Malachi 1:2-3.
But in this prophetic passage, Esau and Jacob probably symbolize ethnic groups, with Esau being Edom, who was one of Israel’s enemies.
In Deuteronomy 23:7, hating an Edomite is forbidden, go figure. 
But in the very same book, “God does not show favoritism” (Rom 2:11)
Or, Acts 10:34-36: “I see very clearly that God shows no favoritism”
Deuteronomy 10:17 “He is the great God…who shows no partiality.”
Isn’t proof-texting a fun game?
4 Likes
Thanks, Christy, for pointing out the Malachi passage. Your interpretation that Esau may symbolize the Edomite society makes some sense in that God is then actually showing a preference for one society over another; not one individual over another. As a believer in the Noosphere, I see this as the Israelite society corresponding to a (noo)gene cluster favoring group survival over the Edomite (noo)gene cluster. Of course, in the sense of the Noosphere, we mean cultural survival–not necessarily biological survival. Also in this sense, the Bible has been the most effective (noo)gene cluster of all, closely followed by the Koran.
Useful biological genes can mutate in such a way as to cause cancer. Noogenic gene clusters (the Bible and Koran) can be mutated to cause social cancers (Spanish Inquisition, ISIL, Al-Quida). Would that we could find a Noogenic Caspace-9 that would result in Jihad apoptosis.
Al Leo
Is the aim to understand what Paul means in Romans 9? Or is it to remove the sense of scandal that he says it at all?
Because whatever your interpretation, it has to take account of the fact that Paul anticipated in v19 that some readers would object, “Then why does God still blame us? For who can resist his will?” He doesn’t answer that they’ve misunderstood his words - he says they haven’t understood God.
Paul’s quotation of Malachi, in the context of the birth narrative of Esau and Jacob, suggests that he considered Malachi to be referring the choice between Easu and Jacob back to their individual origins, not the particulars of the later tribes.
But the concept of selection in the “love/hate” idiom is clear, because Paul knew full well that God blessed Esau not only with riches, but as the founder of his people: the question of “God’s purpose in election” refers only to the promise of the Covenant.
And in his example, Paul is actually pointing out the general pattern of God’s unmerited choice in the origins of Israel as his chosen people: Abraham was called, but Lot was not. Isaac was the child of the promise, and Ishmael was not (and neither were the children of Abraham’s later wife Keturah). Then the most graphic example comes of the younger twin chosen rather than the older twin regardless of merit actual or foreseen (who’s going to suggest that Jacob was a moral example?), which takes the story up to the point when Jacob is renamed Israel, and all his children - even those of his servants - are heirs to the promise… except that Paul has already said that not all the natural descendants of Israel are children of the promise “not by works (or by race, v24), but by him who calls”.
It’s that whole account that has his critics shouting “Foul!”: and Paul’s response is in v14, expanded in vv20-21. Which is why, perhaps, people tend to respond that old Paul got things wrong a bit there, because, after all, we know God, and Scripture, better than he did… or maybe the Old Testament got it wrong too, and Abraham was actually talent spotted by God as the most faithful person in the world, Ishmael was an atheist, Esau was too busy on his see-saw to follow God, etc…
But if Paul did get it wrong, it was a quite deliberate choice, and it’s incumbent on his critics not only to say why Scripture is fallible, but exactly what is wrong with Paul’s argument, other than our confidence in our own spiritual prejudices.
But context is everything - a text without a context is a pretext for a proof-text… and we don’t want to do proof texting, do we?
1 Like
Oh yes - in case one should think Paul forgets that he said God shows no favourites back in ch2, he hasn’t.
(1) “Prosopolepsia” means regarding the outward appearance rather than the inward reality: that’s orthogonal to the question of not choosing by works at all in ch9.
(2) Paul’s explanation in Rom 9.20 is not about mere choice of existing people, but his sovereignty as creator in forming them for “noble or common use”.
A king might see a sharp wit, or a pretty face in his court and make that person a favourite, disregarding their merits. But when God chose Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, he didn’t simply compare them with Lot, or Ishmael, or Esau either on their merits or because he liked their face - he created them to be what he chose them to be. And that’s why God speaks of creating Israel for his glory in Isaiah 43.7, not of noticing them as a particularly deserving people group and then privileging them unfairly. Paul had, no doubt, studied Isaiah.
Jon, my aim in reading any part of the Bible, OT or NT, is to see if someone in the past, who is wiser than I, can lead me on the path to pleasing God–lead me more surely than I would be able to do on my own. Some of Paul’s writings I can clearly understand and they seem to accomplish this. But if some, like Romans 9, need such thorough exegesis ‘to remove the sense of scandal’ they are worse than useless. Christy’s explanation that the name of the individual who founds a new society is often applied then to the society itself: Jacob → Israel; Esau → Edomites fits the mental picture I had already formed in expanding Teilhard’s proposal of the Noosphere. In my view, it seems more acceptable that God should favor one society over another, because it is more likely to lead its members to his purpose. If he favors one individual over another, that would seem unjust, if that individual was trying his/her best in the situation he/she was born into.
Al Leo
The reason I bring up Romans 9 at various times is to show how DIFFICULT the Bible can be. It does not surprise me that some can find texts that conflict with the point of Romans 9.
But what DOES surprise me is when Evangelical Creationists don’t find education in the process…
They behave as though all scripture harmonizes … and so there is no need to make any interpretations.
But obviously Romans 9 is a pretty big investment by Paul …he was making SOME kind of a point, right?
I am perfectly content thinking Paul was WRONG about this text… but only if Evangelical Creationists are willing to think he was wrong about OTHER things as well !
George, when I graduated from parochial school (into the REAL world), I was disturbed by the Protestant charge that the Vatican discouraged Catholics from reading the Bible and preferred feeding us their carefully manicured versions. After spending some time reading BioLogos posts, I can see how this Vatican policy was at least partially justified. The majority of PIPs (people in the pews) will NOT make the difficult effort to attain a true understanding of these difficult passages, and, truthfully, such effort can mask the reassurance that a more simple Faith can give them. (My saintly Aunt Ann once told us that, after reading the ‘steamier’ parts of the Old Testament, she felt she had to go to confession!)
I am gambling that, since God gave us the precious gift of intellect, each of us should use it in our current world, as well as try to learn some of the wisdom accumulated and passed down to us by folks who lived in worlds of the past. I also believe that God is ready to ‘speak to’ each of us today, if we are open to it. I have undeniable proof of that and shared it on this Forum as ‘The Miracle of the Panel Truck’.
Al Leo
I think it is clear in Scripture that God chooses one individual over another, often the one least deserving or expected to be chosen. This is a major theme of the Bible that can’t be explained away. Depending on how you look at it, this can seem like he unfairly favors one over the other. But another way of looking at it, it’s just grace. God isn’t rewarding people for their awesomeness by choosing them, or punishing people for their failures by not choosing them, he is accomplishing his own purposes. Grace means some people get better than they deserved. It may feel arbitrary or violate our sense of fairness, but the gospel goes around messing with our expectations and ideals all the time.
1 Like
Sounds god. There is a little uncertainty in my mind that if you look at the final text of the Old Testament being written post exile, that the “choice” of God was recognized only in retrospect.
Nice posting!
Is this not the very core of the story of the Prodigal Son? It seems to be an essential truth that many Biblical writers want people to “SEE”.
But Albert, the only reason to even try and remove difficulties in Scripture is if it carries authority. Otherwise one could simply ignore it. Unless the “society” explanation is what Paul actually intended, then there’s no point finding it a helpful interpretation - one might as well simply say Paul was wrong, rather than distort his meaning (of which problem 2 Pet 3.17 specifically warns).
The passage doesn’t actually require particularly difficult exegesis - except to clear away distortions of its rather plain meaning, which as Christy so rightly explains is all about the beauty of grace, and is at the heart of the whole argument of Romans.
I would say that Paul is speaking directly to the plain man (or woman) by refusing to go into complicated metaphysical discussion of just how God can both choose by grace and be just - and his advice is simply to exercise that simple faith and trust that God knows what he’s doing as Creator.
Personally, I’d have to say that if I find anyone confusing, it’s Teilhard de Chardin, but I confess I’ve been less willing to make the effort with him because, unlike Paul, he’s not an apostle. “Worse than useless” is a subjective judgment - I find astonishing clarity, depth and wisdom in this passage, as did “the Angelic Doctor” who was certainly not included in any Catholic restriction on the lay-interpretation of Scripture. Aquinas’s explanation is a whole lot more wordy and thorough than mine, but reaches pretty much the same conclusion.
I guess the general principle is that there’s no more reason why every biblical teaching should immediately be accessible than than that scientific truth should be self-evident to all. If quantum mechanics is hard, why would the nature of God be easier? But personally I’m less happy than George to say (unless I misinterpret him) “I don’t understand this, and I disagree with it - no worries, it must be wrong then.” We wouldn’t let YECs get away with treating the science that way, so why do it with the Bible?
Absolutely! There is a truth in the words of the Bible. And there is a truth that has been preserved in the LIVING INSTITUTION of the Church.
Anybody who doubts that there can be a hidden vein of truth has to ask:
1] Why not ALL Churches teach the handling of snakes.
2] Why not ALL Churches teach speaking in tongues.
3] Why not ALL denominations don’t have a monastic branch!
(^^ My personal favorite question!)
4] Why not ALL denominations don’t have all unmarried clergy - -
OR, all MARRIED clergy.
Christy, it takes a bit of chutzpah to think we humans can discern God’s purposes. We continue to follow Augustine’s suggestion of using the two books: the Bible, and the book of nature. For an overall view using Nature, I have found Teilhard’s suggestion useful. The history of the Universe can be viewed in three segments: the Cosmosphere which began 13.8 billion years ago; the Biosphere which began (here on earth) 4 billion years ago; and the Noosphere which began a mere 50 thousand years ago with Homo sapiens sapiens. (This should be clear from the PDF of the Confirmation Presentation I gave you access to on my web site.) My premise is that it is in the Noosphere and only relatively recently that God could want a part of his creation to know him and to wish to be like him. (Imago Dei) Humankind is playing somewhat of a ‘pioneering role’ in this respect.
[quote=“Christy, post:29, topic:5176”]
I think it is clear in Scripture that God chooses one individual over another, often the one least deserving or expected to be chosen. This is a major theme of the Bible that can’t be explained away.
I do not agree. It may appear that he does so, but appearances can be deceiving. If there is one attribute that is unusually exclusive to humankind it is an innate sense of justice. If I really had reason to believe that God violates MY sense of justice, I would lose faith in him, since I believe he instilled it in me in the first place. If we consider some of the Old Testament characters, like Abraham and David, as ‘chosen’, than it must be that they were chosen to illustrate that God can forgive even the greatest of sins (by today’s standards). Jesus may have been born into the Jewish society, but he had a different sense of justice than is expressed in Deuteronomy.
Al Leo
I, too, found Chardin’s early writing obscure. His motto: “eschew obfuscation”. I let him off the hook, because I believe he was trying to remain as a teacher when most folks at the Vatican wanted him listed on the infamous Index. After his 'exile to China, his later short essays are much clearer, at least to me.
Al Leo
I think that Jon is basically right. We need to look at what Paul is saying and not how he said it.
Paul is arguing that God saves by grace and by wor4ks. That keeps us from having to judge other people to determine if they are worthy or not. Jacob made many mistakes, but God choose him over Esau to be the head of God’s people for his generation of patriarchs.
Jacob was no angel, but he showed character. Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup. Jacob was willing to travel back to Aram to carry out the family tradition, and work another 7 years for the woman he loved. While it appeared that God chose Jacob over Esau not based on merit, I would say that God choice was justified.
God justifies us based on faith, not by merit. but faith does result in love and right relationship to God and others.
Roger, there is ample evidence that Paul had a lot of good ideas roiling around in that brain of his–especially after God ‘walloped’ him on the way to Damascus. And he was driven to ‘capture’ these ideas (these integrated nerve circuits, or whatever they consist of), convert them into words and, using widely accepted rules of grammar, transmit them to others, who then will experience those same ‘activated brain circuits’ (ideas; noogenes per Teilhard; memes per Dawkins). It is a true miracle how the Great Leap Forward accomplished this some 50K yrs. ago, resulting in the appearance of humankind.
While it is astounding that sophisticated thought can be transmitted from one human brain to another, using words and grammar, it is too much to expect that it can be accomplished flawlessly. Paul would have to have used precisely agreed upon word meanings and grammar (and so would any translators). So, for any particular passage, must we not depend on 'how he said it’ ? Of course if that passage seems ‘out of character’ with the bulk of his other teachings, we can treat it as an outlier, but this would require adequate justification, it seems to me. With what degree of certainty can you know what was going on in Paul’s mind when he wrote this passage?
Al Leo
Thank you for your response.
You are right. we do need to look at how Paul said what he said, as well as how he said it. My point is I would expect that most of us would agree with what he said, which is God judges by character, not by some kind of merit system.
It think the problem lies in the phrase, God hated Esau and loved Jacob, which as was pointed out, was not true. God did hake Esau the father of a nation, so God did not hate Esau, just rejected him as a Jewish Patriarch.
Paul was educated as a Pharisee. He thought and argued as a Rabbi. Romans 9:13 (YLT)
13 "according as it hath been written, `Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.’ " seems to be the problem. First Paul is quoting someone else. Of5ten as it was written indicates a scriptural reference, but this is not, but he is using a quotation familiar to hi9m and most likely familiar to those he is talking to a reference.
The question is not loving or hating, the question choosing. If God chose Esau it would have been because he was the oldest son, which was not by merit either. They were twins, even though they are very different in appearance and behavior. Esau was born first and so according to Hebrew tradition he was the oldest son and received the birthright. He was also his father’s favorite, because Isaac preferred wild game to cooked lamb.
God as Jesus said judges by the heart, not by superficialities. God accepted Abel’s offering and rejected Cain’s. God made Jacob the next Patriarch, rather than Esau. God blesses us according to God’s plan, not according to the way we want God to act.
God saves through grace, and not by merit. God saves us because we trust in God, not because we earn or deserve God’s love. Esau seemed to think that he would be Isaac’s successor simply because he was the oldest and he catered to his father’s likes. Thar is not what God was looking for went God makes choices. Esau was a weak and spoiled person.
Right on! … which is why all your other paragraphs attempting to do just that (justifying God’s actions – example below) are puzzling.
Had God chosen Esau, your same paragraph above would have been amended to justify that choice by noting that unlike Jacob, Esau chose to honor his father, and was the one in the family who worked hard to put food on the table while tender Jacob was hanging around in the tents. One can easily imagine Esau (and us now) applying the ‘spoiled brat’ label to conniving Jacob if the need arose, had God chosen the other way.
So I think you are wiser to stick with your original claim of simple grace: God chooses whom he chooses … and blimey if we’re going to figure out some formula that we imagine should govern God in this!
1 Like
Since I’m the big fan of Romans 9 (man as clay, God as the potter) … let me remind readers of why I find Romans 9 so relevant:
it shows that there is no way to use plain readings of the Bible and easily arrive at a unified set of beliefs. Throughout the Bible we find texts that require assessment, interpretation and re-interpretation … to come up with a harmonized whole!
1 Like