Was Esau foreordained to be hated by God?

[shnarkle]

Paul clearly points out that what is foreknown is predestined, and while one could point out that the texts show God asking questions as if in ignorance, rhetorical questions are pervasive throughout both the Old and New Testaments; the figure Erotesis is especially common.

So the claim that God simply knew what Esau would do beforehand doesn't make much sense especially when Paul then asks the rhetorical question: "Is there unrighteouness with God?" There is no need or point in asking this question if God's reason for hating Esau is due to his foreknowledge of Esaus's future evil deeds.

Furthermore it isn't just Esau, but all of his descendants that are hated as well.

And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste Mal.1:3

It's ironic that most people don't see this as being fair to Esau, but the real problem isn't that it isn't fair to Esau, but that God's love is completely unwarranted to Jacob. All of Adam's descendants are under the same condemnation due to his rebellion. But God has chosen Jacob. God has decided to love Jacob, and favor him.

God told Rebekah that the elder would serve the younger. Is there any chance that Esau could have proven himself worthy of his father's blessing or birthright? Evidently Isaac may have thought so given that he was willing to give Esau blessing despite God's

Does the word "chance" really have any meaning when it comes to God's promises?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 26 by amortalman]

it isn't really that God is a tyrant or bully, but that it's his clay to do with as he pleases. What's so wrong with that?

Here's what's so wrong with that - People are quite different than clay. They have feelings, emotions, and if you pinch them it hurts. A God that creates one person for honor and another for dishonor, or raises one up to be king and another to be humiliated and destroyed is a tyrant.

You haven't demonstrated that God is a tyrant or that there's anything wrong with creating one for honor and another for dishonor. You've simply made an assertion with nothing to back it up.

I think the examples I gave demonstrated it sufficiently but I'm happy to supply more. The Bible itself proves that the God character is a tyrant and more. In his book The God Delusion Richard Dawkins puts it succinctly: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

But don't take Dawkins word for it. Dan Barker, in his book God - The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction takes on each of these descriptions one by one and furnishes plenty of convincing scriptures to back it up. The problem isn't that there's no evidence to show that God is a tyrant. The problem is that Christians are blind to it.

I'm not suggesting that we are identical to clay. However, our bodies are essentially nothing but animated dirt so the comparison is accurate as far as that goes.

If one believes the Genesis story that God created man from dirt I suppose one can say that we are animated dirt. Of course, the woman was created from the man's rib bone so she might be an animated rib.

The fault is not in God, but in those who identify with the clay they're made from. Those who do, are going to be uncomfortable with these ramifications while those who don't couldn't care less.

I'm not concerned with the analogy in the Romans Ch. 9 verses. I'm concerned with the morality of it. The writers of the Bible bestowed on their God character every power they could imagine but then gave him some pretty nasty traits. Sure, he is God and He he can do whatever he pleases in his play time with clay. Just don't try to make him out to be Mr. Wonderful.

The irony is that this God is presented as being infinite in love and compassion.

No, the irony is in not comprehending the difference between what is created and the nature of being.

I have no idea what you mean by that sentence. What exactly is "the nature of being?"

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 29 by postroad]

And Israel by the Gentile believers.


Hebrews 13:9-10 New International Version (NIV)

9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.

This has nothing to do with eating unclean animals. Those who minister at the tabernacle still sin which is why they have no right to eat as they are not strengthened in faith, but failing under the conditions of the Old Covenant by their own will and effort.

Colossians 2:16-23 New International Version (NIV)

Freedom From Human Rules

I'm not referring to human rules. They are explicitly given by God for the benefit of those God has chosen.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival,

Notice that Paul uses the word "regard". The Greek word literally means "taking part; participation". If they weren't taking part the translators would have used the word "disregard, disrespect, non-participation etc."

a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

The prophets point out that Christ came to "magnify the law", and Isaiah points out after God has created the new heavens and the new earth,

"it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall ALL flesh come to worship before Me, says the Lord" Isaiah 66:22,23

17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come;

Note that he uses the present tense "are", rather than the past tense "were".

the reality, however, is found in Christ.

This isn't found in the manuscripts. What it actually says is, "but the body of Christ".

But the body of Christ what? The context is contrasting who is to judge. The body of Christ shall be the judge of those who "participate in celebrating new moons and Sabbaths, not those who are passing judgement upon them for their participation. The fact that he points out it is a "celebration" should be your first clue that these aren't the so-called "burdens" he refers to in other passages. Perhaps the legalists don't think these new converts should be participating. Perhaps these new converts have pagan neighbors that are passing judgment upon them for participating in rituals that are an afront to their pagan gods. Regardless, the fact is that Paul is explicitly pointing out that they are taking part in these celebrations, and it is the church(i.e."the body of Christ") that shall be the judge, rather than the aforementioned "any man"(vss.4,8), or "no man"(vss. 16,18)

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!�?

Do not handle, taste or touch what? Diseased carcasses? Prostitutes? Another man's wife? Another man's possessions? Drugs? Pagan Idols? Are we now given carte blanche permission to do what we please with impunity? If not, then what do you suppose he's actually referring to here?

22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

So true! You have yet to prove that Paul is referring to God's laws. Since when are "human commands equivalent to God's laws? God's laws are not self imposed. They don't just have the appearance of wisdom, they are wise. Worshipping God is not imposed by men, but by God. God's laws do not require false humility. Does God's law against adultery lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence? If so, then do you think Paul is condoning adultery? If not, then what is Paul suggesting? Human teachings don't have to do with God's laws, but the laws men have instituted. The dietary laws weren't instituted by men, but by God. They are explicitly given to Moses by God. They are not human commands, but God's commands. Since you're the one who is suggesting these originate with human beings, the burden of proof is upon you to show us who these human beings are that made these commands.

New International Version (NIV)

Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.�[a]
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Again, this shows that those who are of the promise, keep God's laws while those who are enslaved can't keep them by their own will and effort which was the conditions by which Israel agreed to keep God's commandments.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 31 by shnarkle]

I guess I don't care one way or another. My reading of the text indicates that the Law was done away with in Christ. I suppose putting away the Law automatically gives free reign for any self evident morality commonly understood through "do unto others as you would have them do to you"

I personally find the majority of the Law to be an absurdity myself. I do agree we you that the Hebrew Scriptures give no indication that they were anything but eternal and God breathed.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 31 by shnarkle]

I guess I don't care one way or another.

Don't care about what one way or another?

My reading of the text indicates that the Law was done away with in Christ

If you look at the context, it is explicitly referring to the "law that was added because of transgressions" "the curse"; "the penalty"; "the law that was against us". None of these references are to the commandments themselves nor to any of the 613 commandments that exist within the Mosaic law. The only people for whom this law is done away with are for those who no longer sin.

I suppose putting away the Law automatically gives free reign for any self evident morality commonly understood through "do unto others as you would have them do to you"

This is also one of the ways in which the Old Testament law may have been insufficient. When the masochist treats others the way he would have them treat him, things can become problematic. This is why that law was abrogated to "love others as I have loved you".

I personally find the majority of the Law to be an absurdity myself. I do agree we you that the Hebrew Scriptures give no indication that they were anything but eternal and God breathed.

Why do you believe anything that is absurd would be eternal and God breathed?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 33 by shnarkle]

Paul's seemed to think that anyone purposely binding themselves to the OT was forfeiting Christ.

That circumcision was to be rejected on principle.

Galatians 5:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

Freedom in Christ
5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.


1 Corinthians 7:17-19 New International Version (NIV)

Concerning Change of Status
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

How could these commands be the Law if circumcision is front and centre in the law?

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 34 by postroad]

If I may step in, you said

"Paul's seemed to think that anyone purposely binding themselves to the OT was forfeiting Christ.

That circumcision was to be rejected on principle."

But I think perhaps you're missing Paul's point here... He's not rejecting circumcision... but he's trying to tell them that they already blew it and going back and being circumcised NOW won't make up for the fact that it wasn't done on the 8th day. And he's trying to tell them that all the law keeping they are trying to go back and correct will not make up for what they already did. In other words, you repent of what you have done, you make the changes necessary and go forward. Sin can't be undone. There is nothing you can do that will make up for what you did. That is the whole point of the sacrifice of Christ. Paul is not saying do not keep the Law of God. Paul is saying you can't unbreak the law you broke. You were not circumcised on the 8th day, That's the law. You can't get circumcised now and make up for what you didn't do. Go to God, repent and move on. That's what he means when he says, (Galatians 2:21 Moffatt NT) I do not annul God's grace; but if righteousness comes by way of the Law, then indeed Christ's death was useless.

The law defines sin. (It is our school teacher). We are not supposed to sin but being exactly right on 9 points of the law does not erase not keeping all ten. The freedom Paul is speaking of is not freedom FROM the law but from the penalty of the law, which is death. The bondage he is speaking of is that instead of them repenting (turning around) from past instances of not keeping the law and seeking God's grace from the death sentence incurred, they are running around trying to unbreak the law... and it can't be done. Thus, they are not under God's grace or pardon from the penalty of the Law.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:1-4 NKJV)

Funny, people always use this to try and point out that Paul does not expect them to keep the law and just a few more verses down he says, A little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Galatians 5:9 NKJV) Making a veiled reference to a gentile people about the Passover season. Paul kept the law. The Galatians kept the law. Paul was merely attempting to explain to them that the people trying to force them to become circumcised, were not keeping the Law and were trying to make it too hard on these grown men who could not possibly go back and be circumcised on the 8th day.

You can't make up for sin. You can't unkill a person you murdered. You can't unsteal something even if you bring it back... because his point is that the law is given to restructure the heart of man and sin is only against God. The penalty of the law is death and every time you break a law, you incur that penalty. You can go to God and ask that Christ's sacrifice cover's you from that penalty but you can't fix it. You can't uncovet, you can't unbreak the Sabbath, you can't commit a sin and do some physical thing to make up for it. That is Paul's point.

According to the bible, if one is so inclined.

Soj

[postroad]

[Replying to post 35 by Sojournerofthearth]

What? No Gentiles ever sinned by not being circumcised on the eighth day. Nobody personally sinned if they didn't present themselves on the eighth day to be circumcised. That sin was on the parents.

There are lots of accounts of people being circumcised in order to be included in the assembly or to rectify some failure on their parents part.Joshua 5:6-8 New International Version (NIV)

6 The Israelites had moved about in the wilderness forty years until all the men who were of military age when they left Egypt had died, since they had not obeyed the Lord. For the Lord had sworn to them that they would not see the land he had solemnly promised their ancestors to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7 So he raised up their sons in their place, and these were the ones Joshua circumcised. They were still uncircumcised because they had not been circumcised on the way. 8 And after the whole nation had been circumcised, they remained where they were in camp until they were healed.

By your standard nobody should do anything to rectify any shortcomings. Simply ask for forgiveness and keep on doing the same thing.

Not being circumcised meant that the Gentile believers had to remain separate from the Jews if the Law was still valid.

Exodus 12:48-49 New International Version (NIV)

48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.�

Numbers 15:15-16 New International Version (NIV)

15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord: 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you.’�

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 36 by postroad]

By your standard nobody should do anything to rectify any shortcomings. Simply ask for forgiveness and keep on doing the same thing.

Keep on doing the same thing? What kind of repentance is that? Repent means to turn around and go the other way... stop doing what you were doing wrong. That is vital to conversion but it doesn't undo what you did... It doesn't unspill the milk... no matter how careful you are from that point forward, you can't make what happened unhappen or in this case, you can't make what didn't happen, happen. The sign of the covenant was that a child was circumcised on the 8th day.

At any rate, I didn't say you can keep on doing the same thing. Paul didn't say that either.

Soj

[postroad]

[Replying to post 37 by Sojournerofthearth]

Is this text future prophecy?

New International Version (NIV)

Salvation for Others
56 This is what the Lord says:

“Maintain justice
and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
and my righteousness will soon be revealed.
2 Blessed is the one who does this—
the person who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
and keeps their hands from doing any evil.�
3 Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.�
And let no eunuch complain,
“I am only a dry tree.�
4 For this is what the Lord says:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.�
8 The Sovereign Lord declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.�

Who could enter the Temple?

Ezekiel 44:9
This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 38 by postroad]

I'm not really so very fond of the the non inspired version.... so I'll compromise and use the new king james...

Thus says the LORD: "Keep justice, and do righteousness, For My salvation is about to come, And My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, And the son of man who lays hold on it; Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And keeps his hand from doing any evil." Do not let the son of the foreigner Who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, "The LORD has utterly separated me from His people"; Nor let the eunuch say, "Here I am, a dry tree."

For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, Even to them I will give in My house And within My walls a place and a name Better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name That shall not be cut off.

"Also the sons of the foreigner Who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, And to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants—Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant— Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, "Yet I will gather to him Others besides those who are gathered to him." (Isaiah 56:1-8 NKJV)

You ask, is this future? It is a mix of both. It is speaking of a future Temple, made without hands, of a coming Kingdom, whose builder and maker is God; but it is also present in advising how a person of God is supposed to live. Who may enter His Temple? Those who seek after God according to how He commands.

With what shall I come before the LORD, And bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, With calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you?
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?
(Micah 6:6-8 NKJV)

You cannot do justly outside of the law. You cannot walk humbly with God if you're at odds with His Law.

Now concerning Eze 44:7, I'm going to use the Jewish Publication Society OT for a translation.

And the LORD said unto me: 'Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary. And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord GOD: O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought in aliens, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, even My house, when ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken My covenant, to add unto all your abominations. And ye have not kept the charge of My holy things; but ye have set keepers of My charge in My sanctuary to please yourselves. Thus saith the Lord GOD: No alien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary, even any alien that is among the children of Israel. But the Levites, that went far from Me, when Israel went astray, that went astray from Me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity; (Ezekiel 44:5-10 JPS)

So, first off, no one but a Levite could enter into the Sanctuary. Even the circumcised Israelites were not to go into the Sanctuary. But they were letting not just the average circumcised Israelite to go into the Sanctuary and care for the Holy items, they were letting Uncircumcised, Unschooled, Pagans maintain the Sanctuary. So, they had strayed so far from what they were to be doing, that men who were BOTH uncircumcised of the hearth(pagan) and of the flesh (non Israelites) mind the place not even accessible to the average Israelite.

Case in point, earlier you made reference to the eunichs... For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, Even to them I will give in My house And within My walls a place and a name Better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name That shall not be cut off.

Deu 23:1  He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 

But God said He would pardon that... and by the sacrifice of His Christ, those cut off from God can have access to God, as the veil that separated them was torn when the spear entered into the side of His sacrifice, provided they come to him, to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with his God.