Jacob I loved and Esau I hated = individual election?

[webdog]

Jesus was not making the theological point that they would have repented. He is using the cities of Tyre and Sidon in juxtaposition to Chorazin and Bethsaida.

Maybe...but He had also stated emphatically they would have repented.

 

[Skandelon]

Both the protasis and the apodosis are stating contrary to fact things: 1. They did not have the miracles of Jesus and 2. they did not believe.

As Winman just pointed out in another way, I would just add the third FACT that you seem to miss: 3. Jesus explicitly supposes they would have repented.

Because, my friend, the world does not run according to your agenda or time table. I'll get to Romans 11 soon enough.

I didn't mean to ridicule you about Romans 11. I didn't mean to ridicule you about anything.

I didn't mean to suggest that the world does run according to my agenda or time table. But when you do "appear" to "talk down to me" or "ridicule" me for being arrogant on my views with regard to Romans 11 while you "appear" to be avoiding the subject by not providing a response, what other appeal can I make except to keep asking?

With regard to Romans 11, you said you needed time to study it, I gave ample time. You asked me to give my views first, I did. And when I appeal to it in order to provide clarity you bite back stating, "Translation: Skandelon's reading is absolutely correct and there's no way he can be wrong. Implication: Archangel doesn't understand Romans 11. I understand Romans 11 quite well, thank you."

So, I appealed to you again to give explanation to your understanding...

How do you fault me for this appeal?

In fact, in our discussions, it is you who ridiculed me about my appeals to the Greek.

Only because it appeared to contradict every other translation, and now even your own translation of this verse. (i.e. "it is certain that He is not intending to say [they] would have repented." versus "I think some might have [repented] had Jesus been incarnated in their time, but He wasn't.")

So, it wasn't the appeal to Greek I was ridiculing, it was the apparent contradictions of your application in light of the clarity of the original language.

 

[BaptistBob]

Wrong.

The Archangel

Got anything but an argument from silence?

 

[BaptistBob]

The second-class condition, being the contrary-to-fact condition, along with the use of the aorist verbs in both the protasis and apodosis is showing a simple snapshot of the past. In essence, Jesus is saying "If these miracles had been done (and they were not), they would have believed (and they have not).

True. They "would have," as you say.

Also, the judgment will not go easier for them based on what they might have done. The judgment will go easier because they didn't have the opportunity the modern cities had (e.g. Jesus' performance of miracles in their midst).

Christ's point is the judgement is relative to their wickedness, and it will be judged on judgement day.

No. If it had been the intent of Jesus to say what you are saying, it is much more likely the first-class condition would have been used.

Untrue. There is no mystery in the second class condition to the English ear, any more than there is a mystery to the English ear between a noun and a pronoun, whether or not any person knows the difference between the terminology. For example:

Luke 7:39 If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is....

Are these people saying that they don't know whether or not Jesus would know what type of person the woman is? Are we left doubting because of some unarticulated explanation of the second class conditional, known only to you?

1 Cor. 2:8 If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Is Paul saying that they would have crucified the Lord of glory if they had known? Is he using the second class conditional to introduce ambiguity? If A then B. There is no ambiguity.

I supply the link below for others to read. It actually addresses your misunderstanding in a roundabout way.

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/New_Testament_Greek/Text/Boyer-SecondCond-GTJ.pdf

Furthermore, I was not intending to say, as you suppose, that judgment is hyperbolic. I was saying the example itself was a form of hyperbole because it deals with a contrary-to-fact situation focusing on Tyre and Sidon (and later Sodom).

I understood your point. I said the statement could not be hyperbolic unless the judgement is hyperbolic. As it stands, the truth of the statement is demonstrated in the judgement based upon it. They are receiving a literal, relative judgement based upon their absolute relationship to the absolute truth contained in the second class conditional statements. Those cities are more wicked because "If A then B."

Tyre and Sidon were widely denounced by many Old Testament prophets and the examples of their evil and hard-hearted opposition to Israel were well-known. These were not civil cities. Also, they were well known for their Baal worship.

Obviously.

Contrasting these well-known evil cities is an example of how evil and hard-hearted Chorazin and Bethsaida actually were. Could they (Tyre and Sidon) have repented? As I said to Skandelon, I don't know.

Jesus knows. He expressed it in a second class conditional. A particular type of conditional that makes perfect sense to the English ear. (Some, however, get confused by reading the English explanation of the conditional. Fortunately for the untrained, they are unlikely to get confused by something they have never read.)

I think some might have had Jesus been incarnated in their time, but He wasn't. The conditional sentence intends to say "if A then B." However, this is a second-class condition which assumes (whether true or not) that the protasis is contrary to fact.

It is contrary to fact, but the does not in any way undermine the truth of the statement. If A then B. You say "If A then maybe B. Who knows?"

The pronouncement of "woe" on these cities is not a warning of judgment but is, in itself, a pronouncement of judgment. The rejection of Christ by the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida has already occurred.

It is a pronouncement of judgement, and looks forward to judgement day.

Ah, I see. Because I'm using the Greek in my application of hermeneutics, I'm "talking down to him."

Your rank ugliness in this above statement is really uncalled for.

When you characterize those who oppose you as "Sad" or "avoiding" or "distorting" the truth you are talking down to them, especially when holding yourself up as a superior authority. I'm glad that you can at least see how it looks when the tactic is turned upon you.

Your interactions with me have never been cordial. It is clear that your problem is with me, personally (probably because I am a well-known Calvinist). If you'd disconnect your passionate opposition to me, you might learn something. As it is, you cannot see past your vehement rage against me--I could say "the white car is white" and you'd disagree with me, simply because it's me. Sad.

No, as I said from the start, your tone with others is my objection. I witnessed your interaction with others and called "foul." It seems you do notice when the the table is turned.

 

[BaptistBob]

Both the protasis and the apodosis are stating contrary to fact things: 1. They did not have the miracles of Jesus and 2. they did not believe.

No, they "would have." The words in the translation are there for good reason.

 

[The Archangel]

Got anything but an argument from silence?

It isn't from silence. Read here.

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

It isn't from silence. Read here.

The Archangel

I still see an argument from silence.

 

[The Archangel]

Christ's point is the judgement is relative to their wickedness, and it will be judged on judgement day.

Nope. Jesus' point is that rejection of Him is far worse than obscene immorality (which is already pretty bad in and of itself).

Untrue. There is no mystery in the second class condition to the English ear, any more than there is a mystery to the English ear between a noun and a pronoun, whether or not any person knows the difference between the terminology. For example:

Luke 7:39 If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is....

Are these people saying that they don't know whether or not Jesus would know what type of person the woman is? Are we left doubting because of some unarticulated explanation of the second class conditional, known only to you?

1 Cor. 2:8 If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Is Paul saying that they would have crucified the Lord of glory if they had known? Is he using the second class conditional to introduce ambiguity? If A then B. There is no ambiguity.

I supply the link below for others to read. It actually addresses your misunderstanding in a roundabout way.

Luke 7:39 is a different type of second-class conditional sentence as it is present time, not past time (Because the apodosis is not imperfect or aorist).

1 Corinthians 2:8 is similar to the Matthew 11:21 passage. But, it is still a hypothetical situation since (at the point Paul wrote this) the rulers did not--at their time--understand "this" and at the present time (when Paul was writing) Jesus had already been crucified. Are you actually suggesting that Jesus would not have been crucified?!

If you could, for a moment, get over your disdain for me, you might see that I said "it is possible they would have repented." It is not certain. The example has been set on an un-realistic trajectory because of the contrary-to-fact protasis--if A would have happened, and it didn't then B would have happened, and it didn't because A never happened in the first place.

I understood your point. I said the statement could not be hyperbolic unless the judgement is hyperbolic. As it stands, the truth of the statement is demonstrated in the judgement based upon it. They are receiving a literal, relative judgement based upon their absolute relationship to the absolute truth contained in the second class conditional statements. Those cities are more wicked because "If A then B."

No, you didn't understand my point. If you had, you'd understand that I am not saying the judgment is hyperbole. I said the statement was hyperbole from the standpoint that it is comparing the Jews who rejected Christ in a far less favorable light to Gentiles who were well-known pagan sinners. Perhaps hyperbole was not the right word to choose. The comparison, not the judgment, is the issue.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

When you characterize those who oppose you as "Sad" or "avoiding" or "distorting" the truth you are talking down to them, especially when holding yourself up as a superior authority. I'm glad that you can at least see how it looks when the tactic is turned upon you.

No, as I said from the start, your tone with others is my objection. I witnessed your interaction with others and called "foul." It seems you do notice when the the table is turned.

It is interesting to note that you think you have to take on the role as judge, jury, and executioner. I certainly don't mean to "talk down" to people and you can't prove that that was my intention, since you don't know my heart. But, you have exposed your own heart and shown that your intention was, in fact, to talk down to me because of something you merely perceive me doing--and your perceptions are not infallible. Really, who are you to decide to inflict what you see a just judgment on me?

This demonstrates that your problem is with me. Again, you have never addressed me in a cordial way. Apparently, your blind rage against me has blinded you to this passage of Scripture:

Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets

Now, all of us stumble from time to time writing in the heat of the moment--and I am not exempt from this type of stumbling. The really, really alarming thing about you is you planned to attack me. This is deliberate sin on your part and it shows that there is some deficiency in your faith (not relating to salvation). I would encourage you to read, meditate, pray, etc. about this so that God would deliver you from the rage that necessitates attacking a brother in Christ.

As for me, I will listen to the advice of Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly..." and will cease to discuss anything with you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

Nope. Jesus' point is that rejection of Him is far worse than obscene immorality (which is already pretty bad in and of itself).

No, he's comparing the ancient wicked cities and saying that even they were not so wicked as to ignore the signs in the event that they had seen them. He is not comparing two types of immorality, but two types of cities. The variable is the cities, and the constant is the opportunity to reject the signs. That means that only one sin was in view. One type would have believed and the other would have rejected the very same thing.

Luke 7:39 is a different type of second-class conditional sentence as it is present time, not past time (Because the apodosis is not imperfect or aorist).

It doesn't matter. If A then B. You have yet to show me where If A then B means "If A then who knows?"

1 Corinthians 2:8 is similar to the Matthew 11:21 passage. But, it is still a hypothetical situation since (at the point Paul wrote this) the rulers did not--at their time--understand "this" and at the present time (when Paul was writing) Jesus had already been crucified. Are you actually suggesting that Jesus would not have been crucified?!

No. I'm asking you if you believe that B will not result if A obtains.

No, you didn't understand my point. If you had, you'd understand that I am not saying the judgment is hyperbole. I said the statement was hyperbole from the standpoint that it is comparing the Jews who rejected Christ in a far less favorable light to Gentiles who were well-known pagan sinners. Perhaps hyperbole was not the right word to choose. The comparison, not the judgment, is the issue.

I do understand your point, as indicated in my last post. You said the conditional statement is hyperbole. I responded that the judgement based upon the hyperbolic statement would then also have to be hyperbolic. You can't have a judgement based upon an unrealistic event.

 

[Amy.G]

No. The passage in the OP is not about individual election. It is about Nations. God chose Jacob (Israel) to be the heir and not Esau.
This passage is not about God choosing one individual over another for salvation. It is about His choice of Nations to be the revelation of Himself to the world and the Nation in which He will bring forth the Messiah.

Ro*9:11 (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

Ge*25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

 

[Tom Butler]

I've wondered why Paul, in Romans 9, referred to Jacob and Esau as "the children." Children who hadn't been born, and neither of whom had done anything good or evil. One must torture the language to make them nations instead of individuals, at least in this passage.

 

[Skandelon]

I've wondered why Paul, in Romans 9, referred to Jacob and Esau as "the children." Children who hadn't been born, and neither of whom had done anything good or evil. One must torture the language to make them nations instead of individuals, at least in this passage.

Did you read the verse quoted above? Ge*25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

When did Esau individually ever serve Jacob?

 

[Allan]

I've wondered why Paul, in Romans 9, referred to Jacob and Esau as "the children." Children who hadn't been born, and neither of whom had done anything good or evil. One must torture the language to make them nations instead of individuals, at least in this passage.

No, one must simply look at what scripture is saying and GO BACK to that which is it quoting. Please note:

Rom 9:11 (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
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Please note the reference is just what Amy posted.
Second please show ANYWHERE in scripture where Esau EVER served Jacob. The statement by Paul is directly related to the prophesy regarding the two children symbolizing two nations as the prophesy itself explicitly states.

It should be understood by the context that this chapter is not primarily about election 'to salvation' but election 'to purpose' though election of salvation is infered somewhat in it as well.

I agree pretty much with Wiersby's take regarding Chapter 9 as a reflection of my own study:

I. Israel’s Election Described (9:1-13)



A. The blessings of the election (vv. 1-5).

We cannot help but admire Paul’s burden for Israel. His words remind us of Moses in Ex. 32:31-32. Do we have that kind of a burden for lost souls? Christ loved us so much He became a curse for us.

(1) The adoption—chosen by God because of His love (see Isa. 43:20-21).

(2) The glory—the presence of God in the tabernacle (Ex. 24:16-17).

(3) The covenants—through Abraham, Moses and David, God gave unchanging covenants to His people Israel.

(4) The giving of the Law—God never so dealt with the Gentiles. Israel heard God’s voice and received His laws to govern their lives.

(5) The service of God—the priestly service in the tabernacle was a privilege from the Lord.

(6) The promises—many OT promises have been fulfilled, and many are yet to be fulfilled for the Jews.

(7) The fathers—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve sons of Jacob formed the foundation for the nation.

(8) The Messiah—Christ was a Jew, of the tribe of Judah, born according to the Law. Note in v. 5 that Paul calls Christ “God blessed forever.”

No other nation had these wonderful blessings; yet Israel took them for granted and ultimately rejected the righteousness of God. The Christian today also belongs to God’s elect and has similar blessings to enjoy: adoption (Eph. 1:5); glory (Eph. 1:6-7); the new covenant in Christ’s blood (Heb. 9-10); the law written on the heart (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 10:16-17); priestly service through Christ (1 Peter 1:4); and we have Abraham as the father of the believing (Gal. 3:7)—all because we have Christ.

B. The basis of the election (vv. 6-13).

In election, God exercises His sovereign will to accomplish His perfect plan. Keep in mind that the election discussed in Rom. 9-11 is national and not individual. To apply all the truths of these chapters to the salvation or security of the individual believer is to miss their message completely. In fact, Paul carefully points out that he is discussing the Jews and Gentiles as peoples, not individual sinners.

(1) Abraham—He was chosen as the father of the Hebrew nation, but Paul states that not all Israelites are true sons of Israel. (See also 2:25-29.) Abraham had many children (Gen. 25:1-6), but only one chosen son, Isaac, who was the child of promise by faith.

(2) Isaac—He was the child of promise by faith (see Gal. 4:21-31), while Ishmael was a child of the flesh through works. The true “seed of Abraham” are the believers, and not just all who have Jewish blood in their veins.

(3) Jacob—God bypassed Esau, the firstborn, and chose Jacob, and this choice was made even before the children were born. Why? To show that God’s purpose in electing His nation would be fulfilled. Esau made the choice to rebel against God, but God’s purpose does not depend on man’s decisions. We cannot explain the relationship between man’s choice and God’s purpose, but we know that both are true and are taught in the Word.

II. Israel’s Election Defended (9:14-33)

The doctrine of Israel’s national election raises several crucial theological questions:

A. Is God unrighteous? (vv. 14-18)

Of course not! For election has nothing to do with justice, but rather free grace. “God is unjust if He chooses one and leaves another!” ignorant people often say. But the purpose of God goes beyond justice; for if God did only what was just, He would have to condemn all of us! Paul uses Moses (Ex. 33:19) and Pharaoh (Ex. 9:16) as proof that God can do what He wishes in dispensing His grace and mercy. Nobody deserves God’s mercy, and nobody can condemn God for His choice of Israel or His bypassing of other nations.

B. Why does God find fault if none can resist His will? (vv. 19-29)

Paul replies with a parable about the potter, possibly borrowed from Jer. 18:1-6. God is the Potter, and the nations of the world (and their leaders) are the vessels. Some are vessels of wrath that God patiently endures until their time of destruction (Gen. 15:16). Others are vessels of mercy that reveal His glory. Paul then quotes Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 to show that God promised to call a “people” from among the Gentiles, a people to be called “children of the living God.” This is the church (see 1 Peter 2:9-10). He also quotes Isa. 10:22-23, showing that a remnant of Jews would also be saved (see Isa. 1:9). In other words, God’s purpose in election makes it possible for both Jews and Gentiles to be saved by grace. Neither Jew nor Gentile could be saved any way other than by the grace of God.

C. What shall we say about the Gentiles? (vv. 30-33)

Here is the paradox of history: the Jews tried to be righteous and were rejected; the Gentiles, who did not have the privileges the Jews had, were received! The reason is because the Jews tried to attain righteousness by works, while the Gentiles received righteousness by faith through the grace of God. The Jews stumbled over a crucified Messiah (see Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Matt. 21:42; 1 Cor. 1:23; and 1 Peter 2:6-8). They wanted a Messiah who would lead the nation to political freedom and glory; they could not believe in a crucified Christ.

Paul’s purpose in this chapter is to explain Israel’s position in the plan of God. Israel was an elect nation, given privileges that no other nation had; yet it failed miserably to follow God’s program of blessing for the world. The entire chapter exalts the sovereign grace of God without minimizing the responsibility of men and women for making right decisions. God’s Word will prevail regardless of human disobedience; but disobedient sinners will miss the blessing. No human mind can fathom or explain the wisdom of God (see 11:33-36), but this we know: without the sovereign grace of God, there would be no salvation.

 

[RAdam]

The elder shall serve the younger neither refers to Esau personally serving Jacob nor of their descendants personally serving the other. The former never happened, the latter only can be said to have happened under the united monarchy, hardly something of such note to be quote by Paul. No, the passage refers to the typical practice at the time of the elder being favored over the younger. God says, it will not be so with these children. Jacob was the favored one rather than Esau.

 

[MB]

How does this show that election to Salvation is particular? When it only applied to the beginning of a nation. It isn't so much that election is particular but rather when and by what means that election comes about. It comes to men "in Christ" and through "sanctification". Even Jews aren't elected to Salvation unless, it is through sanctification and belief of the truth.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
MB

 

[Allan]

Let us also answer the question that if God hated Esau (to loathe and dispise him utterly) why then does God bless Esau. I can't find anywhere in scripture where we can find God actually blessing the wicked and unrighteous whom He states He hates. Those God hates are an abomination, from whence does His blessing flow to them.

Psa 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
Psa 11:6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: [this shall be] the portion of their cup.

Therefore the word used with respect to Jacob and Esau isn't one loathing and dispite since we know scripture states the Lord only hates the wicked and them that love violence. Yet God states 'this' hatred was for Esau was BEFORE either had done evil/wickedness.

We find the exact same word here for hate as well:

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Does this mean we are to dispise, detest, pursue with hated our wives and children and mothers and fathers??
But the same word is used... but there is another rendering for this word
Thayers puts it this way in its exhaustive -
Not a few interpreters have attributed to miseō in Gen xxix. 31 (cf.30) ;

Deut. xxi. 15sq.; Mt. vi. 24; Lk.xiv.26 ; xvi. 13 ; [Jn. xii. 25]. Ro. ix.13. the signification to love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight,, through oversight of the circumstance that 'the Orientals, in accordance with their greater excitability, are wont both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals, with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing'; Fritzsche, Com. on Rom ii. p. 304 ; cf. Ruchert, Magazin f. Exegese u. Theologie des N. T. p. 27 sqq.*

Strongs gives us the defintion of 'to love less'.

My main contention is this.. If scripture states that God hates those who continue in wickness or who stand in wickedness and then we read that God hated Esau BEFORE he did anything evil/wicked.. one must either note a contradiction in scripture or understand that this hatred being spoken of is not the same as the hatred God has toward the wicked. We find consistantly in scripture that the abominations and His hated are always and only upon those who are 'in' sin, or better continuing in sin. Yet with Jacob and Esau, we find he hated Esau before he did anything wicked or evil. It is abundantly evident there is only one option to understanding the verse.. that Jacob was favored over Esau by God and His election of such stands.

 

[Allan]

The elder shall serve the younger neither refers to Esau personally serving Jacob nor of their descendants personally serving the other. The former never happened, the latter only can be said to have happened under the united monarchy, hardly something of such note to be quote by Paul. No, the passage refers to the typical practice at the time of the elder being favored over the younger. God says, it will not be so with these children. Jacob was the favored one rather than Esau.

The term 'serve' refers to 'service' or 'to be subjugated'. However I also do agree that it carried with it or 'refered' to one being favored over another (in addition to the defintion) - and as such one (the lesser) served the other as was the favored's right that the other to be submissive.
And yes, since Paul is speaking directly about Israels history it is the very reason he brings it up with respect to BOTH aspects.

 

[RAdam]

Paul's greater argument is that not all Jews by nature (that is natural descendants of Abraham) are children of God. He first uses the example of Isaac. Isaac was not the only child Abraham had according to the flesh, but was the child of promise. Next he goes to Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob. Now, if Paul is referring to the nations that spring forth out of these two, showing God's favor towards the Jewish people by nature, then a) it doesn't make any sense in the context of the chapter and b) he has destroyed his whole argument.

 

[Skandelon]

Because, my friend, the world does not run according to your agenda or time table. I'll get to Romans 11 soon enough.

The Archangel

I know its not my world or my time table, but I just wanted to remind you that we are still waiting to hear your explanation of Romans 11 as it relates to the original discussion on this thread.