Why Did God Hate Esau?

[2Timothy2:15]

Romans 9:13 says, "As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”.

I have two questions regarding this text in the book of Romans. Please answer both questions, and provide a brief explanation of your answers if you wish.

1) Why did God hate Esau?

2) What was the consequence of God’'s hate for Esau?

​

This has more to do with Esau not putting value on his birth right and blessing as he sold it for a bowl of lentils. He sold it for something trivial, a meal to feed his flesh. Jacob valued the blessing and promises of God more than Esau. The real question is not why did God hate Esau, it is why this is in scripture. Many will try and extrapolate the "original" language here, but that is off in my opinion. You see many do not want to face the truth that they too may have trivialized the promises of God. How many just throw aside the true blessings and promises for the lure of wealth, position, and prestige. I would submit many who turn a blind eye to false teaching and bad doctrine in order to inflate their own position and wealth are doing the same. Really it is a scripture and a story for reflection and something we should look inward. Where have we trivialized or minimized the promises and blessing of God?

 

[Karl.C]

Romans 9:13 says, "As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”.

I have two questions regarding this text in the book of Romans. Please answer both questions, and provide a brief explanation of your answers if you wish.

1) Why did God hate Esau?

​

To be facetious 1.: many people dislike/distrust people with hairy hands, taking it as a sign of evil.
To be facetious 2: in times past, in some perspectives, having a red complexion was considered a sign of being evil (medically it might indicate high blood pressure and a bad temper).
To be facetious 3: God doesn't like those who encourage and participate in self gratification.
cp. Gesnesis 25:25, 28

To be serious 1: God is omniscient. cp. Genesis 25:23.
To be serious 2: Esau was disrespectful of his father = had a sense of entitlement, to the point he thought he could gainsay the selling of his birthright for a bowl of stew (Genesis 25:28-34)
To be serious 3: Possibly, it was because Esau took delight in killing things (cp. Genesis 25:27). Note: the OT doesn't say what he hunted, but describing him as "a man of the field"which might indicate his interest were not limited to animals. Matthew Henry in his commentary notes: "Esau hunted the beasts of the field with dexterity and success, till he became a conqueror, ruling over his neighbours.".)

2) What was the consequence of God’'s hate for Esau?

Despite Isaac's illicit subterfuge (Genesis 27) Isaac was endowed with Esau's birthright...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This has more to do with Esau not putting value on his birth right and blessing as he sold it for a bowl of lentils.

I might have believed you if the text right next to it didn't explain otherwise.

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— (Romans 9:11)​

 

[PeaceB]

I might believe you if the text right next to it didn't explained otherwise.

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— (Romans 9:11)​

No, the above text is right next to '"she was told, 'The older will serve the younger'". The text does not state that God hated Esau so that his purpose of election might continue.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I might have believed you if the text right next to it didn't explain otherwise.

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— (Romans 9:11)​

A bit more to studying that topic than Romans. Really the whole story of Esau and Jacob must be in play.

i. Later, in Hebrews 11:20, it says By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. Isaac’s faith was demonstrated after his own attempt to reprogram the will of God was destroyed and he said of Jacob, “and indeed he shall be blessed.”

c. He took away my birthright: Both Isaac and Esau were grieved when they understood what Jacob did, and now Esau was concerned about the birthright. Previously (in Genesis 25:22-34), he was willing to sell his birthright for a bowl of stew, and he despised his birthright. Now he wanted the material and political advantages of the birthright.

i. When he saw it as a spiritual birthright, Esau did not value the birthright, but now that he saw it in material and political terms, he wanted it.

d. He took away my birthright: Esau was also more than willing to rewrite history. Though he was right in accusing Jacob of acting true to his nature when he took the birthright from Esau the first time, he neglected to mention he sold the birthright for a bowl of stew, and he thus despised his birthright.

i. Esau could not truly say that Jacob took away my birthright. Esau gave it away, and God was Lord over the birthright anyway.

e. Bless me, even me also, O my father! This was more spiritual concern than seen before in Esau, though even this was colored with material and political concern.

f. Esau lifted up his voice and wept: Esau’s tears were the tears of frustrated selfishness, not of regret for his own sin and despising of his birthright.

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Genesis Chapter 27

 

[Wordkeeper]

There are two view in contention here.

One says that God chooses who will have His approval and who will not.

The other says that the hebraism, hate, is better translated as loved less.

◄ 8130. sane ►
Strong's Concordance
sane: to hate
Original Word: שָׂנֵא
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: sane
Phonetic Spelling: (saw-nay')
Short Definition: hate

As seen in the preceding verse:

Genesis 29
30Jacob made love to Rachel also, and his love for Rachel was greater than his love for Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.

The first is a doctrine formed to explain why some refuse the gift of salvation: they are spiritually dead, have not been elected.

The second is a study of the lexiconic use of the word, ie. How Ancient Near East dwellers would have understood the word, as evidenced by it's use in other documents, INCLUDING the Bible.

Which also explains why some refuse the gift. They love the easy way, the darkness.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello all.

Paul provided an outline in Romans chapter nine but did not paint the entire landscape. This has caused some to form an unwarranted understanding based on only the given examples. Please read the following verse.

Romans 9:6
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”

Only through Isaac are the true children of God identified. So we can add some color to the landscape, Abraham was chosen, Abraham was elect, we can clearly see God's soveriegn choice of Abraham. Then we have the elect offspring of Abraham being Issac. We continue and read carefully.

Romans 9:8
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Paul repeats this theme again with another example.

Romans 9:10
There was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac.

Thus we now have three terms in the series, Abraham, Issac, and we have Jacob. The divinely elected lineage, the children of the promise, the children of God.

The full landscape is inescapable, we know exactly what Paul is saying in chaper nine. We can extend the series having been given the first three terms, i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Shall we continue, Judah, then Perez, and so on. Of course the series will end with Jesus, hands up if you were unable to understand the outline that Paul presented in chapter nine?

If you cannot see the children of the promise clearly, the elect, please post and I will provide more of the color in the landscape Paul has painted.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Hello all.

Paul provided an outline in Romans chapter nine but did not paint the entire landscape. This has caused some to form an unwarranted understanding based on only the given examples. Please read the following verse.

Romans 9:6
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”

Only through Isaac are the true children of God identified. So we can add some color to the landscape, Abraham was chosen, Abraham was elect, we can clearly see God's soveriegn choice of Abraham. Then we have the elect offspring of Abraham being Issac. We continue and read carefully.

Romans 9:8
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Paul repeats this theme again with another example.

Romans 9:10
There was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac.

Thus we now have three terms in the series, Abraham, Issac, and we have Jacob. The divinely elected lineage, the children of the promise, the children of God.

The full landscape is inescapable, we know exactly what Paul is saying in chaper nine. We can extend the series having been given the first three terms, i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Shall we continue, Judah, then Perez, and so on. Of course the series will end with Jesus, hands up if you were unable to understand the outline that Paul presented in chapter nine?

If you cannot see the children of the promise clearly, the elect, please post and I will provide more of the color in the landscape Paul has painted.

The text is discussing nations, not individuals, as Esau did not serve Isaac, But Edom did serve Israel. Paul was trying to explain why Israel was no longer the chosen nation of God.

Take away from this discussion: Individual election is not taught in Scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The text is discussing nations, not individuals, as Esau did not serve Isaac, But Edom did serve Israel. Paul was trying to explain why Israel was no longer the chosen nation of God.

Take away from this discussion: Individual election is not taught in Scripture.

Oh?

 

[klutedavid]

The text is discussing nations, not individuals, as Esau did not serve Isaac, But Edom did serve Israel. Paul was trying to explain why Israel was no longer the chosen nation of God.

Take away from this discussion: Individual election is not taught in Scripture.

Hello Wordkeeper.

I agree with you, Paul is presenting an explanation in great detail of two points.

1) That the chosen, elect nation of Israel failed in it's quest for salvation through the law.
2) That the gentile nations achieved salvation through faith, they were grafted in to the root which is Christ.

I was highlighting the genealogy of the Christ to illustrate that Issac and Jacob, were chosen for that purpose. Children of, and for, the specific promise of the messiah. I also agree that individual salvation is not what Paul is discussing.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Oh?

Ni hao?

Paul was explaining to the Jewish congregation why Israel had been TEMPORARILY sidelined.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hello Wordkeeper.

I agree with you, Paul is presenting an explanation in great detail of two points.

1) That the chosen, elect nation of Israel failed in it's quest for salvation through the law.
2) That the gentile nations achieved salvation through faith, they were grafted in to the root which is Christ.

I was highlighting the genealogy of the Christ to illustrate that Issac and Jacob, were chosen for that purpose. Children of, and for, the specific promise of the messiah. I also agree that individual salvation is not what Paul is discussing.

Pray tell, which Gentile nations are now the elect nations of God and which are not?

 

[klutedavid]

Pray tell, which Gentile nations are now the elect nations of God and which are not?

Hello bbbbbbb.

Greece, Rome, Thessalonia, Ephesus, Galatia, e.t.c.

Romans 11
12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world...
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world...

Matthew 24:14
This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations.

Matthew 25:32
All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ni hao?

Paul was explaining to the Jewish congregation why Israel had been TEMPORARILY sidelined.

你好 吃了吗？ So, God did not choose Moses or Abraham, or did He?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hello bbbbbbb.

Greece, Rome, Thessalonia, Ephesus, Galatia, e.t.c.

Romans 11
12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world...
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world...

Matthew 24:14
This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations.

Matthew 25:32
All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

So, are you saying that all Greeks are God's elect people, as well as all other Gentile nations? And everyone is God's elect person, except the Jews?

 

[klutedavid]

So, are you saying that all Greeks are God's elect people, as well as all other Gentile nations? And everyone is God's elect person, except the Jews?

Hello bbbbbbb.

I am not the one saying any of this, Paul is the one saying that Israel has been hardened.

Romans 11
12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!

Israel failed, Israel has been cut off, the gentile nations are now grafted into the root of the olive tree. Israel was in the past, the holy nation, a special people, but Israel has been cast aside. Israel will become jealous of the other nations, theocratic Israel is no more.

Former things have vanished and all is now new.

 

[Wordkeeper]

你好 吃了吗？ So, God did not choose Moses or Abraham, or did He?

Guo le zao: Re Gan Mian!

Abraham left his father's house because he abhorred the idol making trade he had to continue in if he had remained.

Moses did not consider it fit to live in Pharaoh's place, but decided to cast his lot with God's people.

Repentance, then the call!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Guo le zao: Re Gan Mian!

Abraham left his father's house because he abhorred the idol making trade he had to continue in if he had remained.

Moses did not consider it fit to live in Pharaoh's place, but decided to cast his lot with God's people.

Repentance, then the call!

When did Noah find grace in the eyes of God?

 

[Wordkeeper]

When did Noah find grace in the eyes of God?

Genesis 6:5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

9These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Genesis 6:5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

9These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Thank you for the prompt reply. We see here that there is not a shred of evidence that Noah had repented prior to God showing favor (grace) to him.