God’s Choice of Isaac Over Ishmael and Jacob Over Esau
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Romans 9:6-13
Paul now refers to two Old Testament situations. The first concerns Abraham’s family. Just as ‘not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’ (9:6), so not all who are descended from Abraham are ‘Abraham’s children’ (9:7), his true offspring (Romans 4). ‘On the contrary, as Scripture says, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned” (9:7) and not through Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, who isn’t even mentioned. ‘In other words’ who are God’s children who can be rightly called ‘Abraham’s offspring’ (9:8)? ‘It is not the natural children’ (literally: the children of the flesh) ‘who are God’s children’ (9:7) but ‘the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring’ (9:8), who were born as a result of God’s promise. And this was the wording of the promise: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son” (9:9).
From Abraham and his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, Paul now turns to Isaac and his two sons, Jacob and Esau. He shows that just as God chose Isaac and not Ishmael to be the recipient of His promise, so He chose Jacob and not Esau. In this case it was even clearer that God’s decision had nothing to do with any eligibility in the boys themselves. Isaac and Ishmael before them might have had different mothers but Jacob and Esau had the same mother, Rebekah. ‘Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac’ (9:10) and beyond that, they were twins. ‘Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad’ God had made His decision and revealed it to their mother. This was deliberate ‘in order that God’s purpose in election might stand’ (9:11).
There might be a conscious contrast between the question whether God’s promise had ‘fallen’ (9:6 literal) and the statement that His purpose must ‘stand’ (9:11). What ‘God’s purpose in [literally: according to] election’ (9:11) means is clear. In context, God’s choice of Isaac (not Ishmael) and of Jacob (not Esau) did not originate in them or in any ‘works’ they may have done. It originated in the mind and will of ‘him who calls’ (9:12).
To prove the point Paul quotes two scriptures. The first says: ‘The older will serve the younger’ (9:12), putting Jacob before Esau. The second scripture says ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ (9:13). There are three main ways of interpreting Paul’s use of the Malachi 1:2 scripture here. The first is to understand it, not as direct references to the individuals, Jacob and Esau, but as a reference to the people they fathered, the Israelites and the Edomites, and to their historical destinies. A second approach looks at the statement in its covenantal context where ‘love’ means in effect to choose, while ‘hate’ means to reject; so the sentence means ‘I chose Israel but rejected Esau.’ The third option is to understand the sentence as a Hebrew idiom for preference. Jesus spoke this way when He said we cannot be His follower unless we hate our family (Luke 14:26). Each view has merit.
It must not be forgotten that Esau forfeited his birthright because of his own worldliness (Genesis 25:29ff) and lost his ‘blessing’ because of his brother’s deceitfulness (Genesis 27:1ff); so human responsibility was interwoven with divine sovereignty in the story. The rejected brothers, Ishmael and Esau were both circumcised as members of God’s covenant, and were both promised lesser blessings. Beyond all this, both stories illustrate the same core truth of ‘God’s purpose according to election.’ God’s promise did not fail, but was only fulfilled in the Israel within Israel.