Two Nations and a Pot of Stew

Andy Osborne

Genesis • Sermon • Submitted 4 years ago

0 ratings

· 19 views

Notes

Transcript

Introduction

When it comes to the sovereignty of God, a lot of confusion exists between our choice and God’s choice. Is God sovereign over everything, including us and the decisions that we make? And if so, what does that mean for our responsibility? Are we simply robots without any will at all, or is there a way to understand God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in Scripture? That is the question we will look at as we begin the narrative of Jacob and Esau.

A few weeks ago we looked at God’s election as it was presented in the contrast between Isaac and the sons of Abraham’s concubines. In looking at that contrast, a few things stick out to us. First, election is based completely on the promises of God. Isaac did not choose God, God chose him before he was even conceived, so this election had nothing to do with him. It isn’t because God looked down the corridors of history and saw that Isaac would choose him. It is clear that God’s choice of Isaac was based completely on the promise of Abraham. Sarah was the mother of a promise child, but Hagar and Keturah represented the works of the flesh which are not how God fulfills his promise. We’ve seen clearly that God keeps his promises regardless of human works, which means that the choice of Isaac was completely due to God’s sovereign will.

Now as we get into the account of Jacob and Esau, it almost seems like we are hearing the same story all over again with a few changed details. A wife who is unable to have children until God miraculously provides. Two boys are born and are destined to be the fathers of nations, but only one will carry on the covenant promises of God. The child of promise is the younger, and not the older. But the differences are all the more noticeable in contrast with the similarities. Both boys are born of the same mother, unlike Isaac and Ishmael. They are twins, not separated by years of waiting.

Despite these details, we are meant to draw parallels in our mind between these two scenarios. The repetition once again brings God’s promises through election to mind, but from a slightly different angle.

Two Nations, One Chosen (Election in Principle)

Verse 19 is paralleled with verse 12. Verse 12 began the generations of Ishmael, and they ended in verse 18. In six verses, the entire relevant story of Ishmael’s line is finished. The promises that God made to him have been fulfilled. He fathered a nomadic people that set itself up against the other descendants of Abraham. But that is it. There is nothing beyond that. Eventually this nomadic people would be diluted with the Canaanites with no permanence.

But in verse 19 the generations of Isaac are introduced and, unlike the brief account of Ishmael’s posterity, Isaac’s story continues into the coming chapters and even to the very end of the book. The plot that Genesis is following is now clearly one following God’s covenant with Abraham as it is passed down from generation to generation. Isaac's story will pass on to his children and continue on as God slowly reveals himself and brings his promise to pass.

However, a familiar problem surfaces. Rebekah is barren, just like Isaac’s mother, and is unable to have children. However, the solution comes a lot sooner than it did for Sarah. However, it is still very clear that the solution comes from God as an answer to Isaac’s prayer. The theme of barren women being given promised children is something we see throughout Scripture, from Sarah to Rebekah to Rachel to Hannah in 1 Samuel. Even Mary the mother of Jesus falls somewhat into the category as someone having a promised child when it should be physiologically impossible.

In all of these cases, a child was born who would have a special relationship with the LORD. This theme emphasizes how powerless people are and how powerful God is. If there is one thing that should be putting us in awe, that should be impressing itself on us, its that all of credit goes to God. He is not approaching people in a kind of “let’s team up” attitude, he’s coming with a plan, a purpose, and a promise. These all rely on his faithfulness, not on man’s good works. God using barren woman to become the mothers of the children he promised them is an example of him using our weaknesses to show him power. As the Apostle Paul said in 1 Cor 1:27, “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;” If there is one thing that should be foundational in our understanding of God and our relationship with God, it is that everything relies on him. He is faithful when we are faithless, he is powerful when we are powerless, he is strong when we are weak, he is both the author and perfecter of all his promises, in other words he starts it and he finishes it.

What do we do?

But still the question that has bothered theologians for centuries continues to show itself. What is our role? Yes, God is faithful even when we are faithless, but surely that doesn't mean we give up trying to be faithful, does it? And yes, God is completely sovereign over everything, and his power is behind everything in the plans of his promises, so does that mean we don’t try at all? Throw our hands up, get a bowl of popcorn, and watch the show as God does whatever he’s going to do?

We know that this isn’t the right response, and we know that it isn’t the response God expected from Abraham. Although everything was up to God, and God remained faithful even when Abraham did stumble in his faith. At the same time, this didn’t make Abraham passive. He actively left his home to follow God. He actively purchased the land from the Hittites. He actively obeyed God’s commands regarding circumcision. God’s sovereignty, power, and faithfulness, never took away from Abraham’s active practice.

How are we to understand that? Where does divine sovereignty and human responsibility meet. How are we to biblically understand our choice and will in the context of God’s sovereign will? Thankfully, the story of Jacob and Esau and Jacob’s bowl of stew help us answer that.

Election and a Bowl of Stew (Election in Practice)

Before the two boys are born, Rebekah came to God in prayer because she felt like something was not right. Little did she know that she was pregnant with twins who were already fighting with each other. But God gives her a much deeper meaning than appearances might let on. God tells her that the violence she feels in her womb is actually the beginning of a feud between two nations. Once again, not all of Isaac’s children will be children of the promise and that creates conflict, just as it created conflict between Abraham and Ishmael. This conflict begins even in the womb, and what God then tells Rebekah is very interesting. “One will be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger.”

In this context, the stronger is obviously Esau. He is the mighty hunter, the oldest, and more violent and perhaps more masculine looking of the two. His hairy appearance at birth is meant to give a kind of animal character to him, one who not only goes into the field to hunt, but somewhat resembles a beast of the field himself.

His hunting also gives him a somewhat negative shade as we are introduced to him. Esau, already, resembles his uncle Ishmael with a wondering nature. Rather than someone who leads with peace like a shepherd, he is a wanderer who goes about seeking something to hunt. In 27:40 he is described as one who lives by the sword, which does not characterize the people of God at all. Of the two sons, Jacob is civilized and peaceful, and his lifestyle represents that of Abraham more than Esau’s hunting does. In verse 28 we are given a little information that will become very relevant in chapter 27. Isaac loved Esau because he had a taste for game, but Rebekah loved Jacob. Isaac’s priorities are out of order because his food preferences seem more important to him than what God has said to his wife before the children were born. Like Adam before him, he let his appetites get in the way of seeing God’s purposes. Rebekah, on the other hand, shows faithfulness to God’s promises by favouring the son whom God has explicitly shown favour to.

When God said the older shall serve the younger, and that two nations were inside her womb, the assumption is that the promise of God to Abraham would only be carried out through one of those nations. Assuming that the greater nation is the Kingdom of God, that means that only the younger son would inherit the covenant promises.

Jacob I loved, Esau I hated

So election once again becomes very relevant here. Listen to the Apostle Paul’s comments on this text in Romans 9:10-13

Romans 9:10–13 ESV

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 strong language, God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even born. That is to say, God had embraced Jacob into the covenant and had rejected Esau from his love and sovereign plan. Esau would form his own nation, and would even receive a piece of land for a while, but eventually the Edomites would fall into obscurity. The text that Paul is quoting comes from Malachai 1:2 and says ““Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” That is the end of Esau, like everything else in this world he and all his accomplishments are temporary. Paul goes on in verses 14-18

Romans 9:14–18 ESV

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

So then our question is, what is the role of our choices and decisions? We are told here that God has mercy on whoever he wants and that he hardens whoever he wants. The example of Pharoah is brought up, and we are told that God hardened his heart so that he could show his power in Pharoah. This is confirmed in Exodus 7:3, “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt,”

Some think that God is being unfair in this, how could God harden someone’s heart and then show wrath towards them? Paul’s answer in verse 20 is that we are not in a place to question God’s purposes or ways, since he is God and is therefore not subject to our judgments. But another problem we might consider is that Exodus 8:32 tells us that Pharoah hardened his heart. In fact, the entire narrative in Exodus seems to use the passive and active voice interchangeably. Sometimes Pharaoh's heart is hardened, sometimes Pharoah hardens his heart. How do we understand this? Let us continue in our text and see.

The Stew Incident

In verse 29 we begin to read the famous stew incident. Jacob is cooking stew, Esau comes back from the field and he is on the verge of starvation. There is no exaggeration here, Esau is starving. He demands some of the red stew, and we know how important this event is to his life as his name is changed to Edom after this, which means red. The name of his Kingdom will forever be a reminder of what he lost in this interaction.

Jacob demands, in exchange for his stew, the birthright of the firstborn. This would mean the that the family clan would pass on to Jacob, not Esau. Esau agrees and swears the birthright to Jacob, and Jacob gives him the lentil stew with some bread. The chapter ends with concluding that this is how Esau despised his birthright, not that he hated it but he rejected it as if it was not valuable.

In this text, there is wrongdoing on both Jacob and Esau’s side. However, contrary to what we might judge reading this, the greater sin is on the part of Esau, not Jacob. The thing is, although Jacob sinfully takes advantage of his brother in taking his birthright, he actually has his priorities right, unlike Esau. Esau shows little priority for the birthright. Instead of trusting God and thinking of the long-term benefits, even eternal benefits, of being in his Kingdom, Esau is shortsighted and therefore sees little value in the promises of God if his stomach is empty. Jacob, on the other hand, desires the promise of God. There’s no doubt that he had been told by his mother of the prophecy that he would inherit the promises of Abraham, promises he probably heard about from Abraham himself as a child. While the way he goes about it is wrong and shows a lack of faith, he prioritizes the promises of God and that shows faith in those promises, even if that faith is small and immature.

Faith is believing God’s word and letting that belief shape our lives. Faith also means putting his Word and promises in the forefront of our minds. It’s no good believing God’s promises if we aren’t going to put the right emphasis and priority on those promises. This is what Jacob displays. Having the rights of the firstborn is important to them because he knows that God has promised them to him. God’s promises are important to him, important enough that he is willing to blackmail his older brother to get them.

Because of this incident, Esau no longer has the rights to the family, and thus has given up the covenant with God. Destiny is sealed in this moment, Jacob will receive the inheritance of Isaac and become the next patriarch in a line of men who will be the fathers of the people of Israel, and most importantly, of the promised Messiah. So here is our question, why did Esau lose the promise of God? Was it because of his own negligence and choice of stew over divine blessings? Or was it the sovereign plan of God from before he was born?

The answer is both in a sense, but not equally. Ultimately, the answer is that God’s divine plan made it so that Jacob would receive the inheritance. This was never in any way a question. Nor did God look through the corridors of history, see Esau’s action, and passively react to it. God’s plan was being fulfilled. He chose Jacob, and Romans 9 tells us that he chose him for no other reason than his will determined it to be so.

And yet, this does not mean that Esau did not make a choice. It’s not as if Esau just wants the promise so bad but fate has it so that he will not have it. Esau made the decision to value food over God’s promises and he is fully responsible for that decision.

So how do those two things relate? How can God be the one who decides that Jacob is going to inherit the promise, and at the same time Esau be responsible for loosing it by his own choice? How can God harden Pharaoh's heart and Pharoah harden his own heart at the same time? These are both truths that Scripture speaks of, but it is hard to reconcile them in our minds.

God’s sovereignty over election is not that different from his sovereignty over all of creation, and understanding that the way God approaches reality is different from how we approach it is important. God approaches reality as a sovereign creator and that changes how he sees everything. Theologian John Frame uses the example of a tree.

When you see a tree, you have to conform your worldview to now include that tree. It would be foolish for you to pretend it doesn’t exist, or do anything about its existence. True, you could chop it down, but you still can’t do anything about the fact that the tree is there. That tree’s existence is truth, and you as a created being must conform yourself to truth.

When God looks at the same tree, he sees it as a creator. What does that mean? It means that the tree only exists in the frist place because he created it, because he wanted it to be there. See for us, we have to conform our will and view of reality to what is true. For God, reality conforms itself to his will and view. Even objective truth is subjective to the will of God. If God didn’t want the tree to be there, it would never have existed in the first place.

Now if we were to ask, why does this tree exist? Is it because a seed was planted there and the sun and rain gave the tree sustenance and it grew and there it is? Or is it because God created it and wants it to be there? You might see how silly that question is. Of course its both. Primarily, it is there because God created it, but the means that God uses are still relevant.

“But” you may say, “we aren’t trees, we are people and God has given us free will.” But has he? What does free will mean? Even God doesn’t have completely free will. God cannot will to stop being God. God cannot will to sin against himself. If he could, he wouldn't be the unchanging solid rock Scripture makes him out to be. So if God’s will is limited by his own character, how much more is a sinful, fallen person limited in their will. Esau made a decision, and that decision was in accord with his own nature. He did not take the promises of God seriously because of his sinful and self-sufficient nature.

Esau chose to take a temporary meal over the eternally glorious promise, and he made that choice under the divine sovereignty of God. How that all works out, we will never be able to fully comprehend, because to understand it we would need to be able to understand the most intimate parts of God’s will. In other words, we would have to be God himself, and we’re not.

This is why Paul’s answer to the question, “is God unfair” is basically, who are you to tell God what is and is not fair. Is he not the inventor of justice and fairness? If this is what Scripture tells us God is like, there is no argument. We cannot fall into the trap of changing God to suit what we think he should be like, we need to change ourselves and our own view to match what he has revealed himself to be.

Conclusion

So what does that mean for us? It’s applicable in a few ways:

It is motivation to rest in God

It is motivation to be active in the promises of God

It is motivation to evangelize

God is in control

God uses means

In the New Covenant, the promises of God are available to whoever would come to Christ. Those who come before his throne come according to his sovereign will, pulled not by their own will but that of another, greater will that does not fight against theirs, but over shadows it, conquers it, and conforms it to the will of him who saves such a soul. With that knowledge, let us seek him eagerly, that God’s sovereign will may display itself in our lives to the end of glorious rest in the person and work of Christ. May our will be brought under subjection of his, that our hearts may be given over to him in the knowledge of Christ. This is eternal life, and it is glorious and real to those who believe.

Related Media

Related Sermons