John Calvin Commentary Genesis 25:23

"And Jehovah said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, And two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels. And the one people shall be stronger than the other people. And the elder shall serve the younger." — Genesis 25:23 (ASV)

Two nations.

1. First, God answers that the contention between the twin brothers had reference to something far beyond their own persons; for in this way he shows that there would be discord between their descendants. When he says there are two nations, the expression is emphatic. Since they were brothers and twins, and therefore of one blood, the mother did not suppose that they would be so far disjoined as to become the heads of distinct nations; yet God declares that dissension would take place between those who were by nature joined together.
2. Second, he describes their different conditions: namely, that victory would belong to one of these nations, since this was the cause of the contest—that they could not be equal, but one was chosen and the other rejected. For since the reprobate give way reluctantly, it necessarily follows that the children of God have to undergo many troubles and contests because of their adoption.
3. Third, the Lord affirms that, with the order of nature inverted, the younger, who was inferior, would be the victor.

We must now see what this victory implies. Those who restrict it to earthly riches and wealth are coldly trifling. Undoubtedly, by this oracle Isaac and Rebekah were taught that the covenant of salvation would not be common to the two peoples, but would be reserved only for the descendants of Jacob.

In the beginning, the promise was apparently general, comprehending the whole seed; now, it is restricted to one part of the seed. This is the reason for the conflict: God divides the seed of Jacob (whose condition appeared to be one and the same) in such a manner that he adopts one part and rejects the other. One part obtains the name and privilege of the Church, while the rest are reckoned strangers; with one part resides the blessing of which the other is deprived, as it afterward actually occurred. For we know that the Idumeans were cut off from the body of the Church, but the covenant of grace was deposited in the family of Jacob.

If we seek the cause of this distinction, it will not be found in nature, for the origin of both nations was the same. It will not be found in merit, because the heads of both nations were still enclosed in their mother’s womb when the contention began. Moreover, God, in order to humble the pride of the flesh, determined to take away from men all occasion for confidence and boasting.

He might have brought Jacob forth first from the womb, but he made the other the firstborn, who, ultimately, was to become the inferior. Why does he thus, intentionally, invert the order appointed by himself, except to teach us that, without regard to dignity, Jacob, who was to be the heir of the promised blessing, was gratuitously elected?

The sum of the whole, then, is that the preference God gave to Jacob over his brother Esau, by making him the father of the Church, was not granted as a reward for his merits, nor was it obtained by his own industry, but proceeded from the mere grace of God himself.

But when an entire people is the subject of discourse, reference is made not to the secret election, which is confirmed for a few, but to the common adoption, which spreads as widely as the external preaching of the word. Since this subject, thus briefly stated, may be somewhat obscure, readers may recall what I have said above in expounding the seventeenth chapter (Genesis 17:1): namely, that God embraced, by the grace of his adoption, all the sons of Abraham, because he made a covenant with all.

It was not in vain that he appointed the promise of salvation to be offered indiscriminately to all and to be attested by the sign of circumcision in their flesh. However, there was a special chosen seed from the whole people, and these would ultimately be accounted the legitimate sons of Abraham, who by the secret counsel of God are ordained to salvation.

Faith, indeed, is what distinguishes the spiritual from the carnal seed, but the question now under consideration is the principle on which the distinction is made, not the symbol or mark by which it is attested. God, therefore, chose the whole seed of Jacob without exception, as Scripture testifies in many places, because he has conferred on all alike the same testimonies of his grace, namely, in the word and sacraments. But another and special election has always flourished, which included a certain definite number of men, so that, in the common destruction, God might save those whom he would.

A question is here suggested for our consideration. Whereas Moses here discusses the former kind of election, Paul applies his words to the latter. For while he attempts to prove that not all who are Jews by natural descent are heirs of life, and not all who are descended from Jacob according to the flesh are to be accounted true Israelites, but that God chooses whom he will, according to his own good pleasure, he adduces this testimony: the elder shall serve the younger (Romans 9:7, 8, 12).

Those who endeavor to extinguish the doctrine of gratuitous election desire to persuade their readers that Paul's words also are to be understood only of external vocation. But his whole discourse is manifestly repugnant to their interpretation, and they prove themselves to be not only infatuated but impudent in their attempt to bring darkness or smoke over this light which shines so clearly.

They allege that Esau's dignity is transferred to his younger brother, lest he should glory in the flesh, since a new promise is here given to the latter. I confess there is some force in what they say, but I contend that they omit the principal point in the case by explaining the difference stated here as pertaining only to external vocation.

But unless they intend to make God's covenant void, they must concede that Esau and Jacob were alike partakers of the external calling. From this it appears that those to whom a common vocation had been granted were separated by the secret counsel of God. The nature and object of Paul’s argument are well known.

For when the Jews, inflated with the title of the Church, rejected the Gospel, the faith of the simple was shaken by the thought that it was improbable that Christ, and the salvation promised through Him, could possibly be rejected by an elect people, a holy nation, and the genuine sons of God.

Here, therefore, Paul contends that not all who descend from Jacob according to the flesh are true Israelites, because God, of his own good pleasure, may choose whom he will, as heirs of eternal salvation. Who does not see that Paul descends from a general to a particular adoption, in order to teach us that not all who occupy a place in the Church are to be accounted true members of the Church?

It is certain that he openly excludes from the rank of children those to whom (he elsewhere says) pertaineth the adoption. From this it is assuredly gathered that, in proof of this position, he adduces the testimony of Moses, who declares that God chose certain individuals from among the sons of Abraham to himself, in whom he might render the grace of adoption firm and efficacious.

How, therefore, shall we reconcile Paul with Moses? I answer: although the Lord separates the whole seed of Jacob from the race of Esau, it was done with a view to the Church, which was included in the descendants of Jacob. And, doubtless, the general election of the people had reference to this end: that God might have a Church separated from the rest of the world.

What absurdity, then, is there in supposing that Paul applies to special election the words of Moses, by which it is predicted that the Church shall spring from the seed of Jacob? And an instance in point was exhibited in the condition of the heads themselves of these two nations.

For Jacob was not only called by the external voice of the Lord but, while his brother was passed by, he was chosen an heir of life. That good pleasure of God, which Moses commends in the person of Jacob alone, Paul properly extends further. Lest anyone should suppose that, after the two nations had been made distinct by this oracle, the election would pertain indiscriminately to all the sons of Jacob, Paul brings forward, in contrast, another oracle: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Here we see a certain number severed from the general body of Jacob’s sons, in whose salvation the special election of God might triumph.

From this it appears that Paul wisely considered the counsel of God, which was, in truth, that he had transferred the honor of primogeniture from the elder to the younger, in order that he might choose to himself a Church, according to his own will, out of the seed of Jacob—not on account of human merits, but as a matter of mere grace.

And although God designed that the means by which the Church was to be gathered should be common to the whole people, yet the end Paul had in view is chiefly to be regarded: namely, that there might always be a body of men in the world who would call upon God with a pure faith and be kept even to the end.

Let it therefore remain as a settled point of doctrine that among men some perish and some obtain salvation, but the cause of this depends on the secret will of God. For why does it arise that those who are born of Abraham do not all possess the same privilege?

The disparity of condition certainly cannot be ascribed either to the virtue of the one or to the vice of the other, since they were not yet born. Because the common sentiment of mankind rejects this doctrine, there have been found in all ages acute men who have fiercely disputed against the election of God.

It is not my present purpose to refute or weaken their calumnies; let it suffice for us to hold fast what we gather from Paul’s interpretation: that whereas the whole human race deserves the same destruction and is bound under the same sentence of condemnation, some are delivered by gratuitous mercy, while others are justly left in their own destruction. And those whom God has chosen are not preferred to others because God foresaw they would be holy, but in order that they might be holy.

But if the first origin of holiness is the election of God, we seek in vain for that difference in men which rests solely in the will of God. If anyone desires a mystical interpretation of the subject, we may give the following: whereas many hypocrites, who are for a time enclosed in the womb of the Church, pride themselves on an empty title and, with insolent boastings, exult over the true sons of God, internal conflicts will arise from this, which will grievously torment the mother herself.