Because of Him Who Calls

“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” -Romans 9:10–13

Paul continues to illustrate God’s sovereignty. Not only in Abraham’s son, Isaac, but also in Isaac’s sons, Jacob and Esau. The former is evidence of God working out his will through the son of promise rather than the son of the flesh. Each having different mothers, it might be easy enough to anachronistically assign the choice to sovereignty when it was already clear that Hagar was not part of the original promise.

But the latter illustrates God working out his purposes according to his sovereign will between two sons with the same mother. There is nothing to distinguish the sons in this case, except for God’s will, seeing they are twins not yet born and having done nothing either good or bad. As a matter of fact, before they were born, God established that the older would serve the younger (Genesis 25:21-23), an arrangement reverse of the natural expectation.

So it was not the natural order of an Ancient Near East custom that determined the lineage of Christ. Nor was it the works of the sons that determined the choice. It was done this way in order that God’s purpose of election might be revealed and established.

Paul finally seals the argument with an affirmation from Scripture, Malachi 1:2-3, saying, As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” The context of the reference is God’s pleading with Israel to repent of their sinful worship by appealing to his enduring love for them. 

^2 a“I have loved you,” says the Lord. ^bBut you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau ^cJacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet ^dI have loved Jacob ³ but Esau I have hated. ^eI have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”

The act of loving one and hating the other is not capricious or malicious on God’s part. The language seems shocking to many in modern English speaking countries but the love/hate paradigm is one of comparison rather than one of emotion. Consider how Jesus told his disciples, ““If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” -Luke 14:26

From everything else we know about what Jesus taught (e.g., Mark 7:9-13), certainly it would be a grave error to believe he meant for his disciples to have any kind of malice for their families. Rather, as a term of comparison, he was illustrating how much a disciple would need to be committed to him in order to be his disciple.

But returning to the passage in Romans, the historical plan of redemption is directed not by happenstance or caprice, but by the purposes of God, sovereignly directed according to his good will.