Is Esau allegorical of the unbeliever who trusts in his works?
This text is from two letters written by David Gooding in 1999.
Your arguments seem to me not to be based on a detailed exposition of the contexts from which the citations of Scripture are drawn; and therefore they appear to be somewhat arbitrary, and based on certain dispensational presuppositions. You must first prove that your presuppositions are based on Scripture.
Your propositions are:
The nation was chosen in Abraham (see Genesis 12:2–3). Is this an earthly nation, i.e. one living on earth? Or a nation no member of which had any heavenly portion? Which? Do these verses by themselves settle the question? Abraham was the father of the earthly people, yet looked for a heavenly inheritance (see Hebrews 11:10).
The election dated from the foundation of the world (see Matthew 25:34). But neither this verse, nor any verse from this context (Matthew 25:31–46), mentions Israel. The people addressed in verse 34 are 'the sheep on the right hand'—'the blessed of my Father'; and, as verses 32 and 33 explicitly state, they are Gentiles. It is explicitly said that it is for these blessed Gentiles that 'the kingdom has been prepared from the foundation of the world'. Nothing is said here about the national election of Israel. These righteous Gentiles go away into eternal life (see v. 46). What, eternal life on earth? Is there anywhere at all in the Old Testament where the Israelites, even the regenerate Israelites, are described by the Messiah as 'my brethren'? Is there anything in the Old Testament Scripture in which the Messiah prophetically talks of his brethren (see Psalm 22:23) that indicates that he refers solely to his Israelite people, and not to all the redeemed (see Hebrews 2:11–12)?
The scope of blessing was earthly, material and temporal (see Genesis 15:18–21). This is a reference to the covenant made by God in favour of Abraham and his seed, guaranteeing the inheritance to him and his seed (see the whole context of Genesis 15:1–17). If this inheritance was nothing more than earthly and material, how does Galatians state emphatically that a) the seed intended by the terms of the covenant is Christ (see Galatians 3:15–18); and b) that we, by virtue of having put on Christ, are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise?
I confess that I feel a certain unease about your treatment of the case of Jacob and Esau.
First there is the small point. I doubt whether the English word 'allegory' is a suitable translation of the Greek word of Galatians 4:24. If I were to say, 'During World War II, Germany was full of Hitlers', would I be using allegory? And if I were to say that all unbelieving Jews are Esaus, would that be allegory?
But the more important point is with regards to your suggestion that Paul in Romans 9:10–13 is using Esau allegorically to represent the unbeliever who trusts in his works for justification and salvation. How does this allegorical interpretation fit in with the actual historical facts of Esau's case?
The passage you quote, Genesis 25:23, is not the passage which talks of the covenant 'blessing'—which is Genesis 27; and Hebrews 12:16–17 explicitly attributes Esau's loss of the blessing to his own folly and obduracy—but it is the passage which predicts the two different roles that the nations descended from Jacob (Israel) and Esau are to play in history. The granting of this role, says Romans 9, was altogether independent of works, good or bad, on the part of either Jacob or Esau. For the national sense of the role, 'the elder shall serve the younger', cf. Edom in the days of David.
How then, on the basis of the historical record and the statement of Genesis 25:23, can it be said that Esau symbolises those who put their trust for salvation and justification in their works? Genesis 25 is talking about the children before they were born, when as yet they had done nothing either good or bad. Can a foetus decide whether he or she is going to put faith for salvation in works, or not? It was not Esau's subsequent adult behaviour that determined his role in history, as to whether he or his descendants should be the line which, according to the flesh, brought in the Messiah. But it was his subsequent adult behaviour that forfeited him the blessing.
The line that brought in the Messiah according to the flesh eventually passed through men like Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, and Ahaz and Amon—all three utter apostates! This is a good example of this particular part of Israel's God-given role of bringing in the Messiah not being made dependent on works good or bad.
I can, of course, see Paul's point at Romans 9:6–8, and I can understand that physical descent from Abraham—though absolutely necessary to demonstrate the validity of Messiah's claim (see Matthew 1)—is not sufficient, or even relevant, to spiritual kinship with Abraham and to being a child of God (see Matthew 3:9; John 8:31ff).
But with the Isaac/Ishmael example, the crucial thing is Abraham's attitude. Ishmael was the product of Abraham's own fleshly effort to effect God's promise; Isaac was the product of Abraham's reliance solely on God's word. His spiritual 'seed' must learn to trust in God's promise, not in their works; and believe as Abraham did before he was circumcised (see Romans 4:12).
But with the Jacob/Esau example, it was not a question of Jacob's faith, or no-faith; nor of Esau's works, or faith in his own works. Jacob's faith in God's word and promise is not mentioned. It was simply a matter of God's sovereign announcement to Rebekah. I can understand this, if it is in reference to Jacob's and Esau's role; but I find it difficult to understand, if this is a question of salvation.
And what of the terms of the announcement, 'the elder shall serve the younger'? As I say, I can understand it as a description of the national roles of the two nations, Israel and Edom; but what has 'the elder serving the younger' got to do with salvation? It sounds very different from being a spiritual child of Abraham/God. Paul does not 'allegorise' Jacob and Esau in Galatians!
In other words: if we are going to take an historical incident as a prototype of some spiritual state of affairs, I should have thought that there must be some inherent similarity between the details of that historical incident and the spiritual situation of which it is a prototype.
For example:
| Naaman: unclean with physical leprosy | = | A sinner: unclean with spiritual leprosy |
| Israelite firstborn: in danger of the judgment of God, covered and saved by the blood of a lamb | = | We, whether Israelite or Gentile: in danger of the judgment of God, covered and saved by the blood of Christ, as of a lamb. . . |
| Jacob and Esau: their role in history. The elder shall serve the younger announced before their birth irrespective of their works, ‘that the purpose of God according to election might stand’ | = | We, whether Israelite or Gentile: how does the idea of personal salvation and justification fit in here? |
I totally agree with you that salvation is not by works. It is the sovereign gift of God. And if it is simply your contention that what is said about Jacob and Esau in Romans 9 shows the same principle as that which applies to salvation—all well and good. What troubles me, however, is that the details of the Jacob and Esau incident as quoted in Romans 9, have not to do with salvation at all, have they?
My point is this: If Paul had quoted the example of Noah and the flood, and had made the point that entrance into the ark was solely dependent on the grace of God and not upon men's works and merits, then it seems to me you would have a straightforward example of salvation from the judgment waters of the flood, which by analogy you could apply immediately to salvation from the wrath of God that is secured to us by Christ. But the issue at stake in God choosing Jacob rather than Esau was not salvation, was it? How fair, then, is it to use their example as being analogous to the principles upon which our salvation rests?
In connection with the Pharaoh incident, you rightly say that if God is sovereign in whom he saves, then he is also sovereign in whom he rejects. He saves the believer, he rejects the unbeliever. But did God reject Esau on the grounds that Esau was an unbeliever? And could it possibly be said that, while Esau was still in the womb and had done nothing either good or evil, God rejected him because he was an unbeliever who put his faith in his works? If, in fact, you make God's choice of Jacob and Esau analogous to how God acts in the matter of our salvation, then you would, so it seems to me, be giving ammunition to the strict Calvinist who does contend that God rejected Esau from salvation even though he had done neither good nor ill to deserve that rejection.
I would be happier to see you take God's choice in regards to Jacob and Esau as being of their role in history. The terms of that choice make this explicit: 'the older shall serve the younger'. It would not be true to say that, when God rejects a man because he is an unbeliever and puts his faith in his works, God then directs that the unbeliever should serve those who are believers and have been saved.
But these are just my misgivings. I must not try to over-persuade you.
Yours sincerely,
