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?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 39 by Sojournerofthearth]

Yes the NKJV has corrected the errors of the KJV regarding the Spirit.

I suppose God could have kept his promise to the original recipients of the new covenant if he wanted the Law to be retained. Instead it was recycled in the first century into another failed attempt.

Jeremiah 32:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

36 “You are saying about this city, ‘By the sword, famine and plague it will be given into the hands of the king of Babylon’; but this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 37 I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. 38 They will be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me and that all will then go well for them and for their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 40 by postroad]

Actually, I'm rather fond of the KJV but I find its old English puts people off. I do not care for the NIV. Its quite biased in its misinterpretation.

God absolutely will keep His promise to Israel. It is the entire premise of Eze. 37:1-14, despite the fact that Israel defaulted on the contract. In Exodus 19, 20, 21 and 22, God, through Moses, gives them the terms of the His Covenant as laid out in Ex 19:3

And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. (Exodus 19:3-5 NKJV)

The People agreed to the terms, saying in vs 8 All that the Eternal has said, we will do. In Exo 21, 22 & 23, you will find the word 'if' over and over again. There was a contingency clause.

But despite their failure to meet the terms of the contract, He still provided a way to obtain the promise. They were faithless, yet He remains faithful.

Also He said to me, "Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army. Then He said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, 'Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!' Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it," says the LORD.' "
(Ezekiel 37:9-14 NKJV)

The law is indeed retained. Did not Christ say, I came not to change one (in effect) dot of an I or cross of a T? Do you realize that Paul kept the Holy Days? Do you realize that the Church at Corinth kept the Passover?

He makes several references to Unleavened Bread, eaten in the Passover season... You are puffed up (leavened) eat the UNLEAVENED bread of sincerity and truth. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8 KJV)

There are numerous references to the Apostles keeping God's Holy Days, including Paul in Acts. Almost the entire book of John runs from one Holy Day to the next. When the blanket was let down in Peter's vision, what did he say? No lord, I have NEVER eaten of ANYTHING that was common (clean meats made unclean by mishandling) or unclean... see the list in Lev.

The New Covenant is made on better promises, being an eternal covenant for all of mankind... as opposed to the Old Covenant made to a physical people unable to meet the demands. But even so, God's chosen people will still be His people... the gentiles are only able to obtain the Kingdom of God by being grafted into the Family of Abraham. But it doesn't change the Law. The law becomes spiritual and is that it is actually more difficult to keep, but through Christ's sacrifice, we have His spirit available to us so that we can overcome this carnal mind. It's not merely, Do not commit Adultery but if you even just lust after a person in your mind, you break the spirit of the Law. It is a matter of not just what you do and don't do, it is also a matter of what you think about. It regulates your heart and emotions. It requires you to live and think according to the law.... What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. (Romans 7:7 KJV)

We keep God's law. God does not change. ...according to the Bible, if one is so inclined.

Soj

[postroad]

[Replying to post 41 by Sojournerofthearth]

Seems that believers are displaying a fatal error to their claims of being the new covenant.

Surely it impossible for any group to claim they are the manifestation of perfect unity through the Spirit and be divided over the very terms of that agreement?

I have been informed that those texts are not to be taken literaly due to some rules of interpretation which I need to familiarize myself with.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 42 by postroad]

funny, I've been told that, myself. But you have to love the irony, they help you disparage the very book they claim they take their religion from.

Soj

[ttruscott]

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:

GOD predetermines all that happens to every person and has predestined some of us to end in heaven IN RESPONSE to and perfectly reflecting our previously choices made by our free will before the earth was created to be our prison.

Because orthodoxy rejects this thesis they wander in a doctrinal wilderness, the classical answer to sinfulness. How the Canaanites laughed at the presumption that the Canaanite land was really their land, promised to them by GOD! No one believed...all scorned.

[shnarkle]

[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.

No. It was rejected as a means of justification, or to establish one's righteousness.

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.

Look at the very next verse:

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Each and EVERY time Paul is referring to one of two things:

1. justification, or establishing one's righteousness,

or

2. The penalty or "curse" of the law which is to say the sacrificial system that was put in place to deal with "transgressions".


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?[/quote]

They are NOT commands. Look at what he says in verses 6,12,25

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment;
to the rest speak I, not the Lord;
I have no commandment of the Lord.

Paul is simply providing his opinion on these matters. However, he has also provided doctrine in his letter to the Romans, which points out that circumcision is vital and beneficial for those who keep the law.

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: Rom. 2:25