Commonly Misused Bible Verses: Romans 9:13

Posted on by October 15, 2023
45

Did God really love Jacob and hate Esau? According to many Christians, that’s exactly what Romans 9:13 teaches. But is that really what this verse is about?

I have contemplated writing this post for a while now. It can be very frustrating to hear people misuse the Bible. Some of the time it is done by non-Christians who have never bothered to consider what the passage actually teaches, but they are looking for a proof text to support some behavior or cause. However, in many cases, it is done by well-meaning Christians who have either misread the text or misunderstood the context of a given passage. The goal of this series on misused Bible verses is to examine what the text of Scripture is really teaching.

There are some topics that I tend to avoid on my blog for various reasons, which is why I put this one off for so long. But after hearing or reading several Christians misuse this verse in just the last few weeks, I decided it was time to enter the fray.

Commonly Misused Bible Verse #8: Romans 9:13

One of the most common debates among Christians centers on the topics known as Calvinism and Arminianism. Whenever believers debate this topic, Romans 9:13 is almost certain to be mentioned in support of the Calvinist side. This post is not designed to directly address that debate, but it will show why this popular verse is often misused in the midst of that debate. Please understand, I am not denying the doctrine of election, but I want to challenge the reader to take a closer look at the context of this verse before citing it in support of one’s position.

What is so controversial about Romans 9:13? Let’s take a look.

Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:13, NET)

That seems pretty straightforward, so what’s the big deal? Well, for Christians who believe that God loves everyone, this would be a pretty strong argument against their position. Does the Bible teach that God loves everyone? It seems to do just that in one of the most popular verses. John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” The way in which John uses the word “world” (Greek kosmon) would imply that God loves everyone in this world. Also, since we are supposed to imitate God, and we are commanded to love our enemies, it would seem that God also loves His enemies, at least to some degree. If that is true, how could He hate Esau? Is this a contradiction? Or are we just missing something?

Hate Doesn’t Always Mean Hate

Some would solve this dilemma by noting that love and hate are not necessarily mutually exclusive, even though we typically think of these words in this way. While I would agree with them on that point, it still doesn’t quite answer the question since there is a strong contrast drawn between God’s positive emotion for one party and His negative emotion toward the other.

There are at least two big problems for those who use Romans 9:13 to say that God hated Esau. First, the word translated as “hate” is the Greek root miseo. It is translated as “hate” in many other places, including Luke 14:26, where Jesus said, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”

I agree with the traditional understanding of this verse that Jesus was drawing a contrast between the love we have for Him and the love we have for our family members, so He employed hyperbolic language to emphasize the point. Essentially, He was teaching that we need to love family members less than we love Him. This makes perfect sense since elsewhere the Bible commands us to love family members.

One of the problems for those who like to cite Romans 9:13 to say that God hated Esau is that the other side could easily respond by saying that God simply loved him less than Jacob. After all, there are other places where this love/hate language is used, but the “hate” doesn’t really mean “hate,” (i.e., despising the person). For example, the same love/hate comparisons are made in Deuteronomy 21:15–17, and there the word “hate” (or “unloved”) refers to one who is loved less (see also Genesis 29:30–31).

The biggest problem for those who use Romans 9:13 to talk about God hating Esau is that this verse is not even about Esau. Yep, you read that right. This verse is not about Esau, and it isn’t even about Jacob. Wait a minute! Have I lost my mind? How can this not be about Jacob and Esau? It’s so clear. Actually, if we look at the context, it’s so clear that it is not about Jacob and Esau. For those who have followed this series, you know we need to examine the context, so let’s back up and see what Paul was talking about.

Paul’s Unceasing Anguish

In the first eight chapters of Romans, Paul laid out a powerful explanation of the gospel message. Chapters 1–3 explain that we are all sinful and that we need a Savior. Romans 4 shows that salvation has always been by grace through faith. Chapters 5–7 address some of the implications of salvation, such as the facts that we have peace with God, we should no longer continue in sin, and that while we are freed from the Law, we still struggle with sin. Chapter 8 is a thorough explanation of the security of our salvation, ending with the idea that nothing in all of creation could ever separate us from the love of God which is in Christ. Having laid out the case for salvation by grace, through faith, in Christ, Paul turns his attention to something weighing heavily on his mind.

Here are the opening verses of Romans 9:

I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me in the Holy Spirit—I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed—cut off from Christ—for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites. To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 9:1–5, NET)

What could cause Paul such unceasing anguish of heart? It was the response (or better, the lack of response) of the Jews to the gospel message. In Romans 1:16, Paul explained that the gospel went first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile. That was his traditional approach. Upon entering a city, Paul first went to the synagogue to preach to the Jews before ever going to the Gentiles (see Acts 17:1–15 and 18:1–4).

Now that the gospel had gone out to the Gentiles, did that mean that God was finished with the Jews? Would God’s promises to the Jews fail? That is what Paul spends three entire chapters addressing. He begins chapter 10 by writing, “Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God on behalf of my fellow Israelites is for their salvation. For I can testify that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not in line with the truth” (Romans 10:1–2, NET). He opens chapter 11 by writing, “So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew!” (Romans 11:1–2, NET). Without space to go into all the details of Paul’s answer, look at how he wraps up the discussion near the end of Romans 11.

For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion;
he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins.”
In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of the God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways! (Romans 11:25–33, NET)

In other words, at some point in the future, the Jews (who are currently enemies of the gospel) will turn to God and be saved, just as promised in Zechariah 12–14 and elsewhere. Many have claimed that the Israel being saved in verse 26 is the church, but that cannot be. First, Paul was writing about what would happen to the Jewish people, so it makes sense that he would conclude the discussion with the great news about the Jews. Second, he wrote this letter to the church—those who believe the gospel—so why would he say that the church is an enemy of the gospel? It just doesn’t make any sense in the context to try to make “Israel” mean the church.

Two Nations, Two Peoples

So let’s get back to Romans 9:13. If it isn’t about Jacob and Esau, what is it about? In verses 6–9, Paul explains that not everyone who is a descendant of Israel (remember Jacob’s name was changed to Israel) are truly considered to be part of Israel, just as not all of Abraham’s descendants are considered to be part of the promises, since it was only Isaac who was the son of promise (and not Ishmael or any of Abraham’s sons with Keturah). Beginning in verse 10, we come to our specific context.

Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac—even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling)—it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger,” just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:10–13, NET)

Paul cites part of Genesis 25:23, where God said to Rebekah: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples will be separated from within you. One people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger” (NET). Read it again. This verse is about “two nations” (“two peoples”).

In keeping with his discussion about Israel throughout Romans 9–11, Paul cites a verse that is clearly about the two nations (not individuals) that would come from Rebekah. This was not about Jacob and Esau, but about the nations that would come from them: the Israelites and Edomites. Does this interpretation fit the rest of the context? It’s the only one that does because that is exactly what the next citation is about. The quotation about loving Jacob (Israel) and hating Esau is from Malachi 1:2–4.

“I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”
Says the Lord.
“Yet Jacob I have loved;
But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness.”
Even though Edom has said…(Malachi 1:2–4, NKJV)

Malachi was written more than 12 centuries after Jacob and Esau had died. But for the millennium leading up to Malachi’s time, God had shown love to Jacob’s descendants (the Israelites) who were occasionally faithful to Him, but he “hated” (loved less) Esau’s descendants (the Edomites, a very wicked nation throughout the years). While Genesis 23:25 pointed forward to the relationship between the Edomites and Israelites, Malachi 1:2–4 looked back on God’s treatment of them during the intervening centuries.

In this classic painting by Peter Paul Rubens (1624), Jacob is showing bowing before Esau when they were reunited after 20 years. The Bible never tells us that Esau served Jacob.

In this classic painting by Peter Paul Rubens (1624), Jacob bows before Esau when they were reunited after 20 years. The Bible never tells us that Esau served Jacob.

I’ve explained this to people before, and several have responded with something like, “Okay, so the Old Testament passages were about the nations, but in the New Testament, Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was “repurposing” these verses to talk about Jacob and Esau.” That’s a nice try, but it doesn’t work. If that’s what Paul was doing, then he was wrong. Look again at Romans 9:12. Paul said that Rebekah was told that the older nation (Esau/Edom) would serve the younger (Jacob/Israel).

Guess what—if this verse is supposed to be about the individuals named Esau and Jacob then it is false, because Esau (the older brother) is never shown to have served Jacob (the younger brother). Never. If anything, it was the other way around. Jacob fled from his older brother because he had stolen Esau’s blessing. When they came back together after 20 years apart (Genesis 33), Jacob repeatedly bowed down before Esau, called himself Esau’s “servant,” and even called Esau “my lord” four times! However, the nation that came from Esau (the Edomites) did serve the nation that came from Jacob (Israel) on several occasions, especially from the days of David until the days of King Jehoram, son of Ahab.

Conclusion

I am not opposing the doctrine of election, since the Bible clearly talks about it (although I would disagree with the way some people define it), and I am not saying that this passage is not about election—it is. What I am saying is that Romans 9:13 is not about the election of the individual named Jacob and the non-election of the individual named Esau. It is not about God loving Jacob and hating Esau. It is citation of Malachi 1:2–3 as part of Paul’s discussion on God’s plan for the Jewish people and the context shows that God elected Israel (the nation) and not Edom before their respective progenitors were ever born.

Chick-fil-A and the Intolerance of the “Tolerant”

Posted on by August 5, 2012
29

Comments made by the president of Chick-fil-A led to a tsunami of intolerance from those who claim to be so tolerant. This is a picture of my order on 7/28/12.

Recent comments by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy sparked protests from liberals. Even the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and other places made statements to the effect that Chick-fil-A is not welcome in their respective cities. The vitriolic reaction has sparked Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day scheduled for today, August 1, when hundreds of thousands of people (including me) plan to show their support for the restaurant.

What did Cathy say that was so terrible? In an interview with Baptist Press, Cathy was asked about the company’s support of the traditional family. His response: “Well, guilty as charged.” He went on to add, “We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.”

These comments have ignited angry rants against Cathy and Chick-fil-A. Boycotts and threats of bans have been common. Many of the online reports have completely twisted his words by saying that he was responding to a question about the company being anti-gay.

What was so shocking about his statement? Nothing. It has long been public knowledge that Cathy operates Chick-fil-A according to what he believes to be biblical values, such as the organization being closed on Sundays and donating money to national marriage ministries. This is often reported as donating to anti-gay or anti-marriage equality groups (notice the labels used to make the groups sound vicious and spiteful). In fact, just last year (February 2011) Chick-fil-A was in hot water for sponsoring a conference run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute. According to many on the left, this is a rabid anti-gay group (or perhaps they are just pro-traditional family). So there was absolutely nothing surprising about Cathy’s comments.

That’s what happened. Cathy didn’t say anything unexpected, and he didn’t say anything about banning homosexuals from going to or being hired by Chick-fil-A, or that he was in favor of stoning homosexuals, or anything like that. He simply reiterated that he was not in favor of gay marriage. And for that, Cathy has been called homophobic, hateful, bigoted, and more.

Let’s take a closer look at what is really going on, and we’ll see who has really been acting in a hateful, intolerant, and bigoted manner. Liberals love to claim that they are for “tolerance,” yet many of them are completely intolerant of anyone who dares to disagree with their views. Rather than being willing to calmly discuss the issue in an open exchange of ideas, the “tolerant” liberals will resort to name calling, shouting down the opposition, and in some cases, lawsuits and violence. Yeah, that seems tolerant.

I am a Christian, not a hatemonger

Think through this with me for a minute. I am not in favor of gay marriage. Why do I hold this position? Because I am a Christian who believes that the Bible is true from beginning to end, and that it is the authority in every area of life. I believe that God defined marriage at the beginning as being between one man and one woman for life. Jesus reiterated this in Matthew 19:4–5. Furthermore, the Bible consistently states in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexual behavior is sinful (Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9–10), so why would I condone behavior that God’s Word says is wrong?

Does that mean that I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not! Do I believe homosexual behavior is sinful? Yes I do, and so is adultery, lying, stealing, lust, greed, gluttony, etc., and I’ve certainly committed more than my fair share of sins. But I can be friends with a homosexual and treat them with respect and dignity. They are human beings made in the image of God, and I believe Jesus died on the Cross for all people (“For God so loved the world…”). The gospel needs to be shared with all people—not just heterosexuals—because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

“But you believe the Bible is true, so you must believe that we should execute homosexuals since that’s what Leviticus says.” No I don’t believe we should execute homosexuals or adulterers. This doesn’t mean I’m rejecting the Bible. That law in Leviticus 20:13 was given to the Israelites, along with a bunch of other laws, during the time of Moses, and not to the church. According to the New Testament, as a Christian, I am not under the law (Galatians 5:18).

[Added 8/3/12: With a large number of unbelievers reading this post, this point needs a little more explanation. From the time of Exodus on through the rest of the Old Testament, God was dealing with humanity primarily through the nation of Israel. He gave them the Law (made up of 613 laws, by some counts). These consisted of moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. The law in Leviticus 20:13, which prescribes the punishment for homosexual behavior is part of the civil law code. In the New Testament, Jesus came, fulfilled the Law, and He commanded His disciples to take His message (the gospel) to all people, both Jew and Gentile (non-Jew). God’s standards and morality did not change, but the church is not a theocratic nation (as Israel was supposed to be), so I do not believe we are supposed to carry out the punishments that were part of the covenant made with the nation of Israel in Moses’ day. As mentioned above, Christians are not under the Law.]

Hypocrisy on Parade

There are some who behave despicably in the name of Christ, and I believe are very hateful toward those who disagree with them (Westboro Baptist quickly comes to mind). But the Westboro folks do not represent the vast majority of Christians. They are a fringe group and do not demonstrate the love, mercy, and grace required of Christians.

Christians certainly have their share of problems. I’m not afraid to admit that. But the hypocrisy from so many of the liberals and pro-homosexual groups is overwhelming when it comes to this issue.

There is currently a petition from a student group at the University of South Dakota seeking to ban Chick-fil-A from opening a store there (for which they already have a contract in place). I don’t have a problem with someone voicing their opinions, but consider the absolute hypocrisy from the student who started the petition. He said, “Universities should be beacons of tolerance. The official policy is not to discriminate. We feel official actions to the contrary only give lip service to the stated policy.”

Did you catch that? Universities should be “beacons of tolerance” and “the official policy is not to discriminate.” But apparently it is just fine to be intolerant of and discriminate against Christians. So much for tolerance and anti-discrimination.

Where was this outcry of intolerance and discrimination against President Obama? Up until a few months ago, he was supposedly against gay marriage. I don’t remember the mayors of Boston and Chicago calling for a ban against him. I don’t remember student groups seeking to forbid him from visiting their campuses. Where was the outrage from the liberal media calling him anti-gay, homophobic, and bigoted? Of course, he was likely in favor of gay marriage all along, and most people fully expected him to embrace it, so it could be that these groups gave him a pass for that reason.

Often the “tolerant” liberals and anti-traditional marriage people (see how easy it is to play word games) are the ones who are pushing others around and bullying. At a recent student journalism conference in Washington, a homosexual anti-bullying speaker ridiculed Christians and God to the point that dozens of students walked out of the assembly—and were heckled and cursed at in the process by this speaker.

So these people only accept and “tolerate” those who agree with them. But that is not tolerance at all. True tolerance can only be displayed toward those whose opinions and practices differ from your own.

A picture recently circulated on facebook pointing out the hypocrisy of boycotting Chick-fil-A for their support of traditional marriage. Apparently it is okay to act outraged over the comments made by a Christian businessman, yet not a word is said about the Islamic nations that execute homosexuals. Why haven’t these people boycotted gas stations since so much of our oil/gasoline comes from OPEC nations who put homosexuals to death?

Politically Correct Nonsense

Disagreeing with someone on the subject of gay marriage does not make one homophobic anymore than being in favor of gay marriage makes one heterophobic or “Christian-phobic.” I am not afraid of homosexuals, nor am I anti-gay or bigoted. I am anti-sin, but pro-sinner. I am supposed to love people enough to share the truth with them, but that does not mean that I should condone their behavior.

Here’s one of the great things about being an American. I should be able to say these things, and you should have a right to disagree with me if you want to. But the goal of using politically correct language is to silence any opposition. Instead of having a lively, but civil debate about the issue, liberals resort to name-calling, saying that someone is anti-gay or anti-marriage equality.

Those who are against abortion (like me) because they believe it is murder (since a human life is being taken) are said to be waging a war against women. We are allegedly anti-choice and anti-women’s rights, but we really are in favor of choice and women’s rights. We think the baby should be given the choice whether he or she wants to live. Also, since roughly half of the children killed in abortion clinics in this country are girls, then I could argue that those in favor of abortion are truly the ones waging a war on women and who are anti-women’s rights.

Politically correct terminology is designed to silence opposition and distract from the real issues. But it is effective, because it wears down the opponent and deceives those who don’t take the time to think through an issue logically.

Marriage Equality

For the record, homosexuals already have equal rights when it comes to marriage in this country. Any homosexual man can marry any woman who will have him (as long as she’s not a close relative), and that is the exact same right that a straight man has. That’s equality.

“But a person should be able to marry whoever they want to, as long as it’s consensual.” Really? Should a brother be able to marry his sister if they both agree to it? Should a man be able to marry five women if he wants to and if they agree to it? How about a father marrying his daughter as long as they love each other or a mother marrying her son? If you redefine marriage on your own terms and justify it with this argument, then where does it stop? There’s no good answer to those questions because those in favor of redefining marriage do not have an absolute standard to which they can appeal.

Conclusion

While I pray it does not happen, based on the direction our nation has been heading, I expect gay marriage will be legal in just about every state within a decade or so. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it or believe it is moral. Some would call me a hater for holding the biblical view on this subject. So does that make them haters since they disagree with me? Why is okay to discriminate against Christian beliefs?

I would prefer that we stop these silly word games and have civil, rational discussions about the issues. We are told to stop the hate, but from what I’ve seen, the hate is not coming from Christians. Instead, it has been directed toward Christians like Dan Cathy who stand up for what they believe.

[Update 8/5/12: I have received numerous comments that are too vulgar and vicious to approve for posting. So if you plan to comment on here, please keep it family friendly.]