There is much good and needed thought expended over whether Jesus should be seen in continuity with Jewish scriptures of the day (N.T. Wright and many others) as opposed to how Jesus is distinctive from the same and brings radical new things to the table. And I oversimplify Wright’s position if I imply that he doesn’t acknowledge both sides of this as having important truth. But I bring this up because of a recent Bible series (Knox Seminary) that I’ve been going through online for my own training purposes, and it has included excellent material on this very topic, which I’ll describe below.
The ‘ghost of Marcion’ is still haunting even the evangelical church today despite our explicit rejections of his heresy [which was to write off the old testament (and even most of the Gospels apparently!) as not representing the same God that the early church had come to know.] But the interesting thing about the early church is that they did not ask themselves “okay – what do we do with our ‘law and prophets’ writings now that we have Jesus?” They consistently asked themselves instead “okay – how does Jesus fit into the law and the prophets?” I.e. – they accepted the sacred, God-breathed status of the old testament as a given into which all new developments must fit. This is also consistent with the way Paul and Jesus himself treated it.
So in that vein, it is better to see Jesus teachings [think Sermon on the Mount: you have heard it said … But I say to you…] not at all as contradictions or repudiations of the former law, but as intensification and internalization of it – indeed the very fulfillment of it! So yes, while Jesus is a game-changer in many ways, that doesn’t change the continuity and progression he has from the Mosaic law, prophets, and writings that were already given for them.
[much of the above thought credited to Dr. Mark Gignilliat – any misrepresentation could be from faulty notes I have from my one-time through video viewing of his class sessions and are my own.]
…and just to drive home how important this issue is to theologians both ancient and recent, and why their ‘gloves came off’ when it came to dealing with Marcion … here is another thought --this time a quote from Karl Barth (based on my notes again…)
“The Bible in its least assimilable and most difficult parts has more important things to say to us than the best of our theological constructions.”
–Karl Barth (as quoted by Dr. Gignilliat and captured by my notes … so I think I captured the thought even if a word or two may be different.)
How is that for a robust affirmation that the old testament not only stands on its own feet but also supports the new testament above it … the whole thing as a cohesive unit?
If God has chosen Esau, no doubt it would have been for reasons such as those, but God did not and that is important.
God is free to chose, but the Bible makes clear that God is not arbitrary. Jesus saved the thief on the cross who stood up for Him and admitted his sin. He did not save the other thief. We cannot tell God whom to choose and how to choose, but whom God does choose is important in retrospect.
Again Jacob was no angel, but in the end he was faithful. Esau was the macho man, who loved to show off his physical prowess. Jacob seemed mare interested in the family business, which was shepherding. When he worked for Uncle Laban he demonstrated that he was very good at this business.
If Esau had become Patriarch, besides his foreign wives, he would have taken the Hebrews inn a very different hunting and warlike direction, like the Edomites. Again God does things and makes choices for a reason. God is not arbitrary.
We agree as a point of trust and faith I think that God is not arbitrary. I am just trying to point out that our own attempts to “justify God after the fact” as it were is almost certainly arbitrary.
It is a difference between an axiomatically primal faith/belief seeking understanding (Anselm from the pre-modern period) versus an axiomatically primal understanding seeking to justify faith/belief (Spinoza, Descartes, Locke, … of the modern period).
No one is trying to justify God after the fact. I am trying to understand what God did as portrayed by Scripture. This is also what Paul was doing.
God does choose people for God’s purposes. God chose David to be King of Israel when he was still young. God chose Jesus to be the Savior. God chooses you and me.
Paul was saying that God can have a personal relationship with you and me through Jesus and the Holy Spirit that is very different from just obeying the law. This is the New Covenant of Jesus Christ which is related to, but different from the Old Mosaic Covenant.
I believe you have a valid point. If one considers the Incarnation then God is forever linked to creation in the person of Jesus in the union of humanity and divinity in one hypostatic, individual existence. However, I’m not sure that science should be able to verify this since science is limited to the material world.
I would not take the passage as God choosing to favor one over the other, but a response to each person’s free choice. Esau sold his birthright because he didn’t want to follow God. This is similar to Cain and Able. Cain could have chosen differently and allowed God to help him overcome sin, but he chose not to.
Since God has foreknowledge He knew how Esau would react in the future. This does not mean He caused Esau to rebel or hated Esau for no reason. Esau was given freedom to choose, but refused to respond to God’s grace. God’s justice would demand that He judge Esau’s sin.
To me, many of Paul’s arguments are lengthy and developed over many verses. Romans 9:13-23 just jumps into the middle of chapter 9, Paul’s discourse on God’s dealing with Israel. You might find Guzik’s commentary ( Romans 9 Guzik Bible Commentary ) a good explanation of Romans 9:21.
BTW, you’ll note that I see things differently than Guzik in some verses ( 9:13 ).
Hello, I became interested in your conversation about St Paul, so I joined. Hope you don’t mind my joining in. If you follow the type of argument that St Paul used in Galatians regarding Hagar, and the previous drift of his words in Romans, I don’t thik St Paul is talking about God favouring different people! I think that it is more likely that he is referring to Esau as representing a product of the first Covenant which is of law over the flesh, and Jacob as the product of the spiritual covenant of Christ. He begins this chapter with something of a lament for his people (of the law) who may not make the transition to the covenant of the Spirit in Christ.
Esau is the flesh that can have no knowledge of the renewed flesh of the promise. When St Paul talks about the promise he is talking about idea. We have to hold the second covenant as idea which is cemented by faith. Jacob is symbolic of this idea that is superior to the law of the flesh which is cemented by circumcision. This is why God favours Jacob over Esau but he does also work in the physical world through the flesh so that people may know Him this way too - this is why I think that he refers to Pharoah who is symbolic of earthly power.
I hope that this is helpful - very much enjoyed reading the discussion
God is no respecter of persons. This means that He does not favour Jacob over Esau. Jacob and Esau stand for the two covenants. The first one made with Abraham and which was symbolised with circumcision. The second covenant is a promise that salvation will brought by Jesus Christ and will no longer require circumcision.
In Romans, Paul is explaining that the law is required because we live in a material and not a spiritual “realm.” Esau is symbolic of the body in the material world.that is bound by the law. Jacob is symbolic of the idea that salvation will not be brought by the law but by a Saviour. These two strands are at war in Judaism - law versus saviour. This is why Jacob and Esau are twins. That the younger will serve the elder, means that the New Covenant (the younger) will be served by (be superior to) the elder.
Esau sells his birthright because the flesh is unable to hold the idea of anything beyond this physical life. In order to have faith we need to hold the idea of new life beyond this present one. Jacob is representative of the ability to hold an idea beyond the immediate requirements of physical life. He is able to hold to an abstract promise.
So God does not respond favourably or unfavourably to different people, He responds to principles that either move man closer or further away from Salvation. Esau is the law in the material world which cannot be saved. Jacob is the idea of eternal life with God which moves man closer to Salvation.
St Paul is very concerned to explain to his contemporaries why faith and not law is important in the newly-formed Christian mind set.
I don’t see how this explains God’s use of Pharaoh … or the analogy that humanity is JUST CLAY … and
the Potter (God) does with it what he WANTS TO DO WITH IT.
As far as I can see, this is a much bigger ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM to explain than the conundrum about Adam and Eve.
What is it that you wish to prove? Reading your comments is a whiplash between aggressively asserting the hopelessness of trying to coherently interpret the Bible and then reconciliatory statements to specific individuals. I think it is easy for you to prove to yourself that the Bible doesn’t make coherent sense because that is what you wish to see in it. Your arguments are generally Cherry Picked and you make no effort to account for other more charitable interpretation, instead sticking with an interpretation which fits your foregone conclusion. There is a lot of incoherent interpretation out there but from the perspective of a person of faith, one must first search for a coherent interpretation rather than dismissing the text itself because of many problematic interpretations.
Jamie, what I don’t want to see is an automatic and unthinking dismissal of chunks of Bible verse where the writer (in the case of Romans 9, Paul) has invested quite a bit of thought.
When Romans 9 is dismissed… it should be with the clear-eyed understanding that it requires considerable thinking and contemplation…
… just as a dismissal of the Adam and Eve story deserves… considerable thinking and contemplation.
Quantum physics is the science of God - Observance leads to reality.
God’s will observes the choices and creates the reality.
Quantum gravity - although theoretical could explain how God can manipulate gravity to His will and cause an asteroid to cause dinosaurs to become extinct or a large moon to encircle the earth.
Quantum evolution - could allow God to move significant protons around and manipulate DNA and create species, and not necessarily in the order we think. We see similarities in DNA and then presume that one species evolved to the other. A God who can create like this need would not need to create them in order. What came first - the chicken or the egg? Of course it was the chicken - male an female first then the birth of more of the species.
Time dilation - an infinite God the Father makes choices and His Spirit moves in a timeline of 6 days - a super fast forward on time. Time is indeed relative. Indeed God want to wait 15 Billion years to create the universe?
Finally the 6000 years back to Adam - deemed invalid because of carbon dating which is based on quantum physics - God physics - that says there is a half life for decay of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12. Don’t you think God manages that as well?
You have to either accept the premise of it all starts with God - and if so all the above as demonstrated in scripture is true.
Or else you have to hang on the premise that all popped out of matter.
Now on the supernatural or natural. The supernatural suggest that energy can be created or destroyed - which violates the most fundamental of all physical laws. However in the bible it states that God is “Almighty”, and that no one can add to or take away from the Almighty God. If God were to create energy or destroy it, he would be adding to or taking away from himself, which is a violation of this most fundamental attribute of God as being Almighty. As such conservation of energy and the belief of a natural God is not only scientifically valid, but is also a fundamental biblical doctrine.
And quantum physics when fully understood will explain how God acts naturally within the physical laws he created to perform His Will on the universe and most importantly on us. He is trying to bring us to eternal life with him and we unfortunately have to suffer some in this world as the Father disciplines us to learn the TRUTH.