# Does Hatred means love less ?



## Mayflower (Feb 28, 2008)

I read in the commentary of Romans 9 by Martin Lloyd Jones, that he and also Charles Hodge, believes that Hatred means love less.

What do you think ?


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 28, 2008)

The question "Does God hate the reprobate?" came up back in December and I gave the following definition of hate:

It would probably help in this discussion if you would stop and define what you mean by hate, especially when applying to the divine pathos.

For example, we may speak of love as a tremendous longing in our guts that we must be with another because they complete us. This is movie love.

God's love is unconditional so we must remove sentiment and emotion. God's love is electing love, it is motivated by something within the Godhead that we are not privy to. God sets his preference on a sinner and that preference is not determined by anything outside of the 'mind' of God. His purpose is to glorify himself and reveal his attributes to the world and to the angels.

So to say 'God loves the elect' is redundant. It is just as redundant to ask "Does God hate the reprobate?"

It's like asking, does God hold back setting His preference on one whom he has purposed not to set his preference upon. It makes no sense.

Godly hate is the purposeful withholding of his preference or favor upon the sinner, leaving the sinner's rebellious march toward Hell undisturbed.

Godly hate does no mean God hates someones guts and he hopes they rot in Hell through a sneer and clenched teeth. Remove the human emotion and sentiment.

Of course there may be a higher and more pure form of emotion within the Godhead, the scriptures certainly reference God's emotions but we can't get our minds around such pathos. His ways are not our ways.

So the answer is "Yes, God hates the rebrobate" but be careful how you picture Godly hate in your mind.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 28, 2008)

In particular reference to your question, Ralph, I would rather reply that hate means to prefer less. I'm thinking of the passage where Jesus says we must hate our mother and father and so on.

He is saying that we are to set our full preference on God and so logically, we prefer our mother and father less.


----------



## KMK (Feb 28, 2008)

I think God's electing love is described here:



> Deut 7:6-8 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.



God's love is all about His choice. God's hatred is based on sin, but God's love is based on His choice.

I always have to ask, "Why would someone want to change the normal definition of hate to something like "love less"? Is it because in their judgment it would be unrighteous of God to hate the reprobate? Be very careful with that one! Who are we to sit in judgment of God?



> Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 28, 2008)

A quote from sermon by Charles Spurgeon, Jacob and Esau:



> It is a terrible text, and I will be honest with it if I can. One man says the word "hate" does not mean hate; it means "love less:"—"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I loved less." It may be so: but I don't believe it is. At any rate, it says "hate" here; and until you give me another version of the Bible, I shall keep to this one. I believe that the term is correctly and properly translated; that the word "hate" is not stronger than the original; but even if it be a little stronger, it is nearer the mark than the other translation which is offered to us in those meaningless words, "love less." I like to take it and let it stand just as it is. The fact is, God loved Jacob, and he did not love Esau; he did choose Jacob, but he did not choose Esau; he did bless Jacob, but he never blessed Esau; his mercy followed Jacob all the way of his life, even to the last, but his mercy never followed Esau; he permitted him still to go on in his sins, and to prove that dreadful truth, "Esau have I hated."


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2008)

We must be careful to ensure we use the word "hate" in the context the Bible uses it. What is the context? "Hate" is the action of God towards the firstborn, Esau, who has been passed over in order to show preferential treatment to a younger sibling, Jacob, in the matter of inheritance. This was considered an act of despite seeing as it required certain privileges to be removed from Esau. So it is purely an act of government, and not in any sense a personal feeling. This is supported by the apostle Paul when he quotes Malachi in the context of "the election of grace." It is an action of a superior in choosing to bestow or withhold blessings upon an inferior. Human characteristics of hate must not be imported into the term. If we understand the term is speaking of preferential treatment, then there is no reason why the comparative may not be used, as Charles Hodge has suggested.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 29, 2008)

It seems to me that Paul used "opposites" to make a point. If we want to explain it, we should take Paul's lead and describe it as chose _vs_ rejected or blessed _vs_ cursed. To me, loved _vs_ "loved less" just doesn't do justice to the text or Paul's point. Just my $0.02.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 29, 2008)

I suppose the question boils down to this: does the definition of "Love" and "Hate" in the scriptures equal the definition of these same terms in Western society?

I think many have already made this point. 

So what is the right answer? Forget our modern desktop dictionaries; there must be a true Biblical definition of these terms.

from Websters 1828 Dictionary:



> HATE
> 
> HATE, v.t. L. odi, for hodi.
> 
> ...



Love


----------



## john (Mar 19, 2008)

Hello Chris.



> I suppose the question boils down to this: does the definition of "Love" and "Hate" in the scriptures equal the definition of these same terms in Western society?



Love :
1CO 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 *Love never fails...*

Hate :
Rev 19:15 ...He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. (See also : Luke 16:20-31.)

To love-less is a contradiction of God's definition of love, love would fail. Love would be less-patient, love would be less-kind, so love isn't kind or patient because it fails, it's less than, and therefore it is not love because love never fails.

The word translated 'hate' is to detest. New Testament Greek - StudyLight.org

john.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 19, 2008)

An interesting text in this discussion can be found in [KJV]Genesis 29:30,31[/KJV] where the Bible says first that Rachel was loved more than Leah, and then says that Leah was hated. Given that Leah is still bearing children, I think we can conclude that Jacob's hatred was not some absolute personal loathing.... However, God's hatred is obviously put in a context where its consequences are rather more severe.


----------



## Mayflower (Jul 6, 2008)

JACOB I HAVE LOVED,
BUT ESAU I HAVE HATED" 
Romans 9:13 

GOOD NEWS FROM THE REDEEMER

November 2, 2003 MESSAGE #500 

I. Objections to the truth "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Few if any texts in all the Holy Scriptures are as objectionable in the eyes of many as this one.

1. Some object that "hated" does not mean hated. They aver instead that "hated" means loved less. They usually use for the "proof text" the requirement set forth by Jesus Christ in Luke 14:26: "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." They compare this to the parallel text, Matthew 10:37: "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." They deduce from these texts that Christ does not require His disciples to "hate" other people. Rather, they aver, Christ requires them to love those other persons less than they love Him. Accordingly, they would change Romans 9:13 so that it would read, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have loved less"; or, "Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have loved, but not as much as Jacob."

They err! When God speaks of hatred, he means "to hate", not "to love less". But we need to realize that hatred is manifested in two different ways. The first is positive hatred, which has for its object sin and sinners, and manifests itself in showing to them the abhorrence they justly deserve (as in Psalm 5:4-6; 7:11-16; 11:5- 7; 139:22). The second is negative hatred, which may have for its object anyone, and manifests itself in neglecting or bypassing such a person in favor of someone else.

This second meaning is that which applies in Luke 14:26. To hate relatives and friends and self in order to come to Christ as a disciple means only to forsake everything in order to embrace Him as Master. Christ therefore adds in the context, "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has [in an act of negative hatred] cannot be My disciple." (v.33).

They who would change "hated" to "loved less" in Romans 9:13 would do great violence to Holy Scriptures if their principle were applied elsewhere. For example, it is said of God in Hebrews 1:9, "You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness." But if "hated" means "loved less", this text may read, "You have loved lawlessness, but less than righteousness." (See the same misapplication in also Psalm 97:10; 119:113, 163; Ecclesiastes 3:8; Isaiah 61:8; Amos 5:15; Micah 3:2.) 

Furthermore, he who takes to himself the right to change "hated" to "loved less" must in turn grant to others the right to change "loved" to "hated less". Accordingly, our present text would read not only "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have loved less," but also "Esau I have hated, but Jacob I have hated less."

Words mean things! When God says, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," He means exactly what He says. He does not mean "Esau I have loved less." His sentiments toward Jacob and Esau respectively are exact opposites.

2. Some object that "Esau" does not mean Esau. Some of these say God did not hate the person Esau, but rather the sins of Esau, because they believe "God hates sin, but loves the sinner." This contradicts Scriptural statements such as "You hate all workers of iniquity" (Psalm 5:5), not merely their works.

Others object to any intimation that God hates one person while loving another person. They therefore reject the doctrine of God choosing one person to be the object of His love and to be the recipient of His spiritual and eternal blessings, but leaving another person to be the object of His hate. But they accept the doctrine of God choosing one nation to be the object of His love and to be the recipient of His material and temporal blessings, but leaving another nation to be the object of his hate. They recognize that the nation Israel descended from Jacob (Genesis 45:8ff), and that the nation Edom descended from Esau (Genesis 36:1ff), and that God loved Israel but hated Edom (Malachi 1:1-5). Therefore, having found what is to them a great malady in the statement "Esau I have hated"; they would cure it by having the statement to read instead "Edom I have hated."

Their proposed remedy is worse than the supposed malady! What is a nation but a body of persons! If they object to God hating one person such as Esau, they should object all the more to God hating all the persons in Esau's nation!

Their proposed remedy also violates the context of our present text. When God speaks of Jacob and Esau, He refers to the two children - not nations - who had been twins in the womb of Rebecca (vv.10-12; cp. Genesis 25:20-28). And when God elsewhere says, "Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated" (Malachi 1:2f), He identifies of whom He speaks by asking, "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?"

Furthermore, the subject of the context of the present text is indeed personal election to spiritual and eternal blessings, not merely national election to material and temporal blessings. In the immediate context, Paul was proving that "the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls" (v.11). In the broader context, he declares that the nation Israel under the Old Covenant was comprised of national children of God, and that this nation had been loved by God above all other nations; but all those of Israel who rejected His gospel would not be His spiritual children, and would be hated by Him instead (9:1-8; 10:1-4). On the other hand, he declares that many people of the unloved nations, and who were not national children of God, would through believing the gospel become His spiritual children, objects indeed of His saving love (9:25-31). All rejecters of the gospel, whether Jew or Gentile, are hated as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"; but all believers of the gospel, whether Jew or Gentile, are loved as "vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" (9:22-24).

II. Proofs of the truth "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." The only proof required by children of God is the fact that God said so. However, because this is not enough for others, we here present some historical evidence.

1. God blessed Jacob over Esau. God in eternity decreed, and in time declared, even while these twins were in their mother's womb, "The older [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]" (vv.10-12). In fulfillment of this prophecy, God permitted Jacob to obtain Esau's birthright (Genesis 25:29-33) and blessing (27:1-38) - including mastery over Esau (25:37). And God spared Jacob from Esau's malevolent intention to kill him (27:41-45).

2. God blessed Jacob with privileges He withheld from Esau.

i. God blessed Jacob at Bethel to behold Him, and to receive from Him the unconditional promise of both personal and national blessings in both the physical and spiritual realms (28:10-17).

ii. God at Bethel confirmed to Jacob the Messianic prophecy previously made to Abraham (22:18) and confirmed to Isaac (26:4), that "in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (28:14).

iii. God at Mahanaim blessed Jacob by sending a host of angels to protect him (32:1f). 

iv. God at the brook Jabbok blessed Jacob to behold Him face to face and to prevail against Him in prayer (32:22-32).

v. God blessed Jacob by sending Christ His Angel to redeem him from all evil (48:15f). 

vi. God blessed Jacob by permitting him at death to be gathered with his fathers Abraham and Isaac (49:29-33) – in whose presence Christ says Jacob is, in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11).

vii. God blessed Jacob by repeatedly calling him "My servant" (e.g., Ezekiel 28:25; 37:25).

viii. God blessed Jacob by permitting him to die in faith as did his believing forefathers, and confesses "Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them" (Hebrews 11:8-16).

ix. God blessed Jacob by greatly blessing his descendants (Deuteronomy 10:15): They were told, "The LORD delighted only in your fathers [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob], to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day." On the other hand, Esau and his descendants were cursed by God forever (Malachi 1:3f): "... they shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever" (cp. Jeremiah 49:8-10; Obadiah).


The blessings God bestowed unto Jacob are typical of the blessings he bestows unto all who believe in the God of Jacob, those whom He loves. On the other hand, His withholding them from Esau is typical of His withholding them from all who refuse to believe in Him, those whom He hates.

http://www.grace-for-today.com/2276.htm


----------



## Mayflower (Jul 6, 2008)

"JACOB I HAVE LOVED,
BUT ESAU I HAVE HATED" (2)
Romans 9:13 

GOOD NEWS FROM THE REDEEMER

November 9, 2003 MESSAGE #501 

II. Reasons for the truth "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Why did God love Jacob but hate Esau?

1. God hated Esau because God acted in justice toward him. Holy Scriptures are very plain regarding the justice and righteousness of God, and of His consequent hatred of sin and sinners. "God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11). "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, ... so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20). "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. ... You hate all workers of iniquity. ... The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man" (Psalm 5:4-6). "The Lord tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain coals; fire and brimstone and a burning wind shall be the portion of their cup. For the Lord is righteous" (Psalm 11:5-7). "God is jealous, and the Lord avenges; the Lord avenges and is furious. The Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies" (Nahum 1:2). He will send "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil" (Romans 2:8f).

Esau was the sort of person God in His justice hates. As the consequence of his identification with Adam his federal head, and even while he was yet in his mother's womb - "not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil" (Romans 9:11) - he was a sinner under the judgment of condemnation (Romans 5:12-21): "Therefore, ... through one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned .... by the one man's offense many died .... the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation .... by the one man's offense death reigned through the one .... through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation .... by one man's disobedience many were made sinners .... sin reigned in death."

Consequently, Esau was "in sin ... conceived" and "brought forth in iniquity" (Psalm 51:5). He therefore was of those of whom it is written, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3). He was, like all the Adamic race, born "dead in trespasses and sins, in which you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others" (Ephesians 2:1-3).

As for Esau personally, he proved himself worthy of God's hatred. He is characterized as a "profane person ..., who for one morsel of food sold his birthright" (Hebrews 12:16; cp. Genesis 25:29-34). That which is profane is the opposite of that which is holy: it is outside the realm of sanctity, and debarred from sacred privileges. He who is profane is classed with the worst sorts of people: the "fornicator" (Hebrews 12:16); the "lawless" and "insubordinate", "ungodly" and "sinners", "unholy" and "profane" (1 Timothy 1:9).

What was so profane about Esau selling his birthright? Among the Hebrew patriarchs, the birthright was very special: It conferred preeminence to the firstborn and a double portion of the inheritance. And the birthright was very sacred: It conferred to the firstborn the privilege of priesthood, and made him the custodian of the divine promises, and placed him in the lineage of the coming Messiah, and made him typical of those who are in the "church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven" (Hebrews 12:23).

"Esau despised his birthright" (Genesis 25:34). And he was unrepentant about doing so (Hebrews 12:26): "For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it [the blessing, not repentance] diligently with tears." Esau despised and rejected the things of God; God therefore despised and rejected Esau.

Esau furthermore grieved his parents by marrying heathen women (26:34f), thereby violating the principle of holy marriage observed by his grandfather Abraham (24:3f). For this reason, Esau may also be the "fornicator" of Hebrews 12:16. He also resolved to murder his brother Jacob (27:41).

It therefore is with good reason that God says, "Esau I have hated." There was nothing ever in Esau meriting God's love; God therefore in justice withheld love from him. There was everything ever about Esau meriting God's hatred; God therefore in justice hated him. 

The question therefore should not be "Why did God hate Esau?" He deserved to be hated!

Rather, the question should be "Why did God love Jacob?" He also deserved to be hated! All that we have here said regarding Esau as identified with Adam (in Romans 5:12-21) applied also to Jacob. Furthermore, Jacob also, like Esau, was "in sin ... conceived" and "brought forth in iniquity", "estranged from the womb; ... speaking lies", "dead in trespasses and sins", and among those who are "by nature children of wrath". As for the character he exemplified in his life, "Esau said, 'Is he not rightly named Jacob [supplanter, heel-catcher]? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright, and now look, he has taken away my blessing!'" (Genesis 27:36).

Nevertheless, even when he was in his mother's womb - "not yet being born, nor having done any good" - God said, "Jacob I have loved" (Romans 9:11-13).

Why would God love Jacob?

2. God loved Jacob because God acted in grace toward him. God dealt with Esau in justice. But God dealt with Jacob in grace (as in vv.15f). God in justice hated Esau even before he was born, because God viewed Esau in Adam as a sinner. But God in grace loved Jacob even before he was born, because God viewed Jacob in Christ as righteous (as in Ephesians 1:4-6). God in justice gave to Esau the damnation he deserved. But God in grace gave to Jacob the salvation he did not deserve (as in Titus 3:5-7).

~~~~~~~~~~

Interestingly, we never read of Esau objecting or complaining of being hated by God. Nor do we read of Esau objecting or complaining of God loving Jacob but not himself. 

But such objections and complaints are often heard from religious people denying the sovereignty of the God of Jacob!

Paul the apostle, in the verses following our present text, has anticipated and answered their objections.

The first objection from unbelievers implies that it is unrighteous of God to love one person who has done no good, but to hate another who has done no evil (v.14a): "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?"

Paul's reply to their first objection is in the negative, coupled with an appeal to Holy Scriptures (vv.14b-18): "Certainly not! For He says to Moses [in Exodus 33:19], 'I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.' So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh [in Exodus 9:16], 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.' Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

This reply is sufficient for the Christian.

The second objection from unbelievers rises from their mistaken belief that if God sovereignly shows mercy to one, but sovereignly hardens another, He is severe and cruel if He finds fault with the transgressor (v.19): "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'"

Paul's reply to their second objection is again in the negative, and again coupled with an appeal to Holy Scriptures (vv.20-24): "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the clay [as God declares in Jeremiah 18:1-4ff], from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction [as He did to both Esau and Pharaoh], and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

This reply also is sufficient for the Christian. God said it. That settles it. We must believe it.

The child of God will join Christ in confessing, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight" (Matthew 11:26).

501


----------

