We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to Genesis 25:23?
The Lord told Rebekah, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.” (cf. Rom. 9:12–16)
Old Testament scholars agree that the author (and later, Paul in Romans 9) has the descendants of Jacob and Esau more in mind than the individuals themselves. The Lord is exercising his sovereign right to choose the lineage of his elect people—viz. a unique nation intended to function as priests to the entire world. When read in the light of Romans 9, it is clear that the Lord doesn’t just “happen” to know that the descendants of Esau will serve the descendants of Jacob. Rather, for providential reasons the sovereign God is ensuring that this will be the case. The passage, then, is not about something which God “happens” to know: it’s about God’s ability to sovereignly shape history according to his will.
We should also note that, as in most biblical prophecies, there is a conditional element in this declaration. Interestingly enough, Esau never actually served Jacob in his lifetime. Nor has it usually been the case that the descendants of Esau have served the descendants of Jacob. This illustrates God’s flexibility in giving prophecies. He can say in very general terms that the descendants of Esau shall serve the descendants of Jacob without specifying how long and to what extent this will be true. In the light of the passages which reflect a partly open future, we might conclude that God chose to leave these matters somewhat open to be decided by free agents.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism, Responding to Objections
Verse: Genesis 25
Related Reading
Divine Wisdom
Why doesn’t God end it all and stop the slaughter? Why does God allow suffering and evil to go on so long? Here, Greg offers two possible answers to these questions. Option A is that all evil somehow is designed by God and somehow brings glory to him. But Greg thinks Option B is a better explanation, and it involves…
What is the significance of Revelation 3:5?
“If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life…” If God is only the God of certainties, it is not clear how he can honestly speak in conditional terms (“If you conquer…”) and it is not clear why he…
What is the significance of 2 Kings 20:1–7?
The Lord tells Hezekiah “[Y]ou shall die: you shall not recover” (vs. 1). Hezekiah pleads with God and God says, “I will add fifteen years to your life” (vs. 6). If everything about the future was exhaustively settled and known by God as such, his prophecy to Hezekiah that he was going to die would…
Molinism and Open Theism – Part I
I’ve been asked for the umpteenth time on Twitter lately about the difference between “Molinism” and “Open Theism,” and for some reason, today seemed like a good day to begin addressing this question. I’ll do this in two parts. Today I’ll outline and critique Molinism, and in a subsequent post I’ll raise yet another critique as…
How do you respond to Acts 2:23?
Peter preaches to the crowd on the day of Pentecost, “[T]his man [Jesus], handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.” Jesus’ death was certainly planned and foreknown by God, as the previously discussed verses have repeatedly demonstrated.…
A Calvinist and an Arminian walk into a bar…
Toby Bradbury via Compfight Roger Olson posted A Conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian about God’s Sovereignty that we thought was dead on. In fact, we kind of wonder if Roger is bugging some of the conversations we’ve had. Déjà vu much? And since Roger has argued that Open Theism should be included under the broader umbrella of…