Jacob I loved and Esau I hated = individual election?

[Winman]

Joshua 24:2 "And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods." (ESV; Emphasis mine)

Joshua 24:14-15 “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (ESV; Emphasis mine)

Joshua 24:2 shows that Abraham was involved in that idolatry. First off, he was 70 when God called him. Secondly, it was common in his day to have "territorial gods" for each city/state. It would have been quite common for Abraham to join in the worship of the local deity.

Further the text says "...and they served other gods." The simple sentence is "Your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates and they served other gods. The naming of the fathers--Terah, Abraham, and Nahor is periphrastic, identifying the fathers. The "they" encompasses all of the fathers including Abraham (since, after all, he is mentioned by name).

Had Joshua wanted to suggest that only Terah had been an idol worshiper, the sentence would have to be constructed quite differently--to emphasize only Terah, rather than the all the fathers which includes Abraham.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I don't know if I agree with you here, it is simply identifying who Terah is, the father of Abraham and the son of Nahor. The Jews and even the Muslims deny that Abraham was an idolator, but concede his father was.

According to the midrash, Genesis Rabba, a Palestinian midrash written sometime in the 5th or 6th century of the common era, Abraham’s father, Terach, was an idolator and an idol maker. One day he left Abraham in charge of his idol store. As each person came to buy an idol, Abraham would make fun of them. When an old person came to buy an idol, Abraham looked at him incredulously and said: “Why would you worship an idol that was made just yesterday?”

Later that day, a woman came to the store with an offering of grain to give to the idols. Abraham took a mallet and smashed all the idols save the largest one. When Terach returned he was understandably furious.

“What happened here?”

Abraham calmly explained that there was a fight over the offering that was brought to the idols and the largest idol smashed all the other idols. Terach was beside himself.

“These idols can’t move, let alone fight with each other!!”

“If that’s the case,” Abraham replied, “why would you worship something that cannot do anything?”

Terach dragged Abraham to the king, Nimrod. Nimrod and Abraham engaged in a type of religious disputation. Nimrod opened with: “I worship fire.” Abraham countered with: “Why don’t you worship the water which can douse the fire.” Nimrod acquiesced. “Okay, I’ll worship the water.” “So then,” Abraham went on, “you might as well worship the clouds, since they are obviously stronger than the water which they carry.” Nimrod agreed with this and said: “Okay, let us worship the clouds.” Abraham then suggested the wind which blows the clouds, and then, finally, a person who can withstand the wind.

Nimrod finally exploded at Abraham: “You are just playing with words. I worship the fire. When I throw you into the fire, we’ll see whether your god is greater than the fire, or whether you succumb to my god.”

Abraham was thrown into the fire and, like Shadrach, Mishach, and Abednego in the time of Daniel, Abraham emerged unscathed.

This midrash, significantly, is a commentary to the last verse before God issues those famous marching orders: lech lechah, go forth! Read in this light, the midrash seems to be arguing that before Abraham could move on to the “land that I will show you,” he had to smash his father’s idols.

Rabbi Yakov Yosef of Polnoi, one of the two main students of the founder of Hassidism, the Ba’al Shem Tov, would often start his weekly discourse with the following question: How is this part of the Torah relevant in every time and every place? In other words, how does my life hang in the balance over whether Abraham smashes the idols or not? Or, from another perspective, what are the idols that I have to smash in order to move on to the Promised Land? (and, perhaps, then, what is that promised land?)

 

[Skandelon]

PS. I still think the Olive Tree is the people of God.

So when it speaks of the Jews being 'cutt off' from the tree and possibly being grafted back in, what does that mean to you? Obviously you don't believe the individuals within the nation were saved and are now being cut off, or that they could be grafted back in and be saved again, right?

I'm just trying to figure out how you explain Romans 11. Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

But, you are clearly not understanding context. According to your practice of "quoting" scripture, I could say "Psalm 14 says "there is no God." See, all I'm doing is quoting scripture. But context, of course, is important in Psalm 14 and every other passage because the full text of Psalm 14:1 is "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Well that example is very easy to disprove, you simply have to quote the entire context. I just read through all the surrounding verses of the passages we are discussing and it certainly doesn't appear I'm pulling anything out of its context. Feel free to quote as many verses before and after any of the passages in question and explain how what I believe is out of context.

Likewise, when you claim that "all" have been justified according to Romans 3:21ff, you are missing an essential contextual component. In this passage "all" does not mean everyone without exception. In Romans 3, "all" means Jews and Gentiles alike.

I didn't say that it justified or saved everyone, I simply quoted exactly what the scripture says, "one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." and "the free gift following many trespasses brought justification."

And with regard to unbelief being the basis for our condemnation, I've simply quoted verbatim:

"they are condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God"

and

"So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief"

So, I'm fine with the whole, "Jews and Gentiles alike" interpretation. But bringing justification to both the Jews and Gentiles is tantamount to what Paul says when he speaks of the Olive Tree in Romans 11, where both the Jews and the Gentiles are shown mercy through being in the vine. In other words God is bringing them all justification by grafting them into the tree. Because in the TREE they see, hear, understand the special revelation of God and can enter covenant with Him THROUGH FAITH.

Paul is essentially saying that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by the same sacrifice of Christ. He is not saying that everyone without exception is "justified."

And I hope now you understand that I never argued that everyone without exception IS JUSTIFIED. I argued that it brought everyone justification in that we are all grafted into the tree. We are all called to enter a covenant of faith because we have all been bought by His blood.

Certainly, you would not suggest that even unbelievers are counted as "not guilty," unless, of course, you are a universalist.

As I have said, they will be judged by CHRIST'S WORDS. They are guilty of UNBELIEF. That is why they will be condemned according to the scripture quoted above. BTW, what do you believe is the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?"

 

[The Archangel]

I don't know if I agree with you here, it is simply identifying who Terah is, the father of Abraham and the son of Nahor. The Jews and even the Muslims deny that Abraham was an idolator, but concede his father was.

I'll take scripture.

It is not only identifying who Terah is. If Joshua had wanted to say "Terah" served other gods, he would have used the singular "he" instead of "they."

The "they" in Joshua 24 at least refers to fathers, of which Abraham is one.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I didn't say that it justified or saved everyone, I simply quoted exactly what the scripture says, "one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." and "the free gift following many trespasses brought justification."

But you did quote it and imply it that way when the text clearly doesn't mean that, as I have pointed out before and am loathe to point out again.

And with regard to unbelief being the basis for our condemnation, I've simply quoted verbatim:

"they are condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God"

and

"So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief"

Yes, you quote scripture--divorced from its context (in the case of the Hebrews passage). Again, something I am loathe to point this out again.

As for the John passage, the word "already" shows a completed act (especially with the perfect passive "condemned"). If, as you say we are condemned for our unbelief, the verb condemned would have to be future, awaiting the end of our life and our opportunities to believe.

The condemnation of non-believers is not forthcoming. It already is, because they stand condemned because they are sinners (by nature) and because they sin.

See here:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Sin, not unbelief, was condemned. So, it is obvious that Jesus came to take care of a sin problem--not in a generic, non-personal way, but in a specific, personal way for the Christian.

So, I'm fine with the whole, "Jews and Gentiles alike" interpretation. But bringing justification to both the Jews and Gentiles is tantamount to what Paul says when he speaks of the Olive Tree in Romans 11, where both the Jews and the Gentiles are shown mercy through being in the vine. In other words God is bringing them all justification by grafting them into the tree. Because in the TREE they see, hear, understand the special revelation of God and can enter covenant with Him THROUGH FAITH.

No. It is not the same thing.

As I have said, they will be judged by CHRIST'S WORDS. They are guilty of UNBELIEF. That is why they will be condemned according to the scripture quoted above.

We are condemned because we are sinners.

Romans 6:13"Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness."

1 John 3:14 "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death."

Death, our position of condemnation, is plainly evident.

BTW, what do you believe is the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?"

Nope. Not starting another inane rabbit trail.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

As for the John passage, the word "already" shows a completed act (especially with the perfect passive "condemned"). If, as you say we are condemned for our unbelief, the verb condemned would have to be future, awaiting the end of our life and our opportunities to believe.

The condemnation of non-believers is not forthcoming. It already is, because they stand condemned because they are sinners (by nature) and because they sin.

Again, I think you need to come to understand Romans 11 because then you would read and understand when Paul says, "But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!"

When you can give me a verse by verse explanation of this passage from your perspective then we can move on.

No. It is not the same thing.

Care to expound as to why its not the same thing. Contrast the two for us.

We are condemned because we are sinners.

Romans 6:13"Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness."

1 John 3:14 "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death."

Death, our position of condemnation, is plainly evident.

These verse say nothing about being condemned for sin. If we are all born "spiritually dead," even the "elect" ones then even you can't hold to the position that those who are "dead" are condemned already in the sense that they can't leave their unbelief and be saved.

Nope. Not starting another inane rabbit trail.

Don't want to learn something new? It actually does apply. There is one sin that will not be forgiven. Don't you wonder what that sin is?

 

[Winman]

I'll take scripture.

It is not only identifying who Terah is. If Joshua had wanted to say "Terah" served other gods, he would have used the singular "he" instead of "they."

The "they" in Joshua 24 at least refers to fathers, of which Abraham is one.

The Archangel

I will grant it is a possibility. But the "they" refers to the "fathers" which meant all of Abraham's fathers (father, grandfather, great-grandfather...)

The Jews themselves have known this scripture for thousands of years and never interpreted it as saying Abraham was an idolator, that is why I included that quote from a Jewish website.

 

[The Archangel]

I will grant it is a possibility. But the "they" refers to the "fathers" which meant all of Abraham's fathers (father, grandfather, great-grandfather...)

The Jews themselves have known this scripture for thousands of years and never interpreted it as saying Abraham was an idolater, that is why I included that quote from a Jewish website.

It cannot be that the "father" refer to Abraham's fathers. The word is second person plural, not third person, nor singular. Therefore, it is the case that "fathers" is referring to the fathers of the Israelites, not Abraham.

Later, the "they" is third person plural, referring to the fathers, of which Abraham is one.

It can't be the way you want it to be. It is what it is.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Again, I think you need to come to understand Romans 11 because then you would read and understand when Paul says...

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.

Don't want to learn something new? It actually does apply. There is one sin that will not be forgiven. Don't you wonder what that sin is?

Translation: Skandelon's interpretation is right, no others need apply. Implication: Skandelon's interpretation is infallible, no need for "discussion."

I know quite well what the "unforgivable sin" is and it is not unbelief.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

I know quite well what the "unforgivable sin" is and it is not unbelief.

Then what is it?

 

[Skandelon]

I understand Romans 11 quite well, thank you.

Oh good, then please expound on it and maybe we can pull this thread back to its original topic. I honestly just don't know your view of the tree being the "people of God," and how that effects the implications of your interpretations.

I know quite well what the "unforgivable sin" is and it is not unbelief.

The root motive of all sin is unbelief. Blasphemy is unbelief manifested. Thus, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of unbelief of the Holy Spirit. The point of Jesus' statement was that he would overlook the attacks upon him personally, because he was indeed blinding them and provoking them, but when he sends the Holy Spirit, the veal has been torn and there is nothing keeping mankind from clearly hearing the Revelation of God. Thus, not believing the One who brings conviction of sin and Christ's teachings to this world (the Holy Spirit) is certainly the unpardonable sin.

What do you suppose it is?

 

[Skandelon]

You still haven't addressed this passage:

John 12:46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. 47 "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

What will condemn him in the last day? "That very word which I spoke"

What word did Jesus speak? The message of reconciliation! How do you reconcile this passage?

 

[BaptistBob]

The "they" in Joshua 24 at least refers to fathers, of which Abraham is one.

The Archangel

So are Isaac and Jacob. But given the context, he is referring to the ancient fathers, including Terah. Nothing is said about anyone who follows, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[BaptistBob]

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.

You said yourself, several weeks ago, that you need to study it. If he took you at your word, then you made the implication.

 

[BaptistBob]

Your passion is blinding you to what I actually said.

I said: They cause no problem at all, once you read them in Greek. Jesus is using a second-class conditional statement which is, by definition and formula, a contrary-to fact condition. Because Jesus uses the second-class condition, it is certain that He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented. He is merely using them as an example--a well-known example of sin and its consequences.

This is totally untrue. He said they would have repented. The second class conditional offers you nothing in support of your special pleading.

Jesus is speaking of a specific sin in a specific context, not merely sin in the abstract.

Of course the contrary-to-fact is that the signs were not performed. I was not intending, as you suppose, to say that they couldn't have responded. I don't know if they could have, even though you suppose you do.

Jesus supposed they would.

As you will see above, I said "[Jesus] is using them [Sodom and Gomorrah] as an example" to illustrate the woes He is pronouncing. He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah could have or would have repented. The textual unit is an example. Jesus is, likely, using hyperbole.

Hyperbole is ruled out by the context. The second class conditional statements on verses 21 & 23 bring out the same point, using different cities. Then, to rule out any doubt, Jesus speaks of a judgement that is affected by the truth of the situation fleshed out in the second class conditional statements. Due to the fact that they would have repented, their judgement will be relatively better. Or, to be more accurate, the cities to which Jesus is speaking will be judged more harshly.

Unless you say that the judgement is merely hyperbolic imagery involving an event that will never happen, you must admit that the judgement is based upon the truth relationship between the prostasis and apodosis. In other words, although the prostasis involves an evet that never happened, the judgement is based upon what would have happened based upon the truth of the statement. "contrary-to-fact" involving the historical event does not make it "contrary-to-truth" in the literal sense (i.e., hyperbolic).

Besides you putting words into my mouth, your disrespect for the text is astonishing. Greek is not a "trick." It is the original. Sometimes nuance is desperately important. To claim "I'll stick to scripture" and place that over/against searching to find the point of a passage by consulting the original language is disingenuous at best. Essentally, you are placing yourself against the text when you make ridiculous statements like this. Sad.

Actually, he's "skooling" you in hermeneutics on this one. You continually talk down to him, but he's taking the judgement literally, based upon the truth content of the statements, as does nearly everyone else on the planet!!

Your use of Greek is not a "trick," but, as is often the case, it is terribly misguided. If you stop talking down to him, and refrain from the histrionics, you will not look so ridiculous when your errors are exposed. Ironically, your attempt to muddy the waters with your misguided, esoteric (can it actually be "esoteric" if it is patently wrong?) point was demonstrated to be false by someone (Skandelon) reading and understanding it via a simple English translation.

 

[The Archangel]

So are Isaac and Jacob. But given the context, he is referring to the ancient fathers, including Terah. Nothing is said about anyone who follows, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Wrong.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Archangel,

Please help me understand how you interpret Romans 11. Is the blue responses the way you interpret these passages? It's like pulling teeth to get you to deal with this passage. Why?

"But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith.{Israel are now not "the people of God" because of unbelief, and you Gentiles are "people of God" by faith}

Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.{He cut off the Jews from being "the people of God" and they were the natural branched, so even though you are now the "people of God" don't get arrogant, because he can cut you off so you won't be the "people of God" anymore.}

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. {God is stern to the Jews who were the People of God, and now are not. And He is kind to you, Gentiles who were not "the People of God" but now are, if you continue in his kindness, because you can be cut off from being His People.}

23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. {If Jews do not persist in unbelief they will become People of God again, because God can do that}

24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!" {He can graft them back in a People of God because they are natural branches}

 

[The Archangel]

This is totally untrue. He said they would have repented. The second class conditional offers you nothing in support of your special pleading.

Jesus is speaking of a specific sin in a specific context, not merely sin in the abstract.

Jesus supposed they would.

Hyperbole is ruled out by the context. The second class conditional statements on verses 21 & 23 bring out the same point, using different cities. Then, to rule out any doubt, Jesus speaks of a judgement that is affected by the truth of the situation fleshed out in the second class conditional statements. Due to the fact that they would have repented, their judgement will be relatively better. Or, to be more accurate, the cities to which Jesus is speaking will be judged more harshly.

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).

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).

Unless you say that the judgement is merely hyperbolic imagery involving an event that will never happen, you must admit that the judgement is based upon the truth relationship between the prostasis and apodosis. In other words, although the prostasis involves an evet that never happened, the judgement is based upon what would have happened based upon the truth of the statement. "contrary-to-fact" involving the historical event does not make it "contrary-to-truth" in the literal sense (i.e., hyperbolic).

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.

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).

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.

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. 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. So, it is merely used as an example to fly in the face of the pride/arrogance/hard-heartedness of the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus is not intending to emphasize what would have happened to Tyre and Sidon. Will Tyre and Sidon actually be judged? Yes, absolutely. Will Chorazin and Bethsaida be judged? Yes, absolutely. However, because Jesus Himself was not incarnated in the time of Tyre and Sidon, He, therefore, did not do the same miraculous works performed in the midst of Chorazin and Bethsaida. The point is that Tyre and Sidon will have an easier judgment because they did not, in the past, have the opportunity that Chorazin and Bethsaida had, in the present.

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.

Actually, he's "skooling" you in hermeneutics on this one. You continually talk down to him, but he's taking the judgement literally, based upon the truth content of the statements, as does nearly everyone else on the planet!!

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.

Your use of Greek is not a "trick," but, as is often the case, it is terribly misguided. If you stop talking down to him, and refrain from the histrionics, you will not look so ridiculous when your errors are exposed. Ironically, your attempt to muddy the waters with your misguided, esoteric (can it actually be "esoteric" if it is patently wrong?) point was demonstrated to be false by someone (Skandelon) reading and understanding it via a simple English translation.

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.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

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.

Actually, your first response to me was, "it is certain that He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented."

Now you state: "I think some might have [believed] had Jesus been incarnated in their time, but He wasn't."

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

With all due respect, I don't think it has anything to do with using Greek in your application of hermeneutics. What frustrates me is that you ask for time to study a chapter in order to give an answer and when I press you to find an answer you ignore me or ridicule me.

The OP was about Romans 9 and Jacob vs Esau and how that relates to those being shown mercy (grafted into the tree) and those being hardened (cut off from the tree). This is intimately tied to our understanding of Romans 11 which we have yet to see an explanation on from you. Why?

 

[The Archangel]

Actually, your first response to me was, "it is certain that He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented."

Now you state: "I think some might have [believed] had Jesus been incarnated in their time, but He wasn't."

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. The overall point is the judgment coming to these particular cities because of their rejection of Christ. This is contrasted the coming judgment of well-known hyper-wicked cities who will also be judged on account of their sin, but that judgment will be less than the present-day cities because it did not involve rejection of Christ.

Your hermeneutical approach wants to make the apodosis of the second-class conditional sentence the main point of the pericope. It is not.

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.

With all due respect, I don't think it has anything to do with using Greek in your application of hermeneutics. What frustrates me is that you ask for time to study a chapter in order to give an answer and when I press you to find an answer you ignore me or ridicule me.

The OP was about Romans 9 and Jacob vs Esau and how that relates to those being shown mercy (grafted into the tree) and those being hardened (cut off from the tree). This is intimately tied to our understanding of Romans 11 which we have yet to see an explanation on from you. Why?

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

At one point I said I wouldn't follow your rabbit trail into the unforgivable sin.

Blessings,

The Archangel