In Romans 9, the apostle Paul makes one of the most controversial statements in Christian theology: God declared that he loved Jacob but hated Esau before either twin was born or had done anything good or bad.1 This is not presented as an unfortunate detail that Paul tries to explain away. Rather, he emphasizes it as a demonstration of God's sovereign election—the point is precisely that God's choices are not based on human actions or merit.2 The passage raises fundamental questions about the character of the biblical God and the nature of divine love, hatred, and justice.
What the text says
The passage in Romans 9 is explicit and carefully worded. Paul writes:
"And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" Romans 9:10-13 (English Standard Version)1
Paul is quoting from Malachi 1:2-3, where God speaks through the prophet about his relationship with Israel and Edom (descendants of Jacob and Esau respectively).3 But Paul applies this to the twins themselves, and he does so with a specific theological point: God made this declaration before they were born and before they had done anything. The Greek phrase "mēdenos praxantōn" (μήδενος πράξαντων) emphasizes that they had not yet practiced or done anything, either good (agathon) or bad (phaulon).4
The word translated "hated" is the Greek "emisēsa" (ἐμίσησα), from the verb "miseō" (μισέω), which means to hate, detest, or regard with less affection.5 This is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament for hatred in its ordinary sense, including Jesus's statement that "no one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other" (Matthew 6:24).6 While some interpreters argue the word can mean "love less," the text explicitly contrasts "loved" with "hated," presenting them as opposites.2
The context in Romans 9
Paul's statement about Jacob and Esau comes in the middle of a lengthy discussion about God's sovereignty and Israel's unbelief. In Romans 9-11, Paul wrestles with a difficult theological problem: if God made promises to Israel, why have most Israelites rejected Jesus as the Messiah?7 Paul's answer involves a defense of God's absolute sovereignty in choosing whom to save and whom to harden.
The Jacob-Esau example is one of several Paul uses to establish this point. He first mentions God's choice of Isaac over Ishmael (9:7-9), then moves to Jacob and Esau as a stronger case, because they were twins conceived at the same time.1 This eliminates any suggestion that God's choice was based on chronological priority, parental favoritism, or circumstances of conception. The twins had the same parents, were conceived together, and yet God made his choice between them before their birth.2
Paul then anticipates the obvious objection: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?" (Romans 9:14).8 His answer is not to deny that God chose one and rejected the other before birth, but to assert God's right to do so. He quotes Exodus 33:19, where God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."8 Paul concludes, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).9
Paul continues with the example of Pharaoh, whom God raised up and hardened for the purpose of demonstrating divine power (9:17-18), and then uses the metaphor of a potter who has authority over the clay to make vessels for honorable or dishonorable use (9:19-24).10 Throughout this section, Paul emphasizes God's absolute freedom to choose and reject according to his own purposes, independent of human merit or action.
The original context in Malachi
Paul's quotation comes from the opening verses of the book of Malachi, written several centuries earlier. The prophet speaks God's word to post-exilic Israel:
"'I have loved you,' says the LORD. But you say, 'How have you loved us?' 'Is not Esau Jacob's brother?' declares the LORD. 'Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.'" Malachi 1:2-3 (English Standard Version)3
In its original context, this passage addresses the nations that descended from the two brothers: Israel (from Jacob) and Edom (from Esau). By the time Malachi was written, around 450 BCE, Edom had been devastated, likely by Nabataean invasions, and its territory was largely depopulated.11 God points to the destruction of Edom and the preservation of Israel as evidence of his covenant love for Jacob's descendants.
However, the statement "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is presented as a primordial choice that preceded and determined the fates of these nations.12 The Hebrew word for "hated" is "sane'ti" (שָׂנֵאתִי), from the root "sane" (שָׂנֵא), meaning to hate, be hateful, or be hostile.13 The same word appears throughout the Hebrew Bible to describe hatred in its ordinary sense, including human hatred of other humans and God's hatred of evil practices.13
The question arises: did Malachi intend this as a statement about God's attitude toward the individual men Jacob and Esau, or only toward their descendant nations? The text itself does not explicitly limit the statement to nations. It speaks of Esau as "Jacob's brother" and contrasts God's treatment of them individually before extending this to their descendants and territories.3 When Paul quotes this passage in Romans 9, he explicitly applies it to the individuals Jacob and Esau before birth, making clear that he understands it as a statement about God's choice of individual persons.1
The Genesis narrative
The Genesis account of Jacob and Esau provides additional context. Before their birth, Rebekah received a divine oracle about the twins struggling in her womb:14
"Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger." Genesis 25:23 (English Standard Version)14
This oracle, delivered before the twins were born, determined that Esau (the firstborn) would serve Jacob (the younger). The reversal of the normal birth order privileges—where the firstborn received the inheritance and blessing—was predetermined by God before either child had done anything to merit or forfeit it.15
The narrative shows Jacob as a morally complicated character. He exploits Esau's hunger to obtain his birthright (Genesis 25:29-34), then deceives his blind father Isaac to steal Esau's blessing with Rebekah's help (Genesis 27).16 These are hardly righteous actions, yet God's choice of Jacob over Esau preceded them. Esau, for his part, is presented as impulsive in selling his birthright but also as the victim of Jacob's deception.16 The Genesis narrative does not portray Esau as especially wicked or Jacob as especially virtuous at the time when God's choice was made—because that choice, according to Romans 9, was made before either had done anything at all.1
Theological interpretations
The statement that God loved Jacob but hated Esau before birth has generated extensive theological debate across Christian history. Interpretations fall into several broad categories.
The Calvinist interpretation
Classical Reformed theology, following Augustine and John Calvin, takes the passage at face value as teaching unconditional election and reprobation. On this view, God sovereignly chooses some individuals for salvation and passes over others for damnation, and he does so according to his own purposes, not based on foreseen faith, works, or merit.17
Calvin wrote that this passage "clearly demonstrates that the seed of Abraham was chosen on the ground of God's gratuitous goodness, and not on account of works."18 The fact that the choice was made before birth and before any actions is central to the doctrine: it proves that election is entirely God's free act, not a response to human choice or behavior.17
From this perspective, the difficulty of the passage is not something to be softened but something to be embraced as a demonstration of God's absolute sovereignty. As the Westminster Confession states, "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death."19
The Arminian interpretation
Arminian theology, which emphasizes human free will and God's universal love, offers alternative interpretations. Some Arminian scholars argue that "hate" in this context means "love less" or represents God's choice to use one person rather than another for a particular purpose, not a determination of eternal destiny.20
On this reading, God chose Jacob for the covenant line and to be the ancestor of the Messiah, while Esau was passed over for this role. This does not mean God hated Esau in the sense of personal animosity or that Esau was predestined to damnation, but only that he was not chosen for the special calling given to Jacob.20
Other Arminian interpreters suggest that Paul is speaking corporately about Israel and Edom rather than about the individuals Jacob and Esau. However, this interpretation faces the difficulty that Paul explicitly states the choice was made "though they were not yet born and had done nothing," language that clearly refers to the individuals.1
The "nations, not individuals" interpretation
Some scholars argue that both Malachi and Paul are speaking exclusively about groups—the nations of Israel and Edom—rather than the individuals Jacob and Esau. On this view, God chose the nation Israel for a special role in salvation history while passing over Edom.21
This interpretation must grapple with Paul's language in Romans 9, which speaks of the choice being made before the twins were born and before they had done anything. Paul's argument in context is about God's freedom to choose individuals (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, some Israelites over others), not merely to elect one nation for historical purposes while rejecting another.2 The subsequent discussion of vessels prepared for destruction and mercy (9:22-23) and the potter's right over the clay (9:21) seems to apply to individuals, not merely to nations.10
The open theism interpretation
Open theism, which holds that the future is not entirely settled and that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of free actions, offers yet another reading. On this view, God's statement in Malachi looks back on the historical outcomes for Israel and Edom, not forward to a pretemporal decree. God loved Jacob in the sense that Jacob's line was blessed, and God hated Esau in the sense that Esau's line was judged.22
However, this interpretation also struggles with Paul's explicit statement that the choice was made before birth and before any actions. Paul is making a chronological argument: the choice preceded the birth, therefore it could not have been based on foreseen actions or character.1
The lexical defense: does "hate" mean "love less"?
A common defense is that the Hebrew and Greek words translated "hate" can sometimes mean "love less" or "prefer one over another," not absolute hatred. This usage appears in other biblical passages, such as when Jacob "loved Rachel more than Leah," which the text also expresses as Leah being "hated" (Genesis 29:30-31).23 Similarly, Jesus says in Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."24 Here "hate" is understood to mean subordinating family relationships to discipleship, not literal emotional hatred.
This comparative sense of "hate" is a genuine semantic possibility in both Hebrew and Greek.5, 13 However, several factors complicate this defense in the case of Jacob and Esau. First, the text explicitly contrasts "loved" with "hated," presenting them as opposites.1, 3 The structure "I loved X but hated Y" suggests more than mere preference.
Second, the context in Malachi describes God laying waste to Esau's territory and leaving his heritage to jackals—language that goes beyond mere preference to active destruction.3 Third, even if we grant that "hate" means "love less" or "choose one over the other," the theological problem remains: why does God love one person more than another before either has been born or done anything? On what basis does God prefer Jacob to Esau if not on the basis of their actions, character, or choices? Paul's answer in Romans 9 is that there is no such basis—God's choice is simply an expression of his sovereign will.2
The foreknowledge defense
Another common defense holds that God's choice was based on foreknowledge: God knew in advance that Jacob would believe and Esau would not, so he chose Jacob on that basis. On this view, the choice is still "before they had done anything" in the sense of being before their birth, but it is based on foreseen free choices they would later make.20
This interpretation faces a significant textual obstacle in Romans 9:11-12. Paul says the choice was made before birth "in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls."1 The phrase "not because of works" (ouk ex ergōn) seems to exclude not only past works but also foreseen future works as the basis for the choice.2 If God chose Jacob based on foreseen faith or obedience, then the choice would be "because of works" (the work of believing or obeying), which Paul explicitly denies.
Furthermore, Paul's subsequent argument in Romans 9:16 states, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."9 If the choice were based on foreseen human willing or exertion (including the act of believing), this statement would be misleading at best. The Calvinist reading takes Paul to mean that election is not conditioned on anything in the human person, whether past, present, or foreseen future.17
Implications for divine character
The statement that God loved Jacob but hated Esau before birth raises profound questions about the biblical God's character. In much of the Bible, God's love and wrath are presented as responses to human behavior. God loves the righteous and hates those who do evil.25 The Psalms repeatedly state that God loves righteousness and hates wickedness.26
But if God can hate someone before they are born or have done anything, his love and hatred cannot be simply responses to human moral character or choices. They must proceed from something else—either God's inscrutable will, as the Calvinist tradition teaches, or some other factor not disclosed in the text.17
This creates tension with biblical passages that present God as impartial. Deuteronomy 10:17 says God "is not partial and takes no bribe."27 Acts 10:34 says, "God shows no partiality."28 Romans 2:11 says, "God shows no partiality."29 Yet choosing to love one twin and hate the other before either has done anything appears to be the definition of partiality—distinguishing between persons on a basis other than their actions or character.
The Calvinist response is that God's partiality concerns judgment according to works, not election according to grace. When God judges, he does not show partiality but judges each person according to what they have done. But when God saves, he acts in sovereign mercy, choosing whom he will according to his own purposes.17 Critics respond that this distinction seems contrived and that choosing to love one person and hate another before birth is partiality by any reasonable definition.
Moral questions
Beyond theological debates about election and free will, the passage raises straightforward moral questions. Is it just for God to hate someone before they are born? Can hatred that precedes any action on the part of the hated person be righteous?
Paul anticipates this objection in Romans 9:14: "Is there injustice on God's part?"8 His answer is essentially to assert God's sovereign right as creator: "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (9:20-21).10
This appeal to God's rights as creator is a form of divine command theory—the view that something is just because God does it, not that God does it because it is just according to an independent standard.30 On this view, God cannot act unjustly by definition, because justice is whatever God wills. If God chooses to love one person and hate another before birth, that choice is just by virtue of being God's choice.
Critics of this view, including many Christian theologians, argue that it makes the concept of divine justice meaningless. If justice means nothing more than "whatever God decides," then calling God just is empty of content—it tells us nothing about God's character except that he has power to do as he wishes.31 Furthermore, if God's choices are not constrained by moral considerations independent of his will, it becomes difficult to distinguish them from arbitrariness or even cruelty.
What about Esau's eternal destiny?
An important question for interpretation is whether God's hatred of Esau determined his eternal destiny. Did God hate Esau in the sense of predestining him to hell, or only in the sense of not choosing him for the covenant line and special blessings given to Jacob?
The text of Romans 9 does not explicitly state that Esau was predestined to damnation. Paul's examples of Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, are presented in the context of who receives God's promises and mercy, not necessarily who is saved or damned eternally.2 However, Paul's subsequent language about vessels of wrath "prepared for destruction" (9:22) suggests that some people are indeed ordained to condemnation, and the logic of his argument applies this to individuals, not merely to roles in salvation history.10
The Genesis narrative gives no clear indication of Esau's eternal fate. The brothers eventually reconcile (Genesis 33), and Esau is not presented as irredeemably wicked.32 However, the book of Hebrews describes Esau as "unholy" and states that when he later wanted to inherit the blessing, "he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears" (Hebrews 12:16-17).33 This passage has been interpreted as suggesting Esau's reprobation, though others read it as referring only to the loss of the earthly blessing, not eternal salvation.
Whether or not Esau was predestined to hell, the text clearly states that God hated him before he was born. Even if this hatred refers only to earthly roles and blessings rather than eternal destiny, it raises the question: on what basis does a just and loving God hate someone before they have done anything?
Implications for understanding God
The statement in Romans 9:13 that "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is one of the most difficult in the New Testament. Paul emphasizes that this choice was made before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad. His point is precisely that God's election is not based on human works, will, or exertion, but solely on God's own purposes and mercy.
This teaching presents a picture of God whose love and hatred are not responses to human behavior but originate in his own sovereign will. For some Christians, particularly those in the Reformed tradition, this demonstrates the glory of God's grace—that salvation is entirely a gift, not something earned or merited.17 For others, it raises troubling questions about divine justice, impartiality, and the very nature of love. If love and hatred can exist before their objects have done anything to elicit them, they cannot be moral responses to character or conduct. They must be rooted in something else entirely—either divine inscrutability or arbitrary choice.
Readers must decide what to make of this portrait of God. Some embrace it as biblical truth about divine sovereignty. Others find creative interpretive strategies to soften it, arguing that "hate" means "love less," or that the passage speaks of nations rather than individuals, or that God's choice was based on foreknowledge of future actions. Still others conclude that this teaching reflects ancient theological ideas about divine election that should be questioned rather than defended.
What the text does not support is the claim that God's love and hatred are always responses to human behavior. According to Paul, God declared that he loved Jacob but hated Esau before either twin was born, before either had done anything good or bad. The question remains: is a God who hates before there is anything to hate worthy of worship?