Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 9:10
And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;
10. And not only this ] Here a still stronger example of sovereign choice occurs. Isaac and Ishmael had only one parent in common; Jacob and Esau had both. In the former case, the choice of Isaac was declared only after Ishmael’s birth and childhood; in the latter, the choice of Jacob was declared while both brothers were in the womb. The Greek construction in Rom 9:10-12 is irregular, but perfectly clear.
by one ] In contrast to the divided parentage of Abraham’s sons.
our father Isaac ] Here named with emphasis, as shewing that even within the inner circle of promise (“In Isaac shall thy seed, &c.,”) there was still an election.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And not only this – Not only is the principle of making a distinction among the natural descendants of Abraham thus settled by the promise, but it is still further seen and illustrated in the birth of the two sons of Isaac. He had shown that the principle of thus making a distinction among the posterity of Abraham was recognised in the original promise, thus proving that all the descendants of Abraham were not of course to be saved; and he now proceeds to show that the principle was recognised in the case of his posterity in the family of Isaac. And he shows that it is not according to any natural principles that the selection was made; that he not only made a distinction between Jacob and Esau, but that he did it according to his good pleasure, choosing the younger to be the object of his favor, and rejecting the older, who, according to the custom of the times, was supposed to be entitled to special honor and rights. And in order to prove that this was done according to his own pleasure, he shows that the distinction was made before they were born; before they had formed any character; and, consequently, in such a way that it could not be pretended that it was in consequence of any works which they had performed.
But when Rebecca – The wife of Isaac; see Gen 25:21, Gen 25:23.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Rom 9:10-12
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by our Father Isaac.
The election of Jacob and the rejection of Esau
1. Not personal, but national.
2. Not to eternal salvation, but to earthly privileges.
3. Not determined by works, but by grace.
4. Not intended to establish the doctrine of unconditional election to eternal life and the predestination of others to eternal damnation, but the unconditional election of the Gentiles to the benefits of the gospel and the national rejection of the Jews. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
Lessons from the case of Esau and Jacob
1. As in Rebeecas womb there was a striving between Esau and Jacob, so in every true Christian there is a combating between corruption and grace; and as Esau is the elder, so is corruption.
2. As in Isaacs family there was a profane Esau as well as a godly Jacob, so is the visible Church a mixed company, as our Saviour teaches by divers parables. Examine how thou standest in the Church, whether as an Esau or as a Jacob.
3. Esau is Isaacs eldest son, yet rejected. Birth, degrees, and blood are to be regarded, and are especial favours of God, yet they further not election. As it was rather a disgrace for Esau to come of virtuous parents, because he was no better, so do thou account of thyself; then is the blood of thy famous ancestors thy credit when thou art like them in virtue. Better the honour of our families should begin than end in us.
4. Esau is disinherited, and yet God gave a law that the firstborn should not be deprived of his birthright, namely, without just and weighty cause. (Elnathan Parr, B.D.)
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.—
Gods sovereignty
1. He has the indisputable right to determine the conditions of individual life.
2. Exercises the right freely without reference to future conduct.
3. Does not thereby interfere with the possibility of personal salvation, but provides for it. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
Election: how to be regarded
The doctrine ought never to be a stumbling-block in the way of your entertaining the overtures of the gospel. Leave it to God Himself to harmonise those everlasting decrees, by which He hath distinguished between the elect and the reprobate, with His present declarations of goodwill to one and to all of the human family. Your business is to let the decrees alone, and to cast your joyful confidence upon the declarations. Should an earthly monarch send a message of friendship to your door, must you reject it either as unintelligible or unreal because you have not been instructed in all the mysteries of his government? Because you cannot comprehend the policy of his empire, must you therefore not receive the offered kindness which has come from him to your own dwelling-place? And ere you can appreciate the gift which he holds out for your single and specific acceptance, must you first be able to trace all the workings and all the ways of the vast, the varied, superintendence which belongs to him? It is truly so with God, who, although presiding over a management which embraces all worlds and reaches from everlasting to everlasting, has nevertheless sent to each individual amongst us the special intimation of His perfect willingness to admit us into favour; and must we, I ask, suspend our comfort and our confidence therein till we, the occupiers of one of the humblest tenements in creation, and only the creatures but of yesterday–till we shall have mastered the economy of this wondrous universe and scanned the counsels of eternity? (T. Chalmers, D.D.)
The means and end of predestination
Upon the principles of Christian predestination, you are still not less inconsistent; because you go about to separate two things which are inseparably joined together, viz., the end and the means which lead to it; and then you fly to the old threadbare objection of Papists, Quakers, and Arminians–if I am elected, I shall be saved, do what I will; if I am not elected, I must be damned, do what I can. Now, this is the abuse of the doctrine, but by no means the doctrine itself, holiness of heart and life being the middle link of that chain which connects Gods eternal decree with the execution of that decree in the salvation of all His elect. And if you can cast your eyes upon the Christian world in general, you will find that real practical religion is more to be found among those who adopt the Scripture plan of predestination than among those who reject it. But let us have recourse to a familiar illustration of the point in hand. When archbishop Chicheley founded All Souls College, in Oxford, he made a decree that they who in future times were founders kin should succeed to the fellowship of that college, in preference to all others. This decree is inviolable in the choice of the candidates; but I never heard of one that intended offering himself who reasoned after this manner: If I am founders kin, I must succeed, do what I will, or even whether I offer myself or not. No; but they all go about to prove their pedigree and relationship to the founder, and for this purpose they anxiously search the old book entitled Stemmata Chiciliana, and apply themselves diligently to their probation exercises, in order that no requisite may be wanting on their parts. Now, my dear–, produce your pedigree, and learn your exercise, and the thing is done. Take but the same pains (though surely you ought to take more) to prove your relationship to the great Founder of the universe, whose decree is that none shall partake of His spiritual blessings but those who bear a relationship to Him through faith in Jesus Christ; apply yourself to the study of that old book the Bible, from which alone you can trace your descent, and study your exercise as becomes a candidate for a heavenly fellowship with God and glorified spirits. Set about this in earnest, and I will venture my own soul upon the safety of yours; for though I cannot climb up into heaven to read Gods decree, yet I shall be very certain, from that middle link of the chain which is let down upon earth, that it is in your favour. (Sir Richard Hill, M.A., letter to a friend.)
The Divine call
The word calleth, when applied to moral agents, assumes the possession of free will. They are called, not compelled or necessitated. According to the nature of the case, a call may assume the form either of a summons or an invitation. It may sometimes be allied to a commandment, sometimes to an entreaty. In the case before us, where reference is to prerogative, which in its inner ethical content may be either welcomed and prized, or spurned and stamped under foot, the call may be essentially of the nature of a Divine invitation. Some of Gods greatest blessings He simply provides and confers without sending forth an invitation. To the enjoyment of others, He gives invitation, and, as it were, says, Ho, every one! come ye. Some such invitation is addressed to persons, some such to peoples. And in both cases invitation may pave the way for further and ulterior invitation. They who have, in the sense of accepting what has been proffered, and of keeping and prizing what they have got, to them shall be given, and they shall have more abundantly. Invitation to them will follow invitation, till the highest blessing is reached; and they find in their delightful experience that blessed are they who are Gods invited guests to the everlasting banquet of bliss. To all the highest blessings there is a Divine call or invitation For whom He did foreknow them He also glorifies (Rom 8:29-30). (J. Morison, D.D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 10. And not only this] A Jew might object: “Ishmael was rejected, not by the sovereign will of God, but because he was the son of the handmaid, or bond-woman, and therefore unworthy to be the peculiar seed; but observe, this was not the only limitation of the seed of Abraham with regard to inheriting the promise, for when Rebecca was with child by that one person of Abraham’s issue to whom the promise was made, namely, our father Isaac, she went to inquire of the Lord, Ge 25:22, Ge 25:23 : And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of PEOPLE shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one PEOPLE shall be stronger than the other PEOPLE; and the elder shall serve the younger. That is, the posterity of the younger shall be a nation much more prosperous and happy than the posterity of the elder.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And not only this; some read it, And not only she; the particle this is not in the Greek.
When Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac: this instance is added, because there might be some objection against the former; as if there were some reason why God chose Isaac, and refused Ishmael. Isaac was born of a free-woman, and when Abraham was uncircumcised: besides, Ishmael no sooner came to years, but he showed some tokens of perverseness, and of a wicked spirit. Therefore, in this and the three following verses, he gives another, which was beyond all exception; and that is in Esau and Jacob, betwixt whom there was no disparity, either in birth or in works: they had both one and the same mother; Rebecca conceived with them at one and the same time, and that by no other person than our father Isaac; and yet the one of these is chosen, and the other refused. Tills now was an undeniable proof, that the promise belongs not to all the children of Abraham, or of Isaac, according to the flesh; all the seed of neither are the children of the promise.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10-13. And not only this;but when Rebecca, c.It might be thought that there was anatural reason for preferring the child of Sarah, as being Abraham’strue and first wife, both to the child of Hagar, Sarah’s maid, and tothe children of Keturah, his second wife. But there could be no suchreason in the case of Rebecca, Isaac’s only wife for the choice ofher son Jacob was the choice of one of two sons by the same motherand of the younger in preference to the elder, and before either ofthem was born, and consequently before either had done good or evilto be a ground of preference: and all to show that the sole ground ofdistinction lay in the unconditional choice of God”not ofworks, but of Him that calleth.“
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And not only this,…. This instance of Ishmael and Isaac, is not the only one, proving that Abraham’s natural seed, the children of the flesh, are not all children, the children of God:
but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, “it was said unto her”, Ro 9:12, being in a parenthesis, “the elder shall serve the younger”. The apostle was aware, that the Jews would be ready to say, that the instance of Ishmael and Isaac was not a pertinent one; since Ishmael was not born of Sarah, the lawful wife of Abraham, but of a bondwoman, which was the reason his rejection, when Isaac was the son of promise, by the lawful wife, and that they were children of Abraham in the line of Isaac, and so children of the promise, as he was: wherefore he proceeds to mention the case of Jacob and Esau, which was not liable to any such exception; seeing they not only had the same father, but the same mother, Isaac’s lawful wife; they were conceived by Rebecca at once, were in the same womb together, were twins, and if any had the preference and advantage, Esau had it, being born first; and yet a difference was made between these two by God himself, and which was notified by him to the mother of them, before either were born.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Having conceived of one ( ). By metonomy with cause for the effect we have this peculiar idiom ( being bed, marriage bed), “having a marriage bed from one” husband. One father and twins.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
And not only so. The thought to be supplied is : Not only have we an example of the election of a son of Abraham by one woman, and a rejection of his son by another, but also of the election and rejection of the children of the same woman.
By one. Though of one father, a different destiny was divinely appointed for each of the twins. Hence only the divine disposal constitutes the true and valid succession, and not the bodily descent.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And not only this,” (ou monon de) “and not only (so).” There is more, a further illustration that the true Israel (people of God) was by promise thru Isaac, as well as Abraham. Isaac and Ishmael had only one parent in common. Jacob and Esau had both parents in common.
2) “But when Rebecca also had conceived by one,” (alla kai Rebekka eks henos koiten echousa) “But also Rebecca conceiving from one,” or having conceived from one, from Isaac, Gen 25:21. When Rebecca was barren Isaac interceded with (intreated) God, so that he gave conception to her. Note the prayer, faith, and life of Isaac were exercised in harmony with God’s promise to Abraham.
3) “Even by our father Isaac,” (Isaak tou patros hemon) “That is) by Isaac, our father;” God may be intreated regarding his delayed or deferred promises of fulfillment to his people and he does respond to their prayers. Neither legal claims nor good works gives one claim to heirship with God apart from personal acceptance of Jesus Christ, his Son, as a personal Savior, 1Ch 5:20; 2Ch 33:13; Ezr 8:23; note the sovereign promises of God to a special nation, race, or people does not void personal choice of individuals which each must exercise to become a new creature in Christ, a true Israelite or child of God, Luk 18:13-14; Act 10:1-4; Act 10:43.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
10. And not only, etc. There are in this chapter some broken sentences, such as this is, — But Rebecca also, who had conceived by one, our father Isaac; for he leaves off in the middle, before he comes to the principal verb. The meaning, however, is, that the difference as to the possession of the promise may not only be seen in the children of Abraham, but that there is a much more evident example in Jacob and Esau: for in the former instance some might allege that their condition was unequal, the one being the son of an handmaid; but these were of the same mother, and were even twins: yet one was rejected, and the other was chosen by the Lord. It is hence clear, that the fulfilment of the promise does not take place in all the children of the flesh indiscriminately.
And as Paul refers to the persons to whom God made known his purpose, I prefer to regard a masculine pronoun to be understood, rather than a neuter, as [ Erasmus ] has done: for the meaning is, that God’s special election had not been revealed only to Abraham, but also to Rebecca, when she brought forth her twins. (292)
(292) Here is a striking instance of a difficulty as to the construction, while the meaning of the whole passage is quite evident. The ellipsis has been variously supplied; “and not only this,” i.e., what I have stated; “and not only he,” i.e., Abraham to whom the first communication was made; “and not only she,” i.e., Sarah, mentioned in the preceding verse; “but Rebecca also is another instance.” But it may be thus supplied, — “and not only so,” i.e., as to the word of promise; “but Rebecca also had a word,” or a message conveyed to her. That the verse has a distinct meaning in itself is evident, for the next begins with a γὰρ, “for;” and to include Rom 9:11, in a parenthesis, seems by no means satisfactory. The three verses may be thus rendered, —
10. And not only so, but Rebecca also received a message, when she conceived by the first, (i.e., son or seed,) even our father Isaac:
11. for they being not yet born, and having not done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not
12. through works, but through him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder shall serve the younger.”
The words ἐξ ἑνὸς, rendered commonly “by one,” have never been satisfactorily accounted for. It. seems to be an instance of Hebraism; the word אחד, “one,” means also “first.” We have other instances of this in the New Testament; εἰς μίαν των σαββάτων — “on the first (i.e., day) of the week,” Mat 28:1; see also Mar 16:2; Joh 20:19. “The first day” in Gen 1:5, is rendered by the Septuagint, ἡμέρα μία. Isaac was the first son or seed of promise: and a difference was made in the children of the very first seed. But this meaning of εἰς is said by [ Schleusner ] to be sanctioned by Greek writers, such as [ Herodotus ] and [ Thucydides ] There is no necessity of introducing the word “children,” at the beginning of Rom 9:11; the antecedent in this case, as it sometimes happens, comes after the pronoun; and it is the “elder” and “younger” at the end of Rom 9:12. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(10, 11) Nor was the restriction and special selection confined to the case of Abraham alone. It also appeared when Rebecca bore sons to Isaac. It was indeed pure selection. The children themselves had done nothing to make a preference be given to one over the other. There was no merit in the case. The object of the declaration was to ratify the divine electing purpose which had already chosen Jacob to be the inheritor of the Messianic blessings.
Here we have the doctrine of election and predestination stated in a very unqualified and uncompromising form. And it does indeed necessarily follow from one train of thought. However much we lay stress on freewill, still actions are the result of characterthe will itself is a part of character; and character is born in us. Of the two elements which go to determine action, outward circumstances, and inward disposition, neither can be said strictly to be made by the man himself. If we follow this train of thought, then it would certainly appear that God, or the chain of natural causes set in motion and directed by God, made him what he is. In other words, he is elected and predetermined to a certain line of conduct. This is the logic of one set of inferences. On the other hand, the logic of the other set of inferences is just as strongthat man is free. There is an opposition irreconcilable to us with our present means of judging. We can only take the one proposition as qualified by the other.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
10. Not only this The Jewish advocate for regeneration by lineal blood and merit-works will, against the above argument of Paul’s, affirm that the discrimination in favour of Isaac was made against Ishmael, because the latter was, by his mother, born of Egyptian blood, and was also cast out for his evil work in abusing pure-blooded Isaac, (Gen 21:9.) The apostle now proceeds to put a more decisive case.
Why was Jacob preferred above Esau? Not because of purer blood, for they were both born of the same pure-blooded parents; nay, as twins, by the same generative act. It was not because of merit-works, for the preference was announced before their birth. It was not from primogeniture, for Esau was the elder of the two. And the argument thus far, if it does not prove the election to have been in view of faith, proves that it could have been from no other known reason. As between the two alternatives, faith and works, held up in all these parts of this epistle, it could not have been for the latter, and so must have been for the former. Jacob and Esau are opposite members in the two great Lines, above given, of Faith versus Unbelief.
But why not for works foreseen? Because works, (in the Jew’s sense merit-works,) imposing upon God obligation for compensation, could impose no obligation before performance. (See note on Rom 3:27.) To him that worketh the reward is of debt: but the debt exists not until the work is done. The future works could not even impose obligation on God to bring the possible worker into existence. And as this precludes merit-work, so it does not preclude faith, which intrinsically claims no merit, but is in itself a trust of all to God. (See note on Rom 3:24.) Alford says that those “making our faith, as foreseen by God, the cause of our election, affirm it to be of works.” This solidly and stolidly contradicts the entire doctrine of Paul; for his whole doctrine is that faith-justification is opposed to work-justification. And if present justification by faith is not by works and is non-meritorious, then foreseen justification by faith is not by works and non-meritorious. In excluding the works of the unborn, the apostle does not exclude the foreseen faith of the unborn; and 30-33 demonstrates that he truly implies and means it.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
10. So then In more modern style this verse might be thus worded: So then the showing of mercy is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God. On which note, 1. The showing mercy includes not only the particular act of mercy-showing, but the establishing the underlying rule, condition, or law of mercy-showing; 2. Commentators on both sides seem to us to have overlooked the fact that the him that willeth and him that runneth signify not the suppliant or candidate before Jehovah for his mercy, but an intermediate third person (like Moses) between Jehovah and the suppliant. Moses willed, and Moses eagerly ran to Jehovah, to induce him to waver. So Paul’s Jew is pleading and cavilling and menacing in behalf of God’s favour to Jewish unbelief. But divine wisdom will admit no foolish interferers. It will maintain the invariable laws of a just free-agency.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac . For the children being not yet born, nor having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder will serve the younger”. Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (did not love)”.’
But it did not stop with the birth of Isaac, because although the promised seed was to be ‘called in Isaac’ (Rom 9:7) Scripture immediately makes clear that not all Isaac’s seed would be children of promise. For the same situation also arose when Rebecca, Isaac’s wife had twins. Indeed in this case they came from the same mother at the same time, and were both sons of Isaac, the child of promise. Yet even before they were born God had chosen one above the other, and the younger one at that. At that stage neither had done good, and neither had done bad. So the election could not have been on the basis of merit. It was thus clearly revealed as depending solely on the call of God. For God had declared, even before they were born, that ‘the elder will serve the younger’ (Gen 25:23). This was something to be seen as confirmed by the later Scripture, ‘Jacob I loved and Esau I hated (did not love)’ (Mal 1:2). God elected Jacob and not Esau, and the effect of it passed on to their descendants. Once again, therefore, to be a child of promise involved not just physical birth, but the electing activity of God whereby one was chosen and the other not.
‘By our father Isaac.’ Here Paul is speaking as a Jew to Jews (compare Rom 9:3). He is looking at it from their biased viewpoint because if taken literally ‘our father’ is not strictly true. Large numbers of the Jews were not physically descended from Isaac (see excursus at the end of chapter 11). Isaac was rather ‘their father’ by adoption, as ‘the father’ of the original family tribe which had formed the basis of Israel. The reason for the introduction of the phrase ‘our father Isaac’ is in order to underline the fact that both Esau and Jacob were descendants of Isaac, the one in whom Abraham’s seed would be called. But he then points out that even Isaac’s fatherhood was not a guarantee of election, for he was the father of Esau, who was not called.
‘That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls.’ For God’s election was not on the basis of deserts, nor on the basis of being sons of Isaac, but simply on the basis of His call. The terminology here is salvation terminology related to what he has previously written. For ‘the purpose of God according to election’ see Rom 8:28-30; Rom 8:33. For ‘not of works’ see Rom 3:28; Rom 4:2-5. Here salvation is made dependent on nothing but the call of God. If we try to talk about God ‘foreseeing faith’ or ‘foreseeing works’ we destroy Paul’s whole argument which is based on the fact that the decision is God’s alone without any merit or activity on our part.
It will be noted that Paul has not actually said anything with which the Jews would have substantially disagreed. They too would have agreed that Ishmael and Esau were not ‘elected’. But what Paul is saying is that they should therefore recognise a principle here, that God’s election is not a blanket one, but is confined at each stage to those who are chosen, and that being born of an ‘elect one’ does not guarantee ‘election’. And as Rom 9:6 has made clear, the conclusion he wants them to come to is that the same applies to Israel. They are ‘not all Israel who are of Israel’, and ‘not all the sons of Abraham are of the chosen’. Thus by implication to claim to be a ‘son of Abraham’ did not necessarily signify being of the elect of God. Ishmael and Esau were ‘sons’ of Abraham, as were the sons of Keturah, and yet were not of the elect. Furthermore Esau was a son of Isaac in whom Abraham’s seed would be called, and yet Esau was not called. He was not of ‘the elect’.
‘The elder will serve the younger.’ It is often argued that this could only refer to the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom, because in fact Esau did not ‘serve’ Jacob. But the latter statement is not strictly true. Jacob did become the head of the family tribe, and in terms of the thought of those days Esau was therefore subject to him. This may well have been one reason why Esau came out to welcome Jacob home (Gen 32:3 ff.) and was with Jacob in the burial of their father (Gen 35:29).
To take what Paul has said and make it mean on the basis of Mal 1:2-3 that he was teaching that the whole nation of Israel is therefore elected to salvation is to reverse what Paul is saying. He was at this point arguing a principle, that at each step only a part were called, not directly discussing whether Israel as a whole were elect or not. It was, however, a principle which, once strictly applied, did cast doubt on the doctrine of the election of Israel as a whole to salvation. For that doctrine assumed that God had ceased making individual choices, whereas Paul makes clear that that was God’s method.
Having said that it would seem probable that Paul does have in the back of his mind the descendants of Jacob as being in special favour with God. The citation from Malachi, ‘Jacob have I loved’ indicated the nation of Israel as an entity (even though not necessarily as a whole), and even ‘the elder will serve the younger’ indicated that one nation would serve another (Gen 25:23). So God’s election went on through history, but as Paul makes clear it was an election of those within Israel who responded from the heart, not an election of the whole (Rom 9:6), and indeed it also included those who had not been Israelites, who would unite themselves with Israel in the true worship of God (just as Edom included far more than just the descendants of Esau. Esau had four hundred men to serve him right from the beginning). We can no more say that all Israelites were included than we can say that all Edomites were excluded. For while Esau was ‘not loved’, Edomites could enter into the congregation of the Lord from the beginning (Deu 23:7), and by the time of Jesus large numbers of Edomites had been co-opted into Israel by force in the time of John Hyrcanus (the Jewish High Priest and Governor), and were thus seen as included among ‘the elect’ in Jewish eyes. In that sense therefore it could be said that Esau had become loved. The truth is that the whole idea of nationhood and election, in terms of Israel’s election, was fluid. However, with regard to Paul’s intention in Romans we should note that any benefit received by Israel was seen as received because of the election of Jacob, which is what Paul is stressing here. The whole emphasis is on the choice between two people, as is made clear by the reference to the fact that neither of them had done good or evil before they were born.
Note On The Election of Israel.
Paul would undoubtedly have agreed that that there was a sense in which Israel s an entity were elected by God. Indeed it was something specifically stated in Scripture (Deu 7:6-8; Psa 135:4: Isa 41:8-9). But that was seen as because God intended to act in the world through that nation (e.g. Gen 12:3; Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6), rather than because each Israelite was to be seen as elected. Indeed Isaiah makes clear that ‘His servant Israel’ are to be seen as the spiritual element within Israel (Isa 49:3) There the task of ‘Israel’ is to include bringing Jacob to Him again, and restoring the preserved of Israel (Isa 49:6). As Israel as a whole could not restore itself, Isa 49:3 can only be seen as referring to a spiritual remnant within Israel.
That Israel as a whole was not seen as elected is clearly evident from their history. Those who rebelled against Him were cast off from Him to such an extent that He declared them ‘not my people’ (Hos 1:9), and this was the majority of the people. Indeed the constant refrain of the prophets is that God will deal with a remnant (e.g. Isa 6:13; Isa 7:3; Isa 8:2; Isa 8:18; Isa 9:12; Isa 10:21; Isa 10:24; Jer 23:3; Eze 14:14-20; Eze 14:22; Amo 9:8-10; Mic 2:12; Mic 5:3; Zep 3:12-13; Zec 13:8-9). In Elijah’s time God had left Himself only ‘seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal’ (Rom 11:4; 1Ki 19:18). And in Jeremiah’s time there was not a righteous man in Jerusalem apart from Jeremiah and his adherents (Jer 5:1). There is no suggestion that the nation as a whole retained God’s favour, either as individuals or as a nation. God’s favour was on those who looked to Him. It is man who lumps everyone together from a saving point of view, not God. But God does not save in batches, rather He saves depending on individual response, something, of course, that Paul has already made clear (Rom 2:29). (And something which is equally true of ‘the church’).
It is true that many of the Jews saw things differently, which is why Paul is arguing as he is. It is man’s way to favour his own group and see them as especially chosen. Rabbis would later claim that no Israelite would go into Gehenna, and that all Israelites had their portion in the world to come (interestingly Israelites there also included Edomites, for the remnant of the Edomites who fled to Israel were made Israelites by force by John Hyrcanus, and it included Gentiles, for Gentiles living in Galilee when it was recaptured by the Jews had been forced to be circumcised and become Jews by Aristobulus, son of John Hyrcanus). But that not all in the time of Jesus saw it in the same way is indicated by those who came to Jesus asking how they could inherit eternal life (Luk 10:25; Luk 18:18 and parallels). So many Jews did still recognise that they were individually accountable, and that not all would receive eternal life. Nevertheless the Jews did develop a strong doctrine of election for the people as a whole, something which Paul has dismissed in Rom 2:1 to Rom 3:10 and also by inference dismisses here. It was in fact a doctrine based on false premises (see excursus at the end of chapter 11.).
End of note.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
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.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Rom 9:10 . A fresh and still more decisive proof (for it might be objected that, of Abraham’s children, Sarah’s son only was legitimate ) that only the divine disposal constituted the succession to Abraham which was true and valid in the sight of God. Comp. Barnab. 13. The more definite notion of promise , which was retained in the preceding, is here expanded into the more general one of the appointment of the divine will as made known.
] See generally on Rom 5:3 . What is supplied must be something that is gathered from the preceding, that fits the nominative , and that answers as regards sense to the following . Hence, because precedes, and with another mother’s name is introduced, we must supply, as subject, not Abraham (Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Reithmayr, van Hengel; comp. also Hofmann, who however thinks any completing supplement useless), but ; and moreover, not indeed the definite or (Vatablus, Fritzsche, Winer, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius), but the more general or , which is suitable to the subsequent , as well as to the contents of the sayings adduced in Rom 9:12-13 : “ But not only had Sarah a saying of God, but also Rebecca , etc.” We must therefore throw aside the manifold arbitrary supplements suggested, some of which are inconsistent with the construction, not suiting the nominative ., as e.g.: “non solum id, quod jam diximus, documentum est ejus, quod inferre volumus; Rebecca idem nos docet” (so Grotius, also Seb. Schmid, Semler, Ch. Schmid, Cramer, Rosenmller, and several others; comp. Tholuck and Philippi); or: (Rckert, de Wette), so that the nominative . forms an anacoluthon , and the period begun enters with Rom 9:11 upon quite another form (how forced, seeing that Rom 9:11-12 in themselves stand in perfectly regular construction!). It is only the semblance of an objection against our view, that not Sarah, but Abraham, received the word of promise, Rom 9:9 ; for Sarah was, by the nature of the case, and also according to the representation of Genesis, the co-recipient of the promise, and was mixed up in the conversation of God with Abraham in reference to it (Gen 18:13-15 ); so that Paul, without incurring the charge of contradicting history, might have no scruple in stating the contrast as between the mothers , as he has done.
] Who had cohabitation of one (man), the effect of which was the conception of the twin children. The contextual importance of this addition does not consist in its denying that there was a breach of conjugal fidelity, but in its making palpably apparent the invalidity for the history of salvation of bodily descent. She was pregnant by one man, and yet how different was the divine determination with respect to the two children!
] masculine, without anything being supplied; for . . . . is in apposition. , couch, bed , often marriage bed (Heb 13:4 ), is found seldom in the classical writers (Eur. Med . 151, Hippol . 154; not Anacr. 23, see Valck. Schol . II. p. 594), with whom and often have the same sense, euphemistically used as equivalent to concubitus , but frequently in the LXX. See Schleusner, Thes . III. p. 347. Comp. Wis 3:13 ; Wis 3:16 .
. .] from the Jewish consciousness; for the discourse has primarily to do with the Jews. Comp. Rom 4:1 . If Isaac were to be designated as the father of Christians (Reiche, Fritzsche), the context must have necessarily and definitely indicated this, since believers are Abraham’s (spiritual) children. We may add that . . is not without a significant bearing on the argument, inasmuch as it contributes to make us feel the independence of the determination of the divine will on the theocratic descent, however legitimate.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
10 And not only this ; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Ver. 10. But when Rebecca ] She, and not Isaac, is named, because she received the oracle, whether from the mouth of Melchisedec or some other way, I have not to determine.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
10, 11 .] And not only ( ) (i.e. not only have we an example of the election of a son of Abraham by one woman, and the rejection of a son by another, but also of election and rejection of the children of the same woman , Rebecca, and that before they were born . introduces an fortiori consideration.
In the construction supply only), but when Rebecca also had conceived (see ref. Num. and ch. Rom 13:13 , where the meaning is not exactly the same though cognate) by one man (in the former case, the children were by two wives ; the difference between that case and this being, that there, was diversity of parents, here, identity. The points of contrast being then this diversity and identity, the identity of the father also is brought into view. This is well put by Chrys.: , , , , , , , . Hom. xvi. p. 610), our father Isaac ( . . ., probably said without any special reference, the Apostle speaking as a Jew. If with any design it might be, as Thol. remarks, to shew that even among the Patriarchs ’ children such distinction took place.
Christians being , the expression might apply to them: but, as the same Commentator observes, the argument here is to shew that not all the children of promise belonged to the . See ch. Rom 4:1-12 . As to the construction here, it is best to regard as a sentence begun but intercepted by the remark following, and resumed in another form at . ), for (not answering to ‘furnishes us an example’ supplied after , but elliptically put, answering to the apprehension in the Apostle’s mind of the force of the example which he is about to adduce. For this use of see Joh 4:44 , note; Herod. i. 8, , .; 30, . . Thucyd. i. 72, . ; and other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 467) without their having been yet born (the subject, the children, is to be supplied partly from the fact of her pregnancy just stated, partly from the history, well known to the readers.
instead of is frequently used by later Greek writers in participial clauses: Winer, edn. 6, 55. 5; so Act 9:9 , . , and Luk 13:11 , . See Schfer, Demosth. iii. 395, and Hartung, ii. 130 132) or having done anything good or ill ( . an unusual word with Paul = properly , , , as Timus in Lex. to Plato, with whom it is a very common word in this sense. Ruhnken, on the word in Timus, gives from the Lex. Rhetor. MS., . . , . , . . . . . , . . . This will shew the connexion of the strict and the wider meaning), [ to the end] that the purpose of God according to (purposed in pursuance of, or in accordance with, or (Thol.) with reference to His) election (Thol. prefers taking . adjectively, as Bengel has rendered it, ‘ propositum electivum ,’ and as in Polyb. vi. 34. 8, , ‘ electively ’) may (not might ; the purpose is treated as one in all time, which would be nullified if once thwarted) abide (stand firm; the opposite of , see reff. 1 Pet., Isa.), not [ depending on ] works (ch. Rom 3:20 ; Rom 4:2 ) but on Him that calleth , (this clause does not seem to depend on any one word of the foregoing or following, as on , Calv., Luth.; or , Rckert, Meyer; or , Fritz.; but to be a general characteristic of the whole transaction; see a similar in ch. Rom 1:17 . Thol., De W.
Thus viewed, or indeed however taken, it is decisive against the Pelagianism of the Romanists, who by making our faith as foreseen by God the cause of our election, affirm it to be . See the matter discussed in Thol.), it was said to her ( is recitantis; the LXX have ), “ The elder shall serve the younger ” (this prophecy is distinctly connected in Gen 25 with the prophetic description of the children as two nations , , . . . But the nations must be considered as spoken of in their progenitors, and the elder nation = that sprung from the elder brother. History records several subjugations of Edom by the kings of Judah; first by David ( 2Sa 8:14 ); under Joram they rebelled ( 2Ki 8:20 ), but were defeated by Amaziah ( 2Ki 14:7 ), and Elath taken from them by Uzziah ( 2Ki 14:22 ); under Ahaz they were again free, and troubled Judah (2Ch 28:16-17 , compare 2Ki 16:6-7 ), and continued free, as prophesied in Gen 27:40 , till the time of John Hyrcanus, who (Jos. Antt. xiii. 9. 1) reduced them finally, so that thenceforward they were incorporated among the Jews): as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (there is no necessity here to soften the ‘ hated ’ into ‘ loved less :’ the words in Malachi proceed on the fullest meaning of , see Rom 9:4 there, “The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever”).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 9:10 ff. But the argument can be made more decisive. A Jewish opponent might say, “Ishmael was an illegitimate child, who naturally had no rights as against Isaac; we are the legitimate descendants of the patriarch, and our right to the inheritance is indefeasible”. To this the Apostle replies in Rom 9:10-13 . Not only did God make the distinction already referred to, but in the case of Isaac’s children, where there seemed no ground for making any distinction whatever, He distinguished again, and said, The elder shall serve the younger. Jacob and Esau had one father, one mother, and were twin sons; the only ground on which either could have been preferred was that of priority of birth, and this was disregarded by God; Esau, the elder, was rejected, and Jacob, the younger, was made heir of the promises. Further, this was done by God of His sovereign freedom: the decisive word was spoken to their mother while they were as yet unborn and had achieved neither good nor evil. Claims as of right, therefore, made against God, are futile, whether they are based on descent or on works. There is no way in which they can be established; and, as we have just seen, God acts in entire disregard of them. God’s purpose to save men, and make them heirs of His kingdom a purpose which is characterised as , or involving a choice is not determined at all by consideration of such claims as the Jews put forward. In forming it, and carrying it out, God acts with perfect freedom. In the case in question His action in regard to Jacob and Esau agrees with His word in the prophet Malachi: Jacob I loved but Esau I hated; and further than this we cannot go. To avoid misapprehending this, however, it is necessary to keep the Apostle’s purpose in view. He wishes to show that God’s promise has not broken down, though many of the children of Abraham have no part in its fulfilment in Christ. He does so by showing that there has always been a distinction, among the descendants of the patriarchs, between those who have merely the natural connection to boast of, and those who are the Israel of God; and, as against Jewish pretensions, he shows at the same time that this distinction can be traced to nothing but God’s sovereignty. It is not of works, but of Him Who effectually calls men. We may say, if we please, that sovereignty in this sense is “just a name for what is unrevealed of God” (T. Erskine, The Brazen Serpent , p. 259), but though it is unrevealed we must not conceive of it as arbitrary i.e. , as non-rational or non-moral. It is the sovereignty of God , and God is not exlex ; He is a law to Himself a law all love and holiness and truth in all His purposes towards men. So Calvin: “ubi mentionem glori Dei audis, illic justitiam cogita”. Paul has mentioned in an earlier chapter, among the notes of true religion, the exclusion of boasting (Rom 3:27 ); and in substance that is the argument he is using here. No Jewish birth, no legal works, can give a man a claim which God is bound to honour; and no man urging such claims can say that God’s word has become of no effect though his claims are disallowed, and he gets no part in the inheritance of God’s people.
: cf. Rom 5:11 , Rom 8:23 = Not only is this so, but a more striking and convincing illustration can be given. : the sentence thus begun is never finished, but the sense is continued in Rom 9:12 . : Paul speaks here out of his own consciousness as a Jew, addressing himself to a problem which greatly exercised other Jews; and calls Isaac “father” as the person from whom the inheritance was to come.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
by. Greek. ek. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
10, 11.] And not only () (i.e. not only have we an example of the election of a son of Abraham by one woman, and the rejection of a son by another, but also of election and rejection of the children of the same woman, Rebecca, and that before they were born. introduces an fortiori consideration.
In the construction supply only), but when Rebecca also had conceived (see ref. Num. and ch. Rom 13:13, where the meaning is not exactly the same though cognate) by one man (in the former case, the children were by two wives; the difference between that case and this being, that there, was diversity of parents, here, identity. The points of contrast being then this diversity and identity, the identity of the father also is brought into view. This is well put by Chrys.: , , , , , , , . Hom. xvi. p. 610), our father Isaac (. . ., probably said without any special reference, the Apostle speaking as a Jew. If with any design it might be, as Thol. remarks, to shew that even among the Patriarchs children such distinction took place.
Christians being , the expression might apply to them: but, as the same Commentator observes, the argument here is to shew that not all the children of promise belonged to the . See ch. Rom 4:1-12. As to the construction here, it is best to regard as a sentence begun but intercepted by the remark following, and resumed in another form at . ),-for (not answering to furnishes us an example supplied after , but elliptically put, answering to the apprehension in the Apostles mind of the force of the example which he is about to adduce. For this use of see Joh 4:44, note; Herod. i. 8, , .; 30, . . Thucyd. i. 72, . ; and other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 467) without their having been yet born (the subject, the children, is to be supplied partly from the fact of her pregnancy just stated, partly from the history, well known to the readers.
instead of is frequently used by later Greek writers in participial clauses: Winer, edn. 6, 55. 5; so Act 9:9, . , and Luk 13:11, . See Schfer, Demosth. iii. 395, and Hartung, ii. 130-132) or having done anything good or ill (. an unusual word with Paul = properly , , , as Timus in Lex. to Plato, with whom it is a very common word in this sense. Ruhnken, on the word in Timus, gives from the Lex. Rhetor. MS., . . , . , . . . . . , … This will shew the connexion of the strict and the wider meaning), [to the end] that the purpose of God according to (purposed in pursuance of, or in accordance with, or (Thol.) with reference to His) election (Thol. prefers taking . adjectively, as Bengel has rendered it, propositum electivum, and as in Polyb. vi. 34. 8, , electively) may (not might; the purpose is treated as one in all time, which would be nullified if once thwarted) abide (stand firm; the opposite of , see reff. 1 Pet., Isa.),-not [depending on] works (ch. Rom 3:20; Rom 4:2) but on Him that calleth,-(this clause does not seem to depend on any one word of the foregoing or following, as on , Calv., Luth.;-or , Rckert, Meyer;-or , Fritz.;-but to be a general characteristic of the whole transaction; see a similar in ch. Rom 1:17. Thol., De W.
Thus viewed, or indeed however taken, it is decisive against the Pelagianism of the Romanists, who by making our faith as foreseen by God the cause of our election, affirm it to be . See the matter discussed in Thol.),-it was said to her ( is recitantis; the LXX have ), The elder shall serve the younger (this prophecy is distinctly connected in Genesis 25 with the prophetic description of the children as two nations,- , … But the nations must be considered as spoken of in their progenitors, and the elder nation = that sprung from the elder brother. History records several subjugations of Edom by the kings of Judah; first by David (2Sa 8:14);-under Joram they rebelled (2Ki 8:20), but were defeated by Amaziah (2Ki 14:7), and Elath taken from them by Uzziah (2Ki 14:22); under Ahaz they were again free, and troubled Judah (2Ch 28:16-17, compare 2Ki 16:6-7),-and continued free, as prophesied in Gen 27:40, till the time of John Hyrcanus, who (Jos. Antt. xiii. 9. 1) reduced them finally, so that thenceforward they were incorporated among the Jews): as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (there is no necessity here to soften the hated into loved less: the words in Malachi proceed on the fullest meaning of , see Rom 9:4 there, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 9:10. , and not only so) That is: it is wonderful, what I have said; what follows is still more wonderful. Ishmael under Abraham, Esau under Isaac, and those, who resembled Ishmael and Esau under Israel, rebelled.-, Rebecca) viz., , is, i.e. occurs in this place. She, the mother, and presently after Isaac the father, are named.- , by one) Isaac was now separated from Ishmael, and yet under Isaac himself, in whom Abrahams seed is called, Esau also is separated from Jacob. Ishmael and Isaac were born not of the same mother, nor at the same time,-and Ishmael was the son too of a bondmaid, Isaac of a free woman. Jacob and Esau were born both of the same mother, and she a free woman, and at the same time.-) so LXX. for ; it often occurs, e.g. Lev 18:20, , said of the man, which is opposed to the phrase , of the woman in this passage.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 9:10
Rom 9:10
And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac-The promise was not only restricted to the son of Sarah, but when Rebecca had conceived by Isaac, there was still further restriction of the promise to Jacob and not to Esau, as set forth in the next verse. [This case is more significant than the former. We are now in the pure line of Abraham by Isaac, the ancestor from whom is the promised seed; and yet his wife sees the divine selection which had been exercised to the sons of Abraham reproduced as between her own children. The expression, by one, is occasioned by the contrast here to the case of Isaac and Ishmael. Then there were two mothers, which might justify the preference accorded to Isaac. Here, where the children were of the same mother, the only possible difference would have been on the fathers side. But as the case was one of twins, the commonness of origin was complete. No external motive of preference could, therefore, influence the divine choice.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
not only: Rom 5:3, Rom 5:11, Luk 16:26
but when: Gen 25:21-23, Rebekah
Reciprocal: Gen 22:23 – Rebekah Gen 25:23 – the elder Gen 27:37 – I have 1Ch 1:34 – The sons of Isaac Psa 44:3 – because Eze 16:8 – thy time Mal 1:2 – yet I Mal 2:10 – all Mat 1:2 – Isaac begat Joh 1:13 – nor of the will of the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:10
Romans 9:10. We learned at chapter 3:9-18 that God did not choose any particular nation because of its personal goodness, for all were corrupt as nations. His choice, then, was solely because He so willed it, as he certainly had the right to do. Paul is making the same argument in several verses, beginning with our present one.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 9:10. And not only this. These words introduce a second proof from history, namely, the case of Rebecca and her two sons, one of whom was chosen. This, is preferable to so, because this case is not strictly of the same kind as that of Sarah, but furnishes a stronger proof.
But Rebecca also. Some explain: not only Sarah, but Rebecca also, had a divine promise, was treated in the same manner. Others find a broken construction, Rebecca being re-introduced in Rom 9:12 : unto her. Accepting the latter view, we place a dash at the end of this verse. In any case also points to the previous case of Sarah.
Having conceived by one, our father Isaac. In the previous instance the two children were of two mothers; here the children were twins, having the same father and mother, and yet of such a different destiny. Our father Isaac; recalling the quotation in Rom 9:7.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our apostle having in the foregoing verses proved, from what was done in Abraham’s family, that it was the purpose and pleasure of God to account only those for Abraham’s seed who were the children of his faith, and to reject the rest for their unbelief; in these verses he prosecutes the same argument, by insisting upon another special dispensation of God in the family of Isaac, whose wife Rebecca had twins, namely Jacob and Esau, and had neither of them anything in them to move God to love the one and dislike the other: yet a preference was given to the one before the other.
So that the apostle’s argument runs thus: “As Jacob and Esau were begotten of the same father, born of the same mother, laid together in the same womb, and had neither of them done anything at all to oblige or disoblige Almighty God; yet he was pleased to make a difference between them and their posterity after them, giving the beloved Canaan to Jacob and his seed, which by birth-right belonged to Esau and his offspring: so in like manner is it the will and pleasure of God, that the believing Gentiles should become heirs of the promise by faith in Christ, and that the unbelieving Jews should be rejected and cast off for their infidelity.”
Learn hence, 1. That Almighty God chooses persons to the participation of divine favours.
Learn, 2. That the choice which God makes of men to the enjoyment of that special favour of being his peculiar people is not according to their external privileges or works, but according to his own free pleasures.
Learn, 3. That as Jacob’s and Esau’s being unborn, and having done neither good nor evil, is used as an argument to prove, that the choice of the one before the other could not be of works; so it is a strong argument against the preexistence of souls, and their being sent into bodies by way of punishment for former sins. For upon that supposition it could not be true, that the children had done neither good nor evil before they were born, seeing they might both have sinned in that state of pre-existence.
Learn, 4, and observe, That the apostle doth not say, That before the children had done either good or evil, God said, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated: but only the elder shall serve the younger.
Hatred here may be taken two ways, either,
1. For a less degree of love; God preferring the seed of Jacob before the posterity of Essau, giving the former the good land of Canaan, to the latter the barren mountains of Seir.
Or, 2. If hatred be taken in the strictest sense, the God is said to hate Esau, that is, the Edomites, after their wicked and unnatural behaviour towards their brethren the Israelites; and upon that occaion see For thy violence against thy brother, Jacob, shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever Oba 1:10.
Nothing renders a person the object of God’s hatred but sin; he doth not hate the devil himself, as he is his creature, but only as he is a sinner. God adjudges none to eternal perdition, but with respect to sin.
Observe, 5. That Jacob and Esau are not here to be considered personally, but collectively; for the Israel that descended from Jacob, and for the Edomites which sprang from Esau: for Esau in his own person did not serve Jacob, but the Edomites did which sprang from Esau: for Esau in his own person did not serve Jacob, but the Edomites did serve the Israelites. Thus the elder did serve the younger.
Again, it appears that Job and all his friends were of the posterity of Esau: God did not then hate the person of all the posterity of Esau, but only those of them who by their violence and wickedness rendered themselves the object of his hatred.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 10-13. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election may stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth); it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger, as it is written: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
This second fact is still more significant than the former. We are now in the pure line of Abraham by Isaac, the ancestor from whom is the promised seed; and yet his wife sees that divine selection which had been exercised in regard to the sons of Abraham reproduced as between her own children.
The nominative Rebecca, in Greek, might be regarded as a provisional nominative, its true logical relation being expressed in Rom 9:12 by the dative , to her; but it is more natural to find a verb in the preceding context, of which this nominative is the subject: She was treated in the same manner, or had to undergo the same lot, .
The expression by one is occasioned by the contrast here to the case of Isaac and Ishmael. There, there were two mothers, which might justify the preference accorded to Isaac. Here, where the children were of the same mother, the only possible difference would have been on the father’s side. But as the case was one of twins, the commonness of origin was complete; no external motive of preference could therefore influence the divine choice. This is what is brought out once again by the last words: Isaac, our father. The our, no doubt, applies in the first place to the Jews, but also to Christians as children of Isaac by faith (Rom 4:1).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
And not only so [Not only is Ishmael rejected for the promised Isaac, but even Isaac’s seed, his two sons Esau and Jacob, are made the subject of choice by God, showing that even the seed of the children of promise may be so sifted that part may be received and part rejected, for God indeed did this, accepting Jacob and rejecting Esau]; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac [Now, it might be objected by the Jew (unjustly in view of the fact that four of the tribes of Israel were descended from bondwomen) that his case was not parallel to that of Ishmael, for Ishmael was the son of a bondwoman (an Egyptian), and was of a mocking, spiteful disposition (Gen 21:9). Ishmael’s rejection, therefore, was justifiable, while the exclusion of the Jew by Paul’s so-called gospel was utterly unwarranted. To this Paul makes answer by citing the cases of Jacob and Esau. They had one father, Isaac the child of promise; and one mother, Rebecca the well beloved, approved of God; they were begotten at one conception, and were twins of one birth, yet God exercised his right to choose between them, and no Jew had ever questioned this, his right of choice. Yea, the unbounded freedom of choice was even more clearly manifest in other details which Paul enumerates]–
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 10
By one. In the case of Abraham, the children rejected were children of another mother, which might have been considered as the ground of the distinction; but, in the case of Esau and Jacob, a selection was made between two whose parentage on both sides was the same.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:10 {7} And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;
(7) Another strong and persuasive proof taken from the example of Esau and Jacob, who were both born of the same Isaac, who was the son of promise of one mother, and were born at the same time, and not at different times as Ishmael and Isaac were: and yet nonetheless, as Esau was cast off, only Jacob was chosen: and that before their birth, that neither any goodness of Jacob’s might be thought to be the cause of his election, neither any wickedness of Esau to be the cause of his casting away.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
God’s special election of one portion of Abraham’s descendants for special blessing is further evident in His choice of Jacob rather than Esau. Someone might say that Isaac was obviously the natural son through whom blessing would come since he was the first son born to Abraham and Sarah. That was not true of Jacob. Furthermore Esau and Jacob both had the same mother as well as the same father, so that was not a factor, as an objector might claim it was in Isaac and Ishmael’s case. Jacob and Esau might have shared the firstborn privilege since they were twins. One conception produced both of them. However, God chose Jacob even though Rebekah bore Esau before Jacob. As in the case of Isaac, God made a choice between them before their birth. Their birth was also supernatural since their mother was barren. God chose Jacob before he had done any deeds or manifested a character worthy of God’s special blessing. The fact that Jacob became a less admirable person in some respects than Esau shows that God’s choice was not due to Jacob but to Himself.
"Surely, if Paul had assumed that faith was the basis for God’s election, he would have pointed this out when he raised the question in Rom 9:14 about the fairness of God’s election. All he would have needed to say at that point was ’of course God is not unjust in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, for his choosing took into account the faith of one and the unbelief of the other.’" [Note: Moo, p. 583.]