And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
23. And the Lord said ] How the Divine answer was granted, whether by priest or soothsayer, by dream or by vision, we are not told. It is in the form of a rhythmic oracle, in four stichoi, or lines. The oracle proclaims, that (1) there are two children who shall be two nations; (2) from the first there shall be separation and discord between the two; (3) one shall overmaster the other; (4) the younger shall be the lord of the elder. The historic rivalry between Israel and Edom is thus prefigured.
separated bowels ] The English is ambiguous, as in Gal 1:15, “the good pleasure of God who separated me even from my mother’s womb.” The meaning is, “even from birth” the destinies of the two men and of their descendants will be divergent: cf. Gen 13:11, “and they separated themselves the one from the other.”
the elder shall serve the younger ] The subjugation of the Edomites by the Israelites took place in the days of David, 2Sa 8:14. The same event is predicted by Jacob in Gen 27:40, where the additional prediction is made, that the subjugation will be only temporary. Israel, whose settlement in Palestine was later than that of the Edomites in the country of Seir, was regarded as the younger of the brother peoples. Edom was already a monarchy before Israel had settled down. But, occupying a richer country, Israel attained a higher civilization, and became a more powerful nation. For the hostility of Israel and Edom, see the prophet Obadiah. For St Paul’s use of the present passage, see Rom 9:10-12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 23. Two nations are in thy womb] “We have,” says Bishop Newton, “in the prophecies delivered respecting the sons of Isaac, ample proof that these prophecies were not meant so much of single persons as of whole nations descended from them; for what was predicted concerning Esau and Jacob was not verified in themselves, but in their posterity. The Edomites were the offspring of Esau, the Israelites were of Jacob; and who but the Author and Giver of life could foresee that two children in the womb would multiply into two nations? Jacob had twelve sons, and their descendants were all united and incorporated into one nation; and what an overruling providence was it that two nations should arise from the two sons only of Isaac! and that they should be two such different nations! The Edomites and Israelites have been from the beginning two such different people in their manners, customs, and religion, as to be at perpetual variance among themselves. The children struggled together in the womb, which was an omen of their future disagreement; and when they grew up to manhood, they manifested very different inclinations. Esau was a cunning hunter, and delighted in the sports of the field; Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents – minding his sheep and his cattle. The religion of the Jews is well known; but whatever the Edomites were at first, in process of time they became idolaters. When Amaziah king of Judah overthrew them, he brought their gods, and set them up to be his gods. The king of Edom having refused a passage to the Israelites through his territories on their return from Egypt, the history of the Edomites afterwards is little more than the history of their wars with the Jews.”
The one people shall be stronger than the other people] The same author continues to observe, that “for some time the family of Esau was the more powerful of the two, there having been dukes and kings in Edom before there was any king in Israel; but David and his captains made an entire conquest of the Edomites, slew several thousands of them, and compelled the rest to become tributaries, and planted garrisons among them to secure their obedience. In this state of servitude they continued about one hundred and fifty years, without a king of their own, being governed by deputies or viceroys appointed by the kings of Judah; but in the days of Jehoram they revolted, recovered their liberties, and set up a king of their own. Afterwards Amaziah, king of Judah, gave them a total overthrow in the valley of Salt; and Azariah took Elath, a commodious harbour on the Red Sea, from them. Judas Maccabeus also attacked and defeated them with a loss of more than twenty thousand at two different times, and took their chief city Hebron. At last Hyrcanus his nephew took other cities from them, and reduced them to the necessity of leaving their country or embracing the Jewish religion; on which they submitted to be circumcised, and become proselytes to the Jewish religion, and were ever afterwards incorporated into the Jewish Church and nation.”
The elder shall serve the younger.] “This passage,” says Dr. Dodd, “serves for a key to explain the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where the words are quoted; for it proves to a demonstration that this cannot be meant of God’s arbitrary predestination of particular persons to eternal happiness or misery, without any regard to their merit or demerit – a doctrine which some have most impiously fathered on God, who is the best of beings, and who cannot possibly hate, far less absolutely doom to misery, any creature that he has made: but that it means only his bestowing greater external favours, or, if you please, higher opportunities for knowing and doing their duty, upon some men, than he does upon others; and that merely according to his own wise purpose, without any regard to their merits or demerits, as having a right to confer greater or smaller degrees or perfection on whom he pleases.”
The doctrine of unconditional predestination to eternal life and eternal death cannot be supported by the example of God’s dealings with Esau and Jacob, or with the Edomites and Israelites. After long reprobation the Edomites were incorporated among the Jews, and have ever since been undistinguishable members in the Jewish Church. The Jews, on the contrary, the elect of God, have been cut off and reprobated, and continue so to this day. If a time should ever come when the Jews shall all believe in Christ Jesus, which is a general opinion, then the Edomites, which are now absorbed among them, shall also become the elect. And even now Isaac finds both his children within the pale of the Jewish Church, equally entitled to the promises of salvation by Christ Jesus, of whom he was the most expressive and the most illustrious type. See the account of Abraham’s offering, Ge 22:2-14.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Lord spoke, either by inward inspiration, in a dream or vision; or by the ministry of an angel or prophet.
Two nations, i.e. the roots, heads, or parents of two distinct nations, one opposite to the other; the one blessed, the other cursed, namely, the Israelites and Edomites.
Shall be separated; not only separated from thee, but one separated or greatly differing from the other in their frame of body, temper of mind, course of life, profession and practice of religion.
The elder, or, the greater, namely Esau, who was, as older, so of a stronger constitution of body, and of greater power and dignity in the world than Jacob; and Esaus posterity were great princes for a long time, when Jacobs seed were strangers in Canaan, slaves in Egypt, and poor afflicted wanderers in the wilderness. But, saith he, Esau and his shall not always be stronger and mightier than Jacob and his posterity, the tables shall be turned, and the children of Israel shall be uppermost and subdue the Edomites, which was literally accomplished in Davids time, 2Sa 8:14; and afterwards, 2Ch 25:11,12; and after that by the Maccabees; but much more eminently in a spiritual sense under the gospel, when one of Jacobs children, even Jesus Christ, shall obtain the dominion, and shall rule the Edomites no less than other heathen nations with his iron rod, and make them serviceable one way or other to his glory, and to the felicity of his true Israel.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the Lord said unto her,…. Either by one or other of the above persons she acquainted with this affair, and entreated to seek the Lord for her; or by an impulse upon her own mind:
two nations [are] in thy womb; or two persons, from whom two nations will spring, the Edomites and Israelites, the one from Esau, the other from Jacob:
and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; different in their bodies, complexions, manner of life, religion, as well as place of abode:
and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people: the Edomites, the posterity of Esau, were a very potent people, and had a succession of dukes and kings, before the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob, made any figure in the world, and while they were slaves in Egypt, see Ge 36:1; though in later times the Israelites became the stronger:
and the elder, or “greater”,
shall serve the younger, or “lesser”: the offspring of Esau, the eldest, should become tributary to the posterity of Jacob, the younger; which was verified in the times of David, when the Edomites were subdued by him, 2Sa 8:14; and still more in the times of Hyrcanus, when the Edomites or Idumeans became one people with the Jews, and embraced their religion e, rather than to be dispossessed of their country; and will have a further accomplishment in the latter day, when the prophecies in Ob 1:18 shall be fulfilled. Of the use which the Apostle Paul makes of this passage, [See comments on Ro 9:11],
[See comments on Ro 9:12].
e Joseph. Antiqu. l. 13. c. 9. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
23. Two nations. In the first place, God answers that the contention between the twin-brothers had reference to something far beyond their own persons; for in this way he shows that there would be discord between their posterities. When he says, there are two nations, the expression is emphatical; for since they were brothers and twins, and therefore of one blood, the mother did not suppose that they would be so far disjoined as to become the heads of distinct nations; yet God declares that dissension should take place between those who were by nature joined together. Secondly, he describes their different conditions, namely, that victory would belong to one of these nations, forasmuch as this was the cause of the contest, that they could not be equal, but one was chosen and the other rejected. For since the reprobate give way reluctantly, it follows of necessity that the children of God have to undergo many troubles and contests on account of their adoption. Thirdly, the Lord affirms that the order of nature being inverted, the younger, who was inferior, should be the victor.
We must now see what this victory implies. They who restrict it to earthly riches and wealth coldly trifle. Undoubtedly by this oracle Isaac and Rebekah were taught that the covenant of salvation would not be common to the two people, but would be reserved only for the posterity of Jacob. In the beginning, the promise was apparently general, as comprehending the whole seed: now, it is restricted to one part of the seed. This is the reason of the conflict, that God divides the seed of Jacob (of which the condition appeared to be one and the same) in such a manner that he adopts one part and rejects the other: that one part obtains the name and privilege of the Church, the rest are reckoned strangers; with one part resides the blessing of which the other is deprived; as it afterwards actually occurred: for we know that the Idumaeans were cut off from the body of the Church; but the covenant of grace was deposited in the family of Jacob. If we seek the cause of this distinction, it will not be found in nature; for the origin of both nations was the same. It will not be found in merit; because the heads of both nations were yet enclosed in their mother’s womb when the contention began. Moreover God, in order to humble the pride of the flesh, determined to take away from men all occasion of confidence and of boasting. He might have brought forth Jacob first from the womb; but he made the other the firstborn, who, at length, was to become the inferior. Why does he thus, designedly, invert the order appointed by himself, except to teach us that, without regard to dignity, Jacob, who was to be the heir of the promised benediction, was gratuitously elected? The sum of the whole, then, is, that the preference which God gave to Jacob over his brother Esau, by making him the father of the Church, was not granted as a reward for his merits, neither was obtained by his own industry, but proceeded from the mere grace of God himself. But when an entire people is the subject of discourse, reference is made not to the secret election, which is confirmed to few, but the common adoption, which spreads as widely as the external preaching of the word. Since this subject, thus briefly stated, may be somewhat obscure, the readers may recall to memory what I have said above in expounding the seventeenth chapter ( Gen 17:1) namely, that God embraced, by the grace of his adoption, all the sons of Abraham, because he made a covenant with all; and that it was not in vain that he appointed the promise of salvation to be offered promiscuously to all, and to be attested by the sign of circumcision in their flesh; but that there was a special chosen seed from the whole people, and these should at length be accounted the legitimate sons of Abraham, who by the secret counsel of God are ordained unto salvation. Faith, indeed, is that which distinguishes the spiritual from the carnal seed; but the question now under consideration is the principle on which the distinction is made, not the symbol or mark by which it is attested. God, therefore, chose the whole seed of Jacob without exception, as the Scripture in many places testifies; because he has conferred on all alike the same testimonies of his grace, namely, in the word and sacraments. But another and peculiar election has always flourished, which comprehended a certain definite number of men, in order that, in the common destruction, God might save those whom he would.
A question is here suggested for our consideration. Whereas Moses here treats of the former kind of election, (28) Paul turns his words to the latter. (29) For while he attempts to prove, that not all who are Jews by natural descent are heirs of life; and not all who are descended from Jacob according to the flesh are to be accounted true Israelites; but that God chooses whom he will, according to his own good pleasure, he adduces this testimony, the elder shall serve the younger. (Rom 9:7.) They who endeavor to extinguish the doctrine of gratuitous election, desire to persuade their readers that the words of Paul also are to be understood only of external vocation; but his whole discourse is manifestly repugnant to their interpretation; and they prove themselves to be not only infatuated, but impudent in their attempt to bring darkness or smoke over this light which shines so clearly. They allege that the dignity of Esau is transferred to his younger brother, lest he should glory in the flesh; inasmuch as a new promise is here given to the latter. I confess there is some force in what they say; but I contend that they omit the principal point in the case, by explaining the difference here stated, of the external vocation. But unless they intend to make the covenant of God of none effect, they must concede that Esau and Jacob were alike partakers of the external calling; whence it appears, that they to whom a common vocation had been granted, were separated by the secret counsel of God. The nature and object of Paul’s argument is well known. For when the Jews, inflated with the title of the Church, rejected the Gospel, the faith of the simple was shaken, by the consideration that it was improbable that Christ, and the salvation promised through him, could possibly be rejected by an elect people, a holy nation, and the genuine sons of God. Here, therefore, Paul contends that not all who descend from Jacob, according to the flesh, are true Israelites, because God, of his own good pleasure, may choose whom he will, as heirs of eternal salvation. Who does not see that Paul descends from a general to a particular adoption, in order to teach us, that not all who occupy a place in the Church are to be accounted as true members of the Church? It is certain that he openly excludes from the rank of children those to whom (he elsewhere says) pertaineth the adoption; whence it is assuredly gathered, that in proof of this position, he adduces the testimony of Moses, who declares that God chose certain from among the sons of Abraham to himself, in whom he might render the grace of adoption firm and efficacious. How, therefore, shall we reconcile Paul with Moses? I answer, although the Lord separates the whole seed of Jacob from the race of Esau, it was done with a view to the Church, which was included in the posterity of Jacob. And, doubtless, the general election of the people had reference to this end, that God might have a Church separated from the rest of the world. What absurdity, then, is there in supposing that Paul applies to special election the words of Moses, by which it is predicted that the Church shall spring from the seed of Jacob? And an instance in point was exhibited in the condition of the heads themselves of these two nations. For Jacob was not only called by the external voice of the Lord, but, while his brother was passed by, he was chosen an heir of life. That good pleasure of God, which Moses commends in the person of Jacob alone, Paul properly extends further: and lest any one should suppose, that after the two nations had been rendered distinct by this oracle, the election should pertain indiscriminately to all the sons of Jacob, Paul brings, on the opposite side, another oracle, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; where we see a certain number severed from the promiscuous race of Jacob’s sons, in the salvation of whom the special election of God might triumph. Whence it appears that Paul wisely considered the counsel of God, which was, in truth, that he had transferred the honor of primogeniture from the elder to the younger, in order that he might choose to himself a Church, according to his own will, out of the seed of Jacob; not on account of the merits of men, but as a matter of meres grace. And although God designed that the means by which the Church was to be collected should be common to the whole people, yet the end which Paul had in view is chiefly to be regarded; namely, that there might always be a body of men in the world which should call upon God with a pure faith, and should be kept even to the end. Let it therefore remain as a settled point of doctrine, that among men some perish, some obtain salvation; but the cause of this depends on the secret will of God. For whence does it arise that they who are born of Abraham are not all possessed of the same privilege? The disparity of condition certainly cannot be ascribed either to the virtue of the one, or to the vice of the other, seeing they were not yet born. Since the common feeling of mankind rejects this doctrine, there have been found, in all ages, acute men, who have fiercely disputed against the election of God. It is not my present purpose to refute or to weaken their calumnies: let it suffice us to hold fast what we gather from Paul’s interpretation; that whereas the whole human race deserves the same destruction, and is bound under the same sentence of condemnation, some are delivered by gratuitous mercy, others are justly left in their own destruction: and that those whom God has chosen are not preferred to others, because God foresaw they would be holy, but in order that they might be holy. But if the first origin of holiness is the election of God, we seek in vain for that difference in men, which rests solely in the will of God. If any one desires a mystical interpretation of the subject, (30) we may give the following: (31) whereas many hypocrites, who are for a time enclosed in the womb of the Church, pride themselves upon an empty title, and, with insolent boastings, exult over the true sons of God; internal conflicts will hence arise, which will grievously torment the mother herself.
(28) Namely, that which is general or national. — Ed.
(29) Namely, that which is particular or individual. — Ed.
(30) Si quis anagogen desideret.
(31) Nous pourrons dire. — French Tr. The original has no corresponding expression; but one to the same effect is obviously understood. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(23) And the Lord said unto her.Not by the mouth of Abraham, nor in a dream, but directly, as He spake of old to Adam and Eve. We read of no appearance, as in Gen. 17:1, nor must we invent one. The manner in which Jehovah thus spake has not been revealed, and it is enough for us to know that Jehovah did speak of old to men. The answer is in the form of poverty:
Two nations are in thy womb;
And two peoples from thy bowels shall be separated;
And people shall be mightier than people;
And the great shall serve the small.
The second line shows that even in their earliest childhood her sons would be unlike in character and unfriendly in disposition; upon this follows their development into hostile nations, and the prediction that the son who started with the advantages of the birthright, the stronger physical nature, and superior strength in men and arms (Gen. 32:6), would, nevertheless, finally hold the inferior position. There can be no doubt that the secondary cause of the vaster development of Jacob was his being placed by Joseph in the fruitful Delta, where the Israelites were constantly joined by a stream of Semitic immigrants, whose movement towards Egypt is a perfectly authenticated fact of the history of those times. (See Gen. 12:15.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
23. The Lord said Here, too, we have a poetic strain:
Then said Jehovah to her, Two nations are in thy womb, And two peoples from thy bowels shall be separated .
And people than people shall be stronger, And the great shall serve the small .
What immediate effect this oracle had on Rebekah we are not told, but it probably served, in the subsequent time, to give her an intuitive partiality for the younger son. The subsequent history of the Israelites and the Edomites show how truly this prophecy was fulfilled. The descendants of Esau were strong, and fortified themselves in Mount Seir. They refused the Israelites a passage through their territory. Num 20:18. But Saul vexed them with his wars, (1Sa 14:47,) and David subdued them, and put garrisons throughout their land, (2Sa 8:14,) and they remained in such subjection till the days of Joram . 2Ki 8:20. Then, according to Isaac’s prophecy, Esau broke his brother’s yoke from off his neck . Gen 27:40.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 25:23. And the Lord said, two nations, &c. We have in the prophecies delivered respecting these sons of Isaac, more ample proof of what has been before asserted, that these prophecies were meant not so much of single persons, as of whole nations and people descended from them: for what is predicted concerning Esau and Jacob was not verified in themselves, but in their posterity. The Edomites were the offspring of Esau, as the Israelites were of Jacob; and who but the Author and Giver of life could foresee, that two children in the womb would multiply into two nations? Jacob had twelve sons, and their descendants were all united and incorporated into one nation. What an over-ruling Providence then was it, that two nations should arise from the two sons only of Isaac? But they were not only to grow up into two nations, but into two very different nations: two kinds of people were to be separated from her bowels. And have not the Israelites and Edomites been all along two very different people in their manners, customs, and religions, which made them to be perpetually at variance one with the other? The children struggled together in the womb, which was an omen and token of their future disagreement: and when they were grown up to manhood, they manifested very different inclinations. Esau was a cunning hunter, and delighted in the sports of the woods: Jacob was more mild and gentle, dwelling in tents, and minding his sheep and his cattle, Gen 25:27. Our English translation, agreeably to the Septuagint and the Vulgate, has it, that Jacob was a plain man. The word in the original ( tam) signifies perfect, which is a general term; but being put in opposition to the rough and rustic manners of Esau, it must particularly import that Jacob was more humane and gentle, as Philo the Jew understands it, and as Le Clerc translates it. Esau slighted his birth-right, and those sacred privileges of which Jacob was desirous, and is therefore called, Heb 12:16 the profane Esau; but Jacob was a man of better faith and religion. The like diversity ran through their posterity. The religion of the Jews is very well known: but whatever the Edomites were at first, in process of time they became idolaters. Josephus mentions an Idumean deity named Koze: and Amaziah king of Judah, after he had overthrown the Edomites, 2Ch 25:14 brought their gods, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them; which was monstrously absurd, as the prophet remonstrates in the next verse, Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thine hand? Upon these religious differences, and other accounts, there was a continual grudge and enmity between the two nations. The king of Edom would not suffer the Israelites, in their return out of AEgypt, so much as to pass through his territories, Numbers 20. And the history of the Edomites afterwards is little more than the history of their wars with the Jews. See Bp. Newton.
And the one people shall be stronger, &c. The family of Esau was the elder, and for some time the greater and more powerful of the two. But David and his captains made an entire conquest of the Edomites, slew several thousands of them, 1Ki 11:16. 1Ch 18:12 compelled the rest to become his tributaries and servants, and planted garrisons among them to secure their obedience, 2Sa 8:14. And he put garrisons in Edom, throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David’s servants. In this state of servitude they continued without a king of their own, being governed by viceroys or deputies appointed by the kings of Judah. In the reign of Jehoshophat king of Judah, it is written, there was then no king in Edom; a deputy was king, 1Ki 22:47. But in the days of Jehoram his son, they revolted, and recovered their liberties, and made a king over themselves, 2Ki 8:20. But afterwards Amaziah king of Judah slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, and took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day, says the sacred historian, 2Ki 14:7. And other ten thousand left alive, did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, whereon Selah was built, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they were broken all in pieces, 2Ch 25:12. His son Azariah, or Uzziah, likewise took from them Elath, that commodious haven on the Red-Sea, and fortified it anew, and restored it to Judah, 2Ki 14:22. 2Ch 26:2. Judas Maccabeus attacked and defeated them several times, killed no fewer than twenty thousand at one time, and more than twenty thousand at another, and took their chief city Hebron, and the towns thereof, and pulled down the fortress of it, and burnt the towers thereof round about, 1 Maccabees 5 : 2 Maccabees 10 : At last his nephew Hyrcanus, the son of Simon, took others of their cities, and reduced them to the necessity of embracing the Jewish religion, or of leaving their country, and seeking new habitations elsewhere; whereupon they submitted to be circumcised, and became proselytes to the Jewish religion, and ever after were incorporated into the Jewish church and nation.
The elder shall serve the younger This passage serves for a key to explain the ninth chapter to the Romans, where the words are quoted: for it proves to a demonstration that this cannot be meant of God’s arbitrary predestination of particular persons to eternal happiness or misery, without any regard to their holiness or unholiness: a doctrine which some have most impiously fathered upon God, who is the best of beings, and who cannot possibly have hated from eternity, far less have absolutely and unconditionally doomed to everlasting misery, any creature that he has made: but that it means only his bestowing greater external favours, or, if you please, higher opportunities for knowing and doing their duty upon some men, or upon some families or nations of men, than he does upon others, and that merely according to his own wise purpose.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 40
JACOB PREFERRED BEFORE ESAU
Gen 25:23. The elder shall serve the younger.
THE common gifts of Providence are bestowed in such a regular and ordinary way, that the hand of God is scarcely seen or acknowledged in them. They are considered as resulting from a settled order of things, and are placed to the account of an imaginary cause, called Nature. But it pleases God sometimes to mark his dispensations in so plain a manner, that his agency cannot be overlooked. He withheld from Abraham the promised seed, till there was not the most remote hope of a child being born to him of his wife, Sarah, according to the common course of nature; and thus evinced, beyond a possibility of doubt, that the child was a special and miraculous gift from him. In the same manner he kept Isaac also twenty years childless; and then at last condescended to his repeated supplications, and granted him the desire of his heart. On that occasion God further manifested, that, as children are a fruit and heritage that cometh of the Lord, so all that relates to them, even to the remotest period of time, is ordered by him. Rebekah, who had been twenty years barren, at last found in herself symptoms of a very extraordinary kind; and being unable to account for them, consulted the Lord. God answered her, that twins were in her womb; that they should be fathers of two distinct nations; that their characters, as also that of their descendants, should be extremely different; that they should contend with each other for the superiority; that the younger should be victorious; and that the elder should serve the younger. This was not fulfilled in the children themselves; for Esau was stronger than Jacob; being at the head of a warlike band [Note: Genesis 36.] while Jacob was only a poor shepherd, and having many generations of great and powerful men, while Jacobs posterity were oppressed with the sorest bondage. But in the time of David the prophecy began to be accomplished [Note: 2Sa 8:14.] (we may indeed consider Jacobs obtaining of the birthright as a partial fulfilment of it), and in after ages it was fulfilled in its utmost extent; Edom being made a desolation, while the kingdom of Judah was yet strong and flourishing [Note: Oba 1:6-10; Oba 1:17-18; Eze 25:12-14.]. We must not however imagine that this is all that is contained in the words of our text. This prophecy is referred to by the inspired writers both of the Old and New Testament; and that too in such a way, as to shew that it is of singular importance. The prophet Malachi adduces it in proof of Gods partiality towards the Jewish nation [Note: Mal 1:2-3.]: and St. Paul quotes it, to confirm the idea he has suggested of Gods determination to reject the Jews, who were the elder part of his family; and to receive the Gentiles, who were the younger [Note: Rom 9:10-13.]. The whole train of the Apostles argumentation in that chapter shews, that he had even an ulterior view, which was, to vindicate the sovereignty of God in the disposal of his favours, whether temporal or spiritual; and to make every one sensible that he was altogether indebted to the free grace of God for his hopes of mercy and salvation.
To confirm the words in this view, we may observe,
I.
That God has a right to dispense his blessings according to his own sovereign will
God, as the Creator of all things, has an unlimited right over all
[It was of his own good pleasure that he created the world at all: there was nothing that had any claim upon him to call it into existence. When he had formed the chaos, no part of matter had any claim above the rest: that which was left inert had no reason to complain that it was not endued with vegetative power; nor vegetables, that they were not enriched with animal life; nor animals, that they were not possessed. of reason; nor our first parents, that they were created inferior to angels. Nothing had any claim upon its Maker. He had the same right over all as the potter has over the clay, to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour: nor could any presume to say, Why hast thou made me thus [Note: Rom 9:20-21.] ? If this then be true, what claim can man have upon his Maker now? If he had none when innocent, has he acquired any by his fall? Does a loyal subject acquire new rights by rising in rebellion against his prince?]
As the Lord and Governor of all things too, he may dispose of them as he sees fit
[An earthly monarch does not consider himself accountable to his subjects for disposing of that which is properly, and in all respects, his own. He obliges those who are the objects of his favour, but does no injury to those who participate his bounty only in a less degree. Indeed every individual thinks himself at liberty to bestow or withhold his gifts, according as his inclination or judgment may dictate. And shall we deny to God what we concede to men? Shall we bind Him by a law from which we ourselves are free? If any one were to blame us for using our own discretion in conferring obligations, we should ask without hesitation, Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own [Note: Mat 20:15.] ? Shall we then presume to negative that question when put to us by the Governor of the Universe?
Let this idea be well fixed in our minds, that God has a right to bestow his blessing on whom he will; and it will root out that arrogance which is the characteristic of fallen man: it will bring us to the footstool of the Deity, and constrain us to say, Let him do what seemeth him good: I was dumb, because thou didst it.]
We cannot doubt but that God possesses this right, since it is clear,
II.
That he actually exercises it
We may daily see this,
1.
In the dealings of his providence
[He consulted not any of his creatures how long a space of time he should occupy in completing the work of creation; or how many orders of creatures he should form. He could as easily have perfected the whole at once, as in six days; or have endued every thing with a rational or angelic nature, as he could diversify their endowments in the marvellous way that he has done. But he acted in all things according to the counsel of his own will. When it pleased him to destroy the works of his hands on account of their multiplied iniquities, why did he preserve a wicked Ham, when millions no worse than he were overwhelmed in the mighty waters? But to speak of things that have passed since the delugeWho has ordered the rise and fall of nations? Who has raised or depressed the families of men? Who has given to individuals their measure of bodily or intellectual strength, or ordered the number of their days on earth? Is not this the Lord? Who is it that gives us fruitful seasons, or causes drought and pestilence and famine to oppress the world? Is there either good or evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?
If it be thought that these different events are regulated according to the moral state of mankind, and that therefore they exemplify rather the equity than the sovereignty of God; we would ask, What was the foundation of the distinction put between Esau and Jacob, together with their respective families? St. Paul particularly notices, that, when the prophecy in our text was delivered, they were not yet born, nor had done any species of good or evil; and that the decree was delivered at that time, in order that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth [Note: Rom 9:11.]. It is clear therefore and indisputable that he doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and that none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou [Note: Dan 4:35.] ?]
2.
In the dispensations of his grace
[In the call of Abraham, and the separation of his seed for a peculiar people; in distinguishing between his immediate sons, Ishmael and Isaac, as also between Isaacs sons, Esau and Jacob; in giving to their posterity the revelation of his will, while the whole world were left to walk in their own ways; in making yet further distinctions at this present moment, sending the light of his Gospel to a few of the Gentile nations, while all the rest are permitted to sit in darkness and the shadow of death; in all this, I say, has not God clearly shewn, that he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and that whom he will he hardeneth, or giveth over to the blindness and obduracy of their own hearts [Note: Rom 9:18.] ? But, as among Abrahams seed all were not Israel who were of Israel, so it is now in the Christian world: there is a great and visible distinction made between the different hearers of the Gospel: some have their hearts opened, like Lydias of old, to receive and embrace the truth, or, like Saul, are arrested in their mad career of sin, and made distinguished monuments of grace; whilst thousands around them find the word, not a savour of life unto life, but of death unto death. Who is it that makes these persons to differ [Note: 1Co 4:7.] ? To whom is it owing that the deaf hear, the blind see, the lepers are cleansed, the dead are raised? We answer, It is all of God: It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy [Note: Rom 9:16.]. The favoured objects are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God [Note: Joh 1:13.] ]
The existence of this right being thus incontrovertibly manifest, we observe,
III.
That all in whose favour it is exercised, are bound to acknowledge it with most ardent gratitude
Impious indeed would it be to arrogate the glory to ourselves
[We have not of ourselves a sufficiency for the smallest thing, even for the forming of a good thought: what folly then is it to suppose that we can create ourselves anew, and renovate our souls after the divine image! This is the work of God alone. If then we have any reason to hope that God has wrought this great work within us, what base ingratitude is it to rob him of his glory! Is it for this end that he has shewn to us such unmerited regard? or is it such an use that we ought to make of his distinguishing mercy? Surely, what he has done, he has done for the praise of the glory of his own grace [Note: Eph 1:6.]: and if we have been made partakers of his grace, we should strive to the uttermost to answer the ends for which he has bestowed it.]
Those who have been the most highly favoured by God, have always been most forward to acknowledge their obligations to him
[Ask of St. Paul, To whom he owed his eminent attainments? and he will answer, By the grace of God I am what I am [Note: 1Co 15:10.]. Ask him, To whom all Christians are indebted for every grace they possess? he will answer, He that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God [Note: 2Co 5:5.]. Ascend to the highest heavens, and inquire of the saints in glory: you will find them all casting their crowns at their Redeemers feet, and singing, Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and our Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. To imitate them is both our duty and happiness. Our daily song therefore should be, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name be the praise: Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever.]
To guard this deep subject against the abuses to which it is liable, and to render it conducive to its proper and legitimate ends, we shall add a word,
1.
Of caution
[If, as the Apostle says, there is a remnant according to the election of grace [Note: Rom 11:5.], we are ready to suppose that those who are not of that number are not accountable for their sins, and that their final ruin is to be imputed rather to Gods decrees than to their own fault. But this is a perversion of the doctrine. It is a consequence which our proud reason is prone to draw from the decrees of God: but it is a consequence which the inspired volume totally disavows. There is not in the whole sacred writings one single word that fairly admits of such a construction. The glory of mans salvation is invariably ascribed to the free, the sovereign, the efficacious grace of God: but the condemnation of men is invariably charged upon their own wilful sins and obstinate impenitence. If, because we know not how to reconcile these things, men will controvert and deny them, we shall content ourselves with the answer which St. Paul himself made to all such cavillers and objectors; Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God [Note: Rom 9:19-20.] ? And if neither the truth nor the authority of God will awe them into submission, we can only say with the fore-mentioned apostle, If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant [Note: 1Co 14:38.]. As for those, if such are to be found, who acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and take occasion from it to live in sin, we would warn them with all possible earnestness to cease from their fatal delusions. In comparison of such characters, the people who deny the sovereignty of God are innocent. We believe there are many persons in other respects excellent, who, from not being able to separate the idea of absolute reprobation from the doctrine of unconditional election, are led to reject both together: but what excellence can he have, who turns the very grace of God into licentiousness, and continues in sin that grace may abound? A man that can justify such a procedure, is beyond the reach of argument: we must leave him, as St. Paul does, with that awful warning, His damnation is just [Note: Rom 3:8.].]
2.
Of encouragement
[To one who feels his utter unworthiness of mercy, we know not any richer source of encouragement than the sovereignty of God. For, if he may dispense his blessings to whomsoever he will, then the very chief of sinners has no need to despair: the person who is most remote from having in himself any ground to expect the birthright, may be made a monument of Gods grace; while the person who by nature seems to have had fairer prospects, may be left, like the rich youth, to perish in his iniquities. The obstacles which appear to stand in the way of his acceptance may even be turned into grounds of hope; because the more unworthy lie feels himself to be, the more he may hope that God will glorify the riches of his grace in shewing mercy towards him. We do not mean that any person should rush into wickedness in order to increase his prospects of salvation; for, abstractedly considered, the more sinful any man is, the greater prospect there is of his perishing for ever: we only mean to say, that, in the view of Gods sovereignty, that which would otherwise have been a ground of despondency, may be turned into a ground of hope. Let the subject then be thus improved: and while some dispute against it, and others abuse it, let us take occasion from it to make our supplication to God, saying with David, Be merciful unto my sin, for it is great!]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Ver. 23. And the Lord said unto her. ] Either by an angel, or a prophet, or some divine answer in her own heart.
Two nations are in thy womb.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Two nations: Gen 17:16, Gen 24:60
two manner: Gen 25:27, Gen 32:6, Gen 33:3, Gen 36:31, Num 20:14
the elder: Gen 27:29, Gen 27:40, 2Sa 8:14, 1Ki 22:47, 1Ch 18:13, 2Ch 25:11, 2Ch 25:12, Psa 60:8, Psa 60:9, Psa 83:5-15, Isa 34:1-17, Isa 63:1-6, Jer 49:7-22, Eze 25:12-14, Eze 35:1-15, Amo 1:11, Amo 1:12, Oba 1:1-16, Mal 1:2-5, Rom 9:10-13
Reciprocal: Gen 27:1 – eldest son Gen 27:8 – General Gen 27:13 – Upon Gen 27:37 – I have Gen 36:6 – went 1Sa 17:14 – the youngest 1Ki 11:15 – after he had 1Ch 5:1 – and Isa 42:11 – Kedar Rom 9:12 – The elder
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 25:23. Two nations are in thy womb The fathers of two nations, namely, of the Edomites and Israelites; two manner of people, which should not only greatly differ from each other in religion, laws, manners, but should contend with each other, and the issue of the contest should be, that the elder should serve the younger, which was fulfilled in the subjection of the Edomites, for many ages, to the house of David.