Now, before I read, I'd like to give a warning, and that is that I'm going to lay a very strong one on you this morning. This is a passage of Scripture that if anything's going to offend you in the Word of God, it's going to be this passage this morning. And if you're going to get mad at me for anything, It would be this morning. Though this is God's Word, not mine. Remember that. So it is an offensive truth, but I prepared it days ago so no one is being picked on with this text this morning. So look at Romans chapter 9 and verses 10 through verse 13, particularly the 13th verse for our text of the morning. Let me give you my subject before we read it so that you will know. My subject today is a question. Does God love Everyone. Or I might give it this title. Did God Really Hate Esau? Well, that's what we're going to read today. Alright, here are those verses. Romans 9, 10 through 13. And by the way, we're going to stay with the Scripture. We're going to quote the Word of God, not our own fanciful opinion. So look at verse 10. Paul is explaining why so many Jews were perishing, why so many did not believe, and why so many did not receive Christ of His own nation. Now look at verse 10. He's explaining some things to them. Not only this, he said, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our Father, Isaac, watch this, 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 It was said unto her, that is to Rebecca, the elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Now, that's our subject today. Does God love everyone? Did God actually hate Esau? Or is there a way around this and to explain it away as many do? Now, let me begin like this. As we are aware, it is the general thought of the greater, the larger part of Christendom that the question at the head of our study this morning ought only to be answered in the affirmative. Yes, God does love everybody. And this has long been the contention of the largest part of Christendom that we call Arminianism. In fact, as an old-time writer by the name of Stanley Gower expressed it way back in the early 1600s, he said that Arminianism is made to stand upon two rotten pillows. Number one, that God loves all alike, and number two, that Christ died for all equally and alike. This, they say, is equally true of those that are saved as equally true of those that are lost and that perish. It is the contention of many that God loves the same those that come to salvation and are brought to heaven and those that die in their sin and perish. It is their belief that God died as much for those now in hell as He died for those that are in heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ. That He shed His blood as equally for Judas as He did for the Apostle Paul. Now this is where that grand, stout idol of theirs free will comes in, which they say must decide the issue that we're dealing with this morning. Now, if this be so, if God loves everyone and Christ died for everyone without exception, then I will tell you that there is little comfort in either the love of God or the death of Christ. If God may love and Christ may bleed for those who yet perish, these are not comforting doctrines to any, are they? What comfort to any who think, God loves me, Christ died for me, if I may yet lose my soul in spite of those things? So Armenians make these things to be absolutely conditional. That is, God loves you, Christ died for you, but you must accept that for it to become a reality. and for it to become effectual. Thus the passage here in Romans chapter 9 is a good one for the subject of the morning. In that if you will notice and be honest, Paul calls by name one that God has said to hate. And this is an exception to the general or universal rule of the universal love of God. Esau have I hated is very clear in this passage of the scripture. This is a quotation from the word of God. Paul did not pull it out of thin air. It is a quotation from the Word of God. Furthermore, there is made by Paul in this place an intentional and a design distinction in verse 13. Jacob have I loved, Esau on the other hand, have I hated." And he can say, it is written, it is written in the Word of God, Jacob I love, Esau have I hated. Now such was right there in their Old Testament Scripture. Had they never read it, had those Jews that treasured the Old Testament Scripture never read that. However, it is necessary, first of all, for us to make the connection of verse 10 through verse 13 with the overall context and the overall flow of thought. We're familiar with Romans chapter 9. We've studied it thoroughly. It is one of the strongest declarations of the sovereignty of God that you will find anywhere in the Scripture. Now, the question that is being dealt with by Paul in Romans chapter 9 is how to explain the fact that so many Jews in that day were not believing on Christ despite the many privileges that they enjoyed by Israel, whether this meant that the Word of God had failed. Has God's Word failed that many descendants of Abraham are falling down in unbelief. That it had come to nothing. And you see that in verse 6 of chapter 9. And then it is, is it because they are not all Israel which are of Israel. That's very important. In the NIV, it has it this way. Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. That's very clear, and that's Paul's premise here, and he stakes a lot upon it. Look at verse 7. He also said, they are not children of God, because they are the fleshly seed of Abraham. The Jews thought that because they were Abraham's literal descendant, because they had the mark of his circumcision in their flesh, they thought that they were the children of Abraham and blessed with him. But it was said in Isaac, shalt thy seed be called, way back in Genesis chapter 21. Thus the casting out of Ishmael, Abraham's son by the bondwoman Hagar, in no way at all breached the promise of God or the purpose of God at all. Or was it an unfaithful act upon God's part to cast out Ishmael from the house of Abraham? Because in Genesis chapter 21 and verse 12, God said to Abraham, let it not be grievous unto you because of Ishmael, because of Hagar. He said, listen unto your wife Sarah. Cast out this bondwoman and her son. You'll find that in Genesis 21 and verse 10, and it's pertinent to our study in Romans chapter 9. Why? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, Hagar and Ishmael. Because of this, for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. He is more than a son of the flesh. He is more than a son of fleshly energy and ability. He is the son of promise through whom the promise will be realized that Abraham will be the father of many nations. The word of promise is this, God will come and Sarah shall have a son. Yonder in Romans 9, 10-13, There is even a stronger example of the sovereign discrimination in Abraham's very own family, kin, and offspring. In fact, in his grandson, in the twin sons of the promised son who was Isaac and his wife, Rebecca. Now, some might say, circumstances and circumstances only determine the distinction between Ishmael and Isaac. In that, they had the same father, but they had different mothers, and that might be the reason. They were born years apart. They were not twins. And Ishmael persecuted and he mocked Isaac, and when Sarah saw that, she had him cast out of the house. Nothing but sovereignty, however, explains the distinction between Jacob and Esau. For consider, if you will, what Paul says here in this place. They had the same father and they had the same mother. They were even twins. They were conceived at the same time, Genesis 25 and 21. And Esau was even the firstborn, Genesis 25 and verse 25, and yet God loved Jacob, the secondborn, and hated Esau the firstborn. And Paul tells us very clearly this had nothing to do with their birth order. It had absolutely, what we read in Romans 9, nothing to do with their birth order. It had nothing to do with any works, good or evil, and the reason is it was settled before they were born or had ever done any good or evil. If you look at verse 11, Paul declares that these things that he's speaking of were in accordance with the purpose of God, in accordance with election. That the purpose of God according to election might stand. which in fact explains the reason why some of Abraham's seed believed and some did not. For as stated in Romans 11 and verse 5, as concerns the Jew, quote, at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. just as there was in Elijah's time. In 1 Kings 19, God said, I have reserved unto me thousands who have not bowed their knee down unto Baal. But again, in Romans 11 and verse 7, another distinction is made regarding Israel, and this time, in Israel, it is between the elect and the rest. the remainder, saying what Israel sought, it did not obtain. That is, a justifying righteousness in the sight of God. But though the whole of Israel did not obtain it, the chosen and elected individuals did. Look at Romans 11 and verse 7 closer sometime. And the rest were hardened. The elect obtained it and the rest were hardened or blinded. Thus the only explanation why so many Jews did not obtain righteousness by and through Christ while others did is the purpose of God according to election in verse 11. Also if you look in verse 11 Paul not only grounds it in the purpose of God according to election, but notice, to overthrow strong human prejudice and bias against sovereign election, he adds, notice, that such purpose might stand and that it runs not, that it is attained not by works, Not by works at all, but by the call of God. Not of works, but of Him that calleth. The effectual call of Almighty God. Now we come to that verse, that dreaded verse, verse 13. It is from Paul, the shot heard round the world of Christendom. A further justification of the doctrine that he had been advancing earlier in Romans 9. that all Israel are not Israel, and that the children of the flesh, such as Ishmael, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed, such as Isaac and Jacob. Notice again here he says, it is written. He means in the Old Testament, oracles. And the place that he refers to is Malachi chapter 1. Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament, and right there in the chapter 1, verses 1 through 3, it is written what Paul quotes, Jacob I love, but Esau have I hated. Now before we look at this, let us realize that this is really a thorn in the side of those who hold to the universal love of God and universal atonement. They've gone to great lengths, dishonest lengths may I say, to blunt the words of Paul, Esau have I hated. They make it to mean Esau I loved less. Some render it Esau have I slighted. You might find that in some of the newer translations of the scripture. Some say it means Esau I regarded less. They are content with such an obvious distortion of the Scripture to be rid of a hard saying in the Word of God. So a double reply, I believe, is in order to the view that they try to take to get around the Scripture. Number one, remember something. I am not aware that the Arminians actually hold the view that God loves some more and some less until they are pinched with this text in Romans 9 and verse 13. Then they invent new meaning of words, so that now hate means to love less. And then we ask, well, if hate means to love less, does love then mean to hate less, on the other hand? If God loved Esau less, did he hate Jacob less? I've hated." You know, it's amazing how some good theologians have stumbled here. This is a hard saying for people to agree with and to swallow. Even Charles Hodge, I read this week, professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, held the view on Romans 9 and verse 13, that hatred here could and should be understood simply as loved less. Another example of Arminian doublespeak is seen in a set of books that I have by Kenneth. We study in the New Testament word picture. And he wrote on Romans 9 and verse 13, quote, the word hate is Misael, meaning to hate. Here it does not retain its original meaning of literal hatred, but a lesser degree of love. God cannot be said to hate anyone. The idea is Jacob I love, but Esau I love less." Unquote. The words of Kenneth Weiss. Now just for the sake of comparison, this is the same word hate here applied under Esau. It is the same word that Paul uses in Romans chapter 7 and verse 15. What I hate that I do. It's the same word that we have in Romans 9.13. Does Paul mean what I love less? That I do. Does he mean what I love less? That's what I wind up doing. Jude verse 23. We have the same word again. Here the text is. hating the garment spotted by the flesh. Does Jude mean loving less the garment spotted by the flesh? One more. Hebrews chapter 1 and verse 9, a prophecy concerning our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when it is said of the Son, Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity." Now would any dare that any say that the Son only loved iniquity less? Thou hast loved righteousness and loved iniquity less. Silly, isn't it? Secondly, even if it be conceded here, That word hate only means to love less? That God had different degrees of love for Jacob and for Esau? Let me tell you, this is not the end of the matter. You haven't gotten over it yet. You're not out of the wood. Because we would come back with a question, what reason will you give us why God should love Esau less than He loved Jacob. What reason could God have to have a greater degree of love for Jacob and a lesser degree of love unto Esau, except that God hates the sin of sinners, is how some get around it. Then some do argue, Not Esau personally did God hate, but his sins, his ways, his works, his doing. Not Esau, but his sin. That God hated the sins of Esau, but He loved the person or the individual of Esau. But is not Paul clear in verse 11? He excludes all consideration of good or evil. Both of them are absolutely excluded of sin as well as works. That for the simple reason the divine determination was made concerning them before they were born or had done any good or evil. Look at the tie between verse 11 and 12. As to Rebecca conceiving, before they were born, therefore, before they did any good or evil, it was said to their mother these words, the elder shall serve the younger. Before they came to term and before they were born, the elder shall serve the younger. You'll find this in Genesis 25 and verse 23. Before they saw the light of day, before their acts or their action, before the exchange of the birthright when Esau sold it unto Jacob, before Jacob called upon the name of the Lord after sleeping the night with his head upon a pillow. And before Esau swore in his wrath that he would kill Jacob for what he had done, while they were yet in the womb, Two things are noted. Genesis chapter 25, which led to a special revelation to Rebecca, who was their mother. Number one, she had conceived twins, and as they developed, they struggled together in the womb. They struggled together within her. And the implication is that it was more than the ordinary movement that women feel when they are becoming mothers. It was excessive, and that's why it troubled Rebecca and why she went before the Lord. I notice that the NIV renders it this way, The babies jostled, jostled each other within her." Calvin described it this way, carrying on intestine war. Maybe this is a digression which I hope will not distract our minds off of the subject where we are this morning and the text at hand, but remember in Luke chapter 1, And verse 41, when John the Baptist and Jesus were yet in the wombs of their mothers respectively. And on a certain occasion, their mothers came together for a visit. that John leaped in the womb of his mother Elizabeth. You can see that in verse 44 of that chapter of Luke. Again, this was more than normal movement. and the ordinary. Elizabeth had never felt this before. As they came together, John leaped in the womb in the presence of Jesus, the very Son of God. And as I heard one preacher say one time, John leaped in the womb as if to say, that's Him, that's Him, that's Him, as He stood there in the presence of our Lord. Also remember an amazing thing in Luke 1 and 15. He, John, would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, is the prophecy of that man. Thus, in the case of these two mothers, there were evidential circumstances of something that was extraordinary and even a precursor of things to come that were extraordinary. And in the case of Rebecca, not only did the twins struggle and tussle in the womb, But when they were born and Esau came out first, Jacob took hold upon his heel, if you remember that passage of Scripture. Thus he was named heel snatcher or supplanter. Genesis 27 and verse 36. Iacobi. That is, heel snatcher or supplanter, which God later changed His name to Israel in Genesis 32 and 28, Yisrael, a prince having power with God. From supplanter to prince with God, His name was changed. Now, one more thing. It is not surprising, therefore, that Rebecca favored Jacob of the two sons. He was her favorite. She looked over him with a special love and devotion. Genesis 25 and verse 28. Isaac loved Esau because he would go in the field and bring him fresh meat and bentsen. And he loved and favored Esau because he kept him well supplied with wild game with which to eat. While Rebecca was motivated by that revelation received during her pregnancy. The younger shall rule over The Elder. Her affections, therefore, were stronger toward the younger. That is, toward Jacob. And she helped him obtain meat for Esau. For the prophecy was the elder shall serve the younger. And by the way, consider Genesis 27 and verse 29. When Isaac thought that he was blessing Esau, but it was Jacob dressed up in hairy skins. He said this to him, the Lord be Lord over your brother. Let thy mother's sons bow down unto you. He said that to Jacob, though unbeknown, yet he said it unto him. In Genesis 27, Isaac said unto Esau in verse 40, Thou shalt serve thy brother, for he has sent forth an irrevocable blessing upon Jacob that he could not call back. Now, our minions have tried everything that their wits can fashion to blunt the truth of Romans 9, verses 10 through 13. such as saying some of them deny that Paul is even speaking of the spiritual state of these two sons in this place. That it is not about election and reprobation, they say. Nothing to do with salvation, they say. The truth is he is talking about their spiritual states. to illustrate the two kinds of descendants out of Abraham. He speaks in verse 11 of the purpose of God according to election. He speaks of calling in that verse. Armenians also deny that Paul is speaking of the individuals Jacob and Esau, but is only speaking of their posterity or their offspring. This they argue from Genesis 25-23, two nations are in thy womb, two manner of people, And they argue also from Malachi 1-3, which does speak of the descendants of Jacob and of Esau. But one thing is beyond dispute. In Romans 9, 10-13, Paul is speaking of the individuals Jacob and Esau. If not, then it has no bearing own Paul's line of reasoning or argument at all. Jacob I love, but Esau I hated. Because we see here in verses 10 through verse 13 how it is the individuals, Jacob and Esau, that are his examples and that are in view of the apostle. Verse 10, one Rebekah can see. Verse 11, the children he speaks of. Verse 12, the elder shall serve the younger. Verse 13, Jacob I love, Esau have I hated. So that even in Malachi 1, the distinction between Israel and the Edomites was owing to the original distinction between their progenitors, Jacob and Esau. Thus God loved Israel, and treated them favorably while laying Edom waste, their mountains and their heritage waste. John Murray wrote in relation to the passage in Malachi chapter 1, these words, quote, The judgments upon the Edomites imply the disfavor of God, unquote. And they have a direct connection to the declaration, Esau have I hated. Let us bear this in mind. This was not less love, this was not less favor to Esau, as less love or less favor hardly accounts for the severe judgment against the Edomite. Was a positive disfavor Esau have I hated. It was a holy hatred, not the kind of hatred we have, which is always motivated by something sinful. It was not born on account of his character or of his action that he did not love Jacob for doing good or hate Esau for doing evil. Paul is very clear. Jacob did no good that caused God to fix his love upon him. Esau did no evil that caused God to fix his hatred upon them. And then we have something else, and that is that in their life and experience and manifestation, this love and hatred was manifested toward the actions of the boys themselves. Esau selling his birthright, hating it, despising it, Jacob getting the blessing. These were the outworking of the sovereign purpose of God to bring to pass the saying, the elder shall serve the younger. Look again now at Romans 9, 10 through 13, when Rebecca had conceived. Then verse 12, it was told her, the elder shall serve the younger. Before they were born, before they did good, before they did evil, this was the purpose of God according to election. There is another name for this hatred of God toward Esau, another doctrine here, that is the doctrine of reprobation. That hate is the designation of the reprobate, so love is the designation of the elect. God's love is particular. Whom He loves, He deals with redemptively. The objects of God's love are all redemptively redeemed by Christ. Because as Ephesians 2 and verse 4, for His great love wherewith He loved us. He loved His own which were in the world. He loved them to the end. John 13 and verse 1. Such distinctions are meaningless, brother and sister, if God loves all alike. These following scriptures and distinctions are meaningless if God loves everyone exactly alike. Consider Proverbs 3 and 12 and together with Hebrews chapter 12 and verse 6. Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth. Whom. Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth. Revelation 3.19. To that church, as many as I love, I rebuke, and I chasten. Now if any bring up John 3.16, then we require them to consider the various ways in which the word WORLD is used in the Scripture hardly ever meaning all without exception. Again, if God loves all without exception, what of those who perish in the lake of fire? Does God yet love them? If He loved them as He loved all others, does He yet love them? Will the objects of His love become the objects of His eternal wrath in the life to come? Can God's love turn into hate in the case of any. And besides, the redemptive love of God is exercised through Jesus Christ, and the love of God comes with election. Those He elected in Christ He loves, having made them accepted in the Beloved. Ephesians 1 and verse 6. He loves the Son. He loves those chosen in the Son. And the Son loves those given unto Him by the Father. While the reprobate not being chosen in Christ or devoid of any divine or saving favor. A positive disfavor is expressed toward them. Esau have I hated. And in the providence of God, in the outworking of their lives and the respective love and hatred of God unto those two, God's dealing with them and their posterity or their descendants clearly demonstrate the original, Jacob I love, Esau have I hated. Whom the Lord loves. Christ redeems, then He calls them and He blesses them. Those He loves are graciously forgiven. Those He hates are justly and righteously punished for their actual sins against God. This is in accordance with the purpose of God according to election. What shall we say? Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated. There it is. There it is by name.