Book of Malachi - Ch. 1, Vs. 2-3 (01/08/2023)

The Love of God, Election, and Malachi 1:2-3

We've got everything settled here. We'll go ahead and get started. I might need dad to turn this down once he gets back in here. Pretty loud. I think it's mic number four. Pop pop. Testing. Yeah, that's better.

That ring went away too. Alrighty. Well, good morning everybody. We're going to be at Malachi chapter one verses two and the very beginning of verse three again. We're going to finish up kind of what we were looking at last week for this specific thing.

Yeah, we're recording pop pop. We're going to finish up a few thoughts there before continuing the trek through Malachi. Last week, if you guys remember, we did a couple of things where we went trying to think how did we get there.

Oh yeah, we started with first John, I think four eight. We talked about the concept of God's love being infinite and infallible and then asked how does that mesh with the with verses such as Malachi one verse three where he says, I have hated Esau.

So we talked about that quite a bit and we kind of concluded, we determined that it is possible for God to have infinite love and yet still be able to hate certain individuals because while his love is infinite, he ordained the method by which he extends that love to people and that being his election through election.

So we concluded that, but then we also just took a broad look at God's love in general and like I said a few weeks ago, we went to that, we went to kind of the quintessential verse on God's love that is John 3 16 and we broke that verse down word for word and saw that there weren't any contradictions.

It doesn't go against God's character, in other words, to when we look at passages like Malachi 1 3. So we looked at, we ended last week with looking at John 3 16 and of course we kind of asked how does this apply to Malachi and we learned that first of all, the first part of verse three of Malachi does not violate God's character, of course.

His love is infinite and infallible, but he is also very specific about how he extends that love to the human race. So that was a big portion of what we talked about last week. Of course, the race was totally fallen.

100 of it deserved hatred and deserved damnation for the sin that we all exhibit that the human race collectively exhibited and of course that is necessary given God's characteristic, another one of God's characteristics that we're going to be talking about shortly as well.

And so 100 of it was fallen. He had this infinite love that was already a huge part of his existence. I mean, well, how do I word this? Obviously, it's always been a part of his existence, but the point I'm trying to get to is even prior to our existence, his love was there.

It was shared among the Trinity, his love for the Son, for the Holy Spirit, and the Son toward the Father, the Holy Spirit, and you can go all the way around. And so that love pre-existed all of us, the human race, and so when we come into existence, now we are then fallen and the whole race was doomed.

He extended that same infinite love that he was sharing toward his Son, toward Spirit, to a remnant of that otherwise totally fallen race. And so that's kind of what we were talking about yesterday. He extended that love in two specific ways at least, not necessarily limited to these, but certainly including these, of course, by electing his people before the foundation of the earth.

We talked about that quite a bit last week. That, of course, included Jacob and his seed, as he expressed in verse 2 of Malachi, Jacob have I loved, but also by putting the entire universe or the cosmos, as we looked at John 3 .16 last week, back in order at the crucifixion, which made it possible for those who are believing in him to have eternal security in their salvation.

So obviously that's an enormous amount of love, not only for his creation, but also for his people. And so that's where we, that's what we talked about in depth last week. Now this truth, to kind of continue that, also shows us how it is more than consistent with his character to love his elect in infinite proportions, while also hating the non-elect in equally infinite proportions.

And while that sounds like, that sounds just on the surface level or at face value, it sounds almost harsh, especially if you are looking at it through the of the common conclusion that we talked about last week as well, which is God is love, therefore God loves everybody.

When you hear something like that, it doesn't resonate immediately with the large majority of people. And it sounds kind of harsh, but if you all stick with me by the end of today's lesson, it's going to make perfect sense that it is the way that it is.

So we'll just kind of put a pin in that, understand that's kind of the foundation behind passages like what we're reading here in Malachi, what we covered last week as well. And as we continue forward today, and hopefully we can get to the end of the material, we'll see that this is actually a very, a very special thing.

And again, just stick with me and we'll get there. Now, like I said a second ago, you know, when we've been submersed in a culture that has that conclusion, God loves everybody, it can be really difficult.

It can be a difficult truth to grapple with, but it's true all the same. And that can be illustrated in multiple ways. The Malachi passage we're in is just one of them. Now, what about the commentaries on this specific passage that we've been reading?

So we looked at these verses last week, we looked at some scripture behind the characteristics of God, specifically his love, and how that can coexist with the passage in verse three, where he says, I hated Esau.

And we looked at a number of things and came to our conclusion, which fits. But what about other commentaries? What are some things that other people consider when it comes to this passage? And of course, I came across these commentaries when just in general study for these lessons.

And they, there seemed to be something a little bit off with them in at least my first impression. And I want to share a little bit of that with you guys to get y 'all's thoughts on it, because I think it's rather interesting.

And I think it can also be very helpful when it comes to digesting this material and going through studies like this. Well, first of all, it's really easy to find agreement among all the commentators out there in our first conclusion, which of course, being that God's love is infinite.

So there's not going to be any disagreement on that among believers. Again, it's arguably the number one characteristic that our minds may go to, if someone were to ask, you know, what are the attributes of God just right off, right off the bat, you know, God's love is going to be where most people go to.

I mean, obviously, that is an enormous, an enormously wonderful aspect of God, because that is what made it possible for us to be as children. So obviously, a lot of commentators out there will agree with our first conclusion that God's love is infinite.

But it does start to get a little bit interesting when you start to look for some commentators that would agree with parts of our second conclusion, that being that while God's love is infinite, it is extended from and through him to a specific group of people.

In other words, his love is specific and intentional, not universal, which, of course, is the common conclusion that God loves everybody. That implies that his love is universal, and that it transcends the wickedness and all of that kind of stuff, the unrighteousness that the human race has.

And it's not quite that simple, because it's not a having to be, him being the father, having to have a satisfactory payment for that wickedness, for the unrighteousness, in order to extend the love. So it's not that love just transcends those things.

Therefore, he can love people despite their wickedness, unrighteousness, all those things. All that had to be covered up for even a remnant to receive the infinite love that he has. So that part gets a little bit murky.

But another part that a lot of commentaries start to get a little iffy on is that his hatred of Esau is clearly laid out in verse 3. His hatred of Esau was actually, it's funny, I have this written wrong in my notes.

I have it backwards. What they say is that Esau's actions preceded the hatred of Esau from God. That's a very common conclusion. And I'll explain, I'm going to read some of the commentaries to you guys in a second so that y 'all can hear the way they try to verbalize how they get to that conclusion, because it's really interesting.

But what they will, you know, they'll believe that God's love is infinite. Not a lot of them talk about the fact that that infinite love is extended through election. So they kind of bypass that, and then they go immediately to addressing the hatred, which is the common conclusion being the actions preceded the hatred.

The actions of Esau preceded the hatred of God. Okay, so, you know, how do they get that? Where's that interpretation? How would they verbalize that interpretation a little bit? Well, for the sake of time, obviously, we can't look at every single one of them, but I'm going to show you guys a kind of a broad but brief snapshot of a few of these.

So I'm just going to read them as they were quoted, and I want to get y 'all's thoughts on how they get there. And then I presume that those of us in this room will probably read, I'm sorry, probably reach very similar, if not the same conclusion.

So I'll share mine shortly after, but I do want to get y 'all's thoughts on it. So here's the first one regarding Malachi, the first part of verse three of chapter one, which says, let me just read it.

I'm going to read verse two in the first part of verse three. It says, I have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? So there's his people questioning his love, saying, how?

And he responds, he gives them a very precise answer. Was not Esau Jacob's brother, saith the Lord? And yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau. So there's the verse in question. Here's the first commentary.

And this one hurt a little bit because this was, this is a commentator I like quite a bit. He says, God does not exercise his sovereignty to reprobate any creature. The hatred of Esau had been well-deserved after the continued opposition to God through the centuries.

There is no room here for the portion of reprobation, which is not taught in scripture. So what do y 'all think about that first one? And I mean, that's the full quote. It's a very in-depth commentary and it gets to this part.

And that was how it was addressed and left. And then it goes on. His sovereignty, he does not exercise the sovereignty to reprobate any creature. The hatred of Esau had been well-deserved after the continued opposition to God through the centuries.

So there is that the actions preceding the hatred. Now here's what's really funny about it right off the bat. Well, first of all, does anyone else have any thoughts? Because I do want to hear what y 'all think about it just to get first impressions.

And then I'll share kind of what my first impressions were. Yeah. I mean, what Pop Pop said, I have a mic out there, but in case y 'all couldn't hear him. God doesn't change. He is immutable. So how could there be love there until certain actions take place and then that revert to hatred?

Yeah, dad. We're going to get there. Right. Yes, that was one of my first thoughts. Well, I actually he might be a Southern Baptist. I mean, I'll tell you who these guys are. This first one is Charles Feinberg, who is a Jew.

He was a saved Jew. I don't know what his denomination was. And yeah, he Brother Rocky was a big fan of his. And right. Well, that's interesting. Well, if you want to hear something funny. So this is his commentary, which I read both for the Obadiah study, and I'm reading this along with a few others.

But I have Brother Rocky's copy of that commentary, and it's marked up. And one thing dad always said is if you ever go take a book off of his shelf, Brother Rocky's library is back in dad's church office.

If you open it up and there's no markings in it, probably it's not any good. Probably one that Brother Rocky didn't think was worth his time. But the ones he did think are worth his time. I mean, they're like marked up in some cases beyond even being able to see the words anymore.

And this is one of them. But in this one little little paragraph, he had three question marks written next to it. And so Brother Rocky apparently Brother Rocky was was a little confused because what's interesting about this is Feinberg.

He talks about God's sovereignty and other areas. But for some reason, he skirted past this one. So that's the first one. And dad mentioned. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I don't know. You never know. I would hope so.

But anyway, so to dad's point, I mean, this one is just very concise, very kind of to the point. And it just doesn't ring well, does it? I mean, like, first, first thoughts, like dad said, it sounds like he's cheating a little bit.

There is no room here, as it is not taught in scripture. Well, we're going to get to Romans nine, which dad already quoted, but I don't know where he reached that conclusion. And I don't know that one threw me off a little bit.

Well, here's the second one. This one's even better. All right, this is this is a lengthy one. But this is just so interesting. I mean, to hear I mean, these are awesome guys, by the way, there's not a single one of these guys are going to quote that isn't awesome in some areas.

Feinberg was really solid many areas. This next one, I'll tell you who it is after I read it. But the the the reasoning you can just tell there's, there's something going on here. It says, quote, this is writing the same passage.

Esau didn't desire the Lord. Esau's actions had to be worked out in 1500 years of history before God prepared to make that kind of a statement that I hated Esau. All right, so let me read the first part again, because this is the part it well, and this is the so on this particular commentary, there's this commentary about Malachi.

So I went to see what the commentary was on the same passage in Romans nine, and it says, see commentary of Malachi. So, all right, so let me start over. It says Esau didn't didn't desire the Lord. I mean, so far, we would agree with that.

Esau certainly had no desire for the Lord, and neither did his ensuing lineages, the Edomites, as we discussed in Obadiah. He didn't desire the Lord, sure. But this is the part that's really weird. Esau's actions had to be worked out in 1500 years of history before God prepared to make that kind of a statement.

Now, here's the interesting thing. By what he's doing is he's saying that it was really the Edomites actions over the course of 1500 years that caused the hatred of Esau. But that doesn't make any sense, neither in Malachi nor the Romans nine passage, because it specifically calls out Esau the individual, not his lineage, and it's his lineage that was the 1500 years.

Yes. Esau's actions had to be worked out in 1500 years of history before God prepared to make that kind of a statement. He had to see all the actions. He was thinking about it for about 1500 years, and then after they finally reached that final straw, by the time you get to Malachi, he's like, okay, I hate these people now.

Right. He saw the good works, and then through foreknowledge, elected those doing good works. It's a very similar argument that doesn't have the logical change. Right. He put it, it was a parenthetical.

Right. And again, we'll get there. Y 'all don't, y 'all don't jump the gun too much. Go ahead, Mimi. Go ahead, Mimi. Well, here's what's really funny as well. Well, yeah, I mean, why, well, I mean, yes, why create, if that was the method, why create?

And another thing is, what's interesting, unless I, this is just kind of off the cuff a little bit. So Katie was making the point that, you know, a lot of people say that election is by foreknowledge because what the way God did it was he died for everybody, but he looked out in the verses on election.

What it's talking about is he looked out in the future, saw those doing good works or believing on him and elected them. That's the argument. What's interesting is this is kind of the reverse argument, if you think about it, because what he did was he waited 1500 years.

He didn't even use foreknowledge. He waited and watched in real time for 1500 years. He wasn't quite sure what was going to happen. Then he decided who he was going to love and who he was going to hate.

Just wait to hear who the commentator is. All right. Maybe I shouldn't tell you all the commentators because I love these guys. I don't like, I, I just don't, it's just a little bit, here's what I'll tell you guys why I think they're taking these angles in a minute.

And maybe, maybe, I mean, I'm not saying it's good enough. I'm just, I will tell you why I think they are dancing around this to such a degree in a minute. So this is just the first sentence, by the way.

All right. Esau's actions had to be worked out in 1500 years of history before God prepared to make that kind of a statement. He continues, and we need to understand that the difference that we have between loving and hating is simply this.

All right. The life of the nation that came from Esau and the life of the nation that came from Jacob demonstrates that God was right when he said that he loved one and hated the other. God was justified, though he did not make the statement at the very beginning.

God never said at the beginning that he loved one and hated the other. He had to, listen, let me finish. He had, he had to wait until they became nations, and these two nations then demonstrated that he was right in making this statement.

Huh? I'm not going to mention who this guy is. His dad's too, yes, dad's too angry. Let me read one more, and then I'm going to tell you guys why I personally think they are dancing around to such a degree, although it is very depressing to read these.

The last, this is crazy. This, oh, sorry, go ahead, pal. This would have been the 90s, perhaps, maybe the 80s. This gentleman is no longer with us. He was a great name, and, huh? Y 'all could probably guess it.

Y 'all can probably guess who it is. That would make sense to me. No, this was J. Vernon McGee. And, uh, what's interesting, what's interesting is he said something prior to making this quote in the commentary I was reading that made perfect.

It was like, I was like, this is great. All right, he's setting the stage for a good, a good conclusion. I'm going to actually come back to that in a little bit because it's true, but then he followed up with this, and I was like, threw my hands up in the air.

It was like, what's going on here? Let me, this one is totally different, but it's so bad, I just had to include it. Listen to this, and I don't even know, I don't know who this guy is. It was just a commentary I came across on Blue Letter Bible.

I don't know who this person is. Listen to this one, dad. You're going to love it. It says, a lot of times people get hung up on the idea of God saying he hated somebody. Actually, it is a term that means love in a lesser degree.

It means, I loved Jacob, but I have loved Esau to a lesser degree. The word hates Esau is rather a difficult translation, and then he went on. That was the total commentary on verse three of Malachi from this individual.

His name is Chuck Smith. I personally am not aware of him, don't know much about him, but that was his commentary. Of course, if you look at the Hebrew word, it literally means hated. A lot of Hebrew words will have tons of different things you could have translated it to English, from the Hebrew to English.

This is one of those Hebrew words that just means hated. I don't know where he got that. Go ahead, dad. It's to a lesser degree. I don't know where they get it. I literally double and triple checked, because if you guys remember, last week I said, I was like, I don't even have the Hebrew word in my lesson because it just means hated.

I was like, wait a minute, did I miss something? I went back and looked. I don't know how that conclusion was met on that one. Before we continue, I just want to say really quick, I think that one reason why these are so concisely bad is because perhaps, and maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt, because again, some of these guys, obviously they did a lot of awesome things.

You got to know hundreds of thousands of people were saved listening to the gospel messages that were given by J. Vernon McGee on the radio or through his commentaries. Most of his commentaries are fantastic.

Same for Feinberg. I think personally, this is from the human viewpoint, of course, that they were dancing around this, just wanted to get past it and move on quickly because, number one, because of the size of their ministries, perhaps in their minds, for better or worse, in my opinion, for worse, but that's up for debate, I suppose, they didn't want to spend time, perhaps in their opinion, confusing people, and they just wanted to get by this however way they can and get to the bigger stuff, the gospel, the love of God, things from the babe drinking milk that needs the milk before the meat.

Perhaps they were trying to bypass the meat for the sake of their vast audiences. Again, maybe that's me just being, you know, giving the benefit of the doubt because I do love these guys. Perhaps that's the direction they went, but that's the best I got because I really, these commentaries were very interesting, very strange to me as I was going through them.

And of course, we already addressed it. I have written next, what's wrong with these interpretations? Well, they don't seem to make logical sense as one would be much quicker to admit that God, this is really interesting too, because in the same commentaries, they will be quick to admit that God's love was before any actions took place.

So there's a logical fallacy right there. The love was there before actions took place, but the hatred was there after the actions took place. So they'll be quick to admit that the love was there first, but then they conclude that his hatred could only be justified by centuries worth of wicked actions on the part of the one being hated, which of course it's not really the one, it's his entire lineage.

If you're going to talk about 1500 years, it's talking about Esau as a specific individual man held up in juxtaposition to Jacob, and yet they're saying the 1500 years of the history of the Edomites is what led to the hatred of Esau.

So you have a logical problem first and foremost, but it also doesn't make theological sense either, as we can glean from the ultimate commentary on the passage in Malachi. So what do you guys think would be the best commentary to go to on this passage that we're in, Malachi verses two and three?

That would be Romans nine, because Paul literally quotes Malachi verses two and three of chapter one, and it's literally the Apostle Paul's commentary. So if y 'all want to go there, we'll just read it verse by verse.

We're not going to spend a whole lot of time here, but let's read it all the same. So does Paul even imply a similar conclusion to Feinberg, to McGee, to Smith, and to others as well? Well, the whole chapter, I mean it's, man, the first eight verses are really powerful, because Paul kind of answers that the conclusion is wrong in his beginning of chapter nine, because he talks about how burdensome it is to him.

It's something that he had to deal with. That is that not all of his brethren were going to be saved, and he even said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that if it were possible, he would give up his very own eternal security so that a hundred percent of his brethren of his generation could be saved.

All of Israel, his generation could be saved. That is a kind of sacrifice that I can't even comprehend, and of course the Lord would never allow that, but even still under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul said it, therefore he believed it with all of his heart.

That was his desire, that he would experience eternity in hell on behalf of those who were not elect of God among the Israelites, but of course the same applies to Gentiles as well. So that's how chapter nine begins, is that he feels a burden in his heart because of this truth, but he's going to talk about it anyway because it's true all the same, and then it goes on starting in verse nine.

For this is the word of promise, at this time will I come and Sarah shall have a son, and not only this, but Rebecca, I'm sorry, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, here's a parenthetical, for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works, but of him that calleth.

Who is that? Of him that calleth. It's the father. I mean, it doesn't have anything to do with actions. It's the father. Verse 12, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger, and here's a direct quote from Malachi, verses two and three, as it is written, that's the reference to Malachi, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So thankfully we have that commentary because we can push all the others aside, and I just want to say this as well, there are other, this isn't a private interpretation, there are plenty of commentaries that reach the conclusion that we have today from wonderful saints going way back from Luther forward, Spurgeon, I wish I could remember all the names, the commentaries I looked at, there were some names I didn't even recognize, but many commentators, very devout men of the Lord, you know, put in the time to reach the conclusion, so this isn't a private interpretation, not that would be a concern anyway, because again, we have Romans 9 to totally clear it up anyway, so was it Esau's actions that caused the hatred is the question, or was it the hatred which in itself is an effect of Esau's non -election?

Keep that in mind for a second, because we're about to go kind of through, I need to speed it up a little bit, but we're about to kind of look at this one point at a time. Was it the hatred which was in itself an effect of Esau's non -election that caused the actions, the attitudes, and the wickedness to be exhibited by Esau as an individual man, but also the Edomites for 1500 years?

So which would that be? Another question I have, where did the wickedness come from in the first place? Okay, so they want to say that the wickedness and the actions preceded the hatred. Okay, well, thanks to Romans 9, and we'll get into it a little bit more in just a second, but we can confidently conclude that it was not that order, it was the hatred preceded the actions actually, but where did the actions and the hatred and the wickedness and all of the various things that they did exhibit post the election that took place in the womb of Rebekah, where did that come from?

What information do we have regarding how unbelievers are influenced? Well, first, we need to realize a really important reality. Just as much as it's true that God's character is immutable, to Pop Pop's point earlier this morning, across all dispensations, it is also true that the devil's character and his tactics are non-changing across all dispensations, and the devil has been the persistent enemy of God's people from the beginning to present day, and how do we know that?

Well, I'm going to just quickly run through a couple of passages for you guys, and you'll see my point in doing this in just a minute. I'm going to do this really fast, y 'all don't have to go here, but I just want to illustrate how exactly do we know the devil has been our persistent enemy just as he was in the New Testament and all the way to present day.

Job 1 .6, now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them, and then the rest of chapter 1 and some of chapter 2 continue to talk about and flesh out Satan's dialogue with the God, so he was there.

Zechariah 3, 1 and 2, and he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him, and the Lord said to Satan, the Lord rebuke thee, O Satan, even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee.

Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? First Chronicles 21 .1, and Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel. This is a Revelation 12 .9, but it's talking about Genesis, so I wanted to read this specific one, and this is how we know that the serpent in the but it solidifies it more than we ever needed, and the great dragon was cast out that old serpent called the devil and Satan, so this is in Revelation, but it like wraps all of human history together from the very first appearance.

He was the one in the garden. He has been our enemy since the garden, and then 1 John 3 .8, and this again just solidifies from the beginning. He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil. Okay, so now we can see that the devil has been the persistent enemy of God's people using a vast array of tactics to persecute them, including, but not limited to, using his children as his tools.

What's one example that we have of his children? The Edomites, of Satan's children. Yeah, the Edomites and Esau. Again, our Obadiah study illustrated that beautifully. We can now apply, because that is a reality, okay, so this is why I wanted to go back and grab some of this stuff.

This is why this is important. Now that we know that that is true, that the devil has been the same, he has been wickedly, he has been immutable in the worst sense from the beginning, just as God is immutable in the most perfect sense from the beginning, and we can see these passages in the Old Testament laying out the devil standing there as our enemy, we can now apply a New Testament passage about how the devil works to our Old Testament context of Malachi that we're looking at.

This is a passage that Dad has referenced many times recently, but I want you guys to think about this for a second. Second Timothy, chapter 2, starting in verse 24, it says,. And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, and meekness, instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.

And then here's the key verse I wanted to get at here, verse 26, in that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. Okay, now, if we backtrack a little bit in the New Testament, Jesus affirms the same concept himself when he is speaking directly to the non-elect Pharisees.

He says in John 8, verse 41, Ye do the deeds of your father. He tells them right there that you do the deeds of your father, and then they go on to try to say, well, our father is the God of Abraham. We have one father, even God, and they continue to say a few things, then go down to verse 44, and Jesus explicitly tells them who their father is.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.

He is a liar, and the father of it. So, now back to our original discussion here, is it really logical, or more importantly, biblical, to postulate that God's hatred toward Esau in Malachi 1 -3 was due to Esau's wickedness, exacerbated by his children's wickedness, that being all of the Edomites, that caused God's hatred as he looked back, in hindsight, at this point in time in Malachi?

Is it logical, and is it even biblical, which is, of course, even more important, although it's kind of redundant, because if it's biblical, it will be logical, or, and stick with me here for a second, and you'll see why I brought in all the stuff about the devil here, was it that by God's divine election, he chose Jacob in love, being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, and rejected Esau in hatred, being not yet born, neither done doing any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, making Esau de facto Satan's child, by which Esau was, quote, taken captive by him at his will, which then led to the evil actions, and the attitudes, and the wickedness of Esau and all of the Edomites for 1500 years.

If you think about the way in which they persecuted God's people, and the attitudes that they have, again, we illustrated this not that long ago in Obadiah, but it was not limited to that. The Edomites was mentioned more than any other foreign nation in the entirety of the New Testament in terms of God's judgment toward a foreign nation that was persecuting his people.

The Edomites, the blood of Esau was constantly and continually raging against God's people, the blood of Jacob. Where did that come from? It came from the fact that they were Satan's seed. They were of their father, the devil, just as the Pharisees were.

They were doing his works, and they were taken captive by his will throughout all of it. So those actions and that wickedness came because of the fact that they were not of the seed of God, but of the seed of the devil, which made it possible for the devil's unending, what's the term I'm looking for?