sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 3

Well, I want to get this down while I am thinking about it and have some time today and wrap up my brief stint in Malachi 1:2-3 as I revisit my earlier position on the love/hate idiom found here and quoted by Paul. In Part 1, I defended the Reformed understanding of hating Esau as just that, hatred by God toward Esau from the Psalms (specifically Psalm 45:7). In Part 2, I introduced the new line of understanding for the Hebrew term sane’/μισέω (LXX) in Malachi 1:2-3 from Malachi 2:16 and the prophet’s use of the word there as a term for covenant rejection, either a covenant or the object of the covenant. Malachi 1:2-3 LXX is nearly identical to Romans 9:13 in the Greek. Malachi 1:2-3, “I loved Jacob but Esau I hated” (ἠγάπησα τὸν Ιακωβ τὸν δὲ Ησαυ ἐμίσησα); Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” (τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα). So there is very little significance to be seen in light of grammatical construction (One thing that can be seen is Paul’s emphasis on Jacob being loved in placing τὸν Ἰακὼβ before the verb; where as Malachi emphasizes Yahweh loving Jacob by placing the verb ἠγάπησα first). So the question becomes, does Paul see Malachi as saying loved less or does he see Malachi saying that God hated Esau and/or rejected him as part of the covenant?

Well, let us look at Paul’s flow of thought in Romans 9:1-13 (a Greek version can be found here but I will follow the ESV). Paul has just concluded his brilliant argument for the perseverance of the believer in Romans 8. But the terms he applies to this mainly Gentile church in Rome are terms that were used of Israel in the Old Testament. Also the perseverance of the Gentiles in faith to salvation eternity were applied to Israel on the national level, the perseverance of the throne of David and the nation of Israel under David’s reign. Thus questions would arise about Israel, and one can see that in Romans 9:1-2 as Paul is expressing heart-wrenching emotions after such wonderful preaching on God’s love being unable to become separated from his people. But the reason why this is tears at his heart is found in Romans 9:3, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed (ἀνάθεμα) and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Now Paul understands ἀνάθεμα in terms of 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα). Our Lord, come!” or Galatians 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα). As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα).” In the Old Testament it was used to denote objects set apart to Yahweh for destruction. So the Jews have been set apart by God for destruction and it is killing Paul that this is so! Why is Paul so upset when he is the apostle to the Gentiles? Romans 9:4-5 show every reason why they should not have rejected Messiah and become ἀνάθεμα.

So why are the Jews ἀνάθεμα? Romans 9:6, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Physical lineage that can be traced to Abraham does not make one a child of Abraham. Paul illustrates this with two Old Testament illustrations. First is Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was older and therefore should have received the blessing God gave to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3 and Genesis 15. But God promised to supernaturally give Abraham through the barren womb of Sarah, thus making Isaac the child of promise because he was born of a promise by God (Romans 9:8-9). But to further push Paul’s statement in Romans 9:6, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” he turns to Jacob and Esau. Unlike Isaac and Ishmael who had different mothers, Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah. Same parents, same birthday. Yet before they were born or did anything to cause God to choose one over the other, God chose Esau to become the servant of Jacob so that God’s electing purpose might stand on the basis of himself, rather on the works of Jacob and Esau. Thus Paul is stating that the reason that the Jews are ἀνάθεμα and, as Romans 9:6 puts it, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” is because God did not choose all of Israel to be the true Israel! To further cement this Jacob/Esau illustration, Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This quotation is the source of much debate, especially in understanding the verb ἐμίσησα. Does it mean hate as in intense hostility due to anger or does it just mean loved less? Here is a post from Theology for the Masses defending this position, as the author gives quite a bit of textual evidence for this to be so. It is impressive to say the least.

However, as I have argued in the Psalms, hatred in the hostility due to anger is a perfectly suitable meaning to sane’ as a term and in Malachi 1:2-3. Also, Malachi 1:2-3 signifies that Esau was rejected in terms of the covenant. Now in Malachi, the flow of thought is that from God’s rejection of and hatred towards Esau comes the laying to waste and preventing them from rebuilding, etc. Does Paul mean for his quote to mean that God hated Esau or that God rejected Esau in terms of covenant?

I want to argue both! In regards to covenant rejection, look at how Romans 9:1-13 develops. One was chosen, Isaac and Jacob, one wasn’t chosen, Ishmael and Esau, and thus rejected by God. Isaac and Jacob were heirs to the promised covenant made with Abraham, their father/grandfather. Thus some Jews, like the Eleven and Paul, are chosen as Israel while other Jews are rejected. The word of God still stands because the blessings and promises weren’t made to those Jews whom God rejected; but rather to those who God has chosen to receive salvation through Christ. So God could have “loved less” by rejecting Esau for the covenant, and the Reformed understanding of Romans 9 isn’t weakened at all, but stands.

In regards to intense hostility, look at how Jacob/Esau parallels mercy/hardening in Romans 9:18 and vessels of common use/vessels of mercy in Romans 9:21 and the vessels of wrath/mercy in Romans 9:22-23. Pharaoh being hardened is a reshaping of Esau being hated. The vessel of common use is a reshaping Pharaoh, as well as the vessel of wrath. And consider Romans 9:22, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” God desires to make his wrath known. It is his will and plan to demonstrate his wrath, and therefore vessels of wrath are prepared for destruction. Esau fits this bill, especially when one reads Malachi 1:3-4. Thus this hostility is definitely in Paul’s mind, along with covenant rejection. It isn’t either/or but both/and.

So what about this whole debate of “hated” vs. “loved less”? It seems to me, upon reflecting upon Malachi 1:2-3, Psalm 45:7, Hebrews 1:9, and Romans 9:13, that this debate isn’t needed. The Arminian, in arguing for “loved less,” is forced to argue semantics that doesn’t help his/her argument. In the post linked above at Theology for the Masses, the author reaches the conclusion that Esau was rejected by God for the covenant. But this does not undermine the Reformed understanding, but rather bolsters it. God rejected Esau for the covenant, but this changes not God’s basis upon which he rejected Esau and favored Jacob (namely his own electing purpose; Romans 9:11). This position by Arminians says nothing of their disjointed approach to Romans 9; 9:1-13 is about nations, 9:14-16 is individuals, 9:17-18 is about nations, 9:19-24 is about individuals, 9:25-29 is nations, 9:30-33 is individuals or nations. It does not create a smooth flow in Paul’s thought. If you don’t believe me that Arminians do this, read Dave Hunt’s book What Love is This? or Norm Geisler’s book, Chosen but Free (Moderate Calvinism is an Arminian trying to sound like a Calvinist).

So in summary of this three part mini-series on Malachi 1:2-3 and its use by Paul in Romans 9:13 I have argued thus: first, the term sane’ can and does mean in Malachi 1:2-3 God has intense hostility due to anger towards Esau; second, that sane’ can and does mean that God rejected Esau for the covenant promised and made with Abraham in Malachi 1:2-3; thirdly, that Paul has both meanings in view in his use of Malachi 1:2-3 in Romans 9:13; fourth, that for Arminians to focus on semantics and say that God did not “hate” Esau (intense hostility due to anger) but rather rejected him for covenant has not only failed to undermine the Reformed understanding of Romans 9 but actually bolstered the Calvinist’s understanding of it. Thus to focus on “loved less” vs. “hated” does not really help this debate all that much and only proves that the Arminian position cannot provide a clear and concise exegesis of Romans 9, but will argue moot points in order to attempt to fight a losing battle in exegesis.