Exposition of Romans 8-11, Chapter 9 · Verses 10-13
VERSE 10. And not onelyonly this, but when Rebecca alſo had conceiued by one, euen by our Father Iſaac,
11. (For the children beeing not yet borne, neither hauing done any good or euill, that the purpoſe of God, according to Election, might ſtand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
12. It was ſaid vntounto her, Gen. 25.23.bOr Greater.The Elder ſhall ſerue the cOr Younger.Younger;
13. As it is written, Mal. 1.2.Iacob hauehave I loued, but Eſau hauehave I hated.
HEre is another Inſtance, to proue, that the promiſes belong not to all them who come of Parents to whō and to their ſeed the promiſes are made.
This Inſtance is of the children of Iſaac and Rebecca, which doth more ſtrongly proue it then the former of Abraham and Sara. For againſt that diuerſe obiections might be framed, which hauehave no place here. As, that Iſaac was borne of the free-vvoman, and when Abraham was circumciſed; but Iſmael of the bond-woman, and in Abrahams vncircumciſion: and therefore no maruell if Iſmael be excluded.
Here is no difference. One Iſaac, one Rebecca, one Copulation, one Conception, one Birth. No difference of Circumciſion and Vncircumciſion, and nothing in Iacob which Eſau had not. The Argument from hence is thus framed.
If the promiſe be made good to all Iſaaks ſeed, then to Eſau:
But not to Eſau.
Therefore it is not ment by God to all, but onelyonly to the Elect that come of Iſaac.
Here are two parts. Firſt, the Inſtance, verſe 10, 12, 13. Secondly, the Amplification, verſe 11. included in a Parentheſis, which I will handle by it ſelfe.
In the Inſtance are two things; Firſt, the Affirmation of the matter, verſe 10. Secondly, the Confirmation, verſe 12. Expounded, verſe 13.
And not onelyonly this: The reading of this verſe is diuers; ſome Neither he onelyonly, referring it to Abraham; ſome, Neither ſhe onelyonly, referring it to Sara; and then they ſupply, felt this, or receiued the promiſe: but as the words are now tranſlated, are feweſt ſupplies; and that which is ſupplyed, referring vsus to the whole matter precedent, maketh better for the ſenſe, which is, that it plainely appeares in Rebeccaes children, which were Twinnes, in nature eueryevery way alike, that the promiſe belongs not to all of Iſaac or Abraham.
This is proued, verſe 12. (which is to be read with the 10. verſe) by the Oracle of God to Rebecca, when ſhe reſorted to the Lord for counſell about the ſtriuing of the Children in her wombe, before they were borne. Of which, Gen. 25.23. the ſumme whereof was, that the elder ſhould ſerue the yonger, that is, ſhould be depriued of the birth-right, and ſo of the bleſſing, and of the Inheritance of Canaan, a type of the heauenly inheritance. For theſe words are not Hiſtorically to be vnderſtood of earthly honour and bondage, but myſtically of ſpirituall. For, as concerning earthly, it was contrary, Iacob calling Eſau Lord, and ſo behauing himſelfe towards him.
This Oracle is expounded verſe 13. by another out of Malachie. Iacob hauehave I loued, that is, elected, proceeding from Gods louelove; Eſau hauehave I hated, proceeding from Gods hatred: which is not a paſſion in God, as in vsus; but his Iuſtice, ſo called, becauſe it ſeemes hatred to them which ſuffer it.
God hated not Eſau as a man, but as a ſinner.
Ob. But Iacob was a ſinner alſo: How came hee then to louelove him?
A. Aug. ad Simpl. lib. 1. q. ….He loued in Iacob, not the fault which he tooke away, but the grace which he beſtowed.
doctrine Where Nature is common and alike, there grace makes a difference: we are all by nature the Children of wrath. Eph. 2.3. yet ſome are elected, ſome reprobated, Iohn 13.8. and 15.19. and 17.9. 1. Theſ. 5.9. 2. Tim. 2.20.
Ʋſe 1.As in Rebeccaes wombe, there was a ſtriuing betweene Eſau and Iacob; ſo in eueryevery true Chriſtian, there is a combating betweene corruption and grace: and as Eſau is the elder, ſo is corruption.
Vſe 2.As in Iſaaks family there was a profane Eſau, as well as a godly Iacob; ſo is the viſible Church a mixt company, as our Sauiour teaches by diuers parables. Mat. 13.Examine how thou ſtandeſt in the Church, whether as an Eſau, or as a Iacob.
Vſe 3.Eſau is Iſaaks eldeſt Sonne, yet reiected: Birth, degrees, and bloud, are to be regarded, and are eſpeciall fauours of God, yet they further not Election. As it was rather a diſgrace for Eſau to come of vertuous Parents, becauſe he was no better: ſo doe thou account of thy ſelfe: then is the bloud of thy famous Anceſtors thy credit, when thou art like them in vertue. Better the honour of our Families ſhould begin, then end in vsus.
Vſe 4.Eſau is diſherited, and yet God gaue a lawe that the firſt borne ſhould not be depriued of his birthright, namely, without iuſt & weighty cauſe. Hence Peter Martyr makes a queſtion whether God can diſpenſe with his owne Lawes. With the Iudiciall and Ceremoniall no doubt he may. Concerning the Morall: It is by ſome anſwered that he may, and that the Commandements are to be vnderſtood with this prouiſo, vnleſſe God command otherwiſe, for the Law is for vsus, not for God. But this anſwer ſeemes to be defectiue: becauſe the Law being the copy of Gods Will, muſt needes bee an vnchangeable, and vnvarying rule of righteouſnes. God is a law to himſelfe by the perfection of his nature, which he hath expreſſed in his Law: and therefore to command any thing contrary to his law, or to diſpenſe with it, ſo that the things here forbidden, as theft, whoredome, &c. ſhould be no ſins, in the ſence they are forbidden, ſeemes to be as though God ſhould depart from his owne nature, which is impoſſible.
Pareus a very learned man anſwers otherwiſe, namely, In orat. paraen. de legum dignitate, vſu, & obedientia, ex 1. Tim. 1.8,9.that the Law indeed is an immoueable rule euen in regard of God, not ſimply in regard of the whole Decalogue, but onelyonly according to ſome part of it. And therefore he diſtinguiſheth of the Commandements: holding ſome abſolutely to proceed from the Nature of God, which he doth freely & neceſſarily will, as Command. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9. The reſt as 4, 5, 6, 8, 10. to proceed from the will of God, but not neceſſarily. The things in theſe laſt to be iuſt or vniuſt, becauſe commanded or forbidden, and that in theſe lyes that Prouiſo, Till God command otherwiſe.
But with reuerence of that Worthy man, I cannot vnderſtand, how at any time, it ſhould be no ſinne to ſteale or to murder, in the ſenſe it is forbidden in the law. My opinion is, that the Iuſtice in theſe Lawes proceeds from the pure nature of God, and are neceſſarily therefore willed by him, as well as the Iuſtice in the other precepts. My reaſon is, becauſe the equity of theſe lawes is imprinted in our nature: and that which is imprinted thus in our nature, is a remnant of the Image of God, which was according to the naturall and neceſſary Iuſtice of God.
The Schoolemen therfore (as I take it) more ſafely reſolue this doubt, who hold that God (ſauing his Iuſtice) cannot command that which is contrary to his law, as that a man ſhould ſteale, &c. and yet not ſinne. And therefore whereſoeuer it ſeemes that God hath commanded the contrary, wee are to know, that the matter of the precept is varied. As the Iſraelites rob the Egyptians, yet not guilty of theft, becauſe when the Iſraelites tooke thoſe goods, they were not the Egyptians, but their owne, giuen to them by God, who hath right and authoritie to beſtowe thoſe things where and to whome he pleaſeth. All things forbidden in the morall law, are ſinnes, not onelyonly becauſe they are there forbidden, but principally, becauſe they are contrarie to the moſt iuſt nature and will of God, of which the law is a copie.
Vſe 5.The Elect are beloued, the Reprobates are hated. The louelove of God includes all fauours, his hatred, all plagues and curſes: The Elect are happie, the Reprobate miſerable; miſerable indeed, for it were better to be in hell, then to be hated of God.