IF GOD SO LOVED "EVERYONE", THEN WHY DID HE HATE ESAU?

[Eddie Ramos]

It seems like John 3:16 is by far the most widely memorized verse among people who know anything about the Bible because it speaks about God loving the world. While this verse may seem like "good news" to everyone who reads it, it does not stand alone from the rest of the scriptures. No verse does.

So, as most people are glad to memorize that verse, what happens when they come across a verse like this?:

Romans 9:13 (KJV) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Malachi 1:2-3 (KJV)
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD.
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD:
yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Psalms 5:5 (KJV)
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight:
thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 11:5 (KJV)
5 The LORD trieth the righteous:
but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalms 5:6 (KJV)
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing:
the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

How does John 3:16 look in light of these passages? Did God change? No, God does not change (Malachi 3:6). This teaches us that we can't just focus on John 3:16 and conclude that God's love for the world, in the giving of his Son, is actually not referring to every individual in the world (because there are passages that tell us about God hating others), but rather John 3:16 is referring to certain people within the world. These certain people are also known as God's beloved which means to be loved.

1 John 4:10-11 (KJV) 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

The beloved are thise who were chosen for salvation, those who were called to be saints.

Romans 1:7 (KJV) 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

My question for this thread is: Can you see that the Bible, on one hand, speaks of God's love in conjunction with those whose sins were laid on Christ? And on the other hand, can you see that those who were hated, are those whose sins were not laid upon Christ? This is what it means to be hated. It means that you have to pay for your own sins by your own death.

[Eddie Ramos]

Thanks for your reply, but your statements, although thoughtful and caring, don't line up with the scriptures. I don't mean that statement in a condescending way, but that is how most people who hold to free will choose to interpret such passages, so as to include everyone in God's saving love.

Thank you for sharing your interpretation and challenging my beliefs with it, while also hearing out my thoughts on relevant passages. I think 1 Timothy 2:4 is one of the hardest passages to square with a Calvinistic viewpoint on this matter: “God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.” How do you interpret this verse and why?

Hello there. I'd like to apologize for the late reply, but I stepped away from this site for a time and when I returned, this thread drifted further to the back of the line and I missed it. I didn't want you to think that I dismissed your detailed reply. I don't believe that 1 Timothy is a difficult passage to harmonize with the rest of the scriptures at all, since the context defines for us who the "all men" are who are in view. But first, let me begin by stating (because you asked how I interpret this verse) that how I or any person interprets any passage of the Bible is irrelevant because the Bible is of no private interpretation. This means that whenever we're seeking to understand any particular passage, that we need to let the Bible be the one to guide us as to what God means in any particular passage.

The first thing we have to let the Bible answer for us is, does the phrase "all men", always mean exactly that, ALL men (meaning every single individual? Well, to most people, the answer would be yes, because that's the way they naturally dialogue, but we have to remember that when we're dealing with the spiritual word of God, we need to let the Holy Spirit teach, and he only does this by comparing spiritual with spiritual, meaning, scripture with scripture (1 Cor 2:13). So, when we search the Bible, God answers our question with a resounding, no. The Greek phrase we're looking for is, "πᾶς (all) ἄνθρωπος (men)", and this is found here:

John 2:10 (KJV 1900)
And saith unto him, Every man (πᾶς (all) ἄνθρωπος (men)) at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

We know that this does not apply to every single human being, but to all men who actually set forth wine. Here is one more:

James 1:18–19 (KJV 1900)
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man (πᾶς (all) ἄνθρωπος (men)) be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

Again, here the context limits the "all men" to the beloved brethren (those truly saved) and not to the entire human race. And the Bible offers many more like examples. So, now that the bible has answered the above question for us, we really can't just read 1 Timothy 2:4 and assume that all men must be referring to every single human being (even though many do). We need to let the immediate context, as well as the context of the whole Bible, determine which of the two possible ways this is to be understood.

1 Timothy 2:1–8 (KJV 1900)
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men (πᾶς (all) ἄνθρωπος (men)); 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.....

The context begins in chapter 1 where God mentions that there are some who "are desiring to be teachers of the law", but have no understanding (vs 7). Chapter 2 continues by Paul admonishing Timothy and continues the thought of chapter 1 by saying, "therefore...". And then says that he would that supplications and prayers be made for "all men"(πᾶς (all) ἄνθρωπος (men)), yet again, not every human being in the world, but he specifies who he's speaking about in the next verse, "For kings, and for all that are in authority;" for the purpose of leading a quiet and peaceable life. Again, here we can see that the phrase "all men" does not mean every single human being. The passage continues....

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men(πᾶς (all) ἄνθρωπος (men)) to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all (πᾶς) (we could also understand this to mean "all men") to be testified in due time. 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

Now, when we're faced with verse 4 which states that God will have "all men" to be saved, we are already aware that this can have one of two meanings, all men of a particular group, or every single individual in the world. Our job is to now determine which of the two the bible has in view. And the immediate context provides the answer, as well as the context of the whole Bible. Verse 3 identifies God as the savior of those who He will have to be saved. And this is where the doctrine of election comes into play and when properly understood, we understand that Christ's ransom was not universal, but particular in nature. We also understand that Christ is not the mediator of every single human being in the world, but only of those whom God has given him.

John 17:9 (KJV 1900)
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Historically, this prayer was for his disciples, but spiritually, we know that his disciples typify every true child of God, who did not choose Christ but were chosen of Him (Jn 15:16). This is understood by even those who would reject this truth because the great commission (Mk 16:15) was only given to the disciples, yet every professing Christian obeys the same command.

Neither did Christ give his life a ransom for "all", as in every single human being (as some think 1 Tim 2:6 is declaring), but only for the sheep.

John 10:15 (KJV 1900)
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Matthew 1:21 (KJV 1900)
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

A study on the word "sheep" helps us to confirm the doctrine of election, as during the day of judgment, God is currently separating the sheep from the goats.

Matthew 25:32–34 (KJV 1900)
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand (the sheep), Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

It's important to understand that no where does the Bible ever suggest that a goat can ever become a sheep. Everything was created after its own kind. A sheep was always a sheep and a goat was always a goat. When God paid for the sins of those whom he chose to save, whom he has identified as "sheep" from the very beginning, at the moment their ransom was paid (from the foundation of the world) the sheep became "lost sheep", not goats who later became sheep.

Jeremiah 50:6 (KJV 1900)
My people hath been lost sheep:
Their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains:
They have gone from mountain to hill,
They have forgotten their restingplace.

A lost sheep is someone who has had their sins paid for but God's salvation had not yet been applied to them. Once it was applied, then that sheep was no longer lost, but now found.

Luke 15:6–7 (KJV 1900)
And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. 7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Getting back to 1 Timothy 2, we can see that the context of the Bible will not allow for this passage to be all inclusive for every single human being because God is only the savior and mediator of his sheep (the elect) and not the goats (the rest of the world). I will address the rest of your post bit by bit as I am able, so as not to make any one post too long.

[Eddie Ramos]

I don’t think the point about Jacob and Esau concerns their individual salvations. I don’t see where the Bible says Esau was damned. Hebrews 11:20 talks about Esau experiencing the future blessings invoked by Isaac’s faith. Nothing in the Genesis text suggests Esau lost his faith. Even Hebrews 12:15-17 is talking about the act of Esau that resulted in him permanently losing his birthright (i.e., being the child through whom God’s promise would come through), not his individual salvation.

It helps to be able to understand the distinction between what it means to be loved and what it means to be hated according to the Bible. But not what it means historically, but what it means spiritually. For example, the common consensus is to use Jacob and his relationship between Rachel and Leah to define the word "hated" to mean, "loved less".

Genesis 29:30–31 (KJV 1900)
And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

So, here we can see that God is using very specific language (as he always does) in stating that Leah was hated. And the fact that the previous verse says that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, implies that Jacob must have had at least some love for Leah. Yet, as we'll see, how he felt about her historically is irrelevant, but what is relevant is the language God uses, and he's telling us that Leah was hated. Now, if she was loved less (which may have been the case), why not just say she was loved less? Because the distinction between being loved and hated is what God wants us to focus on. And that is that Rachel was loved and Leah was hated.

Well, as we study the Bible, we learn that God often uses the same language with people throughout the Bible, meaning there are those whom he loves and those whom he hates.

Psalm 5:5 (KJV 1900)
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight:
Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Here God declares that he hates all workers of iniquity. This means that here God is focusing on the workers of (or the people who work) iniquity. In other words these people are hated because of their sin. We can't reword this to say that God loves these people but only hates their sin (as some try to do). So, God is identifying those who are hated with those who do not have their sins paid for (meaning they are still in their sins). And this is the same word God is using to describe Leah. Now, by contrast, those who are loved of God are those who did have their sins paid for by Christ. We learn this from John 3:16.

John 3:16 (KJV 1900)
For God so (meaning, in this manner) loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

We can discuss who exactly "the world" is referring to, but the focal point for now is that God is linking his love with his atonement. And when we put both together we can see that to be loved means to have had your sins paid for, and to be hated means that your sins were not paid for and you have to pay the wages of your own sin by your own death. We can find agreement with this later statement when we study the account of Noah's flood. The language God uses in the building of the ark teaches us that the ark represents atonement.

Genesis 6:13–14 (KJV 1900)
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

When we look up these words translated as "pitch" we see that the first word translated as "pitch" is only translated here that way, but is most commonly translated as "atonement". The second word translated as "pitch" is actually the word "ransom". The ark which saved Noah and his family, represented atonement by a ransom. This is where we can see the gospel in the Noah account. But if you notice, God told Noah to "atone" pitch it inside and out with pitch (a ransom). What does this mean? Does this means that salvation could also be found outside the ark? No. No where does the Bible support this idea. Once Noah entered into the ark and God shut the door (which typifies the end of salvation) the rest of the world was condemned in their sins. This included men, women, children, infants, etc. How can we be sure that not a single soul was saved outside the ark?

Hebrews 11:7 (KJV 1900)
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1 Peter 3:19–21 (KJV 1900)
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime (in times past) were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

God tells us that Noah and his house were saved (only 8 souls) by water, the rest of the world (the spirits in prison) was condemned and God identifies them as being in prison because they were not made free because we know that God only chose 8 to enter the ark. Now the water that saved them typifies the water of the gospel. And the gospel (the Word of God) is a two edged sword, meaning it accomplishes 2 things at the same time. One side brings life and the other side death. This is why the same water that saved Noah and his family, condemned the world and killed all that were outside the ark.

And this is what God means when he instructed the ark to be "atoned" with a ransom inside and outside the ark. It means that those who were inside the ark were saved because someone else died on their behalf, but those on the outside of the ark still had to satisfy the requirement of God's law which was death for sin. And so atonement with a ransom was made on both sides of the ark, only those on the outside of the ark perished because once they paid for their own sins by their own death, they would never again live again. This was their condemnation.

Now, getting back to the language of being loved and hated and understanding what each represent, we can look for confirmation of our understanding and find it with Rachel and Leah and with how many children each of them bore. When you take the time to read Gen 29 & 30 and count up how many sons (of the 12 sons of Jacob) each of the two bore (taking into account that the children of each handmaid belonged to each owner of each handmaid) we see that Rachel bore 4 sons and Leah bore 8 sons. Together they bore what would later become the heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. But if we look closer, we can also say (with biblical authority) that, of the whole 12, Rachel bore one-third and Leah bore two-thirds. And this 1/3, 2/3 principle is very important in the Bible because God uses the 1/3 to represent those who are his true children and the 2/3 to represent those who are not.

Zechariah 13:8–9 (KJV 1900)
8  And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD,
Two parts therein shall be cut off and die;
But the third shall be left therein.
9  And I will bring the third part through the fire,
And will refine them as silver is refined,
And will try them as gold is tried:
They shall call on my name, and I will hear them:
I will say, It is my people:
And they shall say, The LORD is my God.

Here you can see that in all the land (earth) that God is dividing them into thirds. The 2/3 part is cut off and die, but the last third are the true children of God. We see another example that teaches us the same thing.

2 Samuel 8:2 (KJV 1900)
And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David’s servants, and brought gifts.


When king David (who is a type of Christ) defeated Moab, he took the whole of them and divided them up into thirds. Two-thirds were killed and one third was spared and became the servants of David. This is the gospel, that every single individual deserved death, yet Christ had mercy on some and spared them and they became his servants.

1 Corinthians 7:22 (KJV 1900)
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.

And one more time, God gives us another example of this same principle.

2 Kings 1:9–15 (KJV 1900)
Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down. 10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly. 12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 13 And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight. 14 Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties: therefore let my life now be precious in thy sight. 15 And the angel of the LORD said unto Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king.

Here, again God is providing the same 1/3, 2/3 principle of his salvation plan reiterated in Zechariah. Three captains with 50 men were sent and two thirds were killed, but the third captain with his 50 were spared.

And the fact that God links those that are loved (like Rachel) with the 1/3 and those that are hated (like Leah) with the 2/3, helps us to confirm what it means to be hated. It means to still be in your sins. So, when we read that Leah was hated, we understand that spiritually, it means that she represents someone who was still in her sins (or the 2/3). Jacob represents Christ and Leah therefore represents the one Christ loves (or the people of God, or the 1/3).

So, the fact that God tells us that Esau was hated confirms for us that he was indeed still in his sins and therefore unsaved. But more than just Esau, it's who he typified that we need to focus on. And we know that both he and Jacob represented two nations or two manner of people (Gen 25:23). And in the Bible, God also distinguishes the people of God as a nation, as well as the rest of the world.

1 Peter 2:9 (KJV 1900)
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Philippians 2:15 (KJV 1900)
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

So, when we get to Romans 9, we know that God is using these twins to teach us much more than just through whom the messianic line would come from. God made choice of who would be loved and who would be hated long before Jacob and Esau were even born.

[Brightfame52]

the tanager

Malachi 1:2-3, Psalm 5:5-6, Psalm 11:5 are about hating wicked deeds and bringing consequences upon those that unrepentantly go about doing them.

Ps 5:5
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

This clearly states that God hates the worker, which is the person. When God punishes them with the second death, it will be the person, the worker punished, not their deeds.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #1]

I would say that when it is said that God hates somebody, it means that he LOVES LESS that person than another person. At Luke 14:26 Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." He meant to love to a lesser degree. To combine this with what Jehovah'sWitness said above, it makes sense that Jehovah would not love Esau the way he loved Jacob and everyone else that honored Him.

[The Tanager]

Hello there. I'd like to apologize for the late reply, but I stepped away from this site for a time and when I returned, this thread drifted further to the back of the line and I missed it. I didn't want you to think that I dismissed your detailed reply.

No worries. It happens. Thanks for picking it back up.

But first, let me begin by stating (because you asked how I interpret this verse) that how I or any person interprets any passage of the Bible is irrelevant because the Bible is of no private interpretation. This means that whenever we're seeking to understand any particular passage, that we need to let the Bible be the one to guide us as to what God means in any particular passage.

I completely agree.

The first thing we have to let the Bible answer for us is, does the phrase "all men", always mean exactly that, ALL men (meaning every single individual? Well, to most people, the answer would be yes, because that's the way they naturally dialogue, but we have to remember that when we're dealing with the spiritual word of God, we need to let the Holy Spirit teach, and he only does this by comparing spiritual with spiritual, meaning, scripture with scripture (1 Cor 2:13). So, when we search the Bible, God answers our question with a resounding, no.

I agree that “all men” doesn’t always mean every single individual. The context of the passage must be taken into account.

Now, when we're faced with verse 4 which states that God will have "all men" to be saved, we are already aware that this can have one of two meanings, all men of a particular group, or every single individual in the world. Our job is to now determine which of the two the bible has in view. And the immediate context provides the answer, as well as the context of the whole Bible. Verse 3 identifies God as the savior of those who He will have to be saved. And this is where the doctrine of election comes into play and when properly understood, we understand that Christ's ransom was not universal, but particular in nature. We also understand that Christ is not the mediator of every single human being in the world, but only of those whom God has given him.

Verse 3 does not talk of “those who He will have to be saved”, it simply calls God our Savior. Verse 4 doesn’t bring in the context you are speaking of or it would say something more like “Who will have all men whom He wants to save”. Instead it says all men. If we are left with the immediate context of this verse alone, the all would either carry over the “kings and authorities” that the previous “all men” referred to at one point (which we both don’t accept) or refer to all individuals.

This makes sense of the immediate passage. Paul doesn’t just want Christians to pray for those in authority. We are to pray for everyone. In verse 2, Paul singles out those in authority so that Christians can live quiet and peaceable lives and share the gospel with all others. We aren’t told to just share the message with God’s people.

I understand that 1 Timothy can’t be saying this, if the Calvinistic understanding of election is to be Biblical, but if we are allowed to import that doctrine to a context that doesn’t refer to it, then I see a red flag because you can do that to any scripture you disagree with, especially if you have a "spiritual" hermeneutic. And then it becomes about our interpretations interpreting the Bible rather than reading what that Bible passage says. One’s interpretation becomes unfalsifiable unless directly addressed and refuted, when these passages weren’t written with Augustine, Calvin, Arminius etc.’s thoughts and debates in mind.

John 17:9 (KJV 1900)
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Historically, this prayer was for his disciples, but spiritually, we know that his disciples typify every true child of God, who did not choose Christ but were chosen of Him (Jn 15:16). This is understood by even those who would reject this truth because the great commission (Mk 16:15) was only given to the disciples, yet every professing Christian obeys the same command.

This isn’t a prayer for salvation, but for strengthening of His disciples, both the original ones who were about to have their world wrecked by his crucifixion and later persecution for His Name, as well as all disciples.

John 10:15 (KJV 1900)
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

This verse isn’t addressing the later question of limited atonement one way or the other. That’s to import one’s philosophy into the text. Jesus is distinguishing himself from the Jewish leaders in how they treat people (of this Jewish fold and other sheep), loving them deeply, while the Jewish leaders are about self-preservation and power and lack such caring intimacy.

Matthew 1:21 (KJV 1900)
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

It’s true, in both of our overarching views, that Jesus saves his people from their sins. We agree that he doesn’t save those who are not in Christ from their sins. This doesn’t mean salvation through His life, death, and resurrection wasn’t open to them as well. This passage certainly doesn’t address that question.

A study on the word "sheep" helps us to confirm the doctrine of election, as during the day of judgment, God is currently separating the sheep from the goats.

…

Just like with “all men,” “sheep” is used in different ways, referring to different things, in different situations. In Matthew 25, the goats call Jesus Lord, seemingly thinking they were saved, but didn’t have the fruit to back it up. This passage seems to be talking about those who are Christian in name, but not reality, not the “rest of the world”.

It helps to be able to understand the distinction between what it means to be loved and what it means to be hated according to the Bible. But not what it means historically, but what it means spiritually….

Okay, I see this as a more basic point of departure between us. You are raising “spiritual” interpretations over more literal-historical-plain understandings of a passage. Why this hermeneutic? I think your hermeneutic allows much more easily for one to import their philosophy into the text, then coming out of it. And, doing so, why Calvinism versus some other philosophy?

It also seems inconsistent. You say interpret “all men” in different ways at different times, but “hated” and “pitch” and other words are constants, almost like a secret code.

[The Tanager]

the tanager

Malachi 1:2-3, Psalm 5:5-6, Psalm 11:5 are about hating wicked deeds and bringing consequences upon those that unrepentantly go about doing them.

Ps 5:5
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

This clearly states that God hates the worker, which is the person. When God punishes them with the second death, it will be the person, the worker punished, not their deeds.

I was responding to Eddie Ramos’ claim that “those who were hated, are those whose sins were not laid upon Christ”. It says God hates all who do injustice. The elect, in Calvinism, still have done injustice, but God loves them. Thus, this verse is more about hating the one who remains unrepentant in their wickedness. It doesn’t rule out redemption of a certain group of people. I agree the unrepentant wicked-doer is hated.

[Eddie Ramos]

John 17:9 (KJV 1900)
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Historically, this prayer was for his disciples, but spiritually, we know that his disciples typify every true child of God, who did not choose Christ but were chosen of Him (Jn 15:16). This is understood by even those who would reject this truth because the great commission (Mk 16:15) was only given to the disciples, yet every professing Christian obeys the same command.

This isn’t a prayer for salvation, but for strengthening of His disciples, both the original ones who were about to have their world wrecked by his crucifixion and later persecution for His Name, as well as all disciples.

Correct, it's not, but I wasn't addressing this verse to prove salvation through election, but who Christ is interceding for, and it's not for the world, but for those who were given to him. It's important to understand that the Word of God is one cohesive truth and we can see God choosing a people for himself to be his holy people as he first did this with the nation of Israel, but they were only a figure of the true people of God, of the true holy nation, the Israel of God. The law (the Word of God) was only given to the nation of Israel, not to the rest of the world at the time. Every high priest (who was a spiritual picture of Christ), only interceded for the people of Israel and not for the rest of the world. That pattern never changed, this is what we learn from John 17:9 when we see that Christ only intercedes for those that are his.

John 10:15 (KJV 1900)
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

This verse isn’t addressing the later question of limited atonement one way or the other. That’s to import one’s philosophy into the text. Jesus is distinguishing himself from the Jewish leaders in how they treat people (of this Jewish fold and other sheep), loving them deeply, while the Jewish leaders are about self-preservation and power and lack such caring intimacy.

But this verse couldn't be more specific on who Christ is laying his life down for. How can this possibly not be addressing atonement? What then was the purpose of Christ, if not to lay his life down for the sins of his people? His sheep.

Matthew 15:24 (KJV 1900)
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Christ was sent for a specific purpose and for a specific people, the lost sheep that needed to be found through the preaching of the gospel. Now, I realize that there is confusion regarding this verse if one were to take it at face value and conclude that Christ was sent for the actual nation of Israel and because they rejected him, he then turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). But this is not the case (and I'm not saying this is your position, but it's a popular position). This conclusion only comes by not taking the whole of the scriptures into account and thus not realizing that it was God's judgment against Israel (as a nation) to not believe the preaching of Christ and thus reject him.

John 12:37–41 (KJV 1900)
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He (meaning God) hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him (This is God).

Thus the lost sheep of the house of Israel is speaking about everyone who has ever been chosen for salvation, the Israel of God. The fact that they are called "lost sheep" means that they have a shepherd who is seeking them. That shepherd is Christ. Christ never sought for the goats because he never paid for their sins.

Matthew 1:21 (KJV 1900)
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

It’s true, in both of our overarching views, that Jesus saves his people from their sins. We agree that he doesn’t save those who are not in Christ from their sins. This doesn’t mean salvation through His life, death, and resurrection wasn’t open to them as well. This passage certainly doesn’t address that question.

But to be saved from your sins means that your sins have been paid for. That is exactly what the atonement accomplished, actual forgiveness of sins.

Ephesians 1:7 (KJV 1900)
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

The phrase "through his blood" is declaring to us that redemption was accomplished through the life he gave, because the life of the flesh is in the blood. In other words, redemption (which is the forgiveness of sins) was accomplished through Christ Christ becoming sin for people, therefore, if the sins of the every human being were laid upon Christ, then every human being has been redeemed from his or her sins, and is a lost sheep of the shepherd. But such is not the case. None of the Bible will harmonize with every human being being a lost sheep. None of the Bible will harmonize with every human being being a widow (a woman with no husband, meaning Christ), or an orphan (a child with no father, meaning God). And all three of these (lost sheep, widow, orphan) does the bible use to specifically refer to those who are his, yet not yet saved. Those who were not elect and therefore did not have their sins paid for have a father and are not orphans, but their father is the devil (Jn 8:44).

And the more we bring the Bible as a whole into any doctrine we hold, the more we can either see confirmation that out doctrine is correct (through biblical agreement) or the opposite is also true.

When we seek for further harmony, we can again, turn to the Old Testament and see that when the high priest (Christ) made atonement once a year for the sins of the people, that the nations of the world were not part of that atonement, but only the chosen people of God (the nation of Israel as a figure).

So, when Christ rose from the dead, then all those who were chosen for salvation died with Him and rose with Him. Forgiveness of sins was completed. Now the next step was to find those lost sheep whose sins were redeemed and bring to them the gospel of salvation so that God could apply his atonement to their lives. And this occurred throughout various time periods, in various ways, in various stages of people's lives. Once found (saved) now, the lost sheep were no longer lost, the widow, now had a husband (Christ) and was a bride, and the orphan now had a heavenly Father and was no longer an orphan but an adopted son.

A study on the word "sheep" helps us to confirm the doctrine of election, as during the day of judgment, God is currently separating the sheep from the goats.

…

Just like with “all men,” “sheep” is used in different ways, referring to different things, in different situations. In Matthew 25, the goats call Jesus Lord, seemingly thinking they were saved, but didn’t have the fruit to back it up. This passage seems to be talking about those who are Christian in name, but not reality, not the “rest of the world”.

In the whole Bible, when salvation is completed, there are only two types of people in the end, those who are saved and those who are not. That is what Matthew 25:31-46 is referring to. If someone thinks he/she is saved, and lived their whole life doing things to please God, yet they were never truly saved, then that person was never a lost sheep, but was always a goat. We know this because Christ assured us that he would find all the lost sheep and he would bring them into the fold.

John 10:14–16 (KJV 1900)
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Please notice something Christ said here about the sheep. He said that he knows his sheep. Why is this important to pay attention to? Because in another passage, we read of those who come to Christ in the end and think they were truly saved but never were. And this is what Christ says to those people:

Matthew 7:23 (KJV 1900)
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, when we take the context of the Bible into view, we learn that there are those whom Christ has known (because they are his sheep) since before the world was created, and there are those whom Christ has never known. And there are many other ways the Bible continues to teach us the same truth of limited atonement, election, predestination, etc.

It helps to be able to understand the distinction between what it means to be loved and what it means to be hated according to the Bible. But not what it means historically, but what it means spiritually….

Okay, I see this as a more basic point of departure between us. You are raising “spiritual” interpretations over more literal-historical-plain understandings of a passage. Why this hermeneutic? I think your hermeneutic allows much more easily for one to import their philosophy into the text, then coming out of it. And, doing so, why Calvinism versus some other philosophy?

It also seems inconsistent. You say interpret “all men” in different ways at different times, but “hated” and “pitch” and other words are constants, almost like a secret code.

I'm very glad that you addressed this point because, in essence, this is the very foundation that results in everyone's doctrinal position. Why do I keep using the word "spiritual" when it comes to understanding what the Bible is saying? Because if I asked you to provide for me one passage that teaches us to use the literal, historical, grammatical method of interpretation, you would not be able to do so. Yet, this is the most widely accepted method of interpretation among scholars and theologians. But why? Because that's the way we've learned to approach any historical document that has been written by man, because we understand that when man writes something, that he does so with the intent for the reader to understand what he has written. And since God used man to write the Bible, then logic follows that God must have allowed man to be as clear and concise as possible when writing down the Words of God. But this hermeneutic neglects to take into consideration that the Bible is not the words of men. It's not just a historical book. It is a book like no other with an author like no other.

The literal, historical, grammatical method focuses on learning about the writer of each book, perhaps subconsciously thinking that these are his words, when they are not. For example, when people quote from the book of Romans, they see that Paul addresses the saints at Rome personally in the opening of his letter, and they accredit these words to Paul. Why do they give credit to (Paul) rather than to the one who dictated the words (God)? As a matter of fact, in this very book of Romans, God teaches us that the one who puts pen to paper is really insignificant insofar as the content of the scriptures are concerned. He does this by providing us with the name of the person who actually penned the letter to the Romans, a man we know nothing about named Tertuis.

Romans 16:22 (KJV 1900)
I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

Now, when people preach out of the book of Romans, why don't they say, "this is what Tertius said". Instead, they say "this is what Paul said", when they ought to say, "this is what God said". The fact that Tertius wrote this epistle and that he gets no credit (other than him identifying himself once, here) teaches us that this is how we are to approach the whole of the scriptures when it comes to giving credit to the scribe rather than to the author of the words. In other words, it doesn't matter who put pen to paper, neither do their credentials matter, nor their theological background, etc. The only thing that matters is who gave the words.

Since the Bible is the sole Word of God, we need to let the Bible teach us how God intended for us to approach it and how to understand it. And the next thing we learn about God's Word is that it is spiritual, as opposed to every other book that comes from the mind of men.

Romans 7:14 (KJV 1900)
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

The law is a synonym for the whole Word of God.

John 6:63 (KJV 1900)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And because the Bible is a spiritual book, it means that this book is a living book with great power.

Hebrews 4:12 (KJV 1900)
For the word of God is quick(living), and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

But what does it mean that this is a spiritual book? Does it mean that it's just a book that came from a spiritual being and therefore holy? No, it means much more than that. Because the words of the Bible are spiritual and living, it means that God has placed a requirement for true understanding of its content. That requirement is that one have the Spirit of God within them.

1 Corinthians 2:6–14 (KJV 1900)
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect (this means among those who are truly saved and have the Spirit): yet not the wisdom of this world (the words of the Bible that are being spoken are not according to the way the natural man would speak them), nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: (Do you see how God differentiates His Word, which is spoken in a mystery that is hidden) 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: (The princes are a reference to national Israel) for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (God did not allow them to know who the Christ was so that they would carry out the will of God and crucify Christ) 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God (This is in the context of understanding the Word of God). 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? (Logically, the words of men are understood by men) even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (No man can know the deep things of God unless they have the Spirit of God, and the deep things of God has to do with the spiritual understanding of his spiritual word) 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth (we cannot use the same method that we use to understand regular historical books and apply that logic to the Bible), but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual (The Holy Spirit teaches when we compare spiritual things with spiritual. Notice it doesn't say literal with literal, or historical with historical). 14 But the natural man (the man without the Spirit of God) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That last sentence sums it all up. Without the Spirit of God, what can the natural man learn and understand by reading and studying the Bible? He can learn historical and moral truths. But not spiritual truths, because in order to learn this, one must have the Spirit of God and study the scriptures by the method which God instructs us, by comparing spiritual with spiritual. But this method is foolishness to those who have not the Spirit because God has designed his Word to be spiritually discerned. God also provides for us plenty of examples of what he means by comparing spiritual with spiritual in order for the Holy Ghost to teach.

Numbers 20:11 (KJV 1900)
And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

When we read this literal actual historical account, we can see the greatness of God in his kindness in giving the people of Israel water for their thirst in the wilderness, and we can think to ourselves, "what a great miracle", and then move on without making this say more than what the text actually says happened. But, what if I said that there's much more here than just what we read on the surface? What if I suggested to you that we dig deeper within the pages of the bible to find the spiritual interpretation of this passage? You might say, "You are raising “spiritual” interpretations over more literal-historical-plain understandings of a passage. Why this hermeneutic?". And my answer would be, because this is how God teaches us to study his word and search for the deepest level of truth in the Bible, the spiritual truth.

So, in order to teach us how to do this, God takes us by the hand and shows us that there is much much more truth in that above passage than what we can figure out for ourselves. After all, if left to ourselves and to our logic, then we would have taken that account just as it was written (adding nothing more) and learned a historical truth, and that's it.

But, thankfully, God did take us by the hand and showed us that this historical account was hiding a greater spiritual truth (hidden wisdom). Let's see what spiritual truth was hidden in that historical account all along until God (through HIs Word) revealed the mystery.

1 Corinthians 10:1–4 (KJV 1900)
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

So, if we go back to the historical account in Numbers 20, and I told you that the rock spiritually pointed to Christ, would I be accused of inserting into the text that which is not plainly stated? Yes, I would. But then if I showed you from the scriptures (as I did) that the Bible itself teaches us that the rock represents Christ, then it's no longer my interpretation but it's the Bible's own teaching. And this is God's basic way of introducing us to the fact that there is spiritual truth hidden within every part of the Bible. The more examples he provides, the more we learn that he doesn't always spell it out so plainly like he did in this example. Other times we have to do our own due diligence and make the connection. Like the water that flowed from the rock typifies the gospel of salvation. And that the water (gospel) could not flow until Moses smote it. And the word "smote" is mostly translated as "killed". Now, why would God use that particular word to describe what Moses did to a historically inanimate object like a rock? Because that rock spiritually pointed to Christ and Christ had to be killed in order for the gospel to go forth.

And God does this enough times throughout the Bible for God's people to get it.

[Brightfame52]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #36]

I was responding to Eddie Ramos’ claim that “those who were hated, are those whose sins were not laid upon Christ”.

I agree with eddie, the people who are hated by God are people for whom Christ didnt die for, nor loved, if so, they would not have been hated by Him.

The elect, in Calvinism, still have done injustice, but God loves them.

Correct, even while they are being wicked.

Thus, this verse is more about hating the one who remains unrepentant in their wickedness.

False, the elect are Loved by God all while they are remaining in their wickedness and unrepentant.

It doesn’t rule out redemption of a certain group of people. I agree the unrepentant wicked-doer is hated.

The elect because they are loved are redeemed while they are wicked, but the wicked non elect are never redeemed, never loved, never the objects of Christs death.

[The Tanager]

That last sentence sums it all up. Without the Spirit of God, what can the natural man learn and understand by reading and studying the Bible? He can learn historical and moral truths. But not spiritual truths, because in order to learn this, one must have the Spirit of God and study the scriptures by the method which God instructs us, by comparing spiritual with spiritual. But this method is foolishness to those who have not the Spirit because God has designed his Word to be spiritually discerned.

What you are terming “spiritual” here, sounds more like “allegorical” at times. My approach isn’t straight human understanding; but it’s looking at the spiritual truths and comparing the biblical with the biblical. The biblical writings are a mix of literal, historical, symbolic, etc., all of which I would include in what I mean by the “plain” reading of the text, rather than this deeper “spiritualizing” approach you are taking.

So, if we go back to the historical account in Numbers 20, and I told you that the rock spiritually pointed to Christ, would I be accused of inserting into the text that which is not plainly stated? Yes, I would. But then if I showed you from the scriptures (as I did) that the Bible itself teaches us that the rock represents Christ, then it's no longer my interpretation but it's the Bible's own teaching. And this is God's basic way of introducing us to the fact that there is spiritual truth hidden within every part of the Bible. The more examples he provides, the more we learn that he doesn't always spell it out so plainly like he did in this example. Other times we have to do our own due diligence and make the connection. Like the water that flowed from the rock typifies the gospel of salvation. And that the water (gospel) could not flow until Moses smote it. And the word "smote" is mostly translated as "killed". Now, why would God use that particular word to describe what Moses did to a historically inanimate object like a rock? Because that rock spiritually pointed to Christ and Christ had to be killed in order for the gospel to go forth.

And God does this enough times throughout the Bible for God's people to get it.

There is a difference between later scripture pointing out a truth like this and individuals then going in and claiming that such-and-such is doing the same thing, when there is no additional scripture that says that.

It allows for people to “spiritualize” whatever philosophy they want out of a passage. You’d be against the one who agrees with you up to this point, takes the exact same approach as you, but then goes in an unorthodox path, but I’m not sure you would have much ground to stand on because of this approach. You seem to pick and choose what is spiritualized. You do it with sheep because it fits your Calvinism. You would reject any similar spiritualizations that disagree with Calvinism. Thus, your Calvinism determines the meaning of passages, not the passages determining your Calvinism.

But this hermeneutic neglects to take into consideration that the Bible is not the words of men. It's not just a historical book. It is a book like no other with an author like no other.

Why do you think the approach I’m speaking of neglects to consider the divine authorship of the words? It’s not a human-author only approach.

Correct, it's not, but I wasn't addressing this verse to prove salvation through election, but who Christ is interceding for, and it's not for the world, but for those who were given to him. It's important to understand that the Word of God is one cohesive truth and we can see God choosing a people for himself to be his holy people as he first did this with the nation of Israel, but they were only a figure of the true people of God, of the true holy nation, the Israel of God. The law (the Word of God) was only given to the nation of Israel, not to the rest of the world at the time. Every high priest (who was a spiritual picture of Christ), only interceded for the people of Israel and not for the rest of the world. That pattern never changed, this is what we learn from John 17:9 when we see that Christ only intercedes for those that are his.

The whole point of the nation of Israel was for it to be a nation of priests to the world, pointing the world to God, to be a blessing to the nations, as God promised Abraham. The Levites were to be priests to the rest of Israel and the nation, in turn, was to be priests to the world. Christ called His disciples to do the same, praying for one’s enemies, exemplifying that when He prayed for those who were crucifying and terrorizing him.

But this verse couldn't be more specific on who Christ is laying his life down for. How can this possibly not be addressing atonement? What then was the purpose of Christ, if not to lay his life down for the sins of his people? His sheep.

I didn’t say it wasn’t about atonement. I said it’s not addressing whether atonement was for the elect or open to everyone who then chose to be one of Jesus’ flock or reject the offer. The context of this passage seems to me to be contrasting Jesus against the Jewish leaders of the day who were acting like thieves and robbers towards the people they were supposed to be pointing to God.

John 12:37–41 (KJV 1900)
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He (meaning God) hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him (This is God).

Thus the lost sheep of the house of Israel is speaking about everyone who has ever been chosen for salvation, the Israel of God. The fact that they are called "lost sheep" means that they have a shepherd who is seeking them. That shepherd is Christ. Christ never sought for the goats because he never paid for their sins.

Why isn’t this passage using rhetorical language to make a point? Like if I told my son “Go ahead, don’t practice, and don’t eat well, and I’m sure you’ll still get better at football? Or why isn’t it an allusion to idolatry, as idols are described as deaf and dumb; where Isaiah would be claiming that you become what you worship? Why isn’t this about foreknowing that some will reject Jesus? Why isn’t it about preparing Isaiah (and Jesus preparing His disciples) for their ministry and the real situation of what they would be coming up against? Why do you think this isn’t about the national rejection of Jesus as Messiah by Israel, rather than about all individuals rejecting Jesus? Why does Isaiah preach repentance later in his book, if he felt it was just about God choosing some and not others?

From looking at Jesus’ use of Isaiah’s passage in Matthew 13, why isn’t this Jesus’ way of testing the Jewish people, that those truly interested will be granted the knowledge. It speaks that the people’s heart has grown dull, not been dull from birth, unchosen by God. Matthew 13:15 talks about how if they saw and heard and understood, they would turn and God would heal them.

But to be saved from your sins means that your sins have been paid for. That is exactly what the atonement accomplished, actual forgiveness of sins.

I agree. It accomplished this for all who receive it. It’s a further step to then claim that Jesus didn’t offer it to everyone. I’m not saying those not in Christ had their sins laid on Christ and erased; I’m saying Christ offers to take the sins of all people and those who trust in Christ enter into that abundant life while those who reject the offer do not.

[The Tanager]

I agree with eddie, the people who are hated by God are people for whom Christ didnt die for, nor loved, if so, they would not have been hated by Him.

Your disagreement is fine, but it’s not because of Psalm 5, which is what you were asking me about.

The elect, in Calvinism, still have done injustice, but God loves them.

Correct, even while they are being wicked.

Thus, this verse is more about hating the one who remains unrepentant in their wickedness.

False, the elect are Loved by God all while they are remaining in their wickedness and unrepentant.

Psalm 5:5 says God hates all who do injustice. You agree that the elect have done injustice. Yet you say that God doesn’t hate the elect. This is illogical. If God hates all who do injustice and the elect have done injustice, then God would have to hate the elect.