Does Paul mean that Jacob and Esau were born of the same man or by the same act of intercourse?

Explanation:

We can detect what Paul means when he writes Ῥεβέκκα ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα by considering the meaning of κοίτη. Specifically, the term is associated with the marriage bed (Hebrews 13:4), sexual intercourse, and seminal emission (Numbers 5:20).³ In other words, the term is used to refer to having sex with a partner. Added to this, the phrase ἐξ ἑνὸς means from one. So Paul is saying that from one act of having sex with a partner Rebekah conceived. Paul’s point is clear. Although Jacob and Esau were both conceived by the same one act of intercourse between Isaac and Rebekah, the line of the promise would be through Jacob. This depended on God’s initiative.

Counterargument:

We could take Paul to mean not that Jacob and Esau were the result of one sexual act, but that they were the result of one father and mother. That is, Paul is saying that Jacob and Esau both had the same father and mother, not that they both resulted from the same sexual act. The ESV captures this translation as Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac.

Response to counterargument:

While this translation may be consistent with the original Greek, it does not capture the nuance of the grammar. We know the term κοίτη (bed) can be used to denote a single instance of sexual intercourse (Numbers 5:20). Further, the phrase ἐξ ἑνὸς (from one) further highlights the notion that Paul has one act in mind. So when we take together the term κοίτη with the phrase ἐξ ἑνὸς, we can detect that Paul is saying from one act of sexual intercourse.

Explanation:

Paul opens Romans 9:10 with the phrase not only so. The phrase is used to indicate development of what Paul wrote previously.⁴ He explained in Romans 9:7–8 that not all of Abraham’s children are children of the promise, but those descended from Isaac. The example he uses raises an inference. Maybe the reason Isaac and his descendants are children of the promise is that their mother was Sarah, while Ishmael’s mother was Hagar. Thus, the children of the promise are those descended of Abraham and Sarah rather than Abraham and Hagar. It is to this objection that Paul uses not only that to introduce his response. And he explains that one should not infer from Romans 9:7–8 that Isaac is a child of the promise because he was born of Abraham and Sarah. For there is another Old Testament example that implies that children of the promise are the result not of descent but of God’s intent. For we know that Jacob and Esau had the same father and mother and were even born of the same one sexual act. There is nothing about their descent that makes one child naturally preferable to the other. We can conclude that the children of the promise are such due to God’s initiative, not to natural descent.⁵

Counterargument:

This argument goes too far. It contends that the phrase not only so implies that Paul refers to Rebekah’s one act of intercourse with Isaac that resulted in Jacob and Esau. In fact, all we need to infer is that Jacob and Esau resulted from the same mother and father. For the point of developing his argument from Romans 9:7–8 is to counter the inference that the reason Isaac was a child of the promise is because Sarah was his mother, while Hagar was Ishmael’s mother. All Paul needs to counter this implication is to point out that Jacob and Esau both had the same mother and father.

Response to counterargument:

Such an interpretation fails to notice the extent of Paul’s argument. Paul is not only responding to the implication that Isaac was a child of the promise because he was born of Abraham and Sarah, but he is also making the point that natural descent is not relevant at all. For Jacob and Esau were born not only of the same parents but also of the same act of sexual intercourse, and still God sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau. The point is, natural descent makes no difference. Taking Paul to mean that Jacob and Esau were born of one act of sexual intercourse is the strongest possible way for Paul to make this clear.

The only weakness of this view is that, because Jacob and Esau were twins, Paul does not need to say that they were born of one act of intercourse to make his point. Rather, all he needs to say is that Rebekah was with one man, Isaac, to whom were born Jacob and Esau.

Explanation:

Paul writes in Romans 9:6–9 that not all descended from Israel are of Israel. He explains that there is a difference between those born of flesh and those who are the children of the promise, where the latter are counted as the children of God. He then offers the example of Abraham and Sarah to make the point that Isaac was a child of the promise. His audience would have known that Abraham also had a son from Hagar named Ishmael. The implication is that Ishmael was not a child of the promise even though he was also from Abraham.

Now, the example from Paul raises an inference that he wants to dispel, namely, that the reason Ishmael was not a child of the promise is that he was the son of a slave woman.⁶ This is not so. Rather, the promises are based on God’s initiative, not human exertion. Thus, Paul offers the further example of Rebekah and Isaac in Romans 9:10. He explains that Rebekah was with one man, Isaac, and bore Jacob and Esau. Yet the older was to serve the younger, according to God’s call. Thus, although these had the same father and mother, the promises are rooted in God’s call, not human descent.

Counterargument:

According to this argument, since Paul wants to bolster the fact that not natural descent but God’s call is what determines the children of the promise, he explains that Jacob and Esau had the same parents and yet God chose Jacob and not Esau. This argument is fine, except it does not take Paul far enough. For we can take the grammar of Romans 9:10 to imply that Rebekah had Jacob and Esau from not only the same one man but the same one act of intercourse. That Jacob and Esau were from the same one act of intercourse bolsters Paul’s point that the children of the promise are so based on God’s call, not human descent. Given that Paul’s point is to bolster his argument that children of the promise are determined solely by God’s call, we should take him to mean that Jacob and Esau are the result of one act of intercourse, not the same father and mother.

Response to counterargument:

There is no need for Paul to specify that Jacob and Esau were the result of one act of intercourse, because Jacob and Esau were twins. Thus, that Jacob and Esau were twins implies that they were the result of one act of intercourse. So by simply saying that Rebekah was with one man, Paul implies that Jacob and Esau were born from one act of intercourse, even though he does not say this specifically.

The one weakness of this view is that it does not contend with the meaning of the term κοίτη. It is often used to denote the marriage bed, so Paul seems to say more than that Rebekah conceived by one man. He seems to say she conceived by one act of intercourse with Isaac.