Verse explainer

What does Romans 9:13 really mean?

Paul is quoting a verdict on two nations, not announcing God's personal feelings about two babies in the womb.

KJV

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

BSB

So it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

The plain meaning

Paul is working through why God's word hasn't 'failed' (v. 6) for Israel. He reaches back to Genesis and Malachi to show that God's purposes have always run through a chosen line, not through every biological descendant of Abraham. The quotation — 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated' — comes from Malachi 1:2-3, written centuries after both men had lived and died. There Malachi is speaking about the nations of Israel and Edom, comparing their historical fates. Paul imports that same logic: God's electing choice preceded any human achievement. The word 'hated' sits inside a Hebrew idiom for preference and priority — the same construction appears in Luke 14:26, where disciples must 'hate' family to follow Jesus, meaning love him supremely above all else. This does not flatten the difficulty of the passage, but it does clarify that Paul's point is covenantal and corporate — about how God structures his redemptive purposes — not a raw emotional verdict on two individuals as persons.

The common misreading

'God hated Esau' means God chose to damn certain people before they were born with no basis or reason. This verse gets yanked into debates about double predestination and used as though Paul is announcing that some individuals are created for damnation as a personal, arbitrary act of divine hostility. But several things constrain that reading. First, Paul is quoting Malachi 1:2-3, which is explicitly about nations — Israel and Edom — and their historical fates, not about two souls and their eternal destiny. Second, the word 'hated' translates a Hebrew and Greek idiom of comparative preference, visible also in Genesis 29:31 (Leah was 'hated,' meaning loved less than Rachel) and Luke 14:26. Third, Paul's own purpose in Romans 9 is to defend the faithfulness of God's word to Israel (v. 6), not to construct a doctrine of individual reprobation. The harder question — why God's electing purposes operate the way they do — Paul raises himself in vv. 14 and 19 and answers with appeals to divine prerogative, not by softening the question. Honest readers should feel the weight Paul intends. But the weight is covenantal and purposive, not a bare verdict of eternal hatred against a person.

What the commentators say

John Gillearly 18th c. · PD

Gill argues that the objection of unrighteousness only has any force at all if Paul means what the strict Calvinist reading says: that before either twin was born or had done good or evil, God made an unequal distinction. He sees this as confirming, not undermining, unconditional election — and defends God's freedom as the sovereign who owes no creature a claim on his mercy.

John Calvin16th c. · PD

Calvin holds that the love and hatred here are not affections of the heart but decrees of God concerning their respective destinies. He stresses that this is Paul's own controlled argument: the point is not Esau's wickedness but the freedom of divine calling, which precedes any human merit or demerit.

Albert BarnesBarnes' Notes · PD

Barnes notes that 'hated' in the Malachi source refers to the nation of Edom and their treatment in history — a preference shown in outcomes, not a statement of divine malice toward a person. He cautions against reading the emotional force of the English word 'hate' back into a Hebrew idiom that frequently means 'loved less' or 'set aside.'

The word behind it

ἐμίσησα emisēsa

'I hated' — aorist of miseō. In Greek as in Hebrew, the verb can mark a lower degree of favor or a deliberate setting-aside rather than active malice. The same verb appears in Luke 14:26 where Jesus tells disciples to 'hate' father and mother, meaning: place them in a lower rank of loyalty. Thayer notes the word carries a comparative force in many Semitic-influenced contexts. That usage doesn't dissolve the tension in Romans 9, but it does shift the question from 'did God despise Esau personally?' to 'did God set Esau's line aside in his redemptive plan?' — which is Paul's actual argument.

Related verses