THE INTERTEXTUALITY OF MALACHI 1:2-3 AND ROMANS 9:13

THE INTERTEXTUALITY OF MALACHI 1:2-3 AND ROMANS 9:13

 By: Daniel McMillin

In Romans 9, the apostle Paul is arguing that being a descendant of Abraham is not the only qualification for being considered “the people of God.” He illustrates this point with two examples: (1) Isaac and Ishmael (Rom. 9:6-9); (2) Jacob and Esau (Rom. 9:10-13). In this paper, I will be focusing on the latter example particularly in reference to v. 13 as I will be concentrating on Paul’s use of Mal. 1:2-3. Before engaging with Paul’s use of the OT, I will begin by noting the differences between Paul’s text in Romans and the Septuagint.

Mal. 1:2-3 (LXX): καὶ ἠγάπησα τὸν Ιακωβ τὸν δὲ Ησαυ ἐμίσησα.

Rom. 9:13: Τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα.

When comparing the Septuagint and Romans there are some minor differences. Paul’s quotation of Mal. 1:2-3 follows the LXX and MT closely with the exception of the conjunction καὶ (LXX) being deleted and the arrangement of Τὸν Ἰακὼβ (“Jacob”) being placed before the verb ἠγάπησα (“loved”). It should be noted that “the change obviously corresponds to his point.” [1] He is not manipulating the OT to serve his purposes. Rather, the Holy Spirit is moving the apostle to shed light on this OT citation for the purposes under the New Covenant.[2] This is not Paul abusing the OT; instead, it is him using it typologically.[3] Paul is employing a Jewish type of “midrashic” exegesis when interpreting these OT passages. He views the “Scriptures” as “nothing other than God speaking to his people in the present through his words of judgment and salvation to Israel in the past.”[4]

The deletion of καὶ, Robert Jewett has noted, “is consistent with Paul’s citation practice in many other instances” and so it would not be out of character for Paul to remove the conjunction.[5] The movement of Τὸν Ἰακὼβ “is rhetorically effective” for Paul’s purposes.[6] It is possible that this arrangement is meant “to emphasize that Jacob was the object of God’s love.”[7] These changes do not alter the meaning of these OT passages.

Paul is connecting Mal. 1:2-3 with the previously cited OT reference Gen. 25:23: ὁ μείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι (LXX). As Paul uses both Gen. and Mal. in his argument, Paul may be placing the same weight of importance upon the words written in the Torah (“Law”) and Nebhim (“Prophets”).[8] Dunn suggests that since Paul uses this text as a “final clincher” to his argument, Paul may be giving “more weight to the text from the prophets than that from the Torah.”[9] Paul uses this OT quotation “to confirm the reliability of the divine promise in the face of human rejection of the gospel.”[10] The submission of the older brother to the younger brother “is based on God’s choice of Jacob and his rejection of Esau.”[11]

Before going any further, does this apply to individuals, namely, Jacob and Esau, or to nations, Israel and Edom? Jacob is given the name “Israel” in Gen. 32:28 and Esau is called “Edom” in Gen. 25:30; 36:1. Since the previous OT proof text from Gen. 25:23 appears to refer to the nations, it would follow that the proceeding OT text would apply in like manner since Paul’s argument is primarily concerned with the nation of Israel as a whole rather than individuals. In addition, Paul does not strip these OT texts from their context and misapply them for his purposes. Rather, he is applying Scripture the way God intended. In both of these OT texts, the authors are not referring to the individuals but the nations they represent.[12] This explains why God blessed Israel and punished Edom.[13] 

The purpose for saying that it is “Jacob I loved” and “Esau I hated,” is to enlighten the Israelites about God’s love for His holy people, Israel, and his hatred towards Edom. “God’s love is here defined by its freedom.”[14] There may be the temptation to soften the interpretation of “divine hatred.” For example, Fitzmyer interprets the term ἐμίσησα (“hated”) as an “ancient Near Eastern hyperbole” that can suggest this means that Esau was someone that God “loved less.”[15] However, it is more likely, as John Calvin has suggested, that he is saying that God has “accepted” Jacob and “rejected” Esau.[16] Paul’s purpose for citing Mal. 1:2-3 is to distinguish between those whom God chooses to love and hate.[17]

In conclusion, Paul’s use of the OT is respectful to the original context and insightful in this new context for the letter to the Romans. Those who are considered the “people of God” are those whom God “chooses” according to His purposes. It is not based upon genealogy but divine choice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Byrne, Brendan. Romans. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.

Calvin, John. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Bellingham, WA:

Logos Bible Software, 2010.

Cranfield, C.E.B. Romans 9-16. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1979.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans 9-16. WBC. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988.

Longnecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Eerdmans, 2016.

Hamilton Jr., James M. Typology: Understanding the Bible's Promise-Shaped Patterns.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022.

Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermenia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Kruse, Colin G. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,

2012.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2018.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. PNTC. Grand Rapids; MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988.

Osborne, Grant R. Romans. IVPNT. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Schriener, Thomas R. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.

Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” Pages 607-694 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the

Old Testament. Edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

END NOTES

1. Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 641.

2. Richard N. Longnecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016), 574.

3. James M. Hamilton Jr., Typology: Understanding the Bible's Promise-Shaped Patterns (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022).

4. Seifrid, “Romans,” 608.

5. Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermenia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 580.

6. Jewett, Romans, 580.

7. Thomas R. Schriener, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 490.

8. Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.), 295.

9. James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, WBC (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 544.

10. Jewett, Romans, 580.

11. Schreiner, Romans, 490

12. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, PNTC. Grand Rapids; MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988.

13. Grant R. Osborne, Romans, IVPNT (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 246.

14. Seifred, “Romans,” 641.

15. Fitzmyer, Romans, 563.

16. John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 352; cf. Cranfield, Romans 9-16, 480; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 550; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 357; Moo, Romans, 245; Osborne, Romans, 246; Schreiner, Romans, 490.

17. Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012), 379.