As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
As it is written (Malachi 1:2-3 ), Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. It might be thought that there was a natural reason for preferring the child of Sarah, as being Abraham's true and first wife, both to the child of Hagar, Sarah's maid, and to the children of Keturah, his second wife. But there could be no such reason in the case of Rebecca, Isaac's only wife; for the choice of her son Jacob was the choice of one of two sons by the same mother, and of the younger in preference to the older, and before either of them was born, and consequently before either had done good or evil to be a ground of preference; and all to show that the sole ground of distinction lay in the unconditional choice of God - "not of works, but of Him that calleth." These last words show conclusively the erroneousness of the theory by which some get rid of the doctrine of personal Election in this chapter-namely, that the apostle is treating of the choice, neither of persons nor of nations, but merely of the terms or conditions on which He will save men, and which he has a sovereign right to fix.
For in that case the apostle would have said here, 'That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works-but by faith.' But instead of this, he says, "Not of works (of any merit on our part), but of Him that calleth" - i:e., purely of His own will to call whom He pleaseth. 'It is doing great violence to the meaning (says Olshausen) to refer the 'purpose according to election-which did not depend upon the works that were not in existence, but rested upon the holy will alone of Him who calleth whom He will, Jacob only and not Esau-to refer this purpose (with Beck) simply to the right of primogeniture, or (with Tholuck) to the occupation of the theocratic land.' Though the predictions respecting Jacob and Esau had reference to their posterity, and were fulfilled in them, it is the unconditional choice of the one individual, rather than the other, on which the apostle reasons. 'The word "serve" (Romans 9:1-2) need not be understood (adds Olshausen) of political servitude, but must be referred to a state of spiritual dependence into which Esau was brought by throwing away his birthright, while the stream of grace flowed away to Jacob. All the assurances that to "hate" here does not mean to hate, but only to "love less," or bestow a less advantage, will not satisfy the conscientious expositor, since he cannot overlook the fact that Paul has selected from the passage of Scripture which he quotes a very strong and offensive expression. Nor does it signify that in that passage (Malachi 1:2-3) the immediate question is of outward circumstances, since these also [in the case of such symbolical persons] are to be viewed as expressions of the wrath of God.' Compare a subsequent verse of the same chapter, "The people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever" (Malachi 1:4).
The Righteousness of this Sovereign Procedure (Romans 9:14-24)
This topic is handled in the form of answers to two objections, which are so far from being merely hypothetical, that they have been in every age, and are to this day, the grand, indeed the only plausible, objections to the doctrine of personal Election.
First Objection-`The doctrine-that God chooses one and rejects another, not on account of their works, but purely in the exercise of His own good pleasure-is inconsistent with the justice of God.' The answer to this objection extends to Romans 9:19, where we have a second objection.