Friday, June 11, 2004

Esau Have I Hated

Romans 9:13 is frequently by double predestinarian advocates as Biblical evidence of individual election. The passage has:
Romans 9:13 - Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
At first glance it appears that this passage is referring to the historical individuals, Jacob and Esau. The story is so familiar that we may even automatically assume that this is the case here. But is this passage talking about the individuals, Jacob and Esau or to something or someone else?

Exegetical Question Raised

The exegetical question is raised when the referring passage is examined. The first part of Romans 9:13 says "at it is written..." But, where is this written? Again, the common assumption is that the answer is to be found in Genesis. After all this passage is talking about Jacob and Esau, so it must be the place where their narrative is contained, which is Genesis. The problem is that a check of Genesis finds no such passage.

Finding Where "As It Is Written" Is Written

At the risk of being overly obvious, the phrase, "as it is written", refers to the quotation of a particular Old Testament passage by a New Testament writer. In some cases, it may be written as a paraphrase or as a combination of passages, but it most typically refers to an actual Old Testament passage. Exceptions are rare and well-known.

Interesting Notes From Genesis

In this case, when reading through Genesis a number of passages jump out of the pages:
Genesis 27:41 - And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.
According to Joshua, both Jacob and Esau received an inheritance.
Joshua 24:4 - 'To Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau, and to Esau I gave Mount Seir to possess it; but Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt.
Where Is the Quote From?

The actual quote is from Malachi 1:2
Malachi 1:2 - "I have loved you," says the Lord. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "Yet I have loved Jacob;
This is where the exegetical question becomes most serious. Looking at the context of the passage in Malachi reveals that Esau is representative of Edom. Jacob is the son of the promise.

The rejoiner is that Paul is reinterpreting Malachi in some other way than what the text shows. If that were the case, then why would Paul be quoting this passage as proof of his position? If he is taking the text in a manner other than a faithful and contextual one, then the audience he is trying to convince would be able to easily show that his argument is not supported by the text he claims.

Conclusions

This passage is not about individual election at all. Jacob and Esau stand for those with faith and those without.

1 comment:

Lockheed said...

Wouoldn't you agree that in the entire context of the passage, the Malachi verse isn't part of the central discussion?

Rom 9:10-12
And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

The immediate context is not Malachi but Genesis 25:23. Paul's intention is not to address Esau as a representative of Edom, but God's purpose according to His choice of individuals.

Paul uses the Malachi text as an afterthought, to back up his main proposition. Thus it is Paul, not Malachi whose context properly determines the subjects of this passage.

One should consider that Paul's very next target is not Egypt as a whole, but Pharoah as an individual... Paul's entire point, throughout Romans 9, is to build up to an explanation of how the Gentiles become people of God. In Romans 9, which comes right after Romans 8 wherein Paul describes those whose minds are set on the flesh as "unable to please God", Paul expresses the difference between those who are of the mind set on the flesh and that of the Spirit. It is "God's purpose according to His choice".

You might suggest that the 'Reformed' are blinded by their tradition, but it seems apparent from this post that the person who is forcing Romans 9 into their own lens is not the Reformers.