John Calvin Commentary Romans 9:11

"for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth," — Romans 9:11 (ASV)

For when the children, etc. He now begins to ascend higher, to show the cause of this difference, which he teaches us is to be found nowhere else except in the election of God. He had indeed previously briefly noted that there was a difference among the natural children of Abraham: though all were adopted by circumcision into a participation of the covenant, yet the grace of God was not effective in them all. Therefore, those who enjoy the favor of God are the children of the promise.

But how this happened, he has either been silent or has obscurely hinted. Now, indeed, he openly ascribes the whole cause to the election of God—an election that is gratuitous and in no way dependent on human beings. Consequently, in the salvation of the godly, nothing higher (nihil superius) is to be sought than the goodness of God, and in the perdition of the reprobate, nothing higher than His just severity.

Then the propositions are as follows:

1. “As the blessing of the covenant separates the Israelite nation from all other peoples, so the election of God makes a distinction between individuals in that nation, as He predestines some to salvation and others to eternal condemnation.”
2. “There is no other basis for this election than the goodness of God alone and, since the fall of Adam, His mercy, which embraces whomever He pleases, without any regard whatever to their works.”
3. “The Lord in His gratuitous election is free and exempt from the necessity of imparting the same grace equally to all; but, on the contrary, He passes by whomever He wills, and whomever He wills He chooses.”

All these things Paul briefly includes in one sentence; he then goes on to other things.

Moreover, by these words, When the children had not yet been born, nor had done any good or evil, he shows that God, in making a difference, could not have had any regard for works, for they had not yet been done. Now, those who argue on the other side—saying that this is no reason why God’s election should not differentiate between people according to the merits of works, because God foresees who by future works would be worthy or unworthy of His grace—are not more clear-sighted than Paul. Instead, they stumble at a theological principle that ought to be well known to all Christians: namely, that God can see nothing in the corrupt nature of humanity (such as was in Esau and Jacob) to induce Him to manifest His favor.

Therefore, when he says that neither of them had then done any good or evil, what he took as granted must also be added: that they were both children of Adam, by nature sinful, and endowed with no particle of righteousness.

I am not dwelling this long on explaining these things because the Apostle’s meaning is obscure. Rather, since the Sophists, not content with his plain sense, endeavor to evade it with frivolous distinctions, I wished to show that Paul was by no means ignorant of those things they allege.

It may further be said that even though the corruption alone that is spread throughout the entire human race is sufficient for condemnation (before it breaks out, as they say, into action), and therefore it follows that Esau was justly rejected (for he was naturally a child of wrath), it was still necessary, so that no doubt would remain—as if his condition became worse through any vice or fault—that sins, no less than virtues, should be excluded.

It is indeed true that the proximate cause of reprobation is the curse we all inherit from Adam. Yet, so that we may learn to acquiesce in the bare and simple good pleasure of God, Paul withdraws us from this view until he has established this doctrine: that God has a sufficiently just reason for electing and for reprobating in His own will.

That the purpose of God according to election, etc. He speaks of the gratuitous election of God in almost every instance. If works had any place, he should have said, “That His reward might stand through works.” Instead, he mentions the purpose of God, which is included, so to speak, in His own good pleasure alone.

And so that no ground for dispute might remain on the subject, he has removed all doubt by adding another clause, according to election, and then a third, not through works, but through Him who calls. Let us then apply our minds more closely to this passage. Since the purpose of God according to election is established in this way—that before the brothers were born and had done either good or evil, one was rejected and the other chosen—it therefore follows that when anyone ascribes the cause of the difference to their works, he thereby subverts the purpose of God.

Now, by adding, not through works, but through Him who calls, he means this is not on account of works but of the calling only, for he wishes to exclude works altogether. We then have the whole stability of our election enclosed in the purpose of God alone. Here merits avail nothing, as they issue in nothing but death; no worthiness is regarded, for there is none. Instead, the goodness of God reigns alone.

False then is the dogma, and contrary to God’s word, that God elects or rejects as He foresees each to be worthy or unworthy of His favor.