idioms

Making Sense of Romans 9:13 | BLK SHP Scott

Published by Papa Giorgio

Making Sense of the Most Uncomfortable Verse in Romans

“Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Paul says God said this before either boy was born, and for a lot of people that settles it: God chose Esau for rejection before he took his first breath. For others, it’s a verse they’d rather skip. In this video we go back to the two Old Testament passages Paul is quoting in Romans 9:13 (Genesis 25 and Malachi 1), look at how the Bible uses “love” and “hate,” and follow Paul’s argument all the way through Romans 11. We also cover the common objections, including the potter and the clay and what Jeremiah 18 says about how the potter decides.

Summary: Romans 9:13 — “Jacob I Have Loved, but Esau I Have Hated”

Romans 9:13 does not necessarily teach that God unconditionally predestines particular individuals to heaven or hell before they are born. Rather, Paul is explaining God’s sovereign choice of Jacob’s lineage, Israel, to carry forward the covenant promises through which God would ultimately bring salvation to all nations.

1. The context concerns nations and God’s redemptive purposes. In Genesis 25:23, God tells Rebekah that two nations are in her womb and that the older will serve the younger. Jacob represents Israel, while Esau represents Edom. The prophecy concerns their descendants and their roles in God’s unfolding plan.

2. Malachi 1:2–5 reinforces the national context. Paul quotes Malachi’s statement, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Written centuries after Jacob and Esau died, Malachi describes God’s contrasting treatment of Israel and Edom, including their lands and national destinies. The passage concerns God’s dealings with these nations, not an explicit declaration that Esau was eternally condemned before birth.

3. “Love” and “hate” can express preference or relative standing. Scripture sometimes uses these terms to describe choosing one person or priority over another. In this context, God favored Jacob’s lineage for the covenantal purpose without necessarily implying personal animosity toward Esau or a decree of his eternal damnation.

4. God’s election did not depend on the twins’ merits. Romans 9:11 emphasizes that God’s purpose according to election stood before either child had done good or evil. God’s choice of Jacob’s lineage was based on His own purpose, not the boys’ deeds or birth order.

5. Esau was not treated as someone created for destruction. Esau prospered and possessed considerable wealth (Genesis 33:9). God granted his descendants Mount Seir as their inheritance and instructed Israel to regard the Edomites as brothers (Deuteronomy 2:5; 23:7). Edom’s later judgment was connected to its violence against Israel (Obadiah 10).

6. The potter and clay imagery must be read in its Old Testament context. Jeremiah 18:1–10 explains that God may relent from announced judgment when a nation repents. This provides important background for Romans 9:21–23. Paul also explains in Romans 11:23 that Israelites who do not continue in unbelief can be grafted back into the olive tree.

7. Israel was chosen to bring blessing to all nations. God’s promise to Abraham was that all the families of the earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3). Through Jesus Christ, Gentiles who were once outside the covenant have been brought near to God (Ephesians 2:11–13). Acts 15 likewise connects the restoration of David’s house with the inclusion of the Gentiles.

Conclusion

Romans 9–11 addresses God’s faithfulness to His promises, Israel’s unbelief, the inclusion of the Gentiles, and God’s continuing redemptive purposes. God’s choice of Jacob’s lineage established the historical means through which the Messiah would come and salvation would be extended to the nations.

The central distinction is between God’s sovereign choice of a people for a redemptive purpose and the claim that He unconditionally determines each individual’s eternal destiny before birth. Romans 9:13, read in its Old Testament and broader biblical context, does not by itself establish the latter claim.

The Bible as Life’s Instruction Manual (Dennis Prager)

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “…we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams, first (1789–1797) Vice President of the United States, and the second (1797–1801) President of the United States. Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull (New York, 1848), pp 265-6.

  • “Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!’ But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company – I mean hell.”

Charles Francis Adams [ed.], The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. [Boston, 1856], X, p. 254. | Taken from They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, by Paul F. Boller, Jr. & John George, p. 3.

This is the first two segments, truncated a bit, of hour three from Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 “Ultimate Issues Hour: Prager on the Bible, Part 1: ‘Says Who?!’”. Another analogy he uses is a VCS player with the flashing time that was always 12:00… you need an owners manual to get the VHS unit set up and working properly.

Nowadays, many people, particularly those living in Western civilization, no longer regard their society as morally superior to any other. In this video, Dennis Prager lays out how this view does not spring from intellectual rigor, but from intellectual laziness.

The influence of the Bible on every day speech as well is quite amazing. People often do not realize just how much the Bible has influenced the world. For instance, Shakespeare’s work referenced the Bible an estimated 1,350, as one example. Another are some of these well-known idioms/phrases:

  • “eye for an eye”
  • “land of milk and honey”
  • “forbidden fruit”
  • “bottomless pit”
  • “two-edged sword”
  • “God forbid”
  • “scapegoat”
  • “Land of Nod”
  • “by the sweat of your brow”
  • “apple of my eye”
  • “fire and brimstone”
  • “ashes to ashes, dust to dust”
  • “a man after my own heart”
  • “broken heart”
  • “wits’ end”
  • “bite the dust”
  • “put words in my mouth”
  • “put your house in order”
  • “nothing but skin and bones”
  • “by the skin of your teeth”
  • “Behemoth”
  • “You’re the man” (or Mensch)
  • “nothing new under the sun”
  • “a little birdie told me”
  • “rise and shine”
  • “can a leopard change his spots”
  • “eat drink and be merry”
  • “writing on the wall”
  • “drop in a bucket”
  • “fly in the ointment”
  • “four corners of the earth”
  • “see eye to eye”
  • “salt of the earth”
  • “go the extra mile”
  • “pearls before swine”
  • “fall by the wayside”
  • “straight and narrow”
  • “wolf in sheep’s clothing”
  • “blind leading the blind”
  • “the 11th hour”
  • “kiss of death”
  • “give up the ghost”
  • “wash your hands of the matter”
  • “the truth will set you free”
  • “twinkling of an eye”
  • “labor of love”
  • “live by the sword die by the sword”
  • “fall from grace”
  • “fight the good fight”
  • “the powers that be”

In another article, DENNIS PRAGER notes the following about Deuteronomy 22:5: “A woman must not put on man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.“

In the article he goes on to say:

This is an extraordinarily important Torah law—though one suspects its importance has not been appreciated over the past several thousand years, since wearing the clothing of the other sex was rare in societies rooted in the Bible. At the time of this writing, this is no longer the case: this law is widely reviled, regarded as not only archaic, but intolerant, and even immoral. It is therefore imperative to explain what it means, what it does not mean, and why it exists. We will begin with the latter.

As often noted in this commentary, the Torah is rooted in distinctions. Among these distinctions are:

  • God and man
  • God and nature
  • Man and animal
  • Good and evil
  • Life and death
  • Parent and child
  • Holy and profane
  • Male and female

In the Torah’s views, these distinctions reflect God’s design—and therefore a Designer. In the biblical worldview, recognition of this design makes civilization possible. The demise of these distinctions would mean the end of civilization as we know it. As I explain in Genesis, God spent most of the six days of Creation not creating, but making order. The second verse of the Bible describes the state of the world as chaos (“unformed and void” in this translation) when God began His work. The natural state of the world is chaos; the divine state of the world is ordered; and order means distinctions.

[….]

The most recent distinction to be erased is the subject of this Torah law: the distinction between male and female. Its purpose is to maintain this distinction. How we dress is the most obvious way we declare our sex. Therefore, when a man (who looks like a man, has a male name, etc.) publicly dresses as a woman, or a woman (who looks like a woman, has a female name, etc.) publicly dresses as a man, one of the most basic of God’s distinctions is blurred. The sex-distinction of the human being is so central to God’s plan that it is declared at the beginning of Creation in Genesis 1: “God created the human being in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27; emphasis added).

The Torah is not necessarily addressing individuals who identify as, live as, dress as, take the name of, and appear to others as a member of the opposite sex to which they were born—because such an individual is not publicly blurring the distinction between male and female. The Torah is addressing males who continue to appear male (and often even identify as such) but who publicly dress in female garb, as well as females who appear female (and often even identify as such) but who publicly dress as male.

To be clear, publicly blurring the distinction between man and woman is what is prohibited for individuals here. On the other hand, an individual who identifies as a member of the other sex (“transgender” or “transsexual”), appears to be a member of that sex, takes on a name associated with that sex, and dresses as a member of that sex is not necessarily blurring the distinction God made. The individual who truly feels estranged from his or her biological sex is to be given sympathy, not condemnation. If that person does not publicly blur the male-female distinction, that person would not appear to be violating this law.

What the Torah prohibits is the deliberate blurring of the male-female distinction. For example, the winner of the viewed-around-the-world Eurovision contest in 2014 was Thomas Neuwirth, a bearded Austrian man, who performed under the name Conchita Wurst as a drag queen—a man wearing women’s clothing (a floor-length formal gown). He has explicitly stated he is not transgender, but a male who identifies as a male. What he did at Eurovision would be prohibited by this Torah law. So would the practice in America beginning in the second decade of the twenty-first century of “Drag Queen Story Hours”—teachers inviting drag queens to perform in front of children, starting in kindergarten.

How God regards an individual who is convinced he or she is living in the wrong body is not addressed here. I believe God both has standards (that we never blur the male-female distinction) and compassion (for those few individuals who do not identify with their biological sex), and so should we.

The Bible is a bulwark against chaos, which the Left loves.