Love Appearing as Hatred
The following verses from the Bible are
perplexing. Some people have quoted them to question God’s justice, saying that
they show that God is partial and cold-hearted.
Ro 9:11(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;)
Ro 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder
shall serve the younger.
Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I
loved, but Esau have I hated.
Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there]
unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Some adopt a strained interpretation of
those verses. They read the word “hate” as if it were the same as man’s hatred.
They believe that before any man was born God had already decided which man
would go to the heaven and which one the hell. People like Esau had been
destined for the hell when they were born and would have no chance of escape
for eternity. On the other hand, people like Jacob had been destined for the
heaven, and would be blessed no matter what evil they might do. It is amazing
that such interpretation is extremely prevalent and popular today!
I find such interpretation highly strained
and the result of reading those verses in isolation from context. Such
interpretation contradicts those key messages of the Bible (for example, that
God judges man according to what he does), which a person who reads the Bible
as a whole cannot fail to recognize, but caters only to the need of certain
schools of popular theology. Utterly denying God’s just nature, and an example
of “wresting with things hard to understand unto one’s destruction” (adapted
from 2Pt 3:16), such interpretation does not stand scrutiny by contextual
reading. Even less can it stand the test by the key messages of the Bible as a
whole.
It is noteworthy that, if one
compartmentalizes Romans chapter 9 and reads verses 1 to 23 alone, one’s
interpretation of the chapter will be entirely different than that when one
reads the whole chapter together. I should further note that, according to the
principle that “the Scripture interprets itself”, one should not read only a
part of a chapter in isolation, as in that way one will be led to a strained
interpretation. In fact, to understand chapter 9, it should be read together
with chapters 10 and 11.
First, God’s promise to Rebecca was that
“the older shall serve the younger” (Gn 25:23), in other words, Esau was to
serve Jacob. However, Esau until his day of death never served Jacob. Although
Jacob obtained the status of the firstborn, he did not inherit the family
estate, but left his father’s home alone. His assets were obtained by himself
outside the home. For his entire life, Jacob drifted around, then died in
Egypt, but never returned to his homeland in glory. On the other hand, Esau
inherited the family estate prospered and remained trouble free. When Jacob
fled from Laban his uncle, he first went towards home, but after he met Esau on
the way, he changed his direction to Succoth but never set foot on Seir, where
Esau was, so as to avoid offering Esau a chance to revenge himself. Jacob not
only had never been served by Esau, but instead called himself a servant to
Esau. When the brothers last met, Jacob even knelt before Esau, seven times in
a roll, begging for forgiveness. The whole family then came to kneel before
Esau and Jacob offered precious gifts to Esau, calling himself a servant (Gn
33: 1-17). All these show that God’s promise as is described in Ro 9:11-14 has
a spiritual rather than physical meaning.
Ro 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the
clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto
dishonour?
What does the “vessel unto dishonour” mean?
Esau was the firstborn. What does that mean?
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh,
Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:
Ro 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning
Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
a remnant shall be saved:
Esau the firstborn prefigures the Israel of
the flesh, which is the “vessel unto dishonour” referred to in Ro 9:21. Then
why are they called “unto dishonour”? If they are “unto dishonour”, does that
mean that they were born unequal? Why were they “hated” by God? Does that
“hatred” mean that God bears a grudge against them, or is it the same as the
groundless bitterness borne by a man against another? Let us take a look at the
Bible and find out where the same term for “hatred/hate” has appeared:
Lk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and
hate(misei,G3404) not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose
it, and he who hates(mison,G3404) his life in this world will keep it for
eternal life.
The “hate” in Ro 9:13 (“Esau have I hated”)
comes from the original Greek word “emisesa”(G3404), meaning “I hate”. The
above-noted Greek words share the same root “misos” (Strong’s Concordance
number G3404). While the three words are in different tenses, they mean the
same thing: in English, “love less”. Therefore, the original Greek word for
“hate” is not limited to one interpretation. Sometimes it may be interpreted as
“hatred of man” (Mt5:43,10:22,etc); some other times, when it is describing
God’s nature, it may be interpreted as “intolerance of sin”(Hb1:9). In the
above-noted three verses, it is best interpreted as “love less”, which is a
description of priority.
So long as “Jacob have I loved, but Esau
have I hated” (Ro 9:13) is a description of priority, we may understand it as
saying that God loves Jacob more than He does Esau. If that is the case, does
such priority constitute partiality or injustice? No, not if we apply God’s
principle of fairness.
God’s principle of fairness is this: For
unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men
have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Lk 12:48)
The more God gives to one, the greater
danger he is in, that the more God gives to him in grace or power, the more God
will demand of him in thankfulness and responsibility. Therefore, such gifts
from God may on the contrary become a stumbling block leading him to sin, if he
takes the gifts for granted and does not cherish them. In fact, the danger
comes from the sinful nature by which man tend to misuse the blessings. The
more gifts God gives a man, the more difficult it is for him to take them
lightly and even despise them.
Ro 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in
Sion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him
shall not be ashamed. (my note: Sion here refers to Israel)
As mentioned above, Esau the firstborn
prefigures the Israelites of the flesh, who were the firstborn among the
peoples and the first to receive the laws, protection, blessings and decrees
from God. However, instead of cherishing such privilege, they took it lightly,
which thus turned into a stumbling block keeping them from God’s blessings. In
God’s eye, privilege always comes together with responsibility. How much privilege
one enjoys determines how much responsibility he is to bear. In other words,
the privilege to the blessings prescribes the responsibility to comply with
God’s commands. However, both Esau and the Israelites only wanted to enjoy the
privilege but not to bear the responsibility. For the bit of ephemeral
benefits, they took the status of firstborn lightly, thereby giving up the
enduring or eternal blessings.
Many think that the more God loves one, the
more God will make him talented or grant more of other advantages to him. The
reverse is more often the case. The more God loves one, the fewer talents or
natural gifts God will endow upon him, because such talents or natural gifts
may become a stumbling block to his pursuit of the eternal blessings. As said above, this paradox stems from the
sinful nature, because of which one may take the eternal blessings lightly for
the ephemeral pleasures. He may take his talents or natural gifts as granted.
Instead of giving thanks, he only asks for more. Therefore those who are more
talented and own more natural gifts are in a greater danger, and those enviable
gifts are more likely to become stumbling blocks to God’s blessings.
Whenever God is gracious to one, He demands
his response. In other words, right and obligation go hand in hand. For
example, if God gives a man a strong and healthy physique and powerful arms, He
wants this man to bear the burden of his family and to lend a hand to the weak.
But if the man, healthy and strong as he is, is unwilling to bear his
responsibilities, and instead of helping the weak he oppresses them, then his
good health and superb strength will become his stumbling block, and even his
disaster and curse. Similarly, people may commit other sins using their gifts
or natural talents, in which case the same gifts or talents will also be the
cause of their misfortune.
On the other hand, for a man seemingly lack
of gifts or talents, such very lacking may become his blessing. Because out of
the “lacking” may arise a yearning for God’s blessings and God Himself, and
such yearning itself is a great gift from God.
Therefore, when it appears that God has
given one a gift or advantage above others, one should take greater caution
instead of celebrating prematurely, because although God has extended a hand of
blessing to him, He may turn the blessing into a curse for his lack of
gratitude and refusal to take responsibility. On the other hand, when it seems
that one is suffering from a disadvantage, one does not need to let himself
down or complain to God, because although God has extended a hand of
deprivation to him, God will turn the curse into a blessing for his cherishing
what God has already given him and his willingness to take responsibility.
Jacob is the one prefiguring those who are
born with a deprivation of blessings. He was not the firstborn, for which he
envied Esau, as Esau the firstborn was the one to receive the blessings (the
relationship with God) and the inheritance. However, God made such deprivation
an expression of “loving more”! Just because he was not the firstborn, Jacob
became more aware of the value of the firstborn’s blessing and thus desired
more to obtain and cherish it. Esau the firstborn, on the other hand, dismissed
his firstborn’s blessing as insignificant, and thereby lost it eventually.
Therefore, “deprivation” is a blessing,
because if one has never been deprived of something desirable, one would never
truly own it. When there is a lack of blessing, one will seek, find and follow
the blessing!
God’s love for Jacob lies in His depriving
Jacob at birth, which eventually turned into an endowment of blessing. In other
words, God’s greatest love for Jacob is this “deprivation”.This paradox is the mystery of God`s love.
The Israelites were fortunate because they were the firstborn and the chosen of
God. However, exactly because of such fortune they were unfortunate. On the
other hand, the Gentiles were unfortunate because they were not the chosen
people. However, exactly because of such misfortune they became fortunate.
Ro 9:30 . What shall we say then? That the
Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to
righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Ro 9:31 But Israel, which followed after
the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it]
not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that
stumbling stone;
Did God set a trap for the Israelites so
they cannot be saved at all? No. The Israelites like everyone else had a free
choice. Among them, there were those who were firstborns not only in the flesh,
but also in the spirit (Ro 4:16), to whom the blessings did not become a
stumbling block! In the same manner, there are those who were born talented and
gifted, but cherished such talents and gifts instead of misusing the same. They
were grateful and used all gifts and talents endowed by God in caution to
glorify God and benefit others. Such people were just like those saved out of
the Israelites, who were but a remnant out of the multitudes, which were as
many as the sands of the sea. They were the fortunate out of the unfortunate.
In terms of the flesh, most of the
Israelites were unfortunate, who were the firstborn that failed to cherish the
blessing, as were prefigured by Esau. The chosen of the Gentiles were the
younger son that cherished and sought the blessing, as were prefigured by
Jacob. In terms of the spirit, all the faithful, whether of the Israelites or
of the Gentiles, were the younger son blessed out of his deprivation prefigured
by Jacob; on the other hand, all the unfaithful, whether of the Israelites or
of the Gentiles, were the firstborn cursed out of his blessing as were
prefigured by Esau.
In this world, the unfaithful appear to
have received more blessings, obtained benefits and prospered, but failing to
cherish their blessing, they let go of the eternal blessing for the ephemeral
benefits of this life. On the contrary, in this world the faithful, who are
Jacob in God’s eye and therefore receives the greater love from God, appear to
be the deprived and the unfortunate.
1C 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren,
how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
[are called]:
1C 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish
things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things
of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1C 1:28 And base things of the world, and
things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to
bring to nought things that are:
1C 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his
presence.
The “weak”, the “foolish”, the “despised”
and “which are not” are Jacob, in other words the righteous.The “mighty”, the “wise”, the “noble” and
“things that are” are Esau, in other words the sinners.
Is God then prejudiced against those who
are mighty, rich or wise? Are they not able to be saved? I note that the Bible
never said “impossible”, but only said “not many”. Can Esau turn into Jacob?
Yes! If he humbles himself, he will be the same as Jacob and be called
“Israel”.
Ja 1:9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
Ja 1:10 But the rich, in that he is made
low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.
Ja 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with
a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and
the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away
in his ways.
Two Kinds of Vessels
A popular theology today renders a
fatalistic interpretation to “fitted to destruction” and “afore prepared unto
glory” (Ro 9:22-23). Reading the relevant verses in context pursuant to the
principle that “the Scripture interprets itself”, and referring to the original
Greek text, we find abundant reasons to reject such fatalistic determinism.
Ro 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew
[his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the
vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Ro 9:23 And that he might make known the
riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto
glory,
Ro 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not
of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Ro 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will
call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not
beloved.
Ro 9:26 And it shall come to pass, [that]
in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall
they be called the children of the living God.
The “vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction” refers to the Israelites that refuse to repent and are thus not
saved. However, the membership of the group is dynamic. The term “fitted to
destruction” describes a principle of selection, but not the unchangeable fate
of those persons. Once a person of the group repents and turns to God, he becomes
a vessel “afore prepared unto glory”. The original Greek word that is
translated into “fitted” does not have a connotation of fatalism, either.
The original Greek word for “fitted” is
katertismena, meaning “having been adapted” in Ro 9:22. The meaning of the root for the word is “to
complete thoroughly, repair or adjust” (Strong’s Concordance number G2675).
Variations from the same root appear in several places in the New Testament. As
all these variations fall under the same Strong’s Concordance number, their
meanings are derived from the same root and are closely related.
For example, in Lk 6:40 “[t]he disciple is
not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master”,
the phrase “is perfect” is translated from katertismenos, a variation under
G2675. Another example is Ga 6:1 “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault,
ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness;
considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted”. Here the word “restore” is
translarted from katartizete, another variation under G2675. The variation in
neither of the circumstances features a fatalistic connotation.
These and other variations under G2675 also
appear in the following verses, in none of which they are used with a fatalistic
connotation:
·
Mt 4:21, meaning “to mend a fishing net”;
·
Mt 21:16, meaning “to be perfected”;
·
Mk 1:19, meaning “to mend a fishing net”;
·
1 C 1:10, meaning “to be perfectly joined together;
·
2 C 13:11, meaning “to perfect”;
·
1 Th 3:10, meaning “to perfect”;
·
Hb 10:5, meaning “to prepare”;
·
Hb 11:3, meaning “to be framed”;
·
Hb 13:21, meaning “to make perfect”;
·
1 Pt 5:10, meaning “to make perfect”.
As for the word “prepared” in the phrase
“afore prepared unto glory”, the original Greek word is proetoimasen, meaning
“making ready beforehand”. The meaning of the root for the word is “to fit up
in advance” (Strong’s Concordance number G4282). Another place in the Bible
where proetoimasen appears is Eph 2:10 “[f]or we are his workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should
walk in them”, in which it is translated into the phrase “hath before
ordained”. There is no apparent fatalistic connotation in the word. My
understanding here is that, just like the word “fitted” discussed above, the
word “prepared” describes a principle of selection instead of an unchangeable
fate as well, and that the vessels “afore prepared unto glory” are a changing
group of people.
Therefore, as I understand, a vessel
“fitted to destruction” may turn into a vessel “afore prepared unto glory” by
repentance.The context in the Book of Romans supports
my understanding instead of a fatalistic reading.
First, nowhere in the Book of Romans it is
said that those vessels were “fitted to destruction” or “afore prepared unto
glory” before the founding of the world. There is no indication of time in Ro
9:22 at all for the act of fitting “to destruction”. In Ro 9:23 it is said that
God “had afore prepared unto glory” some of the vessels, but if you read the
whole verse of Ro 9:23, it is quite clear that such act of “preparing” only needs
to take place before God’s “making known the riches of his glory on the vessels
of mercy”. Therefore the analogy of the two types of vessels cannot be used as
support for the fatalistic reading, according to which the fate of a vessel is
determined before the creation of the world.
Similarly,
the word “us” in Eph 1:4, which is stated to have been chosen by God before the
foundation of the earth, refers to “the Church” elected according to the
principle of the saving faith. What was predestined before the creation was a
principle that “we [the church] should be holy and
without blame before Him.” The act of predestination in Ro 8:29“predestined to
be conformed to the image of His Son” takes place before the sanctification
of each individual believer, but not before the creation of the world, because this
verse simply does not say that it takes place before the creation of the world.
Second, from the earlier verses in Romans
chapter 9 one can readily see that the “vessels fitted to destruction” refers
to those Israelites that were not really of Israel (Ro 9:6) who refused to
believe in God. Were these people unable to be saved in any case? No, Paul said
that they still had a chance to be saved!
Ro 10:1 . Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is,
that they might be saved.
Ro 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to
emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.
Indeed, Paul harboured hopes that they
might be saved. And not only hopes, but Paul had reassurance that God would
save them if they repented, and there would be salvation for all the remnants
of the Israel in the end.
Ro 11:23 And they also, if they abide not
still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were
grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will
these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye
should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of
the Gentiles be come in.
Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved:
as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn
away ungodliness from Jacob:
(Note that this verse is quoted from
Isaiah59:20 “’The Redeemer will come to Zion,And to those who turn from transgression in
Jacob,’ Says the Lord”. And those who refuse to believe in the Lord are not
counted as Israelites according to Romans2:28-29, 9:6)
If “vessels fitted to destruction” cannot
be turned into vessels “afore prepared unto glory” in any case, how can the
above-said repentance and salvation take place?
Third, a fatalistic reading simply does not
reconcile with Paul’s own conclusive remarks for chapter 9 (Ro 9:30-32). Here
he said that those Israelites failed in their seeking for God because they did
so by work but not by faith. If Paul’s conviction were that these people failed
because God had determined from the beginning that they could not be saved at
all, therefore they could not believe in any case, why would not he just say
so? Does it matter at all whether they believed or not, if God made it impossible
for them to believe?
My understanding is also supported by God’s
nature. Remember that it is the same God who claims “let your communication be,
Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Mt
5:37), and the same God in whom there is no unrighteousness (Jn 7:18). God
“endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”
(Ro 9:22). If the phrase “fitted to destruction” describes an unchangeable fate
instead of a principle of selection, God’s endurance with long suffering will
be nothing but hypocrisy, and totally meaningless, as it does not change
anything.
In summary, fatalism has no place in the
interpretation of Ro 9:22-23. God endures with long suffering to wait for the
sinners, in other words the “vessels fitted to destruction”, to repent and come
back to him and thereby become the vessels “afore prepared unto glory”. This is
exactly in line with Jesus’ central message to the world: “repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 4:17).
No comments:
Post a Comment