What does Paul say in Romans 9:13?
καθὼς γέγραπται Τὸν· Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα.
What is a strictly literal translation of these words?
Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated.” See a full translation of Romans 9 here.
How can these words be paraphrased?
On the contrary [i.e. the idea that God chooses people because they are good], God tells us the simple truth that He loved Jacob and hated Esau, and this is the reason Jacob is counted among the people of God and Esau is not. No other reason is given us for this choice other than God’s perfect sovereignty. You can read this in the prophet Malachi:
The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” Though Edom says, “We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins”; thus says the LORD of hosts, “They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever.” Your eyes will see this and you will say, “The LORD be magnified beyond the border of Israel!” (Malachi 1:1-5)
What are the issues one must face in trying to understand Paul’s meaning here?
First, is the question of the objects of God’s love and hatred here.
Second, is the nature of God’s hatred.
The Meaning of Hated
Start with the second. What does Paul mean here by hate?
In the Bible, to hate is often used as we use it, i.e. a strong animosity and hostility towards someone and a wish for evil to come down on such a person. (Matthew 10:22; 24:9)
How do the biblical authors use this term?
The Bible authors often use the figure of speech known as hyperbole. The author creates a certain meaning by enlarging and expanding the idea far beyond what is strictly true. By this figure, the author is able to create an emotional impact by the use of this figure. Bullinger lists (p423) many examples. This is also true for the word hate.
How so?
Consider these examples:
- Jacob did not hate Leah in the usual sense of hate. Instead, he passed her by in favor of Rachel. (Genesis 29:30-31)
- In Moses’ law, God speaks of a man having two wives, the one loved and the other hated. (Deuteronomy 21:15) Clearly, the meaning is that he prefers the one to the other, not that he actually hates the other.
- When Jesus says that no one can serve two masters for he will love one and hate the other (Matthew 6:24), He does not mean to say that one of the masters would be actually hated. This kind of hate is condemned by Jesus as sinful. (Matthew 5:22) The meaning is that he will prefer the one to the other.
- Finally, Jesus surely did not suggest that hating ones father and mother (Exodus 20:12) was the right thing to do in order to follow Him. (Luke 14:26) Rather, this is explained in Matthew 10:37 as loving Jesus more than father and mother, son or daughter.
From this, we understand that hate in the Bible often has the meaning of passing over someone in preference for another.
How does that apply to our passage?
Some have suggested that we should understand Paul’s language of hate here in this softened way; I.e. that God chose Jacob over Esau and thus passed over Esau. Paul calls this passing over Esau as “Esau have I hated.” Calvin, for instance, writes (p352) this way:
Then this testimony of the prophet shows the reason why the Lord conferred on Jacob the primogeniture: and it is taken from the first chapter of Malachi, where the Lord, reproaching the Jews for their ingratitude, mentions his former kindness to them,—“I have loved you,” he says; and then he refers to the origin of his love,—“Was not Esau the brother of Jacob?” as though he said,—“What privilege had he, that I should prefer him to his brother? None whatever. It was indeed an equal right, except that by the law of nature the younger ought to have served the elder; I yet chose the one, and rejected the other; and I was thus led by my mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works. I therefore chose you for my people, that I might show the same kindness to the seed of Jacob; but I rejected the Edomites, the progeny of Esau. Ye are then so much the worse, inasmuch as the remembrance of so great a favour cannot stimulate you to adore my majesty.
Also John Gill (p526):
…and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God’s will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, when he chose others; so the word “hate” is used for neglect, taking no notice, where positive hatred cannot be thought to take place, in Luke 14:26.
and William Perkins:
First of all, in Scripture, hatred sometimes signifies a denial of love and mercy, as when it is said that he which will follow Christ “must hate father and mother” [Luke 14:26]—that is neglect them or not love them in respect of Christ. In this sense, hatred agrees to God. For He is said to love Jacob and to hate Esau [Romans 9:13]—that is, not to love Easu with that love wherewith He loved Jacob. Works 6.435
Do some object to this understanding of the word hate?
Yes, some have noted that Paul is quoting from the prophet Malachi and that the context of this quote does not sound like mere preference of Jacob over Esau. It sounds much more like God’s wrath and displeasure and actual hatred of evil.
What is the context?
Malachi speaks of God making Esau’s mountains a desolation and appointing his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness. YHWH, the commander of heaven’s army, announces, “They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever. Your eyes will see this and you will say, ‘The LORD be magnified beyond the border of Israel!’” (Malachi 1:1-5)
The Objects of God’s Love & Hatred
Explain the point of contention here.
Some teach that Paul’s meaning here is to explain that God has chosen certain nations to receive the privilege of gospel preaching. Thus, Paul is not speaking of the salvation of individuals but the gospel privileges of certain nations. Bloomfield writes (p694):
For it is to be remembered, that this whole passage does not treat of what we call the eternal salvation of individuals, but of the calling and invitation of both the Jewish and the other nations of the universe to the benefits of the Messiah’s religion. And since, indeed, this invitation does not necessarily either make every one invited (as the Jews all and each) possessor of eternal salvation, or cause the non-invited (as the Heathens, without a revealed religion) to lose, and miss of eternal felicity; hence, also, it is apparent (as we have already proved in another observation) that this passage cannot be employed either to defend or to impugn any absolute decree of God concerning the eternal salvation of individuals.
How can this question be decided?
Note how badly this understanding of Paul fits with the question the Jews are raising here. Imagine the following conversation:
Jewish-Christian named Miriam: Good evening, Paul. I am sorry to say that I am in deep distress.
Paul: I’m sorry to hear it. How can I help?
Miriam: I am struggling with the Jewish question again. I just don’t understand how God can have made all these promises to the Jewish people, and yet the vast majority of them are perishing in unbelief.
Paul: Yes, it causes me terrible anguish as well. (Romans 9:2-5) I wish it weren’t so.
Miriam: But my distress is deepened by the thought that God made these promises and has failed to keep them. Why would God make these promises and then back out? Why would He abandon His people like this? I confess, I am tempted to think less of God’s goodness and power as a result. This is what causes me the most anguish.
Paul: Let me help you understand this, my friend. The first thing we have to consider is to whom God made these promises.
Miriam: He made them to all the descendants of Abraham.
Paul: Think again about that, Miriam. Wasn’t Ishmael one of God’s people?
Miriam: Certainly not.
Paul: Why not? He had Abraham as his father.
Miriam: True, but he was the son of Hagar, not Sarah.
Paul: Ok…but what about Esau? Is he part of God’s people?
Miriam: Certainly not, and I see where you’re going with this.
Paul: I am glad you’re seeing this. Esau was also a descendant of Abraham.
Miriam: So now I’m confused; to whom did God make all these promises?
Paul: God made these promises to His people.
Miriam: Yes, I agree but who are God’s people if they are not the descendants of Abraham?
Paul: Yes, that is the question. I’ll answer that first from God’s perspective; then from ours.
Miriam: Fine, start with God’s perspective.
Paul: God’s people are those whom He chosen in eternity past to be conformed to the image of Christ. (Romans 8:29)
Miriam: Yes, I can see that and I can accept this. God is the great Sovereign King over heaven and earth. Some of my friends don’t think this is very fair though.
Paul: Yes, there have always been people who have questioned God’s right to do what He will with the creatures He created.
Miriam: Now answer the question from our perspective.
Paul: Well from our perspective, admittance to the circle of the people of God depends on what we have done with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Miriam: Ah, I know this! The gospel is the call of God to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and to believe in our heart that God raised Him from the dead. (Romans 10:8-10)
Paul: Exactly!
Miriam: So then I guess you are going to say that anyone who has this faith and this confession is one of God’s people.
Paul: Yes, right again, and it is to these people, that God has made the promise of eternal salvation.
Miriam: So we can say that the reason so many Jewish people are not enjoying the blessings of God’s covenant promises is that they were not chosen by God (Romans 9) and second, that they do not confess that Jesus is Lord. (Romans 10) Is that right?
Paul: Yes, that is exactly right.
Miriam: May we also conclude then that those who have this faith and this confession are those whom God has chosen to eternal life?
Paul: Yes, that is right. It is the only way we can know our election (2 Peter 1:10) since we are not able to read God’s book of life. (Psalm 69:28; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27)
Now suppose that Paul had responded to Miriam by noting that God had chosen Israel for special privileges and to hear the call and offer of the gospel. This would not have answered her question at all! In fact, that is her question; if God has chosen Israel, then why are so many of them perishing in unbelief.