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
What is the significance of 2 Samuel 24:17–25?
“So the Lord answered [David’s] supplication for the land, and the plague was averted from Israel.” The passage suggests that the Lord intended the plague to judge Israel further but David’s supplication persuaded him to change his mind and relent from his punishment. If the future is to some degree open and God is genuinely…
What is the significance of Numbers 16:20–35?
After Israel’s sin under the leadership of Korah, the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Separate yourselves from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment” (vs. 21). Moses and Aaron pleaded with the Lord to only judge those who were most guilty. In response, the Lord modifies his judgment and gives…
Doesn’t Psalm 139:16 refute the open view of the future?
One of the passages most frequently cited in attempts to refute the open view of the future is Psalm 139:16. Here David says that God viewed him while he was being formed in the womb (vs. 15) and then adds: “[Y]our eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in…
Response to Bruce Ware’s “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?”
The following essay was written in response to Bruce Ware’s article, “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?” Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2002. Introduction I want to begin by expressing my utmost respect for the high value placed on academic fairness and integrity by the editorial board of JETS.…
Revelation 13:8 refers to “everyone whose names have not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life.” How does that square with open theism?
Three possibilities exist in terms of reconciling Revelation 13:8 with open theism. 1) First, the “from the foundation of the world” clause can attach to either “everyone whose names have not been written” or to “the lamb that was slain.” For example, the TNIV translates this passage “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the…
What did Jesus mean when he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:34)?
Given Jesus’ uniform teaching about loving enemies and abstaining from violence, and given that his followers were known for their refusal to engage in violence for the first three hundred years of church history, it’s obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying he came so that his disciples would use swords. The context of Jesus’ comment makes…