provide here in context:

17And the LORD said to Moses, "This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name." 18Moses said, "Please show me your glory." 19And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."

When God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” is God saying something about any nation? Of course not: God is showing a particular mercy to a particular man for God’s own purpose.

Juxtaposed against that is the example of Pharoah:
16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

On the one hand, God shows mercy to Moses, and on the other, God raises Pharoah up to demonstrate God’s power.

I’ll tell you from a personal standpoint that I cannot comprehend how anyone can read this passage and demand that it mean, “God only provides the opportunity to be saved, but man makes that possibility of salvation into an actual salvation.” This is unequivocal that what man chooses to do – by his will, by his exertion or work – has nothing to do with being saved: only God’s mercy – only God’s mercy – saves anyone.

In that, Paul knows exactly what the next objection from the listener must be:Who personally can resist the will of God? Now: why make that objection is Paul is only talking about nations here? Why worry “who” personally can resist the will of God if Paul’s argument so far is about nations and not about individuals? How does this question make any sense at all if Paul means, “What nation can resist his will”? An especially in the context of his reply:
20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
Paul cannot be talking about corporate election if the thing making the objection is the personal individual.

Of course, the objection can come, “Well, Paul is talking to some person, right? Isn’t he just responding to the hypothetical reader just like anyone might in raising the objections to his point?”

I say: sure. It is possible if you do not read the rest of the verse:
Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

Paul is here making it clear that the individual has objected, but that it is the individual that has been molded and is subject to God’s purpose.
21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,

"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"

26"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

27And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,

28for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." 29And as Isaiah predicted,

"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah."

Consider also that to say that Paul's doctrine of election is ultimately election based on foreseen faith is flatly denied in the Pentateuch. How could Paul appeal to the OT for such a doctrine, when the OT denies this doctrine and goes out of its way to do so?

When God tells Israel why He chose them in Deut. 7 what does He say? Does He say, "I chose you because your were faithful? No. They were unfaithful a great deal.

Does he say "Because you were powerful?" No, He denies this. They were slaves.

"Because you were numerous?" Not at all.

"Because you cried out." NO. God even denies having pity on them just because they cried out.

His answer is basically: I loved you because I loved you. That's it.

Why did He rescue them from Egypt? Because they cried out? No, because He remembered His covenant with the Patriarchs when they cried out.

Why did he elect Abraham? He was a pig eating savage.

Why Isaac? He played favorites with his sons.

Why Jacob? He was a deceiver.

He elected out of His mercy and His desire to bring forth a nation out of which to bring Christ, who would redeem a people for Himself from every tribe, tongue, and nation.

He says of His own name: I have mercy on whom I will have mercy and compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Are persons thus elected on the basis of foreseen faith? No, the OT denies this. If the NT taught it, it would contradict the OT.

Reformed theology teaches exactly what Scripture teaches on this. God loves a people by His own sovereign mercy and elects them to salvation. The Father covenants with the Son and The Son redeems them via the cross. This is pictured in the OT in Genesis as the 3 Patriarchs are the foundation of the covenant community. As God remembered His covenant with them and rescued Israel from Egypt, so the Father remembers His covenant with the Son and sends the Spirit to apply the benefits of redemption to each individual elected calling them each out of their personal "Egypt" of death and sin into justification by faith and salvation by grace.

To say that this text in Romans 9 is about the election of nations is alien to the text. To deny sovereign election of individuals is to impose a theology of election that is alien to Paul's writing.

www.triablogue.blogspot.com

 

Hello Johnv.

And those translations that do not say hate are what? How many are there please?

Your answer: Dunno, to be honest. But that's not the point. The point is not how many say "hate".

Why did you say most translations have hate when all have it?

That is a meaningless contradiction.


Hello Me4Him.

God loves those He chose regardless of their actions. None of the saints are any better than any of the reprobates.

For goodness sake the scriptures say before they had done good or bad.

We have no rights we have the Despot only.


Hello AresMan.

Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

in order that God's purpose in election might stand: That's why.

Give me one verse to prove this erroneous statement right.

john.

 

Give me one verse to prove this erroneous statement right.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]You are asking me to prove a negative? I can't technically prove that. I am just simply saying that just because the word election (choice) is present doesn't mean that it is talking about election unto salvation. Based on the simple definition of the word, it could be talking about election of something else. The context determines what this election is for, and it seems to me that in this portion Paul is in the process of reminding these people of the history of Israel and God's sovereign choices (election) that caused the nation of Israel. They did not become the nation of Israel by works, but because of God's election. Then Paul starts talking about the new covenant of his new chosen people--people from every nation--through faith, not blood.

Does the word saved always refer to saved from hell to heaven?

Clearly this instance of saved is talking about deliverance from physical death. This is my point. Context determines definition, and I think in the context of Romans 9, the election (simply meaning "choice") is referring to God's elections in the forming of the nation of Israel.

 

GeneBridges:

BRAVO!! You are correct.

 

Hello AresMan.

No I'm not I'm asking you to support what you said, this you cannot do,

Make sure of all things. If it isn't scriptural then it is not a requirement to believe. If it isn't scriptural then you have no warrant to teach such.

Prove it. You have just said you can't. I know that election is to choose but election is not spoken of in any other context than those God chose to save.

Does the word tree always mean men? We are not so much saved from Hell as chosen for glory. But you see you have given me a place where 'saved' is used not meaning salvation. Now do that with elect.

RO 11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

Show me where Israel the nation is referred to as elect and you have a point otherwise one should not use the word elect to mean choose. It does mean choose but only of the elect. Did God elect a nation? No He chose a nation and elected some of them while ignoring the rest of the world.

john.

 

Good article Gene, enjoyed reading it, even though I disagree with certain parts.

To describe God's relationship to the world/events, I like to use the analogy of "building a road".

The first thing in planning the "route" is to view the "terrian", it can present obstacles that can't be moved.

Once the road is completed, it could be said the "Engineer predestine" the route, but actually, the route was "predestine" in accordance with the "terrian", the "Engineer" simple adjusting his plans according to the dictates of the Terrian.

God, (Engineer) looking down through time, (terrian) knowing every individual, Good or Bad, (Obstacles) adjusted his plans accordingly.

Those "Obstacles" within the terrain that are unmovable are simple "bypassed", those that can be "conformed" to the Engineer's Specs, are.

The "Engineer" would have preferred a "Straight road", with no obstacles,

Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Mr 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

But, We know that there are unmovable obstacles to the "Straight Road" God's prefers, "UN-believers".

The "ROUTE" God planned through this world was influenced by God's view of the "terrain" (belief/unbelief) then planned accordingly, but nevertheless the "road" will be completed.


Did the Engineer "predestine" the route or did the "Terrian" dictate the route, actually, it was a combination of "BOTH".

In this way, neither the "WILL OF PEOPLE" or the "WILL OF GOD" is defeated/denied.

 

An excellent Scripture to look at here was posted by the OP:
3. Luke 14:26—Jesus is speaking: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (NASB).
I am glad that he did post this passage, for I feel that this is a key passage in understanding the Jacob/Esau conundrum.
Does anyone here really think that the Lord Jesus would advocate out right hatred for our parents? Our wives? (When the apostle Paul later exhorted men to love their wives as Christ loves His Church?)
Clearly, what is spoken of here is a matter of degrees. If it comes to walking with the Lord, or alienating an unbelieving family member, you must choose the Lord, or you are not worthy of Him.
As for these two brothers, it is worthy to note that in the writings of the prophets, long after their deaths, the two nations: Israel and Edom, are referred to as brothers. God, indeed, choose
Jacob, and his descendants, to be His people and the nation by which the Lord Jesus would come.
If you apply the word hated in such a stong manner: absolute abhorance and rejection, to Esau, you are being inconsistant if you do not apply it to the relatives in the Luke passage.
This is another passage that Calvnist's have blown way out of proportion, trying to make a case for TULIP Theology, where no case can be made for it. The passage is clearly best rendered: "Israel I loved, Edom I loved less."

 

The translations I have seen use the word "hate", but, while I have seen the majority of translations, I have not seen all translations. Hence, it would be inaccorate for me to say "all" translations, because I can't attest to that.

I fail to see how. It's possible to love and hate at the same time. I'm a parent. I can honestly tell you that, on one occaisions, I felt hatred towards one of my children who grossly disobeyed me. But I still loved her as completely as any parent would. It is by no means a contradiction to say that God obviously has hate towards Esau, but did not withholding his love from him in doing so. In fact, it's scripturally consistent.

 

The book of Proverbs gives us at least one insight into what God hates.

PR 6:16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
PR 6:17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
PR 6:18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
PR 6:19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

If you want to understand the point of what God means when He says "but Easu I have hated", then it helps to look at the context.

MAL 1:2 "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, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

MAL 1:4 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. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, `Great is the LORD--even beyond the borders of Israel!'

This context from Malachi gives, basically, all we need to know.

God makes a wonderful statement, "I have loved you." How would you respond to this statement, if God spoke it to you? The response of the religious leaders of Israel at the time of Malachi is very telling.

Basically, instead of saying in reply to God "Thank you so much for loving us", there response is more like "Sure, buddy, you love us. (loaded with sarcasm) Tell us something we don't know."

Their response to God prompted His continued communication to them.

The actions of the religious leaders of Israel at the time of Malachi was basically the same as that of Esau. And God was telling them that they would pay the same price as Esau did.

 

What obstacle in this grand scheme of history you describe can God not move if it suits His perfect will?

I, being a Calvinist, can consistently say that He allows those "obstacles" to exist specifically because it accommodates His plan. It is neither His fault that the obstacles exist nor is it incumbent upon Him to give all obstacles an equal opportunity for removal.

So God is not sovereign... there is terrain that He simply has to by pass because He cannot change it?

Meaning that man is sovereign and dictates the outcome to a God who must simply adjust His plans? That might be some god... but it isn't the God of the Bible.

God, looking down through time, knew that none were good, no, not one.

BTW, it might have been a slip but you just made a very reasonable conclusion from your system. Ultimately, you make an individuals salvation critically dependent on their goodness and not God's grace.

God being a sovereign engineer chooses the path for the road and conforms those obstacles in its path according to His own good purpose... and bypasses the other "obstacles" having no obligation whatsoever to do anything but by pass them.

An omnipotent, sovereign Engineer can make any road He happens to prefer... BTW, who are you to say that His road isn't straight? Who are you to say that the mountains that are left alone are also a testimony to the glorious Engineer of the road?

Why cite scripture that has nothing to do with your point?

Really? God can't move an person He chooses... I suppose you should tell that to Paul. He was possibly the most "unwilling" convert by his own testimony in all of history.

The route God planned through this world was influenced by nothing other than His own good pleasure. His plan was made and executed irrespective of any perceived obstacle and will be completed as He planned by conforming those obstacles He so chooses.... per Romans 8.

Virtually everything you wrote contradicts this conclusion. If God "wills" to do something but cannot because of "unmoveable" obstacles then it is positively inane to claim that His will has not been defeated or denied.

BTW, you still haven't given a simple, direct answer to the question I asked... though this post comes dangerously close to a "yes, man can thwart God's perfect will" answer.