him on various occasions. This is the real spirit of the passage. This prophecy, as is the case with all similar predictions, had various stages of fulfilment. The relation between the two brothers during life ; the loss of the birth-right blessing and promises on the part of Esau; the temporary subjugation of his descendants to the Hebrews under David, their final and complete subjection under the Maccabees ; and especially their exclusion from the peculiar privileges of the people of God, through all the early periods of their history, are all included. Compare the pre- diction of the subjection of Ham to his brethren; and of Japheth's dwell- ing in the tents of Shem, Gen. 9 : 25 — 27.
(13) As it is writierijJacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. These words are quoted from Malachi 1 : 2, 3, where the prophet is reproving the Jews for their ingratitude. As a proof of his peculiar favour, God refers to his preference for them from the first, " Was not Esau Jacob's brother, saiththe Lord ; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau," &c. This passage, as well as the one quoted in v. 12, and just referred to, relates to the descendants of Jacob and Esau, as well as to the individuals them- selves ; the favour shown to the posterity of the one, and withheld from
hat of the other, being founded on the distinction originally made between the two brothers. The meaning, therefore, is, that God preferred one to the other, or chose one instead of the other. As this is the idea meant to be expressed, it is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less favour. Thus in Gen. 29 : 33, Leah says, she was hated by her husband ; while in the preceding verse, the same idea is expressed by saying, " Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah," Matt. 10 : 37. Luke 14 : 26, "If a man come to me and hate not his father and mother," &c. John 12 : 25.
The doctrine of the preceding verses is, that God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favours, that the ground of his selecting one and rejecting another is not their works, but his own good pleasure. To this doctrine there are two plausible objections ; first, it is not consistent with the divine justice, v. 14; second, it is. incompatible with human respon- sibility, V. 19. To the former the apostle answers first, God claino^ dis- tinctly in his word this prerogative, v. 15 ; and secondly, he obviously exercises it, as is seen in the dispensations of his providence, v. 17.
(14) What shall we say then, is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. The apostle, according to his usual manner, proposes the objec- tion to his own doctrine in the form of a question, denies its validity, and immediately subjoins his reason; see Rom. 3: 5. Gal. 3:21. The obvious objection here presented is, that it is unjust in God, thus, accord- ing to his own purpose, to choose one and reject another. This Paul denies, and supports his denial by an appeal, in the first place, to Scrip- ture, and in the second to experience. It will be remarked that these ar- guments of the apostle are founded on two assumptions. The first is, that the Scriptures are the word of God ; and the second, that what God actu- ally does cannot be unrighteous. Consequently any objection which can