God’s Purpose According to Election: Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:10–15)

Rom. 9:10. And not only that, but Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our father Isaac.

A second example of separation from the inheritance of the promise, more evident than the first. In the first example it is shown how children of one father but different mothers are separated; here is shown the separation among children of one father and one mother, and moreover ones who were both conceived and born at the same time. Against the first example one could object: from the children of Abraham the others were separated because they were not from Sarah, and Isaac was recognized as the heir because he was from Sarah. The Apostle speaks, as it were: such an objection has no force, because descent is reckoned according to the father, not the mother (Blessed Theodoret); but so that you have no doubt, I shall bring you another example. The same happened with the children of Rebekah, who conceived from Isaac at the same time and bore twins. But one of them was separated from the inheritance, while the other was chosen as the heir of the promise. Against this there was nothing to object to. Thus tangibly is it seen in this example that spiritual promises are in no way dependent on fleshly descent. The Apostle’s very speech in this text is truncated and incomplete. Anyone can complete it as he thinks best, guided by the proposed train of thought of the Apostle. Blessed Theodoret writes: “If you think,” says the Apostle, “that Isaac was preferred to Ishmael and the children of Abraham born to Keturah because of Sarah, what then will you say of Rebekah? For here the mother is one, the father is one, and the conception is one, because the children are twins. This is what the Apostle expressed in the words ‘by one man, our father Isaac,’—that is, Rebekah conceived both at the same time; yet one is beloved of God, while the other is unworthy of God’s care for him.” Holy Chrysostom brings both the earlier and this example under one view and makes a general conclusion corresponding to the Apostle’s purpose: “Why are you astonished,” says the Apostle, “if some of the Jews were saved and others not? Everyone knows that the same happened in ancient times with the patriarchs. Why is only Isaac called the seed of Abraham, although Abraham was the father of Ishmael and many others? Is it because Ishmael’s mother was a slave? But how does that affect the son? However, I will not dispute; let Ishmael be sent away because of the mother. But what shall we say of the children of Keturah? Were they not free and born not of a freewoman? Why then were they not deemed worthy of the privileges given to Isaac? And what is to be said of Keturah’s children? Rebekah was Isaac’s sole wife, bore two sons, and both from Isaac. But these, born of one father, one mother, suffering the same pangs of childbirth, these brothers, with the same blood and the same womb, and moreover twins, did not receive equal rights. Here one cannot refer to the slavery of the mother, as in the case of Ishmael, nor to the fact that they were not born from one womb, as in the case of the children of Keturah and Sarah; they had one mother, and she felt the pangs of childbirth at one and the same hour. Therefore Paul, as if thinking the last example clearer, says that it was not only with Isaac that this was so, but also with Rebekah and the others.”

By this simple indication the Apostle’s purpose was already achieved—to prove by examples from ancient history that God from the very beginning excluded some from participation in the promises, despite their fleshly descent from the fathers who received the promises, and that therefore there is nothing astonishing if even now some are found excluded from participation in the benefits bestowed by the promised Redeemer and Saviour. But as in the first example, so here the Apostle does not limit himself to a mere indication but adds explanatory thoughts, entering more and more deeply into the laws of divine providence.

Rom. 9:11–12. Before they were born or had done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to his choice might be maintained, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger’ (Gen. 25:23).

“In these verses two parts and thoughts must be distinguished: one serves only to present the proposed example more strikingly, while the other introduces us to the laws of God’s providential action. To the first belong the words: ‘Before they were born or had done anything good or bad, she was told, The older will serve the younger.’ Not only from two born of one father and mother and from one man are they separated, one from the inheritance of the promise and the other chosen as its heir; but this happens before they even began to act and did anything good or bad. Thus naturally and necessarily is such separation and exclusion made! What then do you wonder and doubt,‘says the Apostle, as it were,’that now you see excluded, or rather excluding themselves, from the spiritual blessings bestowed by the revealed Deliverer?!‘The words:’The older will serve the younger”—were not always fulfilled in fact: it was so from David to Joram (2 Sam. 8:14; 2 Kings 8:20–22) and under the Maccabees; but for the most part the descendants of Esau were hostile to the descendants of Jacob and as it were foreign to them. The servitude indicated here means generally the state of alienation from the inheritance, similar to the condition of slaves who have no part in the inheritance.

To the second belong the words: “So that God’s purpose according to his choice might be maintained, not because of works but because of his call.”

These are not incidental words, but on the contrary, the main ones; they are placed in the middle so as to hold attention more forcefully on them. They point to that peculiarity in divine action which appears in the election of some to the inheritance of the promise and in the exclusion of others from this inheritance. Why did God tell Rebekah that of her two children one would be the heir and the other, like a slave, excluded from this before they were born and had done anything? So as to show not to her alone but to all in general that when he resolves to elect one and exclude another, he does this not on the basis of deeds already done by the elected or excluded, but from his own nature, as is fitting for him who elects or calls. The words: “So that God’s purpose according to his choice” and so on—literally convey these thoughts: “God’s purpose”—God’s decision, determination, or plainly God’s will; “according to his choice”—according to the act of choice or with respect to election—this one to the inheritance, that one to exclusion from it; “might be maintained”—might be made known to all that such purpose or will and determination takes place; “not because of works”—which would have already been done by those to whom this purpose applies, as is evident in Jacob and Esau, concerning whom the determination was made before their birth; “but because of his call”—does not depend or come, but: happens—and happens, of course, in the way fitting for him who calls or in accordance with his attributes.

Here there is no thought of unconditional divine determination of some to the inheritance of the promise and others to exclusion from it without regard for whether anyone is worthy or unworthy, but only that such determination is made not on the basis of manifested worthiness or unworthiness, but as is fitting for him who makes the determination. Or—he knows or is able to make such a determination apart from such manifestation, yet in complete accordance with his attributes—truth and goodness. One can make such a determination not according to manifested worthiness or unworthiness, but according to what is foreknown. It is according to just such foreknowledge that every divine purpose according to election comes to pass.

“Our interpreters dwell especially on this thought. Holy Chrysostom says: ‘Why is one loved and another rejected? Is it because one was bad and the other good? But one is honored and the other condemned before they were even born! Before their birth God said: ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Why did God say this? Because he does not wait, as man does, for the end of the deed, so as to see who is good and who is not, but on the contrary, he already knows beforehand who is good and who is not.’ And we read the same in Blessed Theodoret: ‘God did not await trial in deed, but while they were still being borne in the womb, he announced their difference. He announced it, having foreknown their dispositions, because this election is not contrary to justice, but accords with human disposition.’ Photius in Oecumenius explains: ‘God’s purpose’—means God’s will in election. ‘Not because of works’—expresses the greatness of God’s calling and his grace, that he chooses and calls from those who have yet done nothing. But you say: how are those who have done nothing chosen? Election happens according to the distinctions of the chosen, but what distinction have those who have done nothing?—Of course, so. But you must understand that for human eyes, since they have done nothing yet, they are distinguished in no way; but for divine foreknowledge, which sees what is to be as present, they are very much distinguished from one another: one is pleasing to God, the other is not. So God’s will in election was not from works, but was by calling and grace, and yet it was just, though such justice is not evident to all men.”

Ambrosiaster writes: “Divine foreknowledge acts in these matters in such a way that things cannot happen otherwise than as God foresees them to come to pass. Knowing what each of them was to be, God said: the younger will be worthy, the older unworthy. Foreknowledge elected one and rejected the other. And upon the one whom it elected rests ‘God’s purpose,’ because with him nothing other could be than what God foreknew and appointed for him—namely, that he be worthy of salvation (the promise). And in the one whom it rejected, likewise rests ‘God’s purpose,’ because it foreknew that he would be unworthy (as indeed he proved to be later). Wherefore in this, because of foreknowledge, God appears not partial; for he condemns no one innocent of sin, and he crowns no one who has not won the victory.”

Rom. 9:13. Just as it is written: ‘I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.’

These words begin the prophecy of Malachi (Mal. 1:2). God through the Prophet explains his special favor toward Israel. Are not Esau and Jacob brothers? he says; but Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. By the word “hated”—is meant non-election, rejection, exclusion from the promise. One cannot more tangibly present that one is elected to the inheritance of the promise and another shut out from it. God himself does this. Consequently, that not all born from the fathers who received the promise are heirs of the promise is found in the order of God’s providence concerning men. “God does not pay attention to nature, but seeks only virtue” (Blessed Theodoret). The testimony was cited to confirm the meaning of the example brought forward by the Apostle, not to confirm what conclusion he drew from this example, which was discussed above.

Holy Chrysostom makes this review of all that has been said: “The principal intention of blessed Paul was, by all that he said, to teach that God alone knows the worthy, while from men no one does, and though many imagine of themselves that they know, yet they often err in their conclusion. But to him who knows the secrets of hearts it is perfectly clear who is worthy of crowns and who of punishment and torment. Therefore he has many whom men think are good, and having convicted them, punished, and many who were deemed wicked, crowned and testified that they are not such. He pronounces judgment not by the report of slaves, but by his own strict and impartial judgment. He does not wait for the end of the deed, to recognize one as worthy and another as not. I bring an example of those born of one father and mother. Both were born of Rebekah and Isaac, the lawful son of Abraham, who was approved by God himself and preferred above all, and became the father of those having to inherit the promises. But if he is the father, then those descended from him should also be fathers; but this did not happen (for Esau was separated from this rank). From this we understand that the children of Abraham are called his own children not only by birth, but also because they are worthy of the virtues of the parent. But if they were called by birth alone, Esau and Jacob ought to enjoy equal rights, because Esau too came from the same withered womb. On the contrary, more than such birth was required—namely, morality—not something ordinary, but what could serve to the building up of our life. The Apostle, however, does not say that because one was good and the other wicked, the first was preferred. But he presents as the sole cause God’s foreknowledge, against which surely only one completely insane would dare to contend. To choose from the womb of the mother is the work of foreknowledge. This was, says the Apostle, so that God’s election might be revealed, having been accomplished according to his will and foreknowledge. God from the first day knew and foretold both what is good and the contrary. Therefore, do not tell me, continues the Apostle, that you have read the law and the prophets and have served for so long. He who knows and searches hearts also knows who is worthy to be saved. Therefore, yield to the incomprehensible providence in election. He alone truly knows whom to crown. Therefore, do not demand an account of the Creator; do not ask: why is one crowned and another punished? He knows how to observe justice in all things. Therefore he said: ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’ That this is just you know from the outcome; but God knew it completely even before the fulfillment. He requires not only the appearance of deeds, but free will and unsullied feelings. Such a man, even if he should sin sometime through circumstance, will soon correct himself. Even though he should persist in vice, he will not be despised; on the contrary, the omniscient God will remember him. And likewise, a corrupted man, even though he should do something apparently good, will perish; because he does it with an evil disposition. David, having become a murderer and adulterer, soon atoned for his transgressions, because he was seized by circumstances and committed them not from attachment to vice. But the Pharisee, having committed no wickedness, but on the contrary, boasting of good deeds, spoiled all by an evil will.”

Rom. 9:14. What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!

Judging by this pattern of the establishment of God’s determinations concerning the participation of one or another, can one say that there is any injustice in God? Let it not be so. We do not see why God makes one or another determination, but God sees; and if he makes a determination, he makes it because it would be unjust to make it otherwise. Therefore we, believing in God, must accept all his determinations with confidence that they are entirely just, and wholly give ourselves to his dominion, not allowing our limited intellect to judge the deeds of God. “The Apostle shows here that God’s dispensations transcend human thought” (Blessed Theodoret). “The justice of God’s decisions regarding our lots escapes our mind, but the Judge of all knows exactly and infallibly that so, and not otherwise, it ought to be determined. Believe then that though much happens for reasons unknown to us and seems to some to be discordant, it always happens as the all-seeing eye sees and judges it right to be” (Oecumenius).

“After this the Apostle adds a new thought, which is more difficult than the preceding. What is it?” (Holy Chrysostom).

Rom. 9:15. For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’

These words mean directly: whom I deem worthy of mercy, I will have mercy on, and whom I deem worthy of compassion, I will have compassion on. Such a thought can be seen in the Russian translation: “Whom I will have mercy on, I will have mercy on; whom I will have compassion on, I will have compassion on” (Ex. 33:19). And it completely accords with the flow of the discourse. You asked: is there injustice in God, that he determined people’s fates before their birth and deeds? No, he answers. For God sees beforehand who is worthy and who is unworthy. Thus he also told Moses that whom he should have mercy on—who is worthy of mercy—on him he will have mercy, and whom he should have compassion on, he will have compassion on. It is also in harmony with the circumstances under which these words were spoken to Moses. Holy Prophet Moses asked that the Lord God deem him worthy of great mercy—to see his face. The Lord told him that his face could not be seen, but here is what I will do for you. I will pass before you in my glory, or cause a visible manifestation of the glory of my being to pass before your eyes, as a sign of my presence, and I will call to you: “The Lord passes before you, and I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion on whom I have compassion” (Ex. 33:19). That is, to the word “The Lord is before you” I will add these words. Thus the Lord promised, and commanded Moses to go up on the mountain. When he went up, the promised manifestation of God’s glory followed: “The Lord passed by before him and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; but he will by no means clear the guilty” (one who is guilty and does not repent, he will not regard as innocent, but will punish) (Ex. 34:6–7). These words were spoken in place of “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion”—and serve as a fuller explanation of them, coming from the mouth of God himself. The chief thought in these words is that whom God deems worthy of mercy, the Lord will have mercy on, and whom he deems unworthy, punishment will not pass by. Applying them to the question: “Is there injustice with God” in that he chose Jacob and rejected Esau?—we cannot fail to see a direct answer: No; he chose Jacob because it was fitting to choose him as worthy, and he rejected Esau because it was fitting to reject him as unworthy.

Let us add to this that holy Prophet Moses asked the Lord for mercy—to see his face after the Lord refused to go with the people, and then, persuaded by holy Moses, agreed again to go with them. This happened when the Israelites melted the calf and began to worship it as God. Holy Moses was on the mountain at that time. The Lord said to him: the people have sinned, they are worshipping the calf. I will destroy them all, and from you I will bring forth a new people. The prophet began to beseech the Lord not to do this, for otherwise all would blaspheme him, saying he brought the people out of Egypt only to destroy them in the wilderness. “Cease your burning anger, and change your mind about doing harm to your people” (Ex. 32:12). The Lord relented and set aside such a terrible determination, but not the punishment. Holy Moses, coming down from the mountain, summoned those who still remained faithful to the Lord, and commanded them to slay the ringleaders of the evil. They did so, and three thousand men fell then. After this, holy Moses again went up on the mountain to the Lord and began to pray: “This people have sinned a great sin; yet now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written” The Lord said to Moses: “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.” And he added: “But on the day when I visit, I will bring their sin upon them” (Ex. 32:32–35). This shows that the Lord determined to punish sinners of his own accord. Then it is written: “The Lord sent a plague on the people” (Ex. 32:35). And still more fell, besides those three thousand; many, but not all, though nearly all had sinned. Who made the choice? God’s foreknowledge; it saw those able to repent and bear good fruit and spared them; it saw those unrepentant in heart and struck them down, even though in this case perhaps some of the former were more guilty than some of the latter. Oecumenius writes: “If there is no injustice in God, and yet when all had worshipped the calf, God says: ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy’; then surely it is because in secret, by his eyes, he entered into the hearts of men and saw who was worthy of mercy and who unworthy.”

But God’s anger was not yet appeased. He declared to Moses: I will send an angel with you, and I myself will not go, so that I may not destroy you on account of your stubbornness. Hearing of this terrible determination, the people came into great sorrow, stripped off their ornaments, and clothed themselves in garments of mourning. And Moses began to beseech the Lord to go with them himself. The Lord relented and said: “I will do the very thing you have asked” (Ex. 33:17). After this, holy Moses asked the Lord to show him his face and heard the words about which we are speaking: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” (Ex. 33:19). Comparing these words with those which the Lord spoke, refusing to go with the people himself—namely, so that he would not destroy them all for stubbornness—one can give them yet another interpretation: I will go with you, and though I will not destroy you all in case of any transgression, I will not leave the deed without punishment. Whom to have mercy on and whom to punish, I will see then. Whoever proves worthy of mercy, I will have mercy on, and so forth. Holy Chrysostom puts into the mouth of the Lord these words: “It is not your business, Moses, to know who is worthy of clemency; leave this to me.”

Thus from all these circumstances it is evident that the Lord both has mercy and punishes, judging by what one is worthy of—either by deeds already done, or by what is foreseen of their life ahead. And such is precisely the meaning of the words: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” and the rest.

Ambrosiaster paraphrases this place thus: “I will have mercy,” he says, “on one over whom I have mercy, that is, I will have mercy on one about whom I foresee that he will turn and remain faithful to me, and I will show my compassion to one about whom I foreknow that he will turn from error to me with a right heart. This means: to give to one to whom one ought to give, and not to give to one to whom one ought not to give.”

And Oecumenius, applying this to the course of the Apostle’s discourse, speaks thus: “And regarding the present-day Jews too, God does not act unjustly; but even now those who are worthy are saved, because they believe, and those who are unworthy perish, because they do not believe. ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,’—as if to say: I know which are worthy of salvation and which unworthy. If Moses did not know which were worthy and which unworthy, shall we know the reasons for what happens? Who will fathom God’s judgments?” Thus here we can see a third example of how God receives some and rejects others. And this is now from among the multitude of the sons of Israel.

One can also explain these words thus: whom I wish, on him I have mercy. The subsequent thought is in agreement with this too. But even if we understand it thus, the fundamental thought will be one and the same—that God has mercy on the worthy, just as he punishes the unworthy. God always acts independently, as he wishes; but he acts in accordance with his infinite justice and boundless mercy, not in such a way as to have mercy on the unworthy regardless of all things and to punish the worthy. If we stop at this interpretation, then to it must be added the supposition that holy Paul introduced this saying in order to dispose those wondering why not all Jews entered into possession of the benefits of the promised Deliverer to resolve this wonder not according to any external and obvious circumstances, but out of the idea of God as all-just, all-good—as if to say: God has mercy on whom he wishes, and thus from you he chooses whom he wishes. But since there is no injustice in God, there is none in this action of his either. Give all to God and be at peace! Believe that the promise has not “failed” here.