Esau's Last Stand

"Esau's Last Stand"

Jeremiah's new book is a sequel to "While The Fiddler Played, The World Came To An End." Following is a Sample Chapter. The 144-page manuscript is now available at the cost of $25.00. You may purchase the book by clicking on the link to the page, Buy Esau.

Chapter One:
"Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated."

I begin my teaching on the fourth Horse of the Book of Revelation, identified variously as the Pale, Gray, Dappled or Sorrel Horse, depending on the version of the Bible that you use. And I am calling the teaching, "Esau's Last Stand!"

Malachi Chapter 1 is where we will begin. I want to show you historically, Scripture by Scripture, as we develop our scenario, so that you might have a better understanding of who this Gray Horseman is and how he spearheads the entire End-Of-The-Age Controversy against Zion.

"I have loved you, says the LORD. Yet you say, In what way have you loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? says the Lord." (Malachi 1:2-3)

In other words, Jacob was saying to the Lord, "How can you say that You have loved us when You have allowed us to be so punished and persecuted throughout the ages? Look at all of the trouble that has beset us. How can you say that You love us, Lord, when you have allowed us to face all of this trouble?"

Then the Lord replies to Jacob, "If you think you are so despised, just look at your brother Esau for comparison. Even though he was your older brother, he shall serve you. The older shall serve the younger." (Genesis 25:23) Therefore, God is saying that He has loved and has chosen Jacob over Esau. But He even makes a more dramatic statement when He says,

"Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated." (Malachi 1:2-3)

We cannot spiritualize the Bible. Many have endeavored to do that in connection with this Scripture which has been a great enigma because the Lord has instructed us to love our enemies. And yet He specifically says that He hates Esau. The question is, why? We have to examine all of the rationale that goes behind that statement. And when we do that, we will see at the end of the whole scenario the very broad-based reason that causes God to say, "Yet Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." That's a pretty strong statement. But it is a very valid statement. Not radical; valid. And I will show you why as we develop the story of Esau.

But our story begins with God's definitive statement, "I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated." We need to see what lies in between to figure out why God feels this way so that our own thoughts and attitudes can mirror those of God and not oppose Him. Our thoughts must not be at enmity with God's Word, but of one accord, and a proper understanding of what He says in this verse is essential to unravel the mystery.

Let me say from the beginning that if you understand "Esau's Last Stand" against his brother Jacob, then you will be able to understand the prophetic flow of end-time events culminating with the last great war of the age, Armageddon. But if you do not understand the conflict between Jacob and Esau, then you will be left in the dark. That is why this revelation from God is so critical for you to apprehend in all its fullness. I want you to see the whole picture with a crystal clear clarity that you could not otherwise gain. It is likened to a pincer movement thrusting through the Scriptures and the ages with a well-defined climax.

This story will enable you to see and know unequivocally what is going on; how the other three Horsemen of Revelation 6 surround this Gray Horseman and help him with his final assault on his brother, Jacob. You may have to review my book, "While The Fiddler Played, The World Came To An End," to get a foundational teaching on the White Horseman, the Red Horseman, and the Black Horseman which we have previously covered therein.

Now we shall deal with the central purpose of the Devil's whole plan of attack in these last days. Revelation 6:7-8 describes a pale or gray horseman, which we must examine carefully.

"When he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, Come and see. And I looked, and behold, a pale horse, and the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth." (Revelation 6:7-8)

This Pale Horse is a dappled Arab stallion. His rider is Islamic. The name of the rider is "Death," who can be otherwise personified as Allah, or the believers in Allah, a foreign god who is a non-god. The rider, Death, clearly depicts those whom we know as the wicked Islamic terrorists, "the wild beasts of the earth," who are preoccupied with death and killing. Hell follows with the rider. In other words, the believers in Allah who are riding the dappled Arab stallion are to be inheritors of eternal Hell and damnation.

I am making that statement in a rather straight forward way without first laying a foundation. I am throwing it out for you, but we are going to go through all of the proofs and show you how this actually is so, how it began, and how it marks the end or culmination of the entire sequence of events beginning with Jacob and Esau in Rebekah's womb.

Now, let's turn to the Book of Romans. I said that "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated" is an accurate perception of God. And yet Yeshua our savior made the statement that we must love our enemies. How do we reconcile the differences? Does what God says through Malachi, an Old Testament prophet, conflict with Yeshua's statement? Absolutely not. You will find that the Old Covenant does not conflict with the New Covenant in any way. And what I want you to see is Romans 9:1-4 so that we can see the same matter reiterated. Thus, it is a New Covenant concept as well as an Old.

"I tell the truth in Messiah, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit... "

Now there is only one Holy Spirit, and He only speaks one truth. He does not speak out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing on one hand and one thing on another. He's honest and He's the same God under the Old Covenant as under the New Covenant. The only thing that changed was that the Messiah came to fulfill that which was promised by the Old Covenant. But there is no inconsistency between the Old and the New.

As a matter of fact, it is essential to know the fullness of the Old to understand the New; particularly in the prophetic, but in all respects, not just prophetically. But know with a certainty that you cannot possibly understand the New Covenant with respect to the prophetic if you don't understand the Old. The Scripture goes on to say:

"That I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Messiah for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites,"

Aha! He is an Israelite. So, since he is Israelite, it proceeds that the tribes of Israel were not lost as so many have taught. He is an Israelite, he is not of the tribe of Judah, he is an Israelite, and he is in Israel after the dispersal of the Northern tribes to Assyria in 722 BC and after the dispersal of the Southern tribes to Babylon in 586 BC. Paul was an Israelite, from the tribe of Benjamin. (Romans 11:1) He was a Benjamite. My father was Benjamin; Yirmeyahoo (Jeremiah) ben (son of) Benyamin, so I am probably a Benjamite on that side, and on my mother's side I am a Levite. That is gratuitous. Anyway it goes on to say:

"to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Messiah came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

So that from out of Israel came all of these things that the Scripture talks about, and of course the Lord said, "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22), not of the Church.

"But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel, who are of Israel..." (Vv. 6)

That's true. Many Israelites will clench their fists and will not ever believe in Yeshua. Well, they have made their choice.

"Nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, In Isaac shall your seed be called." (Vv. 7)

There is a chosen line, and a non-chosen line. And we have to be very careful as we distinguish between the chosen and the non-chosen line. Not because we are discriminatory, but because we know that from the line of chosen-ness comes the Messiah. From one line comes the blessings, the promises and the covenants; from the other line comes nothing: didley squat. However, salvation is available to them through the Messiah just like it's available to everybody.

To Jew and Gentile, yellow, black, white, red, salvation is available. But the blessings come through the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: the blessings as to the Land - who the land was given to; blessings as to the chosen-ness; the blessings as to whom Messiah would come out of, and the blessing-ness from whence would come the Kehilat (the Church). Without the blessings going through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, if it went Abraham, Ishmael, and Esau, there would be no Church. No Messiah. You begin to sense what Esau is doing.

"But, in Isaac your seed shall be called. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God;" (Vv. 7-8)

We are not all equal. That is, some are the children of disobedience, and some are the children of God. The children of disobedience have the right to become the children of God through the blood of the Lamb if they want to, or the sons of Esau can always opt to stick with Allah, which they have done to a large extent.

"But the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this, but when Rebekah also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls), it was said to her, The older shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Vv. 8-12)

There it is again in the New Testament, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Obviously, Yeshua's words that we should love our enemies do not and cannot be deemed to conflict with this statement of God; because He, God Himself, was given "as a covenant to the people," (Isaiah 49:8) a New Testament in which these extraordinary words are reiterated.

And certainly Paul, the reiterator of these words of Malachi (Vv. 1: 2-3) in the New Testament, one of the most significant if not the most significant of all the New Testament writers, certainly knew and understood the Old Testament which he was paraphrasing. He called himself "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee." (Acts 23:6)

So, I want you to see that this is not just an Old Testament teaching, and it does not in any way conflict with the forgiving of your neighbors or family members who have wronged you, which is what the Lord was referring to. But, we are talking about the enemies of God. And that is a very big difference! When you're dealing with the enemies of God as opposed to the people who have harmed you or hurt you in some way, this is the distinction.

Now, let's go back to Genesis 25. This is a most amazing and exciting and wonderful scenario. We are proceeding fastidiously for a very specific purpose: that you might come to understand the nature, quality and character of Esau as opposed to that of Jacob, and to see how this impacts the whole of world history; the culmination of the entire plan of God throughout the ages as it comes to its conclusion in these latter days through the peace covenant in Daniel 9:27.

Genesis 25 starting at verse 19 will tell us the beginning of the entire end-time scenario. I am going to bring some light to the story of Jacob and Esau that has perhaps not been seen before.

"This is the genealogy of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begot Isaac (this is the chosen line that Paul was referring to in Romans). Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah as wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan_Aram, the sister of Laban the Syrian. Now Isaac pleaded with the Lord for his wife, because she was barren;"

And by the way, my wife, Wendy, was barren also. She was not supposed to be able to have children. And now we have two sons.

"And the Lord granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her;"

Parenthetically, this was in effect "the war of good and evil;" the Devil trying to wrench the promises away from Israel so that Satan might establish supremacy over God. I will show you as we proceed through the story, how he was endeavoring to wrench away the blessing not just from Jacob and give it to Esau, but away from Jacob's descendant who is your Messiah and mine.

"And she said, If all is well, why am I this way? So she went to inquire of the Lord."

This is something we must always do; to go and inquire of the Lord. He is the only One that can give us answers to our questions. Sometimes a Spirit-filled friend can be an interpreter. The point is, the Lord is the one we must inquire of. How often we do forget to do this? But Rebekah (Rifka) didn't, and the Lord said to her,

"Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other; and the older shall serve the younger." (Gen. 25:19-23)

Thus, we can see that it was the Lord's plan for the older (Esau) to serve the younger (Jacob). So you must immediately wipe away every pre-conceived notion that you have of Jacob and what he did against Esau. You must understand that it was the Lord's plan for Jacob to receive the blessing as the younger, or as the last sibling to emerge from the birth canal. And that the older, the one to come out first, would serve Him. That was God's predetermined, pre-ordained plan. There was a reason for it, and anything that would conflict with that would be anti-God. Even if it was reflected in the opinions of Christian or Jewish theologians and translators of the Bible.

"... that is Esau shall serve Jacob. So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment all over; so they called his name Esau. Afterward his brother came out, and his hand took hold of Esau's heel; so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them." (Vv. 24-26)

Now if you look at that verse in your margin maybe you will find a note that it interprets the name of Jacob. In my Bible it says "Supplanter" or "Deceitful." Error, that's error! That is a pre-conceived Christian notion that has really been at the root of anti-Semitism through the ages. "Did you Jew them down?" Have you ever heard that when it comes to bargaining with your neighbor? Where do you think that demonic and anti-Semitic notion comes from? It comes from the concept that Jacob "Jewed down" his brother; grabbed hold of him and supplanted him, deceitfully supplanted him when in fact it was God's plan for Jacob to inherit the blessing and not for Esau to inherit it; that Esau would serve Jacob. But already there is a misinterpretation in the Bible calling Jacob something that he is not. And Esau something that he is not.

Jacob was still in the womb as Esau was coming out of the birth canal. So Jacob reached down and grabbed his brother's heel as Esau was emerging.

Now I will tell you what the Hebrew word Jacob actually means. It does not mean "supplanter," it does not mean "deceitful." It means "heel grabber;" "one that takes by the heel." Jacob was a "heel grabber" because he had grabbed his brother's heel; simple! That does not mean he was trying to "supplant" him, and Romans 9:11 proves it by saying, "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil..."

Who knows what is going on in a baby's mind? Maybe he was trying to get out, and he was seeking help from his brother, to help get him out; or just grabbing at anything he could to facilitate his exit from the birth canal into life; from darkness into light. We do not have the right to interpret as many of the Christian interpreters did; probably emanating from the Vulgate translations or from the influence of the Roman Church. It amounts to substituting man's tainted opinion for the actual anointed words of Moses, the writer of Genesis.

This mistranslation of the word "Jacob" is a blatant attempt to discredit Jacob. That's exactly how the Devil always gets his foothold against God and God's people, through a shoddy misuse of words; a substitutionary, counterfeit approach. Look up the word "Jacob" in any Bible dictionary and see what I mean: in every instance the dictionaries are slanted to discredit Jacob.

"And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents." (Genesis 25:27 KJV)

Your Bible, if you have the King James Version, probably says that Jacob was a "plain" man. In my Bible, which is the New King James, they use the word "mild:"

"So the boys grew. And Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field; but Jacob was a mild man, dwelling in tents."

Now I have to tell you, that this again is an attempt to obfuscate or to color what the Word of God is saying. There were many possible choices of words for the English translation of the Hebrew word, 'Tawm.' The only other place in the whole Bible where that word is used is in the Book of Job. It is never translated there as "mild" or "plain," but always as "perfect" or "blameless." I am going to show you that shortly.

"And Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob." (Vv. 28)

Maybe Rebekah loved Jacob more because she knew he was the chosen of God. The Lord had clearly told her that the older would serve the younger. (Vv. 23, ibid.)

Now let's look at the Book of Job. I invite you to go to your concordance and see if I am telling you the truth. The only other place in the entire Bible where the Hebrew word 'Tawm' is used is in the Book of Job. And consistently in the Book of Job it is translated "perfect" and "upright." If you will look at Job Chapter One, you will see what I am talking about.

I am here to not make a case for Jew versus Arab, but for truth vs. non-truth. I am a defender of the Truth of the Word of God and it is my responsibility to be an accurate purveyor of that Word. The Lord called me out of my law practice to become for Him what He called a "divine lawyer" and that is my responsibility. Error frustrates me. So, if we study the book of Job in relation to the account of Esau and Jacob, we will find that I am exposing error and eliciting truth.

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil." (Job 1:1, KJV)

And that man, Job, was what? My Bible (New King James Version) says he was "blameless and upright." The King James says "perfect and upright." Now I remind you that the same Hebrew word, "Tawm," when describing Jacob is translated "mild" in my NKJV. Sounds bigoted to me.

By the way, to be fair, the word, "Tawm" can have several different translations. So there is always the choice of picking the one that the translator prefers. It can mean "complete," "usually pious," "gentle," "dear," "perfect," "undefiled," "upright," or "plain." So you, as the translator, would have the choice of choosing any of the foregoing words if you were translating from Hebrew to English. And you would bring to your work any of your own personal prejudices with respect to race, religion, creed or color.

The translator chose the word "plain," or "mild" in the NKJV. Is that a fair or accurate translation? Or is it skewed? Stilted? It seems like this translator made Jacob a target of disdain while making Job an object of praise. Out of eight possible choices, he chose the only one which was non-descriptive rather than praise-worthy. What was his object in doing this? He had seven glowing descriptive words to choose from but instead chose a bland, uncomplimentary translation to label Jacob, and an effusive one to identify Job, but mind you, from the same Hebrew word.

Now let's continue to see just how extensive this diatribe against Jacob and his people really is. Let's look at all the other places where you find the use of the word "Tawm" to describe Job. The translation of the Hebrew word, "Tawm," is italicized in the following verses.

"Then the LORD said to Satan, Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?" (Vv. 1:8)

The King James says, a perfect and an upright man.

"Then the LORD said to Satan, Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause." (Vv. 2:3)

King James says, a perfect and an upright man.

"Behold, God will not cast away the blameless, nor will He uphold the evildoers." (Vv. 8:20)

King James uses, "perfect."

"Though I were righteous, my own mouth would condemn me; Though I were blameless, it would prove me perverse. I am blameless, yet I do not know myself; I despise my life. It is all one thing; Therefore I say, He destroys the blameless and the wicked." (Vv. 9:20-22)

King James substitutes the word "perfect" in all of these three places. Now I am going to show you where in the latter chapters of the New King James it even uses "perfect."

"Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that you are righteous? Or is it gain to Him that you make your ways blameless?" (Vv.22:3)

King James uses the word, "perfect."

"For truly my words are not false; One who is perfect in knowledge is with you." (Vv. 36:4)

King James also uses "perfect."

"Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?" (Vv. 37:16)

The King James Version also uses the word, "perfect." I invite you to go to your concordance. You will find that the Hebrew word for perfect is "Tawm." And yet the translator in the only other place in the Bible where the word is used somehow chooses mild or plain to describe the character of Jacob; if Job were being spoken of, he would be described as perfect.

Doesn't this sound like a Yasser Arafat propaganda campaign? Do you see what I am saying? So, we have to be very careful to understand whether the translator is expressing his own personal point of view or that which God is saying through His prophet.

Obviously, the translators added their preconceived notions to that which God was saying. Their interpretation, therefore, casts aspersions on Jacob which are not from God. And their erroneous opinions would have a lasting effect upon everyone that would read the Bible throughout the whole world for centuries to come! Dangerous? You bet! And that is a bird's eye view of exactly how the Devil works!

Let's go back to the story of Jacob and Esau. I want to make another eye-opening analogy regarding another famous Bible character. I am making a further case for Jacob consistent with what the Word of God says, because that is my responsibility as a teacher, to teach truth accurately.

"So the boys grew, and Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field..." (Gen. 25:27)

I want to make a comparison with another famous Biblical "man of the field;" "a man of the flesh" as opposed to "a man of the Spirit."

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." (Gen. 4:1-2)

Abel was a shepherd, and I am drawing an analogy here. I am saying to you that Jacob was a man of the tents. That's what the Scripture says. Jacob was a man who was dwelling in tents. As opposed to Cain who was a skillful hunter. This is just the beginning of my analogy; that Abel was similar to Jacob while Cain was similar to Esau. Esau being a hunter, "a man of the field," Cain being a tiller of the ground; both earthy men.

"And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell." (Genesis 4:3-5)

Now, parenthetically, I want to give you a potential reason for God's refusal of Cain's offering, not necessarily the reason. But it does point to the kind of mind set that Cain might have had to suggest a possible understanding of why God was displeased with his offering.

If you look at Amos 8:5, you will see a typical God-displeasing type of attitude that might be similar to Cain's attitude.

"Saying: When will the New Moon be past, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may trade wheat? Making the ephah small and the shekel large, falsifying the scales by deceit..."

In other words, what might a fleshly man (not a Spirit man), who is a tiller of the ground, do? Hasten to sell his grain? Rush to sell his wheat? He might be in a hurry to get beyond the Sabbath so that he could sell unhindered. This is a potential reason why the Lord was not pleased with Cain's offering; maybe because Cain's offering was not whole-hearted; because he was a man of the flesh rather than a man of the tents; rather than a man of the Spirit who loved God. This could be an accurate assessment of the facts that lay behind the scenes.

Cain was probably making his offerings to God in a perfunctory manner, wanting it to be over in a hurry, and God was not pleased for that reason. This is speculation. But it is a good possibility; certainly typical of the behavior of a man of the flesh rather than of the Spirit.

Anyway, let us return to Genesis to try to discover why God said, "Yet Jacob have I loved; but Esau I have hated." (Malachi 1:2-3) Keep that Scripture focused in your mind as we progress, because we are looking for the motivations and character of Jacob and Esau, because it concerns the events of the End of the Age, and the perfidious character and nature of the Rider on the Pale or Gray Horse of the Book of Revelation (6:7-8) who enters into a covenantal relationship with Jacob's descendants at the end of the times of the Gentiles.

"So the LORD said to Cain, Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." (Genesis 4:6_7)

In other words, Cain was not doing well. Maybe because he was in a hurry to get through the sacrifices and offerings, or getting through the Sabbath to sell his merchandise because he was a man of the flesh rather then a man of the Spirit. Now get this!

"And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

The point is, sin is always beckoning, always chasing, it never lets up. It always lies at your door. But you have a personal accountability before God to rule over it. And that's the point. Cain was not accountable before God to rule over the sin. As we go on we will see that. But we must be personally always accountable to withstand that sin. If your eye offends you, the Lord said, pluck it out! If it causes you to sin pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom maimed then to not enter in at all. So now it goes on to say:

"Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him." (Genesis 4:8)

Now turn to Genesis 27:41.

"So Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father blessed him, and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then I will kill my brother Jacob."

Is that not exactly the motivation of Cain's heart? But Cain fulfilled it. He killed his brother while Esau planned to do it at some later time.

"And the words of Esau her older son were told to Rebekah. So she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said to him, Surely your brother Esau comforts himself concerning you by intending to kill you." (Vv. 27:42)

She told Jacob the whole thing; what his brother intended to do to him. Rebekah knew that the older would serve the younger because God had told her; that the younger was blessed of God. And of course she being the mother of both of them, would not want either of her two boys killed. But our study shows us that both Cain and Esau had a similar proclivity: to be killers of their righteous brothers; to be jealous of their brothers who are loved by God, accepted by God. We see that same line of reasoning and motivation in both of these people, Cain and Esau.

"Then the LORD said to Cain, Where is Abel your brother? He said, I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9)

The point is, Cain did know! He had killed him. So he was a liar. No character. He thought he could fool God, but he couldn't. God knew. And this ends my analogy. Two liars, and two murderers in their hearts, Cain and Esau.

Now let's return to Genesis 25 where we find that the things of the flesh are more important to Esau than the things of the Spirit; that he was a grievous exaggerator. You may find that if you are harboring any doubts regarding any of the things that I am saying, they will be cleared up by reading the Scriptures which tell the story exactly as I am relating it. If the Bible says it is so, then it is so; not what the translators say, but what the Bible says.

"Now Jacob cooked a stew; and Esau came in from the field, and he was weary. And Esau said to Jacob, Please feed me with that same red stew, for I am weary. Therefore his name was called Edom." (Genesis 25:29-30)

What does "Edom" mean? It means red; for the red stew, red beans.

"But Jacob said, Sell me your birthright as of this day." (Vv. 3)

Parenthetically, do you think that Jacob knew that God had spoken to his mother and told her that "the older shall serve the younger?" I suspect that a mother would share this with the son of promise. And as we continue, we will see that this is probably true. But let's continue to analyze the character of both of these men.

"And Esau said, Look, I am about to die; so what profit shall this birthright be to me? Then Jacob said, Swear to me as of this day. So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. And Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils; then he ate and drank, arose, and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright." (Vv. 32-34)

"I am about to die!" Is that not gross exaggeration? Do you suppose there might have been a piece of bread in his father's house that he could have gotten? If he were a man of the Spirit, he could have fasted! But the point is, would you sell your birthright before God for a bowl of soup? Would you sell your salvation? If you were a man of the Spirit, you certainly wouldn't.

All right, maybe these were younger boys. But it certainly indicates that this man was an exaggerator. He was grossly exaggerating when he said, "I am about to die, so what profit shall this birthright be to me?" If a birthright is important enough, you don't sell it. If salvation is important enough, you don't deny the Lord. And you will see how important the birthright becomes to Esau as we move on. And how he lies about what he did. But we see also that his extravagant exaggeration is ludicrous. Why would he sell his birthright for a bowl of stew when he could have gone to the cupboard and taken a piece of bread? He certainly was not a man of the Spirit. He was a man of the flesh.

And remember that Jacob probably knew that he was entitled to that birthright in the first place. After all, would he not have known it from his own mother? Anyway, Esau being a man of the flesh, the things of the flesh were apparently more important to him than the things of spiritual significance. What we are seeing birthed here are the roots of bitterness, a competitive bitterness in Esau towards his brother.

But it has been turned around and perverted in the biblical interpretations and historically so that the story is interpreted from a different perspective. We are shown Jacob as being bitterly competitive against Esau; Jacob is accused of cheating his brother, Esau, rather than the reverse of it where the bitter root was really in Esau, the jealous root.

Esau didn't care about God. The Scripture says that he "despised his birthright." Those are strong words. On September 13, 1993 on the White House lawn, I would have to say that the reverse happened where Jacob despised his birthright. How tragic that is and it brings tears to my soul as I tell you this. But Israel despised her birthright, the Land they were given by God, on September 13, 1993, when Yasser Arafat shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin. It was because Israel had despised her birthright. She agreed to give a large part of her Land to the Arabs who are erroneously called Palestinians. And she would suffer greatly as a result of that. But in the midst of all the suffering, God will redeem Israel and will save Israel from the fires. But in fairness, I had to point that out.

So, continuing at Genesis 25:34 we trace the beginnings of the conflict between the brothers. Also, we compare the character of Jacob with the character of Esau; to figure out why God would say he hated Esau and loved Jacob. We are simply analyzing that. And if you read my first book, you will find that the Lord used the word "malignancy" to describe the Rider on the Gray Horse, collectively meaning the sons of Esau and the (false) god they serve.

It would behoove you to read that and understand why the Lord would use those words. But as we develop this scenario, as we move on throughout the whole story of Esau's descendants, you are going to be absolutely amazed! Your mind will be boggled and you will understand why God would make such an extreme statement as hating Esau. God is no respecter of persons, so don't blame Him. He does hate evil and it's absolutely frightening to see the things that Esau has done. Continuing now.

"When Esau was forty years old, he took as wives Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. And they were a grief of mind to Isaac and Rebekah." (Genesis 26:34-35)

Why was it a grief of mind to Isaac and Rebekah? Because they had no doubt instructed their sons with the same instructions that had been passed down by Abraham to Isaac, that they were not to marry "the daughters of Canaan." (Genesis 24:3-4) So once again we see that Esau chose the things of the flesh (Canaanite women) rather than the things of the Spirit, and thereby displeased his parents. This is a direct breach of the commandments of God, to honor mother and father. Indeed, Esau shows a tendency of disobedience toward the things of God.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12)

Witness how Esau did not honor his mother and father. He did what he chose. Probably some of us have children that have dishonored God and have broken the commandments of God. And sometimes we as parents are pretty much helpless, we just have to get down on our knees and pray. Because when children get to that certain stage in their lives, they become highly disposed to rebel against anything and everything their parents tell them to do notwithstanding their parents would train them as I have trained my kids since they were babies, reading them Scriptures, helping them to memorize Scriptures. Then all of a sudden they get to be teenagers. So it happens. What are you going to do? There comes a time when you just have to trust the Lord. That's not what I am talking about here. But this is a serious matter where Esau goes off and marries heathen women. Of course, God could forgive that, too. But let's see if Esau ever did repent.