Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isaac

[Jeffrey]

Romans 9

1Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls... Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated."

I'm an Arimianist that more and more sees the biblical doctrine of election, though short of embracing this full-fledged Calvinist interpretation of texts like these, as I don't see in them a harmony with "For God so loved the world" and "that all should come to repentance." If God wills it, then it is settled, according to Calvinists.

However, I've yet to hear a satisfactory response to Romans 9. Pelagius argued (as well as Wesley) that God has the right to accept or reject anyone he chooses but that the apostle is not here indicating the bases on which God night make that choice. However before we continue on that train of thought (past works to future works and arguing that God's election is still based on faith -- a position I hold -- I find it hard to reconcile that with Paul's analogies here, because God, in Paul's examples, rejected and chose before these were even born!)

The entire target of Paul in Romans 9 is not to establish Predestination or Calvinism, but to establish how God is still faithful to "spiritual" Israel, even as ethnic Israel has no claims to God's promises. He is elaborating past responses about God still being faithful to His promises, though he was accused of simply transferring GOd's promises to this new people, the Gentiles. Rather, Paul straightens out the salvation-history here and shows it's the same salvation story, and that God's people were NEVER by ethnicity, but by promise -- and by faith.

Back to the question -- who here can argue a solid Arminian viewpoint out of this passage?

[Sam]

Not I.

I'm not smart enough to understand Arminianism or Calvinism

and if I don't understand either I sure couldn't explain them

[Jeffrey]

Before someone suggest that Paul is speaking corporately here (Esau as Edom, Jacob as Israel), the individual context of this story must be explained as well, even if there is a fuller meaning here in a figurative sense because of Gen 25:23.

[Jeffrey]

"it is the election of privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation." Morris

Advocates of the corporate interpretation of these verses make a strong case. In the OT God's election is primarily his "calling out" of a people "for his own name": Israel. And, as the OT itself makes clear, this election of a people does not in itself guarantee eternal life for every Israelite. Perhaps Paul is using election in the same terms here.

Moo: "I do not think that a corporate or salvation-historical satisfy the data of the text:

1) Paul suggests that he is thinking of Jacob and Esau as individuals in vv10-11 when he mentions their conception and birth, and "works" -- language that is not easily applied to nations.

2) Several of Paul's key words and phrases in this passage are words he generally uses elsewhere with reference to attaining of salvation; and significantly, they occur with this sense in texts closely related to this one. (election, call, not of works, etc) These words are difficult to apply to nations or peoples, for Paul clearly does not believe that peoples or nations -- not even Israel -- are chosen and called by God for salvation apart from their works.

3) paraphrase: Paul's aim of the chapter is to show that not all who belong to physical Israel also belong to spiritual Israel -- he must show that the OT justifies a discrimination w/in physical Israel in terms of the enjoyment of salvation.

[Jeffrey]

For God to "hate" Esau, it's confounding that Esau was still blessed.

This is a good argument that the love/hate in this Text is about privilege -- thus better perhaps understood as "rejected" rather than "hated."

Okay, let's get a solid anti-Calvnist interpretation of this passage. If faith is the basis of God's choice, how we explain God's decisive action on Jacob/Esau prior to their birth? Do we rest it all on some tricky explanation of "future faith" in the mind of God?

Augustine's commentary on this: "God does not choose us because we believe. We believe because He chose us." Augustine continues to expound how this view does not minimize human faith, even while putting God's Sovereignty in proper perspective.

[Jeffrey]

It seems for sure, and either Arminian or Calvinist, that Paul rules out any human claim on God as a violation of His grace.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

"it is the election of privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation." Morris

This is what I was going to say. That this speaks of God's choice of the "younger" before they were born, not necessarily of God's "hatred" of Esau.

[Ev. Duane Williams]

When I get to heaven I won't be shocked if I see Esau, or Ishmael. Calvinism and Arminianism are two extremes, and the debate between the two is a false dichotomy. If you don't hold to Calvinism that doesn't make you Arminian, and vise-versa. The Truth is somewhere in the middle. Ever notice how the Bible always has problematic passages for every possible doctrine? Brilliant.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams

When I get to heaven I won't be shocked if I see Esau, or Ishmael. Calvinism and Arminianism are two extremes, and the debate between the two is a false dichotomy. If you don't hold to Calvinism that doesn't make you Arminian, and vise-versa. The Truth is somewhere in the middle. Ever notice how the Bible always has problematic passages for every possible doctrine? Brilliant.

Please flesh out and articulate how we should then understand these issues.

At least take a stab.

[pelathais]

Paul isn't referring directly to the two infants as they "wrestled" in their mother's womb. He is looking at the broad scope of history where the two infants stand as a type or shadow of things to come. The Genesis account has no statements that God "hated" the boy Esau. Esau was a rival to Jacob and Jacob was the chosen vessel for the bloodline; but the rivalry between the two brothers wasn't something of "cosmic proportions" - - except IN TYPE! Two nations would follow this pattern of rivalry, and this is what God becomes most concerned with. And so we find that about 1,000 years after Esau had died, the prophet Malachi says, "Esau have I hated..."

The statement of Paul's - "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated..." is a quote from Malachi 1:3 (about 455 B.C.). The circumstance here is that both "Jacob" (refugees from the Kingdom of Judah) and "Esau" (refugees from the Kingdom of Edom) are returning and rebuilding their homes and cities after the Babylonian conquests and captivities.

The Edomites had historically been seen as rivals of Israel and later Judah (Numbers 20:14-21). The prophet Obadiah (O. is notoriously tricky to date: some time between 845 and 587 B.C.) focused entirely upon denouncing the crimes of Edom against "his brother" "Jacob." Even using the oldest date, we have Obadiah speaking out some 700 or 800 years after both Jacob and Esau had lived. Understanding the time line here is important before we can get into Paul's statements.

Also, it's important to understand the usage of the words "love" and "hate" in this context. I know that there will be some who will demand an out-and-out hatred toward Esau, Edom and all things Edomite. These might be the same folks who confuse Acts 19:32, as being an instruction for the NT church assembly or who demand that the word "works" always include such things as "belief" and "faith." This theological defect has been called the "Root Word Fallacy" and we've discussed it before.

Sufficient for now, consider the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26. Here we see our Lord telling us to "hate" our parents and other family members. Wouldn't this contradict the Fourth Commandment? He appears to go on and tell us to "hate" our very lives. Who would want to live like that? Whatever happened to "joy" and "peace?"

Obviously, the word "hate" (in all languages) as it is used in the Bible has some special or rather technical meanings at times. We should keep that in mind.