DOES GOD PLAY FAVORITES?

Jacob, Esau, and a Choice Made Before They Were Born

Genesis 25:19–23; Romans 9:10–13

If you have ever read the story of Jacob and Esau and thought,

“That doesn't seem fair,”

you're not imagining the problem.

Before Jacob and Esau were born, before either boy had done anything good or bad, God made a choice.

“The elder shall serve the younger.”
— Genesis 25:23

Paul later makes the difficulty even sharper:

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil...”
— Romans 9:11

Then Paul reminds us:

“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
— Romans 9:13

That can sound troubling.

Did God simply like Jacob and dislike Esau before either one had done anything?

Did Esau ever have a chance?

Does God play favorites?

Let's slow down and read what the text actually says.

START WITH GENESIS—NOT ROMANS

Before jumping immediately to Romans 9, let's see what God originally told Rebekah.

Her twins were struggling within her, so she went to inquire of the LORD.

God answered:

“Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels...”
— Genesis 25:23

Notice the language.

God doesn't begin by saying:

“There are two individuals in your womb, and I have decided to save one and condemn the other.”

He says:

“TWO NATIONS ARE IN THY WOMB.”

These two boys would become the fathers of two peoples.

Jacob would become Israel.

Esau would become Edom.

God continues:

“and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.”

The original prophecy concerns peoples, nations, and their historical relationship.

That's important.

GOD CHOSE JACOB

We shouldn't weaken the text to avoid the uncomfortable question.

God really did choose Jacob.

And He did so before Jacob had earned that choice by good behavior.

Paul explicitly says so.

But we need to ask:

CHOSEN FOR WHAT?

God had already chosen Abraham.

Did that mean Abraham was the only person God cared about?

No.

God told Abraham:

“in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”
— Genesis 12:3

God's choice of Abraham was not merely a privilege for Abraham.

It was part of God's plan to bring blessing through Abraham to others.

The same promise continued through Isaac rather than Ishmael.

Now it would continue through Jacob rather than Esau.

Eventually that line leads to Israel.

And ultimately it leads to Christ.

CHOOSING SOMEONE FOR A PURPOSE IS NOT THE SAME AS PLAYING FAVORITES

Suppose God chooses one person for a particular task.

Does that automatically mean everyone else is rejected by God?

Scripture repeatedly shows otherwise.

God chose Israel for a special purpose.

But God's ultimate purpose included the nations.

God chose the tribe of Levi for particular service.

That didn't mean God hated the other tribes.

Jesus chose twelve men to be apostles.

That didn't mean Jesus hated everyone who wasn't one of the Twelve.

Different roles do not necessarily mean different worth.

So before concluding that God unfairly loved one baby and hated another, we need to determine what kind of choice Genesis is describing.

BUT WHAT ABOUT “JACOB HAVE I LOVED, BUT ESAU HAVE I HATED”?

This is where context becomes extremely important.

Paul is quoting Malachi 1:2–3.

And Malachi was written many centuries after Jacob and Esau had died.

Read the surrounding passage.

Malachi speaks about Jacob and Esau, but then immediately talks about Esau's:

“mountains”

and:

“heritage”

and:

“Edom”

and:

“The people against whom the LORD hath indignation...”
— Malachi 1:3–4

Malachi is talking about the histories of Israel and Edom, the nations descended from the two brothers.

That doesn't make Paul's use of the passage unimportant.

It makes the context important.

Paul did not invent the words “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

He quoted a prophetic passage about God's dealings with two covenant peoples/nations.

DOES “HATE” MEAN GOD PERSONALLY DESPISED ESAU?

The Bible sometimes uses “love” and “hate” in the context of choice or preference, not merely emotional affection and hostility.

Jesus says:

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother...”
— Luke 14:26

Jesus was not commanding His disciples to despise their parents.

Matthew records the same demand this way:

“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.”
— Matthew 10:37

The issue is priority.

Likewise, Genesis says Jacob “loved Rachel more than Leah,” and then describes Leah as “hated” (Genesis 29:30–31).

The contrast is one of preference.

So we should be careful about turning:

“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”

into:

“Before Esau was born, God personally despised him and decided there was nothing he could ever do about it.”

That conclusion requires more than the words themselves establish.

DID GOD'S CHOICE REMOVE ESAU'S RESPONSIBILITY?

No.

Genesis doesn't present Esau as a helpless victim of an arbitrary God.

Esau makes real choices.

He sells his birthright.

Genesis concludes:

“thus Esau despised his birthright.”
— Genesis 25:34

Hebrews later uses Esau as a warning because:

“for one morsel of meat [he] sold his birthright.”
— Hebrews 12:16

God's sovereign purpose did not turn Esau into a robot.

Esau still made decisions for which Scripture holds him responsible.

AND JACOB'S CHOICE DIDN'T MAKE JACOB GOOD

This may be even more important.

If God were merely choosing the “better man,” Jacob would create a serious problem.

Jacob bargains with his hungry brother.

Later he deceives his blind father.

He lies.

He disguises himself.

He even invokes God's name while deceiving Isaac.

Genesis makes no attempt to polish Jacob's reputation.

Why?

Because God's purpose didn't depend upon Jacob deserving it.

GRACE IS NOT A REWARD FOR BEING THE BETTER PERSON.

God chose to carry His promise through Jacob.

That does not mean God approved everything Jacob did.

WHAT ABOUT ESAU?

Here is something easily overlooked.

God did not wipe Esau and his descendants from the earth.

Genesis 36 devotes an entire chapter to Esau's descendants.

God gave Edom territory.

Deuteronomy later tells Israel:

“Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land... because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.”
— Deuteronomy 2:5

That's worth noticing.

The same God who gave Israel its inheritance also says:

I gave Esau his.

Jacob's election did not mean that Esau ceased to matter to God.

THEN WHAT IS PAUL DOING IN ROMANS 9?

Romans 9 isn't an isolated theological essay.

Paul has spent Romans explaining God's saving work in Christ.

Now he faces a painful question.

Israel received the promises.

Israel received the covenants.

The Messiah Himself came through Israel.

Yet many Israelites rejected Him.

Had God's word failed?

Paul answers:

“Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.”
— Romans 9:6

Then he reaches back into Genesis.

Abraham had more than one son.

Yet the promise came through Isaac.

Isaac and Rebekah had twins.

Yet God chose Jacob.

Paul's point is that God has always been free to determine how His promise would move forward.

Physical descent never gave human beings control over God's promise.

GOD'S CHOICE WAS LEADING SOMEWHERE

Follow the line:

Abraham

↓
Isaac

↓
Jacob

↓
Israel

↓
Judah

↓
David

↓
Jesus Christ

God's choice of Jacob wasn't the end of the story.

It was one step in a story intended to reach the world.

Paul himself had already written:

“There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.”
— Romans 10:12

And:

“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
— Romans 10:13

So whatever Romans 9 means, we should not interpret it in a way that makes us forget where Paul's argument goes.

SO—DOES GOD PLAY FAVORITES?

If by “favorites” we mean:

Does God arbitrarily decide that one person has value and another doesn't?

Genesis doesn't say that.

If we mean:

Does God have the right to choose particular people for particular roles in accomplishing His purpose?

The Bible clearly says yes.

God chose Abraham.

God chose Isaac.

God chose Jacob.

God chose Israel.

And through that chosen line came Jesus.

But the purpose was never simply:

“I choose these people because I like them better.”

The promise to Abraham had always looked outward:

“in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

**GOD CHOSE ONE FAMILY

TO BRING BLESSING
TO ALL FAMILIES.**

That changes the question considerably.

PERHAPS WE HAVE BEEN ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION

Instead of only asking:

“Why did God choose Jacob instead of Esau?”

perhaps Genesis wants us eventually to ask:

“Why did God choose this deeply flawed family at all?”

Not because Abraham was perfect.

He wasn't.

Not because Isaac was perfect.

He wasn't.

Not because Jacob was perfect.

He certainly wasn't.

God's promise survived because of God's faithfulness, not because He finally found a family good enough to deserve it.

And that story is far from finished.

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

Return to HOME page

Return to BOOKS page