- 主题发起人 小葡萄
- 发布时间 2012-10-19
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活
这三个宗教中，犹太教最早，起于主前1500年左右（从始祖亚伯拉罕算起则在主前2000年左右）、忠实奉《旧约》为圣经，旧约圣经写作时间在主前1500至主前400年左右（主后70年，犹太人确定39卷旧约圣经）。
基督教次之，起于主后33年左右，忠实地奉旧约和新约为圣经；新约大约成书于主后36年至主后100年之间；定典在主后400年左右。
伊斯兰教最后、兴起于主后600年左右（穆罕默德主后632年去世）、奉可兰经为其最高经典。宣称承认旧约圣经和新约中的福音书，但其中与可兰经矛盾处则以可兰经为准。
可兰经基本上是一本抄袭旧约和新约圣经的大杂烩。其聪明处在于似是而非。有许多故事是直接引用新旧约圣经的，同时却在关键处做改动，使其中心信息被置换。这也是穆斯林很难信主的一个主要原因。
举个例子。旧约圣经中明确记载以实玛利是埃及侍女所生，不是神应许给亚伯拉罕的。并且明确记载亚伯拉罕是应神的呼招准备将以撒献祭（此事预表神将自己的独生爱子主耶稣赐给人类作为赎罪祭）而可兰经上却将犹太人的始祖以撒换成阿拉伯人的始祖以实玛利。
又如，可兰经承认主耶稣是玛丽亚圣灵感应童女生子，却另写了一段和福音书中有关记述完全没有关联的主耶稣出生的故事。更重要的是，可兰经否认主耶稣在十字架上为我们舍命，自然也否认主耶稣三天之后的复活，否认主耶稣用自己的血和我们所立的新约，而这正是新约圣经的中心。
可兰经也编造基督教信奉“圣父圣子圣母”三位一体的谎言来置换基督教真实的“圣父圣子圣灵”三位一体独一真神的信仰，并以此指控基督教信仰“变异”。
这三个宗教中，犹太教最早，起于主前1500年左右（从始祖亚伯拉罕算起则在主前2000年左右）、忠实奉《旧约》为圣经，旧约圣经写作时间在主前1500至主前400年左右（主后70年，犹太人确定39卷旧约圣经）。
基督教次之，起于主后33年左右，忠实地奉旧约和新约为圣经；新约大约成书于主后36年至主后100年之间；定典在主后400年左右。
伊斯兰教最后、兴起于主后600年左右（穆罕默德主后632年去世）、奉可兰经为其最高经典。宣称承认旧约圣经和新约中的福音书，但其中与可兰经矛盾处则以可兰经为准。
可兰经基本上是一本抄袭旧约和新约圣经的大杂烩。其聪明处在于似是而非。有许多故事是直接引用新旧约圣经的，同时却在关键处做改动，使其中心信息被置换。这也是穆斯林很难信主的一个主要原因。
举个例子。旧约圣经中明确记载以实玛利是埃及侍女所生，不是神应许给亚伯拉罕的。并且明确记载亚伯拉罕是应神的呼招准备将以撒献祭（此事预表神将自己的独生爱子主耶稣赐给人类作为赎罪祭）而可兰经上却将犹太人的始祖以撒换成阿拉伯人的始祖以实玛利。
又如，可兰经承认主耶稣是玛丽亚圣灵感应童女生子，却另写了一段和福音书中有关记述完全没有关联的主耶稣出生的故事。更重要的是，可兰经否认主耶稣在十字架上为我们舍命，自然也否认主耶稣三天之后的复活，否认主耶稣用自己的血和我们所立的新约，而这正是新约圣经的中心。
可兰经也编造基督教信奉“圣父圣子圣母”三位一体的谎言来置换基督教真实的“圣父圣子圣灵”三位一体独一真神的信仰，并以此指控基督教信仰“变异”。
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活
按照基督徒的说法，人类无法明白上帝的真正意图。 你这段只是说明，地球上的一群人和另一群人对上帝的理解不一样而已， 而并不能区分哪个是正确的。 道理很简单，在伊斯兰教徒中，肯定有聪明人士，有高尚人士， 这些人不会连你一个普通基督徒能看出的荒谬之处而视而不见。 所以，你说的所有这些，和非基督徒说基督教简直就是胡扯，性质完全一样。
实际上， 就像我们BC省选举， 2个党遥遥领先， 相互攻击，自卖自夸。 实际上在明眼人看来， 什么党都没有区别，混口饭而已。
按照基督徒的说法，人类无法明白上帝的真正意图。 你这段只是说明，地球上的一群人和另一群人对上帝的理解不一样而已， 而并不能区分哪个是正确的。 道理很简单，在伊斯兰教徒中，肯定有聪明人士，有高尚人士， 这些人不会连你一个普通基督徒能看出的荒谬之处而视而不见。 所以，你说的所有这些，和非基督徒说基督教简直就是胡扯，性质完全一样。
实际上， 就像我们BC省选举， 2个党遥遥领先， 相互攻击，自卖自夸。 实际上在明眼人看来， 什么党都没有区别，混口饭而已。
- 最大赞力
- 0.06
- 当前赞力
- 100.00%
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活
大哥，人家就不能给你提点意见吗？我恩师经常批评我，我才有今天的成长。虽然我不是你恩师，也算是朋友吧。除了朋友谁能跟你说真话？难道要我为了朋友否认三位一体吗？还不如叫我跳楼算了。老子都说一生二、二生三、三生万物。大自然也是三位一体的神造的。三原色生出七色、百色、千色。3、7、12都是特殊的数字，3是神的数字，也代表与神同行；7也是神的数字，代表完全和安息；12是神儿女的数字，代表光明和光明之子。白天有12个小时，就是这个道理。
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活
1. 他的性情
2. 他的救赎计划、永生家庭计划
3. 他公义的审判和新天新地
他通过在历史中的作为，也通过献上他的儿子救赎人类来显示他的性情和计划。
这点我不同意，人能明白上帝想让他明白的部分，按照每个人恩赐不同，领受各有不同。你不能说你不明白的，别人也都不能明白。也不能说自己明白的，别人也必须都得明白。上帝启示了圣经，就是为了让人明白他的意图。上帝想让人明白的是：
1. 他的性情
2. 他的救赎计划、永生家庭计划
3. 他公义的审判和新天新地
他通过在历史中的作为，也通过献上他的儿子救赎人类来显示他的性情和计划。
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活
The following verses from the Bible are perplexing. Some people have quoted them to question God’s justice, saying that they show that God is partial and cold-hearted.
Ro 9:11(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
Ro 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Some adopt a strained interpretation of those verses. They read the word “hate” as if it were the same as man’s hatred. They believe that before any man was born God had already decided which man would go to the heaven and which one the hell. People like Esau had been destined for the hell when they were born and would have no chance of escape for eternity. On the other hand, people like Jacob had been destined for the heaven, and would be blessed no matter what evil they might do. It is amazing that such interpretation is extremely prevalent and popular today!
I find such interpretation highly strained and the result of reading those verses in isolation from context. Such interpretation contradicts those key messages of the Bible (for example, that God judges man according to what he does), which a person who reads the Bible as a whole cannot fail to recognize, but caters only to the need of certain schools of popular theology. Utterly denying God’s just nature, such interpretation does not stand scrutiny by contextual reading and is nothing but an example of “wresting with things hard to understand unto one’s destruction” (adapted from 2Pt 3:16). Even less can it stand the test by the key messages of the Bible as a whole.
It is noteworthy that, if one compartmentalizes Romans chapter 9 and reads verses 1 to 23 alone, one’s interpretation of the chapter will be entirely different than that when one reads the whole chapter together. I should further note that, according to the principle that “the Scripture interprets itself”, one should not read only a part of a chapter in isolation, as in that way one will be led to a strained interpretation. In fact, to understand chapter 9, it should be read together with chapters 10 and 11.
First, God’s promise to Rebecca was that “the older shall serve the younger” (Gn 25:23), in other words, Esau was to serve Jacob. However, Esau until his day of death never served Jacob. Although Jacob obtained the status of the firstborn, he did not inherit the family estate, but left his father’s home alone. His assets were obtained by himself outside the home. For his entire life, Jacob drifted around, then died in Egypt, but never returned to his homeland in glory. On the other hand, Esau inherited the family estate prospered and remained trouble free. When Jacob fled from Laban his uncle, he first went towards home, but after he met Esau on the way, he changed his direction to Succoth but never set foot on Seir, where Esau was, so as to avoid offering Esau a chance to revenge himself. Jacob not only had never been served by Esau, but instead called himself a servant to Esau. When the brothers last met, Jacob even knelt before Esau, seven times in a roll, begging for forgiveness. The whole family then came to kneel before Esau and Jacob offered precious gifts to Esau, calling himself a servant (Gn 33: 1-17). All these show that God’s promise as is described in Ro 9:11-14 has a spiritual rather than physical meaning.
Ro 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What does the “vessel unto dishonour” mean? Esau was the firstborn. What does that mean?
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:
Ro 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Esau the firstborn prefigures the Israel of the flesh, which is the “vessel unto dishonour” referred to in Ro 9:21. Then why are they called “unto dishonour”? If they are “unto dishonour”, does that mean that they were born unequal? Why were they “hated” by God? Does that “hatred” mean that God bears a grudge against them, or is it the same as the groundless bitterness borne by a man against another? Let us take a look at the Bible and find out where the same term for “hatred/hate” has appeared:
Lk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate(misei,G3404) not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates(mison,G3404) his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
The “hate” in Ro 9:13 (“Esau have I hated”) comes from the original Greek word “emisesa”(G3404), meaning “I hate”. The above-noted Greek words share the same root “misos” (Strong’s Concordance number G3404). While the three words are in different tenses, they mean the same thing: in English, “love less”. Therefore, the original Greek word for “hate” is not limited to one interpretation. Sometimes it may be interpreted as “hatred of man” (Mt5:43,10:22,etc); some other times, when it is describing God’s nature, it may be interpreted as “intolerance of sin”(Hb1:9). In the above-noted three verses, it is best interpreted as “love less”, which is a description of priority.
So long as “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Ro 9:13) is a description of priority, we may understand it as saying that God loves Jacob more than He does Esau. If that is the case, does such priority constitute partiality or injustice? No, not if we apply God’s principle of fairness.
God’s principle of fairness is this: For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Lk 12:48)
The more God gives to one, the greater danger he is in, that the more God gives to him in grace or power, the more God will demand of him in thankfulness and responsibility. Therefore, such gifts from God may on the contrary become a stumbling block leading him to sin, if he takes the gifts for granted and does not cherish them. In fact, the danger comes from the sinful nature by which man tend to misuse the blessings. The more gifts God gives a man, the more difficult it is for him to take them lightly and even despise them.
Ro 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (my note: Sion here refers to Israel)
As mentioned above, Esau the firstborn prefigures the Israelites of the flesh, who were the firstborn among the peoples and the first to receive the laws, protection, blessings and decrees from God. However, instead of cherishing such privilege, they took it lightly, which thus turned into a stumbling block keeping them from God’s blessings. In God’s eye, privilege always comes together with responsibility. How much privilege one enjoys determines how much responsibility he is to bear. In other words, the privilege to the blessings prescribes the responsibility to comply with God’s commands. However, both Esau and the Israelites only wanted to enjoy the privilege but not to bear the responsibility. For the bit of ephemeral benefits, they took the status of firstborn lightly, thereby giving up the enduring or eternal blessings.
Many think that the more God loves one, the more God will make him talented or grant more of other advantages to him. The reverse is more often the case. The more God loves one, the fewer talents or natural gifts God will endow upon him, because such talents or natural gifts may become a stumbling block to his pursuit of the eternal blessing. As said above, this paradox stems from the sinful nature, because of which one may take the eternal blessing lightly for the ephemeral pleasures. He may take his talents or natural gifts as granted. Instead of giving thanks, he only asks for more. Therefore those who are more talented and own more natural gifts are in a greater danger, and those enviable gifts are more likely to become stumbling blocks to God’s blessing.
Whenever God is gracious to one, He demands his response. In other words, right and obligation go hand in hand. For example, if God gives a man a strong and healthy physique and powerful arms, He wants this man to bear the burden of his family and to lend a hand to the weak. But if the man, healthy and strong as he is, is unwilling to bear his responsibilities, and instead of helping the weak he oppresses them, then his good health and superb strength will become his stumbling block, and even his disaster and curse. Similarly, people may commit other sins using their gifts or natural talents, in which case the same gifts or talents will also be the cause of their misfortune.
On the other hand, for a man seemingly lack of gifts or talents, such very lacking may become his blessing. Because out of the “lacking” may arise a yearning for God’s blessing and God Himself, and such yearning itself is a great gift from God.
Therefore, when it appears that God has given one a gift or advantage above others, one should take greater caution instead of celebrating prematurely, because although God has extended a hand of blessing to him, He may turn the blessing into a curse for his lack of gratitude and refusal to take responsibility. On the other hand, when it seems that one is suffering from a disadvantage, one does not need to let himself down or complain to God, because although God has extended a hand of deprivation to him, God will turn the curse into a blessing for his cherishing what God has already given him and his willingness to take responsibility.
Jacob is the one prefiguring those who are born with a deprivation of blessings. He was not the firstborn, for which he envied Esau, as Esau the firstborn was the one to receive the blessings (the relationship with God) and the inheritance. However, God made such deprivation an expression of “loving more”! Just because he was not the firstborn, Jacob became more aware of the value of the firstborn’s blessing and thus desired more to obtain and cherish it. Esau the firstborn, on the other hand, dismissed his firstborn’s blessing as insignificant, and thereby lost it eventually.
Therefore, “deprivation” is a blessing, because if one has never been deprived of something desirable, one would never truly own it. When there is a lack of blessing, one will seek, find and follow the blessing!
God’s love for Jacob lies in His depriving Jacob at birth, which eventually turned into an endowment of blessing. In other words, God’s greatest love for Jacob is this “deprivation”.
This paradox is the mystery of God`s love. The Israelites were fortunate because they were the firstborn and the chosen of God. However, exactly because of such fortune they were unfortunate. On the other hand, the Gentiles were unfortunate because they were not the chosen people. However, exactly because of such misfortune they became fortunate.
Ro 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Ro 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;
Did God set a trap for the Israelites so they cannot be saved at all? No. The Israelites like everyone else had a free choice. Among them, there were those who were firstborns not only in the flesh, but also in the spirit (Ro 4:16), to whom the blessings did not become a stumbling block! In the same manner, there are those who were born talented and gifted, but cherished such talents and gifts instead of misusing the same. They were grateful and used all gifts and talents endowed by God in caution to glorify God and benefit others. Such people were just like those saved out of the Israelites, who were but a remnant out of the multitudes, which were as many as the sands of the sea. They were the fortunate out of the unfortunate.
In terms of the flesh, most of the Israelites were unfortunate, who were the firstborn that failed to cherish the blessing, as were prefigured by Esau. The chosen of the Gentiles were the younger son that cherished and sought the blessing, as were prefigured by Jacob. In terms of the spirit, all the faithful, whether of the Israelites or of the Gentiles, were the younger son blessed out of his deprivation prefigured by Jacob; on the other hand, all the unfaithful, whether of the Israelites or of the Gentiles, were the firstborn cursed out of his blessing as were prefigured by Esau.
In this world, the unfaithful appear to have received more blessings, obtained benefits and prospered, but failing to cherish their blessing, they let go of the eternal blessing for the ephemeral benefits of this life. On the contrary, in this world the faithful, who are Jacob in God’s eye and therefore receives the greater love from God, appear to be the deprived and the unfortunate.
1C 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
1C 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1C 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1C 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
The “weak”, the “foolish”, the “despised” and “which are not” are Jacob, in other words the righteous.
The “mighty”, the “wise”, the “noble” and “things that are” are Esau, in other words the sinners.
Is God then prejudiced against those who are mighty, rich or wise? Are they not able to be saved? I note that the Bible never said “impossible”, but only said “not many”. Can Esau turn into Jacob? Yes! If he humbles himself, he will be the same as Jacob and be called “Israel”.
Ja 1:9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
Ja 1:10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.
Ja 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.
A popular theology today renders a fatalistic interpretation to “fitted to destruction” and “afore prepared unto glory” (Ro 9:22-23). Reading the relevant verses in context pursuant to the principle that “the Scripture interprets itself”, and referring to the original Greek text, we find abundant reasons to reject such fatalistic determinism.
Ro 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Ro 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Ro 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Ro 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Ro 9:26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
The “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” refers to the Israelites that refuse to repent and are thus not saved. However, the membership of the group is dynamic. The term “fitted to destruction” describes a principle of selection, but not the unchangeable fate of those persons. Once a person of the group repents and turns to God, he becomes a vessel “afore prepared unto glory”. The original Greek word that is translated into “fitted” does not have a connotation of fatalism, either.
The original Greek word for “fitted” is katertismena, meaning “having been adapted” in Ro 9:22. The meaning of the root for the word is “to complete thoroughly, repair or adjust” (Strong’s Concordance number G2675). Variations from the same root appear in several places in the New Testament. As all these variations fall under the same Strong’s Concordance number, their meanings are derived from the same root and are closely related.
For example, in Lk 6:40 “[t]he disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master”, the phrase “is perfect” is translated from katertismenos, a variation under G2675. Another example is Ga 6:1 “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted”. Here the word “restore” is translated from katartizete, another variation under G2675. The variation in neither of the circumstances features a fatalistic connotation.
These and other variations under G2675 also appear in the following verses, in none of which they are used with a fatalistic connotation:
·Mt 4:21, meaning “to mend a fishing net”;
·Mt 21:16, meaning “to be perfected”;
·Mk 1:19, meaning “to mend a fishing net”;
·1 C 1:10, meaning “to be perfectly joined together;
·2 C 13:11, meaning “to perfect”;
·1 Th 3:10, meaning “to perfect”;
·Hb 10:5, meaning “to prepare”;
·Hb 11:3, meaning “to be framed”;
·Hb 13:21, meaning “to make perfect”;
·1 Pt 5:10, meaning “to make perfect”.
As for the word “prepared” in the phrase “afore prepared unto glory”, the original Greek word is proetoimasen, meaning “making ready beforehand”. The meaning of the root for the word is “to fit up in advance” (Strong’s Concordance number G4282). Another place in the Bible where proetoimasen appears is Eph 2:10 “[f]or we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”, in which it is translated into the phrase “hath before ordained”. There is no apparent fatalistic connotation in the word. My understanding here is that, just like the word “fitted” discussed above, the word “prepared” describes a principle of selection instead of an unchangeable fate as well, and that the vessels “afore prepared unto glory” are a changing group of people.
Therefore, as I understand, a vessel “fitted to destruction” may turn into a vessel “afore prepared unto glory” by repentance.
The context in the Book of Romans supports my understanding instead of a fatalistic reading.
First, nowhere in the Book of Romans is it said that those vessels were “fitted to destruction” or “afore prepared unto glory” before the founding of the world. There is no indication of time in Ro 9:22 at all for the act of fitting “to destruction”. In Ro 9:23 it is said that God “had afore prepared unto glory” some of the vessels, but if you read the whole verse of Ro 9:23, it is quite clear that such act of “preparing” only needs to take place before God’s “making known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy”. Therefore the analogy of the two types of vessels cannot be used as support for the fatalistic reading, according to which the fate of a vessel is determined before the creation of the world. Similarly, the word “us” in Eph 1:4, which is stated to have been chosen by God before the foundation of the earth, refers to “the Church” elected according to the principle of the saving faith. What was predestined before the creation was a principle that “we [the church] should be holy and without blame before Him.” The act of predestination in Ro 8:29“predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son” takes place before the sanctification of each individual believer, but not before the creation of the world, because this verse simply does not say that it takes place before the creation of the world.
Second, from the earlier verses in Romans chapter 9 one can readily see that the “vessels fitted to destruction” refers to those Israelites that were not really of Israel (Ro 9:6) who refused to believe in God. Were these people unable to be saved in any case? No, Paul said that they still had a chance to be saved!
Ro 10:1 . Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Ro 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.
Indeed, Paul harboured hopes that they might be saved. And not only hopes, but Paul had reassurance that God would save them if they repented, and there would be salvation for all the remnants of the Israel in the end.
Ro 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
(Note that this verse is quoted from Isaiah 59:20 “’The Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,’ Says the Lord”. And those who refuse to believe in the Lord are not counted as Israelites according to Romans2:28-29, 9:6)
If “vessels fitted to destruction” cannot be turned into vessels “afore prepared unto glory” in any case, how can the above-said repentance and salvation take place?
Third, a fatalistic reading simply does not reconcile with Paul’s own conclusive remarks for chapter 9 (Ro 9:30-32). Here he said that those Israelites failed in their seeking for God because they did so by work but not by faith. If Paul’s conviction were that these people failed because God had determined from the beginning that they could not be saved at all, therefore they could not believe in any case, why would not he just say so? Does it matter at all whether they believed or not, if God made it impossible for them to believe?
My understanding is also supported by God’s nature. Remember that it is the same God who claims “let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Mt 5:37), and the same God in whom there is no unrighteousness (Jn 7:18). God “endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Ro 9:22). If the phrase “fitted to destruction” describes an unchangeable fate instead of a principle of selection, God’s endurance with long suffering will be nothing but hypocrisy, and totally meaningless, as it does not change anything.
In summary, fatalism has no place in the interpretation of Ro 9:22-23. God endures with long suffering to wait for the sinners, in other words the “vessels fitted to destruction”, to repent and come back to him and thereby become the vessels “afore prepared unto glory”. This is exactly in line with Jesus’ central message to the world: “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 4:17).
以下是“恨以扫、爱雅各”的英文版
Love Appearing as Hatred
The following verses from the Bible are perplexing. Some people have quoted them to question God’s justice, saying that they show that God is partial and cold-hearted.
Ro 9:11(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
Ro 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Some adopt a strained interpretation of those verses. They read the word “hate” as if it were the same as man’s hatred. They believe that before any man was born God had already decided which man would go to the heaven and which one the hell. People like Esau had been destined for the hell when they were born and would have no chance of escape for eternity. On the other hand, people like Jacob had been destined for the heaven, and would be blessed no matter what evil they might do. It is amazing that such interpretation is extremely prevalent and popular today!
I find such interpretation highly strained and the result of reading those verses in isolation from context. Such interpretation contradicts those key messages of the Bible (for example, that God judges man according to what he does), which a person who reads the Bible as a whole cannot fail to recognize, but caters only to the need of certain schools of popular theology. Utterly denying God’s just nature, such interpretation does not stand scrutiny by contextual reading and is nothing but an example of “wresting with things hard to understand unto one’s destruction” (adapted from 2Pt 3:16). Even less can it stand the test by the key messages of the Bible as a whole.
It is noteworthy that, if one compartmentalizes Romans chapter 9 and reads verses 1 to 23 alone, one’s interpretation of the chapter will be entirely different than that when one reads the whole chapter together. I should further note that, according to the principle that “the Scripture interprets itself”, one should not read only a part of a chapter in isolation, as in that way one will be led to a strained interpretation. In fact, to understand chapter 9, it should be read together with chapters 10 and 11.
First, God’s promise to Rebecca was that “the older shall serve the younger” (Gn 25:23), in other words, Esau was to serve Jacob. However, Esau until his day of death never served Jacob. Although Jacob obtained the status of the firstborn, he did not inherit the family estate, but left his father’s home alone. His assets were obtained by himself outside the home. For his entire life, Jacob drifted around, then died in Egypt, but never returned to his homeland in glory. On the other hand, Esau inherited the family estate prospered and remained trouble free. When Jacob fled from Laban his uncle, he first went towards home, but after he met Esau on the way, he changed his direction to Succoth but never set foot on Seir, where Esau was, so as to avoid offering Esau a chance to revenge himself. Jacob not only had never been served by Esau, but instead called himself a servant to Esau. When the brothers last met, Jacob even knelt before Esau, seven times in a roll, begging for forgiveness. The whole family then came to kneel before Esau and Jacob offered precious gifts to Esau, calling himself a servant (Gn 33: 1-17). All these show that God’s promise as is described in Ro 9:11-14 has a spiritual rather than physical meaning.
Ro 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What does the “vessel unto dishonour” mean? Esau was the firstborn. What does that mean?
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:
Ro 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Esau the firstborn prefigures the Israel of the flesh, which is the “vessel unto dishonour” referred to in Ro 9:21. Then why are they called “unto dishonour”? If they are “unto dishonour”, does that mean that they were born unequal? Why were they “hated” by God? Does that “hatred” mean that God bears a grudge against them, or is it the same as the groundless bitterness borne by a man against another? Let us take a look at the Bible and find out where the same term for “hatred/hate” has appeared:
Lk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate(misei,G3404) not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates(mison,G3404) his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
The “hate” in Ro 9:13 (“Esau have I hated”) comes from the original Greek word “emisesa”(G3404), meaning “I hate”. The above-noted Greek words share the same root “misos” (Strong’s Concordance number G3404). While the three words are in different tenses, they mean the same thing: in English, “love less”. Therefore, the original Greek word for “hate” is not limited to one interpretation. Sometimes it may be interpreted as “hatred of man” (Mt5:43,10:22,etc); some other times, when it is describing God’s nature, it may be interpreted as “intolerance of sin”(Hb1:9). In the above-noted three verses, it is best interpreted as “love less”, which is a description of priority.
So long as “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Ro 9:13) is a description of priority, we may understand it as saying that God loves Jacob more than He does Esau. If that is the case, does such priority constitute partiality or injustice? No, not if we apply God’s principle of fairness.
God’s principle of fairness is this: For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Lk 12:48)
The more God gives to one, the greater danger he is in, that the more God gives to him in grace or power, the more God will demand of him in thankfulness and responsibility. Therefore, such gifts from God may on the contrary become a stumbling block leading him to sin, if he takes the gifts for granted and does not cherish them. In fact, the danger comes from the sinful nature by which man tend to misuse the blessings. The more gifts God gives a man, the more difficult it is for him to take them lightly and even despise them.
Ro 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (my note: Sion here refers to Israel)
As mentioned above, Esau the firstborn prefigures the Israelites of the flesh, who were the firstborn among the peoples and the first to receive the laws, protection, blessings and decrees from God. However, instead of cherishing such privilege, they took it lightly, which thus turned into a stumbling block keeping them from God’s blessings. In God’s eye, privilege always comes together with responsibility. How much privilege one enjoys determines how much responsibility he is to bear. In other words, the privilege to the blessings prescribes the responsibility to comply with God’s commands. However, both Esau and the Israelites only wanted to enjoy the privilege but not to bear the responsibility. For the bit of ephemeral benefits, they took the status of firstborn lightly, thereby giving up the enduring or eternal blessings.
Many think that the more God loves one, the more God will make him talented or grant more of other advantages to him. The reverse is more often the case. The more God loves one, the fewer talents or natural gifts God will endow upon him, because such talents or natural gifts may become a stumbling block to his pursuit of the eternal blessing. As said above, this paradox stems from the sinful nature, because of which one may take the eternal blessing lightly for the ephemeral pleasures. He may take his talents or natural gifts as granted. Instead of giving thanks, he only asks for more. Therefore those who are more talented and own more natural gifts are in a greater danger, and those enviable gifts are more likely to become stumbling blocks to God’s blessing.
Whenever God is gracious to one, He demands his response. In other words, right and obligation go hand in hand. For example, if God gives a man a strong and healthy physique and powerful arms, He wants this man to bear the burden of his family and to lend a hand to the weak. But if the man, healthy and strong as he is, is unwilling to bear his responsibilities, and instead of helping the weak he oppresses them, then his good health and superb strength will become his stumbling block, and even his disaster and curse. Similarly, people may commit other sins using their gifts or natural talents, in which case the same gifts or talents will also be the cause of their misfortune.
On the other hand, for a man seemingly lack of gifts or talents, such very lacking may become his blessing. Because out of the “lacking” may arise a yearning for God’s blessing and God Himself, and such yearning itself is a great gift from God.
Therefore, when it appears that God has given one a gift or advantage above others, one should take greater caution instead of celebrating prematurely, because although God has extended a hand of blessing to him, He may turn the blessing into a curse for his lack of gratitude and refusal to take responsibility. On the other hand, when it seems that one is suffering from a disadvantage, one does not need to let himself down or complain to God, because although God has extended a hand of deprivation to him, God will turn the curse into a blessing for his cherishing what God has already given him and his willingness to take responsibility.
Jacob is the one prefiguring those who are born with a deprivation of blessings. He was not the firstborn, for which he envied Esau, as Esau the firstborn was the one to receive the blessings (the relationship with God) and the inheritance. However, God made such deprivation an expression of “loving more”! Just because he was not the firstborn, Jacob became more aware of the value of the firstborn’s blessing and thus desired more to obtain and cherish it. Esau the firstborn, on the other hand, dismissed his firstborn’s blessing as insignificant, and thereby lost it eventually.
Therefore, “deprivation” is a blessing, because if one has never been deprived of something desirable, one would never truly own it. When there is a lack of blessing, one will seek, find and follow the blessing!
God’s love for Jacob lies in His depriving Jacob at birth, which eventually turned into an endowment of blessing. In other words, God’s greatest love for Jacob is this “deprivation”.
This paradox is the mystery of God`s love. The Israelites were fortunate because they were the firstborn and the chosen of God. However, exactly because of such fortune they were unfortunate. On the other hand, the Gentiles were unfortunate because they were not the chosen people. However, exactly because of such misfortune they became fortunate.
Ro 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Ro 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;
Did God set a trap for the Israelites so they cannot be saved at all? No. The Israelites like everyone else had a free choice. Among them, there were those who were firstborns not only in the flesh, but also in the spirit (Ro 4:16), to whom the blessings did not become a stumbling block! In the same manner, there are those who were born talented and gifted, but cherished such talents and gifts instead of misusing the same. They were grateful and used all gifts and talents endowed by God in caution to glorify God and benefit others. Such people were just like those saved out of the Israelites, who were but a remnant out of the multitudes, which were as many as the sands of the sea. They were the fortunate out of the unfortunate.
In terms of the flesh, most of the Israelites were unfortunate, who were the firstborn that failed to cherish the blessing, as were prefigured by Esau. The chosen of the Gentiles were the younger son that cherished and sought the blessing, as were prefigured by Jacob. In terms of the spirit, all the faithful, whether of the Israelites or of the Gentiles, were the younger son blessed out of his deprivation prefigured by Jacob; on the other hand, all the unfaithful, whether of the Israelites or of the Gentiles, were the firstborn cursed out of his blessing as were prefigured by Esau.
In this world, the unfaithful appear to have received more blessings, obtained benefits and prospered, but failing to cherish their blessing, they let go of the eternal blessing for the ephemeral benefits of this life. On the contrary, in this world the faithful, who are Jacob in God’s eye and therefore receives the greater love from God, appear to be the deprived and the unfortunate.
1C 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
1C 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1C 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1C 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
The “weak”, the “foolish”, the “despised” and “which are not” are Jacob, in other words the righteous.
The “mighty”, the “wise”, the “noble” and “things that are” are Esau, in other words the sinners.
Is God then prejudiced against those who are mighty, rich or wise? Are they not able to be saved? I note that the Bible never said “impossible”, but only said “not many”. Can Esau turn into Jacob? Yes! If he humbles himself, he will be the same as Jacob and be called “Israel”.
Ja 1:9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
Ja 1:10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.
Ja 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.
Two Kinds of Vessels
A popular theology today renders a fatalistic interpretation to “fitted to destruction” and “afore prepared unto glory” (Ro 9:22-23). Reading the relevant verses in context pursuant to the principle that “the Scripture interprets itself”, and referring to the original Greek text, we find abundant reasons to reject such fatalistic determinism.
Ro 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Ro 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Ro 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Ro 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Ro 9:26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
The “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” refers to the Israelites that refuse to repent and are thus not saved. However, the membership of the group is dynamic. The term “fitted to destruction” describes a principle of selection, but not the unchangeable fate of those persons. Once a person of the group repents and turns to God, he becomes a vessel “afore prepared unto glory”. The original Greek word that is translated into “fitted” does not have a connotation of fatalism, either.
The original Greek word for “fitted” is katertismena, meaning “having been adapted” in Ro 9:22. The meaning of the root for the word is “to complete thoroughly, repair or adjust” (Strong’s Concordance number G2675). Variations from the same root appear in several places in the New Testament. As all these variations fall under the same Strong’s Concordance number, their meanings are derived from the same root and are closely related.
For example, in Lk 6:40 “[t]he disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master”, the phrase “is perfect” is translated from katertismenos, a variation under G2675. Another example is Ga 6:1 “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted”. Here the word “restore” is translated from katartizete, another variation under G2675. The variation in neither of the circumstances features a fatalistic connotation.
These and other variations under G2675 also appear in the following verses, in none of which they are used with a fatalistic connotation:
·Mt 4:21, meaning “to mend a fishing net”;
·Mt 21:16, meaning “to be perfected”;
·Mk 1:19, meaning “to mend a fishing net”;
·1 C 1:10, meaning “to be perfectly joined together;
·2 C 13:11, meaning “to perfect”;
·1 Th 3:10, meaning “to perfect”;
·Hb 10:5, meaning “to prepare”;
·Hb 11:3, meaning “to be framed”;
·Hb 13:21, meaning “to make perfect”;
·1 Pt 5:10, meaning “to make perfect”.
As for the word “prepared” in the phrase “afore prepared unto glory”, the original Greek word is proetoimasen, meaning “making ready beforehand”. The meaning of the root for the word is “to fit up in advance” (Strong’s Concordance number G4282). Another place in the Bible where proetoimasen appears is Eph 2:10 “[f]or we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”, in which it is translated into the phrase “hath before ordained”. There is no apparent fatalistic connotation in the word. My understanding here is that, just like the word “fitted” discussed above, the word “prepared” describes a principle of selection instead of an unchangeable fate as well, and that the vessels “afore prepared unto glory” are a changing group of people.
Therefore, as I understand, a vessel “fitted to destruction” may turn into a vessel “afore prepared unto glory” by repentance.
The context in the Book of Romans supports my understanding instead of a fatalistic reading.
First, nowhere in the Book of Romans is it said that those vessels were “fitted to destruction” or “afore prepared unto glory” before the founding of the world. There is no indication of time in Ro 9:22 at all for the act of fitting “to destruction”. In Ro 9:23 it is said that God “had afore prepared unto glory” some of the vessels, but if you read the whole verse of Ro 9:23, it is quite clear that such act of “preparing” only needs to take place before God’s “making known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy”. Therefore the analogy of the two types of vessels cannot be used as support for the fatalistic reading, according to which the fate of a vessel is determined before the creation of the world. Similarly, the word “us” in Eph 1:4, which is stated to have been chosen by God before the foundation of the earth, refers to “the Church” elected according to the principle of the saving faith. What was predestined before the creation was a principle that “we [the church] should be holy and without blame before Him.” The act of predestination in Ro 8:29“predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son” takes place before the sanctification of each individual believer, but not before the creation of the world, because this verse simply does not say that it takes place before the creation of the world.
Second, from the earlier verses in Romans chapter 9 one can readily see that the “vessels fitted to destruction” refers to those Israelites that were not really of Israel (Ro 9:6) who refused to believe in God. Were these people unable to be saved in any case? No, Paul said that they still had a chance to be saved!
Ro 10:1 . Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Ro 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.
Indeed, Paul harboured hopes that they might be saved. And not only hopes, but Paul had reassurance that God would save them if they repented, and there would be salvation for all the remnants of the Israel in the end.
Ro 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
(Note that this verse is quoted from Isaiah 59:20 “’The Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,’ Says the Lord”. And those who refuse to believe in the Lord are not counted as Israelites according to Romans2:28-29, 9:6)
If “vessels fitted to destruction” cannot be turned into vessels “afore prepared unto glory” in any case, how can the above-said repentance and salvation take place?
Third, a fatalistic reading simply does not reconcile with Paul’s own conclusive remarks for chapter 9 (Ro 9:30-32). Here he said that those Israelites failed in their seeking for God because they did so by work but not by faith. If Paul’s conviction were that these people failed because God had determined from the beginning that they could not be saved at all, therefore they could not believe in any case, why would not he just say so? Does it matter at all whether they believed or not, if God made it impossible for them to believe?
My understanding is also supported by God’s nature. Remember that it is the same God who claims “let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Mt 5:37), and the same God in whom there is no unrighteousness (Jn 7:18). God “endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Ro 9:22). If the phrase “fitted to destruction” describes an unchangeable fate instead of a principle of selection, God’s endurance with long suffering will be nothing but hypocrisy, and totally meaningless, as it does not change anything.
In summary, fatalism has no place in the interpretation of Ro 9:22-23. God endures with long suffering to wait for the sinners, in other words the “vessels fitted to destruction”, to repent and come back to him and thereby become the vessels “afore prepared unto glory”. This is exactly in line with Jesus’ central message to the world: “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 4:17).
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活
以下是希腊文关键字研究之“拣选”（中文版请稍候）
Many interpret the word “Election” in Ro 9:11 (“For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth”) as “predestination by God as for who will go to heaven and who will go to hell). Is that interpretation correct?
To help us understand the word “election” in Ro 9:11, we first take a look at the use of “election” in other parts of the Bible. We notice that the same word has been used to refer to choice for a variety of purposes, which are not necessarily about who may go to heaven and who has to go to hell. The word “election” itself does not comprise the purpose of election. Such purpose is decided by the context.
The Greek word for “election” is eklogEn, Strong’s note G1589, which is derived from eklegomai or ekloge, Strong’s note G1586. Serving different grammatical functions, these words and their derivatives have the same basic meaning, and may be translated as “election”, “choice”, “choose” or “chosen”. We list a few examples below:
Ac 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel (eklogEs G1589) unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice (exelexato G1586) among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
In both verses above, Paul is “chosen” by God for a certain mission, to testify for God before the Gentiles, the kings as well as Israelites.
Ac 15:22 . Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen (exelexamenous G1586) men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Here Judas and Silas were chosen by the leaders of the church in Jerusalem for a particular task, that they bring the message of the church in Jerusalem to the brother church in Antioch.
Ac 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose (exelexanto G1586) Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Here the church of Jerusalem chose seven men for the offices of deacons.
Lk 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen (exelexato G1586) that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
Here Mary of Bethany has chosen the good part of learning God’s word.
Lk 6:13 And when it was day, he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose (exelexamenos G1586) twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Here Jesus chose His twelve apostles.
Jn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen (exelexamEn G1586) you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
This verse is also regarding Jesus’ choice of apostles. But we need to note that Jesus is saying apostleship is NOT guarantee for heaven: one of the apostles, Judas, is a devil.
Ac 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose (exelexato G1586) our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it.
Here we are looking at God’s election of the people of Israel as His people. However, it is definitely not a guarantee that all the “elected” Israelites are saved, because the following verses talk about God suffering their disobedience (Ac 13:18). The “election” here covers all Israelites, faithful and unfaithful.
Coming back to Ro 9:11, what does the “election” in this verse mean?
The answer lies in Ro 9:12-13:
Ro 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
God’s command here is that Esau the older son shall serve Jacob the younger son. As we understand there are two levels of meaning in this command. First, we know that for true followers of the Christ: Mt 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. The older son, who has the right to inherit the father’s estate and is thus the leader over his younger brother, should love his younger brother and serve him. However, if the older refuses to comply with God’s order and thus rejects God, he will still be “serving” the younger in a spiritual sense. In Esau and Jacob’s case, Esau had everything (right of the first born, superior strength and hunting skill, favor of the father Issac), but because of his wealth of advantages, he took those advantages for granted and took his relationship with God lightly and despised the blessings, therefore turned his back to God. Then the blessings Esau got turned into a stumbling block for him.
On the other hand, Jacob, who had little, was drawn to the one true God instead. His deprivation became an impetus for Jacob to desire and seek God’s blessings and God Himself. (1 Corinthians 1:26-30)
How did God “love” Jacob and hate “Esau”? As we have discussed, “hate” may simply mean “love less”. One example is Lk 14:26: “If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”. Here “hate” means “love less”. How then did God love Jacob more than Esau? Our understanding is by giving Esau all those advantages while depriving Jacob of the same. Those who have much tend to take what they have for granted and become proud, to the extent that they turn away from God. On the other hand, those who have little may be compelled to call on God and thereby come to know Him.
Paul mentions Esau in Romans 9 together with the nation of Israel because they share something in common. What happened here to Esau the first born also happened to the nation of Israel, who are God’s firstborn (Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn). The Jewish people despised God’s blessings by rejecting Jesus (as well as the law and the prophets). They took all the blessings for granted and turned away from God. In a sense, one may say that God “hate” them by giving them their privilege of the firstborn, so that the privilege became a stumbling block for them. However, this “hate” does not mean a destiny of destruction or abandonment by God. In Chapter 11 it says that the nation of Israelites still have the chance to repent and turn back to God.
以下是希腊文关键字研究之“拣选”（中文版请稍候）
The word of “election” in Greek
Many interpret the word “Election” in Ro 9:11 (“For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth”) as “predestination by God as for who will go to heaven and who will go to hell). Is that interpretation correct?
To help us understand the word “election” in Ro 9:11, we first take a look at the use of “election” in other parts of the Bible. We notice that the same word has been used to refer to choice for a variety of purposes, which are not necessarily about who may go to heaven and who has to go to hell. The word “election” itself does not comprise the purpose of election. Such purpose is decided by the context.
The Greek word for “election” is eklogEn, Strong’s note G1589, which is derived from eklegomai or ekloge, Strong’s note G1586. Serving different grammatical functions, these words and their derivatives have the same basic meaning, and may be translated as “election”, “choice”, “choose” or “chosen”. We list a few examples below:
Ac 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel (eklogEs G1589) unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice (exelexato G1586) among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
In both verses above, Paul is “chosen” by God for a certain mission, to testify for God before the Gentiles, the kings as well as Israelites.
Ac 15:22 . Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen (exelexamenous G1586) men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Here Judas and Silas were chosen by the leaders of the church in Jerusalem for a particular task, that they bring the message of the church in Jerusalem to the brother church in Antioch.
Ac 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose (exelexanto G1586) Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Here the church of Jerusalem chose seven men for the offices of deacons.
Lk 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen (exelexato G1586) that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
Here Mary of Bethany has chosen the good part of learning God’s word.
Lk 6:13 And when it was day, he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose (exelexamenos G1586) twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Here Jesus chose His twelve apostles.
Jn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen (exelexamEn G1586) you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
This verse is also regarding Jesus’ choice of apostles. But we need to note that Jesus is saying apostleship is NOT guarantee for heaven: one of the apostles, Judas, is a devil.
Ac 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose (exelexato G1586) our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it.
Here we are looking at God’s election of the people of Israel as His people. However, it is definitely not a guarantee that all the “elected” Israelites are saved, because the following verses talk about God suffering their disobedience (Ac 13:18). The “election” here covers all Israelites, faithful and unfaithful.
Coming back to Ro 9:11, what does the “election” in this verse mean?
The answer lies in Ro 9:12-13:
Ro 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
God’s command here is that Esau the older son shall serve Jacob the younger son. As we understand there are two levels of meaning in this command. First, we know that for true followers of the Christ: Mt 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. The older son, who has the right to inherit the father’s estate and is thus the leader over his younger brother, should love his younger brother and serve him. However, if the older refuses to comply with God’s order and thus rejects God, he will still be “serving” the younger in a spiritual sense. In Esau and Jacob’s case, Esau had everything (right of the first born, superior strength and hunting skill, favor of the father Issac), but because of his wealth of advantages, he took those advantages for granted and took his relationship with God lightly and despised the blessings, therefore turned his back to God. Then the blessings Esau got turned into a stumbling block for him.
On the other hand, Jacob, who had little, was drawn to the one true God instead. His deprivation became an impetus for Jacob to desire and seek God’s blessings and God Himself. (1 Corinthians 1:26-30)
How did God “love” Jacob and hate “Esau”? As we have discussed, “hate” may simply mean “love less”. One example is Lk 14:26: “If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”. Here “hate” means “love less”. How then did God love Jacob more than Esau? Our understanding is by giving Esau all those advantages while depriving Jacob of the same. Those who have much tend to take what they have for granted and become proud, to the extent that they turn away from God. On the other hand, those who have little may be compelled to call on God and thereby come to know Him.
Paul mentions Esau in Romans 9 together with the nation of Israel because they share something in common. What happened here to Esau the first born also happened to the nation of Israel, who are God’s firstborn (Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn). The Jewish people despised God’s blessings by rejecting Jesus (as well as the law and the prophets). They took all the blessings for granted and turned away from God. In a sense, one may say that God “hate” them by giving them their privilege of the firstborn, so that the privilege became a stumbling block for them. However, this “hate” does not mean a destiny of destruction or abandonment by God. In Chapter 11 it says that the nation of Israelites still have the chance to repent and turn back to God.
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活
神的儿女都是金银宝石，神说他们是活石。我喜欢收集石头。我自己跟生物学家到BC的玉矿、宝石沙滩去拣石头，当然都是没磨过的。我赤着脚在河边的石滩拣石头，五颜六色的石头中真正的玉石和宝石并不多，但当你发现一块时就会非常惊喜。我看着这些宝石就想到神的儿女，他们在神眼中多么珍贵啊。我也收集一些磨过的石头，想到神的儿女经过磨练也会散发出奇异的光彩，我就特别感恩。每颗宝石都不一样。当我遇到一个真正的基督徒，看到他们身上基督的光辉，我就想“这又是一块宝石！”
按比例来说是不多，但按数量来说也不少。我很渺小，一辈子也只能认识几百号人，我也只能活几十年，能计算的范围也很有限啊。你用实用主义的角度分析基督信仰是不管用的。
神的儿女都是金银宝石，神说他们是活石。我喜欢收集石头。我自己跟生物学家到BC的玉矿、宝石沙滩去拣石头，当然都是没磨过的。我赤着脚在河边的石滩拣石头，五颜六色的石头中真正的玉石和宝石并不多，但当你发现一块时就会非常惊喜。我看着这些宝石就想到神的儿女，他们在神眼中多么珍贵啊。我也收集一些磨过的石头，想到神的儿女经过磨练也会散发出奇异的光彩，我就特别感恩。每颗宝石都不一样。当我遇到一个真正的基督徒，看到他们身上基督的光辉，我就想“这又是一块宝石！”
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活
他没有控制人，你可以选择相信或不信。他没有注定说只能有375人得救。他说天堂是窄门是基于对人性和历史的了解，这是他的叹息，而非他的意愿。他希望人人都得救，这跟智商无关，是跟内心有关。不要把责任都推给上帝。我不是加尔文主义者，我反对宿命论。上帝没有控制你的大脑和内心，他出让了决定权。他决定：信不信他，让你自己决定。我这一系列“神之爱与拣选”就是着重分析自由意志和预定论。
Similar threads
22 天前有新回复
全楼:0.02
Saint.Saens
