Hey

[Tom]

I can't do anything on my mac. I bet this won't even post. New reformation is pointless to me with an apple.

[Tom]

Wow, it actually worked. This being the case, let me think of a real discussion topic........
How about, what is the funniest thing you've seen? I know, it says "theology," but it could have application to the attribute of God's sense of humor.

[Fusion!]

OK this is pushing it, but again, I will have posting rules up soon. Anyway, I'm sure I"ll have something funny on here soon.

[Tom]

Ok throw humor stories in there as an aside and make the real topic that of exegeting Hebrews 12:16-17 (16See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears.) There are other passages that seem to discuss people who are cut off after having tasted God's goodness. I won't list them all, but leave that for discussion. The basic question would be for this particular couple verses is: can a person actually want repentance towards God (Godly sorrow) to the point of tears and yet be rejected?

[Fusion!]

Ohhhhh. This one is a bit tougher. Paul mentions such sorrow.
1 Corinthinans 10
For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

Is Esau an example of Godly sorrow or is he being presented as an example of the latter? I think in the example it already pins him with the godless and it's really using his lost blessing (not necessarily salvation, but could it be a type of it?) as a warning. That's my start.

[Tom]

I think i get it. It's weird how if you slow down and read a passage on a different day, you see key words that clear it up. That passage had me a little concerned for over a month, even though i only read it about 3 times. Now, looking at it closer, it says (and i'd have to check other versions and original tongue) "he brought NO change of mind." Basically, he was crying like a baby wanting his birthright back. So if we look at it as a type for soteriological events, then we could say a person is in hell (already lost birthright/salvation) and now wants it with of course no change of mind. This may also show how death bed experiences are a joke, in the sense that God, many times, gives a person over to their sinful ways so that they can't have a change of mind to have Godly sorrow, but rather want relief and cry for restoration because their body is broken and they taste death and fear the stories they have heard about the second death.

[Tom]

Also it seems that seeking repentance with tears would be synonymous with repentance. To seek with tears and change of mind IS (key word), IS repentance, so it must not be the repentance he sought with tears, but the birthright he sought with tears, he is just simply rejected because he didn't HAVE repentance. It was lacking because it was not given. I could be wrong, but it seems he couldn't have been seeking repentance, as all who desire holiness are already made alive.

[Tom]

Mac won't let me edit. The reason i posted the last comment 2x is because i changed one word from "and" to "a" and that made the second sentence make more sense, so just read the duplicate (second one).

[Fusion!]

And that's the one I erased. Sorry. Good reasoning through the text though.

[James Cohen]

Howdy.

I don't think I know you, Tom, so nice to meet you.

You wrote that "it must not be the repentance he sought with tears, but the birthright he sought with tears." This was my first thought as well but I don't think this is possible.

Heb 12:16-17 (NASB) says:

...that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

In those two verses, there are exactly three Greek feminine nouns: "meal", "repentance", and that last "it" which designates what he sought for with tears. Since "it" is feminine it can't be the birthright/blessing, which is neuter. "It" must be referring to repentance.

You also wrote, "[t]o seek with tears [a] change of mind IS (key word), IS repentance." No, it cannot be. Seeking repentance is not the same as repenting - just as seeking to change is not the same as actually changing. Remember your own "Esau's a crybaby" analysis? The important thing is not that he sought repentance, but what repentance he sought and what for.

Perhaps Esau simply never believed he had anything to repent for. You can seek for repentance all you'd like but it ain't gonna happen if you just don't believe you're wrong in the first place.

[Tom]

Ok, then what repentance did he seek? If we don't know, then that text is confusing and its no wonder i stumbled at it on the first and third encounter. You know how we tell people to repent and believe and that God rejects none that come to Him. So then this verse came up and i was set aside in the same way people are set aside wondering if they've commited the unpardonable sin type thing. People would maybe question, "there is still sin in my life: has God prevented repentance in me? If the person struggles with sin, they'd say "i must simply be seeking repentance, but am not able to pull it off through actual obedience. I don't know. Maybe i'm looking too much into this passage, but it is still a little sticky to me.

[James Cohen]

We might not know for sure but the text indicates that what he was concerned about was not God or sin. He sought repentance but we're only told of his outward expression of remorse over the fortune he lost claim to. There's room to look at it as a "godly sorrow" type of repentance. Maybe he wanted to truly repent, since that might lead to regaining some inheritance. Maybe. But whatever kind of repentance it was, we're told that he didn't achieve it.

Note that in Genesis his appeals are to his father, not to God. He cries and implores daddy to fix everything and then decides to solve the matter himself by waiting until his father is dead and then killing his brother.

You might be right that you're "looking too much into the passage." Keep in mind that the mention of Esau here is very brief and certainly not the point of the chapter. In the larger context he's simply cited as an example. God preventing repentance isn't mentioned here, nor is the believer's struggle with sin - Esau was not a believer.

Either way, here's some commentary I found in e-Sword on the verses in question.

The Geneva Commentary reads:

There was no room left for his repentance: and it appears by the effects, what his repentance really was, for when he left his father's presence, he threatened to kill his brother.

Gill's commentary reads:

for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears (Gen 27:34), though he was very solicitous for the blessing, and shed many tears to obtain it, yet he had no true repentance for his sin in soiling the birthright. Tears are not an infallible sign of repentance: men may be more concerned for the loss and mischief that come by sin, than for the evil that is in it; and such repentance is not sincere; it does not spring from love to God, or a concern for his glory; nor does it bring forth proper fruits: or rather, the sense of the words is, that notwithstanding all his solicitude, importunity, and tears, he found no place of repentance in his father Isaac; he could not prevail upon him to change his mind; to revoke the blessing he had bestowed on Jacob, and confer it on him (Gen 27:33), for he plainly saw it was the mind of God, that the blessing should be where it was; whose counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure. This latter seems to be the better interpretation of the words, though the former agrees with the Targum on Job 15:20
"all the days of Esau the ungodly, they expected that he would have repented, but he repented not.''

Wuest's Word Studies reads:

The recipients of this letter are exhorted to exercise oversight over themselves and the churches, lest there be those guilty of fornication. The word "fornication" is to be taken in its literal sense here. Expositor's says that fornication was one of the dangers to which these Hebrews were exposed. The word is not to be taken here as descriptive of Esau, however. He is described as a profane person. The Greek word is bebelos. The word means first of all, "accessible, lawful to be trodden," used of places. Thus it means "profane, unhallowed, common." It has the opposite meaning to hagios "holy, set apart, consecrated." It speaks of the secular, the non-religious, as contrasted to that which is associated with the worship of deity.

The profane character of Esau manifested itself in his act of selling his birthright to satisfy a physical appetite, that of hunger. The birthright consisted of the honor and privilege of being the next family priest at the death of the father. Esau had no appreciation of the spiritual side of life. His life centered about the gratification of the desires of the body. Thus, in parting with his religious privileges, he declared himself a non-religious person. He is, therefore, an appropriate warning to these Hebrews. They were in danger of selling their birthright, the offered salvation which would be theirs in answer to their faith, for freedom from the persecution which they were enduring, as Esau sold his birthright for the gratification of his physical appetite. But note, how exact the analogy is. The birthright had been given by God to Jacob. Esau knew of this, but in spite of it all, he claimed it and professed to have it. He sold what he did not possess, but only professed to have, for a mess of pottage. These Hebrews who were in danger of apostatizing, were not saved, but professed faith in Messiah. They were in danger of selling what they did not have but only professed to have, salvation, for a mess of pottage, freedom from the persecution they were enduring.

After having despised the birthright to which he laid claim, and after having sold it for the gratification of a physical desire, Esau, finding that Jacob had received it, desired it. But he was disqualified (rejected, adokimazo).

The reason why he was disqualified is that he found no place of repentance. There are two words translated "repent," metameleomai and metanoeo. The former means "regret or remorse for one's actions because of the evil consequences entailed." It is used of Judas (Matt. 27:3). The latter means "a change of mind consisting of a reversal of moral purpose." While these distinctions are not observed in every occurrence of these words, yet Thayer says that Metanoeo is the fuller and nobler term, expressive of moral action and issues. Here the word for repentance, metanoeo, is used advisedly. While Esau could bring himself to the place where he was filled with remorse because of his action, yet he could not get himself to repent of it in the sense that he was sorry for it because it was wrong. The word "it" by the rules of Greek syntax, refers back to the word "repentance." Esau again is seen to be a warning to the Hebrew recipients of this letter. If they renounced their professed faith in Messiah as High Priest and returned to the temple sacrifices, it would be impossible to renew them again to repentance. They should take a warning from the case of Esau who could not get himself to repent of his misdeed. We might observe in passing that there are just two sins spoken of in the New Testament, the commission of which puts the performer in a place where he is incapable of being saved, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:22-32), and the sin of Hebrews 6:6, neither of which can be committed today, since the conditions existent in the first century do not obtain today. In the case of the sin against the Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus is not here in humiliation performing miracles as a divine attestation of His mission, and in the case of the falling away of Hebrews 6:6, the temple sacrifices are not being offered in Jerusalem. Both of these sins render the heart so hard that the person is impervious to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit. All of which means that there is no person today who is beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. We can, therefore, preach and teach with the confidence that the Holy Spirit and the Word can reach any sinner with whom we are dealing.

Translation: Lest there be a fornicator, or an unhallowed person such as Esau, who in exchange for one bit of food, gave up his birthright. For ye know that after that, when desiring to inherit the blessing, he was disqualified, for he did not find a place of repentance (room to repent), even though he sought it (repentance) with tears.

[Fusion!]

Jimmy, you impress me yet again. Thanks pal. I knew you'd come in handy.