I agree with Douglas Wilson who wrote (emphasis mine):
"Instead of seeking to learn our paradigms of behavior from the Scriptures, we tend to bring our assumptions, learned elsewhere and from others, and view the Scriptures through those assumptions. This is not a superficial problem; it goes down to the bone. The prophets, the apostles and our Lord Jesus all exhibit a vast array of verbal behavior, including tenderness, love, insults, jokes, anger and more. What standard do we use to sort this material out?" (page 17 of "The Serrated Edge" by Douglas Wilson - SEE HERE)
Many Bible students and teachers often fail to properly interpret certain portions of Scripture because they have not fully discerned its genre, use of idioms and metaphors, and context.
Mar 17, 2017
Mar 11, 2017
Warning! Attending Church May Be Dangerous To Your Health
"ye come together not for the better but for the worse." (I Cor. 11:17)
Can people really be worse off for attending and supporting apostate churches? Paul thought so!
Can people really be worse off for attending and supporting apostate churches? Paul thought so!
Mar 6, 2017
Advanced Composition
One of the hardest classes for me in college was my senior level "Advanced Composition" class. Perhaps it was due to a heavy load of other classes at the time, or to my topic (free will vs. determinism), or to my Roman Catholic professor (who was out of place in a Baptist/Presbyterian college, and who passionately opposed my belief in predestination and determinism), but whatever the reason, it is one of the classes where I learned much about writing professionally.
One of the lessons I learned in that class concerned the fact that most writings are not perfect upon "first draft" (unlike the inspired men who wrote perfectly on first draft). The best of writings, whether of poets, philosophers, or theologians, were not the products of a first draft, but generally the result of several revisions. Even when the writing (thesis, book, paper, etc.) is completed, most authors would admit that what was published or otherwise completed could still be improved, either by additional information, or by better rhetoric, or improved argumentation, etc.
With this in mind I thought I would announce that I plan to spend most of my time in the future to revise many of my works and publish them. In other words, I will be involved in "advanced composition." This will take a tremendous amount of time and will leave little time to post extended works in my blogs. I will only be able to make short posts from time to time.
If you are led to do so, please remember me in your prayers.
One of the lessons I learned in that class concerned the fact that most writings are not perfect upon "first draft" (unlike the inspired men who wrote perfectly on first draft). The best of writings, whether of poets, philosophers, or theologians, were not the products of a first draft, but generally the result of several revisions. Even when the writing (thesis, book, paper, etc.) is completed, most authors would admit that what was published or otherwise completed could still be improved, either by additional information, or by better rhetoric, or improved argumentation, etc.
With this in mind I thought I would announce that I plan to spend most of my time in the future to revise many of my works and publish them. In other words, I will be involved in "advanced composition." This will take a tremendous amount of time and will leave little time to post extended works in my blogs. I will only be able to make short posts from time to time.
If you are led to do so, please remember me in your prayers.
Mar 5, 2017
"Ancient Astronaut Theory" is Neo Paganism
Over the years I have spent much time researching "ancient history" in addition to other areas of historical studies. I have always loved history. I love the social sciences in general. In those years I have increasingly come to see that there is much "fake science," or as the apostle Paul said, "science falsely so called." (I Tim. 6: 20) "Darwinism" is one such "fake science," and is in fact a religion in disguise.
Each day there are numerous archaeological discoveries that overthrow it; And it is becoming harder for those "scientists" who are wedded to Darwinism's theory (as to man's origin and history) to cover up that evidence (as they have since Darwin first published his "origin of the species"). Each day there is more and more evidence that proves that a civilization once existed on this earth that was more technologically advanced than at present. This fact destroys "evolution" with its "ascent of man" and strictly linear view of history.
Of course, the existence of such an advanced civilization, though destroying evolution theory, does not prove that such an advanced civilization was the result of alien interference. Nor does it prove that man was the creation of aliens, rather than of God.
When I was a young Christian I became aware of "New Age" doctrine and teaching. It did not take long to see how its quasi religious/metaphysical teachings were evidence that it was basically polytheistic. It was a way to believe in many gods and goddesses, in spirits of various kinds, "ascended masters," etc., and a way to communicate with them. Well, the same thing can be said about the "ancient astronaut theory" where the "aliens" become the "gods" of the bible and other ancient texts.
Jason Colavito wrote:
"I would like to seriously propose that the “ancient astronaut theory” as presented on Ancient Aliens has become a revised Theosophy, a neo-pagan religion—a type of polytheism where every religion is right because all gods are real...the ancient astronaut theory collapses in on itself, and the old stories become literally true as reports of actual gods! Polytheism!" ("Review of Ancient Aliens S05E07 "Prophets and Prophecy" - SEE HERE)
Well, amen to that!
He wrote also:
"David Childress (an archaeologist who is often seen on the history channel, and is a leading proponent of ancient aliens having visited earth from another world - SG) agrees that the aliens warned ancient people of natural disasters by pretending to be gods."
Both New Age and Ancient Alien ideas are nothing but polytheism arrayed in better attire.
Each day there are numerous archaeological discoveries that overthrow it; And it is becoming harder for those "scientists" who are wedded to Darwinism's theory (as to man's origin and history) to cover up that evidence (as they have since Darwin first published his "origin of the species"). Each day there is more and more evidence that proves that a civilization once existed on this earth that was more technologically advanced than at present. This fact destroys "evolution" with its "ascent of man" and strictly linear view of history.
Of course, the existence of such an advanced civilization, though destroying evolution theory, does not prove that such an advanced civilization was the result of alien interference. Nor does it prove that man was the creation of aliens, rather than of God.
When I was a young Christian I became aware of "New Age" doctrine and teaching. It did not take long to see how its quasi religious/metaphysical teachings were evidence that it was basically polytheistic. It was a way to believe in many gods and goddesses, in spirits of various kinds, "ascended masters," etc., and a way to communicate with them. Well, the same thing can be said about the "ancient astronaut theory" where the "aliens" become the "gods" of the bible and other ancient texts.
Jason Colavito wrote:
"I would like to seriously propose that the “ancient astronaut theory” as presented on Ancient Aliens has become a revised Theosophy, a neo-pagan religion—a type of polytheism where every religion is right because all gods are real...the ancient astronaut theory collapses in on itself, and the old stories become literally true as reports of actual gods! Polytheism!" ("Review of Ancient Aliens S05E07 "Prophets and Prophecy" - SEE HERE)
Well, amen to that!
He wrote also:
"David Childress (an archaeologist who is often seen on the history channel, and is a leading proponent of ancient aliens having visited earth from another world - SG) agrees that the aliens warned ancient people of natural disasters by pretending to be gods."
Both New Age and Ancient Alien ideas are nothing but polytheism arrayed in better attire.
Feb 12, 2017
For Me To Live
I don't know how many years I have left to live. I can say, however, like David - "I once was young but now am old." Likewise, I can speak, as he did, about what I have "seen" and "not seen" in life. (Psalm 37:25) Also, like him, I have often queried this question in my mind and to the Lord - "How many are the days of thy servant?" (119:84) As I have become somewhat elderly and weak, no longer having the strength and vigor of youth and middle age, I have asked this question even more in my mind.
If God grant me either a very short or extra long time, from this point forward, to what purpose? Simply to exist and do little other than struggle to stay alive? Or, to "enjoy" retirement years in the sense of indulging the flesh? To watch TV? To play games? To eat, drink, and be merry? Or, to find a way to more deeply draw near to the Lord and walk with him? To enjoy his peace and presence? To find a way to do more to serve the Lord with the additional free time that comes with old age and retirement?
If I live one more week or twenty more years, let
1. the inward man in me be renewed day by day as the body deteriorates and weakens
2. me finish the apologetic works I have spent my life constructing and be of use to others
3. me more fully work out my own salvation with fear and trembling
In a word, to keep the resolve of the Apostle Paul when he said:
"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:21)
If God grant me either a very short or extra long time, from this point forward, to what purpose? Simply to exist and do little other than struggle to stay alive? Or, to "enjoy" retirement years in the sense of indulging the flesh? To watch TV? To play games? To eat, drink, and be merry? Or, to find a way to more deeply draw near to the Lord and walk with him? To enjoy his peace and presence? To find a way to do more to serve the Lord with the additional free time that comes with old age and retirement?
If I live one more week or twenty more years, let
1. the inward man in me be renewed day by day as the body deteriorates and weakens
2. me finish the apologetic works I have spent my life constructing and be of use to others
3. me more fully work out my own salvation with fear and trembling
In a word, to keep the resolve of the Apostle Paul when he said:
"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:21)
Feb 2, 2017
Fake News
There is much talk today about "fake news." Though some try to define "fake news" in unusual ways, it is generally conceded that "fake" news is simply "false" or incorrect news. Something is put out as fact which in fact (pun intended) is not fact. I would just like to add these thoughts to the subject.
Can we agree that there is "fake gospel"? Gospel is news, good news, factual news. But, have not many perverted the Gospel and turned it into fake Gospel?
Can we agree that "Evolution" is "fake science" or "science falsely so called"? (I Tim. 6: 20 kjv) Does the Bible not teach Devolution rather than Evolution? Are archaeologists not uncovering new evidences today, in addition to megalithic structures like the Great Pyramid, that show that the world in the distant past had as great, or greater, scientific and technical knowledge as it does today?
Can we agree that history books are filled with "fake history"? "Revisionist histories"?
Can we agree that there is "fake gospel"? Gospel is news, good news, factual news. But, have not many perverted the Gospel and turned it into fake Gospel?
Can we agree that "Evolution" is "fake science" or "science falsely so called"? (I Tim. 6: 20 kjv) Does the Bible not teach Devolution rather than Evolution? Are archaeologists not uncovering new evidences today, in addition to megalithic structures like the Great Pyramid, that show that the world in the distant past had as great, or greater, scientific and technical knowledge as it does today?
Can we agree that history books are filled with "fake history"? "Revisionist histories"?
Jan 22, 2017
World Prosperity or Economic Collapse?
"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." (I Thess. 5:1-3 kjv)
Many prophets of the Apocalypse and Parousia of Christ often speak of "the coming economic collapse" as the impetus for the rise of antichrist and the judgments of the Book of Revelation. However, instead of first seeing worldwide economic collapse and civil war, as preludes to antichrist and the apocalypse, we should rather see worldwide economic prosperity, as well as peace and safety, just prior to and during the first part of the career of antichrist, and just prior to the seals, trumpets, and viols of the Apocalypse, or "the great tribulation." In a nutshell, these are the reasons.
1. In the Bible and in history the fall and destruction of the greatest civilizations were always preceded by their having reached their zenith in wealth and luxurious living while at the same time reaching their greatest depth in iniquity. Think of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, etc.
2. The "signs" or omens of the impending judgment of God as given in Scripture all show that the world will be greatly prospering and in peace and general safety when the judgment of God begins to fall upon it.
The opening verses certainly teach the fact that the world will be safe and prosperous immediately prior to the commencement of the judgment of God upon it. Other verses indicate the same.
The conclusion of the matter? If we are indeed within years of the commencement of the Apocalypse, then we will see the world continue to prosper and enjoy relative, yet fragile, peace. I believe that the next few years, leading up to "the time of the end," will be prosperous indeed. Technology will be one of the ways and means that it will be brought about.
Many prophets of the Apocalypse and Parousia of Christ often speak of "the coming economic collapse" as the impetus for the rise of antichrist and the judgments of the Book of Revelation. However, instead of first seeing worldwide economic collapse and civil war, as preludes to antichrist and the apocalypse, we should rather see worldwide economic prosperity, as well as peace and safety, just prior to and during the first part of the career of antichrist, and just prior to the seals, trumpets, and viols of the Apocalypse, or "the great tribulation." In a nutshell, these are the reasons.
1. In the Bible and in history the fall and destruction of the greatest civilizations were always preceded by their having reached their zenith in wealth and luxurious living while at the same time reaching their greatest depth in iniquity. Think of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, etc.
2. The "signs" or omens of the impending judgment of God as given in Scripture all show that the world will be greatly prospering and in peace and general safety when the judgment of God begins to fall upon it.
The opening verses certainly teach the fact that the world will be safe and prosperous immediately prior to the commencement of the judgment of God upon it. Other verses indicate the same.
The conclusion of the matter? If we are indeed within years of the commencement of the Apocalypse, then we will see the world continue to prosper and enjoy relative, yet fragile, peace. I believe that the next few years, leading up to "the time of the end," will be prosperous indeed. Technology will be one of the ways and means that it will be brought about.
Jan 10, 2017
The Importance of the Book of Apocalypse
Wrote Dr. J. A. Seiss in his famous book "The Apocalypse" (emphasis mine):
THIS book of the Apocalypse is one of the most wonderful in the Sacred Scriptures. As the Bible among literature, so is this part of it among the inspired writings. Though it has had to fight its way in every age, and to struggle to maintain its place in the sacred canon, there is not another book in the volume of inspiration more strongly attested, or more fully authenticated. Its superscription, its historical statements, its catena of testimonies, and the nature of its contents, amply evidence its genuineness, and its divine original. Its imposing scenery, its grand similitudes, its pregnant maxims, its significant dialogues, its stirring exhortations, its glowing prayers, its evangelic songs, and its sublime doxologies, give to it all the majesty of the book of the mighty consummation, not of inspiration only, but of the grandest revealed plans and purposes of God. And if an inspired book at all, there is not another which so solemnly enforces itself upon the attention of the Churches, or that is compassed about with guards and penalties more explicit and severe. We must needs regard its author as an unaccountable boaster, if it is not the highest interest and duty of every earnest Christian to read and try to understand it, so as to take its momentous presentations in among the most settled and potent things by which to direct his way and fashion his expectations. (Comment upon Rev. 12: 1,2)
THIS book of the Apocalypse is one of the most wonderful in the Sacred Scriptures. As the Bible among literature, so is this part of it among the inspired writings. Though it has had to fight its way in every age, and to struggle to maintain its place in the sacred canon, there is not another book in the volume of inspiration more strongly attested, or more fully authenticated. Its superscription, its historical statements, its catena of testimonies, and the nature of its contents, amply evidence its genuineness, and its divine original. Its imposing scenery, its grand similitudes, its pregnant maxims, its significant dialogues, its stirring exhortations, its glowing prayers, its evangelic songs, and its sublime doxologies, give to it all the majesty of the book of the mighty consummation, not of inspiration only, but of the grandest revealed plans and purposes of God. And if an inspired book at all, there is not another which so solemnly enforces itself upon the attention of the Churches, or that is compassed about with guards and penalties more explicit and severe. We must needs regard its author as an unaccountable boaster, if it is not the highest interest and duty of every earnest Christian to read and try to understand it, so as to take its momentous presentations in among the most settled and potent things by which to direct his way and fashion his expectations. (Comment upon Rev. 12: 1,2)
Dec 6, 2016
A Word About My Hiatus
Just to let you know, I have taken time away from laboring in writing due to several reasons. One of those reasons has to do with health issues. I hope I can get back into my writings soon, especially the two series left undone, one due to father's death back in March. Those series (books) concern 1) "The Faith of God" and 2) "Waiting For The Huiothesia."
Keep me in your prayers. "The will of the Lord be done." I appreciate all those who have given words of encouragement to me over the years. God bless you all!
Keep me in your prayers. "The will of the Lord be done." I appreciate all those who have given words of encouragement to me over the years. God bless you all!
Oct 14, 2016
Waiting For The Huiothesia IX
Chapter IX - Teknon vs. Huios
In this chapter we will study the difference between "teknon" and "huios," two of the leading NT Greek terms used to denote those who are saved and members of the family of God. The reason for studying the NT meaning and usage of "huios" is because "huiothesia" has "huios" as the first part of the compound word. What does it mean to be a "son" of God, or to be "son" of something else, such as "sons of disobedience" and "sons of light"?
Huiothesia is "son" placement, not "child" placement. Further, huiothesia is not "son making" but "son placing." In this study we will see that often the word "teknon" refers to the beginning of spiritual life, to birth into the family of God, and to the infantile or novice state of the Christian in his spiritually begotten life. On the other hand, "huios" generally refers to the perfection of begotten life and person.
What have we affirmed thus far about "teknon" and "huios"? Simply these things:
1) "teknon" is distinct from "huios" and neither term is used loosely or interchangeably (as if they were practical synonyms), and
2) "teknon" means "child" while "huios" means "son," and translators, like the KJV, who oftentimes translate "huios" (singular or plural) as "child" or "children," and who translate "teknon" as "son," make a big mistake, and
3) "teknon" is never a term to denote adopted children, but the idea of being a begotten child is integral to the meaning, and
4) "huiothesia" involves being adult sons and not mere children, and denotes more than just being a male child, but often connotes maturity or final state of perfection.
In this chapter we will look deeper into the proper definition of "teknon" and "huios" by noticing how these terms are used in Scripture.
In an Internet article titled "The Difference between Teknon and Huios as used in the New Testament" (SEE HERE), there is this enlightening information about these two terms (STEM Publishing : Magazines : The Bible Treasury : Volume 12 - emphasis mine).
"The word teknon (from tikto to bear) is used for "child," irrespective of sex, as descended by birth from its natural parents. (See Matt. ii. 18.) Whilst huios, "son," is the word used to distinguish a male from a female child (see Matt. x. 37), it is also used in a general sense to denote descendants as representing the family or line of the particular person. (John iv. 12.) When we look into scripture to find the use of these words, in reference to the relationship of a believer to God, we remark that the word huios — son — is the word always used in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and teknon does not occur in the book, whilst in the Gospels and Epistles of John teknon (child) is used to express that relationship with only one exception, which will be referred to hereafter. The word huios occurs frequently in John, as applying to Christ, or in the simple sense of male child, or descendant, (and once in John xvii. 12, son of perdition), never (save in John xii. 36, the exception referred to), in allusion to a believer's relationship to God."
Who can deny, in the face of these few facts, that "huios" and "teknon" are not synonyms? Yet, as shown previously, the KJV translators often viewed them as such, translating "huios" as "children" many times, because they thought that often, in most contexts, it was used as a synonym for "teknon." Thus, the reader of the KJV must either accept that view, or else get an interlinear Greek-English bible and see where the KJV gives "children" as the translation of "huios." The KJV also erred in translating "huios" many times as "children." Thankfully, the Revised Version uniformly translated "huios" as "son" and "teknon" as "children" except in the places where they translated "sons (huioi) of Israel" as "children of Israel." Further, though "son" may sometimes express simply a male child, it is not generally used with this simple definition in the NT, but is used to denote that which is "like" something else.
In the article just cited, the author continues, saying:
"Hence we find, as we might expect, that John uses the word teknon — child — expressive of a being deriving its life and nature from another, as children do from their parents, whilst in Hebrews we have huios — son — expressive of the distinctive position and dignity which a son has in a household. The former word "teknon" carries with it more thought of internal intimacy, moral characteristics, community of life and nature, whilst the latter word "huios" directs the mind to a position given or recognised and the dignities resulting from it. A "child" delights in the intimacy and affection of the family, a "son" may have to submit to parental authority (Heb. xii.), but will be displayed in manifested glory. (Heb. ii. 10.) If we turn to Romans viii. 19, 21, we find this very distinction carefully brought out, as we read of the "liberty of the children of God," on the one hand, and on the other the "manifestation of the sons of God."
As stated before, the word "teknon" cannot refer to an adopted child but only to one who has been born a child, one who derives his life and nature from his parents. On the other hand "huios" is connected in thought, connotatively, with adult status, as the article above affirms. Both words involve the idea of "likeness." However, the likeness of new born children to their parents is not complete. The likeness that comes from imitation and growth, following childhood, is towards full likeness, or to a perfect image. On this most important point more will be said in this and the next chapter.
Our article continues:
In further development of this, we shall find a distinction made between that which morally characterises 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."
To those commentators and translators who see no reason for the Apostle's use of "children" (tekna) and "sons" (huioi) in Ephesians 2:3, they will follow the KJV in translating "sons (huioi) of disobedience" (which most modern translations now correctly give) to "children of disobedience." The KJV translators obviously saw no distinction between "teknon" and "huios" in the passage for they translate both words as "children." But, doing so blurs the clear distinction in the terms and how they are used by Paul in the passage and in other places in the NT. The KJV did the same thing with other words, such as "aion" and "cosmos," which are both often translated by the singular word "world." Yet, all later English translations will correctly translate "aion" as "age" and "kosmos" as "world."
The reason why people are "children" (tekna - plural of teknon) is because of their being born such as the Apostle confirms by saying "and were by nature (birth) children of wrath." But, the reason why these same children are "sons of disobedience" is because of their years spent in immoral practice, because of their reaching a kind of maturity in their state of sin, and also to denote external likeness to that which fathered them. Men are born into sin, and are the offspring of "wrath," children in understanding of evil, but they soon grow up and soon become "sons" and adult in their lawless behavior.
The article continues:
"Again in Romans viii. 16, where the purely internal action of the Spirit (testifying to our spirit) is spoken of, the words tekna Theou children of God, is used, but in verse 1-4, where the leading of the Spirit is in question, but may he displayed externally, we find huioi Theou — sons of God, in Romans ix. 20. It is clear from the context that the question is of positional relationship owned by God, and so, as we should expect, it is "sons" and not "children" as in our version.
This is correct as we will further see as we examine the context of Romans 8 in greater detail in the next section of this book. The point is this: Romans eight makes a clear distinction between being a child (teknon) and being a son (huios) and to see it helps explain what is meant by "son placing." The idea that Paul used "children (tekna) of God" as synonymous with "sons (huioi) of God" is assumption.
The article continues:
"By observing the distinction between the words we shall find a connection in passages, which does not appear to exist as they are now translated. For instance, in Galatians iii. 26 the Greek is, "For ye are all SONS of God, through faith in Christ Jesus," and we see at once how beautifully Galatians iv. 6 is connected with it, "And because ye are SONS, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba Father."
Besides Romans chapter eight, where "huiothesia" is used twice, Galatians four, where it is used once, are the only two places left to examine. When we examine Galatians 4 and the above passage in question, it will become obvious that "teknon" is distinct from "huios." But, more on that later.
Our worthy author continues:
"It is scarcely necessary to add that the same person may be, and the believer of course is, both "child" and "son;" but the comparison of such passages, for instance as John i. 12, and Galatians iii. 26, where the Greek gives "children" in the first, and "sons" in the second, enables us to appreciate the value of the precious distinction which the Holy Ghost has marked by the use of the different words, and surely it is a loss to us when we do not apprehend what He has pointed out. It is not necessary to trace out here all the passages where the words are used, but we shall find that, although in some cases the exact distinction may not be easily seen or of great importance, we shall always be helped in our understanding of scripture by noting where the difference exists."
But, this is exactly what was denied by the KJV translators. Yet, as we have seen, and will see yet further, there is such a distinction and the failure to see it does not help in interpreting the text.
Argument of the Deniers of Distinction
Wrote our author:
"In John xii. 36 (the exception referred to) we find the expression "sons of light," and on examination of the context, we find that the Lord urged on those whom He addressed to have faith in the light that they might become (that is, get into the position of) "sons of light." In Ephesians 5:8 we find almost the converse of this, where the apostle exhorts them to display in walk the moral characteristics which were theirs already as "children of light.""
"Contemporary scholars conclude that “Paul…does not distinguish between child and son.” This conclusion is based, in part, upon parallel statements."
The argument that "teknon" and "huios" signify the same thing is based upon the fact that "the children (teknon) of God" is similar to "sons (huios) of God" seem to signify the same thing in Scripture is no argument at all. The argument fails to distinguish between the genus and the difference. Further, as we will see, some passages clearly make a distinction. Certainly all those who are sons of light are also children of light.
The article continues:
"For example, in Galatians, Paul writes “you are…a son; and if a son, an heir also through God.”(Gal. 4:7). But Romans says, “if children, heirs also; on the one hand, heirs of God…” (Rom. 8:17a). The two phrases, “If a son, then an heir” and “if children, then heirs,” are equivalent. “Child” and “son” are used in analogous statements."
But, this is a weak argument and though the two parallel expressions may seem to denote the same thing in some passages, yet this does not prove that there is no clear distinction. Further, some passages, as in the case of the Galatians passage, do clearly make a distinction, as we will see.
And, notice these comments:
"As a further example, Romans 8 tells us “creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God.” (8:19). This event is also called “the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” (8:21). Again “sons of God” and “children of God” are used interchangeably."
But, again, we will see that Paul in Romans 8 makes a clear distinction between children and sons of God and did not use the different expressions "interchangeably."
In this chapter we will study the difference between "teknon" and "huios," two of the leading NT Greek terms used to denote those who are saved and members of the family of God. The reason for studying the NT meaning and usage of "huios" is because "huiothesia" has "huios" as the first part of the compound word. What does it mean to be a "son" of God, or to be "son" of something else, such as "sons of disobedience" and "sons of light"?
Huiothesia is "son" placement, not "child" placement. Further, huiothesia is not "son making" but "son placing." In this study we will see that often the word "teknon" refers to the beginning of spiritual life, to birth into the family of God, and to the infantile or novice state of the Christian in his spiritually begotten life. On the other hand, "huios" generally refers to the perfection of begotten life and person.
What have we affirmed thus far about "teknon" and "huios"? Simply these things:
1) "teknon" is distinct from "huios" and neither term is used loosely or interchangeably (as if they were practical synonyms), and
2) "teknon" means "child" while "huios" means "son," and translators, like the KJV, who oftentimes translate "huios" (singular or plural) as "child" or "children," and who translate "teknon" as "son," make a big mistake, and
3) "teknon" is never a term to denote adopted children, but the idea of being a begotten child is integral to the meaning, and
4) "huiothesia" involves being adult sons and not mere children, and denotes more than just being a male child, but often connotes maturity or final state of perfection.
In this chapter we will look deeper into the proper definition of "teknon" and "huios" by noticing how these terms are used in Scripture.
In an Internet article titled "The Difference between Teknon and Huios as used in the New Testament" (SEE HERE), there is this enlightening information about these two terms (STEM Publishing : Magazines : The Bible Treasury : Volume 12 - emphasis mine).
"The word teknon (from tikto to bear) is used for "child," irrespective of sex, as descended by birth from its natural parents. (See Matt. ii. 18.) Whilst huios, "son," is the word used to distinguish a male from a female child (see Matt. x. 37), it is also used in a general sense to denote descendants as representing the family or line of the particular person. (John iv. 12.) When we look into scripture to find the use of these words, in reference to the relationship of a believer to God, we remark that the word huios — son — is the word always used in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and teknon does not occur in the book, whilst in the Gospels and Epistles of John teknon (child) is used to express that relationship with only one exception, which will be referred to hereafter. The word huios occurs frequently in John, as applying to Christ, or in the simple sense of male child, or descendant, (and once in John xvii. 12, son of perdition), never (save in John xii. 36, the exception referred to), in allusion to a believer's relationship to God."
Who can deny, in the face of these few facts, that "huios" and "teknon" are not synonyms? Yet, as shown previously, the KJV translators often viewed them as such, translating "huios" as "children" many times, because they thought that often, in most contexts, it was used as a synonym for "teknon." Thus, the reader of the KJV must either accept that view, or else get an interlinear Greek-English bible and see where the KJV gives "children" as the translation of "huios." The KJV also erred in translating "huios" many times as "children." Thankfully, the Revised Version uniformly translated "huios" as "son" and "teknon" as "children" except in the places where they translated "sons (huioi) of Israel" as "children of Israel." Further, though "son" may sometimes express simply a male child, it is not generally used with this simple definition in the NT, but is used to denote that which is "like" something else.
In the article just cited, the author continues, saying:
"Hence we find, as we might expect, that John uses the word teknon — child — expressive of a being deriving its life and nature from another, as children do from their parents, whilst in Hebrews we have huios — son — expressive of the distinctive position and dignity which a son has in a household. The former word "teknon" carries with it more thought of internal intimacy, moral characteristics, community of life and nature, whilst the latter word "huios" directs the mind to a position given or recognised and the dignities resulting from it. A "child" delights in the intimacy and affection of the family, a "son" may have to submit to parental authority (Heb. xii.), but will be displayed in manifested glory. (Heb. ii. 10.) If we turn to Romans viii. 19, 21, we find this very distinction carefully brought out, as we read of the "liberty of the children of God," on the one hand, and on the other the "manifestation of the sons of God."
As stated before, the word "teknon" cannot refer to an adopted child but only to one who has been born a child, one who derives his life and nature from his parents. On the other hand "huios" is connected in thought, connotatively, with adult status, as the article above affirms. Both words involve the idea of "likeness." However, the likeness of new born children to their parents is not complete. The likeness that comes from imitation and growth, following childhood, is towards full likeness, or to a perfect image. On this most important point more will be said in this and the next chapter.
Our article continues:
In further development of this, we shall find a distinction made between that which morally characterises 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."
To those commentators and translators who see no reason for the Apostle's use of "children" (tekna) and "sons" (huioi) in Ephesians 2:3, they will follow the KJV in translating "sons (huioi) of disobedience" (which most modern translations now correctly give) to "children of disobedience." The KJV translators obviously saw no distinction between "teknon" and "huios" in the passage for they translate both words as "children." But, doing so blurs the clear distinction in the terms and how they are used by Paul in the passage and in other places in the NT. The KJV did the same thing with other words, such as "aion" and "cosmos," which are both often translated by the singular word "world." Yet, all later English translations will correctly translate "aion" as "age" and "kosmos" as "world."
The reason why people are "children" (tekna - plural of teknon) is because of their being born such as the Apostle confirms by saying "and were by nature (birth) children of wrath." But, the reason why these same children are "sons of disobedience" is because of their years spent in immoral practice, because of their reaching a kind of maturity in their state of sin, and also to denote external likeness to that which fathered them. Men are born into sin, and are the offspring of "wrath," children in understanding of evil, but they soon grow up and soon become "sons" and adult in their lawless behavior.
The article continues:
"Again in Romans viii. 16, where the purely internal action of the Spirit (testifying to our spirit) is spoken of, the words tekna Theou children of God, is used, but in verse 1-4, where the leading of the Spirit is in question, but may he displayed externally, we find huioi Theou — sons of God, in Romans ix. 20. It is clear from the context that the question is of positional relationship owned by God, and so, as we should expect, it is "sons" and not "children" as in our version.
This is correct as we will further see as we examine the context of Romans 8 in greater detail in the next section of this book. The point is this: Romans eight makes a clear distinction between being a child (teknon) and being a son (huios) and to see it helps explain what is meant by "son placing." The idea that Paul used "children (tekna) of God" as synonymous with "sons (huioi) of God" is assumption.
The article continues:
"By observing the distinction between the words we shall find a connection in passages, which does not appear to exist as they are now translated. For instance, in Galatians iii. 26 the Greek is, "For ye are all SONS of God, through faith in Christ Jesus," and we see at once how beautifully Galatians iv. 6 is connected with it, "And because ye are SONS, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba Father."
Besides Romans chapter eight, where "huiothesia" is used twice, Galatians four, where it is used once, are the only two places left to examine. When we examine Galatians 4 and the above passage in question, it will become obvious that "teknon" is distinct from "huios." But, more on that later.
Our worthy author continues:
"It is scarcely necessary to add that the same person may be, and the believer of course is, both "child" and "son;" but the comparison of such passages, for instance as John i. 12, and Galatians iii. 26, where the Greek gives "children" in the first, and "sons" in the second, enables us to appreciate the value of the precious distinction which the Holy Ghost has marked by the use of the different words, and surely it is a loss to us when we do not apprehend what He has pointed out. It is not necessary to trace out here all the passages where the words are used, but we shall find that, although in some cases the exact distinction may not be easily seen or of great importance, we shall always be helped in our understanding of scripture by noting where the difference exists."
But, this is exactly what was denied by the KJV translators. Yet, as we have seen, and will see yet further, there is such a distinction and the failure to see it does not help in interpreting the text.
Argument of the Deniers of Distinction
Wrote our author:
"In John xii. 36 (the exception referred to) we find the expression "sons of light," and on examination of the context, we find that the Lord urged on those whom He addressed to have faith in the light that they might become (that is, get into the position of) "sons of light." In Ephesians 5:8 we find almost the converse of this, where the apostle exhorts them to display in walk the moral characteristics which were theirs already as "children of light.""
"Contemporary scholars conclude that “Paul…does not distinguish between child and son.” This conclusion is based, in part, upon parallel statements."
The argument that "teknon" and "huios" signify the same thing is based upon the fact that "the children (teknon) of God" is similar to "sons (huios) of God" seem to signify the same thing in Scripture is no argument at all. The argument fails to distinguish between the genus and the difference. Further, as we will see, some passages clearly make a distinction. Certainly all those who are sons of light are also children of light.
The article continues:
"For example, in Galatians, Paul writes “you are…a son; and if a son, an heir also through God.”(Gal. 4:7). But Romans says, “if children, heirs also; on the one hand, heirs of God…” (Rom. 8:17a). The two phrases, “If a son, then an heir” and “if children, then heirs,” are equivalent. “Child” and “son” are used in analogous statements."
But, this is a weak argument and though the two parallel expressions may seem to denote the same thing in some passages, yet this does not prove that there is no clear distinction. Further, some passages, as in the case of the Galatians passage, do clearly make a distinction, as we will see.
And, notice these comments:
"As a further example, Romans 8 tells us “creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God.” (8:19). This event is also called “the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” (8:21). Again “sons of God” and “children of God” are used interchangeably."
But, again, we will see that Paul in Romans 8 makes a clear distinction between children and sons of God and did not use the different expressions "interchangeably."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)