§ 114. CALVINISM EXAMINED. 575
and are so explained by some of the severest grammatical commentators of modern times (as Meyer and Weiss).
(a) 9 : 13 : " Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," quoted from Mai. 1 : 2, 3. This iDassage, whether we take it in a literal or anthropopathic sense, has no reference to the eternal destiny of Jacob and Esau, but to their representative position in the history of the theocracy. This removes the chief difhculty. Esau received a temporal blessing from his father (Gen. 27 : 39, 40), and behaved kindly and generously to his brother (33 : 4) ; he probably repented of the folly of his youth in selling his birthright,^ and may be among the saved, as well as Adam and Eve — the first among the lost and the first among the saved.
Moreover, the strict meaning of a positive hatred seems impossible in the nature of the case, since it would contradict all we know from the Bible of the attributes of God. A God of love, who commands us to love all men, even our enemies, cannot hate a child before his birth, or any of his creatures made in his own image. " Can a woman forget her sucking child," says the Lord, "that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, these may forget, yet will I not forget thee " (Isa. 49 : 15). This is the prophet's conception of the tender mercies of God. How much more must it be the conception of the New Testament? The word hate must, therefore, be understood as a strong Hebraistic expression for loving less or putting back ; as in Gen. 29 : 31, where the original text says, " Leah was hated " by Jacob, i.e. loved less than Rachel (comp. ver. 30). When our Saviour says, Luke 14 : 26 : " If any man hateth not his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple," he does not mean that his disciples should break the
1 This is implied in the passage, Heb. 12 : 17, whether we refer fxerdvoia to Esau's late repentance (Calvin, Bleek), or to a change of mind in Isaac (Beza, Weiss).
576 THE REFORMATION IN FRENCH SWITZERLAND.
fifth commandment, and act contrary to his direction: "Love your enemies, pray for them that persecute you" (Matt. 5 : 44), but simply that we should prefer him above everything, even life itself, and should sacrifice whatever comes in conflict with him. This meaning is confirmed by the parallel passage, Matt. 10 : 37 : " He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me."
(6) 9 : 17. Paul traces the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to the agency of God, and so far makes God responsible for sin. But this was a judicial act of punishing sin with sin; for Pharaoh had first hardened his own heart (Ex. 8 : 15, 32 ; 9 : 34). Moreover, this passage has no reference to Pharaoh's future fate any more than the passage about Esau, but both refer to their place in the history of Israel.
(c) In 9 : 22 and 23, the Apostle speaks of " vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction " (^Karrjprcaueva eh cnrmXeLav)^ and " vessels of mercy which he (God) prepared unto glory " (a TrporjToifiacrev et? ^o^av). But the difference of the verbs, and the difference between the passive (or middle) in the first clause and the active in the second is most significant, and shows that God has no direct agency in the destruction of the vessels of wrath, which is due to their self-destruction ; the participle perfect denotes the result of a gradual process and a state of maturity for destruction, but not a divine purpose. Calvin is too good an exegete to overlook this difference, and virtually admits its force, although he tries to weaken it.
" They observe," he says of his opponents, " that it is not said without meaning, that the vessels of wrath are fitted for destruction, but that God prepared the vessels of mercy; since by this mode of expression, Paul ascribes and challenges to God the praise of salvation, and throws the blame of perdition on those who by their choice procure it to themselves. But though I concede to them that Paul softens the asperity of the former clause hy the difference of phraseology ; yet it is not at all consistent to transfer the preparation for destruc-