Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPaul Kretzmann Commentary - Romans 9:10 - 9:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
An additional example of rejection:
v. 10. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,
v. 11. (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth,)
v. 12. it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.
v. 13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
To give additional corroboration to his statements! Paul introduces another example from the history of the patriarchs: But not only this. The instance just cited is not the only one; Rebecca also furnishes evidence for the point in question. "In the former case it might be supposed that Isaac was chosen because he was the son of Sarah, a free woman, and the legitimate wife of Abraham, whereas Ishmael was the son of a maidservant. " (Hodge.) But here such a supposition would not hold. For Jacob and Esau had one father, one mother, and were twin sons, children of the same conception and birth. There was, therefore, only one point, humanly speaking, in which a preference might be shown, and that was by reason of the right of the firstborn. But this very factor was disregarded by God when it was said to Rebecca: The greater, the older, shall serve the smaller, the younger, Gen_25:21-26. By the will of God and through His power Jacob, the younger, representing the Jewish nation, received the promise of God, became the bearer of the Messianic prophecy, while Esau, the older, representing the Edomites, was not a member of the chosen people of God. This general statement regarding the preference of God and His deliberate choice is explained and placed into its relation to the argument of the apostle by three modifying clauses. The first is: For although they were not yet born, neither had done anything good or bad. This is for the information of people that were not acquainted with the situation and might therefore think that the decree of God was determined by the actions of the two sons. God in no way considered the natural condition or conduct of Esau and Jacob. The second explanation is: That the decree of God according to choice might remain. God had said to Rebecca that the older would serve the younger, in order that the purpose of God according to election might stand, be fulfilled and realized. God had firmly determined to accept Jacob's offspring as His people and to reveal to them His judgments and testimonies, according to which the Savior of the world should issue from Jacob. This was a selection, or choice; God chose the younger son of Rebecca for His purpose. Jacob, not Esau, was to be the progenitor of the people of God, was to transmit the promise of the inheritance, was to be the forefather of the Redeemer Himself. The third modifying clause is: Not of works, but of Him that called. The statement of God to Rebecca was not made on the basis of works, not in consideration of a future better conduct of the younger son, but solely by reason of Him that called, because God, in His sovereign freedom, chose to make Jacob the bearer of the promise; by His words to the mother, God installed Jacob in his office as patriarch. And the call of Jacob was the consequence, the realization, of the selection of God.
The truth thus brought out is further confirmed by a passage from the Old Testament Scriptures: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Mal_1:2-3. The special distinction which was conferred upon Jacob according to the sovereign will of God was denied to Esau. Scripture here speaks in accord with a man's manner of judging the situation; in the case of men such treatment as is here described would be the effect of love and hatred; with God it is the manifestation of gracious love in the one case and the withholding of the same in the other. God bestowed upon Jacob and his descendants the prerogative of His revelation and of His presence, according to which He accepted the Jews as His people and entrusted to them His Word and promise. The entire passage, therefore, does not refer to the election of grace unto salvation, but only to the relative position of the Israelites and the Edomites over against the history of salvation. Ishmael as well as Esau may very well have been saved; there is no passage in Scriptures which compels us to assume their final condemnation. But the general trend of Paul's argument stands and is confirmed by this historical reference. Esau, being excluded from the inheritance of the promise, offers evidence of the fact that not all Israelites that are descendants of Abraham are Israelites in the true sense of the word. And even as Jacob was chosen by God for his prominent position in the history of salvation without any merit or worthiness in himself, so the spiritual children of God, the believers, are chosen from the midst of redeemed humanity by the merciful election of God.