Bible Synapse

Is God impartial, or does he favour some people?

Hard question · Who God is · raised by 3 of the lists sceptics circulate

The meaning of a wordRead in context
See the passages joined in the interactive map

The passages

Romans 2:11

“There is no respect of persons with God”: Jew and Gentile are judged alike.

For there is no respect of persons with God.

Acts 10:34–35

Peter: God is “no respecter of persons”; in every nation whoever fears him and does right is accepted.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Deuteronomy 10:17

God “regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward”.

For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Romans 9:11–13

Before the twins were born, “The elder shall serve the younger”; “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”.

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Malachi 1:2–3

The words Paul quotes, spoken centuries later of the peoples of Israel and Edom.

I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Genesis 4:4–5

The Lord “had respect unto Abel and to his offering”, but not to Cain’s.

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

The objection

Paul and Peter say there is no ‘respect of persons’ with God: he shows no favouritism (Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34). Yet Romans 9 says that before the twins were born God chose Jacob over Esau, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”, and Genesis says the Lord ‘had respect’ to Abel’s offering but not to Cain’s. Choosing one over another, before either has done anything, looks like partiality.

The answer

‘Respect of persons’ (Greek prosōpolēmpsia, G4382, literally ‘receiving the face’) is courtroom language: a judge who favours someone because of who he is, his rank, his nation or his bribe. Deuteronomy 10:17 has the same idea: God “regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward”. Romans 2:11 and Acts 10:34 deny that God judges like that: “in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:35). Abel is a case in point: his offering was accepted because he offered it “by faith” (Hebrews 11:4), while Cain’s “own works were evil” (1 John 3:12).

Romans 9 is about something else: God’s freedom to choose whom he will use in his purposes, and to whom he will show mercy, which no one can claim as a right. The words Paul quotes were first said of two peoples, “Two nations are in thy womb” (Genesis 25:23), and Malachi 1:2–3 says them of Israel and Edom. ‘Loved’ and ‘hated’ is a Hebrew way of saying ‘chose’ and ‘passed over’, as when Leah is said to be ‘hated’ when she was loved less than Rachel (Genesis 29:30–31). Showing undeserved mercy to some is not injustice to the rest, as the householder says in Jesus’ parable: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” (Matthew 20:15).

Two other verses on the lists do not show favouritism either. The curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:25) is spoken by Noah, not by God; Keil and Delitzsch read it as prophecy of the history of the peoples descended from Noah’s sons, which still leaves room for each person’s own choices. Jesus’ saying, “whosoever hath, to him shall be given” (Matthew 13:12), is about hearing: those who receive his word are given more understanding, while those whose ears are “dull of hearing” lose even what they have (13:13–15).

Other answers Christians give

Individual election

Many Reformed interpreters, Gill and Calvin among them, read Romans 9 as God’s choice of individuals for salvation. Even so, they hold that this is mercy freely given and not partiality in judgment, since no one is condemned except for his own sin.

Still open

Whether Romans 9 speaks mainly of peoples and their roles in history or of individuals and their salvation is debated between Calvinist and Arminian Christians.

From the classic commentators

Acceptance cannot be obtained on any other ground than that of the covenant of mercy, through the atonement of Christ; but wherever true religion is found, God will accept it without regarding names or sects.Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary: Acts 10:34, at Bible Hub

Sources

Further reading

Raised by: W. H. Burr, Self-Contradictions of the Bible (1860), EvilBible.com, The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Only the verse references come from these lists.

Checked 2026-10-22. All hard questions