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.