^9:6 Not as though the word of God has failed. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel. [n. 748]
^9:7 Neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, sons: but in Isaac will your seed be called. [n. 751]
^9:8 That is to say, not they who are the sons of the flesh are the children of God: but they who are the sons of the promise are accounted for the seed. [n. 753]
^9:9 For this is the word of promise: according to this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. [n. 754]
^9:10 And not only she, but Rebecca also had conceived at once from Isaac our father. [n. 755]
^9:11 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand), [n. 757]
^9:12 Not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her: the elder shall serve the younger. [n. 760]
^9:13 As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated. [n. 762]

748. After asserting the greatness of the Jews, the Apostle now shows that it did not refer to those who descended according to the flesh from the ancient patriarchs but to the spiritual progeny chosen by God.

First, he shows that this greatness arises from God’s selection;

second, that this selection applies generally to Jew and gentiles, at even us, whom also he has called (Rom 9:24).

In regard to the first he does two things:

first, he shows how from God’s choice men obtain spiritual greatness;

second, he raises a question about the justice of God’s choice, at what shall we say then? (Rom 9:14).

In regard to the first he does two things:

First, he states his proposition;

second, shows it, at but in Isaac.

Concerning the first, he does two things.

First he sets out the firmness of the divine election;

second, he shows in whom it is accomplished, at for all are not Israelites.

749. First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the promises, the adoption of sons, and glory referred to people whose fall is to me a source of great sadness and unceasing sorrow. But it is not as though the word of God has failed, i.e., was frustrated, because although it has found no place in those who had fallen, it has a place in others: the word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose (Isa 55:11); forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed (Ps 119:89).

750. Then he shows how and in whom God’s word has failed, when he says for all are not Israelites.

In regard to this it should be noted that the Jews boasted mainly of two things, namely, Abraham, who first received the pact of circumcision from God (Gen 17) and Jacob or Israel, all of whose descendants were counted as God’s people. This was not true of Isaac, for the descendants of his son Esau did not belong to God’s people.

Hence the Apostle states his proposition: first, by a comparison with Jacob: for all are not Israelites who are of Israel, i.e., from Jacob according to the flesh, are true Israelites, to whom God’s promises belong, but those who are upright and see God by faith: fear not, Jacob, and thus most just whom I have chosen (Isa 44:2). Hence the Lord also said to Nathanael: behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile (John 1:47). Now this name, Israel, had been put on Jacob by an angel (Gen 32:28).

Second, he states the same things by comparison with Abraham, saying: neither are all they who are the seed of Abraham, sons, i.e., are not the spiritual sons of Abraham to whom God promised the blessings, but only those who imitate his faith and works: if you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did (John 8:40).

751. Then he clarifies his statement, at but in Isaac.

First, in regard to Abraham;

second, in regard to Jacob, at and not only she.

752. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he cites a text from Scripture, saying, but in Isaac will your seed be called. This the Lord said to Abraham, as it says in Genesis 21, when describing the expulsion of Ishmael.

As if to say: not all who were born from Abraham according to the flesh belong to that seed to whom the promises were made, as it says in Galatains: to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed (Gal 3:16), but those who are like Isaac.

753. Then he explains the quoted text so far as it applies to his thesis, when he says that is to say, not they who are the sons.

To understand this it should be noted that the Apostle says in Galatians: Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave, namely, Ishmael, was born according to the flesh (Gal 4:22), because he was born according to the law and custom of the flesh from a young woman: the son of the free woman, namely, Isaac, through promise and not according to the flesh, i.e., not according to the law and custom of the flesh, because he was born from a sterile, old woman (Gen 18:10); although he was born according to the flesh, i.e., according to the substance of the flesh he received from his parents.

From this the Apostle decides that those adopted into the sonship of God are not the sons of the flesh, i.e., not because they are the bodily descendants of Abraham, but they are accounted for the seed, to whom was made the promise, who are the sons of the promise, i.e., those who are made sons of Abraham because they imitate his faith, as it says in Matthew: God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt 3:9). Thus, Ishmael, born according to the flesh, was not numbered among the seed, but Isaac, born by the promise, was.

754. Third, at for this is the word of promise, he proves that his explanation is valid, when he says that the children of the promise are the ones signified by Isaac, namely, because Isaac was born as the result of a promise.

Hence he says: for this is the word of promise. Indeed, this is the statement the angel or the Lord through an angel made to Abraham: about this time will I come, by which the time of grace is signified: when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son (Gal 4:4) and Sarah shall have a son on account of the promise. Hence, it is said: so that we might receive adoption of sons (Gal 4:5).

755. Then he clarifies his thesis so far as it concerns Jacob, when he says and not only she.

First, he states his intention;

second, he clarifies his position, at for when the children were not yet born.

756. First, therefore, he says: and not only she, namely, Sarah, begot a son about whom the promise was made, but when Rebecca also, having in her womb two sons, one of whom pertained to the promise and the other only to the flesh, had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For it says in Genesis: Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren, and the Lord gave her conception, but the children struggled together within her (Gen 25:21ff.).

And it should be noted that the Apostle cites this against the Jews who supposed that they would obtain justice through the merits of their forefathers, which is contrary to what is said about just men, namely, that they will deliver neither sons nor daughters but they alone will be delivered (Ezek 14:18). This is why John said to the Jews: do not presume to say: we have Abraham as our father (Matt 3:9). Paul, therefore, counters this opinion by reminding them that of Abraham’s children one was chosen and the other rejected.

But he could have ascribed this difference to the mothers, because Ishmael was born of a slave and Isaac of a free woman, or to the changed meriting state of the father; because while uncircumcised he begot Ishmael but circumcised he begot Isaac. To exclude any such subterfuge, therefore, he cites the case where one is chosen and the other rejected, even though both were born of the same father and the same mother at the same time and, indeed, from one coition.

757. Then he clarifies his thesis, when he says for when the children were not yet born:

first, by the authority of Genesis (Gen 25:24);

second, by a text from the prophet Malachi, at as it is written.

758. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he indicates the time of the promise and says that when the children were not yet born, one of the sons of Rebecca was set over the other in virtue of the promise.

And just as his previous statement excluded the opinion of the Jews trusting in the merits of their forefathers, so this statement counters the error of the Manicheans who claimed that a person’s life and death were controlled by the constellation under which he was born, against what is said in Jeremiah: be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heathens fear (Jer 10:2).

Then when he continues: nor had done any good or evil, the Pelagian error is refuted which says that grace is given according to one’s preceding merits, even though it says in Titus: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in justice, but in virtue of his own mercy (Titus 3:5).

Both of these are shown false by the fact that before birth and before doing anything one of Rebecca’s sons is preferred to the other.

This also corrects Origen’s error who supposed that men’s souls were created when the angels were, and that they merited different lives depending on the merits they earned for the good or evil they had done there. This could not be true in the light of what is stated here, namely that for when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil. Against this also is Job: where were you when the morning stars praised me together and all the sons of God made joyful melody? (Job 38:7). For according to Origen’s error, he could have answered: I was among those joyful sons of God.

759. Second, he shows what could be understood from that promise by which one of the twins in the womb was chosen over the other. He says: in order that God’s purpose, by which one would be greater than the other, might stand, i.e., be made firm: and this not by reason of merits but according to election, i.e., inasmuch as God himself spontaneously forechose one over the other, not because he was holy but in order that he be holy, as it says in Ephesians: he chose us in himself before the foundation of the world that we should be holy (Eph 1:4). But this is a decree of predestination about which the same text says: predestined according to the purpose of his will (Eph 1:15).

760. Third, he sets down the promise, saying, not of works, for no works preceded it, as has been said: but of him who calls, i.e., through the grace of God calling, for it was said to her, i.e., Rebecca, that the elder, i.e., Esau, shall serve the younger, i.e., Jacob. This can be understood in three ways.

761. In one way, as referring to the persons involved, and then Esau is understood to have served Jacob, not directly but indirectly, inasmuch as the persecution he launched against him ended in Jacob’s benefit, as it says in Proverbs: the fool will serve the wise (Prov 11:29).

Second, it can be referred to the people who sprang from each, because the Edomites were once subject to the Israelites, as it says in a psalm: upon Edom I cast my shoe (Ps 60:8). This seems to fit Genesis: the nations are in your womb; the one shall be stronger than the other (Gen 25:23).

Third, it can be taken figuratively so that by the elder is understood the Jewish people, who were the first to receive the adoption of sons, in accord with Exodus, Israel is my firstborn son (Exod 4:22), and by the younger is understood the gentiles, who were called to the Father later and were signified by the prodigal son (Luke 15).

The elder people in this case serve the younger, inasmuch as the Jews are our capsarii (slaves who carried boys’ satchels to school), guarding the books from which the truths of our faith are drawn: search the Scriptures (John 5:39).

762. Then he proves his point when he says as it is written, by the authority of the prophet Malachi speaking in the person of God who says: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

A Gloss on this says that the statement, the elder shall serve the younger, was spoken from foreknowledge, but that the present statement results from judgment, i.e., that God loved Jacob on account of his good works, just as he loves all the saints: I love those who love me (Prov 8:17), but he hated Esau on account of his sins: the Highest hates sinners (Eccl 12:7).

But because man’s love is preceded by God’s love: not that we loved God, but that he has first loved us (1 John 4:20), we must say that Jacob was loved by God before he loved God. Nor can it be said that God began to love him at a fixed point in time; otherwise his love would be changeable.

Consequently, one must say that God loved Jacob from all eternity, as it says in Jeremiah: I have loved you with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3).

763. Now these words of the Apostle identify in God three things pertaining to the saints, namely, election, by which is understood God’s predestination and election. In God these are really the same, but in our understanding they differ. For it is called God’s love, inasmuch as he wills good to a person absolutely; it is election, inasmuch as through the good he wills for a person, he prefers him to someone else. But it is called predestination, inasmuch as he directs a person to the good he wills for him by loving and choosing him. According to these definitions predestination comes after love, just as the will’s fixation on the end naturally precedes the process of directing things toward the end.

Election and love, however, are ordered differently in God than in man. For in men, election precedes love, for a man’s will is inclined to love a thing on account of the good perceived in it, this good also being the reason why he prefers one thing to another and why he fixed his love on the thing he preferred. But God’s love is the cause of every good found in a creature; consequently, the good in virtue of which one is preferred to another through election follows upon God’s willing it—which pertains to his love. Consequently, it is not in virtue of some good which he selects in a man that God loves him; rather, it is because he loved him that he prefers him to someone by election.

764. But just as the love, about which we are speaking, pertains to God’s eternal predestination, so the hatred about which we are speaking pertains to the rejection by which God rejects sinners.

It should not be supposed that this rejection is temporal, because nothing in the divine will is temporal; rather, it is eternal. Furthermore, it is akin to love or predestination in one respect and different in another.

It is akin in the sense that just as predestination is preparation for glory, so rejection is preparation for punishment: for a burning place has long been prepared, yes, for the king it is made ready (Isa 30:33).

It is different in that predestination implies preparation of the merits by which glory is reached, but rejection implies preparation of the sins by which punishment is reached. Consequently, a foreknowledge of merits cannot be the reason for predestination, because the foreknown merits fall under predestination; but the foreknowledge of sins can be a reason for rejection on the part of the punishment prepared for the rejected, inasmuch as God proposes to punish the wicked for the sins they have from themselves, not from God; the just he proposes to reward on account of the merits they do not have from themselves: destruction is your own, O Israel; your help is only in me (Hos 13:9).