Theo1689
Well-known member
Um.... Hello? McFly?
Um.... Hello? McFly?
G
guest1
Guest
What do you mean ?
Theo1689
Well-known member
From BDAG:
μισέω impf. ἐμίσουν; fut. μισήσω; 1 aor. ἐμίσησα; pf. μεμίσηκα, Pass.: fut. 3 sg. μισηθήσεται LXX; aor. ἐμισήθην (LXX; Joseph.); pf. 3 sg. μεμίσηται (Jos., Bell. 3, 376); ptc. μεμισημένος (Hom.+; ins, pap, though quite rare in both; LXX, Test12Patr, JosAs; ParJer 8:9; ApcSed 14 p. 136, 13 Ja.; AscIs 2:7; Philo, Joseph., Just., Tat., Ath.) depending on the context, this verb ranges in mng. from ‘disfavor’ to ‘detest’. The Eng. term ‘hate’ generally suggests affective connotations that do not always do justice esp. to some Semitic shame-honor oriented use of μ.=שָׂנֵא (e.g. Dt 21:15, 16) in the sense ‘hold in disfavor, be disinclined to, have relatively little regard for’.
1. to have a strong aversion to, hate, detest
2. to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard
So as usual, Arminians have to IGNORE the main connotation of the term.
And my standard question is:
If God TRULY "hated/detested" sinners, rather than merely "loving them less", how could Scrripture express this in a way that deniers couldn't simply spin it as, "He simply loves them less"?
Carbon
Well-known member
Yep. And once again they neglect context. He’s using it as a blanket statement.
Wow! Just wow
Carbon
Well-known member
G
guest1
Guest
ReverendRV
Well-known member
I mean, could you tell us here why the Greek should be understood as to Hate less; instead of being understood as despising Esau? My inclination is to prefer the primary definition; unless you have grammatical reason...
I know an Atheist would be more a stickler than me...
G
guest1
Guest
I agree with Barnes
Have I hated - This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Malachi 1:3," And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;" compare Jeremiah 49:17-18; Ezekiel 35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love" and "hatred" in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection; compare Genesis 29:30-31; Proverbs 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;" Matthew 6:24, "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc.; Luke 14:26, "if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."
hated] Cp. Genesis 29:33; Genesis 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” See too Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 12:25. Cambridge
Carbon
Well-known member
Your blanket statement? 👍
Theo1689
Well-known member
I'm curious as to whether this poster is illiterate, or is intentionally misrepresenting what Thayer's said.
Here is the entry in Thayer's, so ALL can understand:
3404. μισέω; miseō, misō; imperfect emisoun; future misēsō; 1 aorist emisēsa; perfect memisēka; passive, present participle misoumenos; perfect participle memisēmenos (Rev. 18:2); the Septuagint for s′ānēʾ; (from Homer down); to hate, pursue with hatred, detest; passive to be hated, detested: tina, Matt. 5:43 and Rec. in 44; 24:10; Luke 1:71; 6:22,27; 19:14; John 7:7; 15:18ff 23-25; 17:14; Titus 3:3; 1 John 2:9 (11); 3:13,15; 4:20; Rev. 17:16; passive, Matt. 10:22; 24:9; (Mark 13:13); Luke 21:17; ti: John 3:20; Rev. 7:15; Eph. 5:29; Heb. 1:9; Jude 1:23; Rev. 2:6 and Rec. in 15; passive Rev. 18:2. Not a few interpreters have attributed to misein in Gen. 29:31 (cf. Gen. 29:30); Deut. 21:15f; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; 16:13; (John 12:25); Rom. 9:13, the signification to love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight, through oversight of the circumstance that ‘the Orientals, in accordance with their greater excitability, are accustomed both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals, with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing’; Fritzsche, Commentary on Romans, ii., p. 304; cf. Rückert, Magazin f. Exegese u. Theologie des N.T., p. 27ff*
Thayer is NOT saying that "miseo" in Rom. 9:13 DOES mean "loves less".
He is simply have acknowledged that some interpreters have MADE that argument.
I was just watching a Jordan Peterson video today where Jordan made the point:
"Simply acknowledging that something exists is NOT the same thing as defending that something."
Honda-driver doesn't seem to understand that.
ReverendRV
Well-known member
No problem, we all have our Authorities on the matter. I meant the Greek in the Verse. I do agree you may be able to convince an Atheist with this method. Those are reasons to prefer 'Hated less', but I don't think they are Greek reasons...
Simpletruther
Well-known member
To be fair, God allowed esau to be blessed.
Hebrews 11 20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
Simpletruther
Well-known member
It's your denial.
ReverendRV
Well-known member
G
guest1
Guest
There is more to the Greek then just defining a word . There is immediate context , how the author uses the word , the greater context of the chapter and letter and then the biblical narrative on the topic . I can prove hate means indifference in 1 John , not doing something for another .
Simpletruther
Well-known member
And we see his gracious forgiveness of his brothers deception later.
ReverendRV
Well-known member
G
guest1
Guest
And you do know love has many nuances in it’s meaning right
ReverendRV
Well-known member
Are you saying God Hated Esau less, but didn't despise him?
ReverendRV
Well-known member
What would you say the nuance is for 'God Loved' then? Maximally? That's what I would say; so much so that God gave his only begotten Son for him. Shouldn't the contrast then mean that God Hated Esau maximally?
Last edited: