Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 9:13

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

13. As it is written ] In Mal 1:2-3. Nearly verbatim from LXX. The prophet is there appealing, in God’s name, to the people to remember His distinguishing and unmerited choice of Jacob over Esau to inherit the land. Not the quotation merely, but the context, is to the purpose here.

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

hated ] Cp. Gen 29:33; Gen 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” See too Mat 10:37; Luk 14:26; Joh 12:25.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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

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

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

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

Have I hated – This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Mal 1:3, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness; compare Jer 49:17-18; Eze 35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms love and hatred in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection; compare Gen 29:30-31; Pro 13:24, He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes; Mat 6:24, No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, etc.; Luk 14:26, if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rom 9:13

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Jacob loved, but Esau hated

It is evident that to the writer it was a mystery why God should love Jacob more than Esau. He even goes so far as to imply that, at first sight, it has the character of unrighteousness in God. But he instantly crushes the thought (Rom 9:14). St. Paul makes it the basis of some thoughts about election. It would be impossible that there should be a God of infinite knowledge and no election. But there are only two right uses of it–viz., to humble and leave God in His unapproachable greatness, and to comfort the tried and harassed believer.

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

1. Esaus picture is well drawn. He was a clever hunter, a man of the field–what we should call a man of the world. He loved pleasure, and had a clear eye for any present advantage. We could not call him immoral, and, by the side of Jacob, he stands up the better man. He was far more sinned against than sinning. He had some fine traits. He was irritable, even to the point of saying that he would kill his brother! But he was forgiving, and his passion quite passed away. He bought what he might, probably, have taken by force. He never once deceived his father and mother. He spoke to his father respectfully and reverently. If he thought lightly of the birthright at one time, he was very earnest about it at another. He showed consideration at least the second time, in the selection of his wives (Gen 28:8-9). And Esau was most generous afterwards, at Peniel, e.g., even at the moment when Jacob was treating him with suspicion, fear, and cunning (Gen 33:1-20.) He was unwilling to take anything at Jacobs hand, but, with great delicacy, when Jacob urged him to take it, he took it, and added, Let us go, and I will go before thee. And when Jacob declined it, he said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And the last thing we read of him is an act of modest thoughtfulness (Gen 36:7).

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

Jacob loved and Esau hated

I. In what sense.

1. Comparatively, not absolutely.

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

3. In reference to earthly, not heavenly privileges.

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

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

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

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

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

Esau hated and Jacob loved

Some light is thrown on the strong verb hated by other passages in which it is employed (Mat 6:24; Luk 14:26; Joh 12:25). In these statements there is certainly no intention of conveying an idea of malice. There is in them, just as in the Saviours remark regarding the camel and the needles eye, something of bold hyperbolism. Such hyperbolisms are common and rife enough, in the language both of literature and every-day life. They give piquancy to speech, and are relished by all the world. So Esau I hated is comparative, not absolute; and there is really more in the representation than in the reality, just because a phraseological foil was wanted. The idea is, that in the treatment accorded to the Edomites there was a conspicuous absence of that favour which distinguished the Divine treatment of the Hebrews and vindicated the expression, Jacob I loved. In truth, there was now no room for national forgiveness to Edom. The cup of their iniquity they had filled to the brim, and it was now time that they should be compelled to drain to its dregs the cup of merited retribution. It was otherwise with Jacob in the days of Malachi (chap. 1.). God, although greatly provoked, had not dealt with that people according to their desert. In wrath, He had remembered mercy. Through the influence of Ezra and Nehemiah over the kings of Babylon, many families were encouraged to return to the desolated city. The streets were restored. The walls were rebuilt. The temple was reconstructed, and an appreciable amount of prosperity once more rolled over the land. God loved Jacob; for with all the waywardness and faithlessness of the peculiar people, they were still, in virtue of their Messianic destination, like a peculiar treasure to God. They were the casket which contained the heavenly jewel; and, for the jewels sake, the casket was carefully kept and guarded. It was otherwise with Edom. Like many surrounding peoples, they had a time of merciful visitation. Their local habitation had many advantages; they were blessed in the fatness of the earth and the dew of heaven, and were sheltered within the munition of rocks; and, had they been willing to be good, they might have had a constant flow of prosperity. But they became highminded, aggressive, selfish, morally rank to heaven with rottenness, and were involved at last in the overflow of Babylonian devastation (Mal 1:4, cf. in contrast the case of Israel, verse 5). We have additional evidence in these statements of the prophets reference to peoples as distinguished from individuals in the plural we, ye, etc. The apostles argument is irrefragable. Pure patriarchal descent on the part of Israel was insufficient to ensure everlasting Messianic blessings; for it was utterly insufficient on the part of Edom to secure those temporal advantages which were conferred on the Hebrews till the fulness of time. (J. Morison, D.D.)

Esau hated and Jacob loved

Note that–

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

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

3. The national character inherited from the father of the race is not so impressed on his descendants that they cannot escape it. As there were in Israel many Edomites, profane hearts, there may also have been many Israelites, spiritual hearts in Edom. Compare what is said of the wise men of Teman (Jer 49:7), and the very respectable personage Eliphaz (notwithstanding his error) in the book of Job. (Prof. Godet.)

Jacob loved

This is seen all through his history.

1. In the promise made before his birth.

2. The vision of Bethel (Gen 28:12, etc.).

3. The blessing in Padanaram (Gen 31:5; Gen 31:9).

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

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

6. The blessing given him at Peniel (Gen 32:28-29).

7. The command to go to Bethel and the vision there (Gen 35:1; Gen 35:9; Gen 35:11). (T. Robinson, D.D.)

Jacob and Esau

Why was it that God loved Jacob and hated Esau?

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

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

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

II. Why is this?

1. Why did God love Jacob? There was nothing in Jacob that could make God love him, but much that might have made God hate him it was because God was infinitely gracious, and because He was sovereign in His dispensation of this grace. Let us look at Jacobs character. As a natural man he was always a bargain-maker. Read what he says after the glorious experience and promise at Bethel (Gen 28:20; Gen 28:22). While he lived with Laban what miserable work it was! He had got into the hands of a man of the world, and whenever a covetous Christian gets into such company, a terrible scene ensues. The whole way through we are ashamed of Jacob; we cannot help it. Now, if the character of Jacob be all this there could have been nothing in him that made God love him, and the only reason why God loved him must have been because He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

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

The mystery of Gods love

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

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

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

I. He acts on immutable principles.

1. These principles are fixed (verse 15).

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. These principles are always applied in mercy.

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

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

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

Unrighteousness with God is a thing

I. Abhorrent to human sense.

1. We could then have no confidence in Him.

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

3. No hope in the future.

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

III. Impossible.

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

2. Because contrary to His nature.

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

Righteousness of the Divine administration

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

God righteous in all His ways

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

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

Moses and Pharaoh

I. Moses an example of Gods mercy and grace.

II. Pharaoh an example of Gods justice.

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

Mercy is

I. An act of sovereign will.

II. A display of unmerited grace.

III. Consists with infinite justice.

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

Mercy abused

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

Mercy, alternative of

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

Mercy, importance of

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

Mercy, manifold

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

The sovereignty of Divine mercy

Observe–

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

1. Favours some to the disadvantage of others.

2. Is not disposed to save all.

3. Distributes His favours capriciously.

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

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

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

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

The Divine sovereignty

When it is affirmed that the sovereignty of God is absolute, it is simply meant that He is a Being who can do whatever He pleases. None can stay His hand, or say to Him, what doest Thou? He is not accountable for His deeds to any superior. He giveth not account of any of His matters. But as He can do whatever He pleases, so He will fulfil His pleasure. He does according to His will in the army of heaven, etc. My counsel shall stand, etc. But while God is thus absolute sovereign, this absolute sovereignty does not determine for Him what it is right that He should please to do. Something else is indispensable, viz., His peculiar intelligence. In it, and in it alone, does God find the idea of right, an idea without which there could be no ethical imperative uttering itself in the affirmative I ought. It is the highest glory of God, that He should, and that He always does please, to do only what is right. In Him is no darkness at all. He exercises His sovereignty in doing only what is holy and just and good. His sovereignty is itself holy and just and good. The apostles adduction of the oracle addressed to Moses is a decided argumentative success. Men, without exception, are the subjects of Gods sovereign sway. It cannot be disputed. So therefore are the Jews in particular; universally so. And yet all have come short of the glory of God; so that there is unless there supervene some great change or new creation, overhanging all, both Gentiles and Jews, a lurid thundercloud of doom. Is there room for hope? The asseverations, I shall have mercy, etc., seem to assume that there is forgiveness with God, that He may be had in reverence (Psa 130:4). But there are limits to His pardoning grace. He keeps mercy indeed for thousands (Exo 34:7), but He will by no means clear those whose guilt has deepened into impenitence. There is a sin that never hath forgiveness (Mar 3:29). Who then shall be pardoned? Just those whom it pleases God to pardon–He will have pardoning mercy on whomsoever, etc. And who are these? Under the Old Testament the category of the pardonable was not clearly revealed. Under the new none need walk in uncertainty. Those who put their trust in Christ shall be pardoned. And as regards those who are destitute of this revelation, see Rom 2:13-15. Their responsibility is measured by their opportunity. And it lies entirely with Gods sovereignty to determine who shall be the recipients of His bounty. In the statements On whomsoever I have, or am having, mercy, etc., there seems to be the conveyance of the idea that God was already in absolute spontaneity at work forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. The favourite work of Divine grace, however, is so great, august, and far-reaching in its ethical influence that none but the Highest could reasonably undertake it, or carry it through. There is none who can forgive sins but God only. There is hence, on the part of God, the well-grounded assumption of a very lofty prerogative, which is tantamount to an assertion that He will not suffer any one, not even Moses, to interfere with the administration of His bounty. He is resolved to dispense His bounty to whomsoever He pleases. (J. Morison, D.D.)

The Divine sovereignty: its infinite graciousness

As Gods throne is a throne of holiness, so it is a throne of grace (Heb 4:16). A throne encircled with a rainbow, in sight, like an emerald (Rev 4:3); an emblem of the covenant, betokening mercy. Though His nature be infinitely excellent above us, and His power infinitely transcendent over us, yet the majesty of His government is tempered with an unspeakable goodness. He acts not so much as an absolute lord as a gracious sovereign and obliging benefactor. He delights not to make His subjects slaves; exacts not of them any servile or fearful, but a generous and cheerful obedience. He requires them not to fear or worship Him so much for His power as His goodness. He requires not of a rational creature anything repugnant to the honour, dignity, and principles of such a nature; nor anything that may make it weary of its own being, or of the service it owes its sovereign. He draws it by the cords of a man; His goodness renders His laws as sweet as honey and the honeycomb to an unvitiated palate and a renewed mind. And though it be granted He hath full disposal of His creature as the potter of His vessel, yet His goodness will never permit Him to use this sovereign right to the hurt of a creature that deserves it not. As not to punish the sinner would be a denial of His justice, so to torment the innocent would be a denial of His goodness. It is as much against the nature of God to punish one eternally who hath not deserved it as it is to deny Himself and act anything foolishly, and unbecoming His other perfections which render Him majestical and adorable. (S. Charnock, B.D.)

The Divine sovereignty: real and merciful

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

Justification by free grace vindicated

For He saith to Moses, I will, etc. As if He should have said, My doctrine of justification, by the free grace and pleasure of God through believing, is so far from rendering Him unrighteous, that Himself plainly asserteth the substance of it in saying thus unto Moses. Meaning that inasmuch as all men having sinned are become obnoxious unto Me, I am resolved to use my prerogative, and to show mercy unto whom I please, not upon such who shall be obtruded upon Me by men, or who shall judge themselves worthy. The repetitions are very emphatical, and import in the highest degree a resolvedness in God to dispense His favour according to His own pleasure, and not according to the thoughts of men. When the clouds pour out rain in abundance it is a sign they were full of water. In like manner, when a man reiterates any purpose, it argueth a fulness of that which is thus uttered, and that the heart could not discharge itself by one expression. Now we know who those are on whom God is everlastingly resolved to show mercy, viz., those who believe in His Son (2Co 1:19-20). And upon this account the gospel, which asserteth this purpose of God, is termed the everlasting gospel (Rev 14:6), i.e., one the tenor and contents whereof shall never be altered. Here God fully declares who they are on whom He will have mercy, viz., believers. Neither are all the angels in heaven nor men upon earth able to take Him off from this His purpose. For that is to be considered by the way that the apostle clearly speaketh here of that grace or mercy of God which relateth to the salvation of men. But whereas the Scripture speaks of two sorts or degrees of grace, one which precedes faith, and consists partly in the gift of His Son, partly in calling them by the gospel, and vouchsafing means and opportunities unto them for repenting and believing; and another, which is subsequent. The question may be, of which the apostle speaks. I answer of the latter.

1. God makes no such difference or distinction of men in His preventing grace as the words before us manifestly imply (Heb 2:9; 1Ti 2:6; Act 17:30; Mat 20:16, etc.).

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

3. And evident it is that the apostles intent is to declare the Jews to be excluded from that grace and mercy, as in telling them that the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise (Rom 2:8), that the elder should serve the younger, and that the purpose of God stands not of works, etc. Certain it is that these Jews were not excluded from preventing grace, for they were called of God by the apostles, yea, and by Christ Himself, and this by means so efficacious that our Saviour affirmeth that even the men of Tyre and Sidon might or would have been converted by them (Mat 11:21). Therefore the grace or mercy spoken of in the words in hand must needs be subsequent. And if so it cannot be understood of any such mercy in God towards men by which men, yet unregenerate, are enabled, much less necessitated, to repent or believe, but of that mercy which is vouchsafed unto them who do now repent and believe. So that the meaning of the words, I will have mercy on whom, etc., is as if God should have said, I will justify, adopt, and glorify persons under what qualifications soever I Myself please, and will not be ordered or taught by men what I have to do, or what becometh Me to do, in this kind. As regards what God actually said to Moses (Exo 33:16), it appears that Moses (Exo 33:13; Exo 33:16)had desired of God that He would consider that the Jews were His people, and that He would please lead them that so it might be known in the world that both he and his people had found grace in His sight. This God grants. Upon this Moses makes a further request, viz., that God would show him His glory (Exo 33:18). To this God answers, I will make all My goodness pass before thee, etc., giving the reason hereof in the words cited by the apostle, Let no man take offence that I should do that in a way of favour for thee, which I neither shall do to any of the people besides, nor ever did to any of thy fathers, nor to any man after thee; nor do thou imagine that I am anyways a debtor unto thee of that grace which I deny unto others, for I am debtor unto no man, and will dispense My favours, and so My mercies, only unto such persons as I please. Now many of those whom God decreed upon their believing from eternity to justify, and adopt, apostatise from, and make shipwreck of their faith (as the Scripture in many places testifieth), from whom He hath peremptorily threatened to take away the grace of justification which before He had conferred upon them. Therefore the emphatical import of the apostles expression, I will have mercy on whom I have (now or at present) mercy, respects the same species, not the same persons of men; being as if He had said, To that sort or kind of men to whom at this day I show mercy (viz., in pardoning their sin and justifying their persons, meaning believers), I will show the like mercy at all times hereafter to the worlds end. Or rather thus, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, i.e., I will not be taken off by men or by angels from showing the grace or mercy of justification and adoption unto those (i.e., that kind of men)

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

Arrogance of arraigning God

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

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

Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth

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

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

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

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

(2) In our secular condition.

(3) In the means of spiritual improvement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. That Gods condition of salvation was formed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth

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

Gods will and mans will

(Text and Rev 22:17):–

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The works of Providence (Dan 4:35). From the first moment of human history to the last Gods will shall be done. And as surely as Gods will is the axle of the universe and the great heart of Providence, so in grace, despite mans hardness of heart, His own purposes will be fulfilled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Regeneration (Joh 1:13; Jam 1:18).

(3) Sanctification (1Th 4:3).

(4) Preservation, perseverance, resurrection, and eternal glory (Joh 6:39).

II. Mans will has its proper place in the matter of salvation (Rev 22:17).

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

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

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

As it is written,…. In Mal 1:2;

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. These words are explanative of the former; they are of like import, and the one interpret the other; and show, that the former are to be understood in a spiritual, and not in a temporal sense, and of the persons, and not the posterity of Jacob and Esau; for though Malachi prophesied long after Jacob and Esau were personally dead, yet the Lord in that prophecy manifestly directs the murmuring Jews to the personal regard he had had to Jacob and Esau, and which had continued in numberless instances to their respective posterities, in order to stop their mouths, and reprove their ingratitude; and though he speaks of the nation of the Edomites, and to the posterity of Israel, yet it is evident, that he has a respect to the persons of Jacob and Esau, from whence they sprung, when he says, “was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Mal 1:2, now though an Edomite may be said to be brother to an Israelite, yet Esau is never said, nor can he with any propriety be said to be the brother of Jacob’s posterity: it remains, that these words regard their persons, and express the true spring and source of the choice of the one, and the rejection of the other; and which holds true of all the instances of either kind: everlasting and unchangeable love is the true cause and spring of the choice of particular persons to eternal salvation; and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God’s will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, when he chose others; so the word “hate” is used for neglect, taking no notice, where positive hatred cannot be thought to take place, in Lu 14:26.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Paul quotes Mal 1:2f.

But Esau I hated ( ). This language sounds a bit harsh to us. It is possible that the word did not always carry the full force of what we mean by “hate.” See Mt 6:24 where these very verbs ( and ) are contrasted. So also in Lu 14:26 about “hating” () one’s father and mother if coming between one and Christ. So in Joh 12:25 about “hating” one’s life. There is no doubt about God’s preference for Jacob and rejection of Esau, but in spite of Sanday and Headlam one hesitates to read into these words here the intense hatred that has always existed between the descendants of Jacob and of Esau.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

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

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

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “As it is written,” (kathaper gegraptai) “Even as or just as it has been written;” Paul appealed to the Holy Scriptures to verify his inspired conclusions regarding God’s sovereign power and just exercise of his will, purpose, and revelation of himself, without respect of person to all men, 2Sa 14:14; Act 10:34; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9.

2) “Jacob have I loved,” (tou lakob egapesa) “The one (son) Jacob I loved;” with an high, holy, sanctified quality of love, Mal 1:2-3; That God is just in his inheritance right laws to individuals of natural Israel is evident, Deu 21:15-17. Love and hate are used in a comparative sense, not in an absolute sense, Luk 14:26; Rev 12:11.

3) “But Esau have I hated; (ton de Esau emisesa) yet, the one (son) Esau I hated;” or loved to a less degree, in his purpose for his life and service, and that of the Edomites, his offspring nation; Mal 1:3 describes this idea. See also Jer 49:17-18; Jer 50:12-13; Jer 51:37, such was decreed against Chaldee, Babylon, and Edom; Deu 7:6-11. This aspect of God’s sovereign power and choice does not conflict with Joh 3:16.

That “love and hate” are often used as comparative or relative terms is evident in their usage where it is recorded that Jacob “hated” Leah and that he “loved Rachel the more,” Gen 29:30; Gen 29:32-33. This idea is also used in the New Testament, Mat 10:37, Joh 12:25.

THE MYSTERY OF GOD’S LOVE

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

-N. T. Anecdotes

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

13. As it is written, Jacob I loved, etc. He confirms, by a still stronger testimony, how much the heavenly answer, given to Rebecca, availed to his present purpose, that is, that the spiritual condition of both was intimated by the dominion of Jacob and servitude of Esau, and also that Jacob obtained this favor through the kindness of God, and not through his own merit. Then this testimony of the prophet shows the reason why the Lord conferred on Jacob the primogeniture: and it is taken from the first chapter of Malachi, where the Lord, reproaching the Jews for their ingratitude, mentions his former kindness to them, — “I have loved you,” he says; and then he refers to the origin of his love, — “Was not Esau the brother of Jacob?” as though he said, — “What privilege had he, that I should prefer him to his brother? None whatever. It was indeed an equal right, except that by the law of nature the younger ought to have served the elder; I yet chose the one, and rejected the other; and I was thus led by my mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works. I therefore chose you for my people, that I might show the same kindness to the seed of Jacob; but I rejected the Edomites, the progeny of Esau. Ye are then so much the worse, inasmuch as the remembrance of so great a favor cannot stimulate you to adore my majesty.” (295) Now, though earthly blessings are there recorded, which God had conferred on the Israelites, it is not yet right to view them but as symbols of his benevolence: for where the wrath of God is, there death follows; but where his love is, there is life.

(295) The meaning of the words “loving” and “hating” is here rightly explained. It is usual in Scripture to state a preference in terms like these. See Gen 29:31; Luk 14:26; Joh 12:25 — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

13. Esau hated Paul quotes the words of Malachi, uttered centuries afterward, concerning the Edomites, (under the name of Esau,) showing how the divine prediction is verified. The strong word hated needs no softening, as appears from the proof given of the hatred, namely, the positive devastation of his “heritage.” (Mal 1:3.) The meaning ascribed by some commentators to the word, to love less, is hardly sustainable. Edom, as a prospective people, was foreseen as persistently Godless, and so divinely hated. And then, just as Israel personally represents, first, his natural seed, the Jews; and, second, the visible Jewish Church; and, third, his spiritual seed, by faith, Jew or Gentile, so does Esau represent, not only Edom external, but also the Edom spiritual, and reprobate by unfaith, whether descended from Esau or not, who, as such, are the just objects of divine hate. All this implies not that the evil of the Edomites or of Esau was decreed or necessitated, or that it secured the personal damnation of Esau or of any particular Edomite. Esau may have been saved; salvation was in reach of every Edomite.

On the above paragraph we may note: 1. The apostle sustains from beginning to end the doctrine that, even in patriarchal times, faith was the underlying condition of acceptance with God, and that, therefore, the promise of God in its true import, amid its various forms, has been completely fulfilled in the Christian Church notwithstanding the rejection of unbelieving Judaism. The train of thought in the paragraph thus lies in line with the train of thought through the entire epistle. 2. We are thus delivered from the absurdity of denying, as Barnes, that “God sees any thing in the individuals as ground for his choice” If a particular choice, or, what is the same thing, a choice of a particular object, presents in itself no ground of preference differencing it from millions of others, then it is a choice without a motive; and so (as Calvinistic writers themselves strenuously maintain) is no choice or election at all, but a mere chance stumbling upon the object. 3. On the words not of works, in Rom 9:11, Mr. Barnes says: “What the reasons are for choosing to eternal life he has not revealed, but he has revealed that it is not on account of their works, either performed or foreseen.” And has he not as plainly revealed that it is on account of our faith as that it is not on account of our works? The very purpose of 30-33 (besides hundreds of other texts) is to declare that it is on account of faith the Christian is accepted, and of unfaith that the unbelieving Jew is rejected. 4. That God’s choice of his elect is not “from nothing in them,” or for any mysterious unsearchable reason, is clear from God’s own word touching Abraham, the typical specimen, according to Paul, of all the elect. The reason God assigns for electing Abraham is given in Gen 18:18-19: “I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they will keep the way of Jehovah, to do justice and judgment,” etc. Abraham was elected, therefore, for foreseen faith, evidenced by works. 5. The maxim of Augustine, “God does not choose us because we believe, but that we may believe,” is but half the truth. God does choose us, both because we believe and that we may believe. He chooses us from antecedent justifying faith unto a future persevering, fructifying, and glorifying faith. Our eternal election is based upon the antecedent eternal foresight of our free, excellent, yet non-meritorious faith, (see note on Rom 8:29,) non-meritorious in the sense of not meriting so great an election. (See note on Rom 3:24.)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Rom 9:13 . “This utterance ( ) took place in conformity with the expressly testified (in Mal 1:2-3 , freely cited from the LXX.) love of God towards Jacob and abhorrence of Esau.” Thus, that utterance agrees with this . But just like Paul, so the prophet himself intends by and , not the two nations Israel and Edom, but the persons of the two brothers; God loved the former, and hated the latter (and therefore has exalted Israel and destroyed Edom).

The aorists are, in the sense of the apostle as the relation of . to the preceding, imparting information respecting the subjective ground of the divine declaration in Rom 9:12 , shows to be referred to the love and abhorrence entertained towards the brothers before their birth , but are not to be understood of the de facto manifestation of love and hatred by which the saying of Gen 25:23 had been in the result confirmed (van Hengel). , moreover, is not to have a merely privative sense ascribed to it: not to love , or to love less (as Fessel, Glass, Grotius, Estius, and many, including Nsselt, Koppe, Tholuck, Flatt, Beck, Maier, Beyschlag), which is not admissible even in Mat 6:24 , Luk 14:26 ; Luk 16:13 , Joh 12:25 (see, against this and similar attempts to weaken its force, Lamping); but it expresses the opposite of the positive ., viz. positive hatred . See Mal 1:4 . And as that love towards Jacob must be conceived of as completely independent of foreseen virtues (Rom 9:11 ), so also this hatred towards Esau as completely independent of foreseen sins (in opposition to the Greek Fathers and Jerome on Mal 1 ). Both were founded solely on the free elective determination of God; with whom, in the necessary connection of that plan which He had freely adopted for the process of theocratic development, the hatred and rejection of Esau were presupposed through their opposite, namely, the free love and election of Jacob to be the vehicle of the theocracy and its privileges, as the reverse side of this love and choice, which the history of Edom brought into actual relief.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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

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

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

a Quicquid dehinc scripturarum est, huius est commentarius.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

have. Omit.

loved. Greek. agapao. App-135. See Deu 21:15.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

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

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 9:13

Rom 9:13

Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.-Many think this was written before the children were born, but this is not correct. Yet it is true that God foretold that Esau, the older, should serve Jacob, the younger, before they were born. This was, no doubt, made because God, seeing the end from the beginning, saw that Jacob would trust and serve him and that Esau would not. To love and hate as God uses the terms means to approve or disapprove, to bless or curse.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Jacob: Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3

hated: Gen 29:31, Gen 29:33, Deu 21:15, Pro 13:24, Mat 10:37, Luk 14:26, Joh 12:25

Reciprocal: Deu 10:15 – General Deu 23:5 – because the 1Sa 12:22 – it hath Jer 31:3 – I have Jer 49:10 – I have made Rom 3:5 – what shall

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE STORY OF JACOB

Jacob have I loved.

Rom 9:13

It has been said as a paradox that there is nothing so disappointing as failure, except success. The study of the character of Jacob illustrates the truth of the paradox, for we find that at the outset of his career he was eminently successful in accomplishing what he desired, whereas, when he was an old man, we see him overwhelmed with grief, saying, in anguish of spirit, I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. The sad thought in his history is that we can trace a direct connection between his sorrows in later life and the successes of his early youth. He waited long, waiting for salvation from the result of the sins of his youth.

I. That had been the main occupation of his life, and he confessed it when, just before death, he, like his father Isaac, gave his final blessing to his children. In the midst of it he paused and exclaimed, I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord. He had waited, and had found it in more senses than one. Through all the vicissitudes of his life his sons had all been spared him. The tears which he shed over Josephs bloodstained coat had long been dried. His sons had repented of their sin against their brother and of their lies to himself. In all this he saw the mercy of God rejoicing over judgment. There was something satisfactory in the thought that the punishment of his sin had fallen on him already, and was now over for ever. His success in deceiving his father had brought on him a lifelong train of bitter disappointments, but his failures and trials, in which he plainly discerned the hand of God, were now his source of comfort and satisfaction. They were proof to him that God had never either forgotten or forsaken him. He knew at the end that not one word of His promises would fall to the ground.

II. The ladder resting on earth and reaching up to heaven had not been a mere dream, it was a revelation telling him that his communion with God would be established for ever. Looking at his sons standing round his bed, and knowing that all had families of growing children, he saw in them the firstfruits of the fulfilment of that promise given to him as part of the revelation: Thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth; and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south, and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. That was the promise given, as St. Paul says, to Abraham and his seed, not to all the branches of his posterity, but to the one line which ran through Jacob and his sons, and culminated in the birth of Christ.

III. It is well for us that God, Who rules over all, sees the whole man as a whole, and that He does not pronounce judgment on him in sections. Who but God could have seen the grand old Jacob of his later years, in the germ of the young liar, sneaking out of his fathers tent rejoicing in the success of his deception? But that was only a section of the imperfect Jacob, a piece of the shapeless, plastic clay out of which the great Potter had determined to mould a vessel full of honour and meet for His, the Masters use, when He had first worked him into shape on the wheel of destiny, and then fixed his character for ever in the fiery furnace of affliction.

So, God grant, may He act towards us, visiting us sharply for our sins in order that we may forsake them, and then finally purifying us, even as He Himself is pure.

Dean Ovenden.

Illustration

Once when teaching a class of boys at a reformatory school I asked them, When did you feel worse, on the day when you knew that you had stolen, or on the day when the policeman caught you? They answered in a chorus, The day I was caught, sir. The crime was nothing. It was the means by which they had attained their desires. Had they succeeded, they would have congratulated themselves on their skill, and that feeling of jubilation would have effectually silenced the voice of conscience speaking within. Such jubilation, doubtless, was felt by Jacob.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

SOWING AND REAPING

There are many lessons to be learnt from the life of Jacob, but at this time I will only ask you to look upon it as an illustration of the law that whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

I. Jacob deceived his father and his brother, and as a consequence of this, all his life long he suffered from deceit and ill-conduct on the part of those nearest to him. Laban by deceit forced upon him a wife whom he had no wish for, and compelled him to labour twice seven years for Rachel whom he loved; and ten times afterwards he changed his wages, seeking to gain an advantage over him. Simeon and Levi by deceit slew all the men of Shechem, and made it necessary for Jacob to abandon his home for fear of the vengeance of the neighbouring tribes. His favourite son was sold into slavery by his brothers, who deceived their father with the belief that he had been slain by a wild beast, and allowed him to continue in that belief, notwithstanding the agony of his sorrow. Reuben, the eldest by birth, and Judah, the first in dignity of his sons, were both guilty of grievous sins; even the innocent stratagem of his son Joseph was the cause of most painful anxiety. Few and evil have the years of my life been, were the words he addressed to Pharaoh; and we cannot doubt that many a time in his later life he looked back to his own sinful act towards his father and brother, and repented bitterly of the faithlessness which had led him to seek by unlawful means that blessing which God had promised should be his, and which would undoubtedly have come to him by the order of Gods providence, if he had been willing to wait the appointed time.

We have seen how a sin committed years before, and bitterly repented of, was visited upon Jacob again and again till quite the end of his life. Shall we say that this is a sign that his sin has not been forgiven, that Gods anger is not turned away? On the contrary, he is the inheritor of Gods highest blessing, the one man honoured and approved of God beyond all others in his generation.

II. In him we may see the truth of the words, whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth; the more precious the metal the more carefully is it refined. If, then, there are any of us who are now reaping the crop of sorrow which has sprung up from the seeds of past sin, let us

(a) Acknowledge that it is no mere chance which has brought it about, but that it is the voice of God calling us to repentance.

(b) Let us not be discouraged or look upon ourselves as special objects of Gods wrath. Chastening is not a sign of wrath, but of love to those who will take it as such, who place themselves meekly and trustfully in Gods hands, and pray that He will do with them as He sees best. If ever we are inclined to despair, let us look at those great saints of God, Jacob and David, and see how they were punished, and let us bear with patience and thankfulness what God sends.

(c) If there are any who are conscious of past sin unrepented of, which God seems to have passed over or forgotten, let the example of Jacob rouse them from their false security. If God did not forget the sin of Jacob, though it had been earnestly repented of and had received His forgiveness, is it likely that He can have forgotten yours? Let us all remember the solemn lesson that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap, reap more or less here in this life, but reap fully and completely in the life to come.

Rev. Professor Joseph B. Mayor.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

:13

Romans 9:13. The original word for hated is defined by Thayer in this place, “to love less,” hence it does not mean a feeling against Esau as if He detested him.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 9:13. As it is written (Mal 1:2-3), Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. In the original prophecy the statement that Esau was hated, is proved by the added words: and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. The reference to the nation of Edomites is therefore clear. As it is written, however, implies a correspondence with Rom 9:12. We therefore apply the language to Jacob and Esau personally, regarding the national destiny as bound up in the personal position of the two ancestors. The word hated seems harsh, and hence some explain it as love less, making the whole passage to mean, I preferred Jacob to Esau. But, despite such instances as Luk 14:24, compared with Mat 10:37, this explanation is not allowable. The historical dealings of God with Esau (and with Edom also), indicate, not less love, but the deprivation or absence of love, to say the least. God loves the good, because He produces the very good that is in them; and He elects them not on account of their faith and their holiness, but to faith and holiness. But it cannot be said, on the other hand, that He hates the evil men because He produces the very evil that is in them; for that would be absurd, and destroy His holiness; but He hates them on account of the evil that they do or will do in opposition to His will. While human goodness is the effect of Divine love and grace, on the contrary, human wickedness is the cause of Divine hatred and abhorrence; and on that account alone can it be the object of the punitive wrath, and condemnatory decree of God. (Schaff, in Lange, Romans, p. 328.) This is implied in the subsequent discussion, where the ill desert of all men is assumed, and salvation in the case of any presented as caused by Gods mercy. But whatever be the extent of the preference, or the result of the choice in the case of Jacob and Esau, the main thought is: God does exercise a prerogative of election, independently of the human considerations referred to in these instances. That this is Pauls meaning is evident from what immediately follows. His assertion of the freedom of God might be used to impeach His moral character. If the Apostles argument thus far had not plainly set forth that freedom, the objection of Rom 9:14 could not have been raised.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Even as it is written [Mal 1:2-3], Jacob loved, but Esau hated. [Expositors of Calvinistic bias insist upon the full, literal meaning of “hatred” in this passage; but Hodge, whose leaning that way is so decided that he can see no more injustice in eternal than in temporal election (he apparently never weighed the words of our Savior at Luk 16:25; Luk 12:48; and kindred passages which show that temporal favors which are indeed bestowed arbitrarily are taken into account to form the basis of just judgment in the bestowal of eternal favors), is nevertheless too fair-minded an exegete to be misled here. He says: “It is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less favor. Thus, in Gen 29:33; Leah says she was hated by her husband; while in the preceding verse the same idea is expressed by saying, ‘Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah’ (Mat 6:24; Luk 14:26). ‘If a man come to me and hate not his father and mother, etc.’ (Joh 12:25).” As this ninth of Romans is the stronghold of Calvinism, the arsenal of that disappearing remnant who believe in eternal foreordination according to the absolute decree of the sovereign will of God, we feel that a word ought to be said about the doctrinal trend of its sections. We therefore submit a few points. 1. It is rather odd that this chapter should be used to prove salvation by election when, so far as it bears on election at all, it is wholly an effort to justify God in casting off an elect people (Jews) and choosing a non-elect people (Gentiles). If, therefore, the chapter as a whole teaches anything as to arbitrary election, it is plainly this, that those who depend upon God to show partiality in electing some and condemning others, will either be disappointed as were the Jews, or surprised as were the Gentiles, for election will never work out as they suppose. For, after showing favor to Abraham’s seed for nineteen hundred years, God adjusted the balances, and, turning from Jews to Gentiles, made the first last, and the last first; the elect, non-elect; and the non-elect, elect. And now, the non-elect, having enjoyed the favors and privileges for a like term of nineteen hundred years, are now being called to account, and will, in their turn, be cut off. But if they are, it will be wholly their own fault, just as the rejection nineteen hundred years ago was by Israel’s fault, and not by arbitrary decree of God. 2. Moreover, Paul is not discussing salvation, or foreordination as to eternity. There is not one word on that subject in the entire ninth chapter. The apostle is introducing no new doctrine, no unheard-of and strange enormity like Calvinism. “The difficulty,” as Olshausen aptly puts it, “and obscurity of the whole section before us are diminished when we reflect that it by no means contains anything peculiar; since the same ideas which so startle us in reading it, are also expressed throughout the whole of the Old as well as the New Testament. It is only their conciseness, their bold and powerful utterance, that lends them, as it were, an unprecedented appearance here.” The apostle is speaking of the bestowal of temporal advantages and benefits, and is showing that these, even when relating to Messianic privileges, are bestowed according to God’s free will–they have to be! They are like other earthly benefits or privileges; for instance, the distinction as to new-born souls. It is God alone who must determine how each shall enter the world, whether as of the white, brown, red, black or yellow race, whether among the rich or poor. So also, rising a step higher, whether a soul shall have a perfect or a defective brain to think with, and whether it shall enter a Christian or a pagan home. Now, as God gave a promise to Eve, the same law of necessity made it compulsory that he choose arbitrarily what household should be the repository of that promise and thus perpetuate a lively expectation of its fulfillment. God therefore first chose the Chaldees among the nations, then, as second choice, he elected Abraham among the Chaldees; third, he chose Isaac from Abraham’s seed, and, fourth, Jacob from Isaac’s offspring. Up to this time there was a marked separation, both spiritual and geographical, between the elect and the non-elect, so that there was no confusion in anybody’s mind as to the inherent exclusiveness of election. But with Jacob a change came. His sons all dwell together, and during his lifetime till his last sickness no election was announced as to them until on his death-bed Jacob gave Judah the pre-eminence (Gen 49:8-12). But Moses passes over this pre-eminence (Deu 33:7) and there was no segregation of Judah. In fact, other tribes seem to have overshadowed Judah in importance, notably that of Levi, all of whom were set apart as Levites for God’s service, and of which tribe also came Moses the lawgiver and Aaron the father of the priesthood. Moreover, many of the great judges came from other tribes, and the house of Benjamin furnished the first king. This community of interest, this privilege of enjoying the appurtenances and collaterals of election, should have taught Israel that the blessing promised was greater, wider and more gracious than the mere privilege of being the repository of that blessing, but, instead, it begot in them the mistaken idea that all the twelve tribes were elect. So, indeed, they were as to possessing the land, but they were not elect as to being repositories of the Messianic promise, which honor was first limited to Judah (1Ch 5:2) and afterwards to the house of David (2Sa 7:12; Mic 5:2; Joh 7:42). Now, this is what Paul is discussing. With him it is a question of fixing a promise so that men may watch for its fulfillment in a certain race and family–a promise which, when fulfilled, brings blessings and benefits not confined to any race or family, but open and free to all who accept them, and denied to all who refuse and reject them, yea, even to the very race and family which have been the age-long repositories of the promise. And the point of Paul’s whole argument is this: As God was absolutely free to choose who should be the repositories of the promise, so is he absolutely free to fix the terms by which men shall enjoy the blessings promised, even if those terms (because of rebellion against them on the part of the repositories) work out the failure of the repositories to enjoy the blessings so long held by them in the form of unfulfilled promise. And what has all this to do with electing infants to eternal damnation? No more than the election which makes one child black and the other white, when both are born the same moment. In short, no temporal election, no matter how blessed, includes salvation to the elect or necessitates damnation upon the non-elect, for it is apparent to all that the election of the Gentiles as repositories of Christian truth does not save half of them, and the rejection of the Jews from this holy office damns none of them. Salvation is accorded the Jew who believes as freely as it is to the Gentile, and the unbelieving Gentile is damned with the unbelieving Jew, and rests under heavier condemnation because he sins against greater temporal privileges and advantages. In either case the temporal advantage or disadvantage will be duly considered in forming a just judgment (Luk 12:48). 3. It should be noted that Paul proves God’s right at any time to limit his promise. Thus the blessing to Abraham’s seed was first “nakedly and generally expressed,” as Chalmers puts it. Then it was limited to one son, Isaac. Again it was limited to Isaac’s son, Jacob. Therefore, as God established his right of limiting the promise to those whom he chose in the inner circle of the promise, so he could in the gospel age limit the promise to spiritual to the exclusion of fleshly seed. This is not just what he did, but this is what he established his right to do, for if he could disinherit Ishmael after he had apparently obtained vested rights, and if he disinherited Esau before he was born, there was no limit to his right to disinherit, providing only that he kept within the promise and chose some one of Abraham’s seed, or the seed of some one of his descendants to whom a like covenant was given. Compare his offer to make Moses the head of a new people (Exo 32:10), which he was free to do, not having confirmed the rights in Judah pronounced by Jacob– Gen 49:8-12].

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

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

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 13

Loved; chosen.–Hated; rejected.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

By quoting Mal 1:2-3 Paul raised his discussion from the level of personal election to national election. Malachi was speaking of nations, as the context of this Malachi quotation shows. Paul’s point was that God does not wait until He sees how individuals or nations develop and what choices they make before He elects them. God chose Jacob and the nation of Israel for reasons that lay within Himself, not because they merited election (cf. Deu 7:6-8). This is a powerful refutation of the claim that election results from prior knowledge, that God chooses a person for salvation having foreseen that he or she will believe the gospel.

"The connection of this quotation with Rom 9:12 suggests that God’s love is the same as his election: God chose Jacob to inherit the blessings promised first to Abraham. . . . If God’s love of Jacob consists in his choosing Jacob to be the ’seed’ who would inherit the blessings promised to Abraham, then God’s hatred of Esau is best understood to refer to God’s decision not to bestow this privilege on Esau. It might best be translated ’reject.’ "Love’ and ’hate’ are not here, then, emotions that God feels but actions that he carries out." [Note: Ibid., p. 587. Cf. Cranfield, 2:480. See also Matthew 6:24; Luke 14:26; and John 12:25.]

 

"The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms." [Note: Mounce, p. 199.]

 

"As to ’Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,’ a woman once said to Mr. Spurgeon, ’I cannot understand why God should say that He hated Esau.’ ’That,’ Spurgeon replied, ’is not my difficulty, madam. My trouble is to understand how God could love Jacob!" [Note: Newell, p. 364.]

In Rom 9:6-13 Paul established that Israel was the object of God’s choice for special blessing because of His own gracious will. He did not choose Israel because of the Israelites’ natural descent from Abraham or because of their superior qualities.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)