https://youtu.be/4S_JLlfASks
In our verse by verse study of Romans we are in Rom 9:13; that is a quote from Mal 1:2-3; Our Expanded Translation of Rom 9:13; is "As it stands written that Jacob I loved but that Esau I hated."
Because of the implications of this statement we have taken up a brief study on how God's works the free volition of creatures through His decree. Last time we noted that this explains that God has not only decreed ends as means, but God also has decreed means as ends.
Last time we noted that Satan's primary objective has been and always will be to destroy the Jewish race because they are the source of the seed of the woman. (Gen 3:15; Rev 20:3; Rev 20:10;)
Therefore, it becomes absolutely necessary that every Gentile client nation provide a safe haven for the biological Jews, to give them the same rights as all of its citizens, and to make sure that anti-Semitism never rears its ugly head.
Anti-Semitism is like a grenade with the pin pulled, it is the quickest way to destroy a nation and pro-Semitism is the quickest way for a nation to be a target for God's blessing.
We see here that God's purposes relating the events of human history constitute one single all-comprehensive intention that comprehends all events, the free as free, the necessary as necessary, together with all of their causes, conditions, successions, and relations, as one indivisible system every link of which is essential to the whole.
The decree does not influence the human freedom of Esau and Jacob it only guarantees certainty. God's decree never influences human freedom or coerces human volition and God's foreknowledge does not coerce human self-determination.
The decree only affects the certainty of the action. The decree guarantees certainty positive or negative. Deut 30:19-20;
The decree encompasses everything but it only establishes the certainty of all the facts of history in their sequence, relationship and interrelationship, in their cause and effect, the free functioning as the free and the necessary functioning as the necessary.
It is important to distinguish between what God causes and what He permits. God does not decree for man to sin but He does decree that man has a free choice to sin. God permits sin but He does not sponsor or condone sin.
God's omniscience fed the facts of sin into the decree and as a part of the decree sin is a fact, but God does not approve of the sins or the evil functions of human good so God does not sponsor or condone them.
In other words, God decreed that human free volition could choose to do the evil acts of sin and the evil acts of human good and that sin and evil could result from the free thoughts, decisions, and actions of free creatures.
God's omniscience anticipated that sin and evil would be the consequence of freedom and as a result would become a reality and God not only anticipated that reality but in addition (knowing every personal sin He took them all ahead of time, collected them and saved them all up.
This explains how important God's omniscience is. If it were not for God's omniscience we wouldn't be saved. In eternity past God's omniscience knew exactly what sins our free will would produce and He took all those sins, stored them up and imputed them to Jesus Christ on the cross and judged them.
In other words, God's omniscience had to know ahead of time every sin that mankind would ever commit so that they could be judged, so that when the gospel is presented a person can believe in Jesus Christ, have their sins forgiven and be given God's judicial righteousness and eternal life because God's omniscience had already fed all sins into the decree where they were all collected to be imputed to Jesus Christ and judged. 2Cor 5:21;
That means that without God's omniscience working through the decree salvation by grace and faith would be impossible.
Both Jacob and Esau committed sins and all of their sins were judged on the cross. So the message to Esau and Jacob was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
Esau kept saying no, but at least for one moment at one point in time Jacob said yes, he believed on the Lord following the pattern of Abraham and in that moment he received God's judicial righteousness and eternal life on the basis of grace and faith. Gen 15:6; Rom 6:23;
We have seen that the line and the origin of Israel is not only genetic it is also spiritual. Esau said no to spiritual regeneration, Jacob said yes. God's decree simply recognizes the free will choice that is made so everyone's destiny is the product of their own freewill choices.
One twin used his free will and said yes; one used his free will and said no. All of these factors are combined in the decree so that what man thinks, what man decides, and what man does, is simply the execution of the divine decree that contains all the facts that were fed into it by God's omniscience.
We see from this that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, who eternally existed as God before any creatures ever existed having omniscience that is complete knowledge of everything that would ever happen in time and eternity fed those facts into the decree.
We must also understand that God did not feed anything into the decree that did not happen but could have happened, even though He knew both in eternity. Once a person believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and is born again he could die physically in the next few minutes and their life in time ended.
But God's omniscience knows exactly what would have happened if that person had lived to be 100 years old so God is fair when it comes to the judgment seat of Christ and the imputation of blessings for eternity.
The decree does not deal with probabilities or possibilities. It only deals with realities or actualities. God's omniscience only fed what would happen, that in turn would possibly subsequently be the cause of successive events in the decree.
God fed into the decree the free will decisions of Esau and Jacob regarding Jesus Christ as He was revealed at the time. This became the reason that the Jewish race was perpetuated through Jacob not Esau and it also had the effect of determining true Israel on the basis of regeneration instead of biological genetic propagation.
God's omniscience knew in eternity past that Abraham would believe. God chose Abraham to be the father of the Jewish race. For 99 years Abraham was a Gentile and at age 100 God made him into a Jew.
Then Isaac and Jacob would follow that same pattern. So the readout for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is election. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their progeny who also believe following that same pattern are elected. This is why God calls the Jews His chosen or elect race.
Chosen means elected but the election is on the basis of regeneration and genetics. That means that foreknowledge, predetermination, foreordination, predestination only apply to believers.
The alternatives comprised of Nahor, Ishmael, and Esau remained as Gentile unbelievers so they also remained under the principle of God's judgment, condemnation and wrath. John 3:18;
That is the printout from the decree. So true Israel always prints out election, foreknowledge and predestination on the basis of believing in Jesus Christ.
Rom 9:14; starts with a rhetorical question that asks, "Is this fair?" In this verse Paul uses a debater's technique to anticipate objections to the anthropopathism that he used to describe God's policy toward Esau.
The question is how can you be fair if you love one and hate the other? Hatred and love imply bias. How can God be God and how can God be righteous and just when He gives everything to one twin and nothing to the other?
The verse starts out with the nominative neuter singular from the interrogative pronoun "tis" (What) with the inferential postpositive conjunctive particle "oun" (then or therefore).
It is used to form a question as an idiom of conclusion from which Paul is going to draw a conclusion that is based on the origin of the Jewish race.
Next is the future active indicative of the verb "lego" (shall we say). In the future tense when questions of uncertainty are posed it is a part of debater's technique so Paul's uses a rhetorical question is part of a debater's question that is used when the debater anticipates objections.
The active voice: Paul uses an idiom to force the correct conclusion rather than a false one. This is an interrogative indicative that assumes that there is an actual fact that may be stated in answer to the question.
Translated literally, the idiom is: "What therefore shall we say?" But a better translation because it is an idiom, "Therefore, to what conclusion are we forced?" The rhetorical question introduces a debater's question for the purpose of stating the perfection of God's attributes.
The question is based on the anthropopathism of hate. This is a policy statement because perfect God does not hate. The statement that God hates Esau raises questions regarding God's integrity, especially as related to His righteousness and justice. It raises a question about God's fairness of God's justice in loving Jacob and hating Esau.
Then we have, "there is no injustice with God?" The predicate nominative singular of "adikia" (unrighteousness or injustice)," that demands the insertion of a verb. So we put in the present active subjunctive of "eimi" (is).
There is an actual negative here and the reason we know it is the present active from "eimi" (is) because it is in the subjunctive mood not the indicative mood.
Paul also wrote "mh" (not) instead of "ouk (not). "Ouk" requires an indicative mood that is a statement of fact but "mh" requires the subjunctive mood. That is how we know that the ellipsis must be completed with a verb in the subjunctive mood.
The word "adikia" means injustice so we have "there is not injustice, is there?" as the correct translation. Then we have the prepositional phrase," para"(with) and the dative singular of the definite article "ho" (the) plus the noun "Theos" (God). "There is not injustice with the God, is there?"
The negative "mh" in a question demands a negative answer. The negative "ouk" would demand a positive answer.
There is more than an implication here because this is debater's technique. We have the strongest of all negatives that in the Greek is simply "mh genoito" The KJV improperly translates it (God forbid) the other translations I looked at do it correctly.
We have another negative "mh" (not) with the aorist optative of "ginomai" (to be) so we translate it, "Let it not be so" or "Emphatically no." The gnomic aorist tense of "ginomai" (to be) is used for a strong objection. The active voice is a strong negative objection producing the action of the verb.
The optative mood is a deliberative optative, a debater's optative, that is used for a doubtful attitude on the part of the hearer but not the writer. The writer assumes the doubt of the hearers in order to address their doubt with his argument.
Expanded Translation Rom 9:14; "Therefore to what conclusion are we forced? There is no injustice with the God, is there? Emphatically no."