Isaac (saved) vs. Esau (unsaved)

[Matthitjah]

Paul spoke of the sort of fellow that Esau was in the book of Phillipians;

Php 3:18

(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

Php 3:19

Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

Did he cheat someone out of their rightful inheritance?

Was David an adulterer, Abraham a liar, and Moses a murderer? I don't see the relevance to your point.

However, there is this,

Heb 12:16

Lest there be any immoral, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.

Heb 12:17

For you know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

As ypu point out, we are all sinners.

A birthright is not a soul, it is an earthly possession. These verses in Hebrews don't speak of salvation.

"he found no place of repentance" doesn't speak of salvation?

Let's examine something here, okay.

We have no way of knowing whether he was saved or not but we can see a pattern, right?

Here's a pattern that we should all be following in our walk;

Php 2:4

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Php 2:5

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Php 2:6

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God:

Php 2:7

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Php 2:8

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Php 2:9

Therefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Salvation is not the action of the man, it's Gods. However, there should be a reaction in the man.

What was Esau's reaction to the activity of God in his life?

Ge 25:32

And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

He forsook the salvation of the Lord, his birthright, for a bowl of lentils. He should have humbled himself under the Mighty hand of God and waited patiently for God to exalt him and raise him up a new name.

Kind of like Jacob wrestling with God;

Ge 32:25

And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

Ge 32:26

And he said, Let me go, for the day breaks. And he said, I will not let you go, except you bless me.

Ge 32:27

And he said unto him, What is your name? And he said, Jacob.

Ge 32:28

And he said, Your name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince have you power with God and with men, and have prevailed.

Jacob prevailed but went away forever wounded. He humbled himself under the Might Hand of God and was exalted in due time. He was given a new name.

It was "Prince of God." "Prevailer!"

What does Paul say when we are in adveristy should be our reaction?

He say's in Philippians that we should rejoice for our destruction will be the salvation of those who spitefully oppose us.

Let's go on for a minute though.

Christ was well pleasing to His Father. He was in fact the Son, the first of many.

Mt 17:5

While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Why? He submitted Himself to the Fathers will. The Fathers will was for Him to fulfill all Righteousness.

What's the Righteous measure?

Here's one small segment of it;

De 5:16

Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Jacob, although a sinner like Esau, respected and honored his parents;

Ge 28:1

¶ And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, you shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.

Ge 28:2

Arise, go to Paddanaram, to the house of Bethuel your mother's father; and take you a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother's brother.

Ge 28:3

And God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a multitude of people;

He sought after righteousness.

What did Esau do after already marrying two Hittite's outside of Gods law?

He went and Married a daughter of the child of the flesh (Ishmael);

Ge 28:9

Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took, besides the wives whom he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife.

There is a pattern in Jacobs life and pattern in Esuas life. Both sinners. One seeks after righteousness and the blessing of God and the other despises it.

The example is the one of Christ though and Paul urges us in Philippians to follow his example and the example of Timothy and of Epaphroditus as they follow Christ.

What did Christ do? He rejoiced at the will of His Father. He sought to fulfill all righteousness and humbled Himself under the mighty hand of God. Even to the Cross, even to death itself, so that God, in due time, could exalt Him and give Him a new name above every other. Hallelujah!

1Pe 5:6

Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

1Pe 5:7

Casting all your care upon him; for he cares for you.

Esau does not live like a child of God or of the Kingdom. He lives like some self respecting worldly person who lives for the immediate desires of their stomach and scripture speaks of this explicitely and states that when he sought with tears the blessing he could not find it because he was no respector of repentance.

Jacob was and Jacobs pattern is one of humbling himself and moving from Glory to Glory. He was even exalted by God and given a new name.

Let's take one more example from scripture to support our supposition though.

Ge 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.

Ge 25:23

And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in your womb, and two manner of people shall be born of you; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Ge 25:24

And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

Ge 25:25

And the first came out red, all over like a hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.

Ge 25:26

And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was three score years old when she bore them.

It's isnt' a story of deception but one of prevailing in this struggle that we call Life. However, Life is something much more than just merely living and breathing. It is Spiritual and there's only one way to Life eternal and that is to come to believe by Faith that God is the author and giver of Life and to struggle against the life of the flesh in favor of the eternal Life of the Spirit.

Esau did not struggle with his flesh. He gave into it, his whole life. He did not prevail unto Life, the Life of God.

There's so much more to the story though. Yes, Jacob was a deceiver, but he learned to be a truster and even a giver. That's another thread alltogether though.

Peace,

Dave

[Bold Believer]

The scripture that always jolted me (in the Bible) is, “As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” (Rom 9:13) How can that be? Juxtapose this with: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism. , (Acts 10:34) Contrast this with, : “though they were not yet born and had nothing either good and bad – in order that God’s purpose of election might continue not of works but because of his call….” (Rom 9:11). In all the wisdom I have read from "Worthy Members," I do not think anyone will answer this with authority. I feel the Bible is full of descriptions that humans can't perfectly understand and just barely touch upon the Glory of God. God is a constant and consistent Being, it is our human nature that creates the changes in assigning God with fluctuations.

Back to the verse…. Isaac and Esau were both far from perfect. Let’s take a look at Isaac: Isaac stole Esau’s birth right by giving him a meal when he was hungry (is this a noble act?) and faked being him (Esau) by putting on sheep fur when it came time for the blessing from Jacob (their father) – though prompted by his mother. Jacob won by deception. Doesn’t God love men who have no guile? Esau was a hunter and and depicted as killing Nimrod who had Adam’s cloak; truthfully I need help with this action of Esau. The best I found was, “Esau followed the path of death, for he killed Nimrod..." ((Midrash Rabbah Bereshit 65:16) - Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer chapter 31).”

The summation is rather simple. Isaac searched for God in his heart, a truthful search of what is truly important. His brother that was born first and was enamored of the world and searched for earthly glory.... So let us at least be honest with ourselves about our true search. I know scripture say’s that the older will serve the youngest and God will not be unheard. The most important part is what we in our inner hearts search and seek out. The initial verse is full of things that we might look at differently. Please feel free to comment.

Their conduct had nothing to do with the matter. You rightly quote the verse about neither having done either good or evil, but it seems you don't understand. The matter had nothing to do with their individual conduct. God chose one and not the other. We can't get around this. Paul even tells us that it's none of our business and not talk back to God about it. Even if Esau had lived virtuously, his good would not have saved him. And so it is with mankind. Some are chosen, some are not. It is GOD who chooses. So much for "free will", there IS no such thing. God is sovereign, not man. There is no favoritism in the matter; God could only show favoritism if he based his saving criteria on conduct. But the two had equal slates. Neither had done either god or evil.

[apologia828]

Their conduct had nothing to do with the matter. You rightly quote the verse about neither having done either good or evil, but it seems you don't understand. The matter had nothing to do with their individual conduct. God chose one and not the other. We can't get around this. Paul even tells us that it's none of our business and not talk back to God about it. Even if Esau had lived virtuously, his good would not have saved him. And so it is with mankind. Some are chosen, some are not. It is GOD who chooses. So much for "free will", there IS no such thing. God is sovereign, not man. There is no favoritism in the matter; God could only show favoritism if he based his saving criteria on conduct. But the two had equal slates. Neither had done either god or evil.

The bible doesn't tell us whether Esau was condemned or not. We only know that his lot in life was to lost his inheritance.

Esau lost his inheritance by his own choice. You don't seem to be familiar with the story.

Brothers, we need to look at the text of Romans 9. Paul is so clear on this matter. He says:

Rom 9:8

8 That is, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but the children of the promise are considered to be the offspring. HCSB

This gives us the context. He's discussing what makes God's children God's children. That is salvation. Next we read:

Rom 9:10-13

10 And not only that, but also Rebekah received a promise when she became pregnant by one man, our ancestor Isaac. 11 For though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand — 12 not from works but from the One who calls — she was told: The older will serve the younger. 13 As it is written: I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau. HCSB

What is this idea of God loving Jacob and hating Esau based upon? It's right there in the text. That God's purpose according to election might stand. Jacob was one of the elect and Esau was not! To read this any other way is simply dishonest. Stick to the text!

[Matthitjah]

Their conduct had nothing to do with the matter. You rightly quote the verse about neither having done either good or evil, but it seems you don't understand. The matter had nothing to do with their individual conduct. God chose one and not the other. We can't get around this. Paul even tells us that it's none of our business and not talk back to God about it. Even if Esau had lived virtuously, his good would not have saved him. And so it is with mankind. Some are chosen, some are not. It is GOD who chooses. So much for "free will", there IS no such thing. God is sovereign, not man. There is no favoritism in the matter; God could only show favoritism if he based his saving criteria on conduct. But the two had equal slates. Neither had done either god or evil.

The bible doesn't tell us whether Esau was condemned or not. We only know that his lot in life was to lost his inheritance.

Esau lost his inheritance by his own choice. You don't seem to be familiar with the story.

Brothers, we need to look at the text of Romans 9. Paul is so clear on this matter. He says:

Rom 9:8

8 That is, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but the children of the promise are considered to be the offspring. HCSB

This gives us the context. He's discussing what makes God's children God's children. That is salvation. Next we read:

Rom 9:10-13

10 And not only that, but also Rebekah received a promise when she became pregnant by one man, our ancestor Isaac. 11 For though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand — 12 not from works but from the One who calls — she was told: The older will serve the younger. 13 As it is written: I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau. HCSB

What is this idea of God loving Jacob and hating Esau based upon? It's right there in the text. That God's purpose according to election might stand. Jacob was one of the elect and Esau was not! To read this any other way is simply dishonest. Stick to the text!

[apologia828]

Their conduct had nothing to do with the matter. You rightly quote the verse about neither having done either good or evil, but it seems you don't understand. The matter had nothing to do with their individual conduct. God chose one and not the other. We can't get around this. Paul even tells us that it's none of our business and not talk back to God about it. Even if Esau had lived virtuously, his good would not have saved him. And so it is with mankind. Some are chosen, some are not. It is GOD who chooses. So much for "free will", there IS no such thing. God is sovereign, not man. There is no favoritism in the matter; God could only show favoritism if he based his saving criteria on conduct. But the two had equal slates. Neither had done either god or evil.

The bible doesn't tell us whether Esau was condemned or not. We only know that his lot in life was to lost his inheritance.

Esau lost his inheritance by his own choice. You don't seem to be familiar with the story.

Brothers, we need to look at the text of Romans 9. Paul is so clear on this matter. He says:

Rom 9:8

8 That is, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but the children of the promise are considered to be the offspring. HCSB

This gives us the context. He's discussing what makes God's children God's children. That is salvation. Next we read:

Rom 9:10-13

10 And not only that, but also Rebekah received a promise when she became pregnant by one man, our ancestor Isaac. 11 For though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand — 12 not from works but from the One who calls — she was told: The older will serve the younger. 13 As it is written: I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau. HCSB

What is this idea of God loving Jacob and hating Esau based upon? It's right there in the text. That God's purpose according to election might stand. Jacob was one of the elect and Esau was not! To read this any other way is simply dishonest. Stick to the text!

The passage says nothing about Esau's eternal destiny. Paul is referring to his lot in life.

Really? Where does it say that in the text. Verse 8 shows us what Paul is talking about and it says:

Rom 9:8

8 That is, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but the children of the promise are considered to be the offspring. HCSB

I don't think you're understanding the context here. Paul is being confronted with the question about what happened to Israel. Jews had this false idea that just because one was of Israel then one was automatically a child of God therefore saved and so Paul begins to demonstrate using the example of Jacob and Esau that being one of God's children is actually determined by God's divine election. If you think that this is unfair then Paul is speaking to you in verses 14-15.

14 What should we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 15 For He tells Moses:

I will show mercy

to whom I will show mercy,

and I will have compassion

on whom I will have compassion.

HCSB

Here's a bit more context to take a look at later on in Paul's argument.

Rom 9:27

27 But Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

Though the number of Israel’s sons

is like the sand of the sea,

only the remnant will be saved;

HCSB

It's pretty clear Paul is discussing salvation and not just someone's lot in life.

[Ariux]

The meaning of "hate":

2. In Scripture, it signifies to love less.

If any man come to me, and hate not father and mother, &c. Luke 14.

He that spareth the rod, hateth his son. Prov 13.

No, hate means hate. The best that can be said about Luke 14 and Prov 13 is that these verses are hyperbolic.

God hated Esau, not loved him less.

[Ariux]

The scripture that always jolted me (in the Bible) is, “As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” (Rom 9:13) How can that be? Juxtapose this with: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism. , (Acts 10:34) Contrast this with, : “though they were not yet born and had nothing either good and bad – in order that God’s purpose of election might continue not of works but because of his call….” (Rom 9:11).

To say that God does not show favoritism means that God will throw into Hell anyone who doesn't repent, regardless of who they are. It doesn't mean that God will move everyone or no one to repent.

[other one]

I might add that (thank goodness) it is not us that decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell..... we should be careful not to make those kinds of decisions ourselves

[Guest shiloh357]

The meaning of "hate":

2. In Scripture, it signifies to love less.

If any man come to me, and hate not father and mother, &c. Luke 14.

He that spareth the rod, hateth his son. Prov 13.

No, hate means hate. The best that can be said about Luke 14 and Prov 13 is that these verses are hyperbolic.

God hated Esau, not loved him less.

Sorry but your exegesis is incorrect. Old Shep is correct.

The word miséō from the Greek carries a strong tone and that was common in the ancient near east, but here the connotation refers to prefence not contempt. God chose Jacob over Esau. It is the same verb used in Luke 14 where Jesus tells us to hate our mother and father in defference to Him. He is not asking us to hold them contempt, but to prefer Him over them. The verb is used there in the context of making a choice, just as it is in Rom. 9 in reference to Jacob and Esau. It is ancient near east covenant-speak. They often refer to love and hate in the context of a covenant and the English does a very poor job of correctly reflecting the connotations and nuances that exist. Unfortunately, a lot is lost in the translation.

I would also add that Jacob and Esau were representative of two nations (Gen. 25:23). God preferred Jocob (Israel) over Esau (Edom). So "hate" is not personal contempt in the context of Romans 9. Paul is defending God's choice to use whom He will for His purposes.

[Shiloh62]

It was probably due to His foreknowledge that God was able to make up His mind about Esau and Jacob.