God has No Favorites…

…or does He?

The other day I made what I thought at the time was a fairly innocuous statement – that “God has no favorites” – which led to a very respectful but divergent interchange. It was made in the context of my recognizing the importance of prayer. Another commentor wrote a reply that agreed with the importance of prayer but expressed some wonder regarding my statement about “no favorites”, referencing the verses that specifically call out the quote “Jacob have I loved and Esau I have hated”.

I then realized that I had so completely reconciled that statement in my understanding of God and His Word, that I made the erroneous assumption that everyone had. And so I touched on my belief (without support) and encouraged us all as followers of Jesus to search out that matter. One of this blogs faithful readers took my encouragement seriously and noted that she “looks forward to that post”…and so here it is!

In order to address this sensitive topic, I will take the first bit of time and space laying out two specific foundational doctrines, I will then provide a high level review of the history of Esau and Jacob, and then finish by going over the two specific passages where that statement is made, addressing their purpose, context and what I believe to be their congruence with my assertion that God has no favorites.

As we begin to look at the foundational doctrines, it will be helpful for me to address a resource that I use that has proven extremely helpful, especially in understanding Old Testament stories and their underlying implications.

The resource is the combined works of Martin Anstey and Philip Mauro that address directly from the Bible the chronology of events from creation to the ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Their research and the resources they have provided are both seminal and practical. Mauro’s “The Wonders of Bible Chronology” boils down hundreds of pages of research into graphs and tables, with commentary, that provide significant confidence in the congruence and authority of God’s own words on the subject of time.

This will be highlighted as we look into Malachi’s (or more appropriately “My messenger’s”) oracle specifically, but also provides an underlying confidence in any study that takes me into the Old Testament in particular.

FOUNDATIONAL DOCTRINES - One

“God, Who lives in the Eternal Now, chooses to interact with Mankind within the confines and language of time.”

God Is. God Always has Been. God Always will Be and there is no “shadow of turning”, no adjustments, no learning, no becoming, in God.

Even in the saying of that Truth, for many of us, there are ripples or waves or breakers or even tsunamis of questions and perceived exceptions – some we can even find in God’s word itself. For we are told that “He repented” or turned back; that He asked questions that sound like a search for knowledge; that He feels emotions – and we reflect on the circumstances of our own lives that produce those attitudes and thoughts and actions in ourselves and we assume that somehow, He is our equal. But out of the mouth of Balaam – the man whose donkey spoke to him, “…God is not a man that He should lie, or the son of a man that He should repent…” (Numbers 23:19ff).

We, as Mankind, face a dilemma. We either come to God with the confidence that He is (meaning that He is and always has been Himself) and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him, who inquire after Him (Heb.11:6); or not all. In other words – we are allowed to ask questions and will actually be compensated (rewarded) for doing so, as long as we have confidence in His immutability; His unchanging Nature and Character.

God being eternal – taken alone, for the sole purpose of understanding our inherent limitations – is truly incomprehensible.

I will try to give an example. Mathematicians, when considering real numbers (“real”, I think, meaning real people can understand them), use the term “approaching infinity” (just don’t ask a mathematician to explain what is meant by saying that unless you have plenty of time): real numbers are approaching infinity but are not infinite. In a very practical way, that statement hits our brains very much like the idea of “eternity” does.

We cannot help ourselves but to try to add or subtract an integer from it – mentally extending the line that contains all the numbers before it “forever”. The “line” in our visualization actually becomes the representation of the numbers. But the numbers are not the line, the line is a construct that allows us to perceive the infinitely (or approaching infinity) extensive order of counting.

If I may expand the idea even deeper: in advanced mathematics the distance between any two integers – let’s say “1” and “2” – also approaches infinity. The “distance” between “1” and “2” goes on “forever” by simply adding another “1” directly to the right of the decimal point (1.1, 1.11, 1.111, etc.) this prevents us from ever getting to “2”…and in fact prevents us from ever getting to “1.2”.

I think you get my point.

To our brains “eternity” is the absurdity of the approaching infinite numbers between something as easily perceived as “1” and “2” but extended three-dimensionally in all directions at once (as opposed to along the single, approaching infinite, straight line that our brains “visualize” when we are counting). This dynamic regarding the eternal, results in our applying conventions that we tell ourselves are “simply for convenience and should not be granted too much substance” as we ponder the wonderment of God.

As a practical example we can look at Moses’ first direct encounter with God. Moses was eventually enlisted by God to write the revelation of God found in Genesis, as well as the early history of the sons of Israel as they are prepared by God to fulfill the covenant He had made with Abraham. In chapter 3 of Exodus, he describes his first meeting with God.

While shepherding his father-in-law’s flock a fair distance from their tents (which, we see in our readings of Genesis, was a common practice in that era) Moses finds himself on the west side of the wilderness, near mount Horeb – what is later referred to as the mountain of God, as well as Mt. Sinai. We are told, in Moses’ recounting of the experience, that the messenger of YHVH becomes visible to him in the appearance of a bush (possible a blackberry bush) that is a blazing fire – looking almost like the blade of a sword that is burning. He was struck, as he looked at the blaze, by the fact that though burning, the bush was not being consumed by the flames. So marvelous was the sight of it that Moses began to draw closer, muttering to himself (or maybe to his sheep) that he must turn aside and examine the wonder.

We are then told: “When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look…”

I am pausing here to call out the example of this doctrine – it reads as if, in the confines of time, the Lord came to know something: that “Moses turned aside”. And within the confines of time, the miracle of God choosing to interact with His creation directly (as epitomized by the incarnation and life and death of Jesus Christ our Lord), this is an accurate portrayal. But that does not supersede or circumvent the truth that God – Who is Always, Everywhere, All at Once – knew what Moses would do.

I belabor this because: we should not be so hard on ourselves when we run head long (or maybe just gently bump into) the idea of the eternal and infinite nature of God and find that we can hardly contain its implications.

God surely understands our challenge – of course He does. Therefore, His understanding leads Him to use language that fits into our finite perceptions of space and existence and activity. (By the way, I leave “time” out of this explanation on purpose – we are told that there is an end to time (Daniel 12:4) and, instead, we are told of life without day or night (Rev.21:23; 22:5-6). But we are shown at the end of time, after the end of the week of Redemption, the continuation of space and activities and existence.)

In His kindness, God goes so far in His efforts to relate with us as to become a man – to interact with His creation so directly, within the confines of time, that He becomes, at least in part, subject to the passing of time. I consider this particular miracle to be one of the greatest and I see it as a part of the Everlasting Covenant (which I have addressed elsewhere in my endeavor to explain its wonders).

FOUNDATIONAL DOCTRINES - Two

“God desires to share the Eternity-After with all who choose to accept His invitation.”

For God so loved the created order that He gave His only begotten, that whoever believes in Who He is will not perish but will spend eternity with Him. This is the means by which God will share the Eternity-After with us; and His sharing is a much deeper truth than us just being there.

This well-known promise also clearly defines the range of those to whom it applies: whoever!

To God there is only one difference that matters and it isn’t race or gender or social status or age or heritage or the language someone speaks. All that differentiates one from the other, in His plan, is whether or not a person has accepted the ransom price that Jesus paid – this is symbolized and epitomized by one’s name being written in the Book of Life.

This universal love of Mankind is founded in His desire to create us in His Image and Likeness in the first place. And by the sacrifice He was willing to make in order for the creative act to even take place. We were given the ability to choose in order to allow us to be made fit (see Romans 12:2) to share eternity with Him, being in His Image and Likeness means just that – that we can choose.

But this universal truth can get lost over the course of the history of Mankind because we misunderstand how He has chosen to speak to us during the timing of His Plan. Just as there was a week of creation, so too has He defined a week of Redemption (the means of Mankind’s preparation to share eternity). By the will of God, the week of Redemption was divided into three distinct Ages; each with its own language and proofs and witness and anchoring – and each lasting roughly two days of the Lord (thousand year-long “days”). Each Age was intended to provide special and specific insight to His eternal creatures that will give them the means to better understand and know and trust Him. (See 2Peter 3:1-13)

In the age when promises and covenants were the language He used, we are given many confirmations of this doctrine. (And though we see it first with Noah, after the flood, it is given to him in the language of Creation, since that was the language of those first two thousand years.) Abraham was told multiple times that from his children all nations of the earth will be blessed.

And though that was ultimately pointing to Christ; Abraham, as the “father of all who believe”, and his children after him were commissioned by God to accomplish that in their time as well. When the children of Jacob were rescued from Egypt (right on schedule by the way, for God had told Abraham of the delay that would result because He was working on the Amorites – see Gen.15:16) and met with God – His first declaration on the mount of God was that He wanted them to be a Holy Nation in order to bless all the peoples, “for all the earth is Mine”.

I will leave this here for now, in part because the vastness of the doctrine forces me to be reductive, but also because some of the basics will be reinforced as we review the specific history of Esau and Jacob.

THE TWIN SONS OF ISAAC – HEIR OF THE PROMISE

I will start with a quick rundown of the chronology. Abram was born about 2000 years after creation and about 350 years after the flood. Noah died just two years before Abram was born. Abram was 100 years old when Isaac was born. Esau and Jacob were born when Isaac was 60 years old or about 510 years after the flood. Esau marries when the twins are 40 years old; Jacob does not leave for Paddan Aram until he is 77. So the story of the betrayal of Esau occurs when Isaac is 137 (he lives to be 180). (Any Bible stories that portray Esau and Jacob as young men might need to be revised!)

There was an immediate difference noticed between the twins, Esau was an outdoorsman and hunter (loved by his father) and Jacob was more of a thinker and planner who stayed in the tent (loved by his mother). The events of their lives (specifically their interactions) are covered in chapters 25, 27-28, 32-33 of Genesis.

[One of the miracles of the history of the Bible is that the line of succession from Adam to Jesus was catalogued in detail. In fact, the names of those in that line are not necessarily the names of the oldest born sons and yet Moses was inspired to trace them out – which by itself is suggestive of God’s hands on the writings very early on! That said, it was unusual for a detailed accounting of a line to be provided of one that was not in that of Christ’s, and yet Esau’s detailed linage is given by God in Genesis 36; that was not only on purpose it was for a purpose. (An abbreviated version is given for Ishmael in Gen.25:12-17.)]

As we remember, Abraham was told by the LORD that in him (meaning from his descendant – the promise of the “seed of the woman” – Gal.316) all the families and nations of the earth will be blessed (Gen.12:3). This promise was confirmed as the Lord spoke to the messengers in Genesis 18:18 regarding the plan the Lord had for Sodom and again after Abraham had proved his trust in God by taking Isaac to Moriah and offering him there. (Isaac heard and understood those words as well.)

As Jacob fled from Esau, after he had received the blessing from their father, he had a dream in which the LORD renewed the covenant of Abraham with Jacob, including the blessing to all nations and families (see Gen.28:13-15). And then after some twenty years Jacob came back with his family.

At their reunion, Esau (who we were told previously had held a grudge against his brother) had run to meet Jacob, embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him and wept. There is no implication of a lingering resentment or blame. They are in their late nineties; both were satisfied and both were blessed. So blessed that Esau chose to relocate to the south lands “because their property had become too great for them to live together…so Esau moved to the hill country of Seir”. By the time Esau “leaves the scene” he and Jacob are at peace as brothers, having together buried their father.

The story of their conflict and of its resolution is actually quite insightful as a lesson in relationships, and specifically of the power of false expectations and the fears that come from them.

In time, Esau’s possession, which was near Mt Seir, was referred to as Edom. As a nation, Edom is named (along with Moab and Ammon) in the song that Moses sang after the sons of Israel were delivered through the Red Sea.

Nearly forty years later, though likely a coincidence, we are told that shortly after smiting the rock (which prevented him from entering the promised land) Moses reaches out to the king of Edom as they cycled their way around the wilderness until their 40 years were up. Moses’ request is that they be allowed to pass through the land of Edom (see Num.20:14-21). The king of Edom denies them access to his lands and even sends out a “strong hand” as a show of force. But God does not allow Moses to engage Edom (though it was commanded when other kings did the same).

Again, maybe coincidentally; immediately after this part of the story occurs, we find Moses and Aaron being told by God that they will not be allowed into the land because of “Meribah” and the smiting of the rock. So in between Moses’ act of anger and the proclamation from God of the price of that act, we have Esau/Edom denying Israel access to their lands as a shortcut in their journey to Mt Hor, without any reprisal.

This aligns with Moses’ retelling of the Law and preparing the people of Israel to finally enter their possession found in Deut.2: 1-8 (it should be noted that Moses refers to Edom as Mount Seir):

“Then we turned and set out for the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea, as the LORD spoke to me, and circled Mount Seir for many days. And the LORD spoke to me, saying, ‘You have circled this mountain long enough. Now turn north, and command the people, saying, “You will pass through the territory of your brothers the sons of Esau who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful; do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, even as little as a footstep because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession. You shall buy food from them with money so that you may eat, and you shall also purchase water from them with money so that you may drink. For the LORD your God has blessed you in all that you have done; He has known your wanderings through this great wilderness. These forty years the LORD your God has been with you; you have not lacked a thing.”’

“So we passed beyond our brothers the sons of Esau, who live in Seir, away from the Arabah road, away from Elath and from Ezion-geber. And we turned and passed through by the way of the wilderness of Moab.” Deut.2:1-8

I take the time to point this history out in order to call attention to what is clearly a level of respect that the Lord is insisting that the sons of Jacob demonstrate to the sons of Esau. And this is some 250 years after the elder brother had settled in the area of Mount Seir.

What we can surmise from extra-biblical history suggests that Edom does become adversarial toward Judah, specifically after David’s expanded kingdom had them as a vassal state. It also suggests that the fulfillment of the prophecies of judgment on Edom/Esau/Mt Seir as a nation likely occurred under King Nabonidus of Babylon (this was Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law and the father of Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon). If this is accurate, Edom was no longer an independent kingdom by the time the Dividing of the Seventy Weeks prophecy was brought by Gabriel to Daniel, from the Lord and therefore before Cyrus’ decree to rebuild was made.

The remnant of the nation of Edom appears to be absorbed into what we know as the Idumea. This seems to have occurred after a war with the Nabateans, during the time between the restoration of the temple and the Roman empire’s domain. It is from Idumea that Antipater (or Antipas) and the line of the Herod’s came. Antipas was originally unwelcomed by the high priest in Jerusalem, at least in part because his wife was likely an Edomite and certainly an Arabian but when Caesar supported Antipas they acquiesced and he was eventually embraced as governor of Judea. (Which meant his son, Herod the Great, as only half Jewish, was also not at first accepted – but that is a different story.)

MALACHI (“My messenger)

And now for the real challenge – the context and purposes of the two books from which we read “I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau.” I will begin with the passage in Malachi.

Since it has been a page or two, let me reiterate that I begin my understanding of both of these passages by accepting (even requiring) that there is no conflict between what I read in them and what I know to be true when it comes to the doctrines of the Eternal Plan of God and His inclusion of all who choose Him, no matter what other distinctions a person may claim. Having said that, I will not expect you as a reader to just trust me.

In the way of background: We know from Jeremiah that both Edom and Judah are included in the Lord’s coming judgment:

“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “that I will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised – Egypt and Judah, and Edom and the sons of Ammon, and Moab and all those inhabiting the desert who clip the hair on their temples, for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.” Jeremiah 9:25-26

It should be noted that the phrases “the days coming” or “the coming days” in Jeremiah and other books of prophecy often speak of Messianic fulfillment and especially of Christ’s second coming. This can certainly be applied to the “cup of the wine of wrath” that Jeremiah is prophetically called to take to the nations (including Judah and Edom, among others) that they might “drink and stagger and go mad” seen in chapter 25:12-38 – a destruction that mirrors Rev. 16 and the pouring out of the wrath of God just before His return.

But why, specifically, is Edom to be punished?

Jeremiah 49:7-22 describes in detail the Lord’s punishment of Edom noting it is for their lack of wisdom. Lam.4:22 assigns His punishment to their iniquities. Ezek.25:12-14 notes that their judgment is due to the vengeance they took on Judah when Judah was troubled and for taking joy in the defeat of Israel, their cousins.

Ezekiel – the prophet that spoke to the people in captivity in Babylon – gives us more clarity as to what Esau/Edom had done:

Because you (Mt Seir) have had everlasting enmity and have delivered the sons of Israel to the power of the sword at the time of their calamity, at the time of the punishment of their iniquity to the end…since you have not hated bloodshed, therefore bloodshed will pursue you. Ezek.35:5-6

He goes on to describe their envy and anger that was the result of their hatred for Judah and that because they reviled Israel, they too will be judged.

Amos speaks of punishment because of Edom/Esau’s transgressions: that with a lack of compassion he pursued his brother (Judah) with the sword; and that his anger and fury were unabated (see Amos 1:11).

Lastly, we have Obadiah’s vision. We learn that their arrogance and their violence toward their brother Jacob would bring them down; that they gloated on the day of Judah’s misfortune and boasted on the day of their distress and so Edom will be cut off.

All of which bring us to Malachi (which some Hebrew scholars see not as the writer’s name but as reference to the word for a messenger). The oracle or burden was written sometime after the people returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, but in all likelihood before the end of the Persian Empire (which Anstey and Mauro place as concurrent with the first 49 years of the division of weeks addressed in Daniel 9:24-27). This would suggest that when this burden was shared, Edom/Esau was already a defeated land (as verse 4 of its first chapter certainly confirms).

The writer poses the question, in response to his own opening declaration of the Lord’s love; “How have You loved us?” and then refers to a deep wound that our quick review of the prophecies indicates – the bitterness of the betrayal that the sons of Jacob held onto, the betrayal by Edom that deepened the punishment of Judah’s exile.

“Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “And I loved Jacob; but I hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and his inheritance – for the desert jackal.” Mal.1:2b-3

The rest of Malachi, what are the last of the Old Testament’s declarations, focuses on the many failings of the people of Israel after their return from captivity. It includes that because of their putrid offerings and their despicable treatment of their families, God would reject their pleas for help. Since they would not acknowledge His sovereignty but instead declare those who do evil to be good and rather than recognize God as their provider, instead complain about their lack – which is caused by their disrespect; God would send the One who will purify, the Messenger of the Covenant.

The last words of the Old Covenants are words of judgment but also words of the promise of Hope. The result of His coming will be the Restoration of all the best promises; promises that have been made but were still unfulfilled, will be realized. The terms and conditions of the law will be fulfilled and the great and terrible day of the Lord will bring the people back to His purposes.

And from all of this I see the Lord’s opening comment in this oracle to be His way of describing the contrast of His dealings, in the language of those to whom He is speaking. The prophets clearly note that Edom was punished for their betrayal; but so were the sons of Jacob. And yet, even after all that they had been through, their attitude toward the Lord was more in line with the son of Isaac who betrayed them, the one whom the Lord hated, than it was with the promises that had been given to Jacob – whom He loved. And it was in that context that the messenger of this oracle made his point; and it was from it that the Lord hoped to stir the people to repentance once again.

ROMANS

As some of you know, I have written a post that goes into detail about the background of the letter to those in Rome. For that reason, though I will cover it at a high level here, I would encourage anyone interested in a more in depth review to take a moment or two to read through it.

The letter to the Roman Christians was likely written from Ephesus at the beginning of Paul’s third missionary journey. It was triggered by two significant events and was unique in a number of ways (one of which was the language Paul used here that is never used elsewhere in the New Testament).

The two triggering events were the encounter he had at Ephesus with some recently converted young men who had come to Christ through the preaching of Apollos – the Greek proselyte from Alexandria – along with the end of the banishment from Rome of those of Jewish heritage that was the result of Claudius’ death and Nero being set in as Emperor.

In the encounter with the young converts (described in Acts 19:1-7) Paul learned that though Apollos was zealous, he had not received teaching that was contemporary with all that had happened since Jesus’ ascension. For that reason Apollos taught only “John’s baptism” – an immersion in water for the cleansing of sins – and was unaware of the Holy Spirit’s outpouring or the implications, for believers, of participating in His death and resurrection (see Romans 6:1-7).

As for the end of the banishment: it just so happened that Aquilla and Priscilla had taken on Apollos as a disciple and they had together gone to Corinth. Aquilla and Priscilla were Jewish converts from Rome and with the end of the banishment, were likely to leave Corinth (either with or without Apollos) to return to the congregation of the Gentile believers they had left five years earlier (they had previously hosted the meetings in their home and they had heard great things about their growing faith).

And so Paul – even though he had never been to Rome and only knew second hand any of the believers there – wrote a treatise to the Gentile believers with the hope that it would encourage the re-assembling of both Jews and Gentiles. His efforts began with the basics of creation and the state of mankind and wove through the need for ransoming and preparation and our eventual redemption – the restoring of our original inheritance.

In the midst of that almost courtroom level provision of evidence, Paul endeavors to describe to the Gentile mind, the value of the Jewish experience to the Christian life. That includes his desire to demonstrate why God needed to have a chosen people to begin with – focusing on both the natural lineage that required a mother in whom the Savior would be conceived and the oracles and writings of the history of God’s interactions with Mankind over the ages of time.

It is fairly early in this section of his epistle that we find the verse of interest. He begins the section with what can only be understood to be a hyperbolic appeal based on his loyalty to his heritage. (By the way, of all of Paul’s writings, it is most important to ignore the insertions of chapters and verses here. His laying down of concepts comes in layers; the duplicators and translators who inserted the breaks, were less concerned about where his thoughts ended than they were about making sure they could manage the quality of their work – which makes sense, as long as we understand it for what it is.) Clearly Paul knew that his “sacrifice of himself” would have no bearing on the individual choice that other Jews must make – but it was important to him that he let the Gentile believers in Rome know how much he cared about the Jews (his brothers of the flesh).

Paul goes from there, right into a brief history of the Israelites; noting in particular the implications of God’s plan preceding the giving of the Law. This point flows from Abraham to Isaac and from Isaac to the twins that are formed in the womb of Rebekah. The high level message that Paul is making in this part of the “case” is that God was selective – that at the end of the line would need to be found a single woman – and that it was a line that God had foreknown. (Because He dwells in the Eternal Now.) To emphasize that point (though as we will see, he will bring the counterpoint as well) Paul says:

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 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 does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. Romans 9:10-18

And so we have Paul, very effectively describing what I called out in the early part of this post – God, who lives in the Eternal Now, interacts with Mankind using language and behaviors that we infer to be bound in time.

Paul continues this part of his treatise, having begun (if you will allow me) on the far right side of the perception of God’s plan. We can see him shifting even in the next few of our verses when he tells the Gentile believers that they “who did not pursue justice attained justice, even the justice which is out of faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of justice, did not arrive at law. Why? Because: not faith, but as though out of works.” (See 9:30-33)

If – as might be inferred from the opening statement from Paul – Man (either Jew or Gentile) did not have a choice, then what would be the need to discuss the act of pursuing (the word is “diōkō” and it means “to put to flight” – it is an aggressive verb) justice/righteousness? And so, what difference would it make if that pursuit was out of faith or out of works?

Paul continues to move to his counterpoint by calling out the Jews’ zeal but noting that it is not founded on the knowledge of the very God they had intended to zealously serve. He then recalls that, if the means to God was one of obedience then all of the law must be obeyed. But if instead, as he insists, it is not of works but of faith then:

“…if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, to justice, and with the mouth he confesses, to salvation. For the scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no difference between Jew and Greek; for the same is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom.10:9-13

And so, it seems to me, by continuing on in the explanation that Paul is making to the disciples of Jesus in Rome (who have spent the last five years without any interaction with those of Jewish heritage), that what began as a declaration of a foreknowledge that required of Man the abstention of choice, leads in the end to the almost opposite conclusion.

It is by our own confession (the word is “homologeō” and it means “to be of one mind, to speak the same, to agree”), our choosing to align our minds with the truth of Christ and to declare that alignment, that we find ourselves in that place of freedom from the price of sin. That though there was, of necessity, an isolation of a single line in order for the Messiah to be born, the broadening out to “all who believe” was required and – by the mercy and forbearance of God – was applied to even those born before Christ (see Rom.3:21-26).

For whom is this wonderous truth made available? To ALL, WHOEVER, the ONE! For to God there is no difference – neither Jew or Greek, male or female, rich or poor, old or young, bound or free, Edomite or Jew.

And so, as I read it: He has no favorites - whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved!