And not only [that], but Rebecca having conceived by one, Isaac our father,
Paul has just used Isaac and Ishmael to make a point. Being a descendant of Abraham is not the same as inheriting God's promise. Now he presses harder. He names Rebekah and one father, Isaac. Here the two children share everything a family can share, and God still chooses between them.
A Jewish reader could brush the first example aside. Ishmael and Isaac had different mothers. Rebekah's twins leave no such opening, and one writer traces where the argument lands.
The Apostle next takes up the story of Isaac and proves the same principle by his two sons. With Abraham, a Jew might object that the two sons had different mothers. No one can object that way about the sons of Isaac. Jacob and Esau were both sons of Rebecca. If the blessing comes by natural descent, then the children of both sons would inherit the promises. But that would force the Jew to include the Edomites, the people descended from Esau. No Jew would do that.
Only two options remain, and another writer names them.
There is more. Rebecca conceived by one man, Isaac. Here no one could dodge the point by saying the mother was a slave. Before the children were born, before they had done good or bad, God said the elder shall serve the younger. If the right comes by natural descent, you must let the Edomites in. If the Jew did not consent to this, he must consent to sovereignty in election.
The phrase "by one" points to a single father and a single conception. Commentators see God choosing the tightest test case He could.
In the first case the mother was different, even if the father was not. In His wisdom God saw a need to show His sovereign choice even more plainly. And that is what happened here. Esau had the same father and the same mother as Jacob, and the two were twins. No closer match between two people could be found than these two sons of Isaac and Rebecca.
Behind the words about Rebekah lies a barren woman and a husband who prayed. The line that carries the promise never once continues by natural strength.
Rebecca was the wife of Isaac the heir of promise. God had appointed her for him, and God sped Abraham's servant on his way to find her (Gen. 24). God, then, was in the birth of Isaac and the choice of Rebecca. Further, the conception of Rebecca was in answer to the prayer of Isaac's faith. He prayed for seed, and a double answer came; twins were in the womb of Rebecca.
God spoke to Rebekah before the twins were born. So nothing either child achieved can explain His choice. Commentators say this also rules out a subtler idea. God did not look ahead and pick the better man.
So the apostle contrasts God's call with works, not with our faith. He does this to shut out a weak idea some writers have held: that God's choice is governed by seeing ahead which man would turn out better. Language could not contradict this more plainly. Esau had done no wrong to disqualify him, and Jacob no good to qualify him.
If works are out, the reason must lie somewhere else.
This shows us that God chooses because of what He is in Himself, not because of what men show themselves to be by their works.
Writers note that the harsh word about Esau is not spoken here. Genesis only ranks the two nations. The language of hatred comes centuries later, in the book of Malachi.
Esau has no ground for complaint. God chose Jacob before he was born. But God did not say "Esau I have hated" until long after Esau was born, and not until Esau's character, and the character of his descendants, had been shown in full. (Mal. 1:3)
This is not an abstract debate. The reader who resents God's freedom is pulling away the only ground they stand on.
He proves to Israel that arguing against God's sovereign right to choose means giving up everything they have been given. For how did they get in? Was it by birth? No; for on that ground Ishmael and Esau had the precedence. Was it by works? No; for they made the golden calf. How then? Simply by God's sovereign mercy. Well then, if God is sovereign, He can show mercy to whoever He wants. And blessed be His Name, because that opens the door for us poor Gentiles — the nations outside Israel.
- One father. The twins shared both parents and one conception. No closer test case could exist, so descent explains nothing here.
- One dilemma. If bloodline settles the blessing, Edom inherits alongside Israel. Refuse that, and you have accepted God's free choice.
- One ground. Esau had done no wrong and Jacob no good. God did not look ahead at their merit. The choice rests on what God is in Himself.
- One caution. Genesis only says the elder will serve the younger. The word of hatred toward Esau comes much later, after his character came out.
- One open door. The same free choice a reader might resent is why Israel survived at all. It is also why mercy now reaches the nations.
[the children] indeed being not yet born, or having done anything good or worthless (that the purpose of God according to election might abide, not of works, but of him that calls),
Paul has just said that God's word to Israel has not failed. He proves it from Israel's own family history: twin boys, one mother, one father, and God's choice announced before either was born. If God decides before anyone has acted, is that fair?
Paul's first example was Ishmael and Isaac. A Jewish objector had a way around it.
Through Isaac shall your offspring be named; but the Jewish objector might say, Yes, but Hagar was a slave, and Ishmael slave-born. Well, but take Esau and Jacob of one mother — that is a case no one can object to. Yet Jacob was chosen, not Esau, and it was of pure grace, before they had done good or evil. The circumstances were natural, but the principle, pure sovereign grace, is to set aside the national claims of the Jews. They must let in Ishmaelites and Edomites, or allow God to be sovereign.
The choice settled position: which brother would hold first place on earth. Both boys later did wrong, and God's word still stood.
Even before their birth, God chose the younger son Jacob to receive the place of earthly supremacy. This proves that they were not blessed on the ground of their own works. When God spoke of their relative positions, they were not born, and they had done neither good nor evil. Afterwards they both did evil: but God secured, by His own faithfulness to His promise, the place of supremacy for Jacob.
A popular explanation says God looked ahead, saw that Jacob would turn out better, and chose on that basis. Commentators answer that the wording of the verse shuts that door.
The apostle contrasts the call of God with works, rather than our faith. He does this to cut off the poor semi-Pelagianism of teachers old and new, which would make election governed by the foreseen superiority of one to the other. Language could not contradict that idea more exactly. Esau had done no ill to disqualify him, Jacob no good to qualify him; but before either of the twins was born, God in the exercise of His sovereign will chose that the greater should serve the lesser. Such was His purpose. Their works had nothing to do with the matter. Paul shuts them out, so that all rests on the caller, God Himself.
Paul puts it negatively, then positively.
It is "not because of works" — neither works done at the moment when God chooses, nor works done later: it is "not because of works" at all! It is "of Him who calls". Here is the true source, origin and centre of divine purpose and election: it is in "Him who calls", in God Himself.
The same principle decides who inherits.
Esau had nature's right of inheritance, for he was the firstborn. But what was to be inherited was divine promise, and that can rest only in the vessel prepared to receive it. So God's calling runs ahead of the course of nature, and contradicts it. Blessing is kept in God.
Scripture later says God hated Esau. Readers often read that back into this verse, as though God rejected an unborn child.
There is no ground here for that absolute reprobation which Calvin deduces from this place. Not a syllable is hinted as to hating the unborn Esau in Genesis 25. Man is quick to infer the rejection of the one from the choice of the other. This is unfounded. Out of two who have no claim, to choose one to a superior place is to exercise will. But to show favour in one case is not to condemn the other. Both were born in sin and grew up in sins. That is what makes a person liable to condemnation, which turns on man's sins, not on God's purpose. It is not God's word to Rebekah, but the word spoken through the prophet Malachi, that speaks of hating Esau. It was at the very close of the Old Testament, after Esau had displayed his unrelenting enmity to Israel. The love to Jacob was thus free; the hatred had moral grounds in Esau.
The gap of centuries between the two statements is itself instructive about how God's choices are vindicated.
The wisdom and rightness of God's choice is always revealed in the after history, and thus His election always justifies itself in its results. Before Esau and Jacob were born the divine word was "the older will serve the younger." A thousand years after their careers were over it was put on record, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
That leaves the question of fairness, and one writer meets it head-on.
His choice of Jacob did not depend on what Jacob would be. He did not choose Esau — He chose Jacob. Was God righteous in that? Is there unrighteousness with God? The apostle recoils from the thought. It is really a disrespectful question, which we have no right to raise. It is His right to have a purpose and to carry it out.
- Before — God spoke while the twins were unborn, so nothing either had done could explain His choice.
- Not because of works — neither works already done nor works God foresaw. The phrase leaves no room for works at all.
- But of Him who calls — the purpose starts in God Himself. His call runs ahead of nature's order of firstborn and younger.
- Not condemnation — to favour one is not to sentence the other. Condemnation rests on a person's sins, and the word about hating Esau came only at the close of the Old Testament, after long enmity.
- Stands — the purpose never rested on us, so we cannot overturn it. Our part is to bow before God, not to argue with Him.
it was said to her, The greater shall serve the less
Paul is answering a hard question. If Israel is God's chosen people, why are most of them missing out while Gentiles come in? To settle it he goes back to Rebekah's twins, and to a word spoken over them before either of them was born.
Paul picks an example that closes every escape route. Abraham's two sons had different mothers, so a critic could point there. Not here.
The Apostle next takes up the story of Isaac and proves the same principle by his two sons. With Abraham, a Jew might object that the sons had different mothers. No one could raise that objection about the sons of Isaac. Jacob and Esau were both sons of Rebekah. So if the blessing comes by natural descent, the children of both sons would inherit the promises — and then the Jew would have to include the Edomite. No Jew would do that.
The order of events is the whole point. The word came before the twins were born, so no record of theirs could have shaped it.
The apostle contrasts the call of God with works, not with our faith. He does this to shut out the weak idea, held by some, that God's choice is governed by seeing in advance that one person is better than the other. Language could not contradict that idea more plainly. Esau had done no wrong to disqualify him, and Jacob no good to qualify him. But before either twin was born, God in His sovereign will chose that the older should serve the younger.
Verse 11 sets the terms for verse 12. Every phrase in it carries weight.
The purpose of God is according to election i.e. according to God's sovereign choice. This principle 'abides'. It is 'not of works' — neither works done at the moment God chooses, nor works done later: it is 'not of works' at all! ... It is 'of Him who calls'. Here is the true source, origin and centre of God's purpose and election: it is in 'Him who calls' — in God Himself.
How does this fit with God's foreknowledge? One writer holds the two together and denies that a sovereign choice is a blind one:
Election, then, is distinct from foreknowledge, though based upon it. God's election, or choice, is not a blind, random drawing of lots... He chooses in the full light of His foreknowledge. So no sinner who truly wants to be saved finds the door shut against him because he is not one of the elect. His very desire is the fruit of the Spirit's work.
Much of the difficulty here comes from squeezing the two verses into one moment. Centuries stand between them.
Verse 13 has caused difficulty. But that statement comes from the book of Malachi. Those words were written long after both men had fully shown what was in them. Verse 12, by contrast, records what God said before their birth.
That gap answers the charge of unfairness. It also shows why the choice came before birth and not after.
Nothing shows this more fully than the choice of the younger son before either was born. When the younger son is chosen after birth — as with Joseph or David — people can say that his actions or his natural character earned him that preference. The important principle is that none of them have any claim at all.
The word to Rebekah spoke of two nations, not only two boys. The serving looks ahead to their history on earth.
Here we see their history on earth marked out beforehand. It is all the more striking because the unborn children had the same mother as well as the same father — they were twins... So God showed His sovereignty to be as free as it is sure to faith. This disproves descent by birth, on which the Jews based their exclusive title... His word made the point sharper still by declaring that "the older will serve the younger," and this with a view to the nations they would become.
Writers differ here. One puts it bluntly: "Romans 9 is simply absolute sovereignty. People talk about national election there, which is the very thing the apostle is denying" (J. N. Darby).
The same sovereignty Israel objects to is the reason Israel still stands.
There is then an election which distinguishes between the children of the promise and the children of the flesh. Once again you must allow the sovereignty of God. Without it, all is over with you since Sinai, where you broke the covenant of the Lord... So there is no unrighteousness with God. You have no room to complain, if He acts toward the Gentiles in the same sovereign mercy which He has shown to you.
- Before birth — God spoke the word while the twins were unborn. Neither man's record could win it or lose it.
- Before works — "Not of works" rules out deeds done then and deeds done later. The source is "Him who calls" — God Himself.
- Before objection — Same father, same mother, one birth. If natural descent decided the promise, Israel would have to count the Edomites in too.
- Before the hatred — God spoke verse 12 to Rebekah. "Esau I hated" came in Malachi, long after both men had lived their lives.
- Beyond Israel — God's mercy is the only reason Israel survived Sinai. So no one can protest when that same mercy reaches Gentiles.
according as it is written, I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau.
Paul ends his case against Israel's claim by birth with words God spoke through the prophet Malachi. Both men were long dead by then, and the words sound harsh — so commentators ask when God said them, and why.
The two halves of the sentence come from two different books of the Bible. Mixing them up creates most of the difficulty.
Like many others, you confuse two distinct passages of Holy Scripture. God did not say, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," before the children were born. He said it hundreds of years later, after the real character and daily ways of each man had come out fully. Before the children were born He said only this: "the older shall serve the younger." It is more than a sad mistake to represent God as hating a man before he was born. In Amos 1:11 we read, "For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity, and his anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever." Do we not have here ample grounds for the divine hatred?
God made this choice when neither twin had a record to show. So He did not pick the better man.
Esau had done no wrong to disqualify him, and Jacob no good to qualify him. But before either twin was born, God chose by His own sovereign will that the greater should serve the lesser. Such was His purpose. Their works had nothing to do with the matter and count for nothing here. Everything rests on the caller, God Himself.
Many people read the choice of one brother as the rejection of the other. Commentators answer that the love and the hatred do not rest on the same ground.
There is no ground here for the absolute rejection which Calvin draws from this passage. Genesis 25 does not hint by a single syllable at hating the unborn Esau. Man hastily infers the rejection of one from the choice of the other. This is unfounded. Out of two who have no claim, to choose one for a higher place is an act of will. But to show favour in one case is not to condemn the other. In themselves both were born in sin, and no doubt grew up in sins. That is what makes a man liable to condemnation, which turns on man's sins, not on God's purpose... The love to Jacob was free; the hatred had moral grounds in Esau.
Their lives showed what each man was, and natural gifts were not what decided the outcome.
Long centuries after both men had lived out their lives and formed their characters, God said, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Jacob, with all his many faults, was a man of faith, and comes into blessing on the ground of grace. Esau, with many natural excellencies, had no fear of God, and misses the blessing though he was the older son by natural descent.
Commentators differ on how personally to take the word "hated." Malachi is where God speaks it, and one writer weighs what the prophet offers as proof.
The evidence Malachi gives is drawn wholly, not from God's action towards Esau himself, but from God's judgments on his descendants: "I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert." And in other Scriptures we find that these judgments came on them because of their unrelenting hatred of Israel.
The quotation is aimed at a specific boast. If bloodline decides blessing, then Edom has as good a case as Israel.
But now go further down in your history, and you come to Jacob and Esau. If you go by descent, you must let in the Edomites on the same terms as yourselves... so your mouth must now be closed as to descent. God's own words stop it: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." He has chosen, by His sovereign right, to bless you, and your blessing depends on that alone... If we ask, "Is there unrighteousness with God?" and truly call Him into question, we are seeking to judge God instead of letting God judge us.
- Before. Before the twins were born, and before either had done good or evil, God said the older would serve the younger. The choice rested on the caller, not on the chosen.
- After. God said "Esau I hated" in the last book of the Old Testament, after both men had lived and Edom's history was plain.
- Unequal. Love to Jacob was free, with no cause in Jacob. Hatred of Esau had moral grounds. Choosing one man is not condemning the other in advance.
- Evidence. Malachi's proof is the ruin of Esau's land and descendants, judged for their unrelenting hatred of Israel. Commentators differ over how far the word touches Esau himself.
- Effect. If descent decided blessing, Edom would stand with Israel. So the boast in bloodline falls, and to ask "Is there unrighteousness with God?" is to try to judge the Judge.