Does God love everyone?

[bling]

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:13-18 - King James Version Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated

Hate is not the opposite of Love. You are commanded to Love and hate your family, so you can do them both at the same time.

 

[BPPLEE]

Hate is not the opposite of Love. You are commanded to Love and hate your family, so you can do them both at the same time.

Hate your family just means you don't let anything come between you and Jesus. When God said he hated Esau He was talking about his descendants, who were the enemies of Israel (Jacob)

 

[bling]

Hate your family just means you don't let anything come between you and Jesus. When God said he hated Esau He was talking about his descendants, who were the enemies of Israel (Jacob)

How do you know this from scripture: "God said he hated Esau He was talking about his descendants"?

 

[BPPLEE]

How do you know this from scripture: "God said he hated Esau He was talking about his descendants"?

Malachi 1:3 and Malachi 1:4

 

[timothyu]

Does God love everyone?

God is everyone.

 

[sawdust]

Some have said that God loves everyone (and they quote verses like 2 Peter 3:9).

Others have said that God hates some people (and they quote Ps. 5:5).

To me this seems like a false dichotomy perhaps, and I wonder if when it refers to "hate" if really it means that God hates the position of someone in sin - but not the person themselves.

Does God love everyone?

God is love (1Jn.4:16) meaning God is pure virtue. He only desires the very highest and best for all. This love is based on who He is, not on anything His creation (including us) is. Therefore, this love is impersonal. It is the type of love we are to have for our enemies. (Matt.5:44) In this manner, God loves everyone.

Then there are those whom the Lord has a personal love for like King David, a man after His own heart. (Acts 13:22) Compare where Jesus says "who is my mother, brother etc" .. It is the one who does the will of God.

Acts 13:22
And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’

Mark 3:35
For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

 

[bling]

Malachi 1:3 and Malachi 1:4

OK, The descendants of Esau hated the descendance, but that was not God's fault but Jacobs bad behavior toward his brother.
I see God looking at the attitude and characteristics of Esau even before birth and realizing He could not work mold Esau into what He could work with. God hated the fact He could not work with Esau's disposition and would have the work with Jacob. From a human perspective, Esau start out much better than Jacob.

 

[Fred Benjamin]

Malachi 1:3 and Malachi 1:4

Corporate election, a new interpretation started in the 1960s, is the belief that God elects nations to take part in his plan, not individuals to salvation. So, when Romans 9 speaks of God’s election of Jacob over Esau, Paul is speaking of God’s choosing the nation of Israel to have a special place in salvation history. They will go on to interpret all of Romans 9-11 in light of this assumption.

Romans 9-11 is talking NOT about corporate election, but individual election. Here are some reasons why:

1. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact. Paul often speaks in terms that make sense only if he is referring to individuals, such as Jacob’s and Esau’s conception, birth, and good or bad works (Romans 9:10–11).

2. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.

3. Romans 9:15 emphasizes God’s sovereignty about choosing individuals. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.

1. If men be chosen by God upon the foresight of faith, or not chosen till they have faith, they are not so much God's elect, as God their elect;

2. The election cannot be of masses to privilege, because the elect are explicitly excepted out of the masses to which they belonged.

3. Corporate election fails to account for the biblical teaching that God predestined individuals, just as he calls individuals, justifies individuals, and will glorify individuals (Romans 8:30).

4. Scriptures teach that election unto salvation and glory is personal: he has “chosen us” (Ephesians 1:4) and “chosen you” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

There's more reasons. You get the idea. Joel Beeke Systematic Theology

 

[BPPLEE]

Corporate election, a new interpretation started in the 1960s, is the belief that God elects nations to take part in his plan, not individuals to salvation. So, when Romans 9 speaks of God’s election of Jacob over Esau, Paul is speaking of God’s choosing the nation of Israel to have a special place in salvation history. They will go on to interpret all of Romans 9-11 in light of this assumption.

Romans 9-11 is talking NOT about corporate election, but individual election. Here are some reasons why:

1. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact. Paul often speaks in terms that make sense only if he is referring to individuals, such as Jacob’s and Esau’s conception, birth, and good or bad works (Romans 9:10–11).

2. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.

3. Romans 9:15 emphasizes God’s sovereignty about choosing individuals. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.

1. If men be chosen by God upon the foresight of faith, or not chosen till they have faith, they are not so much God's elect, as God their elect;

2. The election cannot be of masses to privilege, because the elect are explicitly excepted out of the masses to which they belonged.

3. Corporate election fails to account for the biblical teaching that God predestined individuals, just as he calls individuals, justifies individuals, and will glorify individuals (Romans 8:30).

4. Scriptures teach that election unto salvation and glory is personal: he has “chosen us” (Ephesians 1:4) and “chosen you” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

There's more reasons. You get the idea. Joel Beeke Systematic Theology

Makes a good argument but then starts to sound too much like Calvinism

 

[bling]

Corporate election, a new interpretation started in the 1960s, is the belief that God elects nations to take part in his plan, not individuals to salvation. So, when Romans 9 speaks of God’s election of Jacob over Esau, Paul is speaking of God’s choosing the nation of Israel to have a special place in salvation history. They will go on to interpret all of Romans 9-11 in light of this assumption.

Romans 9-11 is talking NOT about corporate election, but individual election. Here are some reasons why:

1. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact. Paul often speaks in terms that make sense only if he is referring to individuals, such as Jacob’s and Esau’s conception, birth, and good or bad works (Romans 9:10–11).

2. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.

3. Romans 9:15 emphasizes God’s sovereignty about choosing individuals. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.

1. If men be chosen by God upon the foresight of faith, or not chosen till they have faith, they are not so much God's elect, as God their elect;

2. The election cannot be of masses to privilege, because the elect are explicitly excepted out of the masses to which they belonged.

3. Corporate election fails to account for the biblical teaching that God predestined individuals, just as he calls individuals, justifies individuals, and will glorify individuals (Romans 8:30).

4. Scriptures teach that election unto salvation and glory is personal: he has “chosen us” (Ephesians 1:4) and “chosen you” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

There's more reasons. You get the idea. Joel Beeke Systematic Theology

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand How Paul uses diatribes and think since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?


Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.




The Jews were given a higher position on earth, but with that position came added responsibility which they poorly handled. I do not see them in Rome having any advantage over the gentile Christians, but what do you think?

 

[Fred Benjamin]

The Jews were given a higher position on earth, but with that position came added responsibility which they poorly handled. I do not see them in Rome having any advantage over the gentile Christians, but what do you think?

Agreed. Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. This verse supports your contention in my opinion.

Aside1:
Romans 3:1 Then what is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God ... implies an advantage to being a Jew, but that is different than being a Jewish Christian.

Aside2: Before Christ the Jews were, in my opinion, favored heavily (exclusively) over the Gentiles.
Amos 3:2“Only you have I known from all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, who are called “Uncircumcision” by those who called themselves “Circumcision,” [itself a mere mark] which is made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that at that time you were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God.

 

[zoidar]

Some have said that God loves everyone (and they quote verses like 2 Peter 3:9).

Others have said that God hates some people (and they quote Ps. 5:5).

To me this seems like a false dichotomy perhaps, and I wonder if when it refers to "hate" if really it means that God hates the position of someone in sin - but not the person themselves.

Does God love everyone?

God acted with love towards mankind as He sent His Son into the world as a sacrifice for our sins. This act of love, this gift is for everyone in the world, so it could be said God loves everyone through the cross.

John 3:16-17

 

[Fred Benjamin]

This act of love, this gift is for everyone in the world, so it could be said God loves everyone through the cross.

There are billions of people that have died who never heard of the cross and therefore for them the cross is of no practical purpose and therefore Christ's death on the cross is NOT proof the God loves everyone.

 

[Fred Benjamin]

God hates the position of someone in sin - but not the person themselves.

A person is the aggregate of his thoughts and actions, and the thoughts and actions of the reprobate are continuously evil, so the totality of his life is evil … thus it is nonsense to say that we should love the sinner and hate the sin, since one cannot be considered apart from the other. Author Unknown

Technically, sin is not a thing. It is the lack of righteousness in a person so you can't hate sin ... you hate the lack of righteousness in a person.
Proof:
The problem of evil can be phrased in several ways. One approach addresses the origin of evil, prompting the syllogism:

1) God created all things;
2) evil is a thing;
3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil. The second premise is not true.

 

[bling]

A person is the aggregate of his thoughts and actions, and the thoughts and actions of the reprobate are continuously evil, so the totality of his life is evil … thus it is nonsense to say that we should love the sinner and hate the sin, since one cannot be considered apart from the other. Author Unknown

Technically, sin is not a thing. It is the lack of righteousness in a person so you can't hate sin ... you hate the lack of righteousness in a person.
Proof:
The problem of evil can be phrased in several ways. One approach addresses the origin of evil, prompting the syllogism:

1) God created all things;
2) evil is a thing;
3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil. The second premise is not true.

I am glad you want to get back to our assumptions about word definitions.

Yes! God hates the sinner, but the word “hate” is not the opposite of “Love”. We are to “hate” and Love our families at the same time. Can a parent hate the fact their son is involved in big time sins, which are hurting others, but still Love their son?

I can hate Saul before he became Paul for all the bad, he did yet still Love him through all of it.

Forgiving all those involved in crucifying Christ is an act of Love, but hating the way they acted at the time is understandable.

God hates the fact we sin, so He is hating all of us, but He is doing His part in forgiving all of us, we just have to humbly accept that forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.

 

[Jonaitis]

Some have said that God loves everyone (and they quote verses like 2 Peter 3:9).

Others have said that God hates some people (and they quote Ps. 5:5).

To me this seems like a false dichotomy perhaps, and I wonder if when it refers to "hate" if really it means that God hates the position of someone in sin - but not the person themselves.

Does God love everyone?

We must remember that God, in the scriptures, sometimes employs human language as an analogy of divine "interaction," similar to anthropomorphism, where God is often depicted with human qualities to meet our finite gap of understanding, such as a "long-stretch arm" or "eyes everywhere" or "rested on the seventh day." God is impassible, immutable and infinite, and He does not have changing emotions. God is pure act. So, when we say that God in the Old Testament "smote them in his anger," it is a human analogy of His divine justice as conceived by men. That individual, who was a member of that covenant relationship, stepped outside the boundaries of God's love understood under that covenant law, and suffered for it, and his punishment was seen as a form of divine "outburst of anger" in the eyes of the crowd. When we repent from our sin, God's wrath never changed, but rather our position before Him changed. We went from being under the condemnation of the Law to being under Christ who richly supplies everything to save and justify us. This in effect affects how God treats us now as children rather than enemies before.

When we understand this, we understand John 3:16. God so loved the world, what? He sent His Son. His act of love for mankind was sending His Son. It was not an emotion, but an act toward the world.

 

[zoidar]

... therefore Christ's death on the cross is NOT proof the God loves everyone.

I'm sorry you feel this way.

 

[Fervent]

Stop taking Romans 9 out of the context of the Epistle. Read Romans 9 within the context of the rest of the epistle.

Romans 9 makes no sense unless we have read what Paul has said before, and keep reading what he says after.

God has not created some people for salvation and some people for damnation; instead God has consigned ALL to disobedience that He might have mercy on ALL. Romans 11:32.

So even though the Gentiles have become grafted onto the olive tree, and though many Jews have been cut off--for both Jew and Gentile are justified through faith in Christ--it is not that God is faithless; for the Apostle hopes that all of Israel will be saved; for God having consigned both Jew and Gentile equally to disobedience (the Law which condemns us in our sin, Jew and Gentile alike) has mercy on all (through the Gospel); for this reason "all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"--for the word is sent through preachers who preach the word, and the word creates faith (Romans 10:17) as the Apostle had said in the beginning, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to save all who believe, the Jew first and also the Greek; for by it the justice of God is revealed from faith to faith, so that as it is written, 'the just shall live by faith.'" (Romans 1:16-17).

The whole point of Romans is that all have sinned, and that justification is found in Christ alone, through faith, and God's will and desire is, indeed to save--to show mercy. Yes, "He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy" and to whom does He show mercy? All.



Taking the 9th chapter of Romans out of context from the rest of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is not conforming one's mind to the teaching of Scripture; it is forcing Scripture to conform to one's own opinions.

"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." - 1 Timothy 4:10

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1 John 2:2

"But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." - Hebrews 2:9

These Scriptures do not lie.

-CryptoLutheran

The issue here isn't so much a matter of taking Romans 9 out of the context of the letter itself, but the further context the letter is read under. Rather than allowing the Old Testament references in Romans inform how it is read, the philosophical struggles of the 16th century determine the meaning of the letter for Calvinists and then the OT references are force-fitted. As with many of the modern distortions of Scripture, the issue is one of historical context.

 

[BBAS 64]

It is mostly a poor translation. The Hebrew doesn't say hate but thorn seed.
Jacob I Loved, Esau I Hated - Hebrew Word for Hate
The issue is people are too content with merely looking at English and not even thinking about it being a translation.

Good Day, Coffee4u

The Greek word Paul used here is a very strong word... I think God got it correct:

Thayer Definition:
1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
2) to be hated, detested
Part of Speech: verb

Strong's:

From a primary word μῖσος misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less: - hate (-ful).

The verse is the height of Gods freedom to love as he chooses, in the same fashion his freedom to have mercy... or not have mercy.

In Him,

Bill

 

[coffee4u]

Good Day, Coffee4u

The Greek word Paul used here is a very strong word... I think God got it correct:

Thayer Definition:
1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
2) to be hated, detested
Part of Speech: verb

Strong's:

From a primary word μῖσος misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less: - hate (-ful).

The verse is the height of Gods freedom to love as he chooses, in the same fashion his freedom to have mercy... or not have mercy.

In Him,

Bill

I don't believe it is hate as we think of hate because we also know that God loves everyone.

Romans 5:8
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

To simply say God hated Esau the end, is far too simplistic and means we are missing out on the shades of the real meaning. God is not a man.

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.”
Jesus was not saying we must literally 'hate' our parents with what most people think of as hatred because we also know that God says to respect and honour them.

“These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

“All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house” (Hosea 9:15)

“‘Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor, and do not love a false oath, for all these are things that I hate,’ says the Lord” (Zechariah 8:17).

This hatred has far deeper meaning.