Esau and Jacob: The Holy Discrimination of God

 I have mentioned before that anti-Calvinists have certain verses which they consider "trump verses" against Calvinism. No matter how many verses a Calvinist cites in support of the doctrines of grace, his opponent will plunk out one of these trump verses and congratulate himself for, supposedly, ending all debate. Of course, the number one verse is John 3:16, which I have addresses here and here.

In this post, I want to address the phrase, "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). Supposedly, this verse says that God does not discriminate between any two people. And in isolation, it might be taken that way, as is the wont of isolated prooftexts. However, doing so ignores the actions that God says that He has taken, making distinctions between people, both as individuals and as groups.

The obvious example, of course, is Romans 9:6-13 (referring back to Malachi 1:2-3): "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: 'About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.' And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls— she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" This is clearly a discrimination between two people, the twin brothers Esau and Jacob (see, in passing, Genesis, chapters 18-33). God claims the right to choose between Esau and Jacob, even before they were born, before they had done anything good and evil. On what basis? "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion " (Romans 9:15; see also verse 16). That is sovereign election, and God feels no compunction to explain beyond that.

When the anti-Calvinist cites Acts 10:34, he should also look at Acts 15:8-9: "God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and He made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith." Peter is expressing the surprise of the disciples upon learning that God has extended salvation even to the Gentiles, on the same basis as the Jews, i. e., by faith alone. The disciples were astonished at this, because the Jews had always though of God and the Messiah-to-come as their special reserve, not for the unclean Gentiles.

And this explains how God does and does not discriminate between men. He shows no concern for the characteristics which men value, such as wealth or physical beauty. His standard is His own will alone, the ultimate in justice. He tells us this explicitly in His choosing of David to replace the line of Saul on the throne of Israel: "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart" (I Samuel 16:7).

Thus we see that God is certainly discriminatory, and the plunking down of Act 10:34 to claim otherwise is to ignore the message of Scripture for debate points.

The Effectual Atonement of the Cross

"It is, and must be, an indispensable element in anything which deserves the name of atonement that it satisfies the justice of God, or lays the foundation of a claim of right to exemption from punishment" James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"). 

This statement from one of the forefront theologians of the Southern Presbyterian Church in its heyday represents why the Calvinist view of atonement is logically necessary (together with its biblical evidences) and the Arminian doctrine cannot satisfy the simple meaning of the word.  

An atonement is a sacrifice given to assuage the just wrath of God upon an action or person. We see this first in the Old Testament, in which there is even a Day of Atonement (still celebrated, though deprived of content, by modern Jews): "It shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins. It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute forever. And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments. He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins" (Leviticus 16:29-34). This follows the description of the sin offering. These requirements indicate several things. First, that all of the people are guilty of sin. It is presupposed in the requirement of an atonement for all of the people, not excluding the children or the clergy or any other class among them. Second, it implies that the sin condition brings the judgment of God. And third, it demonstrates the heinousness of, not just particularly bad sins, but of all sins. God hates sin, and requires that a price be paid for it. 

In the New Testament, those implications are stated briefly and explicitly. That all have sinned, we find in Romans 3:22-23: "There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." And that sin brings the judgment of God we find in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death." And that all sin, whether men consider it great or small, is under the wrath of God, we find in James 2:10: "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  

However, there is also a strong contrast between the atonement displayed in the Old Testament and that achieved in the New Testament. In both testaments, we have one lesson: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22). Old Testament believers saw that truth displayed in the daily slaying of animals. However, "since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:1-4). Israel saw this annual atonement, yet they continued to be aware of sin and its consequences. Therefore, it was not the sacrifices themselves which provided atonement. Rather, when observed with faith, they pointed to an atonement which was to come. 

It is in the New Testament that the atonement was no longer merely displayed but was truly, once for all achieved. "Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer Himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him" (Hebrews 9:24-28).

Here we see the fulfillment of what is described by Thornwell, satisfying the justice of God and relieving the consciences of believing men. It fully saves everyone for whom it was given (6:39). As He promises, it cannot fail to achieve its purpose.

Jesus Alone the Hope for the Human Conscience

Guilt is our emotional response to affliction of conscience. That is, when we are aware that we have done wrong, and are deserving of punishment, guilt is the emotion that haunts us, sometimes briefly, sometimes for an extended period, sometimes even for the rest of our lives. The severity and longevity of guilt depends on the severity of our wrong act and the sensitivity of each person's conscience. it is also possible to feel guilty when we shouldn't, as the conscience either blames us erroneously for someone else's action, or for something which should be considered wrong (I John 3:20).

The conscience is something that must be trained. That is especially obvious with children. However, it is a lifelong process, familiarizing ourselves with the Scriptures, so that our sense of right and wrong is brought more and more into conformity with God's standards. That training would have been unnecessary if not for the Fall of our first parents. While they had been created with God's standards as an inherent part of their psyche (Romans 2:15). However, in response to the false offer of Satan (Genesis 3:5), they chose to set their own standards of right and wrong above God's, and, thus, rendered themselves and all of their posterity (except Jesus) incapable of aught but sin. We still have enough of our created nature to know that our sin deserves punishment, no matter how much we strive to suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18-22). Thus, we experience guilt.

How do we free ourselves from guilt?

"If guilt is the response of the soul to the justice of punishment, the only way in which its sting can be extracted is by an arrangement which shall make the punishment cease to be just and give the sinner a right to escape from the evils which conscience forecasts. By no other conceivable method can peace and tranquility, in conformity with the principles of eternal rectitude, be imparted to the mind" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"). 

In order to shed our guilt, we must know that the justice due our sins has been satisfied. The unbeliever can never know this, apart from self-deception, because he goes into Sheol, the realm of death, with his burden of sin on his own shoulders. However, the believer can experience this deliverance in this life, because he, unlike the unbeliever, can know that the justice due his sins has been satisfied, but in the person of a surety, Jesus Christ, on the cross. 

"For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, He said, 'Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but a body have You prepared for Me;  in burnt offerings and sin offerings You have taken no pleasure.' Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God, as it is written of Me in the scroll of the book.' When He said above, 'You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings' (these are offered according to the law), then He added, 'Behold, I have come to do Your will.' He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:1-10).

The Great Commission, Sanctification, and the Christian Life

People often ask, and properly so, why today's church looks so little like the church of the New Testament. I am not talking about doctrine or government, but rather about power. Pentecostals wrongly substitute passion for power, not recognizing that their error merely contributes to the problem.

There are a number of answers to this question. I have discussed them in the past: heresy, pietism, dispensationalism. However, I am going to turn my attention here to something more fundamental.

What is salvation?

Most evangelicals will answer to the effect of being saved from Hell by the atonement of Jesus on the cross. And that is certainly a fundamental aspect of salvation. However, too often the evangelical stops there, as if the Christian faith and life is nothing more than fire insurance. Not only does that deny the great Commission, but it is a sleighting of the cross work of Jesus.

I refer to the Great Commission intentionally. What does Jesus command us to do there? "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). Most evangelicals can quote that from memory, which is completely commendable. The problem is that the Commission doesn't stop with baptism. He continued: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (verse 20). There is one side of the Commission which involves saving sinners from judgment. However, the commission continues with a command to replace sin with something.

Notice what was said of the coming of Jesus: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Not from the punishment of our sins, as important as that is, but from our sins themselves. As much as our justification was purchased on the cross, so was our sanctification. And having lost sight of the truth, Christians are indistinguishable from non-Christians, and the church is too flabby to speak to a culture that is reveling in its wickedness.

"The scriptural meaning of salvation is deliverance from the curse, power, and love of sin. The word, in general, implies deliverance from evil, but it is always, in the Bible, positive as well as negative, and imports the bestowment of a corresponding good" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation," emphasis in the original).

The Golden Chain to Eternal Life

We find what the Puritans called "The Golden Chain of Salvation" in Romans 8:29-30: "Those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified."


One thing evident in that process is that each step is done by God. No man predestines himself, calls himself, justifies himself, or glorifies himself.

One thing that Paul doesn't include in his list is regeneration. Why? I have no idea. But it would fall between the steps of calling and justifying. At that point, in response to the external call of the Gospel (Romans 10:14), the elect sinner is given a new heart: "I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey My rules" (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Notice that, while we experience regeneration as our response, it is actually the work of the Holy Spirit. Every step to belief and sanctification is done by God (Romans 9:16, Philippians 2:13, etc.). That is why the chain can never fail to achieve its purpose (Romans 8:38-39, John 6:39, 10:27-29, 17:2, etc.)

"That life which is implanted in the soul in regeneration, which is developed in sanctification, and completed in glory, is what the Scriptures call 'eternal life,' and it is called 'eternal' because, by the grace of God, it is absolutely imperishable" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Opposition to Gracious Election and the Kingship of Jesus

In Matthew 21:5, Jesus refers to himself as "king," using  Zechariah 9:9. And, indeed, this is closely followed by the royal welcome he received to Jerusalem in the immediately following verses. Under the influence of Dispensationalism, Christians have mostly stopped talking about the kingly office of Christ, though it carried great significance to our ancestors. For example, we can look at the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king? Answer : Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to Himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which He visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon His elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for His own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

We also have the words of Jesus, as He portrayed the nature of His kingship in a parable: "As for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me" (Luke 19:27). As king, He will by right judge unbelievers to destruction for their rebellion against His proper rule over them. 

That parable is the New Testament parallel to Psalm 2, which is the promise of the Father to the then-preincarnate Son. Verses 1-3 is the gloating of the rebels: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." These are the same ones described in Luke 18 as refusing to submit to their rightful ruler. However, the Father is unimpressed by their bluster: "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill'" (verses 4-6). So, He says to the Son, "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel" (verses 7-9). 

We have a concept in our modern society that religion is a voluntary thing, that believing in Jesus or not is a person choice, and either one is equally valid. Well, we can tell ourselves that, but it is not what God says. Unbelief is rebellion, and is, therefore, under the judgment of God. This error is even found among professing evangelicals, who have adopted the cultural assumption of religious freedom binding even on God. He rejects that claim, and even tells us of His sovereign choice of who shall be a sheep, i.e., a valued citizen of His kingdom, and who shall be a goat, i. e., a rebel (John 10:27-29). One sign of who is which is their response to this doctrine.

"There is much violent and bitter opposition to that account of it [i. e., election] which places a crown of absolute sovereignty on the head of Jehovah, and prostrates man in entire dependency upon His will" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Mormonism and Race

I will be dealing here with some views among Mormons which have changed over time. As I will mention, past doctrines on race have since been repudiated. In no way can anything here be said to represent the personal views of any current Mormon.

In the beginnings of the history of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," commonly called simply "Mormons," both founder Joseph Smith and his immediate successor Brigham Young claimed that black skin  is the biblical Curse of Cain (see Genesis 4:15) or the Curse of Ham (Genesis 9:22, 25). Smith and Young did not originate this teaching; it was common during that time, and was used to justify chattel slavery of Africans. This doctrine, while it continues among the fundamentalist LDS breakaway groups, was repudiated by church President Spencer Kimball in 1978.

When asked about the doctrine, Mormons will generally respond that it wasn't official teaching since it was not part of the LDS scriptures. Of course, the rational response is how it was not official teaching when it was taught by the founding Prophet of their church. If he was mistaken, as Kimball asserted, then how was he a prophet?

Furthermore, there are troublesome references in the LDS Scriptures. Doesn't that make them official doctrine?

In III Nephi 2:14-16, we read this: "It came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites. And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; and their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites."

So, we have some members of the Lamanites, the 'bad guys" in the Book of Mormon, who were converted, and joined the Nephites, the "good guys." We are told that the curse of the dark skin of the Lamanites is taken away, so that they become white, like the other Nephites. Now, this is a division between two groups of people descended from Israelites, not Africans. Yet, it still bases a curse on skin color. So, does it not teach, officially, the same detestable doctrine that was repudiated by Kimball? How can Mormons deny that they follow a racist religion when such remarks can be found in their Scriptures?