Wesley on Jacob and Esau
Romans 9:13 – “As it is written, ‘I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.’”
It has been argued by those who ascribe to a predeterministic view of God’s foreknowledge that this text is proof that God determines who will and who will not choose Him. John Wesley articulates their point that “the assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of Scripture … as implying that God in a literal sense hated Esau, and all the reprobated, from eternity.” In other words, they would suggest that the fact that God “loved” Jacob means that He eternally predetermined Jacob’s fate, and the fact that God “hated” Esau means that He eternally predetermined Esau’s fate – as well as all the reprobated, IE. Those abandoned to eternal damnation. But is this what the text is really saying about Jacob and Esau, or those “saved” and those “lost”?
Romans 9:11-12 says, “Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she was told, ‘The elder shall serve the younger.’” God’s “purpose of election” was to choose the promised seed. That His “purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call” was to show that God plans not according to any preceding merit of him He chose, but of His own good pleasure. God does not predetermine merits because He foreknew. Rather, “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29), IE. He predestined those who accept His blessings on His own terms, that is, “by grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8), “to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
Romans 9:13 – “Jacob have I loved” - Wesley says, “With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob. And I have, comparatively, hated Esau - That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1. This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau 2. Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the scriptures themselves, it had actually happened.” In other words, God “loved” Jacob in the sense of his posterity (descendants), and God “hated” Esau in the sense of his posterity, as they both related to the coming of the promised seed – God did not love Esau's posterity as He loved Jacob's. God “chose” Jacob over Esau, the younger over the older, not because of either of their merits, but because of His own good pleasure. This does not mean He chose whom He will “save” and those whom He will not, but rather chose through whom will come the promised seed, IE. Jesus Christ. This “loving”, “hating”, and “choosing” has nothing to do with eternal states, nor does it have anything to do with God predetermining man’s actions and/or fate. Given the context of the passage, we are to conclude that the purpose of this text is to show God’s salvific plans and purposes carried out through the lives of those whom He chooses, not to an eternal state, but to carry out His plans and purposes.
Wesley continues with Romans 9:14 (“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”) – “Is it unjust in God to give Jacob the blessing rather than Esau? or to accept believers, and them only? In no wise. This is well consistent with justice; for he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy…” Romans 9:15 - “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,” (says Wesley, “According to the terms I myself have fixed.”) “and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion,” (says Wesley, “Namely, on those only who submit to my terms, who accept of it in the way that I have appointed.”). In other words, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, not meaning that He will choose who will or will not be eternally saved, but according to the terms He has set.
Romans 9:17 says, “For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’” Wesley says of this text:
“God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept the blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, … For this very thing have I raised thee up - That is, Unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king, that my power will be shown upon thee, … and my name declared through all the earth ... It seems that God was resolved to show his power … with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power, and to draw them and the neighbouring nations, who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in variety of wonderful acts, which were at the same time just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring and obstinate of all the Egyptian princes; and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest.”
God offered Pharaoh His terms, which was an act of grace by allowing Pharaoh the chance to accept God’s will. But “after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion” God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. In other words, it was only after Pharaoh repeatedly hardened his own heart that God hardened his heart, and raised him up to be used as a tool of revelation, that through the power of God displayed in Pharaoh God’s name might be declared in all the earth. This text tells us three things: 1.) That God offered Pharaoh His own terms and Pharaoh rejected Him, contrary to a deterministic interpretation which shows God arbitrarily determining the condition of Pharaoh’s heart; 2.) That the result of one hardening their own heart in response to God’s prevenient grace (that which goes before) is a further hardening by God; and 3.) That God can even use those who, of their own volition, rebel against Him for the sake of His own good purposes. “So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses,” (that is, accordingly He does show mercy on His own terms, namely, on them that believe) “and whom he will,” (namely, those that don’t believe) “he hardens,” (leaves them to the hardness of their hearts).
In his Sermon 128 - Free Grace, Wesley says in reaction to a deterministic view of God:
“Now, what can possibly be a more flat contradiction than this, not only to the whole scope and tenor of Scripture, but also to all those particular texts which expressly declare, "God is love?" Again: They infer from that text, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," (Romans 4:15) that God is love only to some men, viz., the elect, and that he hath mercy for those only; flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, "The Lord is loving unto every man; and his mercy is over all his works." (Psalm 114:9) Again: They infer from that and the like texts, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,: that he showeth mercy only to those to whom he had respect from all eternity. Nay, but who replieth against God now? You now contradict the whole oracles of God, which declare throughout, "God is no respecter of persons:"(Acts 10:34) "There is no respect of persons with him." (Rom. 2:11) Again: from that text, "The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her," unto Rebecca, "The elder shall serve the younger;" you infer, that our being predestinated, or elect, no way depends on the foreknowledge of God. Flatly contrary to this are all the scriptures; and those in particular, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God; " (1 Peter 1:2) "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." (Rom. 8:29)”
Sources:
http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.asp?Version=WES
It has been argued by those who ascribe to a predeterministic view of God’s foreknowledge that this text is proof that God determines who will and who will not choose Him. John Wesley articulates their point that “the assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of Scripture … as implying that God in a literal sense hated Esau, and all the reprobated, from eternity.” In other words, they would suggest that the fact that God “loved” Jacob means that He eternally predetermined Jacob’s fate, and the fact that God “hated” Esau means that He eternally predetermined Esau’s fate – as well as all the reprobated, IE. Those abandoned to eternal damnation. But is this what the text is really saying about Jacob and Esau, or those “saved” and those “lost”?
Romans 9:11-12 says, “Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she was told, ‘The elder shall serve the younger.’” God’s “purpose of election” was to choose the promised seed. That His “purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call” was to show that God plans not according to any preceding merit of him He chose, but of His own good pleasure. God does not predetermine merits because He foreknew. Rather, “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29), IE. He predestined those who accept His blessings on His own terms, that is, “by grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8), “to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
Romans 9:13 – “Jacob have I loved” - Wesley says, “With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob. And I have, comparatively, hated Esau - That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1. This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau 2. Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the scriptures themselves, it had actually happened.” In other words, God “loved” Jacob in the sense of his posterity (descendants), and God “hated” Esau in the sense of his posterity, as they both related to the coming of the promised seed – God did not love Esau's posterity as He loved Jacob's. God “chose” Jacob over Esau, the younger over the older, not because of either of their merits, but because of His own good pleasure. This does not mean He chose whom He will “save” and those whom He will not, but rather chose through whom will come the promised seed, IE. Jesus Christ. This “loving”, “hating”, and “choosing” has nothing to do with eternal states, nor does it have anything to do with God predetermining man’s actions and/or fate. Given the context of the passage, we are to conclude that the purpose of this text is to show God’s salvific plans and purposes carried out through the lives of those whom He chooses, not to an eternal state, but to carry out His plans and purposes.
Wesley continues with Romans 9:14 (“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”) – “Is it unjust in God to give Jacob the blessing rather than Esau? or to accept believers, and them only? In no wise. This is well consistent with justice; for he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy…” Romans 9:15 - “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,” (says Wesley, “According to the terms I myself have fixed.”) “and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion,” (says Wesley, “Namely, on those only who submit to my terms, who accept of it in the way that I have appointed.”). In other words, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, not meaning that He will choose who will or will not be eternally saved, but according to the terms He has set.
Romans 9:17 says, “For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’” Wesley says of this text:
“God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept the blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, … For this very thing have I raised thee up - That is, Unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king, that my power will be shown upon thee, … and my name declared through all the earth ... It seems that God was resolved to show his power … with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power, and to draw them and the neighbouring nations, who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in variety of wonderful acts, which were at the same time just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring and obstinate of all the Egyptian princes; and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest.”
God offered Pharaoh His terms, which was an act of grace by allowing Pharaoh the chance to accept God’s will. But “after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion” God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. In other words, it was only after Pharaoh repeatedly hardened his own heart that God hardened his heart, and raised him up to be used as a tool of revelation, that through the power of God displayed in Pharaoh God’s name might be declared in all the earth. This text tells us three things: 1.) That God offered Pharaoh His own terms and Pharaoh rejected Him, contrary to a deterministic interpretation which shows God arbitrarily determining the condition of Pharaoh’s heart; 2.) That the result of one hardening their own heart in response to God’s prevenient grace (that which goes before) is a further hardening by God; and 3.) That God can even use those who, of their own volition, rebel against Him for the sake of His own good purposes. “So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses,” (that is, accordingly He does show mercy on His own terms, namely, on them that believe) “and whom he will,” (namely, those that don’t believe) “he hardens,” (leaves them to the hardness of their hearts).
In his Sermon 128 - Free Grace, Wesley says in reaction to a deterministic view of God:
“Now, what can possibly be a more flat contradiction than this, not only to the whole scope and tenor of Scripture, but also to all those particular texts which expressly declare, "God is love?" Again: They infer from that text, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," (Romans 4:15) that God is love only to some men, viz., the elect, and that he hath mercy for those only; flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, "The Lord is loving unto every man; and his mercy is over all his works." (Psalm 114:9) Again: They infer from that and the like texts, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,: that he showeth mercy only to those to whom he had respect from all eternity. Nay, but who replieth against God now? You now contradict the whole oracles of God, which declare throughout, "God is no respecter of persons:"(Acts 10:34) "There is no respect of persons with him." (Rom. 2:11) Again: from that text, "The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her," unto Rebecca, "The elder shall serve the younger;" you infer, that our being predestinated, or elect, no way depends on the foreknowledge of God. Flatly contrary to this are all the scriptures; and those in particular, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God; " (1 Peter 1:2) "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." (Rom. 8:29)”
Sources:
http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.asp?Version=WES
Labels: theology
1 Comments:
Sean,
Thank you for posting this for me. I agree that in the Romans text (and the Malachi text) concerning Jacob and Esau, the terms "Jacob" and "Esau" are being used to describe the family, the proceeding generations, the progeny of these two men, not the men themselves. The Romans text gives this context, as 9:6-10 talk about descendants of them, and not the patriarchs specifically.
My questions for the blog participants follows. We have many Christian brothers and sisters who ascribe to the predestination camp. We know that we must be united with them (John 17, etc) in Christ. I am not the one to say that the either the predeterminationists or freewillies (I just coined a term!) are heretical. But it does seem that either one of us is correct to the exclusion of the other, or both of us are wrong. How can we both be correct, if we are making equally opposing postulations? And here is the real issue: if one of us is wrong, then that could pose dangerous results, especially is we spread these erroneous ideas to new Christians. I say that your beliefs will show effects in how you live. Your theology has consequences. What are the end results of believing in predestination AND freewillism? Perhaps the consequences of these ideals can shed some light on their merit.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog