Spirit Of Adoption (13)

Christ and Huiothesia

In the life of the average Hebrew boy there were three major events which drew broad public attention to him. This was true in the life of Christ and also in the lives of God's children. We have written on this in previous chapters but will add these thoughts, some of which are repetitious. We may call these events "the stages of manhood" or "rites of passage." 

The first of these events was his "Circumcision," which occurred when he was an infant, at eight days old. This was the moment that he was marked as a "covenant man" in Israel, and was celebrated throughout the community. So Luke writes: "And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb." (Luke 2: 21 nkjv) Paul also speaks of himself as being "circumcised the eighth day" (Phil. 3: 5).

In the work of a believer being begotten of the Lord, the Lord also circumcises his heart and spirit.

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." (Col.2: 11 nkjv)

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." (Rom. 2: 28-29 nkjv)

The second major event was his "Bar-Mitzvah," which took place as he was about to enter into puberty. The word Bar-Mitzvah actually means "a son accountable," and this signified the time, not only when he was held accountable for keeping the Commandments of God, but also when he was to become an apprentice under his father in the family business. This, too, was celebrated as a very special event in the life of the child, just as it is today. We see this alluded to in the life of Jesus when he was about twelve years of age. Notice what the Gospel record says:

"And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it; but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.” And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” (Luke 2: 42-49 nkjv)

After Bar Mitzvah the child began to spend less time under tutors and to spend more time with his father and learning firsthand the family business and to imitate the father. It was a point where a child went through a rite of passage and took a giant step towards sonship and likeness to his father. We see this in the life of those who are born of the Spirit. After their new birth and circumcision they spend their spiritual childhood under teachers and caregivers. Paul speaks of them in these texts:

"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children..." (Eph. 4: 11-14 nkjv)

"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father." (Gal. 4: 1-2 nkjv)

As we have seen in previous chapters, no child of God is perfected in this life. Many seem to be stuck in childhood all of their lives. Others reach an intermediate age following years of growth in Christ, corresponding to the years following Bar Mitzvah. In their first years following their new birth they are under tutors. They also still need teachers in their post Bar Mitzvah stage, but they are under more direct teaching of their Father. This would correspond to the more mature study of the word of God apart from his teachers. We might compare this to the three stages of education in most school systems where we first go to "grammar" or "elementary" school, then to "middle school," and then to "high school" and to college. Notice these words of the apostle along this line:

"11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb. 5: 11-14 nkjv)

The question then becomes - "how mature can a child of God become in this life?" Or, "does a child of God reach full growth in this life or in the next?" The above text in Ephesians chapter four seems to imply that becoming full grown men who are fully conformed to the image of the Son of God will not occur until the day of the resurrection, which as we have seen, is the day when they will be installed (or son placed) into their inheritance. That is when they will become a "perfect man" and attain the full stature of their sonship. That is also when all the saints will be unified in the faith and in the knowledge of God.

The third event was what was known as the "Huiothesia," or the (young man's) "adoption ceremony." The word "Huiothesia" means "Son Placement," and indicates the time when a male child reached what was considered to be the age of maturity (somewhere around 30). At this time, the father of the young man would place his hand on the head of his son and openly proclaim, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased! I bestow upon him now all of my riches and power and authority (through power of attorney) so that he might act on my behalf in all of my affairs." This would correspond to the resurrection day as Paul said in Romans 8: 23. In a previous chapter we mentioned all the futuristic expressions in that chapter that are connected with this coming ceremony, involving the revelation of the sons of God and of their being honored and glorified and given right to fully possess their inheritance and to rule over it. It is the day when they obtain "the full realization of adult sonship." It is that day when Christ "brings many sons unto glory." (Heb. 2: 10) It is when the Father and Son say to his children "well done." (Matt. 25: 21)

Jesus was of full age when he began his public ministry. This also marks the time when he was perfected and able to speak and act on behalf of his Father. It was during this stage that we heard the Father witness to his Son Jesus by saying "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3: 16-17; Mark 1: 11; Luke 3: 22)

"While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." (Matt. 17: 5)

There will be similar formal declarations made before the grand assize when Christ comes again. Christ will make a kind of "emancipation declaration." He will acknowledge that his children have reached the end of their growth and education. Paul alludes to such when he says - "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it" (I Cor. 3: 13 kjv).  In the previous chapters we showed how the huiothesian ceremony, like the Bar Mitzvah or Toga Virillis ceremonies, involved a father making public declarations. This is the huiothesia proper.

A "son" is one who has been behaving as a mature obedient son, maturing more and more into the Father's image. The Son of God in his divinity was never at any single moment any more or less the "Son of God" than he has been immutably from eternity. But, as respects his human preparation for being the "Son of God" in every way, he needed to be perfected, go from being a babe and child to a full grown man who was entitled to rule with his Father. This is his "being made perfect."

The Man Child of the Apocalypse

"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." (Rev. 12: 5)

Who is this "man child"? Many think it is Christ and alludes to his being persecuted and then as having been caught up (his ascension) into heaven and who is destined to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. Others believe that the man child is a figure of the body of saved people. Others, like I do, see how the man child is fulfilled in Christ and also in his people. 

Vincent's Word Studies: "A man-child (υἱὸν ἄῤῥενα) Lit., a son, a male. The correct reading is ἄρσεν, the neuter, not agreeing with the masculine individual (υἱὸν son) but with the neuter of the genus. The object is to emphasize, not the sex, but the peculiar qualities of masculinity - power and vigor. Rev., a son, a man-child. Compare John 16:21; Jeremiah 20:15."

"Of special note is the double emphasis of masculinity here. Alexander Campbell translated this, "She bore a masculine son." Alexander Campbell, as quoted by James D. Strauss, The Seer, the Saviour, and the Saved (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1972), p. 162. Pieters rendered it, "A son, a he-man, a fierce assertion of the virility of Christ." Albertus Pieters, op. cit., p. 159." (As cited here)

The Bible portrays Jesus as the perfect model for what it means to be a man. No one "measures up to" him, although after the resurrection and glorification of believers, they will attain to his stature, being then wholly, in body and spirit, conformed to the image of Christ. He is eminently a masculine man and all that is signified by being such, which includes the attributes of strength, endurance, wisdom and knowledge, leadership, etc. Jesus was no sissy nor effeminate. He was no coward either. 

Believers are to become just as perfect a man as is Christ. Christ stands before us as the ideal of manly greatness and beauty. The church has not yet grown to maturity, but is destined to be like Him, to be as perfect as he is, as Paul said in the above passage in Ephesians: "till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

Here are some other passages which speak of the people of God striving to be, and one day obtaining, to adult status.

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” (1 Cor. 16: 13-14).

"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways." (I Cor. 13: 11)

"Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." (I Cor. 14: 20 kjv)

On the first text Albert Barnes has this to say in his commentary:

"Quit you like men - (ἀνδρίζεσθε andrizesthe, from ἀνήρ anēr, a man). The word occurs no where else in the New Testament. In the Septuagint it occurs in Joshua 1:6-7, Joshua 1:9,Joshua 1:18; 1 Chronicles 28:20; 2 Chronicles 32:7; Nehemiah 2:1; and in 18 other places. See Trommius' Concordance. It occurs also in the classic authors; see Xenophon, Oec. Nehemiah 5:4. It means, to render one manly or brave; to show oneself a man; that is, not to be a coward, or timid, or alarmed at enemies, but to be bold and brave. We have a similar phrase in common use: "Be a man," or "Show yourself a man;" that is, be not mean, or be not cowardly."

Believers, after they have been "born of God" should grow up in Christ. But, even the fastest growing believers do not reach full growth and maturity in their lives. That will not come to their soul or spirits until they enter in spirit into heaven's paradise. It will not occur to their mortal bodies until the resurrection. Not till the second coming of Christ will believes become the "perfect man" and be completely conformed in their sonship to the sonship of Christ.

This of course also teaches us that those who have died in infancy and gone to heaven do not remain babes but instantly grow up, either when they enter paradise in their spirits or when their bodies are also conformed to the glorious body of the Son of God.

Another text that bears upon this idea of attaining adult status and perfection, and of masculine attributes, is in a text from Revelation chapter twelve.

Jesus or Saints (or both)?

"And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne." (12: 4-5 nkjv)

Wrote J.A. Seiss in "The Apocalypse" (here) in commentary upon Revelation chapter twelve:

"There is a peculiar manliness ascribed to this child. It is not only “a man child,” as our English version renders the phrase, but more literally “a son, a male,” or a son who is a male. There is special emphasis laid upon the masculinity."

This emphasis upon masculinity is in line with the other texts cited above. Of course, this does not mean that all resurrected saints will be men with male genitals. We wrote on this in my series "Beliefs About The Afterlife" (See link for all the chapters in that book on this blog). Surely the adult sons of God will also have all the virtues of femininity, for in Christ Jesus there is "neither male nor female" (Gal. 3: 28). However, when we think of how men and women differ, we must put strength or power at the head, for Peter says that the woman is "the weaker vessel" (I Peter 3: 7), and there will be no weakness in the constitutions of the saints when they have been resurrected and glorified. Paul says that in the resurrection of saints that they are "raised in power." (I Cor. 15: 43)

Seiss continued:

"Nay, the letter of the description is such as to prove that this child is collective and composite, the same as the mother, and likewise includes people of both sexes. The word (arsen) which means male, has the peculiarity of being in the neuter gender, and so applies to both men and women, and cannot apply to any one individual. We have a somewhat similar instance in 2 Timothy 3:6, where the apostle speaks of certain perverted religionists, “which creep into houses and lead captive silly women” (gunaikaria), that is, silly women of the neuter gender, and so women, or womenish ones, of both sexes. Sex, however, is not so much the subject of this arsen as the higher qualities of manhood common to both men and women. Such forms of speech lose all propriety except when construed with the implication that a body of persons is meant, and that this body includes women as well as men, and men as well as women. But it is a body at the same time distinguished throughout with a special masculinity, which knows no sex; that is, with the most manly of virtues, and the most vigorous and heroic of characteristics."

As we will see, this "male son" is applicable of Christ himself, but also applicable to the saints once they have been resurrected and glorified.

Seiss added: 

 

"But if we understand here all God’s saints, all who have been begotten of the Holy Ghost, of every age, then every letter of the narrative is realized to the full. Here are men and women, in multitudes upon multitudes, “of whom the world was not worthy,” alike pervaded with the highest qualities of virtue, courage, self denial and strength. They are all conquerors. They all have overcome the world, triumphed over the powers of darkness, won the race of faith, and through the grace of God possessed themselves of titles to ever- lasting crowns and honours. Their masculinity in these respects is unquestionable and most intense, whether they be men or women as to sex. Nor is this so true and characteristic of any people that have lived, or that shall live, as it is of the true children of God of all time. Here we find all the noblest and best of the race, and the embodiment of the highest virtue and wisdom that ever pulsated in the arteries of humanity. Here is the proper “man child,” if ever there was or will be one upon earth."

I believe that is correct. Further, since we have proven that full growth and likeness to Christ does not become a reality until the resurrection at the second coming of Christ, then their being "placed as adult sons" at the right hand of both the Father and Christ has not yet occurred, but are, as Paul said, "earnestly waiting and anticipating the huiothesia." (Rom. 8: 23)

H.A. Ironside makes these comments (As cited here):

"Is there then any incongruity in understanding the man-child to represent both Christ Jesus our Lord and His church?" - "We may then, on the authority of Scripture itself, safely affirm that the man-child represents the one new Man who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron—Christ, the Head, and the church, His body." (emphasis mine)

That is what I believe about the text in Revelation. It is also what other scriptures also testify to, as we have seen. In "The Man God Has Ordained" by T. Austin-Sparks, in Chapter 9 - "The Man Child" (See here) the author says these things which I endorse (emphasis mine):

"Here we have, I believe, the whole matter of sonship gathered into representative fullness. This son, this man child, is sonship in representative fullness: that in which all the principles and elements of Christ have been brought to utterness."

That is "the huiothesia"! It has to do with becoming sons, or becoming the image of the Father.

Austin-Sparks also says:

"The conception of Christ takes place in the believer by the revelation of Christ in the heart. Paul said: “It was the good pleasure of God... to reveal his Son in me” (Gal. 1:15,16). Again he said: “God...shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). The man child — sonship — is conceived by the revelation within of Jesus Christ." 

So, this mystery of union with Christ, and of the progression towards full sonship and likeness to Christ, involves 1) the believer growing up and progressing toward perfection, "in Christ" and 2) Christ growing up in the believer. Christ is conceived within the believer when the believer firsts trust in Christ and receives him. As the believer grows up in his spiritual life Christ grows in him. Wonderful thought!

Austin-Sparks also says:

"Paul said to the Galatians, and through them to us: “My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you...” (Gal. 4:19). The conception has taken place, there is something there, but there has to be a full formation of Christ within. Paul says, “I am in distress, in agony, in great pain, till Christ be fully formed in you.” The “man child” is the full formation of Christ in the church."

Amen! Well said!

Therefore we see how perfect manhood, described by masculine strength, or a he-man, is a picture not only of Christ in his perfected and glorified humanity, but of his mystical body too. Those who are united to Christ or have had Christ conceived within them are destined to full sonship, imitating the sonship of Christ. 

 

Spirit Of Adoption (12)

Wrote John Gill about adoptionism (Monarchianism) in regard to the Son of God (From Body of Doctrinal Divinity, chapter 28; See here): 

"At other times they tell us, he is the Son of God by adoption; of which the Scriptures give not the least hint. To which may be objected, that Christ is God’s own Son, his proper Son, the Son of himself; and therefore not adopted: whoever adopts an own son? or what reason can there be for it? adoption among men, is not of their own sons: but usually when they have none of their own; as the instances of the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh’s daughter, and of Esther by Mordecai show: besides, Christ is the begotten Son of God; and if begotten, then not adopted; these are inconsistent; yea, he is his only begotten Son; whereas, if he was his Son by adoption, he could not be said to be his only Son, since he has many adopted ones; even as many as are predestinated to the adoption of children, by Christ."

I find this astounding since Gill believed that God does adopt people to become his children. When he wrote upon the subject of adoption as respects the children or sons of God, he admits that they are such by having been both born and adopted. In the above, however, in denying that Christ was adopted (Monarchianism or Adoptionism) he sees how absurd it is to claim that someone is both a son of someone by both adoption and birth, and yet ironically he later affirms this very absurdity! However, he did, unlike others, put adoption before the foundation of the word and the new birth (or regeneration) in time. 

On adoption of the children of God, Gill writes the following in chapter eight (See here).

"I have treated already, see on Adoption in 853, of adoption as an immanent act of the divine will, which was in God from eternity; hence the elect of God were not only predestinated to the adoption of children, to the blessing itself, openly and actually to enjoy it in time, and to the inheritance adopted to..."

This is a minority view. Most advocates of adoption theory say that being born of God occurs at the same time as being adopted, although some, like Dr. John Piper (who I have cited in previous chapters), say God first adopts and then begets, yet not before the world began as Gill. In chapter four I cited these words of Gill and his commentary on Romans 8: 23:

"waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. Adoption is explained by the redemption of the body; and by the one may be known what the other means."

That to me appears to be a contradiction. He says adoption occurs before the foundation of the world and then indicates that it is yet future.

He says further in the treatise:

"There is a difference also between adoption and regeneration, though, divines usually confound these two together. They both have the same author; the same God and Father adopts and regenerates; they flow from the same love and grace; and the same persons that are adopted are regenerated; and they are adopted and begotten again unto the same inheritance: but adoption is before regeneration; the one is an act of God’s will in eternity, the other is an act and work of his grace in time; the one is the cause, the other the effect; men are not adopted because regenerated, which would seem unnecessary; but they are regenerated because adopted; “because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts”; to regenerate, to sanctify, and testify their adoption (Gal. 4:6), regeneration is the fruit and effect of adoption, and the evidence of it (John 1:12, 13), adoption gives the name of sons, and a title to the inheritance; and regeneration gives the nature of sons, and a meetness for the inheritance."

But again, he is contradicting what he said elsewhere. In the previous citation he says that one cannot be both adopted and begotten, saying "if begotten, then not adopted." He is speaking of Christ being begotten and therefore not adopted as the Monarchians asserted. Of course, I do believe that Christ was "son placed" (huiothesia) in regard to being the Son of God in his humanity, and that this occurred after he had become a full grown man about the age of thirty. But, more on that shortly.

Gill might have thought that he had dealt with the incongruity of how a person can be both begotten and adopted by putting adoption first. He then could argue as others and say that since adoption does not give the adopted the nature of the adopter it is necessary to also give them birth. However, even Gill would have to admit that God, before the foundation of the world, had determined to give birth to children and so this fact in itself would preclude him determining to adopt them. Gill seems to limit the idea of adoption to the choice to adopt a particular person and is why he puts adoption before the world began. But, whoever adopted a child not yet in existence? But, did not God also choose to give birth to particular ones, a kind of planned parenthood? If so, Gill's logic would force us to conclude that people were begotten of God before the world began. If the choice to adopt is adoption then why is not the choice to beget not actual begetting?

By his commentary above he also affirms that the divine begetting of children does not do what the adoption had previously done, which is to make one a child and member of the family. It is absurd to say that being begotten of God does not make us children! He also says that adoption gives one his name, and not his birth! That is another absurdity. He also says that it is adoption that gives the adopted right to the divine inheritance, and in saying this he denies that a right to God's inheritance comes by being born of God. The only thing that being begotten (regenerated) does is to give the adopted son the adopted father's nature.

He wrote further in regard to how adoption of the children of God is both like and unlike human adoption, a thing we discussed somewhat in previous chapters. He writes:

"Between civil and spiritual adoption, in some things there is an agreement, and in some things a difference.

First, In some things they agree.

1. In the name and thing, νιοθεσια, a putting among the children; so spiritual adoption is called (Jer 3:19), or putting, or taking, one for a son, who was not so by nature and birth; which is the case of adoption by special grace; it is of such who are, “by nature, children of wrath”, and “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel”; and taking these from the family of the world, to which they originally belonged, into the family of God, and household of faith (Eph. 2:3, 12, 19)."

So, this happened before the world began?

"2. As civil adoption is of one to an inheritance who has no legal right to it; so is special and spiritual adoption. None, in a civil sense, are adopted, but to an inheritance of which they are made heirs; and so such who are adopted in sense are adopted to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and eternal; and as the one are adopted to an inheritance they had no natural right unto, nor any legal claim upon; so the other are such who have sinned, and come short of the eternal inheritance, and can make no legal pretension to it by works of the law, (Rom. 4:14; Gal. 3:18)."

Again, why adopt if there is intention to beget? If being begotten makes one an heir, why adopt for the same reason?

"3. Civil adoption is the voluntary act of the adopter. Among the Romans, when a man adopted one for his son, they both appeared before a proper magistrate, and the adopter declared his will and pleasure to adopt the person presented, he consenting to it. Special and spiritual adoption is an act of the sovereign goodwill and pleasure of God, who has predestinated his to the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, to himself, according to the “good pleasure of his will”; it is a pure act of his grace to make them his sons and heirs, and to give them the kingdom, the inheritance, even eternal life, which is the free gift of God, through Christ (Eph. 1:5; Luke 12:32; Rom. 6:23)."

However, does not being born of God make children and heirs? 

"4. In civil adoption the adopted took and bore the name of the adopter: so the adopted sons of God have a new name, which the mouth of the Lord their God names, a new, famous, and excellent name, which no man knoweth, saving he that receives it; a name better than that of sons and daughters of the greatest earthly potentate; a name by which they are called the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty (Isa. 62:2; 56:5; Rev. 2:17; 1 John 3:1)."

But, does not being born of God give the children the name of their Father? 

"5. Such who are adopted in a civil sense are taken into the family of the adopter, and make a part of it; and stand in the relation, not of servants, but sons; so those who are adopted of God, are taken into that family, which is named of him in heaven and in earth, and are of his household; in which they are not as servants, nor merely as friends, but as the children of God and household of faith (Eph. 3:15, 19; John 15:15, 16; Gal. 3:26; 6:10)."

But, if this is true, then being born of God does not put one into the family. If one is already in the family by being adopted before the world began, then his being born of God does not put one into the family.

"6. Persons adopted in a civil sense, as they are considered as children, they are provided for as such: provision is made for their education, their food, their clothing, their protection, and attendance, and for an inheritance and portion for them: all the children of God, his adopted ones, they are taught of God, by his Spirit, his ministers, his word and ordinances; they are trained up in the school of the church, and under the ministry of the word, and are instructed by the preaching of the gospel, and by precepts, promises, and providences; as for food, they are continually supplied with what is suitable for them, the sincere milk of the word for babes, and meat for strong men; they are fed with hidden manna, with marrow and fatness, with the finest of the wheat, with the richest dainties of the gospel feast: as for their clothing, it is change of raiment, clothing of wrought gold, raiment of needlework, a robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation; fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of the saints: for their protection, they have angels to wait upon them and guard them, who encamp about them, to preserve them from their enemies, and have the care and charge of them, to keep them in their ways; yea, they are kept by the Lord himself, as the apple of his eye, being his dear sons and pleasant children: and the inheritance he has prepared for them, of which they are heirs, is among the saints in light; is incorruptible, undefiled, never fading, and eternal, and is even a kingdom and glory."

According to Gill people are children of God before they are begotten! And, being born of God is not what makes people the children of God!

"7. Such as are adopted by men, come under the power, and are at the command of the adopter, and are under obligation to perform all the duties of a son to a parent; as to honour, reverence, and obey, and be subject to his will in all things. All which are due from the adopted sons of God, to him, their heavenly Father; honour is what God claims as his due from his children; “a son honoureth his father; if I then be a father, where is mine honour?” (Mal. 1:60, obedience to all his commands highly becomes, and is obligatory on them; they ought to be obedient children, and imitate God in all his immutable perfections, particularly in holiness, benevolence, kindness, and goodness; and even should be subject to his corrections and chastisements, which are not merely for his pleasure, but for their profit and good (1 Pet. 1:14-16; Eph. 5:1; Matthew 5:45, 48; Luke 6:35, 36; Heb. 12:9, 10)."

In the old testament passages cited by Gill about God being "Father" cannot refer to an adopted father, as I showed in previous chapters. The Hebrew word for father denotes someone who begat children. The same with the Hebrew and Greek words for "children," which denote a birth child.

After pointing out the similarities between human adoption and divine adoption Gill then speaks of the dissimilarities. 

"Secondly, In some things civil and spiritual adoption differ. 

 

"1. Civil adoption could not be done without the consent of the adopted, his will was necessary to it. Among the Romans the adopter, and the person to be adopted, came before a proper magistrate, and in his presence the adopter asked the person to be adopted, whether he was willing to be his son; and he answered, I am willing; and so the thing was agreed and finished. But in spiritual adoption, though the believer, when he comes to be acquainted with the privilege of adoption he is favored with, and is highly delighted and pleased with it, and admires and adores the grace that has brought him into the relation; yet his will and consent were not necessary to the constitution of the act of adoption; it may be said of that as of every other blessing of grace, that “it is not of him that willeth”; such was the grace of God that he did not wait for the will of the creature to complete this act, but previous to it put him among the children; and such is his sovereign power, that he had an uncontrollable right to take whom he would, and make his sons and daughters; and such the influence and efficacy of his grace, as to make them willing in the day of his power to acknowledge the relation with the greatest wonder and thankfulness, and to behave according to it." 

 

In previous chapters I have also spoken of the similarities and differences between modern or Roman adoption and diving "adoption" (or son placing). I pointed out how on the question of whether the adopted had to give his consent to being adopted there was disagreement among bible teachers. The way most preachers explain divine adoption, however, leaves the impression that God, like most western adoptions, adopts infants. In that case, the adoption cannot be contingent upon the choice of the infant.

"2. Civil adoption was allowed of, and provided for the relief and comfort of such who had no children, and to supply that defect in nature; but in spiritual adoption this reason does not appear: God did not adopt any of the sons of men for want of a son and heir; he had one, and in a higher class of sonship than creatures can be; more excellent and divine, and suitable to the divine nature; his own proper Son, begotten of him, was as one brought up with him, and his daily delight; the dear Son of his love, in whom he was well pleased; and who always did the things that were pleasing to him, and who inherited all his perfections and glory."

We also spoke of these things in previous chapters. If a man has a begotten son(s), then he does not need to adopt. God has no need to adopt. That one simple proposition is enough to refute those who say that God both begets and adopts the same persons.

"3. In civil adoption there are generally some causes and reasons in the adopted which influence and move the adopter to take the step he does. There are two instances of adoption in scripture, the one of Moses, the other of Esther; in both there were some things that wrought upon the adopters to do what they did. Moses was a goodly child, exceeding fair, and lovely to look upon, which, with other things, moved the daughter of Pharaoh to take him up out of the water, to take care of him, and adopt him for her son; Esther was also a fair and beautiful maid, and besides was related to Mordecai, which were the reasons why he took her to be his daughter: but in divine adoption, there is nothing in the adopted that could move the adopter to bestow such a favour; no worth nor worthiness, no love nor loveliness, nothing attracting in them; children of wrath by nature, as others; transgressors from the womb, and rebels against God. There were so many objections to their adoption, and so many arguments against it, and none for it in themselves, that the Lord is represented as making a difficulty of it, and saying, “How shall I put them among the children?” (Jer. 3:19), such blackamoors and Ethiopians as these are? so abominable and so disobedient, enemies in their minds by wicked works, hateful and hating one another?"

So, it seems that there are several ways in which Greco-Roman adoption was unlike divine adoption (or huiothesia). If this is so (and it is), then why insist that they must be alike in the sense of making one a child of another? God adopts or son places those who are already his by birth. This son placing also is not what makes a person a child, but one that recognizes that the child has now reached full growth and finished his education and now entitled to possess and rule over his inheritance?

As I also observed in previous chapters spoke of how some believers (Arminians, Pelagians) affirm that God chose people who were penitent believers, or based upon conditions, while other believers (Calvinists) affirm that God did not choose because a person was better or different. 

"4. In civil adoption, the adopter, though he takes one into his family, and makes him his son and heir, and gives him the name and title of a son, and a right to an inheritance designed for him; he cannot give him the nature of a son, nor qualifications fitting him for the use and enjoyment of the estate he is adopted to; he cannot give him a suitable disposition and temper of mind, nor communicate goodness, wisdom, and prudence for the management of it; he may turn out a fool, or a prodigal: but the divine adopter makes his sons partakers of the divine nature, and makes them meet for the inheritance with the saints in light."

But all this reasoning just shows how absurd it is to affirm that God both adopts and begets his children. Since being born of God gives everything to the begotten child (and more), then why the need to adopt? What does adoption do that being begotten doesn't do? Gill, and others, find that adoption does not do everything needed for making one a child of God, saying that it does not give the adopted child the nature of the adopter. But, why don't they see how being born of God does everything adoption is claimed to do but also gives the nature of God?

"5. Persons adopted in a civil sense cannot enjoy the inheritance while the adoptive father is living, not till after his death: but in spiritual adoption the adopted enjoy the inheritance, though their father is the everlasting and ever living God; and Christ, the firstborn, lives for ever, with whom they are joint heirs." 

Throughout the scriptures, however, the eternal inheritance is said to be due to those who are God's children, and mature sons, who are such by a new birth. If the bible says the inheritance is the right of those who are born of God, then why say it is rather due to being adopted? 

6. In some cases civil adoption might be made null and void; as among the Romans, when against the right of the pontifex, and without the decree of the college; but spiritual adoption is never made void on any account."

This is interesting because many preachers have argued that Roman law forbad any adopter (father) to ever disinherit or annul an adoption and then argue that this proves eternal security (or "once saved always saved). Gill, however, says that there are cases where this is not true. The truth is, being begotten of God is all the security a person needs. Those who have been born of God cannot undo their new birth. If they did, then they would need to be born again and again and again.

I submit then that Gill was contradictory in what he wrote on this subject, although he seem to come close to the truth at times.

 

Spirit Of Adoption (11)

As promised, I feel it needful to see becoming an adult son of God in the life of Jesus Christ. We must look at this from the perspective of both his divinity and his humanity. This can be confusing to the babe in Christ or to the novice. My belief is that Jesus has always been the Son of God in his divinity or Godhead. The bible teaches that God is a Trinity of persons and yet one God. In other words, I believe in the unity of the Trinity and in the trinity of the unity. There is a sense in which God is one and a sense in which he is three. So the apostle John said - "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (I John 5: 7 nkjv) Of course, by "the Word" is meant the Son of God as John tells us in chapter one of his Gospel saying that "the Word was made flesh and dwelled among us." (1: 14)

Further, the Son of God in his divinity was "eternally begotten." He was never the divine Son of God by being adopted. We say "eternally" begotten because we do not believe that there was ever a time when there was no Son of God. Since God the Father has always been "Father" so has there always been the "Son" of God. When we deny the past eternity of the Son of God, we at the same time deny the eternity of God the Father. When the Father uttered the words "this day have I begotten you" (Psa. 2: 7; Acts 13: 33; Heb. 5: 5) to the Son of God, is a day in eternity past as respects his divinity. It is similar to the words applied to Wisdom in the eighth chapter of Proverbs where we have these words: "I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth." (Prov. 8: 23 nkjv) There seems to be an oxymoron in these words. The word "have been established" ('set up' kjv) seems to imply a beginning while the words "from everlasting" do not. So too in the words "this day have I begotten you." They do not imply that there was a time when God had no Son, a time before this divine begetting, just as God has always had Wisdom to dwell with him, even though the language of Solomon might seem to imply otherwise.

However, the title "Son of God" is also applicable to Christ the man. In his humanity he is both "Son of Man" and "Son of God." When we look at the Scriptures, we find “son of God” used in a variety of ways. 

Wrote David Schrock (emphasis mine):

"More specifically, Christ himself receives the title “Son of God” in at least 4 ways. He is the “son of God” in the sense that he fulfills the role of (1) Adam, (2) Israel, and (3) David. Yet, beyond being a covenant mediator who supersedes these previous “sons of God,” Jesus is also the (4) divine Son. Clearly, we can see why this title is “sometimes misunderstood.” (AN ESSAY BY David Schrock at the Gospel Coalition web page here)

“When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4–5). To put it differently, when the divine Son took on humanity he came to fulfill the role marked out for him by Adam, Israel, and David. Only, it is not as though Jesus Christ was an afterthought. These “earlier” sons of God were types and shadows of the true Son, who actually came before them for the Son was the eternally begotten God (John 1:18)." (Ibid)

"Indeed, what we find in the New Testament is that Jesus is the Son of God in two senses. He is the son of God like Adam, Israel, and David, and he is also God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. This truth brings us to the mystery of the incarnation, but it also resolves the tension we find in the many uses of “son of God.”

Some Christians fail to see these things, not understanding the wide range of meaning for the title "Son of God." So Schrock writes further:

"More explicit to the title “Son of God,” Luke 1:35 identifies Jesus as possessing no earthly father. Instead, “Jesus is designated as God’s Son because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit instead of by a human father.”

"In the Gospels, we find Jesus is not only the son of God, according to his humanity; he is the Son of God, according to his deity. And in the rest of the New Testament, this testimony continues (see Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 1:19; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2Pet. 1:1)."

What we will see, however, is that "the huiothesia" or "son placing" was experienced by the Son of God in his humanity, although not in his divinity. Jesus "grew in wisdom and stature" (Luke 2: 52). The end of that growth marked the time when he was declared to be God's Son, now fully perfected. That fact is clear from several texts, particularly this: "though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." (Heb. 5: 8-9 nkjv) By "Son" in this passage is not meant his being the Son of God in his divinity, for in that respect he did not learn obedience, or did not grow in wisdom and stature, for in that respect he did not have a physical body, and he also did not need to be "perfected." It was when Christ in his humanity had matured to an adult man and had learned obedience under the supervision of his heavenly Father that he was then formally declared and recognized as being the Son of God in his humanity and experienced the "son placing." 

Monarchianism & Adoptionism

Adoptionism is a Christian heresy that teaches Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension. It's also known as dynamic monarchianism. 

The problem with this view is evident when they speak of the man Christ Jesus becoming the Son of God in the context of Christ' becoming divine or God the Son. This is where they see Christ as having been "adopted," acknowledging that he was not the Son of God by generation, certainly not by eternal generation, but affirming that he became the Son of God after his having learned obedience. This they say occurred in conjunction with the Father's audible voice at the baptism or Christ or at the mount of transfiguration and that said "this is my beloved Son." However, though this is an error it nevertheless has some truth in it. As respects his being the Son of God in his humanity, however, Christ still was not adopted for he was born miraculously by the Father and Spirit, via a virgin. 

In "Jesus as the Son of God," an essay by David Schrock (at the Gospel Coalition - See here), there is a lot of good information on what it means for Christ to be called God's "Son," and also as respects believers being called "sons." Schrock said (highlighting mine):

"Jesus is God’s Son. This doctrinal statement is both true and troubled. In church history, it has been a source of great debate, and in the Bible, it is a theological axiom that requires careful consideration. Starting with a biblical theology of sonship, we will see how Scripture speaks of Jesus as God’s son in multiple ways. By understanding how Adam, Israel, and David were all “sons of God,” we will better understand what it means that Jesus is the Son of God. Yet, we will also see how his eternal Sonship is maintained and revealed through his perfect human sonship, so that we who follow Christ must always affirm and defend the confession—Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."

Schrock writes further:

"Yes indeed, there is a manifold signification to the title "son of God." Christ is Son of God in several ways. As the first Adam was called "the son of God" (Luke 3: 38), so too the second Adam. In this, and in other ways, he is "the figure of him who was to come," a figure of Christ "the second (or last) Adam." (Rom. 5: 12; I Cor. 15: 47) Israel also is called by God "my son." (Exo. 4: 22; Hosea 11: 1) But, Jesus is the true antitypical Israel. Israel's sonship, like that of Adam, is a figure of Christ's sonship. David too is specially called God's son. (Psa. 89: 26-28) But again, David is a type of Christ, who is "the son of David."

This is the error of the monarchians and adoptionists. They do not realize how the title "Son of God" has several usages. They err in rejecting his having always been the Son of God from eternity.  

Schrock wrote:

"Jesus is God’s Son. This statement is eminently biblical and axiomatic to Christian orthodoxy. At the same time, it has also been one of the most misunderstood, debated, and confused propositions in the history of the Church. The councils of Nicea (AD 325) and Chalcedon (AD 451), among others, responded to heresies related to what it meant that Jesus is the son of God. More inductively, when we look at the Scriptures, we find “son of God” used in a variety of ways. How are we to make sense of this immense title?

In what follows, I will trace the topic of sonship across the Bible to see how it leads to Jesus Christ. From this survey, we will be positioned to understand how Christ is the son of God. And importantly, we will see how Jesus’s sonship is both related to his preeminent humanity and his eternal Sonship."

This is, however, what the monarchians do not understand or believe. They restrict the title "Son of God" to his humanity. 

Schrock wrote:

"More specifically, Christ himself receives the title “Son of God” in at least 4 ways. He is the “son of God” in the sense that he fulfills the role of (1) Adam, (2) Israel, and (3) David. Yet, beyond being a covenant mediator who supersedes these previous “sons of God,” Jesus is also the (4) divine Son. Clearly, we can see why this title is “sometimes misunderstood.”

A full study on Jesus as God’s Son would consider of all of these uses. Here, I will treat the ways in which Jesus is a son of God like Adam, Israel, and David. Then I will relate how his fulfillment of these roles relates to his own divine nature as God the Son."

Though I cannot cite the whole article of Schrock, yet I advise all to read it in full. The above statement is totally in line with my own views and any time I can find another writer who says the same thing, I would rather cite them (saving time me time in writing). Further, I despise plagiarism and always want to give credit where credit is due.

Schrock wrote:

"As the true man, Jesus is God’s true son. And importantly, as a son of God like Adam, all that was true of the first man is true of Jesus—only better."

Again, that deserves a hearty amen. Christ's sonship in time via the incarnation is but a manifestation or illustration of the eternal father son relationship he has always had with the Father in the divine nature.

 

Schrock wrote:

"In his Gospel, Matthew identifies Jesus as the True Israel when he cites Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:13–15—“Out of Egypt I have called my son.” By taking Israel’s title and applying it to Jesus, he explains how Jesus is God’s Son. Similarly, when Jesus is led by the Spirit into the wilderness for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11), he repeats the events of Israel, signifying the kind of son Jesus is—a son like Israel. But Jesus will not disobey his Father like Israel did; he will prove himself obedient unto death, thus becoming the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18)."

That is so well stated that it stands without further comment. However, I will remind the reader of what I have affirmed in previous chapters. Israel was God's "son" by having been begotten and not by being adopted. So too Jesus was not adopted in any of the ways in which he is the Son of God. Yes, as a man he progressed in his sonship, and thus finally experienced "the huiothesia," but not in his divinity.

Schrock wrote:

"The most important “son of God” title that Jesus receives is related to David. In Psalm 2:7, we find the words: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” In its original context, this statement is a poetic expansion of God’s covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, not a direct statement about Jesus divinity. For earlier, in 2 Samuel 7, God promised to build a house (i.e., a dynasty) for David. In this covenant with David, God promised David a son who would sit on an eternal throne (vv. 12–14) and be the son of God. As God says of David’s son, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (v. 14). In the immediate history of Israel, Solomon fulfilled this promise. He ruled with wisdom and justice, bringing peace and blessing to the people by leading the nation from Zion."

All this does not take away from Christ being the Son of God as respects his eternal union with the Father. As stated, however, there are aspects to the title "Son of God" that are applicable to Christ in his human nature. His being the Son of God in the ways mentioned by Schrock are founded upon his being the Son of God in his eternal divine nature. The Father's "declaration" that Jesus is "the Son of God" (at his baptism) and at his resurrection and exaltation has respect to all of the ways in which Christ is "the Son of God."

Schrock wrote:

"In fact, it is instructive that the gospel message is based on promises to David (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). To limit ourselves to one passage, Romans 1:2–4 explains how Jesus, as David’s son, is the Son of God and the hope of salvation.

In these verses, Paul speaks of Christ receiving the title “Son of God” at his resurrection. Verses 3–4 read, “concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” Critically, this passage is best understood of Christ’s exaltation in his resurrection. While Jesus is God the Son throughout his entire human life, his resurrection assigns him the title “Son of God.” This is the testimony of Acts 13:32–33 and Hebrews 5:5–6, as well."

Jesus was perfected in his sonship in regard to his humanity. This is when he became an adult Son and became the "heir of all things." Wrote Paul: "has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds." (Heb. 1: 2 nkjv) 

Schrock wrote:

"This exalted title goes back to 2 Samuel 7:14. Only now, it is applied to Jesus who has proven to be God’s true son and worthy of an eternal throne. As Hebrews confirms, it is only after Jesus’s humanity is “perfected” that he receives the title, “Son of God” (Heb. 5: 5­–6). This is why Hebrews argues that is was necessary for the Son to learn obedience through suffering (v. 8). In other words, when Christ rose from the dead and ascended to the Father’s right hand (fulfilling Psa. 110:1), all creation was put under his feet. In his exaltation, Jesus received he right to rule over heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), as the son of David, who is the son of God."

Again, what is said above concerns Christ being "the Son of God" as respects his incarnate state as a human being. His being the Son of God by being the true son of David respects his being such in his human nature. And again, we must affirm that his human character as "Son of God" manifests and illustrates his divine character as the Son of God.

Schrock wrote:

"The Divine Son: The Son of God is God the Son “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4–5). To put it differently, when the divine Son took on humanity he came to fulfill the role marked out for him by Adam, Israel, and David. Only, it is not as though Jesus Christ was an afterthought. These “earlier” sons of God were types and shadows of the true Son, who actually came before them for the Son was the eternally begotten God (John 1:18)."

If we do not see the sonship of Adam, Israel, and David as figures of the unique sonship of Christ, we will be missing the full picture. As the eternal Son of God in his divinity Christ did not go from a babe to an adult son, although in his being the Son of God in his humanity he did progress towards full sonship and be later openly declared by the Father as being his Son. 

Schrock wrote:

"Indeed, what we find in the New Testament is that Jesus is the Son of God in two senses. He is the son of God like Adam, Israel, and David, and he is also God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. This truth brings us to the mystery of the incarnation, but it also resolves the tension we find in the many uses of “son of God.” In what follows, we will consider a few places where we see this truth in Scripture—namely, that Jesus is the divine Son."

Well, amen to that! So well stated!

Schrock wrote:

"In the Gospels, we find Jesus is not only the son of God, according to his humanity; he is the Son of God, according to his deity. And in the rest of the New Testament, this testimony continues (see Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 1:19; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). Space does not permit a full examination of these passages, but suffice it to say in the worship of Jesus Christ, as God’s Son, we find clear evidence that Jesus Christ as God’s Son, fully human, is yet more than a man and greater than any other Son of God. As Larry Hurtado concludes, “From the entire fabric of Paul’s Christology, it is apparent that Paul saw Jesus as participating in God’s attributes and roles, as sharing in the divine glory and, most importantly, as worthy to receive formal veneration with God in Christian assemblies.” Truly, such worship is only possible if Jesus, the Son of God, is God."

Since huiothesia does not mean adoption, but becoming recognized as a grown son, God the Son was not adopted. Nor was he adopted as the Father's Son in his humanity, although he did go through stages of development towards perfect sonship and manhood. On this we will enlarge upon in the next chapter. 

Consider the fact that if our sonship reflects the sonship of Christ, either in his humanity or divinity, and he was begotten but not adopted, then we too are not both born and adopted children.

 

Spirit Of Adoption (10)

Now that I am nearing the completion of giving my thoughts on the subject of "adoption" I will be giving some further information that ought to be incorporated into all that I have written. I want to begin by looking at how some other Greek scholars and bible translators have translated the five texts where the apostle Paul spoke of "huiothesia." As I look back over the two series I have done on this topic, I see where I have repeated myself in later chapters, saying again what I said in previous chapters. That happens when you don't keep reworking draft writings. Such will be the case in this chapter. I will make one more chapter after this chapter in order to discuss an early church heresy called monarchianism or adoptionism as it relates to the Sonship of Christ. I have mentioned these doctrines before but will be adding to what I have previously written. I do not expect many bible students to read all these chapters for most of them are not that deeply interested in the subject or question. But, for those who are, they will find a wealth of information on it and find a point of view they may have never heard before. Surely however they have wondered why God needed to adopt children when they are already his children by being "born of God."

Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest gives the following translation of Romans 8:14-23:

"For as many as are being constantly led by God's Spirit, these are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again with resulting fear, but you received the Spirit who places you as adult sons, by whom we cry out with deep emotion, Abba, [namely] Father. The Spirit himself is constantly bearing joint-testimony with our [human] spirit that we are God's children, and since children, also heirs; on the one hand, heirs of God, on the other, joint-heirs with Christ, provided that we are suffering with Him in order that we also may be glorified together, for I have come to a reasoned conclusion that the sufferings of the present season are of no weight in comparison to the glory which is about to be revealed upon us. For the concentrated and undivided expectation of the creation is assiduously and patiently awaiting the revelation of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not voluntarily, but on account of the One who put it under subjection upon the basis of the hope that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and travails together up to this moment, and not only, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruit of the Spirit, we ourselves also are groaning within ourselves, assiduously and patiently waiting the full realization of our adult sonship at the time of the redemption of our body.”  (As cited here)

Notice that Wuest does not use the word "adoption" at all in this text that has two of the five occurrences of that word as it appears in the KJV. The words highlighted in red above are those two occurrences. For "Spirit of adoption" (KJV) Wuest gives us "Spirit who places you as adult sons"; And, for "waiting for the adoption" he gives us "waiting the full realization of our adult sonship." Had translators of the KJV and others not used the word "adoption" and translated as Wuest, then the church would have been saved from much confusion on this subject. 

Notice Romans 8:23 in the New Living Translation: 

"And even we Christians, although we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, also groan to be released from pain and suffering. We, too, wait anxiously for that day when God will give us our full rights as his children [huiothesia], including the new bodies he has promised us."

There is a growing number of translations that are omitting the word "adoption" in favor of other words to express the meaning that Paul seems to have had in mind.

In a separate posting from back in 2008 I cited Wuest who said the following about adoption (See here).

"This word (adoption) is the translation of huiothesia, a word of huiso "a son," and thesia, a form of the verb tithemi meaning "to place," the compound word meaning "to place as a son." The Greek word teknon which means "a child," comes from the verb tikto "to give birth to." It therefore has in it the idea of birth relationship. The word means "a born-one." The word huios does not have this implication. Huios is used in Gal. 3: 26 of the believer under law. The latter was under the schoolmaster (the paidagogoso, a slave charged with the moral supervision of a child in its minority. The word teknon is used in Galatians (4:25, 27, 28, 31) of the believer under law. Thus a teknon is a believer in his minority, a huios, an adult son. Believers under the covenant of law were teknon, that is born children of God in their minority. Believers under grace, are both teknon, born children of God and huios, adult sons of God. This meaning of an adult son is to be used only where the word refers to a believer in this age of grace. The word is used also in the N.T., as a Hebrew idiom, where a person having a peculiar evil, is called the son, (huios) of that quality (Lk. 10: 6, Eph. 2: 2, 5: 6, 8). The word huios is also used to refer to the male issue of child.

The A.V., uniformly translates teknon by the word "child" except in the following places where it is rendered by the word "son," which is the proper translation of huios. Mt. 9:2, 21:28; Mk. 2:5, 13:12; Luk. 2:48, 15:31, 16:25; John 1:12; I Cor. 4:14, 17; Phil. 2:15, 22; I Tim. 1:2, 18; II Tim. 1:2, 2:1; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 10; I John 3: 1, 2. Study these passages, using the word "child" in the translation, keeping in mind the idea of the birth-relationship existing, and see what clearer light is thrown upon them. For instance, Mary calls Jesus "child." He was only twelve years old at the time. Yet this child was confuting the learned Doctors (Lk. 2:48). Timothy was Paul's child and the latter was his spiritual father, for Paul had won Timothy to the Lord. In John 1:12, regeneration is in view. In I John 3: 1,2, the fact that we are born-children of God, is in view, having the nature of God. In Phil. 2:15, believers, being children of God, and possessing therefore the nature of God, are expected to reflect in their lives the holiness, love, and other qualities of God.

The word huios is uniformly translated "son" except in certain places, some of which rightfully use the word "children" where the plural refers to children of both sexes. But the following places should be translated by the word "son": Mt. 23:15; Lk. 6: 35, 16:8, 20-34, 36; John 12:36; Acts 3: 25, 13:10; Rom. 9:26; Gal. 3: 26; Eph. 2:2, 5:6; Co. 3:6; I Thes. 5:5. It will be observed that in many of the above places the Hebrew idiom is used where a person having a peculiar quality or is subject to a peculiar evil, is called the son (huios) of that quality or evil. He partakes of the nature of that quality.

Coming now to the word "adoption" (huiothesia), we find that it was a term used in Roman legal practice. It referred to a legal action by which a person takes into his family a child not his own, with the purpose of treating him as and giving him all the privileges of an own son. The custom was not common among the Jews, but was so among the Romans, with whom an adopted child is legally entitled to all rights and privileges of a natural-born child. This custom, well-known in the Roman empire, is used in the N.T., as an illustation of the act of God giving a believing sinner, who is not His natural child, a position as His adult son in His family. This is a legal act and position, and not the same as regeneration and a place in the family as a born-child of God.

The word is found in Rom. 8:15, 23, 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5. In Rom. 8:15 it is the Holy Spirit who places believing sinners in the family of God as adult sons. In Rom. 8:23, believers have already been placed in the family of God, and are led by the Spirit as the adult sons of God. But only when their mortal bodies have been glorified at the Rapture, will they possess all that sonship involves. In Rom. 9:4, the nation Israel is said to have been placed in the special relationship as the peculiar people of God, thus God's own by adoption. Gal. 4:5 and Eph. 1:5 refer to the same thing that Rom. 8:15 refers to."

See here

On Galatians 4: 5 Wuest writes:

"The Lord Jesus was born under the law, lived under the law, and died under the penalty of the law which we broke, and in paying our penalty, He delivered us from any claims which the law had against us. He died under law, and in His resurrection, was raised into a realm where law as a legalistic system does not exist. This He did, in order that He might not only deliver us from the law but also raise believers with Himself into a realm where law does not operate. Instead therefore of being children (immature ones, nepios) under law, we became adult sons (huios) under grace. We received the adoption of sons. This expression in the Greek is literally, “in order that we might receive the adult son-placing.” We could paraphrase it “in order that we might be placed as adult sons.” Thus, we have presented to us the status of a person under grace as compared to that of a person under law. The latter is in his minority, the former in his majority, the latter treated like a minor, the former like an adult."  

This is very close to my view. It also answers the statement of some who say - "why do not more bible scholars agree with you?" The fact is, many do, and the number is growing every day. 

W E Vine, famed for his "New Testament Words," wrote:

"Adoption (huiothesia) signifies the place and condition of a son given to one to whom it does not naturally belong. The word is used by the apostle Paul only. In Rom. 8:15, believers are said to have received “the Spirit of adoption,” that is, the Holy Spirit who, given as the Firstfruits of all that is to be theirs, produces in them the realization of sonship and the attitude belonging to sons. In Gal. 4:5 they are said to receive “the adoption of sons,” i.e., sonship bestowed in distinction from a relationship consequent merely upon birth; here two contrasts are presented, (1) between the sonship of the believer and the unoriginated sonship of Christ, (2) between the freedom enjoyed by the believer and bondage, whether of Gentile natural condition, or of Israel under the Law. In Eph. 1:5 they are said to have been foreordained unto “adoption as sons” through Jesus Christ, RV; the KJV, “adoption of children” is a mistranslation and misleading. God does not “adopt” believers as children; they are begotten as such by His Holy Spirit through faith. “Adoption” is a term involving the dignity of the relationship of believers as sons; it is not a putting into the family by spiritual birth, but a putting into the position of sons. In Rom. 8:23 the “adoption” of the believer is set forth as still future, as it there includes the redemption of the body, when the living will be changed and those who have fallen asleep will be raised."

All these scholarly men affirm that huiothesia does not denote becoming a child of God, but the full realization of our adult sonship at the time of the redemption of our body.

Warren Wiersbe, well known bible teacher, said:

"We do not enter God’s family by adoption, the way a homeless child would enter a loving family in our own society. The only way to get into God’s family is by regeneration, being “born again” (John 3:3). The New Testament word for adoption means “to place as an adult son.” It has to do with our standing in the family of God: we are not little children but adult sons with all of the privileges of sonship....We enter God’s family by regeneration, but we enjoy God’s family by adoption."  (Borrow Be Free: An Expository Study of Galatians) (as cited at precept-austin here)

That has been my thesis.

Arno C. Gaebelein takes the thought even further: 

“Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are not adopted into the family of God; they are born into the family. The Greek has only one word ‘Sonplace.’ We are placed into the position of Sons.” (Ibid)

Even those who teach that adoption is the way God acquires heirs, or children, or sons, will say that it is a metaphor and that in any metaphor there is rarely a perfect resemblance. Certainly, as we saw in earlier chapters, the reason why Greeks or Romans adopted was because they needed a male heir. That certainly is unlike God's adoption. 

All this being true, then we can say that Paul's use of "adoption" focuses only upon one or a few of the semblances. That being so, it seems reasonable to me that Paul is focusing on a ceremony where a boy, often a slave boy, is publicly declared to be the son, the adult son, of another, and is then entitled to receive the entire inheritance and judged qualified to immediately reign over the inheritance and over the clan. 

It is then viewed as a formal ceremony marking the end of the birth son's education and training, of his learning to be like his father. 

Paul is thus focusing on the importance of the declaration where a father says "this is my son" or says "this is the one who bears my image and likeness" or "this one has the right to possess the family inheritance and to rule over the family clan." 

Detzler writes that "Throughout the Greek world the wealthy and influential practiced adoption. Sometimes just a simple declaration in the marketplace turned a slave into a son. It was an ancient remedy used when a marriage failed to produce a male heir. No change in name came, but the adopted son immediately became heir to the entire wealth and position of his adoptive family. Conversely the adopted son also assumed responsibility for the parents in their time of need. Adoption in the Greek and Roman world was a beautiful picture. His contemporary culture gave the Apostle Paul this word, but he gave the word a new, Holy Spirit-inspired meaning. (Only Paul uses this word to describe the relationship of believers to their Heavenly Father.) No concept is more meaningful to a believer. For adoption deposits everything that God owns to the accounts of His sons and daughters. Adoption is all about position and privilege."(Ibid - quoting from (Detzler, Wayne E: New Testament Words in Today's Language. Victor. 1986) (precept-austin commentary - here) 

Further, this declaration and placing into position and privilege occurs formally in the day of the resurrection at the second coming of Christ.

In Galatians 4:1-5 the NIV translates the word as "full rights of sons." Notice why from the context: 

"What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons." (Galatians 4:1-5, NIV).

The same commentary adds these words:

"During a boy's teen years, his father would determine when it was time for him to pass from childhood to adulthood—typically around 14 or a little later. In a formal public ceremony, having put aside his childhood toga, he would appear in the toga virilis (toga of manhood), mark of citizenship and his right to now vote in the assembly." (Ibid)

"When the boy was ready, the procession to the Forum began. The father had gathered his slaves, freedmen, clients, relatives and friends, using all his influence to make his son's escort numerous and imposing. Here the boy's name was added to the list of citizens, and formal congratulations were extended . . . Finally they all returned to the house, where the day ended with a dinner party given by the father in honour of the new Roman citizen."

"A son's status was elevated at this point. He was now legally invested with all the rights, powers and privileges of a son and heir of his father—and of a citizen." (Ibid)

"This coming of age at maturity must be what Paul is referring to. God has begotten us as His children. And in one sense He reckons us as already having reached a certain maturity—considering us beyond the status of being as slaves to being set as sons with certain privileges (even though we are as mere babes!). Yet the fullness of our coming of age is yet future—at the time of "the revealing of the sons of God" in the resurrection (Romans 8:19)." (Ibid)

Said the same commentary:

"While adoption is not the way we get into God's family, it is the way we come to fully enjoy God's family. "Adoption gives us the rights of children. Regeneration gives us the nature of children: we are partakers of both of these, for we are sons." (Spurgeon) In other words, we get into God's family by regeneration (being "born again" = the new birth) when we are "born of the Spirit" (Jn 3:7-9-note), for "as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children (literally "born ones") of God, even to those who believe in His name." (Jn 1:12-note) In regeneration the Spirit makes us children of God, while in adoption He gives us the position, privilege and responsibilities of the "sons of God." God could have regenerated us (a new life), but, praise His Holy Name, He also graced us with adoption as His sons." (precept-austin commentary - here) 

Romans Eight & Things Future

In Romans chapter eight, in the verses cited at the head of this chapter in the translation by Wuest, there are several things said to occur in the future. Notice them:

1. "that we may be glorified together"

2. "the glory that shall be revealed upon us"

3. "awaiting the revelation of the sons of God"

4. "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God"

5. "assiduously and patiently waiting the full realization of adult sonship"

6. "at the time of the redemption of our body"

 

"The huiothesia" then is connected with all these things and the time when the children will have become fully grown and perfected and glorified. It will also be the time when they will be completely redeemed and emancipated.

Are we heirs now? Yes, and no.

Are we sons now? Yes, and no.

When Paul calls believers "children" he is stating what they are now by being begotten of God. When he calls them "heirs" and "sons" it is the result of having first become a child and those terms may be futuristic present tense or else a case of "already, but not now," meaning some aspects of sonship are being realized by the begotten children now but the greater realization of it awaits the day when they are perfected.

 

Spirit Of Adoption (9)

Adoption carries the idea of being chosen. A man without a son or male heir needed such and would therefore adopt a plan B which involved the choice of the right male child or young man. The father had lots of criteria to consider in the choice of an adopted heir. In substance, it was a person who met all the criteria, being judged as worthy by the heirless father, that the father chooses. Wrote one person in discussion about this (emphasis mine):

"...when Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, he had a perfectly good Latin word to denote "adoption" in the sense that we understand it - that word was 'adrogatio'. But he did not use that word. He used the word 'adoptare' which, in his time, simply meant, "to choose". So Jerome conveyed the idea that Huiothesia in the Greek, meant, "the choosing of sonship"." (from a commenter in a forum - See here)

This is one aspect of adoption or putting into the place of an adult son. Rarely in the Greco-Roman world did such a man choose a baby boy and this for several reasons. Yet, many sermons over the past two thousand years have viewed God as adopting infants. But, it is quite interesting that God is never said to adopt or "place as sons" those who were infants. God does give birth to "newborn babes" (I Peter 2: 2-3); So, if he adopts the newborn baby at the same time that he begets him then he does adopt only babies. In the five cases where Paul spoke of huiothesia he uses the word "son" (and "son" also being part of the compound word huiothesia) which almost universally carries the idea of maturity, and of likeness to a father, either in whole or in part, mostly the former. It speaks of those begotten children who are daily taking on more of the likeness and character of their biological father. So Jesus often said "when you do such and such you will be demonstrating sonship." 

If Roman adoption is the model Paul has in mind, then God would be adopting adolescent boys, or even young emancipated men. But, God does not do this per many who hold to the adoption view of how God acquires children. Therefore their model of adoption is not like Roman adoption. Once they admit this, i.e. that there are dissimilarities, then they cannot insist that the huiothesia in Paul's mind means to take one who is not your child in order to make him or her your child for it could well be another dissimilarity. 

Even in the lives of wicked sinners who know not the Lord, they begin their life of sin as children, as immature about sinning and moral living, but after having been in the practice awhile, they pass into the stage of being "sons of disobedience." (Eph. 2: 1-3)

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the [a]course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." (nkjv)

Here again the KJV translates the Greek word "huiois" as "children" rather than "sons," a common mistake in that version. The NKJV however gets it right. So, why is it "sons" of disobedience rather than "children"? He does use the word "children" (Greek 'tekna') when he says "we were by nature children of wrath"? Here there is allusion to birth children and this is proven by the Greek word "tekna" which denotes a child by being begotten by a father, and also by the words "by nature" which means "by birth" (as when Paul says "we who are Jews by nature" - Gal. 2: 15). The reason sons is the word used is because the ones being described are not novices or beginners in the life of sin but rather of people who have been sinning a long time and are experienced in it. It is a case of adult, mature, experienced sinners who have been practicing such immoral behavior for a long time. 

So too do believers begin their Christian lives as infants in the knowledge of God and in practicing his ways, but after they have progressed in their growth through education is when they become conversely, "sons of obedience" rather than "sons of disobedience." Peter speaks of newborn believers as "obedient children (tekna)" (I Peter 1: 14), but after they have grown up in Christ and are no longer novices, they become "obedient sons," though still not as much so as they will be in the day they are perfected in the day of their resurrection. These are they whom Paul said are being "moved along or being led by the Holy Spirit." It is not those who have just begun to be led by the Lord but those who have been moving along in their training and maturation and becoming more and more the likeness of their Father. To the degree that one is thus led of the Spirit to that degree is one showing aspects of sonship. Perfect sonship comes when believers are perfected and glorified. So, in this respect, it is another example of "already now but not yet." That is when they will to the fullest extent be led the Spirit and be like both the Father and Son.

In chapter nine of "Waiting For The Huiothesia" (here) I cited another who wrote as follow:

In further development of this, we shall find a distinction made between that which morally characterizes a person, that is, his nature, and that which his ways externally proclaim him to be, and the two words under consideration are respectively applied to each. The distinction is more subtle, and not quite so easily grasped in some cases, but it will be found that it always assists in understanding the subject to which the words apply. For example, in Ephesians ii. we read in verse 3 of "children of wrath," where the apostle is speaking of the condition in which they were "by nature," but when he speaks of that which they had manifested themselves by their acts to be, he says in verse 2, "sons of disobedience." 

"Huiothesia" in Paul's mind marks the consummation and not the beginning of the Christian life and when his being conformed to the image of the Son of God is finished. Huiothesia reflects the time when the "heir apparent" son has finished his time under tutors, as Paul said, and who is now of adult age and learning and ready to be "installed" into his final predestined state. That will be when they in every way become the image of divine sonship. Full realization of our adult sonship is at the time of the redemption of our body.

As we have shown, in Paul's mind "the huiothesia" does not occur at the same time one is born of God. This is evident in the five passages where Paul speaks of the huiothesia; Especially is the Romans 8: 23 passage where Paul said that those who are "children" of God are "waiting for the huiothesia" and says it will be at the time when they are resurrected and their bodies redeemed. 

I have repeatedly said that huiothesia does not mean son or child making but rather it means son placing. What I mean by this is that adoption does not make a birth son, for the true meaning of huiothesia in the mind of Paul involves newly born babes in Christ becoming more and more like their Father and this is the essence of sonship. Huiothesia in this sense is son making and does not happen all at once, but progressively and in stages, the final stage being full redemption. It is not baby making or children making. So said another place of good bible commentary (emphasis mine).

“Paul‟s use of huiothesia does not refer to the believer's entrance into the family of God at the beginning of his Christian life; this entrance is achieved by regeneration. Paul's use of huiothesia is in reference to the consummate stage of sonship achieved through the growth of the divine life, whereby matured believers become heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ (Rom. 8:17). In short, we are born into the family of God, and only later are we placed in the position of a son, having matured in the divine life.” (As cited at precept-austin web commentary here)

That is exactly the view I fully endorse. It is what all my writings on this subject has sought to prove. The more of these kinds of citations I can give will help answer the question that is often asked of me - "why do so few bible scholars agree with you and hold the traditional view?" More and more people are coming to the same conclusion, and even though it is a minority view, it is still the correct view.

The same commentary says this:

"Huios is used in Galatians 4:5 of a mature child of God in a legal standing as against a child of God (teknon) in his minority (Gal 4:1, 2, 3)." (Precept-Austin commentary - See here) 

Correct! Huios (son) in that important passage is not a newborn baby but a "mature" child of God. Paul says that old testament believers who were under law were "children" but not "sons." This is interesting since we have referred to texts in the old testament where God referred to Israel, as a whole and as individuals, as his son(s). When I was writing on the Galatians passage I showed how the text clearly says that people are children before they become "sons" and "son" is predominantly used as denoting a mature adult son. It is never used of a newly born baby. It may be used occasionally or rarely to denote a "birth son," and more often of a child who has passed adolescence (corresponding to the Hebrew Bar Mitzvah or the Roman Toga Virillis), who has advanced to another stage in his fully becoming, in image and likeness, his father. The final stage is when the Father selects a day (Paul - "the time appointed by the father") in which to declare that his son has reached full age, and a time when he experiences complete "emancipation." At each stage of advancing sonship and fatherly likeness the child receives more liberty and more responsibilities. 

When Paul says to the Galatians "you are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (3: 26) he does not imply that they had fully matured and were completely conformed to the image and likeness of Christ and his Father and ours. He is indeed stating that a new testament believer, because of the coming of Messiah, and his giving us new revelation and other things, are "sons" in comparison with believers in the old testament who were still but newborn children begotten by God. But, we may also say that we new testament believers when first born of the Spirit are like old testament believers and are mere underage babies and are not "sons" in the way that term is used in the new testament. Also, even a child of God today who has passed childhood and puberty, spiritually or religiously speaking, and has entered the first stage of sonship, is still not "son," or like the Son of God or the Father, to the same degree as he will be when he is fully, in body, soul, and spirit made perfect and glorified when Christ returns and resurrects the "sons of the resurrection." Jesus said - "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." ( Matthew 5:9) Again, every time a newly born believer behaves like a mature believer he may be called "son." When he thinks and behaves like a newborn babe, he may not be called "son." Several texts show this to be so. Another, which I have cited in previous chapters, is this text where Christ says to his begotten children: "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." (John 12: 36) Notice that the ones to whom Jesus spoke were those who were already his born again children, his disciples. But, they needed to become "sons," that is, mature believers who are resembling more and more their Father and the Son of God. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child (grk. 'nepios'), I spoke as a child (nepios), I understood as a child (nepios), I thought as a child (nepios); but when I became a man, I put away childish (nepios) things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." (I Cor. 13: 9-12 nkjv)

Compared to what believers will become "when that which is perfect is come," that is, when they have been resurrected as "sons of the resurrection" and been perfected and glorified, are full grown men or sons. The apostle John in his epistles always refers to believers as "children" and not as "sons," but Paul uses both of them when speaking of believers. Another verse that is in keeping with this idea is this one, another which we have referred to in other chapters.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children (nepioi - infants), tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." (Eph. 4: 11-15 kjv)

In this passage "a perfect man" denotes a man fully mature. The Greek word is teleion, a word in its root that gives us words with "tele" as the prefix, as in telephone, and denote what is an "end goal," a finishing point. "of the stature" is from the Greek word helikias and denotes full growth to adulthood. That is what is denoted by the words "teleology" or "teleological," meaning what is a thing's final purpose or designed end, i.e. the finished product. We are not recognized as "sons of God" in the fullest sense until the resurrection and until there is complete redemption.

We are "sons" in the making as we grown up in Christ. Every time we imitate our Father and his Son we are becoming more like sons. As I have stated in previous chapters, God often says of such "that's my boy," or "that is my son in whom I am pleased."