Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 9:11
(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;)
11. being not yet born, &c.] Nothing could go beyond this verse in stating that the reasons of the Divine Choice lie wholly within the Divine Mind, and not in the works and characters of the chosen.
the purpose of God according to election ] So according to the best order of the Gr. words. Another order, not so well supported, gives “ the purpose according to God’s election.” The meaning is the same in either case. On “ the purpose,” see last note on Rom 8:28. “ According to election ”: i.e. as determined, or characterized, by the sovereign Choice of the Divine Mind. In the case of Esau and Jacob, the “purpose according to election” does not, at least explicitly, mean a purpose of eternal salvation. But St Paul is evidently here treating the Divine Choice in the widest and most absolute respects; and the sovereign gift to Jacob of sacred privileges, determining his whole course and that of his posterity, is thus taken as illustrating the fact of an equally sovereign gift, to “whomsoever God will,” of the capacity to repent, believe, and love. Throughout the argument we must remember who the “elect” are in the grand special case in hand, viz. the “remnant” who actually (not only potentially) are true believers, under both the Old and New Dispensations. See especially Rom 11:2-8.
Election
On the general subject of the Divine Election we may remark,
(1) That “the arguments of the Apostle are founded on two assumptions. The first is, that the Scriptures are the word of God; and the second, that whatever God actually does cannot be unrighteous. Consequently, any objection which can be shewn to militate against either an express declaration of Scripture, or an obvious fact in providence, is fairly answered.” (Dr Hodge, in loc.) It is almost needless to add that such a submission to the Divine Righteousness, while in one sense a surrender of reason, is in another its truest exercise. It is the surrender instinctively yielded by the soul which, conscious of its own sin, lies open to the full impression of the overwhelming purity and majesty of its Creator. It is absolute trust, under complete mystery, in Him who in one respect is truly known, but in another cannot (by the created being) be “found out unto perfection.” See Rom 11:33-36.
(2) It must be remembered that Divine Election affects a world not of righteous beings, nor even of neutral beings, but of “sinners,” “enemies” (ch. Rom 5:8-9.) [41] We come to face its mystery only when we have first faced, and owned, the unfathomable mystery of sin. We see it, not making the good evil, nor the evil arbitrarily worse, but judicially leaving the sinner to himself; (as we are bound to believe every sinner might righteously have been left; for otherwise Salvation would be our Right, not our Mercy;) save in cases determined by the Divine Mind by reasons within Itself in which, of mere mercy, a positive and prevailing influence intervenes, producing spiritual life, the life of repentance, faith and love.
[41] The abstruse questions which have been raised in controversy on this point may be fairly said to “intrude into” what lies wholly outside the Scripture Revelation.
(3) This view of the case, which is indeed full of distressing mystery, yet owes what is most distressing in it to the riddle which lies beneath all others connected with it that of the Existence of Sin at all. But meantime it also assures us that while the will (influenced by sin) is the cause of ruin, it is also the will (influenced by grace) which, acting strictly as the will, lays hold on salvation. In neither case is the will forced, unless indeed we call every influence on the will compulsion, so far as it is successful. The lost “ will not come;” the saved come as “whosoever will.” (Joh 5:40; Rev 22:17.)
(4) The doctrine of Election is, in Scripture, never made the foreground of doctrine; and it is always so presented as also to assure us, however little we can reconcile the vast range of spiritual truths, that we are in the hands of Righteousness as well as Power, and that our will, affections, and aspirations, are perfectly real. Lastly, the doctrine, if studied in Scripture, is viewed always from the only safe view-point the foot of the Cross. See further, Appendix F.
might stand ] i.e., continue to act on its necessary principle “not of works, but of Him that calleth.”
of works ] Based on, or resulting from, “works;” in the largest sense of “works;” actions whose aggregate is character.
calleth ] See on Rom 1:6.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For the children being not yet born – It was not, therefore, by any works of theirs. It was not because they had formed a character and manifested qualities which made this distinction proper. It was laid back of any such character, and therefore had its foundation in the purpose or plan of God.
Neither having done any good or evil – That is, when the declaration Rom 9:12 was made to Rebecca. This is a very important passage in regard to the question about the purposes of God.
(1) They had done nothing good or bad; and when that is the case, there can be, properly speaking, no moral character, for a character is not formed when the person has not acquired stable and distinctive qualities. Webster.
(2) That the period of moral agency had not yet commenced; compare Gen 25:22-23. When that agency commences, we do not know; but here is a case of which it is alarmed that it had not commenced.
(3) The purpose of God is antecedent to the formation of character, or the performance of any actions, good or bad.
(4) It is not a purpose formed because he sees anything in the individuals as a ground for his choice, but for some reason which he has not explained, and which in the Scripture is simply called purpose and good pleasure; Eph 1:5.
(5) If it existed in this case, it does in others. If it was right then, it is now. And if God then dispensed his favors on this principle, he will now. But,
(6) This affirmation respecting Jacob and Esau does not prove that they had not a nature inclined to evil; or a corrupt and sensual propensity; or that they would not sin as soon as they became moral agents. It proves merely that they had not yet committed actual sin. That they, as well as all others, would certainly sin as soon as they committed moral acts at all, is proved everywhere in the Sacred Scriptures.
The purpose of God – Note, Rom 8:28.
According to election – To dispense his favors according to his sovereign will and pleasure. Those favors were not conferred in consequence of the merits of the individuals; but according to a wise plan lying back of the formation of their characters, and before they had done good or evil. The favors were thus conferred according to his choice, or election.
Might stand – Might be confirmed; or might be proved to be true. The case shows that God dispenses his favors as a sovereign. The purpose of God was thus proved to have been formed without respect to the merits of either.
Not of works – Not by anything which they had done either to merit his favor or to forfeit it. It was formed on other principles than a reference to their works. So it is in relation to all who shall be saved. God has good reasons for saving those who shall be saved. What the reasons are for choosing some to life, he has not revealed; but he has revealed to us that it is not on account of their works, either performed or foreseen.
But of him that calleth – According to the will and purpose of him that chooses to dispense those favors in this manner. It is not by the merit of man, but it is by a purpose having its origin with God, and formed and executed according to his good pleasure. It is also implied here that it is formed in such a way as to secure his glory as the primary consideration.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. For the children being not yet born] As the word children is not in the text, the word nations would be more proper; for it is of nations that the apostle speaks, as the following verses show, as well as the history to which he refers.
Neither having done any good] To merit the distinction of being made the peculiar people of God; nor evil, to deserve to be left out of this covenant, and the distinguishing national blessings which it conferred; that the purpose of God according to election might stand-that such distinctions might appear to depend on nothing but God’s free choice, not of works, or any desert in the people or nations thus chosen; but of the mere purpose of him who calleth any people he pleases, to make them the depositories of his especial blessings, and thus to distinguish them from all others.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For the children being not yet born: q.d. As there was nothing in the birth of those twins, so neither in their works, that occasioned the difference that God made between them; for when God spake of what should happen to them, they were unborn, and had done neither good nor evil.
Neither having done any good or evil; he means, actual good or evil, such as might difference them one from another. As for original sin, they were both alike tainted therewith.
That the purpose of God; this purpose of God is to be understood about reprobation, or (if you will) rejection, or preterition, as well as about election.
Might stand; be firm or stable.
Not of works, either done or foreseen.
But of him that calleth; i.e. of the good pleasure and undeserved favour of God, who also effectually calleth those that he hath elected, as Rom 8:30. See a parallel place, 2Ti 1:9.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
For [the children] being not yet born, So says h the Chaldee paraphrast,
“the prophet said unto them, was it not said of Jacob,
, “when he was not yet born”, that he should be greater than his brother?”
the Syriac version supplies, “his children”, that is, Isaac’s; and the Arabic version, “his two children”. This shows, that the apostle designs not the posterity, but the very persons of Jacob and Esau; since as he speaks of their conception in the verse preceding, so of their birth in this: and though in the words of God to Rebecca, and which are urged in favour of the other sense, it is said, “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”, Ge 25:23; yet this primarily respects the persons of Jacob and Esau, as the roots of their respective offspring; and only secondarily their posterity, as branches that should sprout from them; it properly regards their persons, and only in an improper, figurative, and metonymical sense, their seed; for in no other sense could two nations, or two manner of people be in Rebecca’s womb, than as there were two persons there, who would be the authors of two nations and people; and whatever may be said for their respective posterity, taking their rise from one common father Isaac, or for their being chosen or rejected as nations, before they were in being as such, yet it cannot be said with any propriety, that “Rebecca conceived” their several offspring “by one, even by our father Isaac”, Ro 9:10: which sense well agrees with the scope of the apostle, which is to prove, that all were not Israel which were of Israel, and that all Abraham’s natural seed were not the children of God; which he could not better exemplify, than in the persons of Jacob and Esau; for to have instanced in the posterity of Esau, would have been foreign to his purpose, and not accord with the continuation of his discourse in the following verses, which entirely proceeds upon the subject of personal election and rejection, and with the scriptural account of the personal characters of Jacob and Esau; and from hence, as from many other passages, it may be concluded, that predestination, whether to life or death, is a personal thing, concerns particular persons, and not nations, or collective bodies of men:
neither having done any good or evil; Jacob and Esau were under all considerations upon an equal foot, were just in the same situation and condition, when the one was loved and the other hated; or in other words, when the one was chosen, and the other rejected; they were neither of them as yet born, and had they been born, their birth and parentage could have been no reason why one was chose and the other not, because in both the same; nor had the one performed a good action, or the other an evil one; so that Jacob was not loved for his good works, nor Esau hated for his evil ones; which confirms the truth of this doctrine, that the objects of predestination, whether to life or death, are alike, are in the same situation and condition: whether they are considered in the corrupt mass, or as fallen, they are all equally such, so that there could not be any reason in them, why some should be chosen and others left; or whether in the pure mass, antecedent to the fall, and without any consideration of it, which is clearly signified in this passage, there could be nothing in the one, which was not in the other, that could be the cause of such a difference made: so that it follows, that works neither good nor evil are the causes moving God to predestinate, whether to life or death; good works are not the cause of election to eternal life, for not only, this act of distinguishing grace, passed before any were done, but also these are fruits, effects, and consequence of it, and so cannot be the causes thereof; God does not proceed in order branches of salvation, as in calling, justification, c. according to them, and therefore it cannot be thought he should proceed upon this foot in the first step to it and which is ascribed to his free grace, in opposition to works. Evil works are not the cause of the decree of rejection, for this also being as early as the decree of election, as it must unavoidably be, was before any evil works were done; sin is not the cause of God’s decree, but of the thing decreed, eternal death; otherwise all the individuals in the world being equally in sin, must have been rejected: it remains then, that not any works of men, good or bad, are the cause of predestination in either of its branches, but the sovereign will and secret counsel of God: that
the purpose of God according to election might stand: the decree of God, which is entirely free, and depends upon his own will and choice, stands firm and immutable, and is not to be disannulled by earth or hell, for it stands not on the precarious foot of works:
not of works: did it, it would not stand sure, for nothing is more variable and uncertain, than the actions of men:
but of him that calleth: who is the unchangeable Jehovah; it stands upon his invariable will and immutable grace, whose “gifts and calling are without repentance”, Ro 11:29.
h Targum in Hos. xii. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The children being not yet born ( ). Genitive absolute with first aorist passive participle of , to beget, to be born, though no word for children nor even the pronoun (they).
Neither having done anything good or bad ( ). Genitive absolute again with first active participle of . On , see 2Co 5:10.
The purpose of God ( ). See 8:28 for .
According to election (‘ ). Old word from , to select, to choose out. See 1Th 1:4. Here it is the purpose () of God which has worked according to the principles of election.
Not of works ( ). Not of merit.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Evil [] . See on Joh 3:20; Jas 3:16.
Purpose according to election [ ] For proqesiv purpose, see on the kindred verb proeqeto, ch. Rom 3:25, and compare ch Rom 8:28. The phrase signifies a purpose so formed that in it an election was made. The opposite of one founded upon right or merit. For similar phrases see Act 19:20; kata kratov according to might, mightily; Rom 7:13, kaq’ uJperbolhn according to excess, exceedingly See note Might stand [] . Lit., abide, continue : remain unchangeable. This unchangeableness of purpose was conveyed in His declaration to Rebecca. Contrast with come to nought (ver. 6).
Of works [] . Lit., out of By virtue of.
Calleth [] . Eternal salvation is not contemplated. “The matter in question is the part they play regarded from the theocratic stand – point” (Godet).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For the children being not yet born,” (mepo gar gennethenton) “For (the children) not yet being born;” Both Jacob and Esau, before they were born; through their distinct personal human existence, were divinely recognized and honored in God’s divine purpose and choosing, before their birth.
2) “Neither having done any good or evil,” (mede praksenton ti agathon e phaulon) “Not even practicing or having practiced anything either good or foul, (bad),” not yet having engaged repeatedly in deeds of right or wrong, as any personal basis for God’s purpose, promise, choosing or decrees concerning them, Rom 4:17.
3) “That the purpose of God according to election might stand,” (hina he kat’ eklogen prothesis tou theou mene) “in order that the chosen purpose of God might remain,” abide, or be at hand. Man’s personal deeds do not determine the purpose or choosing of God for them as either individuals or as a body of people, Jews or Gentiles, or even the church of the Lord. A sovereign God is not arbitrarily or otherwise restricted to the will of individuals, nor are individuals arbitrarily or otherwise restricted in personal choices and actions to a fixed body of prophecied conduct. Rom 8:28; Rom 14:11-12; Rom 3:3-4; Eph 1:11; Eph 3:11, 2Ti 1:9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
11. For when the children, etc. He now begins to ascend higher, even to show the cause of this difference, which he teaches us is nowhere else to be found except in the election of God. He had indeed before briefly noticed, that there was a difference between the natural children of Abraham, that though all were adopted by circumcision into a participation of the covenant, yet the grace of God was not effectual in them all; and hence that they, who enjoy the favor of God, are the children of the promise. But how it thus happened, he has been either silent or has obscurely hinted. Now indeed he openly ascribes the whole cause to the election of God, and that gratuitous, and in no way depending on men; so that in the salvation of the godly nothing higher ( nihil superius ) must be sought than the goodness of God, and nothing higher in the perdition of the reprobate than his just severity.
Then the first proposition is, — “As the blessing of the covenant separates the Israelitic nation from all other people, so the election of God makes a distinction between men in that nation, while he predestinates some to salvation, and others to eternal condemnation.” The second proposition is, — “There is no other basis for this election than the goodness of God alone, and also since the fall of Adam, his mercy; which embraces whom he pleases, without any regard whatever to their works.” The third is, — “The Lord in his gratuitous election is free and exempt from the necessity of imparting equally the same grace to all; but, on the contrary, he passes by whom he wills, and whom he wills he chooses.” All these things Paul briefly includes in one sentence: he then goes on to other things.
Moreover, by these words, When the children had not yet been born, nor had done any good or evil, he shows, that God in making a difference could not have had any regard to works, for they were not yet done. Now they who argue on the other side, and say, that this is no reason why the election of God should not make a difference between men according to the merits of works, for God foresees who those are who by future works would be worthy or unworthy of his grace, are not more clear-sighted than Paul, but stumble at a principle in theology, which ought to be well known to all Christians, namely, that God can see nothing in the corrupt nature of man, such as was in Esau and Jacob, to induce him to manifest his favor. When therefore he says, that neither of them had then done any good or evil, what he took as granted must also be added, — that they were both the children of Adam, by nature sinful, and endued with no particle of righteousness.
I do not dwell thus long on explaining these things, because the meaning of the Apostle is obscure; but as the Sophists, being not content with his plain sense, endeavour to evade it by frivolous distinctions, I wished to show, that Paul was by no means ignorant of those things which they allege.
It may further be said, that though that corruption alone, which is diffused through the whole race of man, is sufficient, before it breaks out, as they say, into action, for condemnation, and hence it follows, that Esau was justly rejected, for he was naturally a child of wrath, it was yet necessary, lest any doubt should remain, as though his condition became worse through any vice or fault, that sins no less than virtues should be excluded. It is indeed true, that the proximate cause of reprobation is the curse we all inherit from Adam; yet, that we may learn to acquiesce in the bare and simple good pleasure of God, Paul withdraws us from this view, until he has established this doctrine, — That God has a sufficiently just reason for electing and for reprobating, in his own will. (293)
That the purpose of God according to election, etc. He speaks of the gratuitous election of God almost in every instance. If works had any place, he ought to have said, — “That his reward might stand through works;” but he mentions the purpose of God, which is included, so to speak, in his own good pleasure alone. And that no ground of dispute might remain on the subject, he has removed all doubt by adding another clause, according to election, and then a third, not through works, but through him who calls. Let us now then apply our minds more closely to this passage: Since the purpose of God according to election is established in this way, — that before the brothers were born, and had done either good or evil, one was rejected and the other chosen; it hence follows, that when any one ascribes the cause of the difference to their works, he thereby subverts the purpose of God. Now, by adding, not through works, but through him who calls, he means, not on account of works, but of the calling only; for he wishes to exclude works altogether. We have then the whole stability of our election inclosed in the purpose of God alone: here merits avail nothing, as they issue in nothing but death; no worthiness is regarded, for there is none; but the goodness of God reigns alone. False then is the dogma, and contrary to God’s word, — that God elects or rejects, as he foresees each to be worthy or unworthy of his favor. (294)
(293) Archbishop [ Usher ] asks this question, “Did God, before he made man, determine to save some and reject others?” To this he gives this answer, — “Yes, surely; before they had done either good or evil, God in his eternal counsel set them apart.” It is the same sentiment that is announced here by [ Calvin ] But to deduce it from what is said of Jacob and Esau, does not seem legitimate, inasmuch as they were in a fallen condition by nature, and the reference is evidently made to anything done personally by themselves. Election and reprobation most clearly presuppose man as fallen and lost: it is hence indeed, that the words derive their meaning. That it was God’s eternal purpose to choose some of man’s fallen race, and to leave others to perish, is clearly taught us: but this is a different question from the one touched upon here, — that this purpose was irrespective of man’s fall, — a sentiment which, as far as I can see, is not recognised nor taught in Scripture. And not only [ Calvin ] , but many other divines, both before and after him, seem to have gone in this respect somewhat beyond the limits of revelation; it is true, by a process of reasoning apparently obvious; but when we begin to reason on this high and mysterious subject, we become soon bewildered and lost in mazes of difficulties. — Ed.
(294) Nothing can be conceived more conclusive in argument than what is contained here. The idea of foreseen works, as the reason or the ground of election, is wholly excluded. The choice is expressly denied to be on account of any works, and is as expressly ascribed to the sovereign will of God.
“
He does not oppose works to faith, but to him who calls, or to the calling, which precedes faith, that is, to that calling which is according to God’s purpose. Paul means, that the difference between Jacob and Esau was made through the sole will and pleasure of God, not through their wills or works, existing or foreseen.” — Poli. Syn.
Yet some of the Fathers, as [ Chrysostom ] and [ Theodoret ] , as well as some modern divines, ascribe election to foreseen works. How this is reconcilable with the argument of the Apostle, and with the instances he adduces, it is indeed a very hard matter to see. One way by which the Apostle’s argument is evaded, is, that the election here is to temporal and outward privileges. Be it so: let this be granted; but it is adduced by the Apostle as an illustration — and of what? most clearly of spiritual and eternal election. He refers both to the same principle, to the free choice of God, and not to anything in man. “God foresaw the disposition of each.” — [ Theodoret ] and [ Chrysostom ] “His election corresponds with the foreseen disposition of men.” — [ Theodoret ] “It was done by the prescience of God, whereby he knew while yet unborn, what each would be.” — [ Augustine ] These are quotations made by a modern writer ( [ Bos ] anquet) with approbation: but surely nothing could be suggested more directly contrary to the statements and the argument of the Apostle. There is a mistake, I apprehend, as to the last quotation; perhaps similar to that made in quoting [ Augustine ] on the latter part of the 7 chapter of this Epistle, where the writer quotes a sentiment of [ Augustine ] , which he afterwards retracted, a thing which has been often done by the advocates of Popery, but by no means becoming a Protestant. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
11. Neither done good or evil The apostle assumes here, 1. That no child can be responsible for its impulsive acts or emotions before its birth. 2. That no responsibility exists upon man for any thing done in any supposed state of preexistence.
Purpose according to election Purpose in regard to election. The purpose of electing is antecedent and eternal, (Eph 1:11😉 the act of election under the purpose is in time.
Him that calleth To works the apostle does not here oppose faith, as we might expect from his usual antithesis, but God himself. Rightly, because faith does, of itself, deny itself to be the cause of salvation, and ascribes all to God. (See note on Rom 3:24.) To be justified by works is to justify ourselves; to be justified by faith is to be justified gratuitously by God by him that calleth us to that very faith. As condition by us performed, and a means and method by God used, it is right to say in a subordinate sense that faith saves us. But the true, sole, original, and efficient Agent in our salvation is God. So that, as the apostle here maintains, our election is not of works, but of God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Rom 9:11. Neither having done any good or evil These words may possibly have been added by St. Paul, the more expressly to obviate an objection of the Jews, who might be ready to say, that Esau was rejected because he was wicked; as they did of Ishmael, that he was rejected, because he was the son of a bond-woman.
The principal thing which requires to be settled in this chapter is, what kind of election and reprobation the Apostle is here discoursing about? whether election, by the absolute decree and purpose of God to eternal life, and reprobation, by a like absolute decree, to eternal misery; or only election to the present privileges and external advantages of the kingdom of God in this world; and reprobation, or rejection, as it signifies the not being favoured with those privileges and advantages? And it appears demonstrably, that the Apostle is discoursing of the latter election and rejection, and not the former: for, I. The subject of his argument is manifestly the privileges enumerated Rom 9:4-5 from which he supposes the Jews were fallen or would fall; or that for a long time they would be deprived of the benefit of them: for it is with regard to the loss of those privileges that he is so much concerned for his brethren, and kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom 9:2-3.; and it is with reference to their being stripped of those privileges, that he vindicates the word and righteousness of God, Rom 9:6-24. Not as though the word of God had taken no effect, or failed, &c. proving that God, according to his purpose of election, was free to confer them upon any branch of Abraham’s seed. Consequently those privileges were the singular blessings which, by the purpose of God, according to election, not of works, but of him that calleth, were conferred upon Jacob’s posterity. But those privileges were onlysuch as the whole body of the Israelites enjoyed in this world while they were the church and people of God, and such privileges as they might afterwards lose, or be deprived of; therefore the election of Jacob’s posterity to those privileges was not absolute election to eternal life. II. Agreeably to the purpose of God according to election, it was said to Rebecca, The elder shall serve the younger; meaning, the posterity of the elder and the younger. For, Gen 25:23 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. These are the words which signify the purpose of God according to election. Therefore the election refers to Jacob’s posterity, or the whole nation of Israel; but the whole nation of Israel were not absolutely elected to eternal life: therefore, &c.III. Agreeably to the purpose of God according to election, it was said to Rebecca, the elder shall serve the younger; but to serve, in Scripture, never signifies to be eternally damned in the world to come; consequently the opposite blessing, bestowed upon the posterity of the younger, could not be eternal salvation, but some privileges in this life. Therefore the purpose according to election refers to such privileges. IV. The election here spoken of took place first in Abraham and his seed, before his seed were born; and then (secluding Ishmael and all his posterity) in Isaac and his seed, before they were born; and then (secluding Esau and his posterity) in Jacob and his seed, before they were born. But the Scripture never represents eternal life, as bestowed upon any family or race of men in this manner. Therefore, &c.V. Vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23.) are manifestly opposed to vessels of wrath, Rom 9:22. The vessels of mercy are the whole body of the Jews and Gentiles, who were called or invited into the kingdom of God under the Gospel, Rom 9:24.; consequently the vessels of wrath are the whole body of the unbelieving Jews. So Rom 9:30-31 the whole body of believing Gentiles, who, according to God’s purpose of election, had attained justification, are opposed to the whole body of the Israelites who came short of it:but men shall not be received to eternal life, or subjected to eternal condemnation at the last day in collective bodies; but according as particular persons in those bodies have acted well or ill. Therefore, &c.VI. Whoever carefully peruses chap. 9: Rom 10:11 : will find, that those who have not believed, chap. Rom 11:31 are the present rejected Jews, or that Israel to whom blindness hath happened in part, chap. Rom 11:25.;the same who fell, and on whom God hath shewn severity, chap. Rom 11:22.; the same with the natural branches, whom God spared not, chap. Rom 11:21.; who were broken off from the olive-tree, chap. Rom 11:19; Rom 11:17.; who were cast away, chap. Rom 11:15.; who were diminished and fallen, chap. Rom 11:12.; who had stumbled, chap. Rom 11:11.; who were a disobedient and gainsaying people, chap. Rom 10:21.; who being ignorant of God’s righteousness went about to establish their own, chap. Rom 10:3.Because they sought righteousness, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, chap. Rom 9:32.; and they had not attained to the law of righteousness, chap. Rom 9:31. These same people, spoken of in all these places, are the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, Rom 9:22.; and the same for whom St. Paul had great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart, Rom 9:2-3. In short, they are the unbelieving nation, or people of Israel; and it is with regard to the reprobation or rejection of this people, from the peculiar kingdom of the Messiah, that he is arguing, and vindicating the truth, justice, and wisdom of God, in the present chapter. Now if we turn back and review those three chapters, we shall find that the Apostle, chap. Rom 10:1 heartily desires and prays, that those same reprobated and rejected people of Israel might be saved; he affirms that they had not so stumbled as to fall finally and irrecoverably, chap. Rom 11:11.; that they should again have a fulness, Rom 9:12.; that they should be received again into the church, Rom 9:15.; that a holiness still belonged to them, Rom 9:16.; that if they did not still abide in unbelief, they should be grafted into their own olive-tree again, Rom 9:23-24.; and that blindness was happened to them only for a time, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, Rom 9:25.; and then he proves from Scripture, that all Israel, all this nation, at present under blindness, shall be saved, Rom 9:26-27. That as touching the [original] election, they were still beloved for the sake of the fathers, the patriarchs, Rom 9:28.; that in their case, the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, Rom 9:29.; and that through our, the believing Gentiles’, mercy, they shall at length obtain mercy, Rom 9:31. All these things are spoken of that Israel or body of people, concerning whose rejection the Apostle argues in the 9th chapter; and therefore the rejection about which he here argues cannot be absolute reprobation to eternal damnation, but their being, as a nation, stripped of those honours and privileges of God’s peculiar church and kingdom in this world, to which, at a certain period, they should again be restored. But once more, VII. Whoever carefully peruses those three chapters will find, that the people, who in times past believed not God, but have now obtained mercy, through the unbelief of the Jews, (chap. Rom 11:30.) are the whole body of the believing Gentiles; the same who were cut out of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted, contrary to nature, into the good olive-tree, chap. Rom 11:24; Rom 11:17.; the same to whom God had shewn goodness, chap. Rom 11:22.; the world that was reconciled, chap. Rom 11:15.; the Gentiles, who were enriched by the diminishing of the Jews, chap. Rom 11:12.; to whom salvation came through their fall, chap. Rom 11:11.; who had attained to righteousness, or justification, chap. Rom 9:30.; who had not been God’s people, nor beloved; but now are his people, beloved, and the children of the living God; Rom 9:25-26. See also Rom 9:24; Rom 9:23; Rom 9:21. He speaks of the same body of men in all those places, namely, of the believing Gentiles principally, but not excluding a small remnant of the believing Jews, who were incorporated with them. And it is this body of men, whose calling and election he is proving; in whose case the purpose of God according to election stands good; and who are the children of the promise counted for seed, Rom 9:8.They are the election, or the elect. Now concerning this called, or elect body of the people, or any particular person belonging to this body, the Apostle writes thus, in chap. Rom 11:20-22.: “Well, because of unbelief, they, the Jews, were broken off, reprobated, rejected, and thou standest, in the church, among God’s called or elect, by faith. Be not high minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed, lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God, on them, the Jews, which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness; if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, rejected and reprobated.” This proves, that the calling and election, which the Apostle is here urging, is not absolute election to eternal life, but to the present privileges of the church;the honours and advantages of God’s peculiar people: which election, through unbelief and misimprovement, may be rendered void, and come to nothing.
Rom 9:12-13. The elder shall serve the younger These words, the elder shall serve the younger, in Gen 25:23 are used only in a national sense, and not personally; for in this sense the proposition is not true: which makes it plain that the words, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Rom 9:13 are to be taken also in a national sense, for the preference which God gave to the posterity of one of them to be his people, and possess the promised land. See Deu 7:6-8. The word hated is often used in sacred Scripture comparatively, signifying only “to postpone in our esteem or kindness.” I have loved Jacob, and hated Esau, therefore, can only mean, “I have greatly preferred the former to the latter.” See Gen 29:31. Luk 14:26. Joh 12:25. From the 7th to the 13th verse the Apostle proves to the Jews, that though the promise was made to Abraham and his seed, yet it was not to all Abraham’s posterity, but God’s first choice, Isaac and his posterity. And then again when Rebecca had conceived twins by Isaac, who was but one of the sons of Abraham, God, of his blessed pleasure, chose Jacob the younger, and his posterity, to be his peculiar people. See Locke and the preceding note. Dr. Doddridge upon the 13th verse observes, that the words there, in connection with the preceding and following, do indeed prove, that God acts with a sovereign freedom, accountable to none in the dispensation of his favours; and consequentially prove that it was not upon the foresight of the obedience and piety of Jacob on the one hand, or the profaneness of Esau on the other, that this preference was given; for then the argument taken from the having actually done neither good nor evil, would be very weak. The Doctor afterwards adds, Nevertheless it is certain, that the Apostle does not here speak of the eternal state of Jacob and Esau, (whatever some may suppose deducible from what he says,) nor does he indeed so much speak of the persons, as of their posterity, since it is plainly to that posterity that both the prophesies which he quotes in support of his argument refer; Gen 25:23. Mal 1:2-3. His laying waste the heritage of the Edomites for the dragons of the wilderness, is so different a thing from his appointing the person of Esau to eternal misery by a mere act of sovereignty,without regard to any thing done, or to be done, by him to deserve it,that I will rather submit (says the Doctor) to any censure from my fellow-servants, than deal so freely with my Maker, as to conclude the one from the other.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 9:11-12 . Although, forsooth, they were not yet born, and had not done anything good or evil, in order that the purpose of God according to election might have its continued subsistence, not from works, but from Him who calls, it was said to her , etc.
] not , because the negative relation is intended to be expressed subjectively , that is, as placed before the view of God and weighed by Him in delivering His utterance. See Winer, p. 450 [E. T. 608]; Baeumlein, Partik . p. 295. Comp. Xen. Cyr . iii. 1. 37.
The subject ( ) to the participles is not expressed, according to a well-known classical usage (Matthiae, 563; Khner, ad Xen. Anab . i. 2. 17), but it would be self-evident to the reader from the history familiar to him, that the twins of Rebecca were intended; Winer, p. 548 [E. T. 736].
The sentence expressive of purpose , , is placed with emphasis before , and therefore not to be placed in a parenthesis.
] introduces the purpose which God had in this, that, notwithstanding they were not yet born, etc., He yet gave forth already the declaration of Rom 9:12 . He thereby purposed , namely, that His resolve conceived in the mode of an election made amongst men to bestow the blessings of the Messianic salvation should subsist , etc.
. ] can neither be so taken, that the precedes the in point of time (comp. Rom 8:28 ), which is opposed to the nature of the relation, especially seeing that the pertains to what was antecedent to time (see on Rom 8:28 ); nor so that the follows the , whether it be regarded as the act of its fulfilment (Reiche) or as its aim (Krehl). These latter interpretations might certainly be justified linguistically (see Khner, II. 1, pp. 412, 413), but they would yield no specific peculiarity of the act of the . Yet, since must be the characteristically distinctive mark of the purpose, it cannot by any means denote: the resolution adopted in respect of an election (Grotius, Rckert); but it must be apprehended as an essential inherent of the , expressing the modal character of this divine act: the purpose according to election, i.e. the purpose which was so formed, that in it an election was made . The would have been no . , no “propositum Dei electivum ” (Bengel), if God had resolved to bless all without exception . His resolve to vouchsafe the Messianic blessedness did not , however, concern all, but those only who were to be comprehended in this very resolve (by virtue of His , Rom 8:29 ), and who were thereby, by means of the itself, chosen out from the rest of men (Rom 11:5 ), and thus the was no other than (comp. Bengel, Flatt, Tholuck, Beck, Fritzsche, Philippi, Lamping). In a linguistic aspect . (frequently in Polybius, see Raphel) comes under the same category with the well-known expressions , . . . (Bornem. ad Cyrop . i. 4. 23; Bernhardy, p. 241). Comp. Rom 11:21 ; 1Ti 6:3 . But it is incorrect to alter, with Carpzov, Ernesti, Cramer, Bhme, Ammon, Rosenmller, the signification of ., and to explain . . as “propositum Dei liberum .” For, as election and freedom are in themselves different conceptions, so in those passages which are appealed to (Joseph. Bell. Jud . ii. 8. 14; Psalt. Sal. ix. 7), . is none other than electio; and especially in the N. T. , , and are so statedly used for the dogmatic sense of the election to salvation , that no alteration can be admitted. In general, Hofmann has rightly understood it of the quality, which the purpose has from the fact that God chooses; along with which, however, he likewise transposes the notion of the into that of the free act of will , “which has its presupposition only in the chooser, not on the side of the chosen.” This anticipates the following, which, moreover, joins itself not to , but to the abiding of the . ; hence must be left in its strict verbal sense of election . The may in and by itself be even an unfree act of will; its freedom does not lie in the notion in itself, but it is only to be inferred mediately from what is further to be said of the of the . , viz. . . .
] The opposite of , Rom 9:6 . Comp. Xen. Anab . ii. 3. 24; Eurip. Iph. T . 959; Herod. iv. 201. It is the result aimed at in such a declaration as God caused to be given to Rebecca before the birth of her two sons: His purpose according to election is meant to remain unchangeable, etc., so much He would have to be settled in His giving that declaration.
. . .] is by most joined, through a supplied , to . ; by Fritzsche regarded even as a supplementary definition to , in which he is followed by Lamping, as though Paul had written . . . But for rejecting the natural and nearest connection with there is absolutely no ground from the sense which thus results: the elective resolution must have its abiding character not on account of works, which the subjects concerned would perform, but on account of God Himself, who calls to the Messianic salvation . Accordingly, . . . is a causal specification annexed to the in itself independent
, namely, of its objective actual relation (hence , not ), and should be separated from by a comma (Paul might more formally have written: . . . ). Hence the objection that is not found is of no importance, since in itself stands absolutely, and is constantly employed in the sense of by virtue of, by reason of . See Bernhardy, p. 230; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . I. p. 551.
On the form , which, instead of the Recepta , is to be adopted with Lachmann and Tischendorf, following the preponderance of testimony, in all passages in Paul, see on Mat 5:21 , and Khner, I. p. 810 f.
The quotation is Gen 25:23 , closely following the LXX.; forms no part of it, but is recitative. In the connection of the original text , and ., the greater and the smaller , refer to the two nations represented by the elder and younger twin sons, of which they were to be ancestors; and this prediction was fulfilled first under David, who conquered the Edomites (2Sa 8:14 ); then, after they had freed themselves in the time of Joram (2Ki 8:21 ), under Amaziah (2Ki 14:7 ; 2Ch 25:11 ) and Uzziah (2Ki 14:22 ; 2Ch 26:2 ), who again reduced them to slavery; and lastly, after they had once more broken loose in the time of Ahaz (2Ch 28:17 ; according to 2Ki 16:6 , they had merely wrested the port of Elath from the Jews), under Johannes Hyrcanus, who completely vanquished them, forced them to be circumcised, and incorporated them in the Jewish state (Joseph. Ant . xiii. 9. 1). Paul, however, has in view, as the entire context Rom 9:10-11 ; Rom 9:13 evinces, in . and ., Esau and Jacob themselves , not their nations; so that the fulfilment of the . is to be found in the theocratic subjection into which Esau was reduced through the loss of his birthright and of the paternal blessing, whereby the theocratic lordship passed to Jacob. But inasmuch as in Gen. l.c. the two brothers are set forth as representatives of the nations, and their persons and their destiny are not consequently excluded, as, indeed, the relation indicated in the divine utterance took its beginning with the brothers themselves, by virtue of the preference of Jacob through the paternal blessing (Gen 27:29 ; Gen 27:37 ; Gen 27:40 ), the apostle’s apprehension of the passage, as he adapts it to his connection, has its ground and its warrant, especially in view of similar hermeneutic freedom in the use of O. T. expressions.
and . have neither in the original nor in Greek the signification : the first-born and the second-born, which indeed the words do not denote; but Esau, who is to come to birth first, is regarded as the greater of the twins in the womb, and Jacob as the smaller .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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;)
Ver. 11. For the children, &c. ] Here the apostle wadeth into that profundum sine fundo, bottomless subject, predestination.
Being not yet born ] Sapores son of Misdates, king of Persia, began his reign before his life. For his father dying, left his mother with child, and the Persian nobility set the crown on his mother’s belly, acknowledging thereby her issue for their prince, before she as yet had felt herself quick. God elects not of foreseen faith or works, but of free grace.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Rom 9:11 . : “the conditional negatives ( , ) represent the circumstances not as mere facts of history, but as conditions entering into God’s counsel and plan. The time of the prediction was thus chosen, in order to make it clear that He Who calls men to be heirs of His salvation makes free choice of whom He will, unfettered by any claims of birth or merit” (Gifford). in this theological sense is a specially Pauline word. The purpose it describes is universal in its bearings, for it is the purpose of One who works all things according to the counsel of His will, Eph 1:11 ; it is eternal, a , Eph 3:11 ; it is God’s , 2Ti 1:9 , a purpose, the meaning, contents, and end of which find their explanation in God alone; it is a purpose , i.e. , the carrying of it out involves choice and discrimination between man and man, and between race and race; and in spite of the side of mystery which, belongs to such a conception, it is a perfectly intelligible purpose, for it is described as , and what God means by Christ Jesus no one can doubt. God’s eternal purpose, the purpose carried out , yet embracing the universe, is clearly revealed in His Son. The permanent determining element, wherever this purpose is concerned, is not the works of men, but the will and call of God; and to make this plain was the intention of God in speaking as He did, and when He did, to Rebecca about her children. If we look to Gen 25:23 , it is indisputably the nations of Israel and Edom that are referred to: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger”. The same is true also of Mal 1:2 : “I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation,” etc. Yet it would not be right to say that Paul is here considering merely the parts assigned by God to nations in the drama of providence; He is obviously thinking of Jacob and Esau as individuals, whose own relation to God’s promise and inheritance (involving no doubt that of their posterity) was determined by God before they were born or had done either good or ill. On the other hand, it would not be right to say that Paul here refers the eternal salvation or perdition of individuals to an absolute decree of God which has no relation to what they are or do, but rests simply on His inscrutable will. He is engaged in precluding the idea that man can have claims of right against God, and with it the idea that the exclusion of the mass of Israel from the Messiah’s kingdom convicts God of breach of faith toward the children of Abraham; and this He can do quite effectually, on the lines indicated, without consciously facing this tremendous hypothesis.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
neither. Greek. mede.
evil. Greek. kakos. App-128.
that = in order that. Greek. hina.
purpose. Greek. prothesis. See Act 11:23.
stand = abide. Greek. meno. Only here translated “stand”. Compare 1Pe 1:23, 1Pe 1:25.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Rom 9:11. , when they were not yet born) Carnal descent profiteth nothing, Joh 1:13.- , and when they had done nothing) This is added, because some one might think as to Ishmael, that he was driven out, not so much because he was the son of a bondmaid, as because he was a mocker; although this slave-like scurrility afterwards shows itself in [lays hold of] the son of the bondmaid, so that he [, and ] laughs and mocks at Isaac, whom he envies and insults.- ) The purpose, which is quite free, has its reason founded on election alone; comp. ch. Rom 16:25; Tit 1:9. It might be said, in Latin, propositum Dei electivum, the elective purpose of God.-, might stand [remain]) incapable of being set aside. It is presupposed that the , the purpose, is prior to the, might stand.- , not of works) not even of works foreseen. Observe, it is not faith, which is opposed to election, but works.- , of Him that calleth) even Him, who called Jacob to be the superior, Esau to be the servant: comp. Rom 9:25.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 9:11
Rom 9:11
for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,-Before the twins were born God said that the older should serve the younger. The natural and usual order was reversed. God saw the characters of the two children, and chose the younger to become the head of the chosen race because he would trust God rather than the other. It was not on account of the works of their own that either might do, but Jacob would trust God and obey him. Those who do this, God always selects as his beloved. But the restriction of the promise to the family of Jacob is here the point.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the children: Rom 4:17, Psa 51:5, Eph 2:3
that the: Rom 8:28-30, Isa 14:24, Isa 14:26, Isa 14:27, Isa 23:9, Isa 46:10, Isa 46:11, Jer 51:29, Eph 1:9-11, Eph 3:11, 2Ti 1:9
according: Rom 11:5, Rom 11:7, Eph 1:4, Eph 1:5, 1Th 1:4, 2Pe 1:10
not of works: Rom 11:6, Eph 2:9, Tit 3:5
but of: Rom 8:28, 1Th 2:12, 2Th 2:13, 2Th 2:14, 1Pe 5:10, Rev 17:14
Reciprocal: Gen 27:23 – he blessed Gen 48:17 – displeased him Deu 1:39 – which in Deu 7:7 – The Lord Deu 33:3 – he loved Isa 8:4 – before Hos 12:3 – took Mat 24:22 – for Joh 15:16 – have not Rom 3:27 – of works Rom 9:16 – General Rom 9:21 – the potter Phi 2:13 – good Col 3:12 – as 1Th 5:9 – not 2Ti 2:19 – standeth
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:11
Romans 9:11. As an illustration of God’s practice of making official selections regardless of personal merit, Paul cites the case of the twin brothers where God made the choice before they were born and before they could have done anything, good or evil.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 9:11. The parentheses are unnecessary, since we place a dash at the end of Rom 9:10
For without their having as yet been born, or done anything good or ill. This rendering, though varying from the form of the Greek, expresses the exact sense in its relation to what follows. Their is properly supplied, rather than the children. The reading of the best authorities gives a word which we render ill, as having a wider range of meaning than evil, though here it means immoral. The second clause incidentally opposes the doctrine of the preexistence of souls, and a previous fall
That the purpose of God according to election. This clause indicates the purpose of what was said to Rebecca, and is put first for emphasis. The phrase, according to election, is closely joined with purpose; the purpose which was so formed, that in it an election was made (Meyer). Both are before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4; Eph 3:11). The whole expression involves Gods freedom in His choice of individuals as an essential part of His purpose of redemption. Whether we can reconcile this with our consciousness of freedom, or not, it is here asserted to be a fact
Might abide, unchangeable, instead of coming to nought (Rom 9:6); and this, not simply in mans estimate, but in reality. It is not only in the thought of man, it is really that the liberty of God would be compromised, if any human merit regulated his choice (Godet).
Not of works, but of him that calleth. This is joined by some with purpose, by others with abide, but is most correctly taken by others, as a definition of the whole preceding clause: and this design, that his purpose according to election might abide, was not effected by reason of works, did not depend on works, but on God Himself who calls. Whatever view be taken of the connection, the ultimate ground of our salvation is in God Himself. God does not choose us because we believe, but that we may believe (Augustine). Our salvation is not on account of faith, but through faith.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 11. Nay more, the preference given to Jacob was expressed even before the birth of the twins, before they had done any act whatever; so true is it, that it was not founded on any particular merit which Jacob might possess. The two subjective negations and are used here because they contain a reflection of the author on the fact; as is expressed in the translation. No doubt it might have been said in answer to the apostle, that God foresaw the good works of Jacob and the evil acts of Esau, and that His predilection for the former was founded on this prevision. The view might even have been supported by a word used by the apostle, that of foreknowledge, Rom 8:29. But supposing the apostle had wished to discuss the question thoroughly, he might have replied in turn that the divine prevision, on which election rests, relates not to any work whatever as being able to establish some merit in favor of the elect, but on his faith, which cannot be a merit, since faith consists precisely in renouncing all merit, in the humble acceptance of the free gift. Faith foreseen is therefore a wholly different thing from works foreseen. The latter would really establish a right: the former contains only a moral condition, that, namely, which follows from the fact that possession in the case of a free being supposes acceptance. Work foreseen would impose obligation on God and take away from the freedom of His grace; faith foreseen only serves to direct its exercise. To accept and to merit are two different things. But the apostle does not enter on this discussion, and simply states the fact that it was no merit on Jacob’s part which constrained God to organize His plan as He did. This plan certainly was not arbitrarily conceived, but it contains nothing which gives it the character of an obligation or debt.
Before citing the oracle which he intends to quote here (Rom 9:12), the apostle explains the object of God’s way of acting, announced in the oracle. What God meant by choosing the youngest of the two sons and setting aside the eldest was, that His liberty of organizing His plans in virtue of His free choice between individuals might remain perfectly intact.
We know already what the is, the purpose formed beforehand (see on Rom 8:27). This purpose to be realized needs human instruments; and it is to the choice of these individuals that the word , election, refers. The expression: the purpose of God according to election (not as in the T. R.: the purpose according to the election of God), denotes therefore a plan of conduct in the preparation of salvation, which God draws out in virtue of a choice which He has made between certain individuals, in order to secure the man who best suits his purpose. Such a plan is the opposite of one founded on the right or merit of one or other of those individuals. God’s free will indeed would be at an end if any man whatever might say to Him: I have a right to be chosen, and used by Thee rather than that other. Suppose Saul had been chosen king in consequence of some merit of his own, when the time came for substituting David for him, God would have had His hands bound. In like manner, if in virtue of his right of seniority Esau must necessarily have become the heir of the promise, a man who suited His purposes less than another would have been imposed on God. The plan and choice of God must not therefore be tied up by any human merit, that the will of the only wise and good may be exercised without hindrance. This is the principle of His government which God wished to guard by choosing, in the case of which Paul speaks, the younger instead of the elder. It was easy for the Jews, who pretended to have a right to the divine election, to apply this principle to themselves.
The word , may stand, may be understood in the logical sense: may stand well established in the conscience; but is there not something more in Paul’s thought? Does he not mean: may stand in reality? It is not only in the thought of man, but really that the liberty of God would be compromised if any human merit regulated His choice. God, who had determined to use Jacob and put aside Esau, might have caused Jacob to be born first. If He has not done so, it is precisely that His right of free choice may stand not only established, but intact.
Tholuck rightly observes that the apostle, by using the present , may stand, instead of the aor. , might stand, extends this consequence of the fact to all times: it applies therefore also to the Jews of Paul’s day.
The two regimens: not of works, but…might be made to depend on a participle understood: , being, which would be a qualification of the verb , may stand. But it is more natural to take this verb in an absolute sense, and to connect the two clauses with the subject of the sentence: the purpose according to election. Paul adds: purpose not of works, but…; that is to say, the choice on which the plan rests was not made in accordance with a merit of works, but solely according to the will of the caller. Chap. Rom 8:29 has shown us that though this choice is unmerited, yet neither is it arbitrary.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good [as might be supposed of Jacob] or bad [as might be presumed of Esau], that the purpose of God according to election [choosing] might stand [might be made apparent and be fully and finally confirmed], not of works, but of him that calleth [not a choosing enforced on God by the irresistible, meritorious claims of man, in keeping the law of works, human and divine; but a free choosing on God’s part manifested in his calling those who suit his purpose],
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
11. For the children not having yet been born, nor done anything good nor evil, in order that the purposes of God may stand according to election, not of works but of him that calleth. This was because Jacob was elected to the progenitorship before he was born, and Esau reprobated from the same. Yet the atonement was as free and efficacious for Esau as for Isaac, for the Arabs as the Jews.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 11
According to election; according to his own choice and determination.–Not of works, &c.; that is, the supremacy of Jacob over Esau was not a reward for any good works which he performed, but it rested solely, on the decision of God, adopted for other reasons, and before either of the subjects of it were born.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the {m} purpose of God according to election might {8} stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
(m) God’s decree which proceeds from only his good will, by which it pleases him to choose one, and refuse the other.
(8) Paul does not say, “might be made”, but “being made might remain”. Therefore they are deceived who make foreseen faith the cause of election, and foreknown infidelity the cause of reprobation.