Doctrine #49: Hate

Since Jacob didn't know it was Leah that he had intercourse with, it seems that he still had to agree with keeping her as his wife. However, Jacob still wanted Rachel as his wife as well. Rachel was given to Jacob before the next seven years was served. Remember, Jacob needed as much time away from Esau as possible. Also, by staying with Jacob for the rest of the week, Leah agreed to Rachel also becoming Jacob's wife. This was the same as Sarai did with Abram and Hagar. Notice, Jacob married sisters. This would be a violation of God's Law in the next dispensation according to Leviticus 18:18. This was another proof that sin is not the action (WHAT). Sin is the cause (HOW/WHY) and the action is the effect. This was why an action could be sin during one dispensation and not sin during another dispensation.

God said Leah was "hated" when it was stated that Jacob loved Rachel more. The definition for hate in God's Word was "love less." This was God's definition of "hate."

"Reuben" meant "behold a son."

The "Sermon on the Mount" continued. In this chapter, Jesus got more specific as to how to intentionally gain Reward.

Jesus used the principle of non-contradiction to show that you cannot serve God and mammon (money). We ought to serve God and mammon ought to serve us.

Verses 14-22: the church in Laodicea.

Did well: Nothing.

Did not do well: Jesus wanted them to go cold or hot. The terms "cold" and "hot" were directional. Go hard one way or the other; state your will; God will correct you if you are wrong. Being lukewarm was not stating your will and remaining under mercy.

God responds through Justice to a person who is gaining or losing value. This means that God cannot respond to a person who is doing nothing and remaining under mercy. The individual ought to go towards what they believe is right, believing it is hot, and then be willing to find out if it was cold or hot based on God's response.

Some people try to say cold and hot are both good, that cold water refreshes and hot water soothes. They are not both good, otherwise Jesus would not have had to make the obvious point that He would that we were good. Jesus stated He would that we either made progress the right way (so His Will could be done through us) or we made progress the wrong way (so He could correct us through Justice, which would eventually be for our good).

This church was lukewarm. They did not state their will. Lukewarm is spewed (vomited) out of Jesus' Mouth (the place of creation). This statement was more extreme than it reads to most people. It would be as if Jesus emphatically stated about lukewarm people, "You make me sick!!"

Many people are deceived by thinking lukewarm is better than cold. This is comparative thinking. Believing that as long as you are not a murderer, you are a "good" person and God will let you attain Salvation is deception. Actually, Jesus would rather you be cold than lukewarm because He cannot do anything with a person who is lukewarm.

God's focus turned from the nation to specific individuals: a commandment for the priests.

If they would not hear or lay this to their heart to give glory to God's Name, then God would send a curse to the priests.

A priest's lips ought to keep knowledge and the people ought to seek instruction from the priests because they were the messengers of God.

However, the priests departed from God. The priests caused many to stumble in the Law. The priests corrupted the Covenant of Levi.

The Israelites were committing idolatry. They were focused on man-made doctrines instead of God's Doctrine from His Law. Remember, fornication was to commit idolatry. Idolatry was giving one's self to an image, which was worship of other gods or sexual intercourse with unbelievers. Both were covenantal.

The Jews were weeping before God in their distress but their hearts were treacherous. Their appearance was of repentance, but their hearts were rebellious, which was idolatry.

The Doctrine of Marriage according to the Bible: Marriage is a covenant that is begun in one of three ways:

1. exchange of vows

2. exchange of tokens

3. sexual intercourse

The Marriage Covenant is "cut" (completed) with sexual intercourse. Verse 14 referenced the "wife of thy youth" and "wife of thy covenant." God was speaking about the first Marriage Covenant a priest made with a woman through sexual intercourse.

God stated that He made these priests and wives of their Covenant "one." These people shared the same spirit with each other and God. God was involved in this Covenant. Leviticus 21:14 stated that priests could only marry virgins of Israel. God joins believing husbands and believing spouses in Marriage. He is a part of their Covenant. Many people try to apply this verse to every marriage. To say that God is a part of every marriage including unbelievers is to say that God can make unbelievers into believers against their will. God does see people who have sexual intercourse as married, however He does not make this couple "one" (and He is not involved in this covenant) unless both people are believers.

God hates "putting away." There are two key points to this often abused verse:

1. Hate meant "loved less"

2. Putting away is not divorce

Remember, this verse was God's explanation for His issue in the previous verse. God stated the priests were dealing treacherously against the wives of their youth. How? By putting them away.

• Divorce is an ending of a Marriage Covenant that resulted in both spouses remaining in covenant through the greater community: Israel (See Deuteronomy 24).
• "Putting away" is the ending of a Marriage Covenant that resulted in one of the spouses being removed from the greater community.

The removal from "putting away" was done because of fornication: worshiping other gods and/or covenantal sexual intercourse with an unbeliever. Putting away removed a spouse from the greater community because of unbelief. However, in this verse from the Book of Malachi, we see the priests were putting away the wives of their youth even though these wives were believers. These wives were prevented from remaining in community and marrying others because they had been put away. However, we know that God would still see the priests as being married to these wives of their Marriage Covenant. In addition, the sexual intercourse with another woman that the priests intended to signify a new marriage, God would see as adultery and treachery against the wives of their Covenant.

Versions other than the KJV and the ASV translated Malachi 2:16 as "For I hate divorce saith God..."...and then make the case that God is against Divorce and considers it a sin.

• First of all, Deuteronomy 24 stated the Doctrine of divorce, which was in the Law. We know that doing the Law would not result in sin.
• Second, God divorced and put away Judah and Israel (Jeremiah 3). Did God sin?
• Third, Genesis 29:30-31 showed God's definition for "hate" was "love less."
• Fourth, the correct translation of this passage was "putting away." The Hebrew word was Strong's #7971 shalach. The Hebrew word for divorce was Strong's #3748 - keriythuwth.
• Finally, the context of this passage was clearly putting away because God wanted these priests to not deal treacherously, but return to the wives of their youth. God would not want the priests to continue to be married to these women if they were unbelievers. In fact, so far, everything we have read in the Book of Malachi was warning the nation and the priests from turning from God in unbelief.

The priests had wearied God with their words. The priests were dealing treacherously with their wives and their response was to say that God was not Just. The point God made was that He was Just and was dealing harshly with these priests because they were evil. The priests made many to stumble in the Law (2:8) apparently not only through their words but also through their actions.

Malachi 1-2 covered God's warning to the priests that they were the cause of the evil that had come by dealing treacherously with the wives of their Marriage Covenants.

This chapter covered divorce and other various laws.

Divorce was lawful. The reason given for a man to divorce his wife was not specific at all: "some unseemly thing", also translated as "some uncleanness." When she was divorced, she could marry another man. She was still in community. Putting away ended the Marriage covenant and removed at least one person from community. Divorce ended the Marriage covenant and kept both spouses in community. "Putting Away" and "Divorce" were two different processes. Either spouse could put the other away because the reason was fornication (unbelief). Only the husband could divorce the wife. It was a definite and objective ending of the covenant, complete with a bill of divorcement. Basically, the husband uncleaved from the wife. The bill of divorcement was her "blood-stained sheet."

Neither divorce, nor remarriage was a sin. Why do people believe either of these are sins today?

Here was the only sin associated with divorce and remarriage: a former husband could not remarry a previous wife IF she took another husband after their divorce. This law would have caused the husband to make sure he truly wanted to divorce his wife before he went through with it.

Verses 16-20: judgment against the covenant-breaker.

Verses 21-28: the purpose for judgment against the covenant-breaker.

The Disciples asked for their faith to be increased. They wanted more understanding and experience from Christ because they had just heard a complex Doctrine. How many believers do you know who realize we do not forgive believers unless they repent?

There is no Reward for doing what is expected. There is Reward from doing more than what is expected, like Cain and Abel. Abel got a Reward for giving more. Cain gave what was expected and got angry because he wanted something more from God.

Side-note: If God "expected" something from Cain and his offering, did this mean, even for that moment, that God was not "loving" Cain? (Remember, Jesus' definition of love was "to give a value and expect nothing in return from the person you gave to." - Luke 6:35) If this is the case, wouldn't this prove that defining God as "love" is contradictory?

This chapter began what was referred to as "The Sermon on the Mount." This was Jesus' premier teaching.

Profitability was the measure of community, including Marriage. It was better to cut off an unprofitable part of the "body" than to keep it and risk the unprofitable part making the whole body unprofitable. Verse 31 was the Doctrine of the time. Verse 32 was the widened Doctrine.

"Putting away" a believing wife (fornication would prove she was not a believer) was not recognized by God. God would still see the couple as married and sexual intercourse with another as adultery. This verse did not mean that the only reason for divorce among believers was adultery.

Putting away and divorce were two different Doctrine.

Swear (make an oath/vow/promise) not at all. Again, verse 33 was the current Doctrine of the time. Verses 34 through 37 were the widened Doctrine.

Actions are what matters and that your SAY and DO are the same. Jesus stated not to take an oath. What would Jesus say about today's wedding ceremonies and the vows? For instance, vowing to love your spouse always and forever sounds godly. However, the first time a person does not love their spouse, he has broken his vows...and perhaps let in the evil one.

Verses 38-48: Jesus was introducing how to intentionally get Reward.

Again, verse 38 was the current Doctrine of the time. Verses 39 through 42 were the widened Doctrine.

Love your enemies. Love must not be an emotion or how could you intentionally love your enemies? "Love" is "giving a value to someone without expecting a value in return from the person you gave to." Again, verse 43 was the current Doctrine of the time. Verses 44 through 48 were the widened Doctrine.

Paul referenced Malachi 1:2-3. Please read all of Malachi 1 from this commentary to get the full explanation, especially if you do not agree with the following: "hated" meant "loved less." So, this verse also showed that everyone was not created equally: God loved Esau, but He loved Jacob more.

In the Malachi verses immediately after Malachi 1:3, God called His people "Jacob" and the nation of Edom "Esau." The rest of the Malachi passage showed God treated Jacob better than Esau. In Malachi 1, both Jacob and Esau responded to God's different level of love by being disobedient. So, the closest interpretation for the previous verses had nothing to do with being "good." Here is the summary that is written in this commentary for Malachi 1:

Esau was "hated" (loved less) than Jacob. Both responded poorly, which justified God. There was nothing God could have done to cause Esau and Jacob to be righteous and focus on Him because He tried both methods, and both chose to focus on themselves. God's loving response was to punish both of them. All of the calamity that came upon Esau and Israel was in response to how each of them chose to live. Also, both of their responses justified God's decision to turn His focus to people outside of His people: Gentiles.

The passage from Malachi showed that even though God loved Jacob, it did not result in Jacob choosing to be obedient to God. That point blatantly contradicted the Calvinistic interpretation above because God calling Jacob (His people) did not result in the Jews choosing Salvation, which was why God said He would offer Salvation to the Gentiles. The Malachi passage supported the contextual interpretation from above.

Paul referenced the scripture from Malachi to support his point (reason) that being Jewish did not equate to being Righteous as well as God loving Jacob more from birth did not result in all the Jews attaining Salvation. Remember, we are all "children of the promise" and it is up to us to walk by the Spirit in order to be "elect." Paul showed that God stopped having mercy on the Jews and reached out to the Gentiles because He was looking for people who would recognize the value within Him (glorify Him as God) to accept justification by faith. Notice, how this interpretation continued to fit the context of the following verses.

Paul addressed his premise in contrastive fashion. Paul spoke for people who would oppose his premise by stating his opposition's premise: God was unrighteous to stop having mercy on the Jews.

Doctrine: There is no unrighteousness with God. God is always completely Right and always completely Just. Predetermining an individual's Salvation would not be Right nor Just.

Key Point: No matter what rationalization is stated, God predetermining an individual's Salvation would be making God responsible for a person's Salvation and justifying man. God would be to blame for people spending eternity in the lake of fire, which would not be a reason to recognize the value within God. Paul supported his perspective on this second presentation of the premise by referencing Exodus 33:19.

Doctrine: God's mercy is an effect of God being always completely Right. Whomever God has mercy on will be as an effect of it being Right to have mercy on them in that moment. Also Matthew 5:7 stated that those who showed mercy would get mercy. That meant God's mercy was also an effect of God being always completely Just. God's Nature (Right and Just) guides God's mercy. Remember, as Paul focused on the Doctrine of God's mercy, it must fit the context of everything we have read so far.

Doctrine: God is the source of mercy and Salvation. People are responsible for choosing to show mercy and choosing to receive Salvation by faith. Paul continued to support this premise by referencing Exodus 9:16.

Paul used Pharaoh as an example of God ceasing to show mercy. Do not get distracted by the phrasing of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. If you need the full explanation for how God hardened Pharaoh's heart as an effect of Pharaoh's choices, begin reading in this commentary from Exodus 5. Pharaoh's heart being hardened was all in response to Pharaoh's response to what he thought was an injustice. Pharaoh did not think well of God, he did not see value within God. Furthermore, remember in 1 Samuel 6:6, the Philistines warned each other not to be like Pharaoh and instead chose not to harden their hearts. Instead, they recognized God's value and made offerings.

Doctrine: Mercy is the time between the unjust act and the equaling out of Justice. Paul used this verse to support the premise that God stopped showing Pharaoh mercy, God did not allow an indefinite time between Pharaoh's unjust acts and the equaling out of Justice. However, Paul also referenced that God did initially show mercy to Pharaoh for a long enough time that Pharaoh was raised up. Basically, Paul just gave an example where God showed mercy to Pharaoh, even though God knew Pharaoh would not humble himself, so that God could demonstrate His power when He stopped showing mercy. Remember, God can also give you a good influence because He knows it will result in bad because of the sin in your body/flesh/brain in order to make you aware of this sin. Your response to your sin would prove whether you were a believer (valued God) or not (value yourself above God): either confession and repentance or pride and self-justification.

Next, Paul's third presentation of his premise took the form of two philosophical questions from a contrastive perspective: If God could unilaterally make His will happen, why did God find anyone guilty? Paul showed these two statements were inexorably linked: Not being able to withstand God's Will would lead to God not being able to condemn anyone! Paul blatantly showed Calvinism is contradictory regardless of any rationalization Calvinists present for God not being unrighteous when He condemned people against their will. As Paul had done with the first two presentations of his premise, he supported this third presentation of his premise by referencing scripture. This time it was Isaiah 29:16.

Paul referenced scripture to make the reader aware that God is the Creator and we are the thing that is created. Some could misinterpret this to support Calvinism: God does whatever He wants and His reasons do not have to make sense. If Paul supported Calvinism or did not believe we could understand the reason, this would have been the end of his explanation. However...

As Paul's fourth presentation of his premise, Paul stated the conclusion we saw earlier: God initially showed mercy to Pharaoh so that God could show His power when He stopped showing His mercy. This tied into the other point Paul made: It was Right and Just for God to initially show mercy even though He knew Pharaoh would never humble himself, it was not wrong for God to continue to show mercy even though He knew Pharaoh would only choose to harden his own heart. God was not showing mercy to Pharaoh for Pharaoh's benefit, as if God thought Pharaoh would actually humble himself. God showed Pharaoh mercy in order to do more miracles for the Israelites. Was it wrong to do that? Paul's answer was "no, God's decision to show mercy, then not to show mercy was Right and Just, there was not a better option than the way God handled Pharaoh."

Summary: So far, Paul has made the point that everyone was perfectly deserving of punishment/destruction in response to choices they made, to not recognize the value within God and actively walk according to the flesh. For anyone at this point to conclude that our existence was predetermined would contradict everything Paul had written to this point and make God Wrong and Unjust. Verses 22 and 23 showed Paul stated it would be Right and Just for God to show mercy to people He knew were not going to humble themselves in order to show His power when He stopped showing mercy. However, Paul had not concluded this sentence.

Look at verses 22 through 24 again. Paul's point in this sentence was to liken what God did with the Christians to what God did with the Israelites in Egypt. Paul began this chapter stating his sorrow for the Jews not accepting justification by faith. Recall, the Jews continued to reject God during the times of the kings, despite God appealing to Israel through the prophets. Paul stated the same questions that people could ask about Pharaoh could also be asked about the Israelites prior to Jesus' resurrection. Why did God extend mercy to the Jews for so long, when God knew that it would never result in the Jews completely humbling themselves before God? Paul's answer was, "So that God could demonstrate His power and call another people out once He stopped showing mercy to Israel." Like we saw Paul do with the first three presentations of his premise, he supported this premise with scripture.

Paul quoted Hosea 2:23 to support his premise. This scripture proved that God knew His People would never choose to humble themselves and He would have to call out another group of people. The New Testament (Greek) word for "church" was ekklesia which meant "the called out ones."

Paul referenced Isaiah 10:22-23 as the second support: Not all of Israel would be saved; just a remnant. Again, Paul's premise in this chapter was that God knew not all of Israel would choose to humble herself, but that did not stop God from showing mercy and then stop showing mercy.

Paul referenced Isaiah 1:9 as the third support: Not all of Israel would be saved, just a remnant. This verse gave a reason why God stopped showing mercy: if He had continued to show mercy, no one would have chosen to humble themselves. No one would have recognized the value within God. If God had delayed Jesus' birth long enough, there would have been no one who would have believed on Him! Paul had brought his focus back to the Gentiles.

Paul's observation was that the Gentiles ended up being Righteous when they did not begin with the cause of Righteousness, while the Jews who had the cause of Righteousness (the Law) did not end up being Righteous.

Paul's premise: The Jews did not seek God by faith, they sought God by works. Everything Paul wrote up to this point supported this premise. Every premise and example in this chapter supported this premise. The Jews chose to justify themselves in pride rather than humble themselves, recognize the value within God and accept justification by faith. Paul even supported this final premise of this chapter with a scripture.

Paul referenced Isaiah 28:16 to show that God knew the Jews would not humble themselves and believe on Jesus.

Theme of Chapter 9: Paul built on the foundation of the previous chapter which more specifically assured us of our Salvation if we love God and live in the Spirit according to grace. In this critical chapter, Paul presented in sermon form his premise that God was Right and Just to show mercy to the Jews (and Pharaoh) even though He knew they would not humble themselves, glory in (and obey) God, so that He could show His power when He stopped showing mercy. All of God's actions were in response to the choices of the individual, otherwise God would not be always completely Right and always completely Just.