Ver. 8f. τοῦτ) ἔστιν: the meaning of this action of God is now made clear. It signifies that flot mere bodily descent from Abraham makes one a child of God —that was never the case, not even in Abraham’s time ; it is the children of the promise who are reckoned a seed to Abraham, for the word in virtue of which Isaac, the true son and heir, was born, was a word of promise. He was born, to use the language of the Gospel, from above ; and something analogous to this is necessary, whenever a man (even a
660
ο oe xviii. Σάῤῥα υἱός =e
Heb.
xe Like πραξάντων τι ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακόν,
a Οἱ. xi. 5, » HEV, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, GAN’ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος, 12.
7,28; Act
ix. 15; 1 Th. Ape r Gal. v. 8.
Io. οὗ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ῥεβέκκα ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην 5 pCheeiiiirs: 2 > Oo ὶς ἡμιῶν ° tit εχουσα, Ισαὰκ τοῦ πατρος Ίμων
11. ος γὰρ γεννηθέντων. μηδὲ ἵνα ἡ Kat ἐκλογὴν 4 τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόθεσις
σσὸς
ἐρῥήθη αὐτῇ, '' Ὅτι
1 κακον DFKL; φαυλον RAB. τονυθεου προθεσις; all the best MSS., BABDFKL
and edd. read προθεσις του θεου.
descendant of Abraham) claims to be a child of God and an heir of His kingdom. From Gal. iv. 28 (Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise) we see that the relation to God in question here is one open to Gentiles as well as Jews: if we are Christ’s, then we too are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to promise. The argumentative suggestion in vers. 6-9 is that just as God discrimin- ated at the first between the children ot Abraham, so He is discriminating still ; the fact that many do not receive the Gospel no more proves that the promise has failed than the fact that God chose Isaac only and set aside Ishmael.
Ver. το ff. But the argument can be made more decisive. A Jewish opponent might say, ‘‘ Ishmael was an illegitimate child, who naturally had no rights as against Isaac; we are the legitimate descendants of the patriarch, and our right to the inheritance is indefeasible ” To this the Apostle replies in vers. 10- 13. Not only did God make the dis- tinction already referred to, but in the case of Isaac’s children, where there seemed no ground for making any distinc- tion whatever, He distinguished again, and said, The elder shall serve the younger. Jacob and Esau had one father, one mother, and were twin sons; the only ground on which either could have been preferred was that of priority of birth, and this was disregarded by God; Esau, the elder, was rejected, and Jacob, the younger, was made heir of the promises. Further, this was done by God of His sovereign freedom: the decisive word was spoken to their mother while they were as yet unborn and had achieved neither good nor evil. Claims as of tight, therefore, made against God, are futile, whether they are based on descent or on works. There is no way in which they can be established ; and, as we have just seen, God acts in entire disregard of them. God’s purpose to save men, and make them heirs of His kingdom—a pur- pose which is characterised as Kar’ ἐκλογήν, or involving a choice—is not determined at all by consideration of
such claims as the Jews put forward. In forming it, and carrying it out, God acts with perfect freedom. In the case in question His action in regard to Jacob and Esau agrees with His word in the prophet Malachi: Jacob I loved but Esau I hated; and further than this we cannot go. To avoid misapprehending this, however, it is necessary to keep the Apostle’s purpose in view. He wishes to show that God’s promise has not broken down, though many of the chil- dren of Abraham have no part in its fulfilment in Christ. He does so by showing that there has always been a distinction, among the descendants of the patriarchs, between those who have merely the natural connection to boast of, and those who are the Israel of God; and, as against Jewish pretensions, he shows at the same time that this dis- tinction can be traced to nothing but God’s sovereignty. It is not of works, but.of Him Who effectually calls men. We may say, if we please, that sovereignty in this sense is ‘‘just a name for what is unrevealed of God” (T. Erskine, The Brazen Serpent, p. 259), but though it is unrevealed we must not conceive of it as arbitrary—t.e., as non-rational or non- moral. It is the sovereignty of God, and God is not exlex; He is a law to Him- self—a law all love and holiness and truth—in all His purposes towards men. So Calvin: “‘ubi mentionem gloriz Dei audis, illic justitiam cogita”’. Paul has mentioned in an earlier chapter, among the notes of true religion, the exclusion of boasting (iii. 27); and in substance that is the argument he is using here. No Jewish birth, no legal works, can give a man a claim which God is bound to honour; and no man urging such claims can say that God’s word has become of no effect though his claims are disallowed, and he gets no part in the inheritance of God’s people.