Jacob I Loved, but Esau I Hated

In terms of ink and space, verses 1 through 18 takes up the majority of Genesis 25, and these give the details of the final years of Abraham’s life, in which he remarried and had six more children. That detail, that these were ‘sent … away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country’ (v. 6), need not suggest any hostility, much less contempt, between the promised line of Abraham and them. It would be an odd way to spend your last years, having grown so much in faith, only in order to live as a heathen and spread the seed of reprobation without a care.1 But we will have to leave room for more mystery here. Everything else was as we would expect (vv. 9-10): He was buried next to Sarah and both of the main sons—Isaac and Ishmael2—saw to those arrangements.

As the narrative of Genesis moves from Abraham to Isaac, we note that attention shrinks from the dozen chapters devoted to Abraham (Chs. 12-24) to the seven to Isaac (Chs. 21-27); and even these are arguably devoted more to drawing out the end of Abraham’s course and beginning of explaining Jacob, or Israel. Of course another theme continues here, and that is God Himself raising up the promised seed, as Rebekah was barren at first, just like Sarah: ‘And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren. And the LORD granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived’ (v. 21).

But the flow of Genesis here is meant to dig deeper from the typology of faith to the typology of grace. In that sense, Isaac is a bridge from the father of faith (Abraham) to the father of the elect people (Jacob). Isaac’s death is only recounted at the end of Chapter 35, after the separate trajectories of the two sons, Esau and Jacob, are sketched out. But it is exactly the destiny of these two sons that picks up that deeper theme of the covenant of grace right here in verses 21 through 28. God’s explanation in this text begins with an honest inquiry by Rebekah: ‘The children struggled together within her, and she said, ‘If it is thus, why is this happening to me?’ So she went to inquire of the LORD’ (v. 22). If only we were such inquirers of the whole counsel of God. If we were, we would see three truths in the answer to Rebekah.

• Divine election explains why two are divided.

• Divine election explains why two are at war.

• Divine election explains why two roles will be reversed.

Doctrine. Those who inherited did so that God’s purpose in election might continue.   

Divine election explains why two are divided.

What Rebekah asks for is the doctrine we receive. She may not have been troubled in her mind at first, so much as in her womb. Nevertheless, her labor pains are for the growing pains of our faith. Note it says, ‘the LORD said to her’ (v. 23a), so another example that direct revelation was common in the days of the Patriarchs.3 At any rate, she is told, ‘two peoples from within you shall be divided’ (v. 23b). This is the meaning of those words of John the Baptist when he scorched the Pharisees with the eternal news that, “Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees” (Mat. 3:10)—that this division in eternity is what ultimately decides on the children of Abraham.

Immediately after Paul had explained Abraham’s offspring—Isaac over Ishmael—by this doctrine of unconditional election, in the very next words of Romans 9, we read,

“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls” (Rom. 9:10-11).

Paul takes his passage from two in the Old Testament. One is the passage we are in, but the other is from the first chapter of Malachi. So you should turn there for the larger context.

“The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. ‘I have loved you,’ says the LORD. But you say, ‘How have you loved us?’ ‘Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ declares the LORD. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.’ If Edom says, ‘We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,’ the LORD of hosts says, ‘They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever’” (Mal. 1:1-4).

As is the case for the pattern of biblical prophecy that works with types that represent eternal realities—a prototype in the immediate sight of the prophet and an antitype with the fulfillment of all things in Christ—so it is here. There was an ancient historical divide. As Calvin commented,

“Undoubtedly by this oracle Isaac and Rebekah were taught that the covenant of salvation would not be common to the two people, but would be reserved only for the posterity of Jacob … as it afterwards actually occurred: for we know that the Idumaeans were cut off from the body of the Church; but the covenant of grace was deposited with the family of Jacob.”4

Josephus relates that the name “Edom” came from a variation of the Hebrew for “red” (adoma), but also from mockery that he had lost his birthright.5 So immediately, Edom eventually was judged to the fullest extent (cf. Ezk. 35). Ultimately, like Sarah and Hagar were types of two covenants, so Jacob and Esau were types of two sides of the divine decree. Again, Paul continues, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). And then, just when someone is prepared to say, “Sure, that was the case with Jacob and Esau. God was electing a nation. He has a chosen people,” the Apostle clinches the type and applies it to all with the words: “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles” (v. 24).

Divine election explains why two are at war.

Notice when the conflict begins: ‘The children struggled together within her’ (v. 22a). So it was in Genesis 3:15 that God initiated warfare between the two seeds from the beginning. So these two were fighting before they ever saw the light of day. Keep in mind how Paul used the word “persecuted” (Gal. 4:29) to describe Ishmael’s relation to Isaac. So it will be here.

What might be easier to miss is that this is not just a “roster division,” like the picking of two teams in gym class, but a division between warring peoples. They are called TWO NATIONS and TWO PEOPLES (v. 23a). Now the most literal meaning of this really is explained by Malachi 1. Jacob becomes the nation, or people, of Israel; Esau becomes the nation, or people, of Edom.

There would be, as Calvin remarks here, “discord between their posterities.”6 In other words, the same implication as 3:15 about the two seeds. In fact, these two nations are those same two seeds, being shown to rub shoulders so closely with each other, that they not only inhabit the same country, but even the same churches, even the same homes, and so close, even the same womb. The line between elect and reprobate, invisible to us, cannot even be cut with a modern surgeon’s laser, but only by the sword of Christ, which, in Matthew 10, Jesus tells us He brings to divide even within households.

Divine election explains why two roles will be reversed.

The operative words here in the explanation to Rebekah are these: ‘the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger’ (v. 23b). Notice two lines, signifying two states of affairs—one earlier, the other later. The one who is naturally stronger will not wind up in the greater spiritual advantage in the end.

“In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his manhood he strove with God” (Hos. 12:3).

In Genesis 3:15, it was the heel that the serpent is said to bruise in the Promised Seed, yet here the role is reversed—so that the reprobate’s heel is seized by Jacob. Why?

Is it simply in the manner of how he obtained the blessing? It would be a character trait that would mark him still out east, as he was exiting the house of Laban. We will see this picture filled out more in subsequent chapters. What matters at this point is that election is not only a soteriological explanation, but a sociological and eschatological explanation as well. 

Practical Use of the Doctrine

Use 1. Instruction. This purpose of election plays out in history as a role reversal, and it becomes a kind of theological universal—I mean, a big-picture principle or idea, that replays itself in various instances. Here is how Jesus expresses that universal principle: “So the last will be first, and the first last” (Mat. 20:16). This role reversal of God’s purpose in election is true in at least five main ways in Scripture.

First, in the natural birth order in the typological people, Israel—e.g., Isaac over Ishmael (Gen. 17:19; 21:12); Jacob over Esau (Gen. 25:23); Judah over three older brothers (Gen. 49:8-12); Rachel out of her barrenness over Leah (Gen. 30); Hannah out of her barrenness over Peninnah (1 Sam. 1:2; 2:1-10); David over all his older brothers (1 Sam. 16:10).

Second, in the redemptive historical order of the time of the Gentiles: The gospel went “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16); yet “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25).

Third, in the choice of the weak of the world to shame the strong. “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth” (1 Cor. 1:26).

Fourth, in the humiliation and exaltation of the ultimate Chosen. Christ “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, weven death on a cross. Therefore God has  highly exalted him(Phi. 2:7-9).

Fifth, in the experience of every Christian from suffering to glory. Paul says “if [we are] children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him”(Rom. 8:17).

Use 2. Admonition. This teaches us that while the promise is for believers and their children, the promise is unfitting to presumption, and so covenant-faking begets covenant breaking. In his book, Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, John Bunyan draws out a distinction between a conditional promise and the absolute promise:

“Men make a great ado with the children of believers; and oh! the children of believers! But if the child of the believer is not the him concerned in the absolute promise, it is not these men’s great cry, nor yet what the parent or child can do, that can interest him in this promise of the Lord Christ, this absolute promise.”7

Esau was born to covenant parents and Esau was reprobate. You have to factor that into your theology, into your parenting, and into your prayers. 

Use 3. Correction. Perhaps the most enduring and obvious objection to this doctrine of election is the so-called “fairness” doctrine. Paul anticipates this very objection in Romans 9.

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (vv. 14-15).

But Paul continues to play the role of the one struggling, but he doubles down:

“You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (vv. 19-23).

I know that those of you who sat under Dr. Sproul’s ministry for so many years know these words, but they are worth repeating in closing about this: “From that mass of guilty humanity, God sovereignly decides to give mercy to some of them. What do the rest get? They get justice. The saved get mercy and the unsaved get justice. Nobody gets injustice.”8

_______________________

1. Kidner allows that all of the events recounted in 25:1-4 could have followed Sarah’s death. However, “the term ‘concubine’ for Keturah in 1 Chronicles 1:32, and probably in verse 6 here, suggests that Sarah was alive when Abraham took Keturah” (Genesis, 160). Furthermore, the word “concubines” is plural because of Hagar as well.

2. Belcher offers a helpful corrective: “Ishmael also lives a long life of 137 years and is said to be ‘gathered to his people’ (v. 17). One should not read into this phrase that Ishmael joins Abraham as part of the covenant people at his death. He had already been separated from the covenant community and had been described as living ‘over against all his kinsmen’ (Gen. 16:12)” (Genesis, 168).

3. The “commonly received opinion,” and other speculations, noted by Calvin “respecting the way in which Rebekah received counsel from God” (Commentaries, I.2.43) is wholly unnecessary. The pre-canonical era necessitated extraordinary modes of communication to God’s people; therefore we have more than one reason not to seek a norm here. For the same reasons, then, we have no need, out of fear of such a false norm, to imagine things beyond what is plainly said in the text without some other evidence from the context. Moses related, “The LORD said to her,” and thus, we are not troubled to think that God spoke to this woman’s mind, whether by dream, vision, or inward impression.

4. Calvin, Commentaries, I.2.44.

5. Josephus, Judean Antiquities, 2.1-6

6. Calvin, Commentaries, I.2.43.

7. John Bunyan, Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2011), 81.

8. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 37-38.