Christ paid our sin debt

[civic]

Actually it is just scripture

John 3:14–18 (NASB 2020) — 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him. 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. 18 The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Yes it indeed is scripture that @brightfame52 rejects which is Jesus plain teaching on the topic.

 

[Hosanna]

Are you a Jehovah's witness ?


BTW where is the great crowd

Revelation 7:9–17 (KJV 1900) — 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. 11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, 12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. 13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. 16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

I had no idea what a misleading group the Jehovah Witnesses are until I started reading about them here at BAM.

Who Are the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Over the past century and a half, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have become one of the most significant cults in the world. As of 201

www.ligonier.org

 

[civic]

I had no idea what a misleading cult the Jehovah Witnesses are until I started reading about them here at BAM.

Who Are the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Over the past century and a half, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have become one of the most significant cults in the world. As of 201

www.ligonier.org

We try not using the word cults with religious groups on BAM. Before you know it every sect is being called a cult. Our desire is to welcome those outside of mainstream Christianity to have friendly debates. On most forums these considered “ cults “ can only post on their own forum. For example a Mormon could only post in the Mormonism section of the forum. Here they can post anywhere just like the rest of us. I call if fear factor on those other forums. The same with universalists which is a banned topic on some forums

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I had no idea what a misleading cult the Jehovah Witnesses are until I started reading about them here at BAM.

Who Are the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Over the past century and a half, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have become one of the most significant cults in the world. As of 201

www.ligonier.org

I engaged with Jehovah's Witnesses when I lived in CA (something I regret doing). Every time I showed them in the Bible where they're wrong, they said they had no answer and would send someone better able to discuss it with me. The second time they did that, nobody ever came back.

 

[Hosanna]

We try not using the word cults with religious groups on BAM. Before you know it every sect is being called a cult. Our desire is to welcome those outside of mainstream Christianity to have friendly debates. On most forums these considered “ cults “ can only post on their own forum. For example a Mormon could only post in the Mormonism section of the forum. Here they can post anywhere just like the rest of us. I call if fear factor on those other forums. The same with universalists which is a banned topic on some forums

When I wrote the post I tried to figure out a different word to use and just couldn't come up with one. How about false religion? or just religious sect maybe. I'll come up with a better way to do it somehow. I edited my post and changed it to group. That should work.

 

[Hosanna]

I engaged with Jehovah's Witnesses when I lived in CA (something I regret doing). Every time I showed them in the Bible where they're wrong, they said they had no answer and would send someone better able to discuss it with me. The second time they did that, nobody ever came back.

My next door neighbor told me the exact same thing happened to him. But we need to love them even if they are being deceived.

 

[civic]

When I wrote the post I tried to figure out a different word to use and just couldn't come up with one. How about false religion? or just religious sect maybe. I'll come up with a better way to do it somehow. I edited my post and changed it to group. That should work.

No worries friend

 

[TomL]

I had no idea what a misleading group the Jehovah Witnesses are until I started reading about them here at BAM.

Who Are the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Over the past century and a half, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have become one of the most significant cults in the world. As of 201

www.ligonier.org

There are all kinds of things you can learn on the forum. Welcome Hosanna

 

[TomL]

Yes it indeed is scripture that @brightfame52 rejects which is Jesus plain teaching on the topic.

As do all Calvinists

 

[brightfame52]

1 Cor 15:3-4

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


When Christ died for the sins of His Church, He was a Surety of a Better Covenant Heb 7:22

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

That is He had taken a pledge wherein the debt of sin the Church owed to Gods Law and Justice, that debt He pledged to take upon Himself, hence making Himself the debtor and released them from the debt, Now God looked solely to Him as pledged Surety to relinquish their debt,

Thats a key element in the fact Christ died for our sins according to the scripture.

So them for whom He died, are in fact by that fact alone, free from the penalty of their sin !

 

[TomL]

1 Cor 15:3-4

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


When Christ died for the sins of His Church, He was a Surety of a Better Covenant Heb 7:22

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

That is He had taken a pledge wherein the debt of sin the Church owed to Gods Law and Justice, that debt He pledged to take upon Himself, hence making Himself the debtor and released them from the debt, Now God looked solely to Him as pledged Surety to relinquish their debt,

Thats a key element in the fact Christ died for our sins according to the scripture.

So them for whom He died, are in fact by that fact alone, free from the penalty of their sin !

Um that passage puts faith before salvation making faith instrumental not just information as your view holds.

 

[Obadiah]

Even the Calvinist W.G.T. Shedd agrees

It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: “By faith are you saved” (Eph. 2:8); “he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain.[1]

---

[1] William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 726.

No doubt about it Calvinist s have a way of making their theology sound correct. Here's what John Piper said about this topic in one of his books.

Saving Faith Contains Joy in God

The nature and necessity of saving faith shows that we must pursue our joy in God. The apostle John makes clear that saving faith is essentially receiving. He says in John 1:11–12, “[Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” John puts “believing in his name” in apposition to “receiving him.” They are essentially the same.

So the question becomes: Receive as what? The common evangelical answer—and it is gloriously true—is: Receive him as your personal Savior and Lord! But did the Scripture ever mean that saving faith receives Christ as anything less than supreme treasure? Did the Bible ever mean: Receive him as Lord, but not as treasured Lord? Did the Bible ever mean: Receive him as Savior, but not as treasured Savior?

No. Receiving Christ as he is means receiving him as the supreme treasure that he is. Isn’t Jesus’s parable about the treasure meant to describe the true nature of coming into contact with the King? “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (Matt. 13:44). The point of that one-verse parable is not that the kingdom can be bought, but that there is no greater treasure than being in the kingdom—where the King is.

So saving faith receives Jesus as what he truly is. He is the supreme treasure of all who receive him. Jesus shows us how essential this kind of receiving is when he says, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37). You can’t be saved if Jesus has second place in your heart. This is because saving faith includes receiving Jesus for who he really is, namely, the supreme treasure of the universe.

We see this view of faith again in the words of Jesus in John 6:35: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” Notice that coming to Jesus for the stilling of soul-hunger is parallel to believing in Jesus for the stilling of soul-thirst. I think these are two ways of saying the same thing, since the hunger and thirst of the soul are indistinguishable. So believing is described, then, as coming to Jesus for the satisfaction of the soul’s deepest longings. Saving faith, therefore, may be more, but it is not less, than seeking and finding fullest satisfaction in Jesus.

The writer to the Hebrews points us in the same direction. Saving faith believes in God as an all-satisfying rewarder: “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb. 11:6). Faith does not come to God out of some disinterested benevolence, thinking to do God a favor with our presence. Faith comes to God full of hunger for God and finds him to be faith’s great reward.

Therefore, I conclude that saving faith, by its nature and necessity, teaches us to pursue our satisfaction in God. Saving faith is necessary for eternal life (John 3:15), and the nature of saving faith includes resting in Jesus as the soul’s final and supreme satisfaction. Therefore, saving faith summons everyone to pursue joy in God.


John Piper, Reading the Bible Supernaturally: Seeing and Savoring the Glory of God in Scripture

 

[TomL]

No doubt about it Calvinist s have a way of making their theology sound correct. Here's what John Piper said about this topic in one of his books.

Saving Faith Contains Joy in God

The nature and necessity of saving faith shows that we must pursue our joy in God. The apostle John makes clear that saving faith is essentially receiving. He says in John 1:11–12, “[Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” John puts “believing in his name” in apposition to “receiving him.” They are essentially the same.

Yes that is true, yet there is one on this forum which tries to redefine what it means to receive Christ in the context of John 1:12

 

[brightfame52]

Um that passage puts faith before salvation making faith instrumental not just information as your view holds.

You miss the point, for Christ to have died for our sins, means those for whom sins He died, they dont have any sin charges or penalty of sin against them, they are free from the law. Do you understand that ?

 

[TomL]

You miss the point, for Christ to have died for our sins, means those for whom sins He died, they dont have any sin charges or penalty of sin against them, they are free from the law. Do you understand that ?

Um that is an assumption

Christ died for all in the world

John 12:47 (KJV 1900) — 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 3:16–17 (KJV 1900) — 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[brightfame52]

Um that is an assumption

Christ died for all in the world

John 12:47 (KJV 1900) — 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 3:16–17 (KJV 1900) — 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Do you believe Christ died in the place of the sinners He died for, as their Surety ?

 

[TomL]

Do you believe Christ died in the place of the sinners He died for, as their Surety ?

Did you not read

Christ died for all in the world

John 12:47 (KJV 1900) — 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 3:16–17 (KJV 1900) — 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[civic]

Do you believe Christ died in the place of the sinners He died for, as their Surety ?

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

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

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

Titus 3:4
But when the kindness and the love of mankind of God our Savior appeared

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

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

2 Corinthians 5:14
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

In the past two decades have witnessed a resurgence of Calvinism among American evangelicals. This resurgence is especially evident within the Southern Baptist Convention, which historically has been and still is divided over the issue. However, it has also made its presence felt in Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God, which do not have historic ties to Calvinism.


By Calvinism, I mean specifically the doctrine of salvation that is commonly explained by means of the acronym, TULIP:

• T = Total depravity
• U = Unconditional election
• L = Limited atonement
• I = Irresistible grace
• P = Perseverance of the saints

In the seventeenth century, Jacob Arminius—a Dutch Reformed theologian—set forth a different understanding of salvation that has been called Arminianism after him. It is sometimes explained by means of the acronym, FACTS:

• F = Freed by grace to believe
• A = Atonement for all
• C = Conditional election
• T = Total depravity
• S = Security in Christ

In Does God Love Everyone? Jerry L. Walls—an evangelical philosopher—outlines an argument against Calvinism and for Arminianism. Its strength is that it focuses on the central point of the disagreement between them. Walls writes:


The deepest issue that divides Arminians and Calvinists is not the sovereignty of God, predestination, or the authority of the Bible. The deepest difference pertains to how we understand the character of God. Is God good in the sense that he deeply and sincerely loves all people?


According to Walls, the answer of Arminianism is “Yes.” The answer of Calvinism is “No.” As Calvinist author Arthur W. Pink put it in The Sovereignty of God: “When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom he chooses. God does not love everybody…” Walls argues that Pink’s statement is characteristic of Calvinism, even if it’s stated with a bluntness uncharacteristic of most Calvinists.

A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals.

To see why this is so, consider the argument Walls makes:

1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Not all persons will be saved.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
4. The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
5. God could give all persons “irresistible grace” and thereby determine all persons to freely accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
6. Therefore, all persons will be saved.

Clearly, this set of propositions contains a contradiction between 2 and 6. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm 2, however. They’re not universalists, in other words. Similarly, both affirm 4.


So, how do they resolve the contradiction? Arminians do so by denying 5. They deny, in other words, that grace is irresistible.


Irresistible grace is part and parcel of Calvinism, however. It’s the I in TULIP. That means Calvinists must deny either 1 or 3. That is, they must deny either that “God truly loves all persons” or that “Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.” As noted above, Arthur W. Pink clearly denied 1. (Walls quotes Calvin himself to similar effect.)


Contemporary Calvinists rarely deny 1, however. Instead, they affirm that God truly loves all persons. For example, D. A. Carson affirms that God loves everyone in the sense that He exercises “providential love over all that he has made” and adopts a “salvific stance toward his fallen world.” However, Carson denies that God gives everyone the “particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.” It’s hard to square this “love” for “all persons” with the definition of love in 3. A God who could but chooses not to bestow “particular, effective, selecting love” on everyone does not “truly” love them because He does not seek their eternal “well-being” and “true flourishing.”


Walls suggests one further wrinkle when he discusses John Piper, probably the best known Baptist Calvinist. Walls argues that Piper denies 5, not by ditching “irresistible grace” but by suggesting that God has a “greater value” than salvation. Such as what? Piper writes, “The answer the Reformed give is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy (Rom. 9:21–23) and the humbling of man so he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor. 1:29).” Because of this “greater value,” it seems that Piper denies God “could give all persons ‘irresistible grace’ [to be saved].” Some evidently must be condemned for God’s glory.

In order to maintain God’s sovereignty in election then, or to promote God’s glory, Calvinism denies that God loves everyone in the truest sense. Like Walls, I find this denial difficult to swallow. A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals, a God who is love (1 John 4:8).

Walls’ book is a brief outline of a much larger argument. Those looking for a more detailed argument should pick up his Why I Am Not a Calvinist, coauthored with Joseph R. Dongell. But that argument, even in outline form here, is difficult to rebut, as far as I am concerned.

Book Reviewed: Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What Is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016).

Hate defined
Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Definition: to hate
Usage: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.

Barnes

Have I hated - This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Malachi 1:3," And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;" compare Jeremiah 49:17-18; Ezekiel 35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love" and "hatred" in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection; compare Genesis 29:30-31; Proverbs 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;" Matthew 6:24, "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc.; Luke 14:26, "if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."


hated] Cp. Genesis 29:33; Genesis 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” See too Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 12:25. Cambridge

BDAG.

So my original post quoting Strongs/Thayers still stands.

to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.

John says hate is indifference with a brother below

1 John 3
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth

 

[civic]

continued:

BDAG.

② to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f). Perh. 2 Cl 6:6 (s. 1b). (JDenney, The Word ‘Hate’ in Lk 14:26: ET 21, 1910, 41f; WBleibtreu, Paradoxe Aussprüche Jesu: Theol. Arbeiten aus d. wissensch. Prediger-Verein d. Rheinprovinz, new ser. 20, 24, 15–35; RSockman, The Paradoxes of J. ’36).—ACarr, The Mng. of ‘Hatred’ in the NT: Exp. 6th ser., 12, 1905, 153–60.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.

And here is a Greek Scholar/Teacher Robert Mounce

I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.

Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).
Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.

13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.

The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom.


Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 356–357.

Well there are some obvious principles if one can look past their theological bias. Several calvinists disagreed with the following principles to defend God hated/despised esau.

1- God loves sinners, God loves the world meaning all people, everyone.
2- So when its says God hates we must examine what/who is the recipient of the hate and why. Why God would detest something/someone vs love less.
3- We use the lexicons to help us determine how the word is being used in various contexts/passages.
4- We use other scriptures to compare the word/verse with to get an idea how its used
5- We for example can learn about the " idioms" from the original people, places and times
6- With hate we learn it is an Jewish idiom being used in conjunction with love as a comparison

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

There are so many misnomers running around about God and His love and what that looks like in regard to mankind. If anyone wants to know what God is like and what He thinks we need to look no further than Jesus and His teachings since He is the Eternal God who became man.

1- Jesus taught us to love our enemies and pray for them
2- Jesus lived among sinners, ate with them and loved them, had compassion on them.
3- Jesus loves sinners, not hates them
4- Jesus on the cross said please forgive them Father for they know not what they do- His enemies who hated Him at the time.
5- Jesus came to seek and save the lost, the sinner
6- Jesus showed us what love looks like, acts like, talks like, lives like and how it treats people.
7- Jesus told us all the law and commandments are wrapped up/fulfilled in loving God with all our being( heart, mind,soul ) and your neighbor as you do yourself.
8- Jesus said if you really love Him you will do what He has commanded
9- Love is described perfectly in 1 Corinthians 13- If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, 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.
10- Love in action in Galatians 5- But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

I could list another 10 points to this list but this should be plenty to get the point across. The wrath, anger, hatred about God towards us misunderstood by many. Gods wrath always falls upon the reprobate, apostate, those hardened against God, those who are wicked and rebellious that reject Gods provision for their sins by Jesus sacrifice.

conclusion: because God is Love and Jesus is God we can see to perfection that 1 Cor 13 and the fruit of the spirit in Gal 5:22-23 describes Jesus to a tee . He is love incarnate since God is love we see Him in action described in the gospels and where the Bible defines love.

hope this helps !!!