Romans 9 compares "nation of Israel" and "Spiritual Israel, the Church" which are Older and Younger respectively (Romans 9:12). The Jews thought the blessings were for national Israel (Romans 8:28-8:39 blessings for children of promise), but by pursuing a law of righteousness instead of righteousness by faith (Romans 9:30-10:4), unbelieving Jews are missing out on their inheritance (Romans 9:1-5). The Older and the Younger are those brothers Jesus teaches of in Luke 15:11-32. The end of this Parable does not tell us if the Older (national Israel) welcomes into God's family the Younger (the Church largely made of Gentiles). In Romans 9, Paul uses analogies to compare national Israel to Spiritual Israel: Isaac/Ishmael (promise vs. works), Jacob/Esau (receive blessing without works vs. work and sell the birthright), and Moses/Pharaoh (submit to God asking for mercy/stiff-neck rebellion to God). Paul is teaching by analogy the same way he does in Galatians 4:21-31. Read Romans 9:6-9 and Galatians 4:21-31 and you'll see how Paul uses analogies; it's beautiful. We can know this because Romans 9 and Galatians 3-4 overlap heavily in their themes. God's purpose in election is Him choosing the Israelites to serve the Gentiles in fulfilling Genesis 12:3. Christ comes from national Israel and the Jews have been given the oracles of God. Robert Leitzel covers all of this in his $6 book on Amazon, "The Anti-Calvinism Answer Key". Christopher C. Chapman also covers this in his $12 book "Romans Chapter 9: Calvinism's Proof-Text Or Paul's Gospel?"
We have all done that at one time or another, we cannot keep God’s law perfectly, but repent of your sin and ask the Lord to forgive and restore you, because the Bible says if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us :)
I BELONG TO JESUS BLOODLINE NOT DENYING MY SIN AT ALL IM RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD THROUGH JESUS BLOOD OH LET THE RACE GO BUT THE REALITY EVE ADAM WIFE IS THE MITHER SPIRITUALLY OF ALL HUMANS MALE AND FEMALE COLOR OF SKIN CLEARLY WAS DARK IN AFRICA EGYPT EUPHRATES NILE RIVER WERE MOSES WAS FOUND BY PHAROAH DAUGHTER IN AFRICA GOD LOOKS AT THE HEART THE JEWISH PPL ARE NOT ALL GOD'S CHOSEN THEY REJECTED JESUS AND THAT HAS BEEN THEIR SEPERATION FROM GOD HAS BEEN FOR CENTURIES HAVING MERCY ON THEM AFT THEY DENIED JESUS GOD CHOSE PAUL FORMERLY NAMED SAUL TO BE THE MINISTER OF THE GENTILES PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF GRACE JESUS DEATH BURIAL RESURRECTION TGE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE CORN CHAPT 15 VER 1- 4 DR ETIENNE GRAVES STUDY WITH HIM ON YT PASTOR STEPHEN DARBY YT LOTS OF BIBLICIAL TRUTHS KNOWLEDGE INDEPTH AMEN ESAU WAS AN EDOMITE LOKNIT UP IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THESE LESSONS ARE THINGS NEVER BEEN TAUGHT IR OREACHED ABOUT IN ANY CHURCHES I ATTENDED IN MY CHRISTIAN LIFE AS A BELIEVER IN JESUS GOD'S SON URGE YOU LISTEN WITH AN OPEN SPIRITUAL HEART AND MIND GET THE TRUTH IF YOU PREFER SOME OTHER MINISTERY YOUR RIGHT TOO I KNOW PERSONALLY THAT I CANNOT GO BACK TO THE OTHERS MINISTRIES ONLINE GOD BLESS YOU ALL RICHLY THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AMEN I LOVE YOU ALL IN CHRIST JESUS GOD'S BLOOD IS MY BLOOD TYPE FROM JESUS AMEN
The argument for Jewishness does not work for Isaac and Ishmael. Jacob is the first Israelite. Anybody before Jacob cannot be Jewish or non-Jewish. However, the proper argument should be that since Ishmael was conceived by man's (or Sarah's) design with disregard for God's promise, God chose Isaac over him.
No, the Jewishness does matter - that comes through in the phrase "our forefather." Though Isaac was not a Jew at the time, (at least some of) the readers were Jews who understood Isaac to be their forefather. Though your second point is valid as well.
Any religion that recognizes the bible as inspired by God should take note of such scriptures as Amos 9:11-15. Verse 15 makes it very apparent that this is an end time and even post Armageddon prophecy. In all other exiles that Israel and Judah went into they would return and go back into again. But as vs 15 brings out this time they return and become permanently established. Whether verses 11-15 are applied to physical or spiritual Israel and Judah, they still stand as end time post Armageddon prophecies. Now, it's within this context of biblical prophecy the nation of Edom along with some other nations are spoken of as becoming a possession of Israel. This tells us Edom is still around. That it wasn't completely eliminated 2000 years ago as some Christians teach. Does Edom become a possession in the sense of being a subject of the nation of Israel? Or by being put into outright servitude to it? Compare Isaiah 14:1-2. 61:6-7. According to the Bible Edom has been a prime opposer of God's people. Malachi 1:4. Joel 3:6,19-20. We learn from Amos chapter nine that the nation of Edom is still around in the end times and post Armageddon period. So, any zealous bible student might want to know who are these people today? What name or names do they go under right now? And do they still collectively oppose Israel or God's purpose in general?
look up #Mudflood...the evidence is out that we're all lied to on the timeline. The Millennial Reign of The Christ has already happened. We live in "The Short Season" of Revelation 20:8. Christ's appearance wasn't 2000 years ago...it's closer to 1500 years ago.
In my theory, it all starts back in Genesis 3 where the Lord promises a redeemer to make things right to come from the SEED of woman and a SEED coming from the Devil to bruise His heel. In Genesis 6 the seed of the devil is introduced into humanity in order to prevent the coming of Messiah by the pure seed of the woman. The seed of the devil permeates the entire human race except the family of Noah. The wives of the sons of Noah are among the contaminated humanity in various degrees. The wife of Ham carries the largest amount of seed of the devil and was the mother of Egypt and the giant Canaanite tribes. Japheths wife carried lesser amount of seed of the devil which was shown in the likes of Gog and Magog. The wife of Shem was most pure but still carrying a small amount which showed up in the seed of Esau the red - haired , hairy man. Jacob and Esau were fraternal twins and although they were both of the lineage of Abraham of the lineage of Shem of the Godly lineage to Adam, the one was carrier of the holy bloodline to the Messiah while the other was carrier of the bloodline of the Devil. In the same womb. That is why God said " Jacob I loved while Esau I hated." That is why even though Esau came out first which made him the owner of the birthright it still could not be allowed for him to receive it. Esau could NOT be the one to continue the bloodline to the Messiah. Ishmael could not be of the bloodline to the Messiah as he was of the Egyptian which was of the lineage of Ham's wife who was carrier of the seed of the devil In Genesis 38 Judah, who was to be the carrier of the seed to the Messiah chose a wife of the Canaanites which was a bad choice. She had three sons which would have ruined the pure lineage to the Messiah if allowed to procreate in the normal fashion. God removed the first two and while waiting for the third son to become of age, the wife Judah had chosen for his first son arranged a manner for herself to become impregnated by Judah himself thereby eliminating the possibility of the Lord taking the youngest son out as well. Thus bypassing all the seed of the Canaanite woman. Judah picked a better wife for his sons than he did for himself and when eventually the children of that union were born ( fraternal twins once again ) the one stuck his arm out ( Za'rah ) and had a thread tied on it. The other ( Pha'rez ) was born first and went on to become the line to the Messiah.
It's more eloke God for saw his distrust toward Esau before he was born know well enough that Esau would reject or have little care for his inheritance when he came to adulthood. You also have to remember that Esau sought after the world instead of the Hevanly Father.
@@michaelszczys8316 Black people. He was a black man with Red hair. There are black people with naturally red hair just like there are black people with blonde hair. Hairy garment could be a genetic defect. But that dosne tmean they Esau is solely the ancestors of white people as he had relations and married black women so his decendnts would be black.
It's about God's sovereign choice to reconstitute Israel in those who follow His Son. Works and Lineage define membership in the nation of Israel, but these are of no guarantee of being in God's Spiritual Israel.
Rebecca from Africa? And she had 2 nations with in her.. Esau was born red was later called Edom. And Edom are what nation or ppl today and jacob later called Isreal who they are today?
@@brittanyhayes1043 I mean no one knows what color he was u are racist for assuming they were black. God loves blacks that’s why Satan hates us the most
@@Yahshuaismyeverything Actually the Bible describes his skin color and that he was hairy. Not making an argument about race or whatever (I don't care about that) but if you read scripture Esau's appearance was definitely described "The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau." Genesis 25:25 NIV
This guy has no clue. God doesn't hate Esau at all. Esau and Jacob are an allegory, just like Ishmael and Isaac are. Find the book Jacob and Esau two nations and the inheritance to find the truth
Paul quotes from Malachi, the last book of the old testament. You have to know what the book of Malachi was about, and then know why Paul cited the quote.
@@freespirit7450 Mental gymnastics is a good thing because God's book is full of spiritual concepts God hid so that the one who doesn't truly desire to know the truth hasn't the mental strength to see it. The Bible is not a newspaper. It's a living and breathing parable and those who diligently seek to fully understand it, God enlightens.
Although this school of theology’s teaching starts to miss the point much earlier in Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 8, it’s here starting in verse 6 that we see the clearest evidence of departure from understanding the author’s points. Piper misses the crucial symbolism in verse 9 and wrongly calls the son Isaac when Paul was actually referencing Jesus. Piper doesn’t ask who Paul refers to when he says “Sarah,” and that reference is to the Jews of his day. And most importantly for verse 9 he doesn’t even seem to consider the point that Paul starts out with, saying that this is how the promise was stated. If Paul is teaching something about how the promise was stated, any later theologian should endeavor to be able to likewise point out the “how” (or “what” in this translation) and what it really means. In this case, Paul’s entire point, completely missed by Piper and like minded theologians, was that the Messiah, like Isaac, WAS promised to come much later. If one spends time learning about Jewish thought and studies Acts it should become obvious that Paul would commonly have encountered several objections, one of which would be about temporality. Something like ‘why, Paul, would God be choosing to let the Gentiles into his family at this late date? So many hundreds of years after the prophets?’ THAT’S the objection Paul is beginning to answer in verses 9 & 10. And the purest evidence for this is how he ends the next sentence. The ending of a sentence is often the main point and so it is here for Paul. His whole point is that maybe the Jews were used in the same way, maybe they are the elder child in the story now. Since they’re acting like the petulant elder child, maybe the roles are reversed. And wouldn’t that be something?! Paul says, aren’t you Jews the ones who always say God said Jacob I loved but Esau I hated? What if that really is true, God does only love some people, but what if you Jews are now the Esau and the Gentiles are the Jacob?? How would you like that? That’s also why Paul uses the “what if” language a little later in the passage. Paul doesn’t really believe it’s true that God plays favorites, but he’s saying what if God did do that but it was you Jews who were the lesser vessel? You’ve been arrogant for so long thinking how great you were, what if the shoes is on the other foot and you’re not the vessel of honor? This goes completely missed by Piper and he ends up with a whole errant theology because of it.
Not Abraham, he was pagan, nor Sarah nor Rebekkah were Jewish, neither was Issac nor Jacob... the Jews did not exist until Judah was born and became adult.
Romans 9 comments: 1. Opening verses The context at the start of Romans 9 is Israel, the nation corporately. Paul is heartbroken about his fellow countrymen outside of Christ, Israelites of whom God is not interested in saving were Calvinism true. This makes Paul more compassionate than the caricature of God, calvigod. In fact, calvigod is less compassionate than I and it can be proved mathematically! This is a problem. Also in this section one of the privileges for Israel was their election to be the channel of the world's redeemer - "and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came," in verse 5. This is the fulfillment by which the promise to Abraham, that "in thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." Isaac was elected over Ismael to fulfil this purpose - to be the channel through which the redeemer came, so that Ishmael and all his descendants shall be blessed. Jacob and his descendants were chosen also for this same blessed service. Esau and his descendents were ordained by be indirectly blessed. The corporate election of Israel does not mean that every Israelite was saved nor that every non-Israelite was lost. 2. The effectual Word Romans 9:6 - "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect." The word of God is effectual, as also stated in 1 Thes 2:13. But if Calvinism be true then the Word is ineffectual. Where the Bible says that the Scriptures are "able to make thee wise unto salvation" the Calvinistic add-on is "but only if you were elected at the beginning of time." Psalm 19 says, "The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" but the same add-on must be appended for an honest presentation of Bible truth were Calvinism aligned with the Bible. "These things were written that ye (whoever you are) might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, ye might have life through his name." Sorry, just kidding. Belief is caused by the gnostic spark of regeneration for the elect while the non-elect is not effected positively by "these things [that] are written." There's a secret will of God that supercedes the written Word, in the mind of the Calvinist. 3. Isaac and Ishmael in Romans 9:7-9 The unbelieving Israelite might cry, "unfair" that now God's corporate witness is the church, composed of Jew and Gentile grafted into the Body of Christ. This new body is symbolized by Isaac, the child of promise, as related by Galations 3:29 - "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Ismael, the offspring of Agar, represents the unbelieving Israelite which persecutes the church while trying to establish his own righteousness by the works of the Law (Rom 9:32) as well as Gal 4:24 - "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." 4. Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:10-13 The temporary setting aside of Israel as God's corporate witness is akin to the setting aside of the elder twin, Esau, as the channel through which the world's redeemer would come. Pregnant Rebecca was told, "Two nations are in they womb." And it is abundantly clear that Romans 9:10-13 is referring to the nations of Israel and Edom by the phrase, "The elder shall serve the younger." Calvinism's reword of this verse is, "the elder is elected to be damned and the younger is elected to be saved." Calvinism is supported by Scripture that has been edited. In Genesis, Esau never serves Jacob. When Esau is near, Jacob tends to flee in fear. Jacob calls Esau, "my lord" while referring to himself, in addressing Esau, as "thy servant." Jacob offers his wives and children to Esau to be servants of Esau, but Esau declines with, "I have enough." Romans 9:13 says, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." As it is written in Malachi as a proclamations of judgment on the nation of Edom as a result of how that nation treated the nation of Israel. It's a fulfillment of, "I will...curse him that curseth thee) in Genesis 12:3. The Calvinist reword is, "Before the foundation of the world, Jacob have I elected to be saved and Esau have I decided to damn." Is the Lord's hatred literal or idiomatic? Deuteronomy 23:7 says, "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother..." The God of the Bible would never issue a command in which He is a poor example. As for the calvigod, well....I defer to the experts. Understood idiomatically, hated could be understood as not preferred. 5. Pharoah in Romans 9:17-18 Pharoah rejected the message of the Lord delivered by Moses and this started the process of the hardening of his heart. The Lord then continued with the hardening - the strengthening of Pharoah's resolve. Judicial hardening is also mentioned at the end of the book of Acts, "Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and THEIR EYES HAVE THEY CLOSED..." Were Calvinism true, the hardening of anyone's heart makes absolutely no sense. The elect, by definition, will be given a new heart and the unelect are maximally hardened from birth. 6. The potter and his vessels in Romans 9:21-24 The judicially hardened Israelite, complaining of the unfairness of being set aside after all the O.T. promises, would no doubt be familiar with the potter/clay analogy of Jer 18. But in that passage which compares disobedient Israel to a marred vessel unto dishonor, the nation is told that by repenting and getting right with God they could then restore them and treat them as the potter treats a vessel unto honor. Also in 2 Tim 2:20, 21 we read of those once faithful men (verse 2) who now have gotten off track and have become vessels unto dishonor. The solution, repent so as to get right with God and be restored as a vessel unto honor. "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour..." is the Scriptural remedy when, if one makes himself to be a vessel of dishonor by his own bad choice. Also, in Romans 9:22, even Calvinists like MacArthur own up to the use of the middle voice in "fitted to destruction" means they fitted themselves, there's personal responsibility involved. Also, this section of Scripture uses questions and not indicative statements. One question begins with, "What if...?" One should be careful before making a doctrine based on a "What if...?" What if my investments yielded at 35,000% return? I would then purchase a villa on Lake Como. But here I am.
Esau/Edom is clearly hated by Elohim and "ALL" of them are destined to be destroyed= Mal.1:3-4, Num.24:20, Ex.17:14,16, Obad.1:18, Ps.137:7-8!
Romans 9 compares "nation of Israel" and "Spiritual Israel, the Church" which are Older and Younger respectively (Romans 9:12). The Jews thought the blessings were for national Israel (Romans 8:28-8:39 blessings for children of promise), but by pursuing a law of righteousness instead of righteousness by faith (Romans 9:30-10:4), unbelieving Jews are missing out on their inheritance (Romans 9:1-5). The Older and the Younger are those brothers Jesus teaches of in Luke 15:11-32. The end of this Parable does not tell us if the Older (national Israel) welcomes into God's family the Younger (the Church largely made of Gentiles). In Romans 9, Paul uses analogies to compare national Israel to Spiritual Israel: Isaac/Ishmael (promise vs. works), Jacob/Esau (receive blessing without works vs. work and sell the birthright), and Moses/Pharaoh (submit to God asking for mercy/stiff-neck rebellion to God). Paul is teaching by analogy the same way he does in Galatians 4:21-31. Read Romans 9:6-9 and Galatians 4:21-31 and you'll see how Paul uses analogies; it's beautiful. We can know this because Romans 9 and Galatians 3-4 overlap heavily in their themes. God's purpose in election is Him choosing the Israelites to serve the Gentiles in fulfilling Genesis 12:3. Christ comes from national Israel and the Jews have been given the oracles of God. Robert Leitzel covers all of this in his $6 book on Amazon, "The Anti-Calvinism Answer Key". Christopher C. Chapman also covers this in his $12 book "Romans Chapter 9: Calvinism's Proof-Text Or Paul's Gospel?"
I am Esau. I sold my birthright for food. I tried everything and now I'm dead. Cut off
We have all done that at one time or another, we cannot keep God’s law perfectly, but repent of your sin and ask the Lord to forgive and restore you, because the Bible says if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us :)
I BELONG TO JESUS BLOODLINE NOT DENYING MY SIN AT ALL IM RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD THROUGH JESUS BLOOD OH LET THE RACE GO BUT THE REALITY EVE ADAM WIFE IS THE MITHER SPIRITUALLY OF ALL HUMANS MALE AND FEMALE COLOR OF SKIN CLEARLY WAS DARK IN AFRICA EGYPT EUPHRATES NILE RIVER WERE MOSES WAS FOUND BY PHAROAH DAUGHTER IN AFRICA GOD LOOKS AT THE HEART THE JEWISH PPL ARE NOT ALL GOD'S CHOSEN THEY REJECTED JESUS AND THAT HAS BEEN THEIR SEPERATION FROM GOD HAS BEEN FOR CENTURIES HAVING MERCY ON THEM AFT THEY DENIED JESUS GOD CHOSE PAUL FORMERLY NAMED SAUL TO BE THE MINISTER OF THE GENTILES PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF GRACE JESUS DEATH BURIAL RESURRECTION TGE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE CORN CHAPT 15 VER 1- 4 DR ETIENNE GRAVES STUDY WITH HIM ON YT PASTOR STEPHEN DARBY YT LOTS OF BIBLICIAL TRUTHS KNOWLEDGE INDEPTH AMEN ESAU WAS AN EDOMITE LOKNIT UP IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THESE LESSONS ARE THINGS NEVER BEEN TAUGHT IR OREACHED ABOUT IN ANY CHURCHES I ATTENDED IN MY CHRISTIAN LIFE AS A BELIEVER IN JESUS GOD'S SON URGE YOU LISTEN WITH AN OPEN SPIRITUAL HEART AND MIND GET THE TRUTH IF YOU PREFER SOME OTHER MINISTERY YOUR RIGHT TOO I KNOW PERSONALLY THAT I CANNOT GO BACK TO THE OTHERS MINISTRIES ONLINE GOD BLESS YOU ALL RICHLY THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AMEN I LOVE YOU ALL IN CHRIST JESUS GOD'S BLOOD IS MY BLOOD TYPE FROM JESUS AMEN
What is a birthright?
@@freespirit7450 You don't even know what the birthright is in the Bible and you comment on how I'm performing mental gymnastics?
The argument for Jewishness does not work for Isaac and Ishmael. Jacob is the first Israelite. Anybody before Jacob cannot be Jewish or non-Jewish. However, the proper argument should be that since Ishmael was conceived by man's (or Sarah's) design with disregard for God's promise, God chose Isaac over him.
No, the Jewishness does matter - that comes through in the phrase "our forefather." Though Isaac was not a Jew at the time, (at least some of) the readers were Jews who understood Isaac to be their forefather. Though your second point is valid as well.
What do you mean conceived by man.
You mean good is selective in a way that others are conceived by man and others are not??
@@kentykatele4353 Please learn to read. I said "conceived by man's design," not "conceived by man."
👃❤💛💙💜💚👃
Any religion that recognizes the bible as inspired by God should take note of such scriptures as Amos 9:11-15.
Verse 15 makes it very apparent that this is an end time and even post Armageddon prophecy. In all other exiles that Israel and Judah went into they would return and go back into again. But as vs 15 brings out this time they return and become permanently established.
Whether verses 11-15 are applied to physical or spiritual Israel and Judah, they still stand as end time post Armageddon prophecies.
Now, it's within this context of biblical prophecy the nation of Edom along with some other nations are spoken of as becoming a possession of Israel. This tells us Edom is still around. That it wasn't completely eliminated 2000 years ago as some Christians teach.
Does Edom become a possession in the sense of being a subject of the nation of Israel? Or by being put into outright servitude to it? Compare Isaiah 14:1-2. 61:6-7.
According to the Bible Edom has been a prime opposer of God's people. Malachi 1:4. Joel 3:6,19-20. We learn from Amos chapter nine that the nation of Edom is still around in the end times and post Armageddon period. So, any zealous bible student might want to know who are these people today? What name or names do they go under right now? And do they still collectively oppose Israel or God's purpose in general?
look up #Mudflood...the evidence is out that we're all lied to on the timeline.
The Millennial Reign of The Christ has already happened. We live in "The Short Season" of Revelation 20:8.
Christ's appearance wasn't 2000 years ago...it's closer to 1500 years ago.
That's very interesting Eri. Maybe you can elaborate more on this. Where can I find some references?
God said he hates Esau(white people), and loves Jacob (Hebrew/Negros). What is so difficult about it that you can't understand.
Exactly, it’s not meant for them to get. They’re trying make it seem like gods word is a puzzle to figure out.
😳
Yea God loves us blacks cus we were the first chosen but he also loves all of us n wants us all to go to heaven tho
@@Ephraim144k God's word will always be a puzzle to THE WICKED, because the word was not given to them, but to us the Israelites.
@@Yahshuaismyeverything that is false. Read 2esdras 6:56.
Stop lieing Edom idumean is your God of salvation idols
In my theory, it all starts back in Genesis 3 where the Lord promises a redeemer to make things right to come from the SEED of woman and a SEED coming from the Devil to bruise His heel. In Genesis 6 the seed of the devil is introduced into humanity in order to prevent the coming of Messiah by the pure seed of the woman. The seed of the devil permeates the entire human race except the family of Noah. The wives of the sons of Noah are among the contaminated humanity in various degrees. The wife of Ham carries the largest amount of seed of the devil and was the mother of Egypt and the giant Canaanite tribes.
Japheths wife carried lesser amount of seed of the devil which was shown in the likes of Gog and Magog.
The wife of Shem was most pure but still carrying a small amount which showed up in the seed of Esau the red - haired , hairy man. Jacob and Esau were fraternal twins and although they were both of the lineage of Abraham of the lineage of Shem of the Godly lineage to Adam, the one was carrier of the holy bloodline to the Messiah while the other was carrier of the bloodline of the Devil.
In the same womb.
That is why God said " Jacob I loved while Esau I hated."
That is why even though Esau came out first which made him the owner of the birthright it still could not be allowed for him to receive it. Esau could NOT be the one to continue the bloodline to the Messiah.
Ishmael could not be of the bloodline to the Messiah as he was of the Egyptian which was of the lineage of Ham's wife who was carrier of the seed of the devil
In Genesis 38 Judah, who was to be the carrier of the seed to the Messiah chose a wife of the Canaanites which was a bad choice. She had three sons which would have ruined the pure lineage to the Messiah if allowed to procreate in the normal fashion. God removed the first two and while waiting for the third son to become of age, the wife Judah had chosen for his first son arranged a manner for herself to become impregnated by Judah himself thereby eliminating the possibility of the Lord taking the youngest son out as well. Thus bypassing all the seed of the Canaanite woman.
Judah picked a better wife for his sons than he did for himself and when eventually the children of that union were born ( fraternal twins once again ) the one stuck his arm out ( Za'rah ) and had a thread tied on it. The other ( Pha'rez ) was born first and went on to become the line to the Messiah.
Yet fraternal twins (if both male) who inherit the same Y DNA Hapologroup as there father. So this part make no sense.
It's more eloke God for saw his distrust toward Esau before he was born know well enough that Esau would reject or have little care for his inheritance when he came to adulthood. You also have to remember that Esau sought after the world instead of the Hevanly Father.
@@brittanyhayes1043 but where does all the red hair come from? Why does Esau seem to be so incredibly different physically?
@@michaelszczys8316 Black people. He was a black man with Red hair. There are black people with naturally red hair just like there are black people with blonde hair. Hairy garment could be a genetic defect. But that dosne tmean they Esau is solely the ancestors of white people as he had relations and married black women so his decendnts would be black.
Also, Noah was described as Albino at his birth. So genetic plays a part of humanitys development.
it is about the election of Israel.
The chosen. The children of grace.
It's about God's sovereign choice to reconstitute Israel in those who follow His Son. Works and Lineage define membership in the nation of Israel, but these are of no guarantee of being in God's Spiritual Israel.
Rebecca from Africa? And she had 2 nations with in her.. Esau was born red was later called Edom. And Edom are what nation or ppl today and jacob later called Isreal who they are today?
you are just racist. Esau was not white nor the sole ancestor of white people as he married Cannanite women who were black.
Lol.. never said he was white. And we all come from Africa ask google✊️✊️🤣🤣
@@brittanyhayes1043 I mean no one knows what color he was u are racist for assuming they were black. God loves blacks that’s why Satan hates us the most
@@jamesbarr4392 the Bible never mentions color so ur wrong for assuming he’s red
@@Yahshuaismyeverything Actually the Bible describes his skin color and that he was hairy. Not making an argument about race or whatever (I don't care about that) but if you read scripture Esau's appearance was definitely described
"The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau."
Genesis 25:25 NIV
Does the Old Testament verify that YAH hates Esau?
This guy has no clue. God doesn't hate Esau at all. Esau and Jacob are an allegory, just like Ishmael and Isaac are. Find the book Jacob and Esau two nations and the inheritance to find the truth
@contemplate-Matt.G God just said he hated esau. Clear as day. Mental gymnastic
Paul quotes from Malachi, the last book of the old testament. You have to know what the book of Malachi was about, and then know why Paul cited the quote.
@@freespirit7450 Mental gymnastics is a good thing because God's book is full of spiritual concepts God hid so that the one who doesn't truly desire to know the truth hasn't the mental strength to see it. The Bible is not a newspaper. It's a living and breathing parable and those who diligently seek to fully understand it, God enlightens.
Although this school of theology’s teaching starts to miss the point much earlier in Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 8, it’s here starting in verse 6 that we see the clearest evidence of departure from understanding the author’s points.
Piper misses the crucial symbolism in verse 9 and wrongly calls the son Isaac when Paul was actually referencing Jesus. Piper doesn’t ask who Paul refers to when he says “Sarah,” and that reference is to the Jews of his day. And most importantly for verse 9 he doesn’t even seem to consider the point that Paul starts out with, saying that this is how the promise was stated. If Paul is teaching something about how the promise was stated, any later theologian should endeavor to be able to likewise point out the “how” (or “what” in this translation) and what it really means. In this case, Paul’s entire point, completely missed by Piper and like minded theologians, was that the Messiah, like Isaac, WAS promised to come much later.
If one spends time learning about Jewish thought and studies Acts it should become obvious that Paul would commonly have encountered several objections, one of which would be about temporality. Something like ‘why, Paul, would God be choosing to let the Gentiles into his family at this late date? So many hundreds of years after the prophets?’ THAT’S the objection Paul is beginning to answer in verses 9 & 10.
And the purest evidence for this is how he ends the next sentence. The ending of a sentence is often the main point and so it is here for Paul. His whole point is that maybe the Jews were used in the same way, maybe they are the elder child in the story now. Since they’re acting like the petulant elder child, maybe the roles are reversed. And wouldn’t that be something?! Paul says, aren’t you Jews the ones who always say God said Jacob I loved but Esau I hated? What if that really is true, God does only love some people, but what if you Jews are now the Esau and the Gentiles are the Jacob?? How would you like that?
That’s also why Paul uses the “what if” language a little later in the passage. Paul doesn’t really believe it’s true that God plays favorites, but he’s saying what if God did do that but it was you Jews who were the lesser vessel? You’ve been arrogant for so long thinking how great you were, what if the shoes is on the other foot and you’re not the vessel of honor? This goes completely missed by Piper and he ends up with a whole errant theology because of it.
Why are you mentioning MacArthur so much when he's nothing to do with Desiring God?
Thanks for this analysis. It makes more sense that this is what Paul was saying.
Not Abraham, he was pagan, nor Sarah nor Rebekkah were Jewish, neither was Issac nor Jacob... the Jews did not exist until Judah was born and became adult.
Ismael Jew and Jewish is different red and reddish is to not a like ???????????
Look at the the country gay from
Romans 9 comments:
1. Opening verses
The context at the start of Romans 9 is Israel, the nation corporately. Paul is heartbroken about his fellow countrymen outside of Christ, Israelites of whom God is not interested in saving were Calvinism true. This makes Paul more compassionate than the caricature of God, calvigod. In fact, calvigod is less compassionate than I and it can be proved mathematically! This is a problem. Also in this section one of the privileges for Israel was their election to be the channel of the world's redeemer - "and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came," in verse 5. This is the fulfillment by which the promise to Abraham, that "in thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." Isaac was elected over Ismael to fulfil this purpose - to be the channel through which the redeemer came, so that Ishmael and all his descendants shall be blessed. Jacob and his descendants were chosen also for this same blessed service. Esau and his descendents were ordained by be indirectly blessed. The corporate election of Israel does not mean that every Israelite was saved nor that every non-Israelite was lost.
2. The effectual Word
Romans 9:6 - "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect." The word of God is effectual, as also stated in 1 Thes 2:13. But if Calvinism be true then the Word is ineffectual. Where the Bible says that the Scriptures are "able to make thee wise unto salvation" the Calvinistic add-on is "but only if you were elected at the beginning of time." Psalm 19 says, "The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" but the same add-on must be appended for an honest presentation of Bible truth were Calvinism aligned with the Bible. "These things were written that ye (whoever you are) might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, ye might have life through his name." Sorry, just kidding. Belief is caused by the gnostic spark of regeneration for the elect while the non-elect is not effected positively by "these things [that] are written." There's a secret will of God that supercedes the written Word, in the mind of the Calvinist.
3. Isaac and Ishmael in Romans 9:7-9
The unbelieving Israelite might cry, "unfair" that now God's corporate witness is the church, composed of Jew and Gentile grafted into the Body of Christ. This new body is symbolized by Isaac, the child of promise, as related by Galations 3:29 - "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Ismael, the offspring of Agar, represents the unbelieving Israelite which persecutes the church while trying to establish his own righteousness by the works of the Law (Rom 9:32) as well as Gal 4:24 - "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar."
4. Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:10-13
The temporary setting aside of Israel as God's corporate witness is akin to the setting aside of the elder twin, Esau, as the channel through which the world's redeemer would come. Pregnant Rebecca was told, "Two nations are in they womb." And it is abundantly clear that Romans 9:10-13 is referring to the nations of Israel and Edom by the phrase, "The elder shall serve the younger." Calvinism's reword of this verse is, "the elder is elected to be damned and the younger is elected to be saved." Calvinism is supported by Scripture that has been edited. In Genesis, Esau never serves Jacob. When Esau is near, Jacob tends to flee in fear. Jacob calls Esau, "my lord" while referring to himself, in addressing Esau, as "thy servant." Jacob offers his wives and children to Esau to be servants of Esau, but Esau declines with, "I have enough."
Romans 9:13 says, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." As it is written in Malachi as a proclamations of judgment on the nation of Edom as a result of how that nation treated the nation of Israel. It's a fulfillment of, "I will...curse him that curseth thee) in Genesis 12:3. The Calvinist reword is, "Before the foundation of the world, Jacob have I elected to be saved and Esau have I decided to damn."
Is the Lord's hatred literal or idiomatic? Deuteronomy 23:7 says, "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother..." The God of the Bible would never issue a command in which He is a poor example. As for the calvigod, well....I defer to the experts. Understood idiomatically, hated could be understood as not preferred.
5. Pharoah in Romans 9:17-18
Pharoah rejected the message of the Lord delivered by Moses and this started the process of the hardening of his heart. The Lord then continued with the hardening - the strengthening of Pharoah's resolve. Judicial hardening is also mentioned at the end of the book of Acts, "Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and THEIR EYES HAVE THEY CLOSED..." Were Calvinism true, the hardening of anyone's heart makes absolutely no sense. The elect, by definition, will be given a new heart and the unelect are maximally hardened from birth.
6. The potter and his vessels in Romans 9:21-24
The judicially hardened Israelite, complaining of the unfairness of being set aside after all the O.T. promises, would no doubt be familiar with the potter/clay analogy of Jer 18. But in that passage which compares disobedient Israel to a marred vessel unto dishonor, the nation is told that by repenting and getting right with God they could then restore them and treat them as the potter treats a vessel unto honor. Also in 2 Tim 2:20, 21 we read of those once faithful men (verse 2) who now have gotten off track and have become vessels unto dishonor. The solution, repent so as to get right with God and be restored as a vessel unto honor. "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour..." is the Scriptural remedy when, if one makes himself to be a vessel of dishonor by his own bad choice.
Also, in Romans 9:22, even Calvinists like MacArthur own up to the use of the middle voice in "fitted to destruction" means they fitted themselves, there's personal responsibility involved. Also, this section of Scripture uses questions and not indicative statements. One question begins with, "What if...?" One should be careful before making a doctrine based on a "What if...?" What if my investments yielded at 35,000% return? I would then purchase a villa on Lake Como. But here I am.
Many words but no truth.
Who reading all that tho
@@Yahshuaismyeverything people who can read