Romans 9:13

Rom_9:13

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Jacob loved, but Esau hated

It is evident that to the writer it was a mystery why God should love Jacob more than Esau. He even goes so far as to imply that, at first sight, it has the character of unrighteousness in God. But he instantly crushes the thought (Rom_9:14). St. Paul makes it the basis of some thoughts about election. It would be impossible that there should be a God of infinite knowledge and no election. But there are only two right uses of it--viz., to humble and leave God in His unapproachable greatness, and to comfort the tried and harassed believer.

I. To a mere superficial reader, it seems very strange that God should love Jacob and hate Esau.

1. Esaus picture is well drawn. He was a clever hunter, a man of the field--what we should call a man of the world. He loved pleasure, and had a clear eye for any present advantage. We could not call him immoral, and, by the side of Jacob, he stands up the better man. He was far more sinned against than sinning. He had some fine traits. He was irritable, even to the point of saying that he would kill his brother! But he was forgiving, and his passion quite passed away. He bought what he might, probably, have taken by force. He never once deceived his father and mother. He spoke to his father respectfully and reverently. If he thought lightly of the birthright at one time, he was very earnest about it at another. He showed consideration at least the second time, in the selection of his wives (Gen_28:8-9). And Esau was most generous afterwards, at Peniel, e.g., even at the moment when Jacob was treating him with suspicion, fear, and cunning (Gen_33:1-20.) He was unwilling to take anything at Jacobs hand, but, with great delicacy, when Jacob urged him to take it, he took it, and added, Let us go, and I will go before thee. And when Jacob declined it, he said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And the last thing we read of him is an act of modest thoughtfulness (Gen_36:7).

2. The patient life of Jacob is a sad contrast. His besetting sin is deceitfulness. He takes advantage of his brothers hunger, and gets the birthright by what was almost cheating. To his apparently dying father, he tells, acts, asserts, and re-asserts a lie! And before he goes away he makes no confession or apology. He deceives his master and father-in-law, Laban, and runs away and outrages his feelings. And even to his generous brother he acts trickily.

II. Where, then, is the solution of the verdict, Jacob have I loved, etc.? We go down into the sanctuary of a mans real life.

1. Esau seems to have never cared for God at all. He had no crime; but he certainly had no grace. There is not a prayer, nor any recognition of the fatherhood or the sovereignty of the Almighty. His birthright is little or nothing to him; and a present gratification comes before any future advantage. He tries, even with tears, to change his fathers resolve that Jacob should have the property. But there is no repentance. The birthright is valuable to him in a secular point of view; but he is utterly indifferent to its spiritual nature.

2. Jacob seeks the blessing by wrong means; but he values it. He makes his peace with God the very night after. His life at Syria is such that Laban was constrained to say, I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake. He traces everything he had to God. He wrestles all night in prayer. He goes up to Bethel, and renews his covenant when God bids him. He puts away all his wives strange gods before he goes there. He secures Gods permission and blessing before he ventures to go down into Egypt. He is careful when there to separate his family from idolators, and he makes good confession before Pharaoh. In his last act he talks to his children with grandeur, and most piously, and shows his faith by charging his sons to bury him in the land of promise.

Conclusion:

1. Jacob had great sins, but they were falls! He rose; he repented; and he was forgiven. The child of God comes out, and grace prevails.

2. Esau was, in a worldly sense, moral, but godless. Not very wrong with man, but never right with God.

3. Suppose you had two sons. The one lived a perfectly correct life; but you were nothing to him. The other often grieved you; but he loved you, and was sorry when he hurt you. Which would be the one you loved?

4. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Then how is it with ourselves? The world is very much made up of Esaus and Jacobs. Some lead very correct lives. What is God? A cypher. Where is God? Nowhere. Others are really religious. They love God. But they do many, many inconsistent and very bad things. They repent; they are forgiven. And the correct, moral people of the world see the sins of the religious people, and suspect and despise them. And the religious people scarcely remember how very inferior they are in many things to the world.

5. Then what will be to the Jacobs? They will be punished, as Jacob was, by a retributive justice. They will go through several ordeals of purification. They will suffer even to the fire! But they will be saved! And what to the Esaus who live and die Esaus? A retributive justice too. No God in them; then no God for them! No birthright! No blessin! No repentance! (J. Vaughan, M.A.)

Jacob loved and Esau hated

I. In what sense.

1. Comparatively, not absolutely.

2. As representatives of a race, not as individuals.

3. In reference to earthly, not heavenly privileges.

II. How is Gods justice and mercy vindicated in this ordination? He is the Supreme Sovereign, who specially privileges some, but blesses all.

III. What has this example to do with the question of individual salvation?

1. Nothing as to its possibility, for all may be saved.

2. Nothing as to its conditions, for all must be saved by grace through faith.

3. Yet much as to special privilege and increased responsibility. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Esau hated and Jacob loved

Some light is thrown on the strong verb hated by other passages in which it is employed (Mat_6:24; Luk_14:26; Joh_12:25). In these statements there is certainly no intention of conveying an idea of malice. There is in them, just as in the Saviours remark regarding the camel and the needles eye, something of bold hyperbolism. Such hyperbolisms are common and rife enough, in the language both of literature and every-day life. They give piquancy to speech, and are relished by all the world. So Esau I hated is comparative, not absolute; and there is really more in the representation than in the reality, just because a phraseological foil was wanted. The idea is, that in the treatment accorded to the Edomites there was a conspicuous absence of that favour which distinguished the Divine treatment of the Hebrews and vindicated the expression, Jacob I loved. In truth, there was now no room for national forgiveness to Edom. The cup of their iniquity they had filled to the brim, and it was now time that they should be compelled to drain to its dregs the cup of merited retribution. It was otherwise with Jacob in the days of Malachi (chap. 1.). God, although greatly provoked, had not dealt with that people according to their desert. In wrath, He had remembered mercy. Through the influence of Ezra and Nehemiah over the kings of Babylon, many families were encouraged to return to the desolated city. The streets were restored. The walls were rebuilt. The temple was reconstructed, and an appreciable amount of prosperity once more rolled over the land. God loved Jacob; for with all the waywardness and faithlessness of the peculiar people, they were still, in virtue of their Messianic destination, like a peculiar treasure to God. They were the casket which contained the heavenly jewel; and, for the jewels sake, the casket was carefully kept and guarded. It was otherwise with Edom. Like many surrounding peoples, they had a time of merciful visitation. Their local habitation had many advantages; they were blessed in the fatness of the earth and the dew of heaven, and were sheltered within the munition of rocks; and, had they been willing to be good, they might have had a constant flow of prosperity. But they became highminded, aggressive, selfish, morally rank to heaven with rottenness, and were involved at last in the overflow of Babylonian devastation (Mal_1:4, cf. in contrast the case of Israel, verse 5). We have additional evidence in these statements of the prophets reference to peoples as distinguished from individuals in the plural we, ye, etc. The apostles argument is irrefragable. Pure patriarchal descent on the part of Israel was insufficient to ensure everlasting Messianic blessings; for it was utterly insufficient on the part of Edom to secure those temporal advantages which were conferred on the Hebrews till the fulness of time. (J. Morison, D.D.)

Esau hated and Jacob loved

Note that--

1. In speaking of Jacob or Esau, either as men or as nations, neither Genesis nor Malachi nor St. Paul have eternal salvation in view; the matter in question is the part they play regarded from the theocratic standpoint, as is proved by the words to serve.

2. Esau, though deprived of the promise and the inheritance, nevertheless obtained a blessing and an inheritance for his descendants.

3. The national character inherited from the father of the race is not so impressed on his descendants that they cannot escape it. As there were in Israel many Edomites, profane hearts, there may also have been many Israelites, spiritual hearts in Edom. Compare what is said of the wise men of Teman (Jer_49:7), and the very respectable personage Eliphaz (notwithstanding his error) in the book of Job. (Prof. Godet.)

Jacob loved

This is seen all through his history.

1. In the promise made before his birth.

2. The vision of Bethel (Gen_28:12, etc.).

3. The blessing in Padanaram (Gen_31:5; Gen_31:9).

4. The vision there (verse 11-13).

5. The command given to Laban concerning him (verse 24).

6. The blessing given him at Peniel (Gen_32:28-29).

7. The command to go to Bethel and the vision there (Gen_35:1; Gen_35:9; Gen_35:11). (T. Robinson, D.D.)

Jacob and Esau

Why was it that God loved Jacob and hated Esau?

I. This is a fact. Ask an Arminian about election, and at once he begins to sharpen the knife of controversy. But say to him, Ah, brother I was it not Divine grace that made you to differ? Was it not the Lord who called you out of your natural state and made you what you are? Oh, yes, he says, I quite agree with you there. Well, then, why is it that one man has been converted, and not another? Oh, the Spirit of God has been at work in this man, that God does treat one man better than another is not very wonderful. It is a fact we recognise every day. There is a man that, work as hard as he likes, he cannot earn more than fifteen shillings a week; and here is another that gets a thousand a year? One is born in a palace, while another draws his first breath in a hovel. Here is a man whose head cannot hold two thoughts together; here is another who can dive into the deepest of questions; what is the reason of it? God has done it. He has made some eagles, and some worms; some He has made lions, and some creeping lizards; He has made some men kings, and some are born beggars. Do you murmur at God for it? No. What is the use of kicking against facts? God does in matters of religion give to one man more than to another. He gives to me opportunities of hearing the Word which He does not give to the Hottentot. He gives to me parents who trained me in the fear of the Lord. He does not give that to many of you. He places me afterwards in situations where I am restrained from sin. Other men are cast into places where their sinful passions are developed. Again, He brings one man under the sound of a powerful ministry, while another sits and listens to a preacher whose drowsiness is only exceeded by that of his hearers. And even when they are hearing the gospel the fact is God works in one heart when He does not in another.

1. Look at Jacobs life. You are compelled to say that from the first hour that he left his fathers house God loved him. Why, he has not gone far before he has the Bethel experience. Laban tries to cheat him and God suffers it not, but multiplies the cattle that Laban gives him. When he fled God charges Laban not to speak to Jacob either good or bad. When his sons had committed murder in Shechem, and Jacob is afraid that he will be destroyed, God puts a fear upon the people, and says to them, Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophet no harm. And when a famine comes over the land, God has sent Joseph into Egypt to provide for him and his brethren. And see the happy end of Jacob. It was that of a man that God loved.

2. On the other hand, God did not love Esau. He permitted him to become the father of princes, but He had not blessed his generation. Where is the house of Esau now? Edom has perished.

II. Why is this?

1. Why did God love Jacob? There was nothing in Jacob that could make God love him, but much that might have made God hate him it was because God was infinitely gracious, and because He was sovereign in His dispensation of this grace. Let us look at Jacobs character. As a natural man he was always a bargain-maker. Read what he says after the glorious experience and promise at Bethel (Gen_28:20; Gen_28:22). While he lived with Laban what miserable work it was! He had got into the hands of a man of the world, and whenever a covetous Christian gets into such company, a terrible scene ensues. The whole way through we are ashamed of Jacob; we cannot help it. Now, if the character of Jacob be all this there could have been nothing in him that made God love him, and the only reason why God loved him must have been because He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

2. Why did God hate Esau? The two questions are entirely distinct, so one answer will not do for both. Why does God hate any man? Because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer Divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, and for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever. Sovereignty holds the scale of love, it is justice holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God. Did Esau deserve that God should cast him away? Yes, what we know of Esaus character clearly proves it. Esau lost his birthright; but he sold it himself and for a mess of pottage. Oh, Esau, it is in vain for thee to say, I lost my birthright by decree. God is not the author of sin. And the doctrine is that every man who loses heaven gives it up himself. God denies it not to him. He will not come that he may have life. But, says one, Esau repented. Yes, but what sort of a repentance was it? As soon as he found that his brother had got the birthright he sought it again with tears, but he did not get it back. He sold it for a mess of pottage, and he thought he would buy it back by giving his father a mess of pottage. So sinners say, I have lost heaven by my evil works; I will easily get it again by reforming. No, you may sell heaven for carnal pleasures, but you cannot buy heaven by merely giving them up. You can get heaven only on another ground, viz: the ground of free grace. You think that Esau was a sincere penitent; but when he failed to get the blessing, what did he say? I will slay my brother Jacob. That is not the repentance that comes from the Holy Spirit. But there are some men like that. They say they are very sorry and then they go and do the same that they did before. On this whole matter read verse 22. Observe that God had nothing to do with fitting men for destruction. They do that. God only fits men for salvation. At the last day the righteous shall inherit the kingdom prepared for them; but the wicked shall go into everlasting fire, prepared--not for you but--for the devil and his angels. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The mystery of Gods love

A gentleman who thought Christianity was merely a heap of puzzling problems, said to an old minister, That is a very strange statement Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Very strange replied the minister; but what is it that you see most strange about it? Oh, that part of course about hating Esau. Well, sir, said the minister, how wonderfully are we made and how differently constituted. The strangest part of all to me is that He could ever have loved Jacob. There is no mystery so glorious as the mystery of Gods love. (N. T. Anecdotes.)

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

The unimpeachable righteousness of God in the dispensations of His mercy and justice

I. He acts on immutable principles.

1. These principles are fixed (verse 15).

2. Are independent of human will and action (verse 16).

3. Respect both mercy and justice (verse 17).

4. Are the same in application to all. He has mercy on the penitent, withdraws His Spirit from the impenitent (verse 18).

II. He has a perfect right to determine those principles and direct the application of them.

1. Men are apt to complain (verse 19).

2. But unreasonably, because God is the Supreme Sovereign (verse 20). He can mould as He pleases, whether to honour or dishonour.

III. These principles are always applied in mercy.

1. Even vessels fitted for wrath are endured with much long-suffering, affording ample room for repentance.

2. While the riches of His glory are displayed in the vessels of mercy.

3. And there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for the righteousness of faith is unto and upon all that believe. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Unrighteousness with God is a thing

I. Abhorrent to human sense.

1. We could then have no confidence in Him.

2. There would be no security for moral order and happiness.

3. No hope in the future.

II. Inconceivable. Because opposed to all our notions of Divine perfection, whether derived from revelation, conscience, or reason.

III. Impossible.

1. Either in the dispensations of His mercy or justice.

2. Because contrary to His nature.

3. Hence seeming injustice, whereever it occurs, must be referred to human ignorance. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Righteousness of the Divine administration

All the unutterable woes of the depraved residuums of our great cities are taking place under the administration of a God of kindness and love. There is provision in New York for food and raiment, and thousands there are that wander through the streets hungry and naked. There is provision in New York for health and strength, and thousands there are that writhe in anguish on beds of sickness. There is provision also in the heart of God for every miserable creature that has erred, and thousands there are that curse and blaspheme with remorse in hospitals or in lazar-houses, or in the midst of the vermin and filth at the bottom of society. All that takes place, though God, who is God of love and benevolence sees it; all this takes place though nature is ordained to promote happiness; all this takes place, though the structure of society and the structure of individual men are designed to promote happiness; all this takes place, though Gods government is for the promotion of happiness; all this takes: place, though the interior nature of God and His everlasting decree aim: at happiness. And yet, men are found who, with these facts staring them in the face, rise up and say, God is too good to punish men! Why, there never was an assertion so flung in the face of facts. The administration of God is full of goodness; but goodness in the Divine administration is employed according to law. (H. W. Beecher.)

God righteous in all His ways

Going up among the White Mountains some years ago, I thought of that passage in the Bible that speaks of God as weighing mountains in a balance. As I looked at those great mountains, I thought: Can it be possible that God can put those great mountains in scales? It was an idea too great for me to grasp; but when I saw a bluebell down by the mules foot on my way up Mount Washington, then I understood the kindness and goodness of God. It is not so much of God in great things I can understand, but of God in little things. Here is a man who says: That doctrine cannot be true, because things do go so very wrong. I reply: It is no inconsistency on the part of God, but a lack of understanding on our part. I hear that men are making very fine shawls in some factory. I go in on the first floor and see only the raw material, and I ask: Are these the shawls I hear about? No, says the manufacturer, go up to the next floor; and I go up, and there I begin to see the design. But the man says: Do not stop here, go to the top floor of the factory, and you will see the idea fully carried out. I do so, and having come to the top, see the complete pattern of an exquisite shawl. So in our life, standing down on a low level of Christian experience, we do not understand Gods dealings. He tells us to go up higher if we would know. We go up higher and higher until we begin to understand the Divine meaning with respect to us. God says, Go up higher, and we advance until we stand at the very gate of heaven, and there see Gods idea all wrought out--a perfect idea of mercy, of love, of kindness, and we say: Just and true are all Thy ways. It is all right at the top; all right at the bottom. Remember, there is no inconsistency on the part of God, but it is only our mental and spiritual incapacity. (T. De Witt Talmage.)

For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.--

Moses and Pharaoh

I. Moses an example of Gods mercy and grace.

II. Pharaoh an example of Gods justice.

III. Both examples of Gods righteousness. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Mercy is

I. An act of sovereign will.

II. A display of unmerited grace.

III. Consists with infinite justice.

IV. Is dispensed with consummate wisdom. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Mercy abused

To sin because mercy abounds is the devils logic. He that sins because of mercy is like one that wounds his head because he hath a plaster, he that sins because of Gods mercy shall have judgment without mercy. Mercy abused turns to fury. Nothing sweeter than mercy when it is improved, nothing fiercer when it is abused; nothing colder than lead when it is taken out of the mine, nothing more scalding than lead when it is heated; nothing blunter than iron, nothing sharper when it is whetted. The mercy of the Lord is upon them that fear Him. Mercy is not for them that sin, and fear not; but for them that fear, and sin not. (T. Watson.)

Mercy, alternative of

When the Romans attacked a city it was sometimes their custom to set up a white flag at the city gate. If the garrison surrendered while the white flag was up, their lives were spared; after that the black flag was run up, and every man was put to the sword. Sinner, to-day the white flag of mercy is out. Surrender to Christ and live before the black flag of death and doom takes its place.

Mercy, importance of

Mercy is in the air we breathe, the daily light which shines upon us, the gracious ram of Gods inheritance. It is the public spring for all the thirsty, the common hospital for all the needy. It is mercy that takes us out of the womb, feeds us in the days of our pilgrimage, furnishes us with spiritual provision, closes our eyes in peace, and translates us to a secure resting-place. It is the first petitioners suit, and the first believers article, the contemplation of Enoch, the confidence of Abraham, the burden of the prophetic songs, and the glory of all the apostles, the plea of the penitent, the ecstasies of the reconciled, the believers hosanna, the angels hallelujah. Ordinances, oracles, altars, pulpits, the gates of the grave, and the gates of heaven, do all depend upon mercy. It is the load-star of the wandering, the ransom of the captive, the antidote of the tempted, the prophet of the living, and the effectual comfort of the dying: there would not be one regenerate saint upon earth, nor one glorified saint in heaven, if it were not for mercy. (J. Hamilton, D.D.)

Mercy, manifold

As John Bunyan says, all the flowers in Gods garden are double; there is no single mercy: nay, they are not only double flowers, but they are manifold flowers. There are many flowers upon one stalk, and many flowers in one flower. You shall think you have but one mercy; but you shall find it to be a whole flock of mercies. Our beloved is unto us a bundle of myrrh, a cluster of camphor. When you lay hold upon one golden link of the chain of grace, you pull, pull, pull; but lo! as long as your hand can draw there are fresh linked sweetnesses of love still to come. Manifold mercies! Like the drops of a lustre, which reflect a rainbow of colours when the sun is glittering upon them, and each one, when turned in different ways, from its prismatic form shows all the varieties of colour; so the mercy of God is one and yet many; the same, yet ever changing; a combination of all the beauties of love blended harmoniously together. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The sovereignty of Divine mercy

Observe--

I. The text does not mean that God is not merciful to all--

1. Favours some to the disadvantage of others.

2. Is not disposed to save all.

3. Distributes His favours capriciously.

4. Saves any without the co-operation of their own will.

II. It means that Gods purpose in redemption is independent of man.

1. That its conditions are fixed without the will of man.

2. That the will or efforts of man cannot supersede these conditions. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The Divine sovereignty

When it is affirmed that the sovereignty of God is absolute, it is simply meant that He is a Being who can do whatever He pleases. None can stay His hand, or say to Him, what doest Thou? He is not accountable for His deeds to any superior. He giveth not account of any of His matters. But as He can do whatever He pleases, so He will fulfil His pleasure. He does according to His will in the army of heaven, etc. My counsel shall stand, etc. But while God is thus absolute sovereign, this absolute sovereignty does not determine for Him what it is right that He should please to do. Something else is indispensable, viz., His peculiar intelligence. In it, and in it alone, does God find the idea of right, an idea without which there could be no ethical imperative uttering itself in the affirmative I ought. It is the highest glory of God, that He should, and that He always does please, to do only what is right. In Him is no darkness at all. He exercises His sovereignty in doing only what is holy and just and good. His sovereignty is itself holy and just and good. The apostles adduction of the oracle addressed to Moses is a decided argumentative success. Men, without exception, are the subjects of Gods sovereign sway. It cannot be disputed. So therefore are the Jews in particular; universally so. And yet all have come short of the glory of God; so that there is unless there supervene some great change or new creation, overhanging all, both Gentiles and Jews, a lurid thundercloud of doom. Is there room for hope? The asseverations, I shall have mercy, etc., seem to assume that there is forgiveness with God, that He may be had in reverence (Psa_130:4). But there are limits to His pardoning grace. He keeps mercy indeed for thousands (Exo_34:7), but He will by no means clear those whose guilt has deepened into impenitence. There is a sin that never hath forgiveness (Mar_3:29). Who then shall be pardoned? Just those whom it pleases God to pardon--He will have pardoning mercy on whomsoever, etc. And who are these? Under the Old Testament the category of the pardonable was not clearly revealed. Under the new none need walk in uncertainty. Those who put their trust in Christ shall be pardoned. And as regards those who are destitute of this revelation, see Rom_2:13-15. Their responsibility is measured by their opportunity. And it lies entirely with Gods sovereignty to determine who shall be the recipients of His bounty. In the statements On whomsoever I have, or am having, mercy, etc., there seems to be the conveyance of the idea that God was already in absolute spontaneity at work forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. The favourite work of Divine grace, however, is so great, august, and far-reaching in its ethical influence that none but the Highest could reasonably undertake it, or carry it through. There is none who can forgive sins but God only. There is hence, on the part of God, the well-grounded assumption of a very lofty prerogative, which is tantamount to an assertion that He will not suffer any one, not even Moses, to interfere with the administration of His bounty. He is resolved to dispense His bounty to whomsoever He pleases. (J. Morison, D.D.)

The Divine sovereignty: its infinite graciousness

As Gods throne is a throne of holiness, so it is a throne of grace (Heb_4:16). A throne encircled with a rainbow, in sight, like an emerald (Rev_4:3); an emblem of the covenant, betokening mercy. Though His nature be infinitely excellent above us, and His power infinitely transcendent over us, yet the majesty of His government is tempered with an unspeakable goodness. He acts not so much as an absolute lord as a gracious sovereign and obliging benefactor. He delights not to make His subjects slaves; exacts not of them any servile or fearful, but a generous and cheerful obedience. He requires them not to fear or worship Him so much for His power as His goodness. He requires not of a rational creature anything repugnant to the honour, dignity, and principles of such a nature; nor anything that may make it weary of its own being, or of the service it owes its sovereign. He draws it by the cords of a man; His goodness renders His laws as sweet as honey and the honeycomb to an unvitiated palate and a renewed mind. And though it be granted He hath full disposal of His creature as the potter of His vessel, yet His goodness will never permit Him to use this sovereign right to the hurt of a creature that deserves it not. As not to punish the sinner would be a denial of His justice, so to torment the innocent would be a denial of His goodness. It is as much against the nature of God to punish one eternally who hath not deserved it as it is to deny Himself and act anything foolishly, and unbecoming His other perfections which render Him majestical and adorable. (S. Charnock, B.D.)

The Divine sovereignty: real and merciful

Conspiracies have at various times sprung up to deprive the Supreme of this peculiar glory--to deny Him a will. Men would fain substitute a law of nature for the living God. They conceive of an unthinkable principle like gravitation; they think of a power like the sea, lashing itself and raging and advancing without a purpose or a plan, floating a ship and sinking a stone with equal indifference, and continuing afterwards its unmeaning roar. I love this chapter; it is a sublime protest against an atheistic human philosophy. I can have no communion with a mere mechanical omnipotence--a sort of infinite ocean that heaves eternally by laws to which it is subject; saving me if I continue to make myself sufficiently buoyant before I am cast on its cold, uncaring bosom; and swallowing me up with the same relentless regularity if I make the leap before I be light enough. This omnipotent principle is not my Saviour; I need as my Saviour the living God who loves me, and whom I may love in return--the God who looked on me when I was lost, and loved me when I was worthless--who saved me from hell and made me His child. I need from my God not merely a general aspect of benevolence towards the world, under which some of the most vigorous agonisers may struggle into heaven; I need not only permission to save myself, but a hope that the Infinite sees me, knows me, pities me, loves me, grasps me, and holds me in the hollow of His hand, safe against all dangers, until He bring me safe to His eternal rest. (W. Arnot, D.D.)

Justification by free grace vindicated

For He saith to Moses, I will, etc. As if He should have said, My doctrine of justification, by the free grace and pleasure of God through believing, is so far from rendering Him unrighteous, that Himself plainly asserteth the substance of it in saying thus unto Moses. Meaning that inasmuch as all men having sinned are become obnoxious unto Me, I am resolved to use my prerogative, and to show mercy unto whom I please, not upon such who shall be obtruded upon Me by men, or who shall judge themselves worthy. The repetitions are very emphatical, and import in the highest degree a resolvedness in God to dispense His favour according to His own pleasure, and not according to the thoughts of men. When the clouds pour out rain in abundance it is a sign they were full of water. In like manner, when a man reiterates any purpose, it argueth a fulness of that which is thus uttered, and that the heart could not discharge itself by one expression. Now we know who those are on whom God is everlastingly resolved to show mercy, viz., those who believe in His Son (2Co_1:19-20). And upon this account the gospel, which asserteth this purpose of God, is termed the everlasting gospel (Rev_14:6), i.e., one the tenor and contents whereof shall never be altered. Here God fully declares who they are on whom He will have mercy, viz., believers. Neither are all the angels in heaven nor men upon earth able to take Him off from this His purpose. For that is to be considered by the way that the apostle clearly speaketh here of that grace or mercy of God which relateth to the salvation of men. But whereas the Scripture speaks of two sorts or degrees of grace, one which precedes faith, and consists partly in the gift of His Son, partly in calling them by the gospel, and vouchsafing means and opportunities unto them for repenting and believing; and another, which is subsequent. The question may be, of which the apostle speaks. I answer of the latter.

1. God makes no such difference or distinction of men in His preventing grace as the words before us manifestly imply (Heb_2:9; 1Ti_2:6; Act_17:30; Mat_20:16, etc.).

2. The whole discourse of the apostle in the context is not concerning preventing grace or mercy, but subsequent, as, viz., concerning justification, adoption, etc.

3. And evident it is that the apostles intent is to declare the Jews to be excluded from that grace and mercy, as in telling them that the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise (Rom_2:8), that the elder should serve the younger, and that the purpose of God stands not of works, etc. Certain it is that these Jews were not excluded from preventing grace, for they were called of God by the apostles, yea, and by Christ Himself, and this by means so efficacious that our Saviour affirmeth that even the men of Tyre and Sidon might or would have been converted by them (Mat_11:21). Therefore the grace or mercy spoken of in the words in hand must needs be subsequent. And if so it cannot be understood of any such mercy in God towards men by which men, yet unregenerate, are enabled, much less necessitated, to repent or believe, but of that mercy which is vouchsafed unto them who do now repent and believe. So that the meaning of the words, I will have mercy on whom, etc., is as if God should have said, I will justify, adopt, and glorify persons under what qualifications soever I Myself please, and will not be ordered or taught by men what I have to do, or what becometh Me to do, in this kind. As regards what God actually said to Moses (Exo_33:16), it appears that Moses (Exo_33:13; Exo_33:16)had desired of God that He would consider that the Jews were His people, and that He would please lead them that so it might be known in the world that both he and his people had found grace in His sight. This God grants. Upon this Moses makes a further request, viz., that God would show him His glory (Exo_33:18). To this God answers, I will make all My goodness pass before thee, etc., giving the reason hereof in the words cited by the apostle, Let no man take offence that I should do that in a way of favour for thee, which I neither shall do to any of the people besides, nor ever did to any of thy fathers, nor to any man after thee; nor do thou imagine that I am anyways a debtor unto thee of that grace which I deny unto others, for I am debtor unto no man, and will dispense My favours, and so My mercies, only unto such persons as I please. Now many of those whom God decreed upon their believing from eternity to justify, and adopt, apostatise from, and make shipwreck of their faith (as the Scripture in many places testifieth), from whom He hath peremptorily threatened to take away the grace of justification which before He had conferred upon them. Therefore the emphatical import of the apostles expression, I will have mercy on whom I have (now or at present) mercy, respects the same species, not the same persons of men; being as if He had said, To that sort or kind of men to whom at this day I show mercy (viz., in pardoning their sin and justifying their persons, meaning believers), I will show the like mercy at all times hereafter to the worlds end. Or rather thus, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., I will not be taken off by men or by angels from showing the grace or mercy of justification and adoption unto those (i.e., that kind of men)

to whom I at this day show this grace or mercy, and these are such who believe. (John Goodwin.)

Arrogance of arraigning God

They say the head of the great river Nilus could never yet be found. It has been sought for, and many have travelled possibly some thousands of miles, but yet it cannot be found. But the head of Nilus will be found before men find any cause of Divine love beyond the Divine will. It speaketh a wonderful arrogance in men to make God accountable for His acts of Divine grace; what greater arrogance and vanity can be imagined than this? When a poor creature will not himself be brought to an account why he gives one beggar money and not another, or why he giveth to one child a greater portion than to another (though they both be the acknowledged fruit of his body), that yet this worm should dream that God must be accountable to his reason, why He showeth mercy to this man and not to another, when they are both the work of His hands. It is certainly enough to say, He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy; and extend compassion to whom He will extend compassion. What pride, what arrogance is this, not to allow to God, whom we confess to be the supreme and most free agent, the liberty which we will yet claim and challenge for another! This is flat rebellion against the Lord of all, whose sovereignty it dares to question. (John Collinges.)

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.--

Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth

For ages this chapter has been a battle-ground for theological dispute. Doctrines have been raised here most degrading to man--most derogatory to God. The first thing, therefore, is to brush away the clouds of false opinions with which theological polemics have enveloped it. The verse is not meant to express the idea--

1. That the Great Father does not show mercy to all mankind. This would be contrary to facts. Reason, consciousness, and the Bible unite in declaring that it is of the Lords mercy that we have not been consumed. Mans existence is to be traced to the fact that he lives every moment by mercy, and mercy bears him up from hell.

2. That God gives to some men favours that He withholds from others, which is a truth too obvious for debate. You see this unequal distribution of the Divine favour--

(1) In natural endowments. No two men are alike in natural endowment.

(2) In our secular condition.

(3) In the means of spiritual improvement.

Some are born heathens, etc., So that however humbling to our pride it may be, yet God does bestow favours on some which He withholds from others. But here Paul would not argue a point so palpable to his opponents.

3. That the Infinite Father is not disposed to save all. This is opposed to His own most positive and frequent declarations. I have no pleasure in the death of a sinner. Let the wicked forsake his way, etc. This is also contrary to the universality of His remedial provisions. God so loved the world, etc. He is a propitiation … for the sins of the whole world.

4. That the Infinite Father distributes His favours capriciously. We are unable to discover them, but that He has the highest reasons for His conduct we are bound to believe. The Infinite intellect never acts without reason, and Infinite love never acts unkindly. His mighty operations are under the sway of intellect; His intellect is under the sway of love.

5. That willing and running, or human efforts, are not essential to salvation.

(1) There are blessings bestowed upon us independent of our willing and running. This is the case, e.g., with natural endowments. If we have inferior powers the blame is not with us; if we are above the average the credit is not ours. It is sometimes the case too with our temporal condition. Sometimes riches come to a man without any effort or will of his own, and with poverty the same, but not always.

(2) It is ever true, however, of mental and moral excellence. We do not say that God cannot make a man intelligent and virtuous irrespective of his own conduct, but we have never heard of such cases. Gods regular method to enlighten the ignorant, to reform the depraved, etc., is by the earnest use of their own faculties. The Bible gives us to understand--

(a) That without my willing and running I cannot be saved. The work of a man in obtaining his salvation is compared to husbandry, building, battle, racing; all laborious occupations. In one word, so far from willing and running not being required, we must agonise to enter in.

(b) That when there are the right running and willing, salvation is sure to be obtained. Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened. He that cometh to Him He will on no account cast out. Running and willing therefore cannot be dispensed with. What then does it mean? Simply this--that the original reason of salvation is in God and not in man. A truth this which is no sooner propounded than adopted by universal intelligence as an axiom. If there be a God He must be the primordial cause not only of all existence, but of all good throughout His vast and ever-extending universe. Then It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth--

I. That Gods determination to save mankind came. Human effort had nothing to do in starting the eternal idea. Who being His counsellor hath taught Him? Gods ideas are as old as Himself. There is no succession of thought in the Eternal Mind. One all-seeing, all-embracing, infinite thought is His. Known unto God are all His works, redemption included, from the beginning of the world. We are saved, then, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, etc. Had He not determined to save humanity we never could have been saved, and His determination is entirely independent of all willing and running.

II. That Gods condition of salvation was formed.

1. It is Gods plan to work by means. The principle of mediation fills and rules the universe.

(1) It is so in the material world. God acts upon one thing through the instrumentality of another. One body is moved, one life is produced, one creature is supported by another.

(2) It is so in the mental world. One mind guides, educates, moulds another.

(3) In the moral world Gods method here is to save the world by Christ. He is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son,etc. What the law could not, do, etc. This is a settled condition. There is no other name, etc.

2. Now what has human willing or running to do with this plan of salvation? Nothing.

(1) The plan is eternal, and therefore no creature could have had an influence in its formation. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

(2) The plan transcends all finite thought. It could not have entered into the heart of man to conceive of such a thing.

III. To supersede Gods established method of salvation. Perhaps this passage especially refers to the Jew, who had an idea that he should be saved on the ground of patriarchal descent. And Paul wishes to impress him with the fact that no amount of effort on that condition would save him. He might will and run intensely and for ever, but it would be of no service. There is a Divine way to reach Divine results. There is a Divine way to cultivate the soil, to navigate the ocean, to build houses, to get a well-informed and well-disciplined intellect, and if these are not observed labour will be lost. It is so in mans salvation. There is a Divine way, which, if not observed, all the willing and the running will go for nothing. The heathen, the Mahometan, the Jew, the Deist, may will and run, but their labour must prove futile, since they observe not the way. (D. Thomas, D.D.)

Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth

Abraham willed that the blessing should be given to Ishmael; Isaac willed that it should be given to Esau; and Esau ran to hunt for venison that it might be regularly conveyed to him. But they were all disappointed; for it was Gods will that it should be given to Isaac and Jacob. (B. Field.)

Gods will and mans will

(Text and Rev_22:17):--

1. The great controversy which has divided the Church upon the question of the will has been fraught with incalculable usefulness, for it has thrust forward the two great doctrines of human responsibility and Divine sovereignty.

2. In this controversy, however, mistakes have arisen from two reasons. Some have altogether forgotten one order of truths. Like Nelson they have put the telescope to the blind eye, and then protested that they could not see. On the other hand, others have pushed a truth too far. You know how often things are injured by over-praise; how a good medicine comes to be despised because a quack has advertised it as an universal cure. So puffery in doctrine leads to its dishonour. You have seen those crystal globes, in which, as you walk up to them, your head is ten times as large as your body, and in another position your feet are monstrous and the rest of your body small. Many go to work with Gods truth upon the model of this toy; they magnify one capital truth till it becomes monstrous; they minify another till it becomes forgotten. Let us note that--

I. Salvation hinges upon the will of God, and not upon the will of man. It is not of him that willeth, etc.

1. This may be argued from analogy. There is a certain likeness between all Gods works. If a painter shall paint three pictures, or an author write three books, there will be certain qualities running through the whole which will lead you to see that they are the same mans work. Now turn your thoughts--

(1) To the works of creation. There was a time when these works had no existence. With whom did God then take counsel? Did it not rest with His own will whether He would make or not? And when He willed to create, did He not still use His own discretion as to what and how He would make? You see running through creation, from the tiny animalculae up to the tall archangel, this working of Gods own will. Well, then, does He reign in creation and not in grace?

(2) The works of Providence (Dan_4:35). From the first moment of human history to the last Gods will shall be done. And as surely as Gods will is the axle of the universe and the great heart of Providence, so in grace, despite mans hardness of heart, His own purposes will be fulfilled.

2. The difficulties which surround the opposite theory are tremendous. The theory that salvation depends upon our own will--

(1) Makes the purpose of God contingent. Christ may die, but it is not certain that He will redeem any, since the efficacy of the redemption rests not in its own intrinsic power, but in the will of man accepting it.

(2) Makes man, practically, the supreme being. The Lord intends good, but He must wait on His own creature to know what his intention is.

3. Ponder the known condition of man. On the theory that man comes to Christ of his own will, what do you with texts which say that he is dead?

4. It is consistent with the universal experience of all Gods people that salvation is of Gods will. I have never yet met with a man even professing to be a Christian who ever said that his coming to God was the result of his unassisted nature. Universally the people of God will say it was the Holy Spirit that made them what they are.

5. To the law and to the testimony. Each part of the whole process of salvation is attributed to Gods will.

(1) The preparation (Eph_1:3; Eph_1:9; Eph_1:11).

(2) Regeneration (Joh_1:13; Jam_1:18).

(3) Sanctification (1Th_4:3).

(4) Preservation, perseverance, resurrection, and eternal glory (Joh_6:39).

II. Mans will has its proper place in the matter of salvation (Rev_22:17).

1. According to this and many other texts it is clear that men are not saved by compulsion. When a man receives the grace of Christ he does not receive it against his will.

2. Nor is the will taken away, for God does not come and convert the intelligent free-agent into a machine. We are as free under grace as ever we were under sin; nay, we were slaves when we were under sin, and when the Son makes us free we are free indeed.

3. But though the will of man is not ignored, the work of the Spirit, which is the effect of the will of God, is to change the human will, and so make men willing in the day of Gods power, working in them to will and to do of His own good pleasure. The work of the Spirit is consistent with the original laws and constitution of human nature. Now, how is the heart changed in any matter? Generally by persuasion. A friend sets before us a certain truth in a new light, pleads with us, and our hearts are changed towards it. So the Spirit makes a revelation of truth to the soul, whereby it seeth things in a different light, and then the will cheerfully bows that neck which once was stiff as iron.

4. This gives the renewed soul a most blessed sign of grace. If thou art willing, depend upon it that God is willing.

5. Then, when a man has any willingness given to him, he has a special promise. Before he had that willingness he had an invitation. My text is a special call to some of you. Are you willing to be saved? Then the Lord says to you, Whosoever will, let him come. You cannot say this does not mean you. You are willing, then come and take the water of life freely. Had not I better pray? It does not say so; it says, take the water of life. But had not I better go home and get better? No, take the water of life, and take it now. God says, Here is a special invitation for you; you are willing; come and drink. Dont say, I must go home and wash my pitcher. No preparation is wanted. When the crusaders heard Peter the hermit, they cried out at once, Dens vult! and every man plucked his sword from its scabbard, and set out to reach the holy sepulchre. So come and drink, sinner; God wills it. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:13 “I loved Jacob, but I rejected (literally hated) Esau”: Paul quotes Mal 1:2-3, where Jacob, whose other name is Israel (Gen 32:28), stands for the nation of Israel, and Esau stands for Edom. Here, Paul is referring to them as individuals. Just as love can sometimes express a choice, so hate can express rejection. The story of Jacob and Esau illustrates how the sovereign God chooses his own people.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 9:13. Καθὼς, as) The word spoken by Malachi, at a period so long subsequent, agrees with that spoken in Genesis.—τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα κ.τ.λ.) Mal 1:2, LXX., ἠγάπησα τὸν Ἰακὼβ κ.τ.λ.—ἠγάπησα—ἐμίσησα, I have loved—I have hated) The reference is not to the spiritual state of each of the two brothers: but the external condition of Jacob and Esau, in like manner as the corporeal birth of Isaac is a type of spiritual things, Rom 9:9. All Israelites are not saved, and all Edomites are not damned. But Paul intimates, that as there was a difference between the sons of Abraham and Isaac, so there was a difference among the posterity of Israel. So far has he demonstrated what he purposed; he in the next place introduces an objection, and refutes it; μισε͂ιν properly signifies to hate, nay, to hate greatly. See Mal 1:4, at the end.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_9:13. This utterance (ἐῤῥέθη) took place in conformity with the expressly testified (in Mal_1:2-3, freely cited from the LXX.) love of God towards Jacob and abhorrence of Esau. Thus, that utterance agrees with this. But just like Paul, so the prophet himself intends by Ἰακώβ and Ἠσαῦ, not the two nations Israel and Edom, but the persons of the two brothers; God loved the former, and hated the latter (and therefore has exalted Israel and destroyed Edom).

The aorists are, in the sense of the apostleas the relation of καθὼς γέγρ. to the preceding, imparting information respecting the subjective ground of the divine declaration in Rom_9:12, showsto be referred to the love and abhorrence entertained towards the brothers before their birth, but are not to be understood of the de facto manifestation of love and hatred by which the saying of Gen_25:23 had been in the result confirmed (van Hengel). Ἐμίσησα, moreover, is not to have a merely privative sense ascribed to it: not to love, or to love less (as Fessel, Glass, Grotius, Estius, and many, including Nösselt, Koppe, Tholuck, Flatt, Beck, Maier, Beyschlag), which is not admissible even in Mat_6:24, Luk_14:26; Luk_16:13, Joh_12:25 (see, against this and similar attempts to weaken its force, Lamping); but it expresses the opposite of the positive ἠγάπ., viz. positive hatred. See Mal_1:4. And as that love towards Jacob must be conceived of as completely independent of foreseen virtues (Rom_9:11), so also this hatred towards Esau as completely independent of foreseen sins (in opposition to the Greek Fathers and Jerome on Malachi 1). Both were founded solely on the free elective determination of God; with whom, in the necessary connection of that plan which He had freely adopted for the process of theocratic development, the hatred and rejection of Esau were presupposed through their opposite, namely, the free love and election of Jacob to be the vehicle of the theocracy and its privileges, as the reverse side of this love and choice, which the history of Edom brought into actual relief.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_9:13

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. These words are quoted from Mal_1:2, Mal_1:3, where the prophet is reproving the Jews for their ingratitude. As a proof of his peculiar favor, God refers to his preference for them from the first, Was not Esau Jacobs brother, saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, etc. This passage, as well as the one quoted in Rom_9:12, and just referred to, relates to the descendants of Jacob and Esau, and to the individuals themselves; the favor shown to the posterity of the one, and withheld from that of the other, being founded on the distinction originally made between the two brothers. The meaning therefore is, that God preferred one to the other, or chose one instead of the other. As this is the idea meant to be expressed, it is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less favor. Thus in Gen_29:33, Leah says, she was hated by her husband; while in a preceding verse, the same idea is expressed by saying, Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, Mat_6:24; Luk_14:26; If a man come to me and hate not his father and mother, etc. Joh_12:25. The quotation from the prophet may be considered either as designed in confirmation of the declaration that the elder should serve the younger; or it may be connected in sense with the close of the 11th, God is sovereign in the distribution of his favors, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated; the distinction made between these two individuals being cited as an illustration and confirmation of the apostles doctrine.

The doctrine of the preceding verses is, that God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favors, that the ground of his selecting one and rejecting another is not their work, but his own good pleasure. To this doctrine there are two plausible objections; first, it is not consistent with the divine justice, Rom_9:14; second, it is incompatible with human responsibility, Rom_9:19. To the former the apostle answers, first, God claims distinctly in his word this prerogative, Rom_9:15 : and secondly, he obviously exercises it, as is seen in the dispensations of his providence, Rom_9:17. Here again the sense is so plain that commentators of all classes agree in their interpretations. Thus Meyer says, God does not act unjustly in his sovereign choice; since he claims for himself in the Scripture the liberty to favor or to harden, whom he will.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. As it is written, Jacob I loved, etc. He confirms, by a still stronger testimony, how much the heavenly answer, given to Rebecca, availed to his present purpose, that is, that the spiritual condition of both was intimated by the dominion of Jacob and servitude of Esau, and also that Jacob obtained this favor through the kindness of God, and not through his own merit. Then this testimony of the prophet shows the reason why the Lord conferred on Jacob the primogeniture: and it is taken from the first chapter of Malachi, where the Lord, reproaching the Jews for their ingratitude, mentions his former kindness to them, — “I have loved you,” he says; and then he refers to the origin of his love, — “Was not Esau the brother of Jacob?” as though he said, — “What privilege had he, that I should prefer him to his brother? None whatever. It was indeed an equal right, except that by the law of nature the younger ought to have served the elder; I yet chose the one, and rejected the other; and I was thus led by my mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works. I therefore chose you for my people, that I might show the same kindness to the seed of Jacob; but I rejected the Edomites, the progeny of Esau. Ye are then so much the worse, inasmuch as the remembrance of so great a favor cannot stimulate you to adore my majesty.” Now, though earthly blessings are there recorded, which God had conferred on the Israelites, it is not yet right to view them but as symbols of his benevolence: for where the wrath of God is, there death follows; but where his love is, there is life.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

13. As it is written] In Mal_1:2-3. Nearly verbatim from LXX.—The prophet is there appealing, in God’s name, to the people to remember His distinguishing and unmerited choice of Jacob over Esau to inherit the land. Not the quotation merely, but the context, is to the purpose here.

have I loved] Lit., and better, did I love; when I gave him the preference. So below, did I hate.

hated] Cp. Gen_29:33; Gen_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 Mat_10:37; Luk_14:26; Joh_12:25.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What shall we say then?.... A form of expression the apostle frequently uses, when he is about to introduce an objection, as is what follows:

is there unrighteousness with God? This is not an objection of his own, but of an adversary, which he takes up and returns an answer to; and which itself greatly serves to settle and confirm the true sense and meaning of the apostle in this place; as that it could not be, that election and rejection of men should proceed according to their merits; or that God chooses some for their good works, and rejects others for their wicked works, because no man could ever pretend to charge God with unrighteousness on this account; nor could it be that God chose and rejected men, upon a foresight of their good and evil works, for this also would not be liable to such an objection; nor that the Jews, having made the law of none effect by their traditions, despised the Gospel, crucified Christ, and persecuted his disciples, are therefore cast off, and the Gentiles, being obedient both in word and deed, are received into favour, for this likewise would not be chargeable with unrighteousness by men; but that two persons, as Jacob and Esau, and the same may be said of all mankind, being upon an equal foot, not being yet born, nor having done either good or evil, an inequality, a difference is made between them, by God himself; the one is chose, the other passed by: now in this is some show, some pretence at least, for such an objection; nor is it any wonder to meet with it from the carnal reason of men; wherefore we may be sure that the latter, and not either of the former, is the true sense of the apostle; since only this, and not either of them, is liable to such an exception: let us attend to the apostle's answer, which is "first" in his usual manner, by way of detestation and abhorrence,

God forbid: God is not unrighteous in his nature; nor in any of his ways and works; nor in this, in choosing some and rejecting others. There is no unrighteousness with God in that part of predestination, commonly called election; for this is neither an act of justice, nor injustice; not of justice, but of grace and mercy; of undue and undeserved grace and mercy, of mere sovereign grace and mercy; and is what God was not obliged to do; wherefore to choose some and not others, is no act of injustice; for injustice is a violation of justice, which has no place in this affair: if it is an act of injustice, it must be either to them that are chosen, or to them that are not; not to them that are chosen, to them it is an act of favour and good will, they are chosen to grace and glory, to holiness here, and happiness hereafter; not to them that are passed by, because they had no right nor claim to the grace and glory, which by this act are denied them, and therefore no injustice is done them. Every prince may choose his own ministers and favourites, and who he will have of his privy council, without doing any injustice, to those he takes no notice of; every man may choose his own company who he will converse with, without doing any wrong to such he does not think fit to admit to an intimacy with him; and yet men are not willing to allow the Most High that liberty, which every man daily takes, and may lawfully make use of: nor is there any unrighteousness with God in the other branch of predestination, commonly called reprobation, which is either negative or positive; negative reprobation is the act of preterition, or God's passing by, leaving, taking no notice of some, while he chose others: now the objects of this act are to be considered either in the pure, or in the corrupt mass; if in the pure mass, i.e. of creatureship, which seems to be the apostle's meaning, as being not yet created, made, or born, and having done neither good nor evil; no injustice is done by this act, for as it found them, it left them; it put nothing into them, no evil in them, nor appointed them to any, of any kind; man after, and notwithstanding this act, came into the world an upright creature, and became sinful, not by virtue of this act, but by their own inventions: or if considered as in the corrupt mass, as fallen creatures, sunk into sin and misery, which is the case of all mankind; since God was not obliged to save any of the sinful race of men, whose destruction was of themselves, it could be no injustice to pass by some of them in this condition, when he chose others; for if it would have been no injustice to have condemned all, as he did the angels that sinned, whom he spared not, it can be no act of injustice in him, to leave some of them in that condition, which sin had brought them into, whilst he has mercy on others; unless to have mercy on any, can be thought to be an act of injustice: what unrighteousness can there be in this procedure, any more than in drowning the world of the ungodly, whilst Noah and his family were saved in the ark? or in raining showers of fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities of the plain, whilst Lot, his wife, and two daughters, were delivered from the same? Positive reprobation is the decree, or appointment to damnation: now as God damns no man but for sin, so he has decreed to damn no man but for sin; and if it is no unrighteousness in him to damn men for sin, as to be sure it is not, so it can be no unrighteousness in him to decree to damn any for it: upon the whole it appears, that whatever show, upon first sight, there may be for a charge of unrighteousness against such a procedure of the Divine Being, there is no real foundation for it. The objection is to be treated with abhorrence and indignation.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Ver. 13. Esau have I hated] i.e. I have not loved him, but passed him by; and this preterition is properly opposed to election.

As it is written] Malachi is alleged to explain Moses. It was rightly observed by Pareus (in the close of his Comment upon Genesis) that all the following Scriptures are but expositions of that first book. {a}

{a} Quicquid dehinc scripturarum est, huius est commentarius.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As it is written - Mal 1:2-3. That is, the distribution of favors is on the principle advanced by the prophet, and is in accordance with the declaration that God had in fact loved the one and hated the other.

Jacob - This refers, doubtless, to the posterity of Jacob.

Have I loved - I have shown affection for that people; I have bestowed on them great privileges and blessings, as proofs of attachment. I have preferred Jacob to Esau.

Esau - The descendants of Esau, the Edomites; see Mal 1:4.

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 Mal 1:3,” And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;” compare Jer 49:17-18; Eze 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 Gen 29:30-31; Pro 13:24, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;” Mat 6:24, “No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other,” etc.; Luk 14:26, “if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The foregoing oracle is expounded by another, taken out of Mal 1:2,3; see the annotations there. Because the foregoing passage of Esau’s serving Jacob doth not seem so full and clear, to betoken the election of Jacob, and the rejection of Esau, in the purpose of God, therefore the apostle brings this place to explain the former; and proves that the service or subjection of Esau to Jacob, was accompanied with God’s eternal and undeserved love of the one, and his just and righteous hatred of the other. There are some, that by Esau and Jacob do understand their posterity, and not their persons; that say, the love and hatred of God, in the forecited text, doth only or chiefly respect temporal things; God loved Jacob, i.e. he gave him the Land of Promise; but hated Esau, i.e. he gave him a dry and barren country, and made his mountain waste: that by God’s hating Esau, is only meant he loved him less than Jacob, &c. Such should consider, that the scope of the apostle is to show, that some are the children of God, and of the promise, and not others; and they must not make him cite testimonies out of the Old Testament impertinently. Much is written pro and con upon this argument. But I remember, he that writes a commentary must not too far involve himself in controversy.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13. Esau… hated—Paul quotes the words of Malachi, uttered centuries afterward, concerning the Edomites, (under the name of Esau,) showing how the divine prediction is verified. The strong word hated needs no softening, as appears from the proof given of the hatred, namely, the positive devastation of his “heritage.” (Mal_1:3.) The meaning ascribed by some commentators to the word, to love less, is hardly sustainable. Edom, as a prospective people, was foreseen as persistently Godless, and so divinely hated. And then, just as Israel personally represents, first, his natural seed, the Jews; and, second, the visible Jewish Church; and, third, his spiritual seed, by faith, Jew or Gentile, so does Esau represent, not only Edom external, but also the Edom spiritual, and reprobate by unfaith, whether descended from Esau or not, who, as such, are the just objects of divine hate. All this implies not that the evil of the Edomites or of Esau was decreed or necessitated, or that it secured the personal damnation of Esau or of any particular Edomite. Esau may have been saved; salvation was in reach of every Edomite.

On the above paragraph we may note: 1. The apostle sustains from beginning to end the doctrine that, even in patriarchal times, faith was the underlying condition of acceptance with God, and that, therefore, the promise of God in its true import, amid its various forms, has been completely fulfilled in the Christian Church notwithstanding the rejection of unbelieving Judaism. The train of thought in the paragraph thus lies in line with the train of thought through the entire epistle. 2. We are thus delivered from the absurdity of denying, as Barnes, that “God sees any thing in the individuals as ground for his choice” If a particular choice, or, what is the same thing, a choice of a particular object, presents in itself no ground of preference differencing it from millions of others, then it is a choice without a motive; and so (as Calvinistic writers themselves strenuously maintain) is no choice or election at all, but a mere chance stumbling upon the object. 3. On the words not of works, in Rom_9:11, Mr. Barnes says: “What the reasons are for choosing to eternal life he has not revealed, but he has revealed that it is not on account of their works, either performed or foreseen.” And has he not as plainly revealed that it is on account of our faith as that it is not on account of our works? The very purpose of 30-33 (besides hundreds of other texts) is to declare that it is on account of faith the Christian is accepted, and of unfaith that the unbelieving Jew is rejected. 4. That God’s choice of his elect is not “from nothing in them,” or for any mysterious unsearchable reason, is clear from God’s own word touching Abraham, the typical specimen, according to Paul, of all the elect. The reason God assigns for electing Abraham is given in Gen_18:18-19 : “I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they will keep the way of Jehovah, to do justice and judgment,” etc. Abraham was elected, therefore, for foreseen faith, evidenced by works. 5. The maxim of Augustine, “God does not choose us because we believe, but that we may believe,” is but half the truth. God does choose us, both because we believe and that we may believe. He chooses us from antecedent justifying faith unto a future persevering, fructifying, and glorifying faith. Our eternal election is based upon the antecedent eternal foresight of our free, excellent, yet non-meritorious faith, (see note on Rom_8:29,)—non-meritorious in the sense of not meriting so great an election. (See note on Rom_3:24.)

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 13-24. God"s sovereignty and man"s responsibility.

Here is one of the most difficult problems touched on in the whole of this Epistle, and one of the most difficult problems in the whole range of human thought. It cannot be said that the apostle fully explains it. He does indeed suggest arguments which are sufficient to meet some of its difficulties. But how to reconcile human responsibility with Divine sovereignty remains a problem as difficult as that of reconciling the existence of evil with the power and righteousness and benevolence of a merciful God. Our wisdom is to bow with reverence in presence of these great mysteries, and to say, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

I GOD"S SOVEREIGNTY.

1. God"s sovereignty is exercised in righteousness. The objection is commonly made that to choose some and reject others would be an unrighteous act on the part of the Almighty. But God"s choice of any one is not on the ground of deserving at all, but on the ground of his own mercy. It is not of works, but of grace. "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I wilt have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (vers. 15, 16). God"s choice of the Jews was free, and therefore he was free to reject them and to choose others. But if the Jews were rejected, they were rejected because of their own unbelief.

2. God"s sovereignty is exercised in mercy. While the apostle takes a high view of the sovereignty of God, and asks, "Hath not the potter power over the clay?" (ver. 21), yet at the same time he shows that God uses that sovereignty, not with arbitrary power, but with mercy. "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known that is, God who must vindicate his own character, who will by no means clear the guilty, who must punish sin, what if he nevertheless endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" In other words, "You who would question the justice of God"s dealings with Israel forget how much endurance and patience and forbearance he exhibited towards them." If we consider God"s dealings with ourselves must we not all admit that he has not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities?

II MAN"S RESPONSIBILITY. Another very common objection to the doctrines of Divine sovereignty and election is that, if these be true, man is not responsible. "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" (ver. 19). But here comes in the great truth of the freedom of the will. Human responsibility is there, whether we admit it or not. We are free agents, to choose between the good and the evil. Our conscience tells us this when it accuses us of guilt. The very condemnation of conscience is in itself a testimony to the freedom of the will and human responsibility. There would be no accusing voice within if we did not feel that we were free agents. Daniel Webster, the great American statesman, was once dining with a few friends in New York. In the course of the evening he was asked by the gentleman who sat next to him, "Mr. Webster, what is the greatest thought that has ever occupied your mind?" Pausing for a moment, he replied, "The most solemn thought that ever occupied my mind is the thought of man"s responsibility to God. C.H.I.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As it is written - With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees. I have loved Jacob - With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob. And I have, comparatively, hated Esau - That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe,

1. This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau

2. Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. He now introduces and refutes an objection. Mal. i, 2, 3.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

13. “As has been written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” This is the language of Mal 1:2-3, five hundred years after the time of these men. Hence it does not apply to these men personally, but representatively to Israel, a godly people, and the Edomites, very wicked idolators.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Even as it is written [ Mal_1:2-3 ], Jacob loved, but Esau hated . [Expositors of Calvinistic bias insist upon the full, literal meaning of "hatred" in this passage; but Hodge, whose leaning that way is so decided that he can see no more injustice in eternal than in temporal election (he apparently never weighed the words of our Savior at Luk_16:25 ; Luk_12:48 ; and kindred passages which show that temporal favors which are indeed bestowed arbitrarily are taken into account to form the basis of just judgment in the bestowal of eternal favors), is nevertheless too fair-minded an exegete to be misled here. He says: "It is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less favor. Thus, in Gen_29:33 ; Leah says she was hated by her husband; while in the preceding verse the same idea is expressed by saying, 'Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah' ( Mat_6:24 ; Luk_14:26 ). 'If a man come to me and hate not his father and mother, etc.' ( Joh_12:25 )." As this ninth of Romans is the stronghold of Calvinism, the arsenal of that disappearing remnant who believe in eternal foreordination according to the absolute decree of the sovereign will of God, we feel that a word ought to be said about the doctrinal trend of its sections. We therefore submit a few points. 1. It is rather odd that this chapter should be used to prove salvation by election when, so far as it bears on election at all, it is wholly an effort to justify God in casting off an elect people (Jews) and choosing a non-elect people (Gentiles). If, therefore, the chapter as a whole teaches anything as to arbitrary election, it is plainly this, that those who depend upon God to show partiality in electing some and condemning others, will either be disappointed as were the Jews, or surprised as were the Gentiles, for election will never work out as they suppose. For, after showing favor to Abraham's seed for nineteen hundred years, God adjusted the balances, and, turning from Jews to Gentiles, made the first last, and the last first; the elect, non-elect; and the non-elect, elect. And now, the non-elect, having enjoyed the favors and privileges for a like term of nineteen hundred years, are now being called to account, and will, in their turn, be cut off. But if they are, it will be wholly their own fault, just as the rejection nineteen hundred years ago was by Israel's fault, and not by arbitrary decree of God. 2. Moreover, Paul is not discussing salvation, or foreordination as to eternity. There is not one word on that subject in the entire ninth chapter. The apostle is introducing no new doctrine, no unheard-of and strange enormity like Calvinism. "The difficulty," as Olshausen aptly puts it, "and obscurity of the whole section before us are diminished when we reflect that it by no means contains anything peculiar; since the same ideas which so startle us in reading it, are also expressed throughout the whole of the Old as well as the New Testament. It is only their conciseness, their bold and powerful utterance, that lends them, as it were, an unprecedented appearance here." The apostle is speaking of the bestowal of temporal advantages and benefits, and is showing that these, even when relating to Messianic privileges, are bestowed according to God's free will--they have to be! They are like other earthly benefits or privileges; for instance, the distinction as to new-born souls. It is God alone who must determine how each shall enter the world, whether as of the white, brown, red, black or yellow race, whether among the rich or poor. So also, rising a step higher, whether a soul shall have a perfect or a defective brain to think with, and whether it shall enter a Christian or a pagan home. Now, as God gave a promise to Eve, the same law of necessity made it compulsory that he choose arbitrarily what household should be the repository of that promise and thus perpetuate a lively expectation of its fulfillment. God therefore first chose the Chaldees among the nations, then, as second choice, he elected Abraham among the Chaldees; third, he chose Isaac from Abraham's seed, and, fourth, Jacob from Isaac's offspring. Up to this time there was a marked separation, both spiritual and geographical, between the elect and the non-elect, so that there was no confusion in anybody's mind as to the inherent exclusiveness of election. But with Jacob a change came. His sons all dwell together, and during his lifetime till his last sickness no election was announced as to them until on his death-bed Jacob gave Judah the pre-eminence ( Gen_49:8-12 ). But Moses passes over this pre-eminence ( Deu_33:7 ) and there was no segregation of Judah. In fact, other tribes seem to have overshadowed Judah in importance, notably that of Levi, all of whom were set apart as Levites for God's service, and of which tribe also came Moses the lawgiver and Aaron the father of the priesthood. Moreover, many of the great judges came from other tribes, and the house of Benjamin furnished the first king. This community of interest, this privilege of enjoying the appurtenances and collaterals of election, should have taught Israel that the blessing promised was greater, wider and more gracious than the mere privilege of being the repository of that blessing, but, instead, it begot in them the mistaken idea that all the twelve tribes were elect. So, indeed, they were as to possessing the land, but they were not elect as to being repositories of the Messianic promise, which honor was first limited to Judah ( 1Ch_5:2 ) and afterwards to the house of David ( 2Sa_7:12 ; Mic_5:2 ; Joh_7:42 ). Now, this is what Paul is discussing. With him it is a question of fixing a promise so that men may watch for its fulfillment in a certain race and family--a promise which, when fulfilled, brings blessings and benefits not confined to any race or family, but open and free to all who accept them, and denied to all who refuse and reject them, yea, even to the very race and family which have been the age-long repositories of the promise. And the point of Paul's whole argument is this: As God was absolutely free to choose who should be the repositories of the promise, so is he absolutely free to fix the terms by which men shall enjoy the blessings promised, even if those terms (because of rebellion against them on the part of the repositories) work out the failure of the repositories to enjoy the blessings so long held by them in the form of unfulfilled promise. And what has all this to do with electing infants to eternal damnation? No more than the election which makes one child black and the other white, when both are born the same moment. In short, no temporal election, no matter how blessed, includes salvation to the elect or necessitates damnation upon the non-elect, for it is apparent to all that the election of the Gentiles as repositories of Christian truth does not save half of them, and the rejection of the Jews from this holy office damns none of them. Salvation is accorded the Jew who believes as freely as it is to the Gentile, and the unbelieving Gentile is damned with the unbelieving Jew, and rests under heavier condemnation because he sins against greater temporal privileges and advantages. In either case the temporal advantage or disadvantage will be duly considered in forming a just judgment ( Luk_12:48 ). 3. It should be noted that Paul proves God's right at any time to limit his promise. Thus the blessing to Abraham's seed was first "nakedly and generally expressed," as Chalmers puts it. Then it was limited to one son, Isaac. Again it was limited to Isaac's son, Jacob. Therefore, as God established his right of limiting the promise to those whom he chose in the inner circle of the promise, so he could in the gospel age limit the promise to spiritual to the exclusion of fleshly seed. This is not just what he did, but this is what he established his right to do, for if he could disinherit Ishmael after he had apparently obtained vested rights, and if he disinherited Esau before he was born, there was no limit to his right to disinherit, providing only that he kept within the promise and chose some one of Abraham's seed, or the seed of some one of his descendants to whom a like covenant was given. Compare his offer to make Moses the head of a new people (Exo 32:10), which he was free to do, not having confirmed the rights in Judah pronounced by Jacob-- Gen_49:8-12 ].

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13. As it is written. In Mal. 1:2, 3. The language of Malachi, in its connection, shows that this is spoken of the two races. Verse 3 says, “I hated Esau and laid waste his mountains and his heritage.” This was not true of Esau as a person, but was true of his descendants. One race was loved and the other race hated. God has then asserted his right to freely choose or to reject races. There is not the slightest hint of electing some persons to eternal salvation and others to damnation.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

13. Mal 1:2, where the words describe the several fates of Israel and Edom, the disappearance of the latter and the desolation of their land being contrasted with the wideness of GOD’S love for Israel. That is to say, history confirms the selection: Israel, with all its faults, served GOD’S purpose; Edom did not.

The object, then, of these references is to show the character and object of the call of GOD—it is a choice of instruments for a definite purpose; and the call has not failed because of the failure of individuals, provided that there are still real instruments of His purpose doing His service (Rom 9:21), and forming a remnant through which His work is carried on (27, Rom 11:5). That S. Paul was combating an actual position—of the irreversible validity of the call of. Israel after the flesh—is shown by S. H. p. 249. But the question arises as to the justice of GOD in this discrimination; and this question is handled in the next section.

καθάπερ γέγραπται. The words of the prophet are quoted to show that the actual course of history bore out the statement made to Rebecca. Jacob and his descendants had proved to be objects of GOD’S love, Esau and his descendants, the Edomites, objects of GOD’S hate. Malachi, as Genesis, refers to the nations.

ἐμίσησα. Only here in N.T., and here as a quotation, is the verb used to describe GOD’S attitude to a man or men; cf. Heb 1:9; Rev 2:6. S. Paul uses the natural language of the Jew, in enforcing an argument based upon Jewish conceptions. It is essentially not Christian language. The truth underlying it is the necessary hatefulness of the character and conduct embodied in the history of Edom.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἡσαῦ ἐμίσησα. St. Paul concludes his argument by a second quotation taken freely from the LXX of Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3 οὐκ ἀδελφὸς ἦν Ἠσαῦ τοῦ Ἰακώβ; λέγει Κύριος· καὶ ἠγάπησα τὸν Ἰακώβ, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα.

What is the exact object with which these words are introduced? (1) The greater number of commentators (so Fri. Weiss Lipsius), consider that they simply give the explanation of God’s conduct. ‘God chose the younger brother and rejected the elder not from any merit on the part of the one or the other, but simply because He loved the one and hated the other.’ The aorists then refer to the time before the birth of the two sons; there is no reference to the peoples descended from either of them, and St. Paul is represented as vindicating the independence of the Divine choice in relation to the two sons of Isaac.

(2) This explanation has the merit of simplicity, but it is probably too simple. (i) In the first place, it is quite clear that St. Paul throughout has in his mind in each case the descendants as well as the ancestors, the people who are chosen and rejected as well as the fathers through whom the choice is made (cf. ver. 7). In fact this is necessary for his argument. He has to justify God’s dealing, not with individuals, but with the great mass of Jews who have been rejected. (ii) Again, if we turn to the original contexts of the two quotations in vv. 12, 13 there can be no doubt that in both cases there is reference not merely to the children but to their descendants. Gen 25:23 ‘Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated even from thy bowels;’ Mal 1:3 ‘But Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith,’ &c. There is nothing in St. Paul’s method of quotation which could prevent him from using the words in a sense somewhat different from the original; but when the original passage in both cases is really more in accordance with his method and argument, it is more reasonable to believe that he is not narrowing the sense. (iii) As will become more apparent later, St. Paul’s argument is to show that throughout God’s action there is running a ‘purpose according to election.’ He does not therefore wish to say that it is merely God’s love or hate that has guided Him.

Hence it is better to refer the words, either directly or in-directly, to the choice of the nation as well as the choice of the founder (so Go. Gif. Liddon). But a further question still remains as to the use of the aorist. We may with most commentators still refer it to the original time when the choice was made: when the founders of the nations were in the womb, God chose one nation and rejected another because of his love and hatred. But it is really better to take the whole passage as corroborating the previous verse by an appeal to history. ‘God said the elder shall serve the younger, and, as the Prophet has shown, the whole of subsequent history has been an illustration of this. Jacob God has selected for His love; Esau He has hated: He has given his mountains for a desolation and his heritage to the jackals.’

ἠγάπησα … ἐμίσησα. There is no need to soften these words as some have attempted, translating ‘loved more’ and ‘loved less.’ They simply express what had been as a matter of fact and was always looked upon by the Jews as God’s attitude towards the two nations. So Thanchuma, p. 32. 2 (quoted by Wetstein, ii. 438) Tu invenies omnes transgressiones, quas odit Deus S. B. fuisse in Esavo.

How very telling would be the reference to Esau and Edom an acquaintance with Jewish contemporary literature will show. Although in Deu 23:7 it was said ‘Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother,’ later events had obliterated this feeling of kinship; or perhaps rather the feeling of relationship had exasperated the bitterness which the hostility of the two nations had aroused. At any rate the history is one of continuous hatred on both sides. So in Psa 137:7 and in the Greek Esdras the burning of the temple is ascribed to the Edomites (see also Obadiah and Jer 49:7-22). Two extracts from Apocryphal works will exhibit this hatred most clearly. In Enoch lxxxix. 11-12 (p. 233, ed. Charles) the patriarchal history is symbolized by different animals: ‘But that white bull (Abraham) which was born amongst them begat a wild ass (Ishmael) and a white bull with it (Isaac), and the wild ass multiplied. But that bull which was born from him begat a black wild boar (Esau) and a white sheep (Jacob); and that wild boar begat many boars, but that sheep begat twelve sheep.’ Here Esau is represented by the most detested of animals, the pig. So in Jubilees xxxvii. 22 sq. (trans. Charles) the following speech is characteristically put into the mouth of Esau: ‘And thou too (Jacob) dost hate me and my children for ever, and there is no observing the tie of brotherhood with thee. Hear these words which I declare unto thee: if the boar can change its skin and make its bristles as soft as wool: or if it can cause horns to sprout forth on its head like the horns of a stag or of a sheep, then I will observe the tie of brotherhood with thee, for since the twin male offspring were separated from their mother, thou hast not shown thyself a brother to me. And if the wolves make peace with the lambs so as not to devour or rob them, and if their hearts turn towards them to do good, then there will be peace in my heart towards thee. And if the lion becomes the friend of the ox, and if he is bound under one yoke with him and ploughs with him and make peace with him, then I will make peace with thee. And when the raven becomes white as the raza (a large white bird), then I know that I shall love thee and make peace with thee. Thou shalt be rooted out and thy son shall be rooted out and there shall be no peace for thee.’ (See also Jos Bell. Jud. IV. iv.1, 2; Hausrath, New Testament Times, vol. i. pp. 67, 68, Eng. Trans.)

The Divine Election

St. Paul has set himself to prove that there was nothing in the promise made to Abraham, by which God had ‘pledged Himself to Israel’ (Gore, Studia Biblica, iii. 40), and bound Himself to allow all those who were Abraham’s descendants to inherit these promises. He proves this by showing that in two cases, as was recognized by the Jews themselves, actual descendants from Abraham had been excluded. Hence he deduces the general principle, ‘There was from the first an element of inscrutable selectiveness in God’s dealings within the race of Abraham’ (Gore, ib.). The inheritance of the promise is for those whom God chooses, and is not a necessary privilege of natural descent. The second point which he raises, that this choice is independent of human merit, he works out further in the following verses.

On the main argument it is sufficient at present to notice that it was primarily an argumentum ad hominem and as such was absolutely conclusive against those to whom it was addressed. The Jews prided themselves on being a chosen race; they prided themselves especially on having been chosen while the Ishmaelites and the Edomites (whom they hated) had been rejected. St. Paul analyzes the principle on which the one race was chosen and the other rejected, and shows that the very same principles would perfectly justify God’s action in further dealing with it. God might choose some of them and reject others, just as he had originally chosen them and not the other descendants of Abraham.

That this idea of the Divine Election was one of the most fundamental in the O.T. needs no illustration. We find it in the Pentateuch, as Deu 7:6 ‘For thou art an holy people unto the Lord, thy God: the Lord, thy God, hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are on the face of the earth:’ in the Psalms, as Psa 135:4 ‘For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure’: in the Prophets, as Isa 41:8, Isa 41:9 ‘But thou Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend; thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth and called thee from the corners thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.’ And this idea of Israel being the elect people of God is one of those which were seized and grasped most tenaciously by contemporary Jewish thought. But between the conception as held by St. Paul’s contemporaries and the O. T. there were striking differences. In the O. T. it is always looked upon as an act of condescension and love of God for Israel, it is for this reason that He redeemed them from bondage, and purified them from sin (Deu 7:8; Deu 10:15; Isa 44:21, Isa 44:22); although the Covenant is specified it is one which involves obligations on Israel (Deu 7:9, &c.): and the thought again and again recurs that Israel has thus been chosen not merely for their own sake but as an instrument in the hand of God, and not merely to exhibit the Divine power, but also for the benefit of other nations (Gen 12:3; Isa 66:18, &c.). But among the Rabbis the idea of Election has lost all its higher side. It is looked on as a covenant by which God is bound and over which He seems to have no control. Israel and God are bound in an indissoluble marriage (Shemoth rabba l. 51): the holiness of Israel can never be done away with, even although Israel sin, it still remains Israel (Sanhedrin 55): the worst Israelite is not profane like the heathen (Bammidbar rabba 17): no Israelite can go into Gehenna (Pesikta 38 a): all Israelites have their portion in the world to come (Sanhedrin 1), and much more to the same effect. (See Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 51, &c., to whom are due most of the above references.)

And this belief was shared by St. Paul’s contemporaries. ‘The planting of them is rooted for ever: they shall not be plucked out all the days of the heaven: for the portion of the Lord and the inheritance of God is Israel’ (Ps. Sol. 14:3); ‘Blessed art thou of the Lord, O Israel, for evermore’ (ib. 19:41); ‘Thou didst choose the seed of Abraham before all the nations, and didst set thy name before us, O Lord: and thou wilt abide among us for ever’ (ib. 9:17, 18). While Israel is always to enjoy the Divine mercy, sinners, i. e. Gentiles, are to be destroyed before the face of the Lord (ib. 12:7, 8). So again in 4 Ezra, they have been selected while Esau has been rejected (3:16). And this has not been done as part of any larger Divine purpose; Israel is the end of the Divine action; for Israel the world was created (6:55); it does not in any way exist for the benefit of other nations, who are of no account; they are as spittle, as the dropping from a vessel (6:55, 56). More instances might be quoted (Jubilees xix.16; xxii. 9; Apoc. Baruch xlviii. 20, 23; lxxii. 3), but the above are enough to illustrate the position St. Paul is combating. The Jew believed that his race was joined to God by a covenant which nothing could dissolve, and that he and his people alone were the centre of all God’s action in the creation and government of the world.

This idea St. Paul combats. But it is important to notice how the whole of the O. T. conception is retained by him, but broadened and illuminated. Educated as a Pharisee, he had held the doctrine of election with the utmost tenacity. He had believed that his own nation had been chosen from among all the kingdoms of the earth. He still holds the doctrine, but the Christian revelation has given a meaning to what had been a narrow privilege, and might seem an arbitrary choice. His view is now widened. The world, not Israel, is the final end of God’s action. This is the key to the explanation of the great difficulty the rejection of Israel. Already in the words that he has used above ἡ κατʼ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις he has shown the principle which he is working out. The mystery which had been hidden from the foundation of the world has been revealed (Rom 16:26). There is still a Divine ἐκλογή, but it is now realized that this is the result of a πρόθεσις, a universal Divine purpose which had worked through the ages on the principle of election, which was now beginning to be revealed and understood, and which St. Paul will explain and vindicate in the chapters that follow (cf. Eph 1:4, Eph 1:11; Eph 3:11).

We shall follow St. Paul in his argument as he gradually works it out. Meanwhile it is convenient to remember the exact point he has reached. He has shown that God has not been untrue to any promise in making a selection from among the Israel of his own day; He is only acting on the principle He followed in selecting the Israelites and rejecting the Edomites and Ishmaelites. By the introduction of the phrase ἡ κατʼ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις St. Paul has also suggested the lines on which his argument will proceed.

THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DIVINE JUSTICE

9:14-29. But secondly it may be urged: ‘Surely then God is unjust.’ No, if you turn to the Scriptures you will see that He has the right to confer His favours on whom He will (as He did on Moses) or to withhold them (as He did from Pharaoh) (vv. 14-18).

If it is further urged, Why blame me if I like Pharaoh reject God’s offer, and thus fulfil His will? I reply, It is your part not to cavil but to submit. The creature may not complain against the Creator, any more than the vessel against the potter (vv. 19-21). Still less when God’s purpose has been so beneficent, and that to a body so mixed as this Christian Church of ours, chosen not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24);—as indeed was foretold (vv. 25-29).

14But there is a second objection which may be raised. ‘If what you say is true that God rejects one and accepts another apart from either privilege of birth or human merit, is not His conduct arbitrary and unjust?’ What answer shall we make to this? Surely there is no injustice with God. Heaven forbid that I should say so. I am only laying down clearly the absolute character of the Divine sovereignty. 15The Scripture has shown us clearly the principles of Divine action in two typical and opposed incidents: that of Moses exhibiting the Divine grace, that of Pharaoh exhibiting the Divine severity. Take the case of Moses. When he demanded a sign of the Divine favour, the Lord said (Exo 33:17-19) ‘Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name … I will make all my goodness pass before thee; I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.’ 16These words imply that grace comes to man not because he is determined to attain it, not because he exerts himself for it as an athlete in the races, but because he has found favour in God’s sight, and God shows mercy towards him: they prove in fact the perfect spontaneousness of God’s action. 17So in the case of Pharaoh. The Scripture (in Exo 9:16) tells us that at the time of the plagues of Egypt these words were addressed to him: ‘I have given thee thy position and place, that I may show forth in thee my power, and that my name might be declared in all the earth.’ 18Those very Scriptures then to which you Jews so often and so confidently appeal, show the absolute character of God’s dealings with men. Both the bestowal of mercy or favour and the hardening of the human heart depend alike upon the Divine will.

19But this leads to a third objection. If man’s destiny be simply the result of God’s purpose, if his hardness of heart is a state which God Himself causes, why does God find fault? His will is being accomplished. There is no resistance being offered. Obedience or disobedience is equally the result of His purpose. 20Such questions should never be asked. Consider what is involved in your position as man. A man’s relation to God is such that whatever God does the man has no right to complain or object or reply. The Scriptures have again and again represented the relation of God to man under the image of a potter and the vessels that he makes. Can you conceive (to use the words of the prophet Isaiah) the vessel saying to its maker: ‘Why did you make me thus?’ 21The potter has complete control over the lump of clay with which he works, he can make of it one vessel for an honourable purpose, another for a dishonourable purpose. This exactly expresses the relation of man to his Maker. God has made man, made him from the dust of the earth. He has as absolute control over His creature as the potter has. No man before Him has any right, or can complain of injustice. He is absolutely in God’s hands. 22This is God’s sovereignty; even if He had been arbitrary we could not complain. But what becomes of your talk of injustice when you consider how He has acted? Although a righteous God would desire to exhibit the Divine power and wrath in a world of sin; even though He were dealing with those who were fit objects of His wrath and had become fitted for destruction; yet He bore with them, full of long suffering for them, 23and with the purpose of showing all the wealth of His glory on those who are vessels deserving His mercy, whom as we have already shown He has prepared even from the beginning, 24a mercy all the greater when it is remembered that we whom He has called for these privileges are chosen not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles, Gentiles who were bound to Him by no covenant. Surely then there has been no injustice but only mercy.

25And remember finally that this Divine plan of which you complain is just what the prophets foretold. They prophesied the calling of the Gentiles. Hosea (1:10, and 2:23) described how those who were not within the covenant should be brought into it and called by the very name of the Jews under the old Covenant, ‘the people of God,’ ‘the beloved of the Lord,’ ‘the sons of the living God.’ 26And this wherever throughout the whole world they had been placed in the contemptuous position of being, as he expressed it, ‘no people.’ 27Equally do we find the rejection of Israel—all but a remnant of it—foretold. Isaiah (10:22) stated, ‘Even though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the seashore, yet it is only a remnant that shall be saved, 28for a sharp and decisive sentence will the Lord execute upon the earth. 29And similarly in an earlier chapter (1:9) he had foretold the complete destruction of Israel with the exception of a small remnant: ‘Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.’

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jacob - Esau. See Gen 25:23. Representing their respective nations, as often in the Old Testament. Num 23:7, 10, 23; Num 24:5; Jer 49:10; compare also the original of the citation, Mal 1:2, 3, the burden of the word of the Lord to Israel. Compare also Edom in ver. 4, synonymous with Esau in ver. 3; and Israel, ver. 5, synonymous with Jacob, ver. 2.

Hated [εμισησα] . The expression is intentionally strong as an expression of moral antipathy. Compare Mt 6:24; Luk 14:26. No idea of malice is implied of course.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 13. A second quotation, meant to confirm the first; it is taken from Mal 1:2-3. The conjunction as may be understood in two ways: either in the sense that God’s love to Jacob and His hatred to Esau were the cause of the subjection of the latter to the former; or it may be thought that Paul quotes this saying of Malachi as demonstrating by a striking fact in the later history of the two peoples the truth of the relation expressed in Rom 9:12. Malachi lived at a period when, in their return from exile, Israel had just received a marvellous proof of God’s protection, while Edom was still plunged in the desolation into which it had been thrown by its eastern conquerors. Beholding those ruins on the one side and this restoration on the other, Malachi proclaims, as a fact of experience, the twofold divine feeling of love and hatred which breaks forth in these opposite modes of treatment. I have loved and I have hated do not signify merely: I have preferred the one to the other; but: I have taken Jacob to be mine, while I have set aside Esau. Calvin here employs the two verbs assumere and repellere. God has made the one the depositary of His Messianic promise and of the salvation of the world, and denied to the other all co-operation in the establishment of His kingdom. And this difference of dealing is not accidental; it rests on a difference of feeling in God Himself. On the one hand, a union founded on moral sympathy; on the other, a rupture resulting from moral antipathy; on hating, comp. Luk 14:26 : “If any man hate not his father and mother..., and his own life”...

God’s love to Jacob is neither merited nor arbitrary. When we think of the patriarch’s many grave sins, when we think of Israel’s endless apostasies, it will be seen that merit cannot enter into the case. But when we take account of God’s prevision of the power of faith, and of its final triumph in that man and people (the foreknowing of Rom 8:29), it will be seen—as follows otherwise from the divine essence itself—that neither is the prerogative bestowed on Jacob arbitrary. As to Esau, let the three following facts be remarked in regard to the hatred of which he is the object:—1. In speaking of Jacob and Esau, either as men or nations, neither Genesis nor Malachi nor St. Paul have eternal salvation in view; the matter in question is the part they play regarded from the theocratic standpoint, as is proved by the word δουλεύειν, to serve. 2. Esau, though deprived of the promise and the inheritance, nevertheless obtained a blessing and an inheritance for himself and his descendants. 3. The national character inherited from the father of the race is not so impressed on his descendants that they cannot escape it. As there were in Israel many Edomites, profane hearts, there may also have been, as has been said, many Israelites, many spiritual hearts, in Edom. Comp. what is said of the wise men of Teman, Jer 49:7, and the very respectable personage Eliphaz (notwithstanding his error) in the Book of Job.

The two examples of exclusion, given in the persons of Ishmael and Esau, have served to prove a fact which Israel embraced with their whole heart: God’s right to endow them with privilege at the expense of the Arab (Ishmael) and Edomite (Esau) nations, by assigning to them in the history of redemption the preponderating part to which the right of primogeniture seemed to call those excluded. Now, if Israel approved the principle of divine liberty when it was followed in a way so strikingly in their favor, how could they repudiate it when it was turned against them!

To explain the apostle’s view, we have added at each step the explanatory ideas fitted to complete and justify his thought; this was the business of the commentator. But he himself has not done so; he has been content with referring to the biblical facts, setting forth thereby the great truth of God’s liberty. And hence this liberty, thus presented, might appear to degenerate into arbitrariness, and even into injustice. This gives rise to the objection which he puts in Rom 9:14, and treats down to Rom 9:24; this is the second part of this discussion: Does not liberty, such as thou claimest for God in His decrees and elections, do violence to His moral character, and especially to His justice? It is to this question that Rom 9:14-18 give answer; the apostle there proves that Scripture recognizes this liberty in God; and as it can ascribe to Him nothing unworthy of Him, it must be admitted that this liberty is indisputable. Then in Rom 9:19-24 he shows by a figure that the superiority of God to man should impose silence on the proud pretensions of the latter, and he applies this principle to the relation between God and Israel.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.