The Law of the Hated Son
Jun 20, 2008
I mentioned earlier the law of the hated son in Deut. 21:15-17. It protects an older son from a father who does not love him or who loves a younger son more. The father does not have the lawful right to give the birthright to the younger son unless he has real cause to do so.
Thus, when God said in Malachi 4:2, 3 and again in Romans 9:13 that He loved Jacob and hated Esau, God was actually issuing a statement protecting the rights of Esau while clarifying prophecy.
We know from Gen. 25:23 that before the twins were even born, God said, "the older shall serve the younger." This looks like preferential treatment which some might say was unlawful. However, God knows how to do things in a lawful manner, since the law is an expression of His mind and will. The simple fact is that God intended to give the birthright to Jacob (the younger), but this required time for Esau to prove himself unworthy.
In other words, Esau had to be given time to prove himself to be a stubborn and rebellious son, as we read in Deut. 21:18. When legal cause was established, then and only then could Esau be disinherited by law.
When Jacob took it by stealth, by lying and taking advantage of his blind father, he did so before Esau had had a chance to fully prove himself to be a stubborn and rebellious son. This injustice meant that God had to come to Esau's defense. This is why Esau's heirs--the Zionists--were allowed to succeed in convincing the heirs of Jacob to give them back the birthright in 1948.
Jacob had stolen it by using Identity Fraud. So God allowed Esau to take it back by Identity Fraud as well. Jacob pretended to be Esau to get the birthright; even so today, Esau pretends to be Jacob to get back the birthright. In both cases, Jacob and Esau took advantage of blindness. Even as Isaac was blind, so also has God blinded the eyes of His people today in order to insure the plan's success. Isaac himself prophesied that this would happen, saying in Gen. 27:40, "when thou shalt have the dominion, you will break his yoke from off your neck."
Not knowing the background in Genesis, the blind Church has assumed that the establishment of the Israeli state itself proves that God was on their side. They are correct, but not for reasons that they understand. In addition, they assume that the Jews were fulfilling the biblical prophecies of the house of Israel. Here they are wrong, because the prophets were speaking of the northern house of Israel, not the southern house of Judah whose citizens were called Judahites, or "Jews" for short. Yet God has blinded the eyes of the Church in order to allow the Identity Theft to succeed.
The Church has had very little teaching about Esau-Edom and does not know that there is a whole set of Edomite prophecies showing that Esau had to receive his due before the end should come.
Certainly, God has blinded the Church, because without Church support, the Israeli state would have collapsed long ago. Because of this divinely-induced blindness, the Church is not fully liable for its support of the Zionists, whose terrorists seized the state by violence, murder, and theft. Even so, the Church is partially liable, because they should have known that this is not what Jesus would have done. If they had understood the New Covenant, they would have known to refrain from supporting those who would seize the kingdom by violence and force, treating anyone who got in their way as if they were Canaanites to be exterminated.
The Israelis have thus been given opportunity, toward the end of the age, to implement the impartial laws of God by the mind of Christ. They have had opportunity to treat people with equal justice as the law demands. They have had opportunity to treat everyone with love and kindness. They have had opportunity to be great by being the greatest servants to others. Instead, they have treated the Palestinians and all others as if they were dogs, Amalekites, cattle, and beasts--and they think that this is the lawful will of God!
Christians are strangely unaware today that Menachem Begin was the number one terrorist of the 1940's, heading the Urgun. If anyone doubts this, I recommend reading Begin's own book, The Revolt: Story of the Irgun, published first in 1951. He records with pride all the terrorist activities that he planned and implemented in the 1940's, including blowing up the King David Hotel in 1946. It was called "Operation Chick." He even has the audacity to report the massacre of 250 peaceful Arab old men, women, and children of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1947. It seems the Israelis needed their land for a future airport.
The second most important terrorist was Yitshak Shamir, whose book, Summing Up, tries to compete with Menachem Begin for being a good terrorist. Christians avoid reading these books, because they tend to disturb the conscience. I often get accused of hating Jews just for quoting from these books! Now that's blindness.
I recommend reading Robert Friedman's Zealots for Zion for a full accounting of the Israeli government policy toward the Palestinians from 1948 to the present. I quoted extensively from his book in chapter 14 of my book, The Struggle for the Birthright. Here is one example from page 25 of Friedman's book:
"Residents of the nearby Arab village of Jinsafut say they have lodged hundreds of complaints against him [Moshe Zar] in a Nablus court for fraudulent land deals. 'When Zar moved here, he was very sweet, very nice, and offered us a lot of money for our land,' a Jinsafut resident told me. 'When we said no, he kept persisting. Finally he just showed up in our field with armed men, a bulldozer, and a piece of paper that said the land was his'."
"The New York Times reported on August 20, 1985 that Shamir had ordered the police not to look too deeply into West Bank land-fraud cases, saying, according to the Times reporter, that 'a certain amount of sleight of hand' was needed to obtain land from the Arabs. 'Redeeming the land in the Land of Israel often necessitated crafty and tricky devices,' Shamir said in a speech at about the same time."
Shamir spoke of his view of terrorism on the radio in 1991, quoted on page xxxii of Friedman's book,
" 'Terrorism is a way of fighting that is acceptable under certain conditions and by certain movements,' he said, adding that while terrorism was appropriate for Jews fighting for their homeland, it is not for Palestinians who 'are fighting for land that is not theirs. This is the land of the people of Israel'."
Such is the reasoning from the carnal mind of Esau. As Jesus said in Matt. 23:32, "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers." These sins are accumulating as evidence before God that will justify His condemnation of Jerusalem and the Israeli state in general. The prophesied destruction is held back only until the full measure of sin is reached. When Esau's heirs have proven themselves fully unworthy to possess the birthright and the dominion mandate, we will see a very dramatic climax of world history. Hagar-Jerusalem will be cast out, and the true heirs of the promise will be revealed as the Sons of God.