Paul is pursuing an argument
here, we'll mention it later, about the sovereignty of God,
why so many Jews did not believe and were perishing in spite of
the promise of God, the Word of God, and their Abrahamic ancestry,
and all of that. So Paul is dealing with that
subject in Romans chapter 9. And he gives another example
in verse 10. Notice. And not only this, but
when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,
for the children being not yet born, neither having done any
good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said
unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. Watch verse 13. As it is written, Jacob have
I loved, but Esau have I hated. Now, that's our text today. Did God really? Did he hate Esau? Now, we know
it says that. It says that in the scripture.
But this is contrary to the thinking of so many, and so they turn
it into something else, as we'll see along the way in our study. Now, when we raise the question
that stands at the head of our series and individual sermon,
when we raise the question, did God really? Did God really do
this? Or did God really say that? Does the scripture really say
this or teach this or that? of the other. And then the question
comes up, does it really mean what it says? Can we take it
at face value? Does it really mean what it said? Is it a fact? Is it true? Did God really? Is like us asking, did God actually,
did God truly, did God indeed do that or say that one or the
other? So we say or hear something like
this almost every day in our individual life. Hardly a day
passes that we don't hear an expression akin or like unto
what we are raising this morning. Something that strains the imagination. Something that seems to us to
be beyond the pale of believability. And how do we respond? Well,
we respond, really? That's our response often and
again. Or we say to them, you mean that? You mean that is really true? We know a lady, her famous expression
is, are you serious when you tell her something that is hard
to believe? Are you sure? Can it be true? And so we raise that question
this morning with a concern of the hatred of God toward Esau. Now such an expression or a reaction
might come unto us in hearing what we read today. Esau have
I hated. Now, could it be true that God,
whom we know is a God of love and one who loves sinners and
saves them, could it be that God actually has hated Esau? It says that, but does it mean
it, is the question in the mind of so many. Now, this question
or this issue is repugnant. It is contrary. to the belief,
and contrary to the principles of almost every average churchgoer
and professing Christian in the world. For it is the most unanimous
opinion of them that God loves every member of the human race
our family. That's the common doctrine of
almost all of Arminianism, that God loves every single member
without exception of the human family. In fact, one of the most
popular doctrines that is preached in the world has been so for
a hundred or so years now, is that God loves absolutely everyone,
that the love of God is universal. God loves everyone without exception,
and you'll hear that from almost every pulpit in almost every
sermon around the country this morning. As a matter of fact,
Arminianism has two rotten pillows upon which it seeks to run. One is that God loves everyone
alike. The universal love of God. God
loves each and everyone no matter who they are or what they do
or how they end up or what they decide about the Lord Jesus Christ. God loves everyone is the doctrine
of Arminianism. Now, the other doctrine of Arminianism,
the co-doctrine, is that Christ died equally and alike for everyone,
that he paid the sin debt of every single individual that
shall ever proceed out of Adam and be a member of the human
family. They do not consider it a contradiction
that God can love one and Christ can die for that same one, and
yet that one perish in their sin, everlastingly falling down
into hell. Now, if such is the case, that
God may love one and Christ may die for that same one, then there
is no comfort either in the love of God or in the atonement of
Christ if the love of God and the blood of Christ can miscarry
so miserably that the objects of it may yet perish in the end. So to repeat, The universal love
of God is not only the most popular heresy of our time, but it is
one of the most proclaimed. Sinners are indiscriminately
assured again and again that whatever may be their life, whatever
may be their end, whether they're saved or not, that God loves
them and Christ has died for their sin. So, with that in mind,
what of the text where it is declared in the scripture that
God hated Esau? You have it twice. You have it
here in Romans 9, verse 13. You have it again in Malachi
chapter 1 and verses 1 through 3 that we will refer to. Now this pinches the adherence
of those who hold forth the universal love of God even in the face
of Romans 9 13 and Malachi chapter 1 verse 1 and 2. And so because
it is so at odds with their sentiment, and because it is a hard saying,
they then put very strange twists upon this verse and upon this
doctrine. Robert Haldane observed in his
book on Romans, that the violence which has been done to this verse
is a testimony to the carnal mind's enmity against the sovereignty
of God. For example, here are some twists
that are put upon this verse and upon this doctrine that God
hated Esau therefore may hate others as well number one did
God personally hate Esau well some say no he did not personally
hate Esau the individual but he hated his works and it was
apart from works of good or evil though we read in verse 11 the
children of not having done any good or evil that the purpose
of God according to election might stand. So that's one way
to evade it. He did not hate Esau. He hated
his works and his sin. Now secondly, others say it only
means that God loved Esau less than he loved Jacob. This is
how some evade that text. Now I ask you, how does this
solve the problem? The question still remains. What
reason is there that God would say that he loved Esau less than
he loved Jacob? Why such a distinction if that
were meant? Jacob I love, Esau I love less. If we accept the words to say,
Jacob, I love, but Esau, I love less, then can the words, Jacob,
I love, be rendered, Jacob, I heard it, I hate it, or love less? And then we are in a quagmire
as to word. If it is real love for Jacob,
real love, why not then real and hate of God toward Esau? Then there's a third twist. Others
say that the word love and hatred toward Jacob and Esau put in
their perspective that it is not them that was hated, but
it was their descendants, as we read in Malachi chapter 1
verses 1 through 3. Malachi 1, 1 through 3, since
both Jacob and Esau were dead and had been for a long time
when Malachi wrote those words, which Paul quotes in Romans 9
and verse 13. Reminds me of the time that I
was checking out in a store and I came to the checkout cashier,
the clerk, And he had a sign on his lapel, you know those
signs we used to see, smile, God loves you. And I said, well,
I can't pass this up. I said, what about your sign?
He said, oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. I said, what if your
name is Esau? Esau have I hated, and he looked
real funny, a blank stare. He thought a few seconds, and
he said, sir, Esau is dead, as if that solved the argument or
the question. And this is a hard say. Even
Charles Hodge, who we number among Sovereign Grace, wavered
on this subject from Romans 9 and verse 13, and I'm going to give
you a quote from him. It is evident that in this case,
the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less
favor. That's how he says the meaning
of Esau have I hated. Another man who is supposed to
be fluent in the Greek. Kenneth Weiss he had a set of
books that I've had forever word studies in the Greek New Testament
Studying the words of the New Testament and he wrote on Romans
chapter 9 and verse 13 He said the word is missile to hate the
word is the word to hate Quote, however, when used here in contrast
to love, it does not retain its original meaning of a literal
hatred, but of a lesser degree of love. And then he added this,
God cannot be said to hate anyone. The idea is Jacob I love, but
Esau I loved less. End of quotation. Now, these
dodges satisfy many. Many will go ask their preacher
about this verse, and he'll bring forth one of these, and they'll
say, oh well, that sounds reasonable, and go on their way. But that
does not line up with the teaching of the scripture, nor are they
in harmony with the context here in Romans chapter 9 that we have
read from. A lesser degree of love does
not answer the question or the argument that Paul is putting
forth. And it does not suit the context. So then it's time to ask, what
then is the context here Romans chapter 9. Well the context here
is to show that though many Jews who were true seed of Abraham
were rejecting the Messiah and were perishing, yet the Word
of God had not fallen to the ground, the promise of God had
not failed, for neither the privileges of fleshly descendancy from Abraham
assured them of spiritual and eternal life. Not even descendancy
from Abraham Guaranteed them that they were objects of the
grace of God why because Romans 9 and verse 6 They're not all
of Israel which are they're not all Israel which are of Israel
Romans 9 and 7. Not the seed of Abraham or children,
for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Romans 9 and verse 8. Not the children of the flesh,
but the children of the promise. These are counted for the seed.
And in verse 9, the promise was, in Genesis 18 and 10, I will
turn unto thee the time of life, and Sarah thy wife shall have
a son, and in him shall your seed be called. In spite of Ishmael
and Hagar and that incident, it was in the son of Sarah that
the seed were to be called. Now this has to do with Ishmael
and Isaac. The former, a son of the flesh. Ishmael was born of the flesh. The latter was a son of promise. The point being, that the casting
out of Ishmael had no detrimental effect upon the promise of God
to make from Abraham a great seed and to bless many nations. For the promise stood Isaac and
as Paul tells the Galatians in Galatians chapter 4 verse 21
through 31 That the difference between these two sons of Abraham
is traceable to the state of their mothers to the state of
their mother though Abraham begat them both and the son with Hagar
and the son with Sarah. Yet Ishmael was begotten and
born according to the ordinary ability of the flesh. It was not a supernatural work.
While Isaac was born or begotten and born after both the bodies
of Abraham and Sarah, were procreatively dead, as we read in Romans 4
and verse 19, so that the birth of Isaac required a supernatural
work of God, the returning of the time of life to Sarah and
to Abraham. She had passed the manner of
women, Genesis 18 and verse 11. and to reinvigorate the body
of Sarah and of Abraham for Isaac to be born. However, there's
another example even more undeniable at Paul's disposal of the sovereignty
of God in the fulfillment of the covenant and of the promise. And it is given here in Romans
9 10 through 13 In those fraternal twins, Jacob and Esau. Now, note little phrases, if
you would, in the 10th verse. Look at them with me. And not
only this. This is not the only example. This is not the only argument.
This is not the only case. Esau, Ishmael, and Isaac, and
the difference that God put between them. That's not the only case
to substantiate the sovereignty of God. But there is the difference
that God put between Jacob and Esau. Not only this. Not only the matter of Ishmael
and Isaac. The number two, when Rebekah
also, notice verse 10, had conceived by one. Hang on to every word
there. Had conceived by one. Conceiving from one, I think,
is how it might be in the Greek. Even by her husband and by our
father. Now the reason which some might
think accounts for the difference between Ishmael and Isaac is
completely eliminated in the case of Jacob and Esau. That while Ishmael and Isaac
had different mothers, were born years apart from each other,
and Ishmael did evil, mocking Isaac, Genesis 21 and verse 9,
and persecuted him, Galatians 4 and verse 29, for which he
was cast out of the house of Sarah and Abraham. And yet a
great difference was also put between Jacob and Esau, even
though they had the same father and the same mother, they were
conceived at one and the same time being twins. And even though
Esau was the firstborn and should have had a blessing on that account,
which belonged to the firstborn son, it conveyed a special privilege
and which Esau eventually sold that birthright unto Jacob for
a mere plate of pottage or of stew. You have that in Genesis
25, 33. It's in Hebrews 12 and verse
16. He sold that birthright for a
mess of pottage or Now, it's time to notice how Paul is speaking
of Jacob and of Esau, and he quotes from two Old Testament
passages related to this subject to confirm that God had put a
strong difference between the two sons, notwithstanding their
circumstances, same father, same mother, same conception, and
twin. Now, the first passage is from
Genesis chapter 25, and it's referred to here in Romans chapter
9, verse 10 and verse 12. how when or after Rebecca had
conceded, she was told, the elder shall serve the younger. Remember
that? Turning, if we might, to Genesis
chapter 25, Here's a very interesting, a very significant, and a very
typical thing that we see in this passage of the scripture.
Now again, that's Genesis chapter 25. In verse 21, Rebecca conceived. Verse 22, the children, plural. In verse 24, there were twins
in her womb. Now, there are two amazing things
that occurred between these twins recorded in Genesis chapter 25. First of all, look at verse 22. Here's something unusual. The
children struggled together within her as she was carrying them. And as they were developing,
On a certain time, the children began to struggle together within
them. Calvin called this, very quaintly
I thought, quote, carrying on intestine war, unquote, even
while they were yet in the womb. Now, the Hebrew word here is
a rather strong one, meaning to bruise or to crush or to oppress. They struggled in the womb. Now, most little brothers and
sisters wait until they have been born and grow some before
they try to kill one another. But these began their battle
even yet in the womb. Remember another event, Most
Blessed? Remember how John leaped in the
womb of his mother when she came and stood in the presence of
Mary who was carrying the Lord Jesus Christ? Luke chapter 1
verse 41, the child leaped in the womb, as if to say, that's
Him, that's Him, as He was the forerunner of our Lord. But the
second thing in Genesis chapter 25, in verse 24 through verse
26, as Rebekah was delivering, another sign occurred to confirm
God's Word to Rebecca that the elder would serve the younger. When in verse 26, Jacob took
hold of Esau's heel, as John Gill wrote, this had a meaning
and a mystery in it. The name Jacob meant heel snatcher
or supplanter. And in Genesis 27 and verse 36,
Esau declares, they sure named you right when he stole from
him the birthright and the blessing for thou has supplanted me these
two time my birthright and now my blessing and soon Jacob would
have a new name given unto him by God in Genesis chapter 32
and verse 28 He became named Israel. Thy name shall no more
be called Jacob, but Israel, prince with God, for as a prince
with God hast thou prevailed. Now, going back to Romans chapter
9 and verse 11, did we notice it? For the children being not
yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose
of God according to election might stand not of works, but
of him that calleth. Now in verse 10 through 12, God
or Paul gives a full sense of God's word to Rebecca concerning
her offspring. However, Paul declares the obvious
in verse 11. that the declaration, the elder
shall serve the younger, was made, number one, before they
were born. The children being not yet born
when she was told they were not yet out of the womb when God
said that unto her. And secondly, Paul is clear,
neither was it based upon any good or any evil in either one
of them as the deciding factor. Being not yet born, neither having
done any good evil so it was not Jacob's righteousness and
it was not Esau's sin neither of these had anything to do with
a sovereign choice of God the elder shall serve the younger
and it's written Jacob I loved Esau have I hated what then determined
God's dealing with them Why this event? Why the elder serve the
younger? Why Jacob I love and Esau have
I hated? Well, the answer is clear. In
verse 11, the purpose of God according to election. In accordance with a purpose
of election and that it might stand God said unto her. Then Paul cites another Old Testament
passage in Romans 9 and verse 13. It stands written, he said,
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Now as I said,
this is from Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, chapter
1 and verse 1 through 3. In the context there, the prophet
is reproving the Jew for their slothfulness their ingratitude,
and their unfaithful service unto God. And if you read Malachi,
they reject every charge. They said, how in have we done
that? Wherein are we guilty of this
or that of the other? Should they hear of the love
of God, then they asked, wherein Have you loved us? It's right
there Malachi chapter 1. I have loved you saith the Lord
and their infinite answer is where in hast thou loved us? Where is the proof? Where are
the tokens of thy love unto us? And notice what the prophet answers
unto them, that Esau was a brother to Jacob, and I loved Jacob,
and I hated Esau, and I gave his descendants a mostly barren
country or dwelling place, and I gave Jacob's descendants the
land of Canaan. Now, objectors would argue it
does not concern Jacob and Esau, the individuals, or the brother,
but their posterity, since, as the young man said, both of them
were long dead. Now, it is true, God told Rebekah,
two nations are in your womb, Genesis 25-23. Compare Genesis 17-16, 24-60
on that issue. But the fountains of those two
nations were Jacob and Esau, and both Malachi 1 and Paul in
Romans 9 and verse 13 named Jacob and Esau as the objects of God's
love and hatred respectively. That even though They were biological
brothers. God loved Jacob and hated Esau,
and that before they were born or before Jacob did any good
or Esau had done any evil. And considering the subject and
the context of Paul in Romans chapter 9, It is clear that he
is referring to Jacob and Esau personally and not to their offspring
as proof of the sovereignty of God. But still, there are those
who contend that Paul is simply referring to nations now and
not to individuals. Yet he is explaining why descendants
of Abraham of the nation of Israel are perishing. Because they are
not all Israel which are of Israel. And Jacob and Esau are perfect
examples of that. One God loved, the other he hated. Both of them having the same
kin and relationship under Abraham. Were they not grandsons of Abraham? Still some say the election is
only national and not personal or individual. And this yet would
still be an act of sovereignty. So how will they solve it? And
there are those who attempt to dodge the meaning of this text
by saying the words Jacob I love, Esau I hated, have no reference
or connection to their spiritual condition or to their salvation. that it does not mean that Jacob
was an elect unto salvation, and Esau was a reprobate unto
damnation. I tell you, Scripture views Jacob
as a child of God all throughout. In Matthew 22 and 32, he will
be seen in the kingdom of God, Luke 13, 28. And the changing
of his name in Genesis 32, 28, from Jacob, heel snatcher or
supplanter, to Yisrael, Israel, or as a prince hath thou power
with God, and with men hath prevailed, God said to him. Matthew Henry
put it this way, quote, Jacob was knighted in the field and
a title of honor, or name of honor, was given unto him, unquote. He prevailed with the angel,
you remember. Thou hast prevailed. We'll not
let you go until you bless me. On the other hand, let's look
at Esau in the scripture. Esau is set forth in the scripture
Hebrews 12 and verse 16 as an example of quote a profane person
unquote and his profaneness was evidenced by his action for he
both despised and sold his birthright Genesis 25 34 Hebrews 12 16 And for what? What did he get
for in return? A marshal of meat, a plate of
food, one day's food for the body. And then he found no place
of repentance. And we read this warning, lest
there be a profane person such as Esau, there in Hebrews. Here John Owen described what
it is to be profane. To profane is to violate, to
corrupt, to prostitute, to common use things that are sacred and
that are holy. Profane activity is one that
despises, that sets light of, or contemns sacred things, such
as mock at religion, and despise and neglect its worship, and
do speak irreverently of its concerns." Unquote. The word of John Owen. And Esau
is an example of that. Now the awesome thing is, this
profaneness that Esau had attached to him is the very doorway to
apostasy and doom. Let one come to profane the things
of God and consider them profane and treat them profanely, and
yea, I tell you, they stand at the very door of final apostasy
from the things of God. But we can see how God's love
for Jacob and hatred for Esau bore their respective fruits
in their life and in their descendants, in the way that God dealt with
each one and their final end. The life and end of Esau was
not that of one that loved God, not at all, as that of Jacob
was not the life of one that was hated by God or was an evil
one given over unto their sin. But now to focus on the question,
did God really hate Esau? If so, why? If so, what is the
essence of God's hate in this context and meaning? Did God
really hate Esau, the person or the individual? The twin biological
brother of the one that he loved. Son of the promised son, Isaac. Grandson of Abraham. His conception, birth, and lineage
being the exact same as Jacob. Yet it is written, Jacob I love,
and Esau have I hated. And I answer, the answer is yes,
for thus it is written. And the two things are in the
arrow-ish tense as we look at them in the New Testament. Have
loved, have hated. Jacob, I have loved. Esau, I
have hated. As they refer to the twin brothers.
Now, eroist is one of the past tense of Greek verbs when they're
used in the scripture and an action that took place in the
past. Now, why did God love one and
hate the other, then, is the question. Could we just say because
it pleased him, because he would, because it was his sovereign
purpose. It was according to the good
purpose which he purposed in himself. Ephesians 1 and verse
9. According to the purpose of him
who works all things after the counsel of his own will. Ephesians
1 11. Love, as in Jacob have I love,
is synonymous with election, Ephesians 1, 4, and 5, in love,
having predestinated us to the adoption of children according
to the good pleasure of His will. Even so, hate, as in Esau have
I hated, is synonymous with reprobation. In saving some and not saving
others, in giving saving grace to some and withholding it from
others, God is not to be charged at the bar of human reason. His actions are not subject to
the censorship of carnal minds. He gives no account of his matters. Job 33 13. Oh, who art thou that
replies against God? Romans 9 and 20 shall the thing
formed say to him that formed it. Why have you made me thus? Romans 9 and 20 so both God's
love and his hate Are effectual as to their objects as seen in
Jacob and in Esau Jacob had a work of grace worked in him by God. Haldane wrote this. Jacob, during
his life, was the object of many special spiritual blessings,
such as Genesis 28, 10 through 15. God renewed the promise to
Jacob personally, which was first made to Abraham, renewed to Isaac,
and also unto Jacob. All the families of the earth
shall be blessed. Get this, he is named in Hebrews
11 9 as an heir of the promise as given to Abraham is Jacob. Hebrews 11 13 and 21, he was
among them died in faith and Matthew 8 11
he sits in the kingdom of heaven all of these things are said
about Jacob in the scripture while Esau became a profane person
a reprobate an example of apostasy now as we draw to a close I want
you to look at Romans 9 and verse 14 and After what Paul has said
about Jacob and about Esau, notice verse 14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with
God? Now, who is there that might
object unto these things? Some will say, and I've heard
it, this would not be fair. God would not be fair if he did
not stand all on equal ground give all an equal opportunity. So Paul is asking them a question. Does this mean that God is unjust
in acting this way? You know his answer. God forbid. Now this question and this answer
prove that Paul is Emphasis on is. He is talking about a sovereign
act of God. For that is the fact that gives
rise to the objection. Only this could be the ground
of the objection. There would be no ground for
any such objection if Paul means God loved Esau less or treated
him with less flavor. Free willers would not object
if they understood Paul to say he hated Esau's sin, but not
Esau. or if Paul's words were to be
perverted to mean Jacob made his choice and Esau made his
choice, they would not object under that. God had no other
recourse, some of the Armenians will say. He gave Esau many offers
of mercy and opportunities to repent and to be saved is the
Armenian argument. If this is what Paul is saying,
but what Paul has said, God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they
were born and before they had done any good or evil. One thing final the essence of
God's hate he often says he hates for example Psalm 5 5 and other
places Revelation chapter 3 now, you know some have said there's
no place in God for hate and yet he says he hate we're bound
to believe that God's hate is is a holy hate and it is not
a sinful passion as is our hate. Murray put it this way, the hate
of Esau by God in verse 13 belongs to the transcendent realm of
God's sovereignty for which there is no human analogy." There's
no way to bring that over into the human realm and say, here
is a likeness or here is a comparison. For our hate is often reactionary. God's is not. We hate from personal
animosity. God's hate is sovereign and is
pure and is holy. Therefore, Jacob I love, Esau
have I hated. Hard thing, hard say. Who can
hear it? May God give us grace.