https://youtu.be/Lom0SpQhx0U
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."
Last time we noted that 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; Rom 8:1;
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 God be fair if He loves one and hates 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).
This begins to form a question as an idiom of conclusion from which Paul is going to establish 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 from the listeners.
The active voice: Paul uses an idiom to force the correct conclusion rather than the wrong one. This is an interrogative indicative that assumes that there is an actual fact that can be stated to answer to question properly.
Translated literally, the idiom is: "What therefore shall we say?" But a better translation because it is an idiom is, "Therefore, to what conclusion are we forced?" The rhetorical question introduces a debater's question for the purpose of referencing the perfection of God's attributes.
The question is based on the anthropopathism of hate. This is a policy statement because God is perfect so He does not hate. The statement that God hates Esau raises questions about God's integrity, especially as related to His righteousness and justice. It raises a question about the fairness of God's 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 that is the use of the present active from "eimi" (is) in the subjunctive mood instead of in 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 describes the action of the verb as a strong negative objection.
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 directly 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."
This verse explains that is blasphemous to impugn God's integrity and that God's perfect righteousness and justice supersede such an accusation.
Anthropopathisms such as hate express God's policy using a language of accommodation. Hate is a sin but perfect God cannot sin.
The anthropopathism does not imply that God is prejudiced; they merely express a situation with the language of accommodation using a human frame of reference, so that the issue can be understood.
The anthropopathism indicates that God's omniscience knew that the free will of Esau would reject Jesus Christ and the free will of Jacob would believe in Jesus Christ.
In addition God has the right to bless and judge on the basis of His justice. Since God's righteousness demands equivalent righteousness and God's justice can only execute what God's righteousness demands so any judicial decision from God's justice cannot be unrighteous.
When the unbeliever rejects Jesus Christ as savior he also rejects God's righteousness and justice and the alternative to God's righteousness and justice always results in judgment.
This also becomes a problem for the believer who actually possesses God's imputed judicial righteousness that was received at salvation. No believer is ever commanded to reinvent the wheel. The wheel is an analogy that represents God's plan from eternity past).
The wheel must turn on its axle and every believer must choose an axle that is based on God's perfect imputed judicial righteousness or his own relative self-righteousness.
That means that after salvation the believer must decide between the axle of God's righteousness or his own self-righteousness.
Choosing one's own self-righteousness is blasphemy because it impugns the character of God. God has given us His perfect imputed judicial righteousness that is exactly what we need for His plan but by using to our own self-righteousness we impugn and malign God's perfect character.
The doctrine of God's essence resolves the apparent (but not real) contradiction between God's sovereignty and man's free will. It resolves it in the sphere of the divine decree and the content of God's decree.
Man was given free will in order to resolve the angelic conflict. Therefore man's free will must be tested in the process of resolving the angelic conflict. It was tested from the beginning in perfect environment.
In the Garden of Eden one tree was forbidden and just that one forbidden thing, becomes an instant test for volition.
Innocent man in the garden could only sin by using his own free will to disobey God's prohibition. God's prohibition came from His sovereignty, so the test was man's free will of man versus God's sovereignty.
When man's negative volition originated the first sin the result was spiritual death; first the woman, then the man. At that point God also provided another tree, the cross as another test of volition.
So with the original tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was a negative prohibition; but the second tree, the cross, there was a positive command: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."
God's omniscience knew in eternity past that Esau would reject Jesus Christ as savior and that Jacob would believe in Jesus Christ. In fact, in eternity past God's omniscience fed only the facts into the decree. Those facts included who would believe and who would reject Jesus Christ as savior.
Eternity plus God's omniscience means that there never was a time when God did not know everyone who would believe in Jesus Christ and everyone who would reject Jesus Christ as savior.
The unconditional promise to Abraham was given to a mature believer. These unconditional promises could only be fulfilled to a believer in the progeny of Abraham because only believers have the imputed judicial righteousness of God.
Abraham's genetic biological descendants could never receive the promise, only his spiritual descendants could. That is why God only reiterated the promises regarding Israel to Isaac in the second generation, and Jacob in the third even though there were half brothers and full brothers involved.
God could only give Jacob the promise that he gave to Abraham and Isaac the chosen people promises, the land promises, the unconditional promises for the Millennium and eternity.
Even though all of Esau's sins were imputed to Jesus Christ on the cross and judged Esau rejected Jesus Christ as savior from his own free will he said no. He had the same equal opportunity as his twin brother but he rejected it.
Esau's negative volition placed him outside of the Abrahamic covenant because of his unbelief God's promises to Abraham could never apply to Esau, they could only apply to Jacob.
God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Esau. Now we have Jews in every generation who have the biological genes of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not their God either. John 8:44;
In their unbelief they really follow the pattern of Esau because if you do not believe in Jesus Christ you do not have God's imputed judicial righteousness, and if you do not have His judicial righteousness imputed these promises of being the elect and God's people, and occupying a land forever, are impossible.
God's promises can only apply to the spiritual descendants of Abraham, never to biological genetic descendants.
When salvation is rejected God has the sovereign right to judge and condemn, just as when salvation is accepted God has the sovereign right to impute His judicial righteousness, and then at a future time to provide blessing to that imputation of God's judicial righteousness. God has rights that are compatible with His character.
God did not save Jacob because he was moral and good and self-righteous. Furthermore, He did not condemn and judge Esau because he was bad, evil, or sinful.
The key to one's adjustment to God's justice is their attitude toward the Lord Jesus Christ, the only savior. John 3:16; John 3:36;