Rom 9:13"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."......Honestly with such words like these from God,then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
"If" one truly
desires honestly and sincerity before God
, then let God be true and every man a liar.
Romans 9:13...Reads~"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.""As it is written~
When the Apostles refer in this manner to the Scriptures, they do it as adducing authority which is conclusive and not to be questioned.
Thus God preferred Jacob before Esau without respect to the goodness or wickedness of either, attaching good things to the one, and evil to the other, before they were born. And this quotation by the Apostle is intended to prove that the purpose of God, in choosing who shall be His children according to election, might stand
, not by works, but of Him that calleth, verse 11~ which shows that all along the reference is to spiritual and eternal blessings, shadowed forth, as is usual in the Prophets, by things that are temporal and carnal. In the same place God likewise declares His dealings towards the posterity of Esau; but the words here quoted expressly refer to Jacob and Esau personally. The Apostle is speaking of heads of nations; and in God’s dealings towards them is found the reason of the difference of the treatment of their posterities. The introduction of Jacob and Esau personally, presents an emblem of this, while the design is to show that some among the Israelites were the children of God, and not others. That the Apostle quotes these words in reference to Jacob and Esau personally, is clear, since he speaks of them before they were born, and declares their conception by one mother, of one father, which could not be said of their posterity. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated~Jacob was loved before he was born, consequently before he was capable of doing good; and Esau was hated before he was born, consequently before he was capable of doing evil. It may be asked why God hated him before he sinned personally; and human wisdom has proved its folly,
by endeavoring to soften the word hated into something less than hatred: but the man who submits like a little child to the word of God, will find no difficulty in seeing in what sense Esau was worthy of the hatred of God before he was born. For me it is not hard to understand, and it should not be for any believer. God alone is immutable, without the possibility of changing, or being able to be deceived, absolutely an impossibility. Not so with angels, or man, or any other creature that could be named, other than the Godhead.
There had to be an election
by God, both of angels and man, to preserved them a right to not be destroyed because of their mutability. Man sinned in Adam
, and was therefore properly an object of God’s hatred as well as fallen Adam. There is no other view that will ever account for this language and this treatment of Esau
. By nature, too, he was a wicked creature, conceived in sin, although his faculties were not expanded, or his innate depravity developed
, which God, who hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardeneth whom He will, and who giveth no account of His matters, did not see good to counteract by His grace, as in the case of Jacob
, who originally was equally wicked, and by nature, like Esau, a child of wrath and a fit object of hatred.
It is not unusual to take part with Esau who was rejected, against Jacob who was the object of Divine favor. Everything that can be made to appear either amiable or virtuous in the character of Esau is eagerly grasped at,
and exhibited in the most advantageous light. We are told of his disinterestedness, frankness, and generosity; while we are reminded that Jacob was a cool, selfish, designing man, who was always watching to take advantage of his brother’s simplicity, and who ungenerously and unjustly robbed his elder brother of the blessing and the birthright.
This way of reasoning shows more zeal for the interest of a cause than discretion in its support. Instead of invalidating, it only serves to confirm the truth it opposes
. While it is evident that Jacob possessed the fear of God, which was not the case with respect to Esau~ and therefore that the one was born of God, and the other remained a child of nature; yet there is so much palpable imperfection and evil in Jacob, as to manifest that God did not choose him for the excellence of his foreseen works. In maintaining, then, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, it is by no means necessary to vindicate the conduct of Jacob towards his brother.
Both he and his mother were undoubtedly to blame, much to blame, as to the way in which he obtained his father’s blessing, to the prejudice of Esau, while the revealed purpose of God formed no apology for their conduct. That sin is an evil thing and a bitter, Jacob fully experienced. His conduct in that transaction led him into a maze of troubles, from which through life he was never disentangled. While Jacob was a man of God, and Esau a man of the world, there is enough to show that the inheritance was bestowed on the former not of works but of grace
Nothing can more clearly manifest the strong opposition of the human mind to the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty, than the violence which human ingenuity has employed to wrest the expression
, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated
. By many this has been explained, ‘Esau have I loved less.’ But Esau was not the object of any degree of the Divine love, and the word hate never signifies to love less
. The occurrence of the word in that expression, "hate father and mother," Luke 14:26
, has been alleged in vindication of this explanation; but the word in this last phrase is used figuratively, and in a manner that cannot be mistaken
. Although hatred is not meant to be asserted, yet hatred is the thing that is literally expressed. By a strong figure of speech, that is called hatred which resembles it in its effects. We will not obey those whom we hate, if we can avoid it. Just so, if our parents command us to disobey Jesus Christ, we must not obey them; and this is called hatred, figuratively, from the resemblance of its effects.
But in this passage, in which the expression, ‘Esau have I hatred’ occurs, everything is literal
. The Apostle is reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Besides, the contrast of loving Jacob with hating Esau, shows that the last phrase is literal and proper hatred. If God’s love to Jacob was real literal love, God’s hatred to Esau must be real literal hatred
. It might as well be said that the phrase, ‘Jacob have I loved,’ does not signify that God really loved Jacob, but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all that is meant by the expression, is that God hated Jacob less than he hated Esau. If every man’s own mind is a sufficient security against concluding the meaning to be, "Jacob have I hated less," his judgment ought to be a security against the equally
unwarrantable meaning, "Esau have I loved less."
But why, it may be asked of those who object to the plain meaning of the words, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, and insist that their import is that God loved Esau less than Jacob — why should God love Esau less than Jacob, and that, too, before the children were born, or had done good or evil? Can they explain this? Would it not involve a difficulty which, even on their own principles, they are unable to remove? Why then refuse to admit the natural and obvious signification of the passage? If God says that He hated Esau, are we to avoid receiving God’s testimony, or justified in employing a mode of torture in expounding His words? If, again, Esau, as some insist, were the better character, why was Jacob preferred to him?
then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
Paul addresses such anticipation of his doctrine in verses: 19-23.
then one is tempted to ask if God is partial or a hater.
May I suggest a powerful book to read for you. You can read it on line I am sure. A.W.Pink's book on the "Sovereignty of God" by Baker house, not
by Banner of Truth, who watered it down to make it more pleasing for man to accept. It is short, powerful and supported with the scriptures. I would be happy to send any person a free copy of it. It would be a great investment for the good of sincere souls searching for answers.