Esau have I hated?

[12tribes]

Romans 9:13

(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

1 John 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I just want to get people's thoughts on these 2 texts. 1 says that Esau was hated the other says that God is love.

[Kevin H]

In my New Testament classes at Atlantic Union College, the professor, Dr. Jim Valentine said this is a bad translation, that the word "Hate" does not mean "Hate" but a litteral translation would be "Loved Less" meaning still loving and haveing a relationship with but not as deep a relationship as with another.

The Edomites (as well as the Ammonites and Moabites) represent a people who had at one time known the truth, followed the truth but eventually got away from the truth.

When we look at the list of the kings of Edom, there is a king Jobe a decendent of Easu with his wife who was Ishmael's daughter (when he saw his parents were dissapointed that he married a Cannanite woman, he married her to stay in the church) some scholars believe that King Jobe is our friend Job from the book of Job. If so then Job had gotten his faith from Easu and Ishmael.

So while Easu did not have what it meant to take over as the king (according to archaeologests and Biblical linguists, the Patararchs were kings of a nomatic donkey carivan people. Easu probably served as king while his dad was sick and brother away, and while he wanted to kill Jacob for taking the birthright, when Jacob returned Easu gladly gave him the responsibilities) Then had this family that he was trying to raise in the truth but his desendents eventually got away from it.

They had a relationship with God but not as deep as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and they eventually got away from it and rejoiced when their cousins were defeated which the Bible writers were so hurt over.

[skyblue888]

God loved Esau just as much as He loved Jacob for "God is no respector of persons." Acts 10:34. "He has an intimate knowledge of and a personal interest in all the works of His hand." Education,132.

Therefore these words "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," are not subject to any private interpretation.

Jacob responded to the influence of the Holy Spirit and that allowed God to bless him in a way that He could not bless Esau. If Esau could let go of his spiritual birthright for a pot of lentils, that shows how much of the Holy Spirit's influence was lost upon him. But God did not love him less.

I believe it is in that sense that the words "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated" must be understood for we know that God loves the sinner but He hates sin.

The Word of God says that "God slew Saul" but we know that God did no such thing, at least not direclty, for in the same chapter the Word of God says that Saul killed himself with a sword. 1 Chro.10:14,4.

sky

[miz3]

In my New Testament classes at Atlantic Union College, the professor, Dr. Jim Valentine said this is a bad translation, that the word "Hate" does not mean "Hate" but a litteral translation would be "Loved Less" meaning still loving and haveing a relationship with but not as deep a relationship as with another.

The Edomites (as well as the Ammonites and Moabites) represent a people who had at one time known the truth, followed the truth but eventually got away from the truth.

When we look at the list of the kings of Edom, there is a king Jobe a decendent of Easu with his wife who was Ishmael's daughter (when he saw his parents were dissapointed that he married a Cannanite woman, he married her to stay in the church) some scholars believe that King Jobe is our friend Job from the book of Job. If so then Job had gotten his faith from Easu and Ishmael.

So while Easu did not have what it meant to take over as the king (according to archaeologests and Biblical linguists, the Patararchs were kings of a nomatic donkey carivan people. Easu probably served as king while his dad was sick and brother away, and while he wanted to kill Jacob for taking the birthright, when Jacob returned Easu gladly gave him the responsibilities) Then had this family that he was trying to raise in the truth but his desendents eventually got away from it.

They had a relationship with God but not as deep as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and they eventually got away from it and rejoiced when their cousins were defeated which the Bible writers were so hurt over.

Romans chapter nine is translated correctly. Your Professor is just twisting things because he does not want to admit that God can hate.

It is not a contradiction for God to be love just as the Bible states He is and at the same time for God to hate. The Bible also states that God "hates divorce".

We humans love to "create God in our image of what we think He should be". Thus, when the Bible contradicts our "made up God" we have to twist and turn to make it fit our view.

This is one of the great reasons so many SDA as well as other Christians do not really "know God as He actually is"!

Our human lack of Knowledge about God is the number one reason we get so many other things about God and the Bible wrong. This is true of SDA as well as every one else.

God hated Esau plain and simple. FACT!

[skyblue888]

miz3, yes it is written that God hated Esau just as it is written that God slew Saul and yet we know that Saul killed himself with a sword.

[BobRyan]

Romans 9:13

(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

1 John 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I just want to get people's thoughts on these 2 texts. 1 says that Esau was hated the other says that God is love.

Romans 9 is quoting the book of Malachi written centuries after Esau's death where the names "Jacob" and "Esau" are used to represent the nation and history of Edom and Israel.

Edom chose idolatry and was rejected by God even though God made provision for them in Israel telling Israel to show them kindness for they were kindred.

Israel on the other hand chose to worship the one true God of creation - who made the world in a literal 7 day creation week.

Thus it is an example free will choice - and the following "blessings" vs "curses".

However many of our Calvinist friends like to "pretend" that God said to Rebecca -- the mother of Esau and Jacob - "I hate Esau".

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: 12tribes

Romans 9:13

(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

1 John 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I just want to get people's thoughts on these 2 texts. 1 says that Esau was hated the other says that God is love.

Romans 9 is quoting the book of Malachi written centuries after Esau's death where the names "Jacob" and "Esau" are used to represent the nation and history of Edom and Israel.

Edom chose idolatry and was rejected by God even though God made provision for them in Israel telling Israel to show them kindness for they were kindred.

Israel on the other hand chose to worship the one true God of creation - who made the world in a literal 7 day creation week.

Thus it is an example free will choice - and the following "blessings" vs "curses".

However many of our Calvinist friends like to "pretend" that God said to Rebecca -- the mother of Esau and Jacob - "I hate Esau".

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, that is not what Romans chapter nine is saying. Paul specifically states that God hated Esau before either Esau or Jacob were born.

That means it is not an example of "free will choice". It also means that God hated Esau before Esau was born. It also means that it is not talking about the resulting nations Edom and Israel.

In addition, SDA like to make Romans chapter nine about ONLY two views. One view being "free will choice" and the other view being "Calvinistic Predestination". Those however are NOT THE ONLY TWO VIEWS available for Romans chapter nine.

[12tribes]

Originally Posted By: 12tribes

Romans 9:13

(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

1 John 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I just want to get people's thoughts on these 2 texts. 1 says that Esau was hated the other says that God is love.

Romans 9 is quoting the book of Malachi written centuries after Esau's death where the names "Jacob" and "Esau" are used to represent the nation and history of Edom and Israel.

Edom chose idolatry and was rejected by God even though God made provision for them in Israel telling Israel to show them kindness for they were kindred.

Israel on the other hand chose to worship the one true God of creation - who made the world in a literal 7 day creation week.

Thus it is an example free will choice - and the following "blessings" vs "curses".

However many of our Calvinist friends like to "pretend" that God said to Rebecca -- the mother of Esau and Jacob - "I hate Esau".

in Christ,

Bob

That makes sense, also Kevin H meotioned about loved less checked strong's concordance and it does say that.

[miz3]

Limiting Romans chapter nine to only two possibilities allows SDA to yell, "Calvinist" and "Predestination" every time someone tries to bring up a different view than "free will choice".

Thus, it is hard if not impossible to have a rational discussion with SDA about Romans chapter nine.

[doug yowell]

Limiting Romans chapter nine to only two possibilities allows SDA to yell, "Calvinist" and "Predestination" every time someone tries to bring up a different view than "free will choice".

Thus, it is hard if not impossible to have a rational discussion with SDA about Romans chapter nine.

Maybe if you would quit telling us that we are so impossible every time we bring up a different view than yours and start asking some questions to get us to look more closely at our views you could make more progress. Adventists love to be Biblically challenged.

[doug yowell]

Bob, that is not what Romans chapter nine is saying. Paul specifically states that God hated Esau before either Esau or Jacob were born.

That means it is not an example of "free will choice". It also means that God hated Esau before Esau was born.

Miz,can you explain why:

1) God is just for hating Esau before he had done anything wrong?

2) Why God is merciful for loving Jacob before he had done anything right?

3)If "God is Love" how He can hate?

[Parade Orange]

We humans love to "create God in our image of what we think He should be". Thus, when the Bible contradicts our "made up God" we have to twist and turn to make it fit our view.

This is one of the great reasons so many SDA as well as other Christians do not really "know God as He actually is"!

Our human lack of Knowledge about God is the number one reason we get so many other things about God and the Bible wrong. This is true of SDA as well as every one else.

MIZ3^

yes yes yes

i struggle with this too

ive never met a deeply committed christian who doesnt cherry pick scriptures to have GOD fit in their idea of HIM

their theology of backing up and discounting scriptures makes GOD

a certain way

i figured this out a few years ago

and it very upsetting to figure this out

GOD understands us but at the same time tries to lead us to let go and embrace WHO HE FULLY IS!

[doug yowell]

The Bible is not ambiguous about who God is and what He is like. He is not trying to trying to play hard to get. He reveals Himself thru the consistency of what He says and what He does. Sometimes we think we see inconsistencies or contradictions in the Biblical account and it is up to us to remedy those delemnas. As we judge whether we think He is worthy of our worship I think it is imperative that we take the weight of evidence from the best source of revelation that we have. This requires a devotion to both a consistent and prolonged study of the Bible coupled with a subjection to do what it asks of us. It is possible for every deeply committed person to know Him as He really is.

[Parade Orange]

i fully agree DOUG

amen

its a journey of a lifetime

and even in heaven itself HE WILL ALWAYS BE UNFOLDING WHO IS

the sinless angels themselves after billions of years still learming WHO HE IS

[doug yowell]

i fully agree DOUG

amen

its a journey of a lifetime

and even in heaven itself HE WILL ALWAYS BE UNFOLDING WHO IS

the sinless angels themselves after billions of years still learming WHO HE IS

Yes, and the understanding of this particular passage is directly related to the understanding of the God of the Bible.It is not an insignificant question.

And may I hasten to add that there is no concept in the Bible that is free from controversy. One can (and does) find a seemingly Biblical basis for every argument against God's truth starting from the original "Has God said...?"

[doug yowell]

In addition, SDA like to make Romans chapter nine about ONLY two views. One view being "free will choice" and the other view being "Calvinistic Predestination". Those however are NOT THE ONLY TWO VIEWS available for Romans chapter nine.

I've never heard of a third (or more) view. Would you mind passing those by us?

[skyblue888]

It is in the Word itself and in the Testimonies of the Spirit of God that we are to find the correct interpretation for these difficult passages. The Lord has already given us a hint in 1 Chronicles 10:14,4 as to how to read this language which I believe is the language of Heaven. The language is that God slew Saul but the truth is that God did not touch Saul. God's judgments fell upon Saul but not directly from the Lord. Saul had placed himself where the Lord could no longer protect him. That is what the Bible means when it says that "God slew him." We know this because in verse 4 we are told that he killed himself with a sword. In verse 14 we read, "God slew him."

Let me give you another example taken from the Word and the Testimonies. Because of David's sin, the Lord, through the prophet, had said to David, "I will raise up evil against you out of your own house."

This passage of Scripture is quoted by Mrs. White in Patriarchs and Prophets, 739, immediately following it by this commentary: "Not that God prompted these acts of wickedness, but because of David's sin He did not exercise His power to prevent them."

God did not prevent Saul from killing himself and He did not prevent Absolom from rebelling against David in the sight of all Israel. This is what this language means and it is consistent throughout all the Bible.

There are many other examples.

sky

[skyblue888]

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

This language simply means that Jacob responded to the influences of the Holy Spirit and that Esau did not.

miz3 wrote: "Bob, that is not what Romans chapter nine is saying. Paul specifically states that God hated Esau before either Esau or Jacob were born. That means it is not an example of 'free will choice'. It also means that God hated Esau before Esau was born."

"Esau and Jacob had alike been instructed in the knowledge of God, and both were free to walk in His commandments and to receive His favor; but they had not both chosen to do this. The two brothers had walked in different ways, and their paths would continue to diverge more and more widely. There was no arbitrary choice on the part of God by which Esau was shut out from the blessings of salvation. The gifts of His grace through Christ are free to all. There is no election but one's own by which any may perish." P.P.207.

sky

[12tribes]

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

This language simply means that Jacob responded to the influences of the Holy Spirit and that Esau did not.

miz3 wrote: "Bob, that is not what Romans chapter nine is saying. Paul specifically states that God hated Esau before either Esau or Jacob were born. That means it is not an example of 'free will choice'. It also means that God hated Esau before Esau was born."

"Esau and Jacob had alike been instructed in the knowledge of God, and both were free to walk in His commandments and to receive His favor; but they had not both chosen to do this. The two brothers had walked in different ways, and their paths would continue to diverge more and more widely. There was no arbitrary choice on the part of God by which Esau was shut out from the blessings of salvation. The gifts of His grace through Christ are free to all. There is no election but one's own by which any may perish." P.P.207.

sky

Amen I agree it looks like Cain and Abel where one chose God's way the other chose his own way. Because for us to receive God's blessings we have to follow the way that God has set down we cannot be blessed outside of His ways.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Limiting Romans chapter nine to only two possibilities allows SDA to yell, "Calvinist" and "Predestination" every time someone tries to bring up a different view than "free will choice".

Thus, it is hard if not impossible to have a rational discussion with SDA about Romans chapter nine.

Maybe if you would quit telling us that we are so impossible every time we bring up a different view than yours and start asking some questions to get us to look more closely at our views you could make more progress. Adventists love to be Biblically challenged.

That is doubtful.

I find SDA to believe they have very few if any Biblical Challenges.

I also find that SDA hate with a great passion to be challenged on their views. It is not just a matter of "psychological" presentation. I find most SDA when challenged get very angry and extremely aggressive as well as insulted that you would challenge "the people of God" and "their views (truth)".

In the SDA mindset the messenger that opposes is always the problem and it is never the "SDA message".

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Bob, that is not what Romans chapter nine is saying. Paul specifically states that God hated Esau before either Esau or Jacob were born.

That means it is not an example of "free will choice". It also means that God hated Esau before Esau was born.

Miz,can you explain why:

1) God is just for hating Esau before he had done anything wrong?

2) Why God is merciful for loving Jacob before he had done anything right?

3)If "God is Love" how He can hate?

"Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Romans 9:10-13.

Here is the full passage under discussion. Let us look at each of your three questions.

1. The answer is in verse eleven when it says, "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". That is why?

2. Same answer by looking at verse eleven.

3. Because God has both attributes. Humans have the same attributes. They are capable of both Love and Hate. Here are some Bible texts that show that God does indeed "hate".

a. Leviticus 26:17.

b. 2Samuel 7:16-17.

c. Psalm 11:5.

d. Proverbs 6:16-19.

e. Hosea 9:15.

f. Malachi 1:1-3.

g. Romans 9:13 quoted above.

h. Revelation 2:6.

[miz3]

We humans love to "create God in our image of what we think He should be". Thus, when the Bible contradicts our "made up God" we have to twist and turn to make it fit our view.

This is one of the great reasons so many SDA as well as other Christians do not really "know God as He actually is"!

Our human lack of Knowledge about God is the number one reason we get so many other things about God and the Bible wrong. This is true of SDA as well as every one else.

MIZ3^

yes yes yes

i struggle with this too

ive never met a deeply committed christian who doesnt cherry pick scriptures to have GOD fit in their idea of HIM

their theology of backing up and discounting scriptures makes GOD

a certain way

i figured this out a few years ago

and it very upsetting to figure this out

GOD understands us but at the same time tries to lead us to let go and embrace WHO HE FULLY IS!

[skyblue888]

miz3, your grasp of the Scriptures reminds me of the words of Jesus to the Jews when He said to them that they did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God.

sky

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

In addition, SDA like to make Romans chapter nine about ONLY two views. One view being "free will choice" and the other view being "Calvinistic Predestination". Those however are NOT THE ONLY TWO VIEWS available for Romans chapter nine.

I've never heard of a third (or more) view. Would you mind passing those by us?

There is a third view but I think you won't like it any better than others who have heard my view. I hesitate because I have stated this view in regard to Romans chapter nine and other Bible texts on this very Forum and I must say the response was unanimous that I was wrong.

In short, very short, I do not believe that humans are "free moral agents" with "free will choice". I also do NOT BELIEVE that like the Calvinist's that humans are "like a lottery" either predestined to be "lost" or predestined to be "saved".

I believe that humans do what they do because of what they are. They do not have a choice to do anything else. Just like a dog is a dog because it is a dog. A dog cannot "choose" to do cat things because it is impossible for a dog to do cat things because it is a dog. The dog can only do dog things.

The same Law applies to humans after the "fall of Adam". Humans can only do what they do because of what they are. They cannot be anything else even if they for some reason wanted to be something else they cannot.

Since humans are cursed by fiat of God to be "sinful" humans can only be "sinful" because that is what they are.

Without going any further (there is more to this concept) it certainly looks very hopeless and bleak for the human under these conditions.

Since you, Doug, believe humans have "free will choice" and humans are "free moral agents" such a concept as I have so far presented seems absurd.

Of course this concept I have given up to this point is neither "free will choice" nor is it Calvinistic Predestination. The "concept" as I have so far outlined it is different from both "free choice" and "predestination".

I would have gone further but this post is already getting long.

[miz3]

miz3, your grasp of the Scriptures reminds me of the words of Jesus to the Jews when He said to them that they did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God.

sky

Exactly what Scripture are you referring too?