One of these interesting examples is found in Malachi.
"I have loved you," says YHWH. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?” declares YHWH. "Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert." (Mal 1:2-3)God assures Israel that He has loved them. Picking up the real sons of Isaac, Jacob and Esau, He assures them that He loved Jacob ... the brother that was later named Israel ... the father of the people of Israel. He also assures them that He "hated" Esau. Now, that's kind of harsh, isn't it? No ... because it's God who says it. But Paul picks up this very text in his letter to Rome. Explaining that not all the children of the flesh are children of God (Rom 9:8), he uses Isaac and Rebekah as his example. Rebekah was told that the older would serve the younger (Rom 9:12). Then Paul draws from Malachi. "As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'" (Rom 9:13). What is Paul talking about here? Some conflict between Jacob and Esau? Something about Israel and Edom? No. Paul is using these two as an example of ... election (Rom 9:11). Yep. In the ancient historical Jacob and Esau, God pointed in Malachi to how God loved Israel over other humans, and Paul carried it to the next level, where God chooses whom He will save without regard to birth or works (Rom 9:14-18).
Like the tricky "Out of Egypt" quote from Hosea that changed meaning in Matthew (Hos 11:1 vs Matt 2:15), this one seems to change, too. But ... not. In both cases it is about God's choice. In both cases it is about God's unconditional love (Jacob/Israel/the Elect). And in both cases it is also about God's wrath (Esau/Edom/unbelievers). God says He loved Israel ... by choosing to. (God says, "I have loved you" and they say, "How?" He says, "I have loved Jacob.") Can't get much better than that.
4 comments:
I've used those examples of election for a while to point out that very few people have a problem with election in the OT, but have a huge problem with it in the NT.
To the readers, I deleted a comment (and its replies) because the commenter dishonestly posted, knowing he's been banned. I apologize for any confusion or discomfort.
It is fun seeing the connections between the Old and New Testaments and how their narratives reflect each other.
Before you deleted this anonymous comment, some of us readers saw it (and the replies). My first response was bafflement that someone not welcome to comment at a blog would continue to visit there and attempt to engage--especially if it is more than obvious that opposing views are staunchly held on both sides. I can’t understand the motivation behind the futile behavior by this individual (which requires cloaking his identity), but I am certain it is not Spirit-led.
In any event, Anonymous asked, “…on what rubric do you place emphasis on the obscure over the clear and obvious?” A lover of God’s Word must reply this way: “On what basis do you disdain the ‘obscure’ in favor of the verses that emphasize the teaching you prefer--i.e. your truth?” The “obscure” and “clear and obvious” verses are equally God’s Word. It is just common sense that “cherry-picking” Scriptures this way will create an off-balanced view of God. Since there are difficult teachings in Scripture, those seeking truth should ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate those “rather obscure and weird verses” (Anonymous’s wording!) until they too are clear and obvious, so that one receives the whole counsel of God. (Stan has clearly done this, so that the apparent conflict is resolved for him…and for many of the rest of us.) When one’s abhorrence towards the picture of God that forms through the full texts causes that person to reject God, His Word, and His true followers, it only goes to confirm why indeed there is a Heaven and a Hell.
Post a Comment