Does God Really Hate Esau?

Many Christians are shocked when they read Romans 9:13: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Since when does the God of love hate people? This verse, coupled with the rest of Romans 9, has led many to believe that God does not love all people, at least with regard to their eternal salvation. He seems to arbitrarily choose some people for salvation and some people for damnation. But must we interpret this verse in that way?

I think the answer is “no.” A more careful reading of this passage indicates that the subject is not individual salvation, but Israel’s national role in redemptive history.

Paul is actually quoting from Mal. 1:2-3, and a reading of those verses in the context of Malachi’s book clearly indicates that Malachi is using the word “Jacob” to refer to the nation of Israel and the word “Esau” to refer to the nation of Edom.

This makes perfect sense because Romans 9, 10, and 11 are all about national Israel and her role in redemptive history. Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past, Romans 10 refers to her present, and Romans 11 refers to her future.

It is a serious exegetical mistake to interpret Romans 9 to be referring to individuals’ salvation. According to Norman Geisler, “the election of the nation was temporal, not eternal; that is, Israel was chosen as a national channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation through Christ would come to all people (cf. Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 9:4–5). Not every individual in Israel was elected to be saved (9:6).”

God works through nations to accomplish his will, just as he works through individuals. Just because Israel was the chosen nation to bring forth the Messiah did not mean that every Israelite would be individually saved. Individual salvation has never been and will never be based on a person’s nationality. Paul is talking about the nation of Israel in Romans 9, not individual salvation.

Finally, it is also important to explain that the word used for “hate” in Malachi 1 is a Hebrew idiom which actually means to “love less.” Norman Geisler explains: “This is evident from Genesis 29:30: The phrase ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ is used as the equivalent of ‘Leah was hated’ (cf. also Matt. 10:37).”

God does not hate anyone, but he does bless some nations more than others.

Tags: apostle Paul, Christianity, election, Esau, God, Israel, Jacob, Malachi 1, Religion, Romans 9, Salvation

This entry was posted by Bill Pratt on Monday, May 25th, 2009 at 4:54 pm and is filed under Books of the Bible, Salvation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Bill Pratt

Comments

http://timothyfarley.wordpress.com Tim Farley

Bill:

I am curious, since you believe the context of Romans 9 calls for “Jacob” and “Esau” to be interpreted as nations rather than individuals, what is Paul’s point in bringing up Pharaoh? Is it not a reference to an individual? Is Paul’s pint of Romans 9 not summarized with verses 15-16: “‘I will have mercy on who I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion’, so then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy.”

If Pharaoh is a reference to an individual why would Jacob and Esau be taken any differently?
Bill Pratt

Hi Tim,

You said,
“If Pharaoh is a reference to an individual why would Jacob and Esau be taken any differently?”

All of Romans 9 is based on national Israel (6 times the nation is directly mentioned in Rom 9). Paul is trying to explain to his readers in Rome why Israel seems to have been rejected by God. His readers (many who are Jewish Christians) are, no doubt, concerned about Israel’s place in the new covenant. The reference to Jacob and Esau is most reasonably about the nations of Israel and Edom, because of the very passage that Paul is quoting from Malachi.

Paul also uses the example of Pharaoh to make the point that he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. But again, this is in the context of national Israel. Paul is not talking about the salvation of Pharaoh at all. He is just using Pharaoh as another example.

I believe it is a serious stretch to try and make Rom 9 be about individual salvation. It just does not fit the context.

God bless,
Bill
http://timothyfarley.wordpress.com Tim Farley

Romans 9:12 is also a direct quote from Genesis 25:23. Did God choose/elect Jacob over Esau at birth in Genesis or was it speaking of the nations there as well? If it was speaking of individuals in Genesis, then you still have the same issue of God’s election of individuals that you cannot get around. The same goes for Pharaoh. Did God really raise him up for a specific purpose (as if God pre-determined it)?
Bill Pratt

Hi Tim,
Here is the passage from Gen. 25:23:

“ The Lord said to her,
‘Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”

Again, it is speaking of nations.

Let me quickly say that I am not denying that God elects individuals to salvation. I am just saying that this is not what Paul is talking about in Rom. 9.
http://timothyfarley.wordpress.com Tim Farley

I am not sure how you can read Romans 9 and not see that Paul is using examples of God’s past election of individuals to show that being a descendant of Abraham does not guarantee salvation. God chooses individuals based upon His own mercy and will, not based upon ethnicity or merit.

Here is a quote from Douglas Moo concerning this passage:

“9:6b–13 The Israel within Israel. The thesis of the paragraph is stated in v 6b: not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. There is, Paul suggests, in keeping with the OT ‘remnant’ theology, a spiritual Israel within a larger ethnic Israel. Paul may elsewhere use ‘Israel’ to denote the entire people of God, both Jew and Gentile (Gal. 6:16). Here, however, as the sequel makes clear, he is thinking only of Jews. Paul proves his point about the Israel within Israel in two roughly parallel arguments drawn from OT history (7–10, 11–13). In the first, Paul shows that physical descent from Abraham was not enough to guarantee a place within the people of God. Ishmael and Isaac were both Abraham’s children; yet it was through Isaac alone that God ‘reckoned’ Abraham’s spiritual descendants (Gn. 21:12). Spiritual descent from Abraham, then, is based not on birth but on God’s promise. Isaac, not Ishmael, was the recipient of that promise (10, quoting Gn. 18:10 and 14).

As if the point were not clear enough, Paul now makes it even more emphatically by choosing an illustration from the next generation of Israel (10–13). For one could object to Paul’s first illustration that a significant difference in natural descent distinguished Isaac and Ishamel: the former was born to Sarah, ‘the free woman’, and the latter to Hagar, ‘the slave woman’ (cf. Gal. 4:21–31). But no such difference existed between Jacob and Esau. As twins, they were not only born to the same mother, Rebekah, but they were even conceived at the same moment (the Greek koitēn probably refers to sexual intercourse). Yet even before their birth Rebekah was told that ‘The older shall serve the younger’ (Gn. 25:23). This priority of Jacob is confirmed by a second OT text quoted by Paul, Mal. 1:2–3, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’. From these OT testimonies to Jacob’s priority Paul draws the conclusion, in a parenthetical note (11b–12a), that the blessing enjoyed by Jacob was based on nothing that he had done but on God’s free, sovereign call.

What is this blessing? Since the OT contexts from which Paul draws his illustration are speaking mainly about the historical roles of Jacob and Esau, or the nations they represent (Israel and Edom), the plan of God, (cf. Mal. 1:2–3), Paul may mean nothing more than that Jacob enjoyed the privilege of being a positive instrument in that plan. But the language that Paul uses throughout this paragraph—reckoned (7; cf. 4:2–21); election (11; cf. 11:5, 7, 28; Acts 9:15; 1 Thes. 1:4; 2 Pet. 1:10); purpose (11; cf. 8:28; Eph. 1:11); works (12; cf. 4:4–8); calls (12; cf. 8:29)—generally refers to the issue of eternal salvation. And it is this issue, the fact that so many Jews have not become saved through the gospel, that has sparked this whole discussion. We conclude, therefore, that Paul is using these OT texts to illustrate the principle of God’s sovereignty in salvation: being a child of God (cf. vs 7–9) depends ultimately on God’s calling. God’s ‘love’ of Jacob and ‘hate’ of Esau are ways of describing in sharply contrasting terms God’s election to salvation and his exclusion from salvation, respectively.”
http://timothyfarley.wordpress.com Tim Farley

Hi Bill. I came across another quote in Thomas Schreiner’s commentary on Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series. It is found on page 497.

“Another controversy exists over whether the salvation promised here relates to individuals or groups. Many opt for the latter and exclude the former, because Paul’s focus in these chapters is surely on the salvation promised to corporate Israel. I have argued at some length elsewhere that such a dichotomy is logically and exegetically flawed, for groups are always composed of individuals, and one cannot have the former without including the latter. At this juncture I should note that the selection of a remnant out of Israel implies the selection of some individuals out of a larger group. Moreover, the unty of Rom. 9-11 indicates that individual election cannot be eliminated. In chapter 10 believing in Jesus is an individual decision, even though large groups of Gentiles are doing so. The individual and corporate dimensions cannot be sundered from one another in chapter 10, and the same principle applies to chapter 9. Those who insist that corporate election alone is intended in chapters 9 and 11 are inconsistent when they revert ot individual decisions of faith in chapter 10. The three chapters must be interpreted together, yielding the conclusion that both corporate and individual election are involved.”
Bill Pratt

Hi Tim,
You said,
“I am not sure how you can read Romans 9 and not see that Paul is using examples of God’s past election of individuals to show that being a descendant of Abraham does not guarantee salvation. God chooses individuals based upon His own mercy and will, not based upon ethnicity or merit.”

Verse 6 and following, in Rom 9, is making the point that the true spiritual Israel consists of the children of promise, or those who were part of the believing remnant. There is an Israel within Israel.

Again, the context indicates that Paul is defending God’s strategic dealing with national Israel. “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” The reason Paul indicates the true spiritual Israel is because his readers were thinking that God’s purposes and privileges for Israel (vs. 4-5) were thwarted – that God failed with Israel. Paul is saying, “No, there is a spiritual Israel found within ethnic Israel who has always believed and believes today and will believe in the future. God has not failed with Israel.”

There are two groups within Israel, the believing and the unbelieving. Paul distinguishes between the two in Rom. 9.

Douglas Moo argues that the words used in Rom. 9 generally indicate a discussion of eternal salvation, but I would argue that those words have multiple meanings, and it depends on the context. Most of what I see in Rom. 9 says that the context is God’s dealings with national Israel. Paul is explaining how God is in sovereign control of national Israel’s destiny, and always has been.
Bill Pratt

I would say that corporate election (God’s historical purposes for Israel) is the main theme of Rom 9-11, but there are sections dealing with individual salvation (in chapter 10, for example). I don’t think there are sections in chapter 9 talking about individual salvation.
http://www.ismail.com.my mae

So, in christianity, ‘hate’ means ‘lesser love’ or ‘ lesser bless’. As always, christians are good in playing with words. They can make people see ‘red’ as ‘yellow’ etc. They can make people read ‘death’ as ‘alive’ etc.
Bill Pratt

Not sure what you’re getting at, Mae. In this instance, it is not Christians but ancient Hebrews who used the Hebrew word for “hate” in some instances to mean “love less.” It was a figure of speech, an idiom. Are you disappointed that God doesn’t hate Esau?
Rick Godfrey

Hello, I still believe that God has a chosen remnant that He chose from the foundation of the world. In John chapter 10 Jesus talks about his sheep. He says that his Father gave them to him and he would not lose a one of them. The Father then draws them to Jesus and Jesus said that he would in no wise cast out any that came to him. Salvation is all about the Father and His Son and His will being performed. For Ephesians chapter 1 states that God works all things after the counsel of his own will. Any time you have an elect or chosen group of people, you will also have those that will be left out or rejected.
Devin Jacob

didn’t hebrews 12:10 “See that no one is sexually immoral or is Godless like Esau…”

If what your saying is true then the author of Hebrews is wrong, which simply cannot be if we agree that the bible is the infallible word of God.
Bill Pratt

Devin,
The verse is Heb. 12:16 and it has nothing to do with God hating Esau or predestining Esau to eternal damnation. The writer of Hebrews is telling his readers to not behave like Esau did, when he sold his birthright for a meal. Believers should treasure the grace God has shown them.

Again, there is no contradiction.

God bless,
Bill
http://www.platinumrecipescollection.com Patrick

Hi Bill,

I think you’re picking at straws here.

The bible depicts a dual character of God–two sided…one filled with hate and the other filled with love.

This is supported in many verses, such as Isaiah: I make good and I create evil…

It is a very long story, but I hope I will give you more details later.
Bill Pratt

If you’re saying God hates evil actions and loves good actions, I agree. If you are saying that God hates people, then I could not disagree more. God is love. It is impossible for him to hate a person in the way that humans hate each other. He wishes the good for every single person.
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2009/05/25/does-god-really-hate-esau/ John Wilson

Bill,

Thanks for you insight.

My teenage son is caught up in this debate and I believe it’s for his own convenience.

He came home from church stating that he wasn’t going to try to be a good christian anymore because his youth pastor told them that God had predestined him and his friend to go to hell because there was no hope for them to be saved. He said the youth pastor used the same test in Roman’s that you have commented on. So my sons argument is that maybe he is one of those that God has predestined to hell and perhaps on of those hated by God like Esau.

I’m on this website looking for some kind of correct spiritual response that will give him hope or correct his rebellion to God since he come home from church with this belief.

He also stated that the youth pastor stated that God hardened The heart of Pharaoh and thus hardens the heart of individuals today so that they cannot be saved. I once again feel in my heart that this is in error but I cannot find in the Bible where it is stated as so.

Thank you,

Father of disturbed teenager and christian.
Bill Pratt

John,
My first advice to you would be to get your son out of this youth program. For a youth pastor to tell a teenager that he is predestined for hell is so wrong on so many levels that I don’t where to begin! He is a textbook example of extreme Calvinism gone theologically insane.

The first thing we need to straighten out is that nobody knows whether another person is going to be saved or not. Paul says in 1 Cor. 4, “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.” Even the most hardcore Calvinists I know don’t tell people whether they are one of the elect. Salvation is by God’s grace through our faith. God may save whomever he wants, and if your son professes faith in Christ, then he is saved!

With regard to Pharaoh, he hardened his heart first (see Ex. 8:15 and 32), and God later further hardened his heart to confirm his wishes. But even if God did harden Pharaoh’s heart, this has nothing to do with salvation. The context in Exodus is about the slavery of Israel and the plagues brought on by God through Moses, not getting into heaven. It is poor exegesis to try and apply Pharaoh’s situation to a person’s salvation.

I do believe that God will turn a person over to their own sinful desires (including rejection of Him) if a person persists in this rejection, but we also know God is “patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

I have to stress again that Rom 9 is not about individual salvation. It is about national Israel. Just read the passage in context without a specific theology in mind, and it jumps out at you. Paul already dealt with individual salvation in the earlier chapters of Romans.

John, I’m not sure what else to say except that I’ll pray for your son. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.

God bless,
Bill
http://www.calvaryle.org Steve Wright

To John Wilson..

I just want to say that I am a Senior Pastor (website link at my name) and if I verified that one of my youth pastors said such a thing, he would be removed from all ministry immediately. Of course, I would allow him to stay and worship as part of the general congregation, but he would be out of any sort of influence and leadership.

As was stated above, it is something that even a strong Calvinist would never declare – it is ignorant and destructive.

If I were you, I would speak to the youth pastor first to verify this is what he really stated and it was properly understood by your son (and bring your son with you to witness), and if so, I would share it with the Senior Pastor (again, with all individuals present – you, son, youth pastor). Not sure what will happen next, but feel free to email me at the church link or blog it here. The church email is filtered first for junk so make sure you mention we personally conversed and it should get to me with no problem.

Blessings to you.
Bill Pratt

Steve,
Thanks very much for your advice. Very well put.

Bill
Brad

Pastor Steve, excellent advice, that’s exactly what I was going to say. John, you do need to confirm what was actually said and what was meant, both with your son and with the youth pastor. With a teenager, it is possible that something wasn’t heard right, or understood correctly. Not saying that is definitely the case, just a possibility.

However, if after investigating you find that this really is what the youth pastor said, and meant, then I agree his senior pastor needs to be informed, and he needs to be removed from his position. You simply can’t have someone with that much influence over youth (or anyone, for that matter) be so incorrect about something so important. What if your son HADN’T said anything about it to you, yet still believed what the youth pastor told him? Then he may be lost, and you’d have no idea. Too scary to NOT do something about it, in my opinion.

I pray you have wisdom in your dealings regarding this matter.
David Cobb

I most whole heartedly agree with confronting in love the youth pastor in these circumstances, but dont forget, the youth pastor may in fact be “parroting” the theological positions of the senior pastor. It is so necessary today to “pin down” leadership in a church so that the entire local body of believers know exactly where their fellowship exists on the axis of theology. Most “folks” in the pews do not know exactly where they stand, and in Baptist churches consider how we “appoint” senior pastors. In most cases they come and preach one or two (or their best) sermons, and on that basis we usually say “there is our man”. Deep questions and postions should be “hammered” out before a chuch extends a call to a pastor so that everyone clearly knows the theological direction of the fellowhip. QED.

Mercy, peace and love in abundance.
Ed Tuggy

Hello Bill:

I am a missionary kid from Venezuela, have been a missionary Bible translator in Venezuela, and ten years ago, with my wife, founded a ministry called Faithfulness in the Family (www.faithfulnessinthefamily.org).

In recent years I have been assured that God isn’t afraid of our questions, so I began a list of verses that don’t seem to match, that I would like to ask someone about. My desire has been to validate my faith and confidence in the Bible as God’s Word.

Unfortunately, this quest has been getting more and more unsettling for me. There isn’t space here to list all the “mismatched” passages, but I am currently wrestling deeply with the Romans 9 difficulties.

Like Mae said, in Christianity “hate” means “love less”, etc. I say it’s time for me to stop playing games with words and theology. The Bible says “God is love” (1 John 4:8). The Bible quotes Jehovah as saying, “…Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated.” Malachi 1:2-3 (ESV) These two theses simply don’t fit together. Which am I to believe, that God is love, or that God loves some people and hates others (individuals or nations, it doesn’t make God look any better).

I John teaches us that we have to love ALL people (individuals or nations) not just some.

For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:11-15 (ESV)

The Bible says we should be impartial, and that showing partiality is ungodly.

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. 1 Timothy 5:21 (ESV)

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. James 2:1 (ESV)

And yet we are told, “…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! Romans 9:11-14 (ESV)

So, God can play favorites, and tell us not to show partiality, but there’s no injustice with God. God can elect one person to have mercy on, and another to mark out for destruction, before either of them is born or has done anything good or bad, but that’s not prejudging and there’s no injustice with God. I know God is vast and I’m a tiny creature, and I don’t know when the mountain goats give birth, but quite honestly this all sounds fishy to me.

Romans 9 goes on to say:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” Romans 9:18-19 (ESV)

You said it, Paul. If it’s God’s will for someone to be devoted to destruction, and He hardens their heart, why indeed does God find fault with them? If God is sovereign like that, then human free will is an illusion, and indeed, who can resist his will? Okay, let’s grant both free will and the sovereignty of God; then God hardens a person’s heart to make sure they don’t accept his “offer”.

But the Bible says, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9 (ESV)

So which should I believe, that God is not willing that any should perish, or that God has mercy on whom he has mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden? There is a mismatch here.

Romans 9 goes on to say:

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— Romans 9:20-23 (ESV)

Okay, who am I to answer back to God? But this is an honest question, and I would hope the Good Shepherd would treat my question respectfully, not abusively. I’m not asking, “Why have you made me like this”. I’m asking, “Which of these two theses am I to believe?” Yes, the potter has the right over the clay to use one lump for honorable use and another for dishonorable use. But again, this confirms that God is electing people (individuals or nations, it doesn’t matter) to salvation or damnation. So then, if it’s God’s electing we’re talking about, why do the lumps of clay have to bear the moral responsibility for what God does?

Another oddity here is that if it’s God’s will for people to repent, believe and be saved, and be zealous for good works, so that people will see their good works and glorify God, how can it also be God’s will for some people to be hardened and not repent or believe, and go on sinning and not glorifying God, and be condemned for not repenting, or believing, and going on sinning and not glorifying God?

Okay, God’s ways are past finding out, and I’m probably “trying to figure out too much using my own intellect”, etc. But that’s not a fair charge. I have two daughters who have stopped believing in God (and not because I was sharing these questions with them, because I wasn’t). I told God that I didn’t want them to go to hell, so I would rather go there myself if in any way it could help them to avoid going there. It’s not that I’m “trying to figure out God too much”; rather, it’s that I’m no longer content to say, “I don’t understand this stuff, but at least I’m glad that I’M among the elect!” . That egotistical attitude isn’t going to satisfy me anymore.

I really don’t know where to go with all of this. I don’t know of any other God to turn to. I believe in God, I believe He is holy, but honestly His holiness is losing some of its shine in my eyes.

If I am misinterpreting Scripture, or not letting the words speak plainly, or reading anything into Scripture, or if there’s anything I’m overlooking, please let me know. Otherwise, I’m hoping God will personally reveal the answers to me and satisfy my desire to genuinely and sincerely admire God and praise Him for His works. If I’m genuinely dismayed at God’s ways, and find Romans chapter 9 objectionable, and my opinion doesn’t count with God when I’m less than pleased with Him, then how come my opinion would count if I were to praise Him? If my objections are not welcome but my praise is welcome, that seems like it’s requiring me to be insincere and phoney.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission. Please give me any real help you can, but please avoid word games. Please don’t say, “There are no contradictions in the Bible,” as if that solves things. The evidence is actually quite damaging for the claim that the Bible has no contradictions or inconsistencies or discrepancies.

Sincerely,
Bruce (Ed) Tuggy
Ed Tuggy

Oh, I should add that I am currently on Leave of Absence from Faithfulness in the Family, seeking a more personal encounter with God.
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

Ed,
You are dealing with the issue of man’s free will and God’s sovereignty, which is a topic that has been debated for thousands of years among Jews and Christians. So, the first thing I would say to you is that you aren’t being unreasonable at all when asking these questions. Many people have gone before you asking these same questions. If God can deal with the blunt questioning of Job, I think he is perfectly OK with your questions!!

I have written several blog posts on this topic under “free will,” so I hope you’ll read some of those posts. I have also written about Romans 9, although briefly. Romans 9 has nothing to do with individual salvation, but everything to do with the role of national Israel in God’s redemptive plans for the world.

The single best book I would recommend that deals with the issue you’re struggling with is Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free. I highly recommend you buy a copy and read it, as I think it will help you work out these issues. Another book you may find helpful is Paul Marston and Roger Forster’s God’s Strategy in Human History.

As you’re reading these books or blog posts and have specific questions, please feel free to ask. I’ll do my best to help out. I, too, have struggled with this issue, but after several years of study I am satisfied with the answers I have. I don’t think we can completely understand this issue, but we can stand on the shoulders of other Christian thinkers.

God bless,
Bill
Ed Tuggy

Bill,
Thank you for your kindly and gracious response. That means more to me than a smug explanation, which you didn’t offer, I’m glad to say.

Sincerely,
Ed
Ed Tuggy

Hello again, Bill,

I’ve been thinking further about my concerns with Romans 9, and I think my concern goes deeper than just the issue of man’s free will and God’s sovereignty. I think my struggle is with becoming cynical and skeptical. Why should I trust the heart of a God who says he is love in one passage, and says he hates someone in another passage about election? And how I can I be sure of the reliability and authority of a Bible that has such conflicting things to say? I have such a large collection of passages that conflict with each other and seemingly cancel each other out, that sometimes it’s difficult for me to take the Bible seriously or keep on relying on it.

Fortunately, there are some things that seem to stand in the Bible without any passage to the contrary; for example, we are all sinners needing to be saved; Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross for our sins, was buried and rose again and ascended into heaven, where He intercedes for us; if we go to Christ for salvation, He will not cast us out, but will give us eternal life.

I wish someone could explain the seeming contradictions and reversals in the Bible, but meanwhile I’m doing my best to keep on in the faith.

Sincerely,
Ed Tuggy
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

Hi Ed,
I myself have studied numerous alleged Bible contradictions and have found satisfactory answers for most of them, and the few that I have not found satisfactory answers for, I have set aside for the time being, content that I may never understand them.

Why am I content to not resolve every seeming contradiction? Because the Bible has overwhelmingly proven itself as a collection of wisdom and history that can be trusted. For every one difficult passage I encounter, there are 100 that are not. Since the Bible was written over 1500 years by some 40 different authors, it is amazing that it coheres so well.

One book that I consult when I encounter alleged Bible contradictions is Norman Geisler’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation. Some of the answers he gives are stronger than others, but he has done a lot of research that is worth reading.

In that same book, Geisler also offers some general guidelines for reading the Bible which I wrote on in a multi-part series of posts. Start with this one and see if these posts help.

With regard to God “hating” Esau, we have to remember that “hate” in this context is a Hebrew idiom for loving less (that is what our Hebrew experts and scholars tell us), and that Esau in Romans 9 is referring to a nation, not a person. There is no doubt that God has singled out specific nations and people in history to advance his kingdom, but I don’t see any problem with this. While he selects people to advance his kingdom, he never overrides their free will. He works through their free will. We all play different roles in the cosmic drama that is unfolding. Again, I highly recommend you read the book God’s Strategy in Human Historyto help you sort this out.

God bless,
Bill
Ed Tuggy

Hello, Bill,

Thank you for your kindly answers.

Just a thought in response to the claim that “hating” Esau means loving him less. I wish that could help.

In Jesus’ sermon on the mount, he taught us to love all men, even our enemies, equally, and told us to be perfect as God is perfect, which in the context implies that God loves all men equally.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:43-48 (ESV)

This would seem to imply that God loves all men equally, and that to love some men less, or to hate some men, is a characteristic that makes a person less than perfect. So, whether the Bible says that God loves Jacob more and Esau less, or just that God loves Jacob and hates Esau, it would seem that the Bible makes God less than perfect. That is an unacceptable conclusion about God, and so my problem remains.

Romans 9 needs a lot more explanation, or it needs to be thrown out or disregarded. By the way, perhaps you have noticed that most Christians disregard and avoid this chapter. Are they unwittingly doing the right thing?

I did look at your posts based on Norman Geisler’s Big Book of Bible Difficulties, and they were helpful, though they need to be applied to each difficulty in a specific way, and may not resolve every difficulty.

Mistake #5: Neglecting to Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones, concedes that some passages seem to be teaching things that go against the clear teachings of other passages. How to interpret the difficult passages in the light of the others, or reconcile the inconsistency, is what is bothering me.

Mistake 7: Forgetting that the Bible Is a Human Book with Human Characteristics, very nearly concedes that much of the book is human and thus not inerrant, but quickly backs away from going to that extreme.

Mistake #15: Forgetting that Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of Scripture, Is without Error, concedes that there are errors in the Bibles we hold in our hands. Claiming inerrancy for the original texts, which none of us has seen, is claiming certainty about knowledge that is beyond us mortals. In the case of our Romans 9 difficulty, what did the original document say? Would having the original document resolve my difficulty?

Bill, I appreciate your work and hope you succeed in clearing up Bible difficulties and defending the faith. I apologize for sounding like I’m coming down on you personally, but my intent is to challenge what seem to be unsatisfactory answers that are going around and are not strictly Bill Pratt’s.

Thank you,
Ed Tuggy
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

Hi Ed,
You said that the Bible teaches that God loves everyone equally. I think this is correct in one sense, but not in another. If we define love as “willing the good of another” then God definitely wills the good of every human being. In that sense, he loves everyone equally.

If, however, you mean by love that God makes sure that every person has the same material blessings in this life, or that every person will be a prophet, or that every person is saved, then God clearly does not love every person equally.

So when you say that God loves everyone equally, what do you mean by that?
Ed Tuggy

This is actually in reply to Bill, but I don’t find a Reply button on his last post, so I’m replying to my own.

Hello Bill,

I hadn’t thought of defining love in other terms; I would just assume that God’s basic motivation toward everyone should be love, however defined, and shown to everyone in equal measure. Otherwise He would seem to be showing partiality.

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. James 2:8-9 (ESV)

By this standard, is God showing partiality when he loves Jacob and hates Esau?

Thanks,
Ed
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

Hi Ed,
Defining what “love” means in a particular context is incredibly important. In James 2, the context is clear from James 2:1-4. James is admonishing Christians to not show favoritism to rich people at their meetings. These verses are not applied to God, obviously, so we should not quote these verses if we are talking about how God loves people.

Does that make sense?

God bless,
Bill

Tough Questions Answered

.: Tags :.

.: Categories :.

.: Archives :.