Romans 9:10. A fresh and still more decisive proof (for it might be objected that, of Abraham’s children, Sarah’s son only was legitimate) that only the divine disposal constituted the succession to Abraham which was true and valid in the sight of God. Comp. Barnab. 13. The more definite notion of promise, which was retained in the preceding, is here expanded into the more general one of the appointment of the divine will as made known.

οὐ μόνον δέ] See generally on Romans 5:3. What is supplied must be something that is gathered from the preceding, that fits the nominative Ῥεβέκκα, and that answers as regards sense to the following ἐῤῥέθη αὐτῇ. Hence, because τῇ Σάῤῥᾳ precedes, and with ἀλλὰ καί another mother’s name is introduced, we must supply, as subject, not Abraham (Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Reithmayr, van Hengel; comp. also Hofmann, who however thinks any completing supplement useless), but Σάῤῥα; and moreover, not indeed the definite λόγον ἐπαγγελίας εἶχεν or ἐπηγγελμένη ἦν (Vatablus, Fritzsche, Winer, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius), but the more general λόγον or ῥῆμα Θεοῦ εἶχεν, which is suitable to the subsequent ἐῤῥέθη, as well as to the contents of the sayings adduced in Romans 9:12-13 : “But not only had Sarah a saying of God, but also Rebecca, etc.” We must therefore throw aside the manifold arbitrary supplements suggested, some of which are inconsistent with the construction, not suiting the nominative Ῥεβ., as e.g.: “non solum id, quod jam diximus, documentum est ejus, quod inferre volumus; Rebecca idem nos docet” (so Grotius, also Seb. Schmid, Semler, Ch. Schmid, Cramer, Rosenmüller, and several others; comp. Tholuck and Philippi); or: τοῦτο ἦν (Rückert, de Wette), so that the nominative Ῥεβ. forms an anacoluthon, and the period begun enters with Romans 9:11 upon quite another form (how forced, seeing that Romans 9:11-12 in themselves stand in perfectly regular construction!). It is only the semblance of an objection against our view, that not Sarah, but Abraham, received the word of promise, Romans 9:9; for Sarah was, by the nature of the case, and also according to the representation of Genesis, the co-recipient of the promise, and was mixed up in the conversation of God with Abraham in reference to it (Genesis 18:13-15); so that Paul, without incurring the charge of contradicting history, might have no scruple in stating the contrast as between the mothers, as he has done.

ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα] Who had cohabitation of one (man), the effect of which was the conception of the twin children. The contextual importance of this addition does not consist in its denying that there was a breach of conjugal fidelity, but in its making palpably apparent the invalidity—for the history of salvation—of bodily descent. She was pregnant by one man, and yet how different was the divine determination with respect to the two children!

ἐξ ἑνός] masculine, without anything being supplied; for Ἰς. τ. π. ἡμ. is in apposition. κοίτη, couch, bed, often marriage bed (Hebrews 13:4), is found seldom in the classical writers (Eur. Med. 151, Hippol. 154; not Anacr. 23, see Valck. Schol. II. p. 594), with whom εὐνή and λέχος often have the same sense, euphemistically used as equivalent to concubitus, but frequently in the LXX. See Schleusner, Thes. III. p. 347. Comp. Wis 3:13; Wis 3:16.

τοῦ πατρ. ἡμ.] from the Jewish consciousness; for the discourse has primarily to do with the Jews. Comp. Romans 4:1. If Isaac were to be designated as the father of Christians (Reiche, Fritzsche), the context must have necessarily and definitely indicated this, since believers are Abraham’s (spiritual) children. We may add that Ἰς. τοῦ πατρ. ἡμῶν is not without a significant bearing on the argument, inasmuch as it contributes to make us feel the independence of the determination of the divine will on the theocratic descent, however legitimate.

Romans 9:10 ff. But the argument can be made more decisive. A Jewish opponent might say, “Ishmael was an illegitimate child, who naturally had no rights as against Isaac; we are the legitimate descendants of the patriarch, and our right to the inheritance is indefeasible”. To this the Apostle replies in Romans 9:10-13. Not only did God make the distinction already referred to, but in the case of Isaac’s children, where there seemed no ground for making any distinction whatever, He distinguished again, and said, The elder shall serve the younger. Jacob and Esau had one father, one mother, and were twin sons; the only ground on which either could have been preferred was that of priority of birth, and this was disregarded by God; Esau, the elder, was rejected, and Jacob, the younger, was made heir of the promises. Further, this was done by God of His sovereign freedom: the decisive word was spoken to their mother while they were as yet unborn and had achieved neither good nor evil. Claims as of right, therefore, made against God, are futile, whether they are based on descent or on works. There is no way in which they can be established; and, as we have just seen, God acts in entire disregard of them. God’s purpose to save men, and make them heirs of His kingdom—a purpose which is characterised as κατʼ ἐκλογήν, or involving a choice—is not determined at all by consideration of such claims as the Jews put forward. In forming it, and carrying it out, God acts with perfect freedom. In the case in question His action in regard to Jacob and Esau agrees with His word in the prophet Malachi: Jacob I loved but Esau I hated; and further than this we cannot go. To avoid misapprehending this, however, it is necessary to keep the Apostle’s purpose in view. He wishes to show that God’s promise has not broken down, though many of the children of Abraham have no part in its fulfilment in Christ. He does so by showing that there has always been a distinction, among the descendants of the patriarchs, between those who have merely the natural connection to boast of, and those who are the Israel of God; and, as against Jewish pretensions, he shows at the same time that this distinction can be traced to nothing but God’s sovereignty. It is not of works, but of Him Who effectually calls men. We may say, if we please, that sovereignty in this sense is “just a name for what is unrevealed of God” (T. Erskine, The Brazen Serpent, p. 259), but though it is unrevealed we must not conceive of it as arbitrary—i.e., as non-rational or non-moral. It is the sovereignty of God, and God is not exlex; He is a law to Himself—a law all love and holiness and truth—in all His purposes towards men. So Calvin: “ubi mentionem gloriæ Dei audis, illic justitiam cogita”. Paul has mentioned in an earlier chapter, among the notes of true religion, the exclusion of boasting (Romans 3:27); and in substance that is the argument he is using here. No Jewish birth, no legal works, can give a man a claim which God is bound to honour; and no man urging such claims can say that God’s word has become of no effect though his claims are disallowed, and he gets no part in the inheritance of God’s people.

οὐ μόνον δέ: cf. Romans 5:11, Romans 8:23 = Not only is this so, but a more striking and convincing illustration can be given. ἀλλὰ καὶ Ῥεβέκκα: the sentence thus begun is never finished, but the sense is continued in Romans 9:12. Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν: Paul speaks here out of his own consciousness as a Jew, addressing himself to a problem which greatly exercised other Jews; and calls Isaac “father” as the person from whom the inheritance was to come.

10. And not only this] Here a still stronger example of sovereign choice occurs. Isaac and Ishmael had only one parent in common; Jacob and Esau had both. In the former case, the choice of Isaac was declared only after Ishmael’s birth and childhood; in the latter, the choice of Jacob was declared while both brothers were in the womb.—The Greek construction in Romans 9:10-12 is irregular, but perfectly clear.

by one] In contrast to the divided parentage of Abraham’s sons.

our father Isaac] Here named with emphasis, as shewing that even within the inner circle of promise (“In Isaac shall thy seed, &c.,”) there was still an election.

Romans 9:10. Οὐ μόνον δὲ, and not only so) That is: it is wonderful, what I have said; what follows is still more wonderful. Ishmael under Abraham, Esau under Isaac, and those, who resembled Ishmael and Esau under Israel, rebelled.—Ῥεβέκκα, Rebecca) viz., ἐστὶν, is, i.e. occurs in this place. She, the mother, and presently after Isaac the father, are named.—ἐξ ἑνὸς, by one) Isaac was now separated from Ishmael, and yet under Isaac himself, in whom Abraham’s seed is called, Esau also is separated from Jacob. Ishmael and Isaac were born not of the same mother, nor at the same time,—and Ishmael was the son too of a bondmaid, Isaac of a free woman. Jacob and Esau were born both of the same mother, and she a free woman, and at the same time.—κοίτην) so LXX. for שכבה; it often occurs, e.g. Leviticus 18:20, οὐ δώσεις κοίτην σπέρματος, said of the man, which is opposed to the phrase ἔχειν κοίτην, of the woman in this passage.

Verse 10. - But not only this; but Rebecca also, when she had conceived by one, even by Isaac our father. The sentence thus begun is not formally completed, being taken up - after the parenthetical ver. 11 - by "It was said unto her" in ver. 12. Romans 9:10And not only so

The thought to be supplied is: Not only have we an example of the election of a son of Abraham by one woman, and a rejection of his son by another, but also of the election and rejection of the children of the same woman.

By one

Though of one father, a different destiny was divinely appointed for each of the twins. Hence only the divine disposal constitutes the true and valid succession, and not the bodily descent.

Romans 9:10 Interlinear
Romans 9:10 Parallel Texts


Romans 9:10 NIV
Romans 9:10 NLT
Romans 9:10 ESV
Romans 9:10 NASB
Romans 9:10 KJV

Romans 9:10 Bible Apps
Romans 9:10 Parallel
Romans 9:10 Biblia Paralela
Romans 9:10 Chinese Bible
Romans 9:10 French Bible
Romans 9:10 German Bible

Bible Hub