The following is an excerpt (modified slightly to a “blog post” format) from my paper, “God, the Non-Elect, and Romans 9: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Reprobation and Hardening in Romans 9.1-23” (see post; see paper). It comes from an excursus in the paper titled, “Esau I Hated” based on the language in Romans 9:13.
“Esau I Hated”
For many Christians, the three simple words “Esau I hated” (Rom 9:13) form one of the most puzzling statements in their Bible. Is this actually saying that God literally hated Esau? Many respond negatively by pointing out that Paul’s argument in Rom 9:6-13 concerns election. Consequently, “Jacob I loved” means “Jacob I elected” while “Esau I hated” means “Esau I rejected.”[1] Given that Paul’s argument in Rom 9:6-13 concerns election, this interpretation is without a doubt what Paul is teaching as he quotes Malachi 1:2-3. This fact also helps distinguish between God’s action in election and His attitude towards the non-elect. In other words, if “hate” simply refers to God’s attitude towards individuals due to their sin, Rom 9:13 would say, “I hated both Jacob and Esau,” for both are equally depraved. But the text shocks the reader with “Jacob I loved” indicating that behind “love” is the act of election and therefore behind “hate” is the reality of rejection.
The following was my favorite message I heard at this years Together for the [Underestimated] Gospel conference. I recommend it to you either in video or audio form. In this message David Platt seeks to show how divine sovereignty is the fuel of death-defying missions.
Ligon Duncan provides two quality video responses about a topic which always seems to be a hot issue among Christians: God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.
Hell for many is an uncomfortable topic. We typically focus on attributes of God such as His love and mercy, but less and less on His holiness, justice, and yes, I’ll say it, wrath. The issue I would like to discuss here is God’s relationship to hell.
Often times a plainly strange thinking finds its way into our perception of how humans/we relate to God. This false thought (although not often purposed) is thinking that instead of man being made for God, God was made for us, that God is for man, not properly vice versa. And of course the first problem with this statement is the word “made,” for God is eternal. He is the Creator, the maker, not “the made.” But not only is this the first problem, from here other issues develop.
Kirk E. Miller 