Romans 9:11-12. Although, forsooth, they were not yet born, and had not done anything good or evil, in order that the purpose of God according to election might have its continued subsistence, not from works, but from Him who calls, it was said to her, etc.

μήπω] not οὔπω, because the negative relation is intended to be expressed subjectively, that is, as placed before the view of God and weighed by Him in delivering His utterance. See Winer, p. 450 [E. T. 608]; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 295. Comp. Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 37.

The subject (αὐτῶν) to the participles is not expressed, according to a well-known classical usage (Matthiae, § 563; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 17), but it would be self-evident to the reader from the history familiar to him, that the twins of Rebecca were intended; Winer, p. 548 [E. T. 736].

The sentence expressive of purpose, ἵνα … καλοῦντος, is placed with emphasis before ἐῤῥέθη, and therefore not to be placed in a parenthesis.

ἵνα] introduces the purpose which God had in this, that, notwithstanding they were not yet born, etc., He yet gave forth already the declaration of Romans 9:12. He thereby purposed, namely, that His resolve—conceived in the mode of an election made amongst men—to bestow the blessings of the Messianic salvation should subsist, etc.

ἡ κατʼ ἐκλογ. πρόθεσις] can neither be so taken, that the ἐκλογή precedes the πρόθεσις in point of time (comp. Romans 8:28), which is opposed to the nature of the relation, especially seeing that the πρόθεσις pertains to what was antecedent to time (see on Romans 8:28); nor so that the ἐκλογή follows the πρόθεσις, whether it be regarded as the act of its fulfilment (Reiche) or as its aim (Krehl). These latter interpretations might certainly be justified linguistically (see Kühner, II. 1, pp. 412, 413), but they would yield no specific peculiarity of the act of the πρόθεσις. Yet, since ΚΑΤʼ ἘΚΛΟΓΉΝ must be the characteristically distinctive mark of the purpose, it cannot by any means denote: the resolution adopted in respect of an election (Grotius, Rückert); but it must be apprehended as an essential inherent of the πρόθεσις, expressing the modal character of this divine act: the purpose according to election, i.e. the purpose which was so formed, that in it an election was made. The πρόθεσις would have been no πρόθ. κατʼ ἐκλογήν, no “propositum Dei electivum” (Bengel), if God had resolved to bless all without exception. His resolve to vouchsafe the Messianic blessedness did not, however, concern all, but those only who were to be comprehended in this very resolve (by virtue of His πρόγνωσις, Romans 8:29), and who were thereby, by means of the ΠΡΌΘΕΣΙς itself, chosen out from the rest of men (Romans 11:5), and thus the πρόθεσις was no other than Ἡ ΚΑΤʼ ἘΚΛΟΓῊΝ ΠΡΌΘΕΣΙς (comp. Bengel, Flatt, Tholuck, Beck, Fritzsche, Philippi, Lamping). In a linguistic aspect ΚΑΤʼ ἘΚΛΟΓ. (frequently in Polybius, see Raphel) comes under the same category with the well-known expressions ΚΑΤᾺ ΚΡΆΤΟς, ΚΑΘʼ ὙΠΕΡΒΟΛΉΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. (Bornem. ad Cyrop. i. 4. 23; Bernhardy, p. 241). Comp. Romans 11:21; 1 Timothy 6:3. But it is incorrect to alter, with Carpzov, Ernesti, Cramer, Böhme, Ammon, Rosenmüller, the signification of ἐκλ., and to explain Ἡ ΚΑΤʼ ἘΚΛ. ΠΡΌΘ. as “propositum Dei liberum.” For, as election and freedom are in themselves different conceptions, so in those passages which are appealed to (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14; Psalt. Sal. ix. 7), ἐκλ. is none other than electio; and especially in the N. T. ἐκλογή, ἐκλέγεσθαι, and ἘΚΛΕΚΤΌς are so statedly used for the dogmatic sense of the election to salvation, that no alteration can be admitted. In general, Hofmann has rightly understood it of the quality, which the purpose has from the fact that God chooses; along with which, however, he likewise transposes the notion of the ἐκλογή into that of the free act of will, “which has its presupposition only in the chooser, not on the side of the chosen.” This anticipates the following, which, moreover, joins itself not to ἐκλογή, but to the abiding of the ΚΑΤʼ ἘΚΛ. ΠΡΌΘΕΣΙς; hence ἘΚΛΟΓΉ must be left in its strict verbal sense of election. The ἐκλογή may in and by itself be even an unfree act of will; its freedom does not lie in the notion in itself, but it is only to be inferred mediately from what is further to be said of the ΜΈΝΕΙΝ of the ΚΑΤʼ ἘΚΛ. ΠΡΌΘΕΣΙς, viz. ΟὐΚ ἘΞ ἜΡΓΩΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.

ΜΈΝῌ] The opposite of ἘΚΠΈΠΤΩΚΕΝ, Romans 9:6. Comp. Xen. Anab. ii. 3. 24; Eurip. Iph. T. 959; Herod. iv. 201. It is the result aimed at in such a declaration as God caused to be given to Rebecca before the birth of her two sons: His purpose according to election is meant to remain unchangeable, etc., so much He would have to be settled in His giving that declaration.

οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων κ.τ.λ.] is by most joined, through a supplied ΟὖΣΑ, to ΠΡΌΘΕΣΙς Τ. ΘΕΟῦ; by Fritzsche regarded even as a supplementary definition to κατʼ ἐκλογήν, in which he is followed by Lamping, as though Paul had written ἡ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων κ.τ.λ. But for rejecting the natural and nearest connection with μένῃ there is absolutely no ground from the sense which thus results: the elective resolution must have its abiding character not on account of works, which the subjects concerned would perform, but on account of God Himself, who calls to the Messianic salvation. Accordingly, ΟὐΚ ἘΞ ἜΡΓΩΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. is a causal specification annexed to the—in itself independent

ΜΈΝῌ, namely, of its objective actual relation (hence Οὐ, not ΜΉ), and should be separated from ΜΈΝῌ by a comma (Paul might more formally have written: ΚΑῚ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΟὐΚ ἘΞ ἜΡΓΩΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.). Hence the objection that ΜΈΝΕΙΝ ἘΚ is not found is of no importance, since ΜΈΝῌ in itself stands absolutely, and ἘΚ is constantly employed in the sense of by virtue of, by reason of. See Bernhardy, p. 230; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 551.

On the form ἘῤῬΈΘΗ, which, instead of the Recepta ἘῤῬΉΘΗ, is to be adopted with Lachmann and Tischendorf, following the preponderance of testimony, in all passages in Paul, see on Matthew 5:21, and Kühner, I. p. 810 f.

The quotation is Genesis 25:23, closely following the LXX.; ὅτι forms no part of it, but is recitative. In the connection of the original text, ὁ μείζων and Ὁ ἘΛΆΣς., the greater and the smaller, refer to the two nations represented by the elder and younger twin sons, of which they were to be ancestors; and this prediction was fulfilled first under David, who conquered the Edomites (2 Samuel 8:14); then, after they had freed themselves in the time of Joram (2 Kings 8:21), under Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7; 2 Chronicles 25:11) and Uzziah (2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chronicles 26:2), who again reduced them to slavery; and lastly, after they had once more broken loose in the time of Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:17; according to 2 Kings 16:6, they had merely wrested the port of Elath from the Jews), under Johannes Hyrcanus, who completely vanquished them, forced them to be circumcised, and incorporated them in the Jewish state (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9. 1). Paul, however, has in view, as the entire context Romans 9:10-11; Romans 9:13 evinces, in ὁ μείζ. and Τῷ ἘΛΆΣς., Esau and Jacob themselves, not their nations; so that the fulfilment of the δουλ. is to be found in the theocratic subjection into which Esau was reduced through the loss of his birthright and of the paternal blessing, whereby the theocratic lordship passed to Jacob. But inasmuch as in Gen. l.c. the two brothers are set forth as representatives of the nations, and their persons and their destiny are not consequently excluded,—as, indeed, the relation indicated in the divine utterance took its beginning with the brothers themselves, by virtue of the preference of Jacob through the paternal blessing (Genesis 27:29; Genesis 27:37; Genesis 27:40),—the apostle’s apprehension of the passage, as he adapts it to his connection, has its ground and its warrant, especially in view of similar hermeneutic freedom in the use of O. T. expressions.

ὁ μείζων and Τῷ ἘΛΆΣς. have neither in the original nor in Greek the signification: the first-born and the second-born, which indeed the words do not denote; but Esau, who is to come to birth first, is regarded as the greater of the twins in the womb, and Jacob as the smaller.

Romans 9:11. μήπω γὰρ γεννηθέντων μηδὲ πραξάντων: “the conditional negatives (μήπω, μηδὲ) represent the circumstances not as mere facts of history, but as conditions entering into God’s counsel and plan. The time of the prediction was thus chosen, in order to make it clear that He Who calls men to be heirs of His salvation makes free choice of whom He will, unfettered by any claims of birth or merit” (Gifford). πρόθεσις in this theological sense is a specially Pauline word. The purpose it describes is universal in its bearings, for it is the purpose of One who works all things according to the counsel of His will, Ephesians 1:11; it is eternal, a πρόθεσις τῶν αἰώνων, Ephesians 3:11; it is God’s ἰδία πρόθεσις, 2 Timothy 1:9, a purpose, the meaning, contents, and end of which find their explanation in God alone; it is a purpose κατʼ ἐκλογήν, i.e., the carrying of it out involves choice and discrimination between man and man, and between race and race; and in spite of the side of mystery which, belongs to such a conception, it is a perfectly intelligible purpose, for it is described as πρόθεσις ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, and what God means by Christ Jesus no one can doubt. God’s eternal purpose, the purpose carried out κατʼ ἐκλογὴν, yet embracing the universe, is clearly revealed in His Son. The permanent determining element, wherever this purpose is concerned, is not the works of men, but the will and call of God; and to make this plain was the intention of God in speaking as He did, and when He did, to Rebecca about her children. If we look to Genesis 25:23, it is indisputably the nations of Israel and Edom that are referred to: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger”. The same is true also of Malachi 1:2 : “I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation,” etc. Yet it would not be right to say that Paul is here considering merely the parts assigned by God to nations in the drama of providence; He is obviously thinking of Jacob and Esau as individuals, whose own relation to God’s promise and inheritance (involving no doubt that of their posterity) was determined by God before they were born or had done either good or ill. On the other hand, it would not be right to say that Paul here refers the eternal salvation or perdition of individuals to an absolute decree of God which has no relation to what they are or do, but rests simply on His inscrutable will. He is engaged in precluding the idea that man can have claims of right against God, and with it the idea that the exclusion of the mass of Israel from the Messiah’s kingdom convicts God of breach of faith toward the children of Abraham; and this He can do quite effectually, on the lines indicated, without consciously facing this tremendous hypothesis.

11. being not yet born, &c.] Nothing could go beyond this verse in stating that the reasons of the Divine Choice lie wholly within the Divine Mind, and not in the works and characters of the chosen.

the purpose of God according to election] So according to the best order of the Gr. words. Another order, not so well supported, gives “the purpose according to God’s election.” The meaning is the same in either case.—On “the purpose,” see last note on Romans 8:28.—“According to election”:—i.e. as determined, or characterized, by the sovereign Choice of the Divine Mind. In the case of Esau and Jacob, the “purpose according to election” does not, at least explicitly, mean a purpose of eternal salvation. But St Paul is evidently here treating the Divine Choice in the widest and most absolute respects; and the sovereign gift to Jacob of sacred privileges, determining his whole course and that of his posterity, is thus taken as illustrating the fact of an equally sovereign gift, to “whomsoever God will,” of the capacity to repent, believe, and love. Throughout the argument we must remember who the “elect” are in the grand special case in hand, viz. the “remnant” who actually (not only potentially) are true believers, under both the Old and New Dispensations. See especially Romans 11:2-8.

Election

On the general subject of the Divine Election we may remark,

(1) That “the arguments of the Apostle are founded on two assumptions. The first is, that the Scriptures are the word of God; and the second, that whatever God actually does cannot be unrighteous. Consequently, any objection which can be shewn to militate against either an express declaration of Scripture, or an obvious fact in providence, is fairly answered.” (Dr Hodge, in loc.) It is almost needless to add that such a submission to the Divine Righteousness, while in one sense a surrender of reason, is in another its truest exercise. It is the surrender instinctively yielded by the soul which, conscious of its own sin, lies open to the full impression of the overwhelming purity and majesty of its Creator. It is absolute trust, under complete mystery, in Him who in one respect is truly known, but in another cannot (by the created being) be “found out unto perfection.” See Romans 11:33-36.

(2) It must be remembered that Divine Election affects a world not of righteous beings, nor even of neutral beings, but of “sinners,” “enemies” (ch. Romans 5:8-9.)[41] We come to face its mystery only when we have first faced, and owned, the unfathomable mystery of sin. We see it, not making the good evil, nor the evil arbitrarily worse, but judicially leaving the sinner to himself; (as we are bound to believe every sinner might righteously have been left; for otherwise Salvation would be our Right, not our Mercy;) save in cases—determined by the Divine Mind by reasons within Itself—in which, of mere mercy, a positive and prevailing influence intervenes, producing spiritual life, the life of repentance, faith and love.

[41] The abstruse questions which have been raised in controversy on this point may be fairly said to “intrude into” what lies wholly outside the Scripture Revelation.

(3) This view of the case, which is indeed full of distressing mystery, yet owes what is most distressing in it to the riddle which lies beneath all others connected with it—that of the Existence of Sin at all. But meantime it also assures us that while the will (influenced by sin) is the cause of ruin, it is also the will (influenced by grace) which, acting strictly as the will, lays hold on salvation. In neither case is the will forced, unless indeed we call every influence on the will compulsion, so far as it is successful. The lost “will not come;” the saved come as “whosoever will.” (John 5:40; Revelation 22:17.)

(4) The doctrine of Election is, in Scripture, never made the foreground of doctrine; and it is always so presented as also to assure us, however little we can reconcile the vast range of spiritual truths, that we are in the hands of Righteousness as well as Power, and that our will, affections, and aspirations, are perfectly real. Lastly, the doctrine, if studied in Scripture, is viewed always from the only safe view-point—the foot of the Cross.—See further, Appendix F.

might stand] i.e., continue to act on its necessary principle—“not of works, but of Him that calleth.”

of works] Based on, or resulting from, “works;” in the largest sense of “works;” actions whose aggregate is character.

calleth] See on Romans 1:6.

Romans 9:11. Μήπω γεννηθέντων, when they were not yet born) Carnal descent profiteth nothing, John 1:13.—μηδὲ πραξάντων, and when they had done nothing) This is added, because some one might think as to Ishmael, that he was driven out, not so much because he was the son of a bondmaid, as because he was a mocker; although this slave-like scurrility afterwards shows itself in [lays hold of] the son of the bondmaid, so that he [מצחק, and κακόζηλος τοῦ יצחק] laughs and mocks at Isaac, whom he envies and insults.—κατʼ ἐκλογὴι) The purpose, which is quite free, has its reason founded on election alone; comp. κατὰ ch. Romans 16:25; Titus 1:9. It might be said, in Latin, propositum Dei electivum, the elective purpose of God.—μένῃ, might stand [remain]) incapable of being set aside. It is presupposed that the πρόθεσιν, the purpose, is prior to the, might stand.—οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, not of works) not even of works foreseen. Observe, it is not faith, which is opposed to election, but works.—ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος, of Him that calleth) even Him, who called Jacob to be the superior, Esau to be the servant: comp. Romans 9:25.

Verses 11-13. - For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election (i.e. the principle of his electing to privileges of his own good will and purpose, and not on the ground of any fancied human claims) might stand (μένῃ, i.e. should remain in force, ever applicable), not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger (Genesis 25:23). As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (Malachi 1:2, 3). It is here to be carefully observed that, though Jacob and Esau were individuals, yet it is not as such, but as the progenitors and representatives of races, that they are here spoken cf. So it was, too, in both the passages quoted from the Old Testament. In Genesis 25:23 the words are, "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." In Malachi 1:2 the prophet's entire drift is to set forth the Divine favour shown, from the first and still, to the race of Israel as compared with the race of Edom. Hence, as well as from the purport of the chapter as announced at its beginning, it is evident that the subject of individual predestination does not really come in, as it did in ch. 8, but only that of nations or races of men to a position of privilege as inheritors of promises. It will be seen, also, as we go on, that the introduction in illustration of the case of the individual Pharaoh does not really affect the drift of the chapter as above explained. The strong expression, "Esau I hated" (applicable, as shown above, not to the individual Esau, but to the race of Edom) is capable of being explained as meaning, "I excluded him from the love I showed to Israel." The evidence of such alleged hatred the prophet expresses thus: "and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;" whereas Israel, it is implied, had been protected from such desolation. As to the necessary force of the word in the Hebrew (שכא), we may compare Genesis 29:30, 31, where in ver. 30 it is said that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, and in ver. 31, as meaning the same thing, that Leah was hated; and Deuteronomy 21:15, "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated." In both these passages the same verb is used as in Malachi, and need not, in either case, mean more than disregarding one in comparison with another who is loved. For the use, in the New Testament, of the Greek word μισεῖν in a sense for the expression of which our English "to hate," in its usual acceptation, is evidently too strong, cf. Luke 14:26 (to be compared with Matthew 10:37) and John 12:25; so also, though not so distinctly, Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13. It is, moreover, not improbable that the Prophet Malachi, in his patriotic ardour, had in his mind the idea of wrath against the race of Edom on the part of the LORD, as "the people," as he afterwards says, "against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever." But even so, the glowing language of prophets need not be taken as dogmatic assertion; and certainly not as binding us to believe that any race of men is, in the literal sense of the expression, hated of Cod. Such a view is in evident contradiction to the general teaching of Scripture, and notably so to that of St. Paul, who has so emphatically declared that God "made of one blood all nations of men," and is One to all. Romans 9:11Evil (φαῦλον)

See on John 3:20; see on James 3:16.

Purpose according to election (ἡ κατ' ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις)

For πρόθεσις purpose, see on the kindred verb προέθετο, Romans 3:25, and compare Romans 8:28. The phrase signifies a purpose so formed that in it an election was made. The opposite of one founded upon right or merit. For similar phrases see Acts 19:20; κατὰ κράτος according to might, mightily; Romans 7:13, καθ' ὑπερβολὴν according to excess, exceedingly. See note.

Might stand (μένῃ)

Lit., abide, continue: remain unchangeable. This unchangeableness of purpose was conveyed in His declaration to Rebecca. Contrast with come to nought (Romans 9:6).

Of works (ἐξ)

Lit., out of. By virtue of.

Calleth (καλοῦντος)

Eternal salvation is not contemplated. "The matter in question is the part they play regarded from the theocratic stand-point" (Godet).

Romans 9:11 Interlinear
Romans 9:11 Parallel Texts


Romans 9:11 NIV
Romans 9:11 NLT
Romans 9:11 ESV
Romans 9:11 NASB
Romans 9:11 KJV

Romans 9:11 Bible Apps
Romans 9:11 Parallel
Romans 9:11 Biblia Paralela
Romans 9:11 Chinese Bible
Romans 9:11 French Bible
Romans 9:11 German Bible

Bible Hub