10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:10-13 KJV)
William Burkitt’s Commentary
Our apostle having in the foregoing verses proved from what was done in Abraham’s family that it was the purpose and pleasure of God to account only those for Abraham’s seed who were the children of his faith, and to reject the rest for their unbelief; in these verses, he prosecutes the same argument, by insisting upon another special dispensation of God in the family of Isaac, whose wife Rebecca had twins, namely Jacob and Esau, and had neither of them anything in them to move God to love the one and dislike the other: yet a preference was given to the one before the other.
So that the apostle’s argument runs thus: “As Jacob and Esau were begotten of the same father, born of the same mother, laid together in the same womb, and had neither of them done anything at all to oblige or disoblige Almighty God; yet he was pleased to make a difference between them and their posterity after them, giving the beloved Canaan to Jacob and his seed, which by birthright belonged to Esau and his offspring: so in like manner is it the will and pleasure of God that the believing Gentiles should become heirs of the promise by faith in Christ and that the unbelieving Jews should be rejected and cast off for their infidelity.”
Learn hence, 1. That Almighty God chooses persons to the participation of divine favours.
Learn, 2. That the choice which God makes of men to the enjoyment of that special favour of being his peculiar people is not according to their external privileges or works, but according to his own free pleasures.
Learn, 3. That as Jacob’s and Esau’s being unborn, and having done neither good nor evil, is used as an argument to prove that the choice of one before the other could not be of works; so it is a strong argument against the preexistence of souls, and their being sent into bodies by way of punishment for former sins. For upon that supposition, it could not be true, that the children had done neither good nor evil before they were born, seeing they might both have sinned in that state of pre-existence.
Learn, 4, and observe, That the apostle does not say, That before the children had done either good or evil, God said, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated: but only the elder shall serve the younger.
Hatred here may be taken two ways, either,
1. For a less degree of love; God preferring the seed of Jacob before the posterity of Essau, giving the former the good land of Canaan, to the latter the barren mountains of Seir.
Or, 2. If hatred is taken in the strictest sense, that God is said to hate Esau, that is, the Edomites, after their wicked and unnatural behaviour towards their brethren the Israelites; and upon that occasion see For thy violence against thy brother, Jacob, shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever Ob 1:10.
Nothing renders a person the object of God’s hatred but sin; he does not hate the devil himself, as he is his creature, but only as he is a sinner. God adjudges none to eternal perdition but with respect to sin.
Observe, 5. That Jacob and Esau are not here to be considered personally, but collectively; for the Israel that descended from Jacob and for the Edomites which sprang from Esau: for Esau in his own person did not serve Jacob, but the Edomites did which sprang from Esau: for Esau in his own person did not serve Jacob, but the Edomites did serve the Israelites. Thus the elder did serve the younger.
Again, it appears that Job and all his friends were of the posterity of Esau: God did not then hate the person of all the posterity of Esau, but only those of them who by their violence and wickedness rendered themselves the object of his hatred.