Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Jacob and Esau

Drew

Member
The purpose of this post (post 1 of a series of 2) is to analyze the text of Romans 9 and contrast two competing views about what Paul is talking about in respect to Jacob and Esau in verses 11 through 13:. Here are the 2 views as I can best characterize them:

V1: Paul is asserting that Jacob has been elected to heaven while Esau has been elected to ultimate loss.

V2: Paul is only asserting that Jacob and Esau have been elected to membership in different “groups†and what this election is “to†is given by the explanation that one group is elected to serve the other.

Posters will not be surprised to know that I believe that V2 is the correct way to see the material about Jacob and Esau.

I plan to parse the text and insert relevant comments.

I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

[Comment: I suggest that is beyond dispute that Paul here is focusing on the people of national Israel – the set of people reasonably understood to be Jew by “ethnicity†or race.]

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

[Comment: Paul is now suggesting that there is “another†Israel that is the true family of God, membership in which is not determined by birth – hence the denial in verse 9 that “natural†children are God’s children and the denial of family membership in virtue of being “descendents†in verse 7. While it may be true that there are overlaps between “national Israel†(the actual descendents of Abraham) and “true Israel, Paul makes it clear that there are indeed two such groups.

At this point it is important to avoid the mistake of thinking that Paul is saying that membership in true Israel is still determined “by birthâ€Â. One might be inclined to think that Paul is saying something like “It is not the all the genetic children of Abraham who are true members of God’s family, it is only Isaac’s genetic branch – and then within Isaac’s genetic branch, the genetic selectivity continues at the next generation with a distinction drawn between Jacob’s genetic branch and Esau’s genetic branch. And so on.

That kind of reading, while perhaps lending support to V1 since it suggests a kind of destiny one is born into, does not really mesh well with what Paul says here in Romans 9, and elsewhere in Romans. Note that here in Romans 9 Paul denies any sense in which birth is a determining factor of membership in God’s family when he argues that it is not by being a “natural†child (or descendent) that one becomes a member of the family of God. And this point is more strongly made in Romans 4 where Paul argues that Gentiles are included in Abraham’s true family – so clearly a genetic connection to any sub-set of national Israel is not the key. Plus, in both Romans 4 and here in verse 9, it is being the recipient of a promise that is the stated criteria for membership in Abraham’s true family.

Now to be fair, the notion of “the promise†does not rule out the possibility of election of specific individuals to membership in Abraham’s family – perhaps God only makes this promise to a pre-destined set of specific individuals. But neither does the notion of the promise endorse such a view. This is because, as per an argument set forth elsewhere, it is indeed entirely coherent for Paul to speak of a family receiving a promise without the members of that family being named. As per that other argument, God can “promise†that there will be team called the New York Yankees, who will take to the field on April 6, 2017 and yet not pre-destine any specific persons to be on that team.

And again to be fair to those who think “eternal destiny†is in view, this is indeed true to an extent. By introducing the very notion of the “true family of Godâ€Â, Paul is indeed hinting at issues of who will be justified and raised to glory. And later in the chapter (verse 23 where he refers to vessels fitted for glory) he makes this explicit. But two points need to be emphasized here. First, as per the preceding paragraph, we have no firm grouds to conclude that God pre-destines the specific members of that group. Second, to this point in the argument Paul is clearly speaking at the level of groups. Although Paul “names namesâ€Â, his rhetorical purpose here is clearly about groups – national Israel and true Israel.

So now we get to the stuff about Jacob and Esau:]
 
.....continuing from the first post:

So now we get to the stuff about Jacob and Esau:]
9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]
[Comment: Although it is true that membership in Abraham’s true family – by extension ultimate justification – is on the table at this point, a respect for Paul’s ability to stay “on topic†combined with looking up the Old Testament allusions, show that the issue continues to be groups here, not individuals. Although names have popped up along the way, the names only appear in service of the more fundamental argument about the two groups he wants to identify – national Israel and true Israel.

And this focus continues in the vers 9 to 13 block even though Jacob and Esau are mentioned. Paul is quoting Genesis 25 here:

The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger."


Paul is a clear and focused thinker and communicator. He would have to be an awfully poor writer to allude to this text, which is clearly about nations and peoples, in argument that is already focused at the “nation and people†level, if he really wanted to make a point about Jacob and Esau’s personal eternal destinies. Even if the rest of the material in my argument may be confusing, this is hopefully clear.

And this argument is only strengthened by the implicit and explicit statement that, in relation to Esau and Jacob, the “election†is an election to a purpose in this life – that one will serve the other. And this is indeed what happened – the Edomites were indeed dominated by the Israelites.

Now perhaps people will argue as follows:

1. Drew has already conceded that the subject of membership in the true family of Abraham is already on the table, with its implications (later confirmed in verse 23) that eternal glorification is in view;

2. Drew has elsewhere conceded that God does indeed “elect†groups to ultimate justification / eternal glorification (I am sure I have done in some thread in this board);

3. Even if, as Drew is arguing, the main issue here is “nations and peoplesâ€Â, Paul nevertheless identifies that Jacob is a “true member†of Abraham’s family while Esau is not. So Drew’s argument that groups can be elected without election of the constituting individuals seems to be on the ropes;

4. Therefore it is indeed legitimate to conclude that specific persons have been elected to membership that family who will, as per point 2, be given ultimate justification.

Points 1 and 2 are indeed correct. But point 3 is not. In the verse 9 to 13 block, Paul’s rather clear statement about election “of one to serve the other†make it clear that he is, in this block, illustrating the principle of selective election. But he makes it clear that, in this little block, he is not talking about election to membership in Abraham’s family (and by extension ultimate justification). He is talking about election to a particular role in this world as an example of the more general principle of God’s right to elect. And he will do exactly the same thing later in respect to Pharoah.

All this shows rather clearly that is bad exegesis to dive down into the three verses about Jacob and Esau and claim they support the notion that God pre-destines some specific persons to heaven and other specific persons to hell. The context simply does not support that reading.]
 
Hi Drew,

You have laboured long over this issue. Point 3 has to do with the individuals Jacob and Easu and nations of which they were founding patriarchs. Jacob's name was actually changed to Israel after he wrestled with God at Bethel. Later Moses asks God who are you and God replies 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'. After Jacob we have Jacob's sons who are the heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. So we are witnessing God's purpose in election both of individuals and the early phase of establishing the nation. It is this strong identification with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that the descendants who we came to know as Hebrews - saw their purpose and destiny. It goes without saying that this strong purpose of identification could also be found in God. God was know as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Easu never shared the recognition of prosterity from either the Hebrews or from God.

But if we take Jacob and Easu - 'the older shall serve the younger' for what purpose is a statement like that given as prophesy? I think that we have to wait until generations pass and we have King David before we know what the prophetic fulfilment of this is. I suggest that Psalm 2 gives a reasonably good answer though it speaks in general terms. It is a generally accepted as a messianic psalm.

Psalm 2
The Reign of the LORD'S Anointed.
1Why are the nations in an uproar
And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3"Let us tear their fetters apart
And cast away their cords from us!"
4He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.
5Then He will speak to them in His anger
And terrify them in His fury, saying,
6"But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain."
7"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
9'You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.'"
10Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
11Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
12Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

Romans 9:12-13 (NASB)

it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."


The reference to the Kings of the earth taking their stand against the Lord and his annointed- depicts the troublesome nations surrounding Israel during David's reign. Edom is one of these nations and their relationship with Israel is strongly reflected in the relationship between Jacob and Easu. There is also an eschatological dimension to the conflict that Ps 2 depicts concerning the Messiah and His eventual rule in Jerusalem. starting with the surrounding nations - all the countries of the earth will be ruled by the Messiah. Whether Edom can sense what is happening in Ps 2:8 - the resistance David encountered is indicative of a nation losing its inheritence (just like Easu lost his inheritence to Jacob). This rule and the promised land is keenly contested by the descendants of Easu - and it is strange indeed to see how deceiving/defrauding a near blind father to obtain a blessing and Easu selling his birthright work out in the destiny of both nations.

The reference in Romans 9 shows the identification of God with Jacob and Easu which is an adjacent verse to 'the elder shall serve the younger'. This is an interpretive comment by Paul about the two brothers. Ps 2 shows the situation at the level of nations many centuries after Jacob and Easu. More specific information can be found about Easu's descendants in prophetic literature where judgments are forecast - there is also 'consideration' of the common roots and if I remember rightly Israel is told not to fight against Edom on one occassion because of their mutual historic relationship - but don't quote me on that.

This is a quick overview about how I see the issue. I know that you have dealt with many of the matters in other posts and treads. I hope that some of the background issues raised will prove useful to you.

Blessings
 
Back
Top