The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 267

pe.trle.roh (lf bb1), but e.lao of the so.me the purport of the che.pter e.s e.nnQuncerl. e.t wedded wife ; e.nif yet one was chosen and its beginning, it is evident that the eubject the other rejeoted,, and this even before of indimdual predestination does not really birth : so thnt, e.e the selection was not <l ne oome in, as it did in eh. viii., but only that to oomnl descent, so neither oonld it be of nations or ra.ces of men to e. position dne to proved desert. ThUB by this second of privilege e.s inheritors of promisee. It consideration is disposed of the J ew'e will be seen, also, as we go on that the BSeertion of an indefeasible cle.im to in- introduction in illurtre.tion of the caee of heritance of the promises on the ground of the individnal Pharaoh does not really affect his boasted works, e.e by the other ie dis- the driR of the chapter e.s above explained. posed of hie claim on the ground of his re.ce. The strong expression, " Esau I hated " St. Pe.nl's argument to the J ewe of his own (e.pplice.ble, e.s shown above, not to the in- day would be-Yon cannot eet up e. claim to dividnal Esau, but to the race of E,Jom) is be e.11 of yon the neceeee.ry inheritors of the capable of being explained e.s meaning, " I promises for e.11 time on the ground either of excluded him from the love I showed to your carnal deecent or of your works, since Israel." The evidence of euch eJleged hatrerl the selection of Israel himself did not depend the prophet expresses thus : " and laid his on either of these grounds; nor cau you mountame and his heritage waste for the ee.y that my position (viz. that Christian dragons of the wilderness;" wheree.s Israel, believers, to the exclusion of most of you, it is implied, had been protected from such are now the true inheritors of the promises) desolation. As to the neceesary force of implies unfaithfulness in God to his ancient the word in the Hebrew (to:,), we may promises ; for it ie in e.coorde.nce with the compare Gen. :xxix. 30. 31, where in ver. principle on which, according to your own 30 it is eaid that Jacob loved Rachel more Scriptures, he fnlfilled of old his promises to than Leah, and in ver. 31, e.s meaning the the patriarchs. St. Paul, however, is not to so.me thing, that Leah was hated; and be understood here as writing with e. direct Dent. m. 15, "If a man have two wives, polemical intention, but rather e.s discussing one beloved and another hated." In both a problem which had at one time perplexed these passages the same verb is used e.s in himself, end which seemed to him to call Me.le.chi, and need not, in either case, mean for solution. more than disregarding one in compariBOn Ver. 10.-But not only this; but Rebecca with another who is loved. For the use, in also, when she hed conoeived by one, even the New Test.ament, of the Greek word by Ise.ao our father. The sentence thUB l'"Tf"' in a senee for the expression of which begnn is not formally completed, being our English "to hate,'' in its usual accepta- to.ken up-e.f:ter the parenthetical ver. 11- tion, is evidently too strong, cf. Luk,, xiv. by " It was said unto her" in ver. 12. 26 (to be compared with Matt. ::t. 37) and Vere.11-13.-J!'or the children being not John xii. 25 ; so also, though not eo dis- yet born, neither having done any good or tincUy, Matt. vi 2! and Luke ::tvi. 13. evil, that the purpose of God according to It is, moreover, not improbable the.t the eleotion (i.e. the principle of his electing to Prophet Male.chi, in his patriotic ardour, privileges of his own good will and purpose, had in his mind the idea of wrath against and not on the ground of any fancied human the race of Edom on the po.rt of the LoBD, clnims) might stand (,.frp, i.e. should re- B.'! " the people," B.'! he afterwards says, main in force, ever applioe.ble), not of worlm, " ago.inst whom the LoBD bath indignation but of him that oalleth ; it was said nnto for ever." But even so, the glowing lan- her, The elder shall serve the younger (Gen. guage of prophets need not be taken as dog- uv. 23). As it is written, Jaoob I loved, me.tio 11SSertion ; and certainly not B.'! bind- but Esau I hated (Mai. i. 2, 3). It is here to ing us to believe the.t any rnce of men is, in be carefully ebserved thnt, though J aoob o.nd the literal sense of the expression, hated of EBBu were individuals, yet it is not as such, God. Such a view is in evident contr.i.diction but BS the progenitors and representatives to the general teaching of Scripture, and of rooes, thut they are here spoken of. So notably so to thnt of St. Paul, who has eo it was, too, in both the paesnges quoted from emphntiot\J.ly declared that God " made of the Old T1:1stament. In Gen. xxv. 23 the one blood all nl\tione of men," and is Ono to words are, "'l'wo nations o.re in thy womb, all. ond two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; nod the one people ehnll Vore. 14-2!.-{b) In tho ne::tt eeotion be stronger than the other peo,rte ; and the injusli~ on the 1mrt of God, in thus electing elder sholl eo1·vo tho youugor. In Ml\l. i. the objeots of his mercy t\Ccording to the 2 the prophot's onliro tlrift ie to sot forth tho Divine favour shQwn, fran the first nllll good pleasure of his will, is repudiated. still, to tho moo of Ismol l\B compared with Ae in oh. vi. I and vii. 7, a folse inference the roco of Edom. Hence, is well as from from what hl\S been so.id is introduced by  THE EPISTLE OF rAUL '1'0 1.'llE ROM A.NS. [en. 1x. 1-83.