Jacob Loved, Esau Hated

[HammondCheese]

Romans 9:13, a primary anchor in Reformed Theology to propagate "their" version of Predestination.  Any Calvinists care to debate this passage?  [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Twisted]

Romans 9:13, a primary anchor in Reformed Theology to propagate "their" version of Predestination.  Any Calvinists care to debate this passage?  [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Debates would go under the "Formal Debate" category. 

 

[HammondCheese]

Debates would go under the "Formal Debate" category.

Nobody even uses that forum...  Any other suggestions where I can have this debate with someone who actually knows the Scriptures?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

Debates would go under the "Formal Debate" category.

Nobody even uses that forum...  Any other suggestions where I can have this debate with someone who actually knows the Scriptures?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

This page has the biggest audience. Go for it here.

 

[HammondCheese]

This page has the biggest audience. Go for it here.

Yeah, and I know there has to be some Calvinist trolls lurking on here somewhere...  [emoji848]  Pony up!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

It means that God loved Jacob.
On the other hand, God hated Esau.

 

[Edwards]

Romans 9:13, a primary anchor in Reformed Theology to propagate "their" version of Predestination.  Any Calvinists care to debate this passage?  [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You didn't give your interpretation  of this scripture.  How can someone address your position?

 

[HammondCheese]

Romans 9:13, a primary anchor in Reformed Theology to propagate "their" version of Predestination.  Any Calvinists care to debate this passage?  [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You didn't give your interpretation  of this scripture.  How can someone address your position?

Well, for starters...  It's not talking about Jacob OR Esau.    And this was not written to the Church.  Let's start there...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Edwards]

Do a short exposition in it's context so we can see what you're talking about and then discuss it.

 

[cpizzle]

Hate does not mean despised in scripture.  It means that he was not "preferred" above Jacob.  God "loved" them both, but he chose Jacob to carry on the lineage of the Patriarchs. 

The purpose of the illustration is to show that God "chooses" his people based upon his promise and their faith...not because of their ancestry.  Isaac and Ishamael were both children of Abraham by the flesh, but not by promise.  Same with Jacob and Esau being children of Isaac.

The point.....God does not choose his people based on their DNA.  The Jews could not claim to be God's people simply because of their Genetics.  They rejected Christ and were rejected of God.  God chose them unconditionally, but he "cut them off" due to their lack of faith.  Romans 9-11 shows that God is not obligated to save anyone due to "fleshly" reasons.

As far as the Calvinist/Reformed theology side of things, these verses do not show how the elect got selected....it shows how the elect got rejected!

 

[prophet]

It means that God loved Jacob.
On the other hand, God hated Esau.

Truth

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

Hate does not mean despised in scripture.  It means that he was not "preferred" above Jacob.  God "loved" them both, but he chose Jacob to carry on the lineage of the Patriarchs. 

The purpose of the illustration is to show that God "chooses" his people based upon his promise and their faith...not because of their ancestry.  Isaac and Ishamael were both children of Abraham by the flesh, but not by promise.  Same with Jacob and Esau being children of Isaac.

The point.....God does not choose his people based on their DNA.  The Jews could not claim to be God's people simply because of their Genetics.  They rejected Christ and were rejected of God.  God chose them unconditionally, but he "cut them off" due to their lack of faith.  Romans 9-11 shows that God is not obligated to save anyone due to "fleshly" reasons.

As far as the Calvinist/Reformed theology side of things, these verses do not show how the elect got selected....it shows how the elect got rejected!

Well said for the most part, but you're kinda jumping the gun and speaking sans exegesis.  Haha

It is clear in Rom 9:3-4 that Paul is referring to Israelites, which is not the Gentiles and broader than the Jews (another topic).  This point is crucial in reference to Adoption (v. 4, Gal 4:5) and the promises.

As for verse 13, he is not speaking of two men, Jacob and Esau; but rather, two nations (Gen 23:25)...  Essentially, the seed of those two men, the twelve tribes of Israel and (initially) Edom.

I would really like a Calvinist to join in on the discussion...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

Five Point Calvinist, here...

If he is not talking about literal people, Jacob and Esau, in verse 13, then what is a ?Rebekah? and ?Isaac? in verse 10?

The words ?love? and ?hate? are unequivocal. They mean what they mean.


If Romans 9 isn?t written for ?the Church,? then neither was Romans 3, 10 and 12

Changing the clear meanings of words in these verses will not help you understand the passages.

I find that those against Calvinist interpretations find it necessary to change the intended, clear meanings of Scripture and the audience/application of those Scriptures.

Why can?t God hate some people and send them to Hell?

 

[cpizzle]

The words ?love? and ?hate? are unequivocal. They mean what they mean.

"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" Luke 14:26

It is obvious, that "hate" in the above verse means to "prefer less."  Husbands are to "Love their wives."  We are told that if we "hate our brother" then we are not truly Christians.  I love my wife, but I love God more...thus, "I hate her."  I love my parents, but I "hate" them in comparison to God.

God chose Isaac over Ishamel for his own purpose.  He chose Jacob over Esau even though they were both descendants of Abraham.  God chose the Jews for his own pleasure, to make them his people.  They were preferred and beloved above all other nations.  However, since they rejected the promise that came by faith, they were also rejected by God.  God does not receive or reject people based upon their heritage or claim to a birthright.  He accepts them by faith.

 

[FSSL]

The words ?love? and ?hate? are unequivocal. They mean what they mean.

"Hate," in this context involves discussing why God ordained Esau for damnation. That is quite a bit of difference than "preferring less."

Importing the meaning of a word from a different context and different author is not good hermeneutics. Consider how Paul uses the word "hate." Just 2 chapters earlier used this same word and said Romans 7.15: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."

Again, this is different than "preferring less." It's just straight up "detestable."

 

[brainisengaged]

I am currently working out my understanding of this chapter. In fact,  my pastor is currently teaching from it.

Romans 8 reached its powerful conclusion:  "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life,
nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height,
nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

And it all could been so tidy were it to end there, but there are further issues to address.

So,  as Romans 9 opens, Paul is grieved for his kinsmen according to the flesh. He is grieved at their rejection of Jesus, and the level of his sorrow for them is such that he wishes he could be accursed for their sake.  (Which of course, he cannot.)

((As much as I love and care for my unsaved friends and family, I don't go so far
as to desperately wish I could be accursed for their sake.))

The Jews considered themselves to be God's Chosen People. And they had the O. T. promises to back it up.
Paul needs to try to de-program their assumptions. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
(not all who are physically descended from Israel belong to the true spiritual Israel)
He starts to make some juxtapositions.

1. Isaac and Ishmael. There are the children of promise (through Isaac) and the children of the flesh (through Ishmael). Being of the seed of Abraham was no guarantee of position, thus genetic heritage is an insufficient claim.

2. Jacob and Esau. To make it even more clear that genes are not the ticket, we are presented with the example of Jacob and Esau who had both the same father and mother, who were quite legitimate. Before the children are even born, before they did either good or evil in the sight of God,
God decreed: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Quite clearly, God can do what He wants to do for his sovereign purpose:
"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"

To further the point, the third juxtapostion:

3. Moses and Pharaoh.

Rom 9:17-18 "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

He is the potter. He makes the vessels of mercy and he makes the vessels of destruction. Hence, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus????

And that's about as far as I've gotten with my attempts at understanding.

 

[HammondCheese]

Five Point Calvinist, here...

If he is not talking about literal people, Jacob and Esau, in verse 13, then what is a ?Rebekah? and ?Isaac? in verse 10?

The words ?love? and ?hate? are unequivocal. They mean what they mean.


If Romans 9 isn?t written for ?the Church,? then neither was Romans 3, 10 and 12

Changing the clear meanings of words in these verses will not help you understand the passages.

I find that those against Calvinist interpretations find it necessary to change the intended, clear meanings of Scripture and the audience/application of those Scriptures. 




Why can?t God hate some people and send them to Hell?

First off, very well said by cpizzle and brainisengaged.  This discussion is going into the real meat of this passage as intended to discuss with open hearts.

The Apostle Paul is clearly laying out the parameters of one of the primary keys to unlocking both the Old and New Testaments...  The seed of Abraham, both genetically as well as spiritually.

In Gal 3:26-4:7 and Gal 3:11-18, Paul goes deeper into the seed of Abraham:

1.  The seed of inheritance (adoption and the land of promise)
2.  The seed of promise, the Lord Jesus Christ (3:16)
3.  The blessing of Abraham, the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ (3:13-14)
4.  The spiritual seed of Abraham in Christ (3:29)

In Romans 9:3-7, Paul distinguishes the bloodline/seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel & the children/seed of promise.  It is then immediately expounded on in verses 9-13...

As with Mary* (Jesus) and Elisabeth** (John the Baptist), the Holy 'Spirit of promise' (v. 9) intervened in the miraculous conception of both Isaac and Jacob through Sara** and Rebekah**.

*virgin
**barren

So, yes...  We are dealing with real people in Romans 9.  But until you understand the context of this passage leading up to verse 13 regarding the love for Jacob and the hatred for Esau, you cannot grasp its meaning.  For it all goes back to Gen 25:23 and God's word to Rebekah:

"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."

This is a direct comparison of God's view on the the two nations to come from Jacob and Esau.  He showed immense favoritism towards chosen Israel vs. Edom... Not an all-or-nothing love/hate in the way man understands.

And Malachi addressed the nation of Israel in Malachi 1:1-2-3 (below) which Paul references in Romans 9:13:

"The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.  I have loved you, saith the Lord.  Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us?  Was not Esau Jacob's brother?  saith the LORD: yet I loved jacob, and I hated Esau..."

They asked "wherein hast thou loved US?"-  plural.  God was reinforcing His love towards chosen Israel by comparing His love for them to His love for Edom.  And just as Malachi was addressing the Israelites ONLY, so was Paul in Romans 9.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

Paul is identifying individuals, as examples, of God's disposition and eternal plan for them. There is no double-meaning intended. When Paul says, "Rebekah, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh," he is not using their names, symbolically. He is pointing out the fact that God chose INDIVIDUALS.

Paul then moves on in chapter 9:23 to speak about the Jews and Gentiles (nations). If we are to believe that when Paul is not addressing these individuals, why does he need to identify "Jews and Gentiles?" He would have continued on with "Jacob/Esau."

Further, if you are consistent, do you also believe that Romans 10:9-13 applies to nations and not individual people?

 

[HammondCheese]

Paul is identifying individuals, as examples, of God's disposition and eternal plan for them. There is no double-meaning intended. When Paul says, "Rebekah, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh," he is not using their names, symbolically. He is pointing out the fact that God chose INDIVIDUALS.

Paul then moves on in chapter 9:23 to speak about the Jews and Gentiles (nations). If we are to believe that when Paul is not addressing these individuals, why does he need to identify "Jews and Gentiles?" He would have continued on with "Jacob/Esau."

Further, if you are consistent, do you also believe that Romans 10:9-13 applies to nations and not individual people?

I'm sorry, but if you are going to simply ignore everything I just said with a knee-jerk, Calvinistic generalization of basically, "I don't agree.  He's talking about electing individuals" - then I have nothing else to discuss with you.

I gave a further interpretation of the passage in its context and backed it up with Scripture, and you were simply dismissive of it all with opinions and hypotheticals.

BTW...  The REASON why individuals like Abraham, Sara, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Esau are referenced is because they were FAMILY that make up the first three generations of the Abrahamic Covenant!  They weren't just random people selected throughout Scripture to prove Calvinism.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

You have committed the hermeneutical fallacy of double entendre. You have to manipulate the straight forward meaning of the text.

You want to avoid the idea that God chooses individuals. In doing so, you look at the names ?Jacob? and ?Esau? and admit they are individuals but insist that Paul meant God chooses nations. Your idea of ignoring Rachel and Isaac by saying they are ?family,? not individuals is strange.... and then we have Pharaoh. Individual or representative of a Family?

I have not ignored what you wrote. You have dodged out on my points.