 |  |
appointing the inheritance which could be to a person outside the family if the parent
chose. Sir William Ramsay writes as follows:
"Adoption was a kind of embryo will; the adopted son became the owner of the
property and the property could pass to a person that was outside the family only through
his being adopted . . . . . this ancient form of will was irrevocable and public. The terms
`son' and heir are interchangeable . . . . . it is remarkable that the adopted son should have
a stronger position than the son by birth, yet it is so."
(A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians).*
[* - Those who wish to go into more detail should consult
Just and the Justifier by Charles H. Welch, pages 208-213.]
It is essential to understand this, specially when dealing with Gal. 4: 1-7 and 3: 15.
With our Western ideas an adopted child can never be in such a close relationship as a
child by birth; not so in century one. We should therefore realize that believers are not
outsiders who cannot have a claim on God as Father, but they are really "sons of God"
(I.John.iii.1,2) by redemption and as such have a glorious inheritance in view. "If
children, then heirs . . . . ." (Rom. 8: 17). The idea of the universal fatherhood of God
is a popular misconception. God is not the Father of every human being but has a
relationship as Creator. Only those who receive Christ by faith are brought into God's
family.
"Yet to all who received Him (Christ) . . . . . He gave the right to become children of
God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will,
but born of God" (John 1: 12, 13, N.I.V.).
Only such, according to Rom. 8: 15, can come to God and call Him Father (Abba).
This word is Aramaic and was the familiar term that children used to address their father.
Such is the warm close relationship that redemption confers on the believer. It was used
by the Lord Jesus in Mark 14: 36 and it occurs in Gal. 4: 6. All the wealth of
meaning that is covered by the word "father" is inherent in the Lord and in this, as in all
other respects, He can never fail His children. In the passage we are considering the
Apostle uses huioi, sons, and tekna, children interchangeably and we must be careful not
to make too sharp a distinction between them. As Bishop Westcott says, the two words
are complimentary, one expressing the privilege of inheritance and the other tender
relationship. In Gal. 3: 23 - 4: 7 a contrast is made between infancy (under the law)
and the status as sons (huioi) but here the word nepioi (infants) is used not tekna
(children). We are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with
Him" (Rom. 8: 17). Many take these two statements as being identical in meaning, but
one is conditional and the other is not. Scripture distinguishes between Hope and Prize.
One is a gift by grace, the other depends upon faithfulness and service which may involve
suffering.
Did not the Lord Jesus make a distinction between coming to Him and coming after
Him (Matt. 16:)? The latter involves the denying of self and taking up the cross
(suffering) and it would be quite wrong to say that this is automatically true of all those
who believe in Christ.