Jacob & Esau and the Arminian Election Dodge

To my mind, Romans 9 is one of the easier bible chapters to understand. It is straightforward narrative, not poetry or apocalyptic imagery. Yet, some people go through some amazing acrobatics to avoid accepting what it says.

Here is one example: "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'" (Romans 9:10-13, including a quote from Malachi 1:2-3). This seems clear, doesn't it? Before the men had been distinguished by any moral acts of their own, God had sovereignly and mercifully determined to place His love on Jacob, while He placed His just hatred on Esau.

However, Arminians cannot allow that truth to stand, lest they surrender their doctrine of human sovereign will. They claim that the passage isn't about Jacob and Esau as individuals, but rather as the nations that sprang from them. And, in their defense, that is the use of the names in Malachi.

However, look at the other words in the sentence. Paul refers to the brothers in the womb, something which cannot apply to nations. He also refers to their being too young to have acted morally, again not applicable to nations. Therefore, while Malachi used the names to describe the nations, working from type to antitype, Paul backtracked to the brothers themselves, working from antitype to type. These factors do not allow a national interpretation of the passage.

On the other hand, let us allow the Arminian assertion, for the sake of argument. Let us suppose that Paul is describing the election of the nation that arose from Jacob, i. e., Israel, and the reprobation of the nation that arose from Esau, i. e., Edom. How does that avoid the sovereign grace implication that the Arminian rejects? In order to elect or reprobate nations, wouldn't God have to elect or reprobate individuals that make up those nations? Surely logic would tell us that He cannot determine the course of a nation if the individuals of that nation are able to determine their own fate! Moreover, if the election and reprobation of individuals is immoral, as the Arminians claim, then the election and reprobation of entire conglomerations of individuals must be exponentially worse, right?

And one last consideration: the Epistle to the Romans is an entire book about justification. It tells us of the sinful nature of men and what are the consequences of that sin, and the requirements for salvation from those consequences. Yet, the Arminian wants us to think that Paul set aside that purpose in chapter 9, to discuss the national privileges of Israel, and then returned to justification for the remainder of the epistle. Where does the text give any indication of a change in subject? I can certainly understand why the Arminian wants there to be a change, but where does the author indicate it? He never does. It is a case of begging the question by the Arminian theologian.