Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[MarkT]

Jacob was the younger. There is nothing about taking care of Rebekah in her old age. There is nothing to suggest Rebekah's motives were selfish. In fact believing what the LORD said to her, Rebekah is doing the work of the LORD.

I agree. Rebekah heard God and believed. By faith, believing those things that be not as though they were, took action. The Lord used Rebekah to bring about His plan.
By the same token Jacob believed (had faith) her about what God had said and obeyed her in the action to bring about God's plan.

Very good.

 

[About the Son of God]

Weird point of view. You seem to be acting as Esau's advocate. God protected Esau from Jacob?

There's nothing wrong with advocating for someone (a person, not a nation) who is not explicitly condemned by Scripture as unrepentant. Not that my purpose here is to advocate for Esau, but to see what the scriptures actually SAY. Secondly, I'd like to curb unfounded condemnations of christianforums.net *members* based on certain other members misguided beliefs...

Scripture says: As you judge, you will be judged, -- hence it is better to err on the side of mercy, then to condemn based on appearances.
Jacob clearly feared that his brother was going to do him harm -- and when someone is afraid, they tend to do rash things.
The fact that Jacob got into a "wrestling" match, shows that he was ready to fight -- not just run.


God acted upon Jacob in a way that reduced his ability to fight, and forced him to accept God's sovereignty over the following day. ( let me go, because it's almost day. Genesis 32:26 )

God did not send affliction to Esau to protect Jacob. I think that's obvious?
Note: God also refused to allow Israel to lay a finger on Esau's land in Exodus as well.

Hence: There is *some* evidence of the lesser love of God for Esau, even if your refuse to see it.

Jacob tried to appease his brother. He wasn't looking for a fight.

He was in a fight the whole night; He wasn't "Looking" for a fight, as in -- he didn't think he could win? or he didn't think a fight would happen? or "he's just a peaceful dude" who jumps on people in the night inexplicably?

Jacob's thigh was put out of joint. There's nothing that says anything about the place where a man girds on a sword.

Smart alec. Touche.

I said you will find, if you do a word study in a bible, eg: as in a word study using other passages of scripture ?
Word studies that don't look at the word in more than one sentence are pretty lame.

It's the PLACE where a sword is girded on, and a symbol of a man's strength in war.
I didn't even say Jacob was wearing a sword, although he might have been ; I suggested a word study.

I think you got the inference, at least partly, in any event -- but let me eeeelaborateeeee....
This isn't like -- HIgh school wrestling class -- where the wrestling match has rules and a referee, and striking is not allowed like it IS allowed in WWF when bouncing off the rails, but I digress....

Two men are out in the night and come across each other and get into a fight.
Perhaps "strike" isn't the perfect word, but someone clearly attacked; and we don't hear Jacob complaining to the man why did you bother me, rather we have the man saying to Jacob "let me GO!!!!". Jacob clearly was dishing some of it out.

Scripture doesn't mention every scratch, or bump, and I'm sure they abound as Jacob found after rolling around on the ground -- but only one is said, and thank God he's not dead.

It is therefore, significant, that scripture not only mention this wound, but decide to record a Jewish commemoration of it by Fasting. Genesis 32:32.

Refusing to eat certain kinds of meat, is because it's unclean or associated with sin. Ceremonial fasting, as an edict, is also only required on Yom Kippur, the day of ATONEMENT for sin. But it's still about sin -- the Pharisees, also, add one other kind of fasting -- on Monday and Thursday, for Moses came down the mountain, and broke the commandments on account of sin on one of those days, and he took two NEW stone tablets (hard hard hard) and carried them back UP the mountain on the other day (Exodus 32:19, Exodus 34:1, Luke 18:12) -- so Pharisees fast twice a week; The only other time fasting is mentioned is when people are afraid of an enemy, or a prophecy of DOOOOOOOMM wipe them out because someone sinned, and maybe God won't protect Israel....

I mean, fasting is not usually done because everybody loved God in the first place. But generally, we find that someone is humbling themselves, because someone(else) did something to TICK God off.

Wrestling match, anyone?

 

[About the Son of God]

In the light of Christ, murder was in his heart. He planned to kill Jacob so Jacob had to flee to Laban in Haran.

Sin aimed for his heart, but blood was not on his hands, and temptation did not remain in his heart but passed, like bad food -- into the latrine.

Besides, I ought not even entertain this idea for Neither the Greek, nor the Hebrew have the word "heart" in Genesis 27:41; the Hebrew, read left to right says: "My brother, said esau to himself" as opposed to "heart". No one could have heard it if he didn't speak it: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/27-41.htm

Esau had just been commenting on how tricky Jacob was, why could not Esau also learn be a little shrewd?

His father gave him a prophecy to the effect that he would break the yoke, when he received dominion; but that time is normally when the father dies, or spiritually when a man masters himself over a sin, or when he conquers a kingdom. Hence, @Deborah13 's comment (paraphrased) that Esau broke the yoke upon crying at the reunion is very good; I've seen a few Jewish translators write the prophecy as "when you grieve" rather than "receive dominion" ; and alternately, if one reads it dominion -- note that Jacob calls Esau "lord" on his return journey. It is when Jacob called Esau, lord (Genesis 33:8), that Jacob's yoke was broken; according to the KJV translation. (but there may be better ones.)

In the short term -- Esau, who's we can presuppose is not a Genius -- was spending time comforting himself, and trying to figure out "when" the yoke of Jacob would be gone; and he may have said a word in frustration that he didn't actually mean, or perhaps he realized that all he had to do to dominate, was intimidate his brother ; and what better way than to allow some maid to overhear him say he was going to kill his brother?

I think either scenario is reasonable; eg: intimidation is well within Esau's intelligence range by any standard.

It's a path truly dangerous to the heart, but not impossible for I simply don't think the temptation to murder a liar in the family, is the same as the act of murder; or else, Paul would not say:

Be angry, but do not sin ... do not let the sun go down on your wrath; ( Ephesians 4:25-26 ).

Notice: Esau's mother, Rebeka, knew that Esau would not hold a grudge in the long run, for she says "until your brother's [Esau's] anger turn away." ( Genesis 27:45 );
And I think she is a witness to his true heart, for a mother often knows their own boy's heart to a certain degree.

In terms of Christian thinking:

Jesus says that things which enter into a man pass with the using (Mark 7:19-23) therefore they make no man unclean. But Murder and Theft, and many other things -- when they come out of a man the wrong way; are sin.

But:

It's not like the murder Esau contemplated is a cold calculated thing, for that's not the kind of boy Esau was.
It was at a time of grief for the dying of his father, a prophecy about throwing off the yoke of the brother, and the theft of something rightfully his from his Father.

As to Jacob, putatively, the actions he did would be a case of pre-calculated usury and coveting, and even petty conspiracy. It lead to purchase, then theft and brotherly anger.

If it was God's purpose to make Esau enraged, but then allow him to repent -- we have no case against him in terms of salvation.

 

[Asyncritus]

You make some strange statements, ATSOG, and I believe you have missed some major points.

This dreadful accusation is mistaken on 2 counts at least.:

It's not like the murder Esau contemplated is a cold calculated thing, for that's not the kind of boy Esau was.

Esau was not a boy, at the time this took place. I worked it out some time ago, and found that Jacob was about 75 years old at the time, which, if correct, makes Esau also about 75 years of age.

This was a case of pre-calculated usury and coveting, on Jacob's part, leading to purchase, then theft and anger.

You've missed the real reasons for Jacob wanting the birthright.

The birthright carried with it several major rights:

1 The firstborn would receive a double portion of the father's goods when he died

2 If it was a royal family, as today, the firstborn would become the king at the appointed time.

3 The most important for this discussion of Jacob's motives, is the fact that the firstborn had the right to be the priest of the family, and to lead their worship. Hence:

Nu 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I am the LORD.

So up to this point in time, the firstborn sons were performing the Levitical roles: everything to do with the family's worship.

By rights, Esau had this privilege, because he had been born first. But did he do so? We have several hints that he didn't.

1 He was a 'cunning hunter, a man of the field' is the description in Gen 25. Which tells us what?

That he was never at home on the sabbath day to lead the worship. He was too busy crawling through the bushes, and fornicating in the idol worshipping brothels (also called 'high places') of the land. Please re-read my remarks on his 'eating and drinking, rising up and going his way' in a previous post.

2 His priestly garments were with Rebekah in the house:

Ge 27:15 And Rebekah took goodly raiment (= the priestly raiment) of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son:

SHE had them. Now we know that there wasn't much love lost between Rebekah and Esau: so for the priestly garments to be WITH HER, tells us that Esau didn't wear them at all.

If Esau wasn't there to perform his priestly duties, then who did them? Jacob, of course.

And this had gone on for many years - it was no new thing.

Esau, says Hebrews 12, was a PROFANE person. What does that mean? Leviticus 21 tells us:

4 But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.
5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.

This is what Esau did.

And in addition to that, there is this commandment:

7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

28.8 And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;

Ge 36:2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

Aholibamah means 'tent of a high place', and we can guess why she was called that.

The 'daughters of Canaan' were of the sort described above.

We see then, evidence of gross dereliction of priestly duties by Esau. Contempt is a useful word here, and in Mal 1, we have at least 6 connections with this sorry tale of Esau's dereliction. Here are a couple:

6 ¶ A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?
7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible.

All this, you remember is in the context of Mal 1.2,3:

2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Esau brought the name of the LORD into gross contempt.

Jacob wanted the priesthood, and wanted it badly, and he waited his chance to buy it from Esau.

Such is Esau's contempt for the priesthood, that for one morsel of meat he sold it. And God is infuriated by his action:

"Thus Esau despised his birthright." Gen 25. 34.

That word 'despised' is an extremely strong word, and is used by Nathan the prophet when he says to David:

2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

It is an extremely sorry picture, and these facts cast an entirely different, honourable and favourable light on Jacob's motives. He wanted to serve God, to be His priest officially, and took his opportunity to become the official priest of the family when it came his way.

'Covet earnestly the best gifts' says Paul, and Jacob did.

Esau was under no compulsion to sell it. And this business of his being at the point of death because of hunger is pure nonsense. He could cook, and so well that when Isaac ate Rebekah's cooking, he could not differentiate her cooking from Esau's!

No, he despised it, and in saying what he did:

32 ...Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

he unwittingly furnishes the origin of the Lord's statement:

Mr 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own life?

****************************************************************************

PS I have started another thread dealing with Jacob's fight with the angel, just to keep things neatly partitioned.

 

[Deborah13]

If it was God's purpose to make Esau enraged, but then allow him to repent -- we have no case against him in terms of salvation.

I would agree with this. But I think we have a picture in Esau as to the individual who has a right to an inheritance in Christ, but they choose to give up that birthright for the things of the flesh.
Esau, had not as yet been given the birthright, he just had a right to receive it. Could he sell/trade something he did not possess?

Esau IS blessed, by Isaac, whose role in this whole disreputable incident is, in my view, highly reprehensible.

First, he KNEW that Jacob had bought the blessing from Esau, and yet persists in giving it to Esau. I say that he KNEW because it is in the highest degree improbable that Jacob, having bought the birthright, would not immediately inform his father, bringing with him the witnesses to the deal.

Second, he KNEW that God had said that the elder would serve the younger, and is here attempting to do something which would negate that prophecy.

I believe Esau, made that deal with Jacob fully excepting to still receive the birthright blessing from his father. He did not tell his father and it wouldn't have been a good idea for Jacob to tell him. The birthright blessing had not been given yet. Esau knew he had the right and that his father loved him and would give it to him. Jacob knew this, too. He also knew that Esau would not live up to their trade agreement and so did Rebekah, she knew her sons. That is why Isaac had to be tricked into giving it to Jacob.

 

[About the Son of God]

It's not like the murder Esau contemplated is a cold calculated thing, for that's not the kind of boy Esau was. Esau was not a boy, at the time this took place. I worked it out some time ago, and found that Jacob was about 75 years old at the time, which, if correct, makes Esau also about 75 years of age.

From the KJV, it would be 74 years old; presuming the calendar is not adjusted, and no numbers have been corrupted. There are problems with various Hebrew manuscripts not agreeing on the ages of some patriarchs... , but I don't see a reason to really go into this in any detail here.

I concede your point; for I simply didn't mean "boy" as in young boy. Your correction is appropriate.

Esau is his father's favorite "boy" who has become a man. Because of this, the loss of his father will affect him more than Jacob, who is his mother's favorite. Jacob is mama's boy. Esau is a daddy's boy.

I find it terribly interesting that the KJV says "your mother's sons" ... and not "my other son" or "your father's sons", will bow down to you [Jacob]; eg: when Isaac thought he was blessing daddy's boy over momma's boy.

KJV:
Genesis 27:29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren [AKA, plural so include primarily cousins], and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.


So: Jacob's father tricked into blessing him says that the mamma's boys will be the ones to bow down to him.

Later in history ...
Jacob himself will bless his own kids saying "your father's sons....", (he doesn't want a mistake!!!!) Genesis 49:8

So whom did Jacob actually have promised to him to bow down to him ? and more importantly, can you find me an instance in scripture of Esau, as a man (not a nation) ever bowing down to Jacob ?

I don't recommend this as a decisive point / solid apologetic, for I see various problems -- but I'm just curious how you think. Can this prophecy be shown definitively to apply to the individuals, and not just the nations. eg: Calvinists need individuals, not just nations for their apologetic -- I'm pretty sure -- to show individuals are predestined to damnation. So this is evidence, but not conclusive...

Is there a scriptural example of Esau the man actually bowing to Jacob? If not, who was supposed to bow to him?

 

[Asyncritus]

Let me think about this one.

 

[Asyncritus]

If it was God's purpose to make Esau enraged, but then allow him to repent -- we have no case against him in terms of salvation.

I would agree with this. But I think we have a picture in Esau as to the individual who has a right to an inheritance in Christ, but they choose to give up that birthright for the things of the flesh.
Esau, had not as yet been given the birthright, he just had a right to receive it. Could he sell/trade something he did not possess?

I think you're perfectly right here. He was a man, who for whatever reasons, chose the way of the flesh. Hence the description 'Esau was a man of the field' - a wild man, with all that goes with it.

Jacob OTOH, 'dwelt in tents, with Abraham and Isaac, the heirs with him of the promises. (Heb 11) It's not, I believe, merely saying that they lived in tents: it is the tent of worship that's meant.

The contrast could hardly be greater. Jacob'heart was in the things of God. Esau's was in the things of the flesh.

Hence the warning in Heb 12, that we should take the greatest care not to follow Esau's example:

15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

17 For ye 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.

Esau IS blessed, by Isaac, whose role in this whole disreputable incident is, in my view, highly reprehensible.

First, he KNEW that Jacob had bought the blessing from Esau, and yet persists in giving it to Esau. I say that he KNEW because it is in the highest degree improbable that Jacob, having bought the birthright, would not immediately inform his father, bringing with him the witnesses to the deal.

Second, he KNEW that God had said that the elder would serve the younger, and is here attempting to do something which would negate that prophecy.

I believe Esau, made that deal with Jacob fully excepting to still receive the birthright blessing from his father. He did not tell his father and it wouldn't have been a good idea for Jacob to tell him. The birthright blessing had not been given yet. Esau knew he had the right and that his father loved him and would give it to him. Jacob knew this, too. He also knew that Esau would not live up to their trade agreement and so did Rebekah, she knew her sons. That is why Isaac had to be tricked into giving it to Jacob.

I don't believe that Esau told Isaac, but I do believe that Jacob did - after all in a deal of such magnitude (millions of dollars were involved), wouldn't you inform the principal benefactor?

The whole thing is an immense warning to all of us parents, NOT TO SHOW FAVOURITISM TO ANY OF OUR CHILDREN. It is a most dangerous thing, and we see the consequences in this account.

The same goes for teachers too - difficult as it may be to avoid doing so, when on the one hand you have a paragon, and on the other a pain in the neck!

 

[MarkT]

Weird point of view. You seem to be acting as Esau's advocate. God protected Esau from Jacob?

There's nothing wrong with advocating for someone (a person, not a nation) who is not explicitly condemned by Scripture as unrepentant. Not that my purpose here is to advocate for Esau, but to see what the scriptures actually SAY. Secondly, I'd like to curb unfounded condemnations of christianforums.net *members* based on certain other members misguided beliefs...

Scripture says: As you judge, you will be judged, -- hence it is better to err on the side of mercy, then to condemn based on appearances.
Jacob clearly feared that his brother was going to do him harm -- and when someone is afraid, they tend to do rash things.
The fact that Jacob got into a "wrestling" match, shows that he was ready to fight -- not just run.

The LORD told Jacob to return to his country and he would do him good. Gen. 31:3 Gen. 32: 9-12

Indeed Jacob did wrestle with a man and he did prevail and the man blessed him, and he named him Israel. Jacob was a man of God. The LORD did not send him to fight with Esau. What rash thing did Jacob do? He bowed down to his brother. He made himself nothing. He made peace with his brother.

God acted upon Jacob in a way that reduced his ability to fight, and forced him to accept God's sovereignty over the following day. ( let me go, because it's almost day. Genesis 32:26 )

No he didn't. Jacob did as the LORD commanded him to do - to return to his country. There is nothing about reducing his ability to fight.

Jacob tried to appease his brother. He wasn't looking for a fight.

He was in a fight the whole night

He wrestled with a man and God.

He wasn't "Looking" for a fight, as in -- he didn't think he could win? or he didn't think a fight would happen? or "he's just a peaceful dude" who jumps on people in the night inexplicably?

Jacob was a servant of God. He did not return to his country to fight Esau as you think.

Jacob's thigh was put out of joint. There's nothing that says anything about the place where a man girds on a sword.

Smart alec. Touche.

I said you will find, if you do a word study in a bible, eg: as in a word study using other passages of scripture ?
Word studies that don't look at the word in more than one sentence are pretty lame.

It's the PLACE where a sword is girded on, and a symbol of a man's strength in war.
I didn't even say Jacob was wearing a sword, although he might have been ; I suggested a word study.

I'm not interested in your 'word studies'. Gen. says his thigh was put out of joint. If you want to make more than that out of it, that's your business.

Two men are out in the night and come across each other and get into a fight.
Perhaps "strike" isn't the perfect word, but someone clearly attacked; and we don't hear Jacob complaining to the man why did you bother me, rather we have the man saying to Jacob "let me GO!!!!". Jacob clearly was dishing some of it out.

That's very imaginative. But Gen. doesn't say Jacob attacked the man. It says a man wrestled with him.

Scripture doesn't mention every scratch, or bump, and I'm sure they abound as Jacob found after rolling around on the ground -- but only one is said, and thank God he's not dead.

You seem to be creating your own scripture.

 

[About the Son of God]

And Esau lifted up his voice and wept. 39 Then Isaac his father answered him: “Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from[c] the dew of heaven on high. 40 By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you break loose you shall break his yoke from your neck.” From the RSV. See any difference? It's saying the opposite of what you are saying.

I haven't yet translated it, I've used the KJV in agreement with the TOS of this website as the default.

My original point was that Esau is in fact blessed, and you won't take that away from me by obfuscation with translational style; for although the blessing is different, and Jacob's is clearly a greater blessing, none the less -- Esau is blessed.

If you like the RSV, then fine, my point is exactly the same:
Hebrew 11:20, in the RSV: "By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau."

Esau simply did not walk out with no blessing at all.

Fat, by the way, is also an animal property? -- eg:not restricted to plants alone. When deer eats a person's garden -- they get fat.
Also: When sacrificing animals, Israelites are instructed to give the fat to God for it's the BEST part.

Keep this in mind: Esau was a hunter in Seir, but Jacob was a shepherd and farmer in Israel.

So ... let's tear this apart, and we'll get into the original languages ( Greek and Hebrew ) to verify what I'm going to tell you.

First, let me concede a point to your advantage: Esau was not given the agricultural part of the blessing "much grain and wine" which was given to Jacob. Those blessings were later (future) offered in the temple at Jerusalem for the agricultural feast days, like Pentecost, and used in the worship found in Exodus in unleavened bread, and wine, etc.

I'll admit that, for its bible independent.

But Esau was still blessed with a blessing to take from the fatness (best) of the land --- eg: land that was under his house, as surely as there is dirt under Jacob's. And I mean, when we look at the original languages, this point will bear out as part of a word play.

Consider: Esau's father LIKED the taste of wild game, and he's the one who brought Esau up to hunt.
When Jacob decided to bless his son, he asked him to bring the wild game in from a hunt in order TO BE BLESSED.
Those were the instructions Jacob disobeyed? See: Genesis 27:3-4.

It's rather odd, then, that no in the thread notices the blessing is contingent on a gift? and notice where the gift comes from?
Why do you seem to presume is that the gift's source doesn't affect what the blessing actually is, but I'd like to point out that the source of all blessing, who blesses THROUGH Isaac, vis. God, is not blind?

Esau was to bring wild game, and brought wild game. His blessing is hunting grounds.
Jacob, trying to steal Esau's blessing, was told to hunt wild game -- but instead he brought domestic goats. His blessing is agricultural.
During the blessing, Isaac becomes entranced with the spirit of God who speaks of their future through him. God is not blind, but he is *just*.

Therefore, The blessing could not really be stolen, for it was given conditioned upon what the child brought to be blessed WITH.
Esau simply couldn't have taken Jacob's blessing by doing what his father told him to do, and the reverse is true as well.

Now: Do you really think the blessing of God can be bought with false money?


---------------------- Homework ------------------

In the LXX, we have:
Genes 27:28 και δωη σοι ο θεος απο της δροσου του ουρανου και απο της πιοτητος της γης και πληθος σιτου και οινου
...and from the fatness of-the earth and abundant grain and wine.

Genes 27:39 αποκριθεις δε ισαακ ο πατηρ αυτου ειπεν αυτω ιδου απο της πιοτητος της γης εσται η κατοικησις σου και απο της δροσου του ουρανου ανωθεν
... behold from the fatness of-the earth is [earth] under-[your]-house and from the dew of-the heaven above ...

As you can see, the colored words from the brown one forward are identical. They say: from the fatness the earth.
So the word "away from" in the RSV is either in both, or neither. Hence, RSV is interpreting when translating, and excluding other interpretations which are possible.

But: In Genesis 27:28, that word 'from' is preceded by "and" (και) because Jacob's blessing had one MORE blessing earlier in the sentence whereas Esau's does not.

If we switch to Hebrew, we end up with the exact same issue, though harder to verify: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0127.htm
Genesis 27:28 וְיִתֶּן-לְךָ, הָאֱלֹהִים, מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ--וְרֹב דָּגָן, וְתִירֹשׁ.
Genesis 27:39 וַיַּעַן יִצְחָק אָבִיו, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו: הִנֵּה מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ, יִהְיֶה מוֹשָׁבֶךָ, וּמִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם, מֵעָל.

The two "and" marks are in the same place, because Jacob's is a compound blessing having three things:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/27-28.htm
"Give to you, now, may God, of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and an abundance of grain and wine.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/27-28.htm

Whereas Esau's only has two blessings:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/27-39.htm

 

[MarkT]

In the light of Christ, murder was in his heart. He planned to kill Jacob so Jacob had to flee to Laban in Haran.

Sin aimed for his heart, but blood was not on his hands, and temptation did not remain in his heart but passed, like bad food -- into the latrine.

You don't have to actually do it re. salvation. The Lord Jesus said, "everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. Esau was angry with Jacob, a servant of God. Read the blessing Jacob received - cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you." Gen. 27:29

You say Jacob sinned. Well God did not count his sin. Jacob's faith was counted as righteousness. Esau served his purpose - to be the father of the nations that hate Israel. Everyone who hates Israel is Esau in spirit.

 

[About the Son of God]

You don't have to actually do it re. salvation. The Lord Jesus said, "everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. Esau was angry with Jacob, a servant of God. Read the blessing Jacob received - cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you." Gen. 27:29

Mark, that's cheap.
I quoted you the passage where Paul says "Be angry, but don't sin." Paul would not be counseling Christians to do something leading to being judged worthy of damnation. Even in the RSV it says: Ephesians 4:26, "Be angry but do not sin, do not let the sun go down on your anger."

One can be judged worthy of smaller punishments than death:

Matthew 5:22 says "whoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT CAUSE is liable to judgment."
Then it escalates:
Matthew 5:22 says "Raca" -- which means an accusation to a judge not worthy of death, is worthy of the council's punishment (eg:stripes of the whip in Jesus' day.)
Then it escalates once more:
Matthew 5:22 says "fool" -- which in the psalms means a murderer, predator, not just an unwise person; that person is worthy of death and hell.

These are ascending punishments, each one worse than the last. The first is not about damnation, the last IS for:
The "fool" says in his heart, there is no God ...
They precisely correspond to the rule "Do not judge lest you be judged; by the same measure, and rule."

Anger when had without cause, is a sin. Anger when provoked, is a temptation and if justified, is zeal.

Jesus took a whip to the money changing animals.... He was angry, but justified; for zeal had consumed him against a sin.

People really can't buy God's blessings by guile, God doesn't accept one who boasts that they earned his blessings for something earthly, or (gasp) that God owes it to them for a bowl of lentils, or as Simon the magician tried to buy it for money.... IT's all the same. Luther's anger was also pointed at money, and there is a difference between gift and purchase -- but it did nothing for Christians as brothers, for a gift is meant to bring brothers together:

And -- So --note what is so appropriately said in the verse following the one you quoted:

Matth 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Matth 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Did Jacob do this with Esau?

 

[MarkT]

Consider this. Jacob wrestled with a man in a dream.

 

[About the Son of God]

Quote Originally Posted by About the Son of God View Post If it was God's purpose to make Esau enraged, but then allow him to repent -- we have no case against him in terms of salvation. I would agree with this. But I think we have a picture in Esau as to the individual who has a right to an inheritance in Christ, but they choose to give up that birthright for the things of the flesh. Esau, had not as yet been given the birthright, he just had a right to receive it. Could he sell/trade something he did not possess?

First consider: eg: Acts 8:18-21.

And I think you and I agreed some time ago that no one actually has a right to be adopted by God into his family (the promise.).

So, I need to think out some ideas concerning that "right" to inheritance...
I want to make sure we're understanding each other, even if the language is a little new... but ONLY scriptural.

Salvation is a free gift requiring thanks. Faith AKA, believing, is a work, and a Godly work we DO. John 6:28-29 BUUUUUUT that work does not earn the promise for us, nor does it have a monetary value that can cause God to be enslaved to us. etc. etc.
Nor can it be bought....


Earthly land can be bought and sold; but heaven itself can not.
Children can be adopted or born into a family, but a child can't purchase a birth into a family they want.

In any normal family, a child does not inherit until mom or dad dies, or mom or dad SAYS they inherit.
And children don't write the will -- but it's MOM and DAD who write their own wills.

Children CAN agree, when they are of age (the lentil event happened when?), to exchange property; and to make contracts about the FUTURE.
Even if they don't yet own it, they can agree that when they DO own it, that it will be exchanged.

To do this, one needs an oath -- and (possibly?) some kind of witness or piece of evidence for the exchange.
Even with a valid sale, dad is not required to give it to the ultimate owner -- but only to whom he willed it; and then they can dispose of it as they choose once it is theirs. [ I think this was your question??? ]

I think the monetary/lentil exchange between Jacob and Esau has to be restricted to the physical land which brothers who both share the promise can exchange. It can not be an actual token of salvation, such that the brother with the land has it -- and the one who doesn't -- isn't saved. Or else Jacob is guilty of a heinous wrongness of heart: Acts 8:21-22.

I need to have a longer talk with Asyncritus -- but I shudder at the thought of someone trying to buy the priesthood too ; which he implied a few verses back. I think I know why Isaac shook when he realized that it wasn't Esau that had come in with gifts for his blessing.

:D that's one shrewd father, though. A man knows how his wife cooks, and by the end of the sentence he seemed to have figured out what happened.... (and he shall be blessed, too...).

It's true that Esau's choices were bad; so bad that he is scandalous on the outside, no matter what the truth is on the inside.
So, my point is -- don't imitate -- but don't judge without hard evidence. (and even then, it's probably better to leave tricky cases to God.)


But, now that I am looking -- It's most curious that in Esau's blessing, in the Greek, it actually says he will have From the" dew of heaven above" ; For that word "above" is not in Jacob's blessing, and it is the word traditionally translated "again" in John 3:3. "Except a man be born again"
Hmmm..... I'm going to have to think about that, and recheck the Hebrew....

I love finding little details like that. Something new in scripture I hadn't noticed before.

 

[Sparkey]

Sin aimed for his heart, but blood was not on his hands, and temptation did not remain in his heart but passed, like bad food -- into the latrine.

Greetings! I'm lurking again, gleaning from the field where I may. I notice your allusion to the NT discussion about hand washing rituals and the words of Christ. My mind went in the other direction back to Cain. He was told about how sin was at his door, that it was desirous of him. That passage contains an image of ones arms being stretched out in longing. That's the action that I see between sin and mankind - it expresses in part a kind of desire that is linked to the desire of the flesh. Of course the end result of sin is that we become intimate with the enemy and are defiled. Is this idolatry? Is it the act of spiritual fornication? WE are told to avoid (shun) all such things.

Looking back to the Cain warning from the Lord, I also notice some very similar wording that was used while speaking to 'the woman' about her desire. Hebrew word study that is on my agenda includes comparing that particular word, translated desire, and it's three uses in the bible. To the woman, to Cain, and also about something that is a mystery - found in Song of Solomon.

Okay, I'll go back to lurking, but I wanted to speak here to give you one of the "gleanings" that I picked up somewhere along the line. Gleaning (also called scrounging) is the act of collecting leftover crops from farmers' fields after they have been harvested, as you know. I get a whole lot of food that way. Some I save because it tastes so good to me, other bits remain in me because they contain bread-crumbs (so-to-speak) that mark the path toward greater understanding.

Bye for now, but before I go, thank you for opening the word for us. We are told to study to shew ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth. I do appreciate the studious nature of the things that are said here, said by one, said by others, brought for our consideration, and I think, according to the guidance of the one who will bring us into all truth, the Holy Spirit. I like scrounging, but let's call it "gleaning" shall we? It sounds more dignified.

 

[MarkT]

You don't have to actually do it re. salvation. The Lord Jesus said, "everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. Esau was angry with Jacob, a servant of God. Read the blessing Jacob received - cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you." Gen. 27:29

Mark, that's cheap.
I quoted you the passage where Paul says "Be angry, but don't sin." Paul would not be counseling Christians to do something leading to being judged worthy of damnation. Even in the RSV it says: Ephesians 4:26, "Be angry but do not sin, do not let the sun go down on your anger."

One can be judged worthy of smaller punishments than death:

Matthew 5:22 says "whoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT CAUSE is liable to judgment."
Then it escalates:
Matthew 5:22 says "Raca" -- which means an accusation to a judge not worthy of death, is worthy of the council's punishment (eg:stripes of the whip in Jesus' day.)
Then it escalates once more:
Matthew 5:22 says "fool" -- which in the psalms means a murderer, predator, not just an unwise person; that person is worthy of death and hell.

These are ascending punishments, each one worse than the last. The first is not about damnation, the last IS for:
The "fool" says in his heart, there is no God ...
They precisely correspond to the rule "Do not judge lest you be judged; by the same measure, and rule."

Anger when had without cause, is a sin. Anger when provoked, is a temptation and if justified, is zeal.

Jesus took a whip to the money changing animals.... He was angry, but justified; for zeal had consumed him against a sin.

People really can't buy God's blessings by guile, God doesn't accept one who boasts that they earned his blessings for something earthly, or (gasp) that God owes it to them for a bowl of lentils, or as Simon the magician tried to buy it for money.... IT's all the same. Luther's anger was also pointed at money, and there is a difference between gift and purchase -- but it did nothing for Christians as brothers, for a gift is meant to bring brothers together:

And -- So --note what is so appropriately said in the verse following the one you quoted:

Matth 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Matth 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Did Jacob do this with Esau?

What's cheap? Don't you believe it? The Lord said everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. That's true. He didn't say we can never be angry. He said there would be judgment. Also you don't want to be the cause of your brother's anger. Be reconciled. And yes Jacob did reconcile himself with Esau.

Paul said be angry, but don't sin. Bridle your tongue.

'be angry but sin not; commune with your own hearts on your beds and be silent'. Psalms 4:4

Jesus said, 'I tell you on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.' Mt. 12:36,37

Apparently Esau said he was going to kill Jacob and his words came back to Rebekah. So Esau is going to answer for that. Did Esau ask God to forgive him for what he said? I don't know. This was pre Christ and Jesus did preach the kingdom to the spirits in prison.

Also if you're going to call a servant of God a liar and a thief you had better have a good excuse.

 

[About the Son of God]

Also if you're going to call a servant of God a liar and a thief you had better have a good excuse.

I don't think he succeeded in stealing anything. And I don't think having feelings in one's heart is the same as the actual theft; I give to Jacob the same latitude that I give to Esau.

But, I think he lied (which is not a deadly sin) about his name to his father, and what he had done. It's not an excuse, but a direct reading of the text.

Genesis 27:19 And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first born; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.

If the KJV is wrong, or the scriptures I have been handed are wrong, then there is nothing I can do about that.
I can look at the Greek and Hebrew, but I don't think there is going to be any ambiguity.

I do not need to judge Jacob's salvation, to judge a set of his words to be a lie, in the sense of something purposely said to misdirect the hearer in order to confuse the identity of two human beings as thoroughly as possible.

If you have any credible evidence that the sentence is not, in fact, a lie in the sense I defined it -- please present it.
For, the christian is not required to believe, that Jacob was immaculately conceived. That his faith is of grace, does not mean sin left no trace.

Ephesians is also about lies between believers, and has naught to do with sins of a damning kind.
Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

We are expected to judge, but not to build our faith on judgement of others.
Rather we are to judge ourselves first, then look to the sliver in our brother's eye.

Luke 12:57 (NIV) why don't you judge for yourselves what is right ?
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
1Corinthians 6:2
1Corinthians 10:15,

Here is my judgment:

RIght is Faith: Jacob's faith would have been much larger if he had not done this act, this way, but had trusted that the prophecy would come true none the less FOR God's prophecy did not need Jacob's words in order to come true.

Abraham did not go looking in a thicket for the Ram, pre-planning the substitution for Isaac when he went up the mountain; he waited for God to stay his hand, and tell HIM not to slay his son, before looking for the alternative substitute.

The plan wasn't by Abraham's mother, or Sarah (no laughter, please), but he just believed and did as God said. Promises have the help of God.

You are right, Esau will be held to account for any idle words he said, as will you and I here on this forum.
Let us all be careful.

 

[MarkT]

And Esau lifted up his voice and wept. 39 Then Isaac his father answered him: “Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from[c] the dew of heaven on high. 40 By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you break loose you shall break his yoke from your neck.” From the RSV. See any difference? It's saying the opposite of what you are saying.

I haven't yet translated it, I've used the KJV in agreement with the TOS of this website as the default.

My original point was that Esau is in fact blessed, and you won't take that away from me by obfuscation with translational style; for although the blessing is different, and Jacob's is clearly a greater blessing, none the less -- Esau is blessed.

If you like the RSV, then fine, my point is exactly the same:
Hebrew 11:20, in the RSV: "By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau."

Esau simply did not walk out with no blessing at all.

Fat, by the way, is also an animal property? -- eg:not restricted to plants alone. When deer eats a person's garden -- they get fat.
Also: When sacrificing animals, Israelites are instructed to give the fat to God for it's the BEST part.

Keep this in mind: Esau was a hunter in Seir, but Jacob was a shepherd and farmer in Israel.

So ... let's tear this apart, and we'll get into the original languages ( Greek and Hebrew ) to verify what I'm going to tell you.

First, let me concede a point to your advantage: Esau was not given the agricultural part of the blessing "much grain and wine" which was given to Jacob. Those blessings were later (future) offered in the temple at Jerusalem for the agricultural feast days, like Pentecost, and used in the worship found in Exodus in unleavened bread, and wine, etc.

I'll admit that, for its bible independent.

But Esau was still blessed with a blessing to take from the fatness (best) of the land --- eg: land that was under his house, as surely as there is dirt under Jacob's. And I mean, when we look at the original languages, this point will bear out as part of a word play.

Consider: Esau's father LIKED the taste of wild game, and he's the one who brought Esau up to hunt.
When Jacob decided to bless his son, he asked him to bring the wild game in from a hunt in order TO BE BLESSED.
Those were the instructions Jacob disobeyed? See: Genesis 27:3-4.

It's rather odd, then, that no in the thread notices the blessing is contingent on a gift? and notice where the gift comes from?
Why do you seem to presume is that the gift's source doesn't affect what the blessing actually is, but I'd like to point out that the source of all blessing, who blesses THROUGH Isaac, vis. God, is not blind?

Esau was to bring wild game, and brought wild game. His blessing is hunting grounds.
Jacob, trying to steal Esau's blessing, was told to hunt wild game -- but instead he brought domestic goats. His blessing is agricultural.
During the blessing, Isaac becomes entranced with the spirit of God who speaks of their future through him. God is not blind, but he is *just*.

Therefore, The blessing could not really be stolen, for it was given conditioned upon what the child brought to be blessed WITH.
Esau simply couldn't have taken Jacob's blessing by doing what his father told him to do, and the reverse is true as well.

Now: Do you really think the blessing of God can be bought with false money?


---------------------- Homework ------------------

In the LXX, we have:
Genes 27:28 και δωη σοι ο θεος απο της δροσου του ουρανου και απο της πιοτητος της γης και πληθος σιτου και οινου
...and from the fatness of-the earth and abundant grain and wine.

Genes 27:39 αποκριθεις δε ισαακ ο πατηρ αυτου ειπεν αυτω ιδου απο της πιοτητος της γης εσται η κατοικησις σου και απο της δροσου του ουρανου ανωθεν
... behold from the fatness of-the earth is [earth] under-[your]-house and from the dew of-the heaven above ...

As you can see, the colored words from the brown one forward are identical. They say: from the fatness the earth.
So the word "away from" in the RSV is either in both, or neither. Hence, RSV is interpreting when translating, and excluding other interpretations which are possible.

But: In Genesis 27:28, that word 'from' is preceded by "and" (και) because Jacob's blessing had one MORE blessing earlier in the sentence whereas Esau's does not.

If we switch to Hebrew, we end up with the exact same issue, though harder to verify: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0127.htm
Genesis 27:28 וְיִתֶּן-לְךָ, הָאֱלֹהִים, מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ--וְרֹב דָּגָן, וְתִירֹשׁ.
Genesis 27:39 וַיַּעַן יִצְחָק אָבִיו, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו: הִנֵּה מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ, יִהְיֶה מוֹשָׁבֶךָ, וּמִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם, מֵעָל.

The two "and" marks are in the same place, because Jacob's is a compound blessing having three things:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/27-28.htm
"Give to you, now, may God, of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and an abundance of grain and wine.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/27-28.htm

Whereas Esau's only has two blessings:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/27-39.htm

'Away from' is two words. The RSV has 'of' as a possible meaning of the word which is translated 'from'.

The RSV says, 'away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be'. It doesn't say anything about animal fat. The fatness of the earth is the richness of it. Of course herd animals feed on what grows on it. Good land, good pasture produces a fat animal.

Esau was to dwell away from the fatness of the earth, which tells me he and his people would be desert dwellers. It continues, 'and away from the dew of heaven on high' This also tells me they would be desert dwellers. Nothing wrong with that. But then it goes on, 'By your sword you shall live'. That tells me his people would be warlike. Continuing, 'and you shall serve your brother' Some might not consider that a blessing, but in a way it is, because it is better to be a servant in the house of God than to be a king in this world. Better to serve Jacob than to go into the desert and die. Then it continues, 'but when you break loose you shall break his yoke from your neck.' That sounds like a prophecy to me. When you break loose of Jacob's rule suggests this nation will break away from the house of God and will oppose Israel.

Anyways I'm happy with the RSV translation. It makes sense to me.

 

[Sparkey]

What's Punctuation got to do with it???

When one brother struggles against another certain points of view must be considered. If we were parents and two brothers came to us telling us their side of the story, we could rightly expect that each would say, "he started it," and there could be some pointing of the finger going on. While trying to figure out what the Lord is saying to us, the reader may be stuck in this kind of quagmire. We can look back at the overview of the story to illustrate.

We see Isaac on his deathbed asking for food to be presented to him by the older son, Esau.
Rebekah overheard this and given that she was told in Genesis 25:23 that "the older shall serve the younger" she steps in for the son she wants to get the blessing. Rebecca told Jacob to disguise himself as Esau. Jacob did as he was told.

The narrative permits a wonderful illustration of the concept “punctuation of sequences.” Punctuation of sequences refers to how we frame conflict to give it meaning. When we recount a conflict, we typically point to its cause --usually we perceive the other person’s behavior as the starting point for the conflict.

Jacob vowed to kill his brother. Rebekah heard the vow and told her son to flee from his brother. They met eventually, decades later, after Jacob, a.k.a. "The Grabber's" name had been changed to something more dignified, "God-Fighter" (or Israel).

There, at the meeting is a striking play of words based on the sound of the Hebrew phrase of "face" that I've mentioned before. But zooming back to the first part of this post, where I mentioned that we were like parents, let's examine the blame trails or, if you'd rather, the punctuation of sequences.

One son says, "He did it," and another says, "NO! He started it." It almost reminds me of what the Original red-ish man, Adam said, when he was finger pointing: The woman that YOU gave me did give me to eat and I did eat of it." Here we look to see that Esau is the aggrieved party. We follow the blame trail back to Jacob, and that goes back to Rebekah. "She told me to." But wait! She was acting on what she heard from God. "The younger (Jacob) will serve the older (Esau)." I said that wrong, didn't I? You know what I mean. The buck stops there. God doesn't budge an inch and says that he had preference for one brother over the other, and that was there from before they were born.

No more passing the buck now. The issue between brothers is laid to rest. It is amazing to me to consider the sheer amount of graciousness the King of all heaven and earth has for us. He calls the children of men, His children. We're talking about the first generations of the seed of Abraham, and God had (has) a plan in mind for them, for us. Part of that plan anticipates that the struggle between brothers will go on and on up to and until such time that we change our style and start wrestling with Him. That's what the Grabber did. Then he came away from that and was prepared to meet his brother the very next day. So long a struggle, coming to an extraordinary conclusion. A fight, between brothers, settled when one of them encounters God.

I'd like to know more of this.

Parts of this post were paraphrased here and taken from http://www.bibleconflict.com/ The author of the original thought, 'Punctuating Sequences' is Dr. Elayne Shapiro who is an associate professor at the University of Portland and co- author with Dr. Carol Dempsey of Reading the Bible: Transforming Conflict published by Orbis Press.

 

[Deborah13]

And I think you and I agreed some time ago that no one actually has a right to be adopted by God into his family (the promise.).

We only have that right to salvation because God has reached down, in His mercy and grace, and offered it to us. Because He sent His Son to purchase it for us.
It is not something we deserve or could ever earn. "29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." So yes, the Jesus, says we are to believe on Him. But I don't think we do that on our own. God's works.

Well, I don't see where God ever says He created Esau to be the way that he was or that He hardened Esau. But by the same token God had a plan and certain people had to be a certain type of person for that plan. Did God created Esau that way, I not sure. But I am confident that God knew about both of them before they were born, what they would be like.