itself, as 1 Thess. 1:4, " Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God." In this sense the clause means, 'The purpose of God in refer- ence to election, or in relation to this choice.' This view of the passage is perfectly consistent with the context. The choice was made prior to birth, in order that the true nature of the purpose of God in reference to it might appear. Should stand,, i. e. should be established and recog- nised in its true character, that is, that it might be seen it was not of works^ hut of him that calleth. This purpose of God, in reference to election, or the choice itself, is not of works, i. e. does not depend on works, but on hziji that calleth. That is, the ground of the choice is not in those chosen, but in God who chooses. In the same sense our justifi- cation is said to be " not of works," Gal. 2 : 16, and often ; i. e. is not on the ground of works ; see Rom. 11:6. 2 Tim. 1 : 9. The language of the apostle in this verse, and the nature of his argument, are so per- fectly plain, that there is little diversity of opinion as to his general meaning.
(12) It was said to her the elder shall serve the younger. These words are to be connected with the 10th verse, according to our version, in this manner, " Not only this, but Rebecca also, when she had con- ceived," &c. " it was said to her," &c. According to this view, although the construction is irregular, the sense is sufficiently obvious. As it was said to Rebecca that the elder of her sons should serve the younger, prior to the birth of either, it is evident that the choice between them was not on account of their works. It has been said that this declaration relates not to Jacob and Esau personally, but to their posterity, 1. Because in Gen. 25 : 23, whence the quotation is made, it is said, "Two nations are within my womb, and the one people shall be stronger than the other peo- ple; and the elder shall serve the younger." 2. Because Esau did not personally serve Jacob, although the descendants of the one were sub- jected to those of the other. It is no doubt true that the prediction con- tained in this passage has reference not only to the relative standing of Jacob and Esau, as individuals, but also to that of their descendants. It may even be allowed that the latter was principally intended in the an- nunciation to Rebecca. But it is clear, 1. That this distinction between the two races presupposed and included a distinction between the indi- viduals. Jacob was made the special heir to his father Isaac, obtained as an individual the birth-right and the blessing, and Esau as an indi- vidual was cast off. The one, therefore, was personally preferred to the other. 2. In Paul's application of this event to his argument, the dis- tinction between the two as individuals was the very thing referred to. This is plain from the 11th verse, in which he says, " The childrenhehxg not yet born, neither having done any good or evil," &c. It is, there- fore, the nature of the choice between the children that is the point de- signed to be presented. As to the objection that Esau never personally served Jacob, it is founded on the mere literal sense of the words. Esau did acknowledge his inferiority to Jacob, and was in fact postponed to