Did God hate Esau? Or hate individuals?

[YosefHayim]

I've seen several interpretations

1. God hated Esau.
When God said that he loved Jacob and hated Esau, that is to be taken literally.

Problem: This contradicts scriptures which state God so loved the world, Iehouah hates the death of them that die, and God is willing none should perish.

2. God loved Esau less than Jacob
When God said that he hated Esau, it was actually an idiom or a figurative statement of comparison saying that he loved Esau less. An example is when Jesus said we are not his if we don't hate our parents (meaning holding Christ way above all).

Problem: This says that God is playing favourites while scripture says "God is not a respecter of persons".

3. God hated the nation of Edom.
This is saying that he rejected Edom as his.

Problem: this expands God's potential hate in this verse from one person to a whole group, and holds the contradictions from the first.

God hates the wicked.
Psalm 11:5 says: The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

If this is to be read literally, as God hating the wicked (rather than the wickedness of the wicked), this brings to question the hope for humanity in light of the scripture which says "There are none that do righteousness, no not one".

 

[YosefHayim]

A suggestion that all cases are figurative:

...“They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” In reality, they did not have “Moses” or the “prophets,” but they did have their writings. The name Moses is a metonymy that stood for his writings, since he was the cause of the writings. In modern times, that would be like saying, “I hate Shakespeare.” Would the person who said that mean that he hated Shakespeare’s personality? No. We understand he would be saying he does not like the writings of Shakespeare, with no comment on the playwright’s personality...​

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2035

 

[williamt]

If this is to be read literally, as God hating the wicked (rather than the wickedness of the wicked), this brings to question the hope for humanity in light of the scripture which says "There are none that do righteousness, no not one".

Question, Yosef, is it the wickedness of the wicked or the wicked in hell?

God bless,
William

 

[YosefHayim]

Question, Yosef, is it the wickedness of the wicked or the wicked in hell?

God bless,
William

Let me answer with a question: If both the wickedness and wicked are in hell, does that mean that God never loved, did not love, or stopped loving that wicked doer? Does justice turn love into hate?

None are righteous, no not one. He takes no pleasure in the death of them that die.

 

[Nordica]

Esau traded his birthright for a bowl of soup. Carnal was more important to him than spiritual. God wants us to put spiritual over carnal. Nevertheless, Esau was still blessed, that is probably why he managed to forgive Jacob. The latter still suffered because he received his blessing by lying. I don't think it was God's way that Jacob should receive his blessing through lies, but because he did it, he suffered consequences: Laban lied to Jacob, and he had to toil for 14 years for him, his beloved Rachel died, etc. So, I don't think that God totally hated Esau as well as completely loved Jacob... God still took into account their actions.

 

[Kenny_ms]

1. God hated Esau.
When God said that he loved Jacob and hated Esau, that is to be taken literally.

I think so, at least it sounds pretty cut and dry.

It could have been a bad interpretation but I'm not really sure there are any of those.

Just a quick couple of cents, that shouldn't be taken too seriously by itself.

 

[Kenny_ms]

Problem: This says that God is playing favourites while scripture says "God is not a respecter of persons".

But to complicate things even more:

Romans 9:18 NIV..Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Is that playing favorites?

That may mean the ones he doesn't have mercy on deserve no mercy, IDK.

 

[jasonc]

the word for that in greek isn't hate, but to love less.

otherwise in order to love God and to serve him we must HATE our parents. same greek word is used.

 

[Kenny_ms]

the word for that in greek isn't hate, but to love less.

either wise in order to love God and to serve him we must HATE our parents. same greek word is used.

That sounds right to me. The "we must hate our parents and so forth" never did sit right with me so, to me, it would make perfect sense that's what it means.

 

[YosefHayim]

the word for that in greek isn't hate, but to love less.

otherwise in order to love God and to serve him we must HATE our parents. same greek word is used.

And how do you reconcile that with the scripture "God is not a respecter of persons?"

 

[jasonc]

And how do you reconcile that with the scripture "God is not a respecter of persons?"

god chooses whom he can love. love is a choice. god chosed to love man. he didn't and isn't obligated to love nor save us.
if we have a problem with that view then try to understand what a vile/vain man esau was. god foreknew that and told Racheal in that dream. two nations are within thee. the elder shall serve the younger. he foreknew and allowed esau to make that decision.

God created judas and look what he said about him? it was better that he never be born. sorry we are going to into Calvinism. God has a right to love or not to love his creations after we make a decision, otherwise he wouldn't be able to damn the lost that reject him to hell. he doesn't enjoy that judgement but surely one cant argue that god loves the saint the same as the lost who is being tormented in hell after the judgement. no he loves the saint more as he responded to his love and has worked that. do you love you mother more then my mother? if you love them the same then tell me why?

 

[YosefHayim]

god chooses whom he can love. love is a choice. god chosed to love man. he didn't and isn't obligated to love nor save us.
if we have a problem with that view then try to understand what a vile/vain man esau was. god foreknew that and told Racheal in that dream. two nations are within thee. the elder shall serve the younger. he foreknew and allowed esau to make that decision.

God created judas and look what he said about him? it was better that he never be born. sorry we are going to into Calvinism. God has a right to love or not to love his creations after we make a decision, otherwise he wouldn't be able to damn the lost that reject him to hell. he doesn't enjoy that judgement but surely one cant argue that god loves the saint the same as the lost who is being tormented in hell after the judgement. no he loves the saint more as he responded to his love and has worked that. do you love you mother more then my mother? if you love them the same then tell me why?

So he has a choice to be a respecter of persons, when he is not?

 

[jasonc]

So he has a choice to be a respecter of persons, when he is not?

he gives everyone the chance to love him back. if we do , he then draws closer to you. (loves more).

draw nigh unto me, and I will draw nigh unto you

james 4:8

so yes god after we choose to respond to His love will love that person more then those that don't. love isn't just an emotion, its also a working relationship. something a married person will know. I have girlfriends that I have told I loved , I didn't work. I have a wife whom has loved me and I her. it hasn't been easy. I love my wife over the others as we worked and built something the others didn't have. God works like that.

esau thought little of his inheritance in that he wasn't near death(one meal wouldn't have saved anyone that starved or malnourished) and so because of that god as he already knew wouldn't bless him. God does forsee all our decisions before we are born.

 

[Deborah13]

I agree with what Jason said and much of what Nordica said.
Nordica touched on my thoughts about this.

Maybe too, God hated (loved less) what Esau stood for.
Issac, loved Esau because he brought him meat and Esau worked hard earning his father's favor, by hunting. (not of he who runs)
It was Issac's desire that Esau should inherit as the first born son. But Issac's will was not God's will. (not of man who wills)

Jacob, was God's choice to inherit the promise. Rebecca, by faith, believed God that the older shall serve the younger. Jacob, by faith believed he should inherit, as God had said.

One might be able to earn the love of an earthly father but not the love of our Heavenly Father. He chooses to give it to us by His mercy and grace.
I think, it might even be an insult to Him when we think we can. :neutral

 

[YosefHayim]

he gives everyone the chance to love him back. if we do , he then draws closer to you. (loves more).

james 4:8

so yes god after we choose to respond to His love will love that person more then those that don't. love isn't just an emotion, its also a working relationship. something a married person will know. I have girlfriends that I have told I loved , I didn't work. I have a wife whom has loved me and I her. it hasn't been easy. I love my wife over the others as we worked and built something the others didn't have. God works like that.

esau thought little of his inheritance in that he wasn't near death(one meal wouldn't have saved anyone that starved or malnourished) and so because of that god as he already knew wouldn't bless him. God does forsee all our decisions before we are born.

He gives everyone the same chance. The saint had the same chance the sinner did. That's being not a respecter of persons.

But, if he hates some and loves others then he's a respecter of persons.

Scripture says "God so loved the world" and "He is the propitiation not only for our sins, but for the whole world also".

So either there is equal treatment for all (i.e. the saint deserved hell too), or he is a respecter by loving some and not others.

 

[Brother Mike]

But to complicate things even more:

Romans 9:18 NIV..Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Is that playing favorites?

That may mean the ones he doesn't have mercy on deserve no mercy, IDK.

Well, if your a Calvinist, you certainly have no issues with God playing favorites. If you actually value the scripture then you keep reading from verse 18.

God is longsuffering with who, before making them an example. If you be a cracked pot that is Not honorable, you do what in that situation? Who gets the strong delusion and no mercy'? Why did they get that?

Esu did a pretty serious thing. His value of his covenant and birth right was no higher than a bowl of soup. That is giving up your covenant for something far less. To make it worse, Esu repented in tears, not because he sinned against God and disappointed God. No, because he was worldly sorrowful for what he lost.

if you keep reading, God also foreknew the people of Israel, of that great plan He had, but Paul said God also called the gentiles for the same great plan, Being a people foreknown to be In Christ Jesus for all those that will believe. Proves God is no respecter of persons.

 

[Kenny_ms]

Well, if your a Calvinist, you certainly have no issues with God playing favorites. If you actually value the scripture then you keep reading from verse 18.

God is longsuffering with who, before making them an example. If you be a cracked pot that is Not honorable, you do what in that situation? Who gets the strong delusion and no mercy'? Why did they get that?

Esu did a pretty serious thing. His value of his covenant and birth right was no higher than a bowl of soup. That is giving up your covenant for something far less. To make it worse, Esu repented in tears, not because he sinned against God and disappointed God. No, because he was worldly sorrowful for what he lost.

if you keep reading, God also foreknew the people of Israel, of that great plan He had, but Paul said God also called the gentiles for the same great plan, Being a people foreknown to be In Christ Jesus for all those that will believe. Proves God is no respecter of persons.

Are you disagreeing with something I said? Wasn't sure how you got all that out of my post you quoted.

and this:

If you actually value the scripture then you keep reading from verse 18.

That looks an awful lot like bait and you are flat out saying I don't value the scripture. I mean I can deal with that if you must but the big picture here is coming into focus and probably should be dealt with too.

You know Mike, it's bad enough what you are doing on the other thread but I'm convinced this is an attempt to stalk me and make me pay for what should be a mild disagreement.

I'd be careful, your attitude is easy for me to see but, I'm afraid you are going to start making it know to everyone if you don't take it easy.

 

[Brother Mike]

Are you disagreeing with something I said? Wasn't sure how you got all that out of my post you quoted.

and this:

If you actually value the scripture then you keep reading from verse 18.

That looks an awful lot like bait and you are flat out saying I don't value the scripture. I mean I can deal with that if you must but the big picture here is coming into focus and probably I should be dealt with that now.

You know Mike, it's bad enough what you are doing on the other thread but I'm convinced this is an attempt to stalk me and make me pay for what should be a mild disagreement.

I'd be careful, your attitude is easy for me to see but, I'm afraid you are going to start making it know to everyone if you don't take it easy.

Wow Kenny. Seriously? Amazing how we read things if we want to believe something. Like Brother Mike is stalking and attacking. You can't think that bad of me, surely. I suppose you do.

No issue though, if you know your scriptures, nobody here presents any threat. If you don't, your doctrine gets shredded to pieces.

However, read again............................I was just talking with you, not attacking you. I don't carry things from one thread to another thread.

You asked if God plays favorites? you gave a scripture.

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(Rom 9:21-22)

I know Calvinist don't value scripture, they hand pick some and ignore the rest. I assumed you did value scripture and would keep reading.

what happened to Pharaoh?

God set Pharaoh up as King, blessed Pharaoh, Used Pharaoh to gather the people of Israel together in one place, feed them, and have the grow in Egypt as a great people.

Pharaoh was a butt head though. God put up with Pharaoh for a long time. Pharaoh made his own bed.

When God first came to Moses, God said....... I think it will take a heavy hand against the King to let my people go.

God knew Pharaoh, Had a good idea Pharaoh would be difficult, but God still said I just think. There was still hope with God that some how, some way Pharaoh would not be that difficult, despite God knowing Pharaoh very well.

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
(2Ti 2:20-21)

Even if we are a vessel to dishonor, God still gives the opportunity to get things right. Pharaoh did not get things right and was made an example.

Take it easy, I am not that bad, really. I was speaking of Calvinist, and assuming you did value the Word. I don't hold grudge either.

Mike

 

[jasonc]

He gives everyone the same chance. The saint had the same chance the sinner did. That's being not a respecter of persons.

But, if he hates some and loves others then he's a respecter of persons.

Scripture says "God so loved the world" and "He is the propitiation not only for our sins, but for the whole world also".

So either there is equal treatment for all (i.e. the saint deserved hell too), or he is a respecter by loving some and not others.

I guess in your eyes god is impotent and doesn't know your tommorow without denying your choices.esau was foreknown to be vain and to reject god.is god pleased with the saint and the sinner the same.is he close to Jesus as he is with satan? The greek word never implies hate but loved less.meaning god wanted to love esau but esau rejected god first.esau choose a meal over the blessings of god.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I've seen several interpretations

1. God hated Esau.
When God said that he loved Jacob and hated Esau, that is to be taken literally.

Problem: This contradicts scriptures which state God so loved the world, Iehouah hates the death of them that die, and God is willing none should perish.

2. God loved Esau less than Jacob
When God said that he hated Esau, it was actually an idiom or a figurative statement of comparison saying that he loved Esau less. An example is when Jesus said we are not his if we don't hate our parents (meaning holding Christ way above all).

Problem: This says that God is playing favourites while scripture says "God is not a respecter of persons".

3. God hated the nation of Edom.
This is saying that he rejected Edom as his.

Problem: this expands God's potential hate in this verse from one person to a whole group, and holds the contradictions from the first.

God hates the wicked.
Psalm 11:5 says: The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

If this is to be read literally, as God hating the wicked (rather than the wickedness of the wicked), this brings to question the hope for humanity in light of the scripture which says "There are none that do righteousness, no not one".

It will make more sense when you realize 'love' has more than one meaning. It's hard for us English speaking people because in our language we don't differentiate between the different kinds of love that there are. As an example, I don't love you as my brother in Christ the same way I love a sausage and pepperoni cheese pizza (with anchovies), yet in our language I use the same word 'love' for both kinds of love.

I love you guys, but honestly there's no need to go down the Calvy trail. Truthfully, I'm of the opinion that there is no need to ever visit the over-thought doctrines of Arminianism and Calvinism.