Example #3 – Jacob and Esau

Isaac was Abraham’s second son, the child of promise, born after both Abraham and Sarah were past the age of being able to bear children. Abraham’s first son was begotten in a natural manner. Abraham had married Sarah’s handmaid Hagar, and Ishmael was born of this union.

But there was nothing miraculous about the birth of Ishmael. It was completely normal and natural.

Isaac’s birth was NOT a natural birth, but was supernatural, foreshadowing the spiritual, supernatural birth of Christ and of all those who are in the ‘one seed’ (Gal 3:16). Now Isaac brings forth two sons; Esau his firstborn and Jacob, Esau’s twin brother. We are told Abraham is the father of the faithful, who brings forth the child of promise. Remember “we, as Isaac are children of promise” (Gal 4:28). If those in Christ are “as Isaac, children of promise”, who then are the twin brothers they bring forth but the many who are called (Esau) and the few who are chosen (Jacob)?

Both are born of the elect. But just as Judas despised his elect position as one of Christ’s twelve disciples “whom also he named apostles” (Luk 6:13), and traded his eonian birthright for thirty pieces of silver; so Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup.

Judas had not cast in his lot with the despised cult. The people of God who betrayed and slew Christ were those who were in the vast majority, with thousands of years of traditions on their side. Had not Moses told Israel to swear by the name of Yahweh (Deu 6:13 and 10:20), to hate their enemy (Deu 7:2 and 20:7), eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (Exo 21:24 and Deu 19:21). Hadn’t Moses told the men of Israel that they could put away their wives “if thou have no delight in her…” (Deu 21:14)? Hadn’t Moses told Israel not to gather food on the Sabbath but prepare for the Sabbath on the sixth day (Exo 16:5)?

Let it be made clear that no one here is advocating that we add anything more to the New Covenant than that revealed in the New Covenant scriptures. The parallel being drawn here is that there is as great a difference between the revealed truths of the new covenant scriptures and the false teachings of orthodox Christendom today, as there are between the old covenant “law of Moses”, and the new covenant “law of Christ ” revealed in Mat 5, 6 and 7.

Christendom has almost two millennia of history and time- honored traditions totally contrary to new covenant scriptures.

Christ said not to fear man (Mat 10:28 and Heb 13:6) so we call our ministers ‘reverend’ which means ‘to be feared’, thus defying scripture. Christ said not to call any man father, yet many Christians do just that when referring to their spiritual leaders. Christ repeatedly said that the dead people he raised from the dead were ‘asleep’. Paul speaks of the dead as those who are asleep in Christ, who without a resurrection are perished, yet Christendom teaches the immortality of the soul. Christ tells us that every sacrifice would be “salted with fire”, yet He also says that He will “draw [ drag] all men to Himself”. Paul tells us that those with works of “wood, hay and stubble” will be “tried with fire and burned up, yet he himself will be saved”, “He will have all men to be saved”, He is the “savior of all men specially [ but not exclusively] of those who now believe”.

Peter tells us that God is longsuffering toward us, “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Again, Paul tells us that AS through the sin of one man, all are made sinners even so through the righteousness of one man shall all be made righteous. “As in Adam all die, SO in Christ shall all be made alive” (1Co 15:22).

Yet in the face of all these new covenant scriptures, Christendom has a long time- honored history and tradition of teaching the inconceivably cruel and unscriptural doctrines of either eternal death or worst of all, eternal torment in a literal lake of eternal fire with no hope of ever being redeemed by a loving Father.

What do these last two false doctrine have in common? They are both based on another unscriptural doctrine called the doctrine of free moral agency or the doctrine of man’s free will.

So here are the twin brothers of the elect father of the faithful. One will not receive the birthright and will marry the daughters of the people of the land; the other will live in temporary tents in peril of his life at the hand of his more popular and populous twin brother; for his brother is a man of the field (Gen 25:27) which Christ himself tells us is the world (Mat 13:38).

The truly elect of Christ love those who hate them. They have a love that far exceeds mere ‘phileo’ love. The true elect have a love that does not depend on love being returned. It is a carnally impossible love. It is ‘agape’ love. It is the love of God for all mankind.

Esau loves his brother only if his brother loves him, for he is the rejected elect, the many called who come in Christ’s name and admit that Christ is indeed Christ, yet they deceive many.

So why is ‘the many’, who is the rejected twin brother of the elect – why are they deceived and rejected? Is it because they decided to be unappreciative of their birthright? Did Esau choose to be a man of the world? Is that what scripture teaches us of either Esau or of the “many who shall come in my [ Christ’s] name and shall deceive many”?

Why do the scriptures say Esau was rejected? “… the children being NOT YET BORN, neither having [ chosen to do] any good or evil THAT THE [ PREDESTINATED] PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION [ BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD] MIGHT STAND, NOT OF [ CHOOSING TO DO] WORKS, BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH… as it is written Jacob have I loved [ before he was born] but Esau have I hated [ before he was born]… I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy… and whom He will He hardeneth… Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?” (Rom 9:7-21). That is the ONLY scriptural reason given for Esau’s rejection. He sold his birthright because he was rejected, “being not yet born, neither having [ chosen to do] any good or evil…”

He was not rejected because he chose to despise his birthright, but he chose to despise his birthright “that the purpose of God might stand…” (Rom 9:11). His choice was a God- caused choice “that the purpose of God according to election [ before he was born] might stand…” Every choice made by either Jacob or Esau was a caused choice… caused by “principalities [ and]… powers in the celestials” (Eph 6:12).

Next