Here is what I am looking for in the near future as relates to end time prophetic events. I believe that they will occur regardless of who is elected U.S. president, but I do believe they will come to pass more quickly under Trump.
1. Trade War (short lived)
2. One World Currency & Banking System
3. Creation of Ten Trade Zones with its rulers
4. Trade Between Nations UN Regulated
5. Middle East Peace Agreement
6. Rebuilding of Babylon as Commercial Center
7. Worldwide Prosperity with Peace and Safety
8. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Aug 26, 2016
Aug 23, 2016
Born Again by Faith - Keach
The great particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, was not such a kind of "Calvinist" as we have today where the idea of being born again by faith is rejected, and in its place is put the "born again before faith" idea. In this citation from Keach, we see that though he was a Calvinist, yet he taught, like Abraham Booth, that men are begotten by faith. He wrote:
"The Saints by their being begotten of God, through faith, in a mystical sort, are partakers of the divine nature." (SEE HERE)
I wish today's non Calvinists would quit saying that "Calvinists" believe men are "born again before faith." Such citations from men like Keach should teach them that not all Calvinists teach the born again before faith error, as do the Hyper leaning Calvinists.
"The Saints by their being begotten of God, through faith, in a mystical sort, are partakers of the divine nature." (SEE HERE)
I wish today's non Calvinists would quit saying that "Calvinists" believe men are "born again before faith." Such citations from men like Keach should teach them that not all Calvinists teach the born again before faith error, as do the Hyper leaning Calvinists.
Aug 16, 2016
Waiting For The Huiothesia V
Chapter Five - Defects in the Adoption Model
In this chapter a closer look at the adoption model will be given with the purpose of showing the severe defects in the model and how it is against Scripture. Most of the defects come in the form of contradictions arising from reconciling the model with the biblical model of birth, of which much has been said already. Other defects involve its opposition to other aspects of salvation and redemption.
In giving further scrutiny to this widely accepted model of child making by adoption, as applied to the way God makes his children, it has already been demonstrated that the birth model makes the adoption model unnecessary, and to insist on both being models calls for one to hold to a contradiction and to an absurdity.
In the previous chapter it was shown how the Scriptures of the OT were clear in calling Israel the Lord's "begotten son." This not only logically excludes the idea of "adoption" but accounts for it's absence in the OT as the explanation given by the Lord for calling people his children or sons. In addition to the verses cited in the previous chapter about Israel being God's offspring by a birth, notice these words of the prophet Isaiah.
"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him." (Isaiah 51: 1-2)
What kind of "father" was either the Lord or Abraham to Israel? An adopted father or birth father? Though the word "begat" is not used in this passage, yet it is implied. Being "hewn" from the quarry is a metaphor for being sired by Abraham, as coming from his seed. Sarah's womb is compared to the pit from whence the hewn stone would be shaped. No where is adoption given as the reason for the Israelites being the children or sons of God. Of course, like in the NT, being "the seed of Abraham" is intimately connected with being "the children of God." In Galatians Paul said:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (3:16,29)
Those who are, truly in God's eyes, of "the seed of Abraham," are indeed the real "children" or offspring of God. But, what is it that makes one of this "seed"? If looked at from the standpoint of the physical seed, all who came "from" Abraham were of his seed, and none were his seed by adoption. It is also true in regard to those who are of that seed by virtue of their union to Christ, who is superlatively "the seed." Thus, as will be shown, believers, though ethnically Gentiles, are the real "seed of Abraham" or true "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16), the spiritual children of God. Paul plainly says about those who are merely of the physical seed of Abraham - "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom. 9:8)
But, in either case, whether we are talking about the physical seed of Abraham, or the spiritual seed, we are still talking about people who are connected with Abraham by virtue of a birth, and not by adoption. The very idea that a Hebrew, or NT writer, would refer to adopted children as being the "seed" of a father is totally without foundation. Not only is it true that OT Israelites were so by birth, and not by adoption, but it is also true of NT believers.
Christians are Born and Not Adopted
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11-13)
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:3-8)
Paul spoke of souls begin "begotten" by his preaching the Gospel (I Cor. 5: 15). Peter spoke of "being born again by the word of God" (I Peter 1: 23). James spoke of God who, of his own will, "begat us with the word of truth" (James 1:18) But, where is it ever said that Christians were adopted? As said in the Introduction, if the five verses that have "adoption" had been translated correctly, no one would ever think that Christians were God's children in any way other than by a birth. It is clear also that the NT writers referred to believers, either Jew or Gentile, as being the children and sons of God because of this spiritual birth and never as a result of a Roman style adoption procedure.
The Lord Rejected the Adoption Method
"After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:1-6)
This text is important in the debate about adoption and about how one becomes the child, son, or heir of a man, in the time of Abraham. Abraham has been promised a "seed," children, and especially a "son." This seed would become innumerable. Abraham's first understanding of God's promise was correct. God would give him a seed, an offspring, an heir, one who would "come forth out of thine own bowels." Yet, Abraham, with his age and that of Sarah, brings him to question the promise. Perhaps he has misinterpreted the prophecy. Maybe God will make an heir for Abraham by adoption, he thinks. But, this was not his first understanding of how God would give him a male heir. The adoption method was "plan B" in his mind. After all, it seems that adoption of a servant to be the male heir was a Mesopotamian custom. Following then the heathen custom of the day, he suggests that perhaps LORD God ought to adopt his “steward, this "Eliezer of Damascus,” to make him his legal “heir.” However, God rejects this plan and promises that Abraham will have a child “out of thine own bowels” (i.e., by being physically procreated). The Lord’s rejection of Abraham’s solution preceded God’s reiterated promise of innumerable descendants.
God says in this narrative - "An adopted child will not be your heir" and "your child will be your child by birth and not by adoption."
This ought to warn us about making adoption to be the vehicle for God acquiring children and of them becoming heirs, and about trying to make birth and adoption to be complimentary models. The Lord is not only strong in affirming that the heir to the Abrahamic promises will be made so by procreation, but also in denying that it is by adoption. Yet, in spite of this, commentators will continue to speak of both models as necessary to explain how people become the children of God. Just as adopted children were rejected from being the physical seed of Abraham, the seed being restricted to those born of the flesh, so the spiritual seed also are not adopted children, but those who are so by a new birth of the Spirit.
Does God Need To Adopt?
To speak after the manner of men, is God sterile? Is it because he cannot have children (again speaking carnally)? Is it because he is childless and must need adopt? This is the reason for most adoptions, among men historically, especially among the Greeks and Romans. It is because a man has no male heir, one of his seed, that he must therefore adopt. This is important, because all scholars know that if "adoption" be the correct rendering of "huiothesia," then it must be either a Greek or Roman model that is being used. Those who use a later English model have no authority to do so, for modern English adoption is unlike Greek or Roman in purpose and procedure. Knowing this, we must conclude that God is adopting children because he cannot have any of his own. This is one wholly untenable and yet a logical result arising from making Greco-Roman adoption the model for how and why God acquires children.
Someone might respond by saying - "Of course God is not sterile. He only chooses to adopt because he wants more children than birthed children, like many today." But, there are several things wrong with this reply and reveals much about how people can hold on to a false idea no matter what the logical consequences.
If you listen to the teaching of most commentators, then you will come away thinking that God is sterile, because, as we have seen, the reason why Greek and Roman men adopted males to be heirs was because they had none of their own, nearly always resulting from infertility. These are theological consequences of the view that says that God adopted Israel to be his son, and says that Christians likewise have been adopted into the family of God, all after the Roman or Greek fashion.
Further, the way adoption is explained today, it is God who adopts because it is his way of caring for orphans, and people are encouraged to imitate him in this and adopt orphans. He adopts for the benefit of the orphan. But, Greek and Roman adoption was not for the purpose of helping orphans, nor for the chief good of the one adopted, but rather for the greater good of the childless man. If this be a model for Christian theology, then God not only is represented as sterile and childless, but also as adopting chiefly for his own good.
In "The Law of Adoption" by John Francis Brosnan in the Columbia Law Review (Vol. 22, No. 4, Apr., 1922, pp. 332-342 - SEE HERE - emphasis mine), we read:
"Roman law is the unquestioned source of our adoption statutes of to-day. It is, therefore, of interest to consider, although briefly, the place and development of adoption under that system of jurisprudence.
Its purpose was to create artificially the parental power for the benefit of a head of a family over a person not subject thereto by birth. It was designed to avoid the extinction of the family and to perpetuate the rites of family religious worship, so that it was frequently resorted to and became extremely important."
If in Roman adoption the father, or paterfamilias. is a type of God as father, then it fails miserably. Is the Roman father, in his purpose and procedure in acquiring sons and heirs a picture of God doing the same? Who can believe it? Yet, if the Roman system of adoption be the model put forth by Paul to illustrate God's adoption of sons and heirs, we have many problems, as is being shown. By the Roman model one must view God as adopting children because either 1) he has none of his own, or 2) because his own biological sons are rejected as not being worthy to be heir.
Trevor Burke wrote the following in "Pauline Adoption: a Sociological Approach" (emphasis mine - SEE HERE):
"Given the fundamental importance of the family to Roman society, adoption was a lifeline 'for a family in danger of dying out' . This was usually due to a paterfamilias (head of the household) being unable to have children of his own, or because his own children had failed to live to adulthood, and so, in order that he might have an heir, recourse was made to adopting a son from another family...where childlessness is one of the main reasons for embarking on such a course, The Roman conception of adoption was rooted in the old religious basis of the Roman family where each family had its own cult or sacra ('sacred things'). It was paramount that the family worship should continue and where this was threatened, or in doubt, due to a lack of persons to carry it on, adoption was called into practice. Again, unlike society today where children are adopted, the normal subjects of adoption in the Roman world were already adults, by which time the chances of survival were greater and the adopting father could see what he was getting as a son and heir."
Does God adopt for the reason that Roman men did? Was it a "lifeline for a family in danger of dying out"? Who can believe that this would be a reason for God to adopt! Does God adopt because he is "unable to have children of his own"? Does he adopt because some of his biological sons are unworthy? Does God adopt adults or children?
Consider also the fact that in Roman adoptions, the male chosen to be adopted, slave or near kin, had choice whether to be adopted or not. This is because the purpose of Roman adoption, to acquire a male heir, nearly always excluded babies or small children, as noted. "Sons" were adopted, that is, adolescents or young mature men. These men had to agree to the adoption. Yet, in modern adoptions, not only is the purpose generally not to acquire a male heir, but the age of the adoptee is different, for today adoption is rarely of young men, it nearly always being adoption of babies or very small children, whose consent is not required. Clearly, whether we choose an adoption model where the choice of the adoptee is involved, or not, each model has its consequences theologically.
The Eternal Family & Son
God has never been childless or without an heir. Just as the first person in the Trinity is styled the "Father," and has ever been so, likewise the second person has always been styled the "Son," and this has ever been so. Likewise, the Spirit is the third member of this divine family.
Christ is "the Son of God" and "the only begotten of the Father," and this by birth and not by adoption. This begetting of "the Son of God" is an immanent act of God, eternal and without beginning. As long as God has been "Father" he has also been "Son" and "Spirit." So, it is not proper to say that God adopts children from among men because he is childless or without a male heir.
"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water." (Prov. 8:22-24)
The Son of God was "brought forth" in eternity past. His sonship is without beginning. It was the Father, Son (or Word) and Spirit that said "let us make man in our image after our likeness."
Not only will the purpose of Greek or Roman adoption, or of that adoption suggested by Abraham, not serve as a model for why God is "father" to his children, but it will not picture how he actually makes or produces children, as has been shown. Certainly God does not adopt because he wants more children than he is able to produce, the reason for many modern adoptions, nor because he is sterile or unable to produce children, nor because he lacks an heir.
God was not creating a totally new family by begetting children from among fallen men. As shown, there is the eternal family of Father, Son, and Spirit. Those who are "born of God" are they who become new members of the eternal family. Not that they ever become members of the Trinity or become God, but are created children, who are not so from eternity. Angels are, in the OT, called "sons of God," and this is due to them being created as such. So, likewise, Christians are "sons of God" by a new creation.
Romans Adopted Their Own Kin
Considering that the main purpose of Roman adoption was the preservation of the family clan or cult, only males were chosen. Generally heirless Roman men looked within their own extended family for a suitable man to adopt as son and heir. If a worthy man was not found there, one could be taken from among the slave population and made an heir. Caesar adopted his great-nephew Octavius. Actually, many Roman emperors adopted their successors. Adopting nephews was very common.
Now, if all this be a picture of how God supposedly adopts men and makes them heirs, then does he not look first to his own kin? If he does have begotten children, yet he adopts, is it because his own children have proved unworthy?
At this point, by way of introduction, mention must be made about the fact that Romans "adopted" or "son placed" their own biological sons in the Toga ceremony. But, that will be addressed in coming chapters.
I am sure that it has by now become quite obvious that the theological consequences for arguing for a doctrine of adoption to explain the manner in which people become children of God, and enter into his family, is quite untenable.
Wrote Dr. John MacArthur in "Marks of a Child Adopted by God" (See Here - emphasis mine):
"The theme of these three verses then clearly is our being adopted as sons of God. One of the most beautiful and rich theological concepts of the Scripture is this theme of adoption. In fact the very word is filled with grace and mercy and love. Adoption by definition refers to a legal action by which a person takes into his family a child not his own and usually not even related to him for the purpose of treating him as and giving him all the privileges of his own child. That's adoption, a legal action by which we take someone who is not a part of our family in to grant them all the privileges of being our true child."
One should be able to see the several errors in Dr. MacArthur's words. First, is it so that Christians, by adoption, are not God's own children, as MacArthur affirms? MacArthur, like Piper and others, argue that God will later, after adoption, make those "not his own," to become his own children by the new birth, but, as observed in the previous chapters, this is fraught with all kinds of difficulties. One wonders what a later spiritual birth does for the adopted person?
MacArthur again wrote:
"In the first century, you will be happy to know this, in the first century when Paul was writing this adopted children were in many cases more honored than natural children. That's right. In many cases, in all cases it was seen as an act of honor to be adopted. And to be able to say in a world of illegitimate children and in a world of orphaned children I was chosen by someone. I wasn't just born into a family and you got what you got; I was chosen. Being adopted was a noble thing. An adopted son was deliberately chosen by the adopting father to perpetuate that father's name and to inherit that father's estate. And when a father in the Greek world didn't have a son he would go find the noblest available son and adopt him and give him all the rights and privileges. He was in no way inferior; in fact he was chosen because he may be superior. There were many fathers who had sons but their sons didn't meet their qualifications to pass on the estate so they went out and found one that did. An adopted son may have well received the joy of his father...father's affection more than a naturally born son and he may well have reproduced his father's moral standards more perfectly than natural sons."
Notice how MacArthur exalts the idea of being God's adopted children over being his own children by birth. He says that the birth is inferior to the adoption because in the latter case the child is chosen for its worthiness, while the former is not the result of a choice. He said - "when a father in the Greek world didn't have a son he would go find the noblest available son and adopt him." Is that what MacArthur believes about election, that God chose the most worthy? The child thus feels more loved and more important by being adopted rather than by being born? It is ironic that MacArthur, a Calvinist who believes in the doctrine of unconditional election, could think that his model of God choosing to adopt children, based upon their worthiness, is consistent with that.
It is hard to believe that MacArthur could so belittle the "birth" of Christians into the family of God, in favor of his adoption model, by saying "I wasn't just born into a family"? No, I was both born and adopted, and the latter is so much more precious than the former! No, I was adopted, which means I was chosen, but to be born does not imply choice. Such false reasoning from one who ought to know better!
Surely MacArthur knows that God is in control of all things, and that his birthing of children is a result of choice? Does he believe that some of God's children are "accidental pregnancies," that happened not as a result of choice? Surely he believes that every child that he has ever sired was sired on purpose? But, more on that later.
Dr. MacArthur wrote further:
"And that's the whole point of biblical adoption, that we become children of God by sovereign, divine choice. We are the preferred choice of God. That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? On the basis of free and voluntary election God has chosen us to be adopted as His sons."
Again, he is arguing for a Pelagian or Arminian view of election. God chooses on the basis of some qualitative difference or condition in the individual in a group. He says "we are the preferred choice of God," God choosing the fittest.
Dr. MacArthur wrote further:
"Throughout the New Testament you see this imagery over and over again that when you become a Christian you enter into the very family of God. You did nothing to earn it, you did nothing to deserve it, you did nothing to choose it,"
In speaking of adoption he said "throughout the New Testament you see this imagery over and over again," but, as shown already, the NT does not promote the idea of adoption "throughout," but rather teaches that people are designated as children and sons of God as a result of spiritual birth. But, men like Piper and MacArthur, think that being born of God does not do for us all that we need to make us his children, being deficient in that respect.
In these words he also contradicts what he said previously. He said that God chose the worthy to be his heir, but here he says that becoming God's child by adoption is something that a person did not do anything to earn. Then, he says, "you did nothing to choose it." But, he must be arguing from modern English adoption modes, which the Apostle knew nothing about, of course, for in Roman adoption the adoptee, as stated previously, had to approve of the adoption.
So, we see more of the fact that the birth model and the adoption model are not complimentary, but rather at odds. First, in the case of Roman adoption, the person chooses whether he wants to be the son of another. Yet, in birth, the child does not choose such. So, which is it?
Dr. MacArthur wrote further:
"Now, when we talk about salvation in the terms of adoption, I just want to put in a footnote here so you don't miss the full picture. That's just one view of salvation. You could talk about salvation with the term of justification, which is a different issue. It looks at salvation from the forensic side, from God declaring us righteous on the merits of Christ. You could look at salvation as regeneration, which looks at salvation as the new birth. You could look at salvation under the term “sanctification,” which means you're set apart from sin unto holiness. And you can look at salvation as adoption.Those are all facets of salvation. It's like one diamond with many facets; you can look at from many angles and see its beauty. We are regenerate, we are justified, we are sanctified, we have been converted and we have been adopted. So in one sense we are sons by adoption and we are also sons by birth. Right? Regeneration. You shouldn't be confused, you shouldn't say are we adopted or are we born? Both. Those are just images. Those are just magnificent ways to look at what happened to us. And I think the reason that the New Testament introduces adoption is because adoption was such a remarkably lofty thing. To say that you were born into the family of God might not be something very special but to say that out of all the world of people God Himself chose you and lifted you to the status of an heir and a joint heir with Jesus Christ to become His own son forever that says something unique."
Yes, there are "facets" to the diamond of soteriological truth. But, to argue that justification and sanctification are facets of salvation in the same way as are birth and adoption, fails to see how the one involves a contradiction while the other does not. It is not a contradiction to say one has both been justified and sanctified, yet it is a contradiction to say that one has been both adopted and born by the same parents. Further, he tries to cover up such contradictions by saying "those are just images," as if this meant that it is okay for such contradictions to exist. Also, he again reiterates the fact that birth alone is deficient, and requires adoption as an addition, with adoption being the more important facet. Again, he belittles the importance of being born a child.
Dr. MacArthur wrote further:
"That's why the issue of adoption, picture of adoption, is given for us in the New Testament, because it opens up and enriches us with this tremendous dimension of salvation."
With this, like Piper, MacArthur admits that the doctrine of adoption was not an OT teaching. In this admission, he gives up a large basis for his case being truth. NT teaching is based upon the OT. Further, as has been shown, the NT does not contradict the OT, for the NT also does not teach the doctrine of adoption.
In this chapter a closer look at the adoption model will be given with the purpose of showing the severe defects in the model and how it is against Scripture. Most of the defects come in the form of contradictions arising from reconciling the model with the biblical model of birth, of which much has been said already. Other defects involve its opposition to other aspects of salvation and redemption.
In giving further scrutiny to this widely accepted model of child making by adoption, as applied to the way God makes his children, it has already been demonstrated that the birth model makes the adoption model unnecessary, and to insist on both being models calls for one to hold to a contradiction and to an absurdity.
In the previous chapter it was shown how the Scriptures of the OT were clear in calling Israel the Lord's "begotten son." This not only logically excludes the idea of "adoption" but accounts for it's absence in the OT as the explanation given by the Lord for calling people his children or sons. In addition to the verses cited in the previous chapter about Israel being God's offspring by a birth, notice these words of the prophet Isaiah.
"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him." (Isaiah 51: 1-2)
What kind of "father" was either the Lord or Abraham to Israel? An adopted father or birth father? Though the word "begat" is not used in this passage, yet it is implied. Being "hewn" from the quarry is a metaphor for being sired by Abraham, as coming from his seed. Sarah's womb is compared to the pit from whence the hewn stone would be shaped. No where is adoption given as the reason for the Israelites being the children or sons of God. Of course, like in the NT, being "the seed of Abraham" is intimately connected with being "the children of God." In Galatians Paul said:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (3:16,29)
Those who are, truly in God's eyes, of "the seed of Abraham," are indeed the real "children" or offspring of God. But, what is it that makes one of this "seed"? If looked at from the standpoint of the physical seed, all who came "from" Abraham were of his seed, and none were his seed by adoption. It is also true in regard to those who are of that seed by virtue of their union to Christ, who is superlatively "the seed." Thus, as will be shown, believers, though ethnically Gentiles, are the real "seed of Abraham" or true "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16), the spiritual children of God. Paul plainly says about those who are merely of the physical seed of Abraham - "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom. 9:8)
But, in either case, whether we are talking about the physical seed of Abraham, or the spiritual seed, we are still talking about people who are connected with Abraham by virtue of a birth, and not by adoption. The very idea that a Hebrew, or NT writer, would refer to adopted children as being the "seed" of a father is totally without foundation. Not only is it true that OT Israelites were so by birth, and not by adoption, but it is also true of NT believers.
Christians are Born and Not Adopted
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11-13)
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:3-8)
Paul spoke of souls begin "begotten" by his preaching the Gospel (I Cor. 5: 15). Peter spoke of "being born again by the word of God" (I Peter 1: 23). James spoke of God who, of his own will, "begat us with the word of truth" (James 1:18) But, where is it ever said that Christians were adopted? As said in the Introduction, if the five verses that have "adoption" had been translated correctly, no one would ever think that Christians were God's children in any way other than by a birth. It is clear also that the NT writers referred to believers, either Jew or Gentile, as being the children and sons of God because of this spiritual birth and never as a result of a Roman style adoption procedure.
The Lord Rejected the Adoption Method
"After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:1-6)
This text is important in the debate about adoption and about how one becomes the child, son, or heir of a man, in the time of Abraham. Abraham has been promised a "seed," children, and especially a "son." This seed would become innumerable. Abraham's first understanding of God's promise was correct. God would give him a seed, an offspring, an heir, one who would "come forth out of thine own bowels." Yet, Abraham, with his age and that of Sarah, brings him to question the promise. Perhaps he has misinterpreted the prophecy. Maybe God will make an heir for Abraham by adoption, he thinks. But, this was not his first understanding of how God would give him a male heir. The adoption method was "plan B" in his mind. After all, it seems that adoption of a servant to be the male heir was a Mesopotamian custom. Following then the heathen custom of the day, he suggests that perhaps LORD God ought to adopt his “steward, this "Eliezer of Damascus,” to make him his legal “heir.” However, God rejects this plan and promises that Abraham will have a child “out of thine own bowels” (i.e., by being physically procreated). The Lord’s rejection of Abraham’s solution preceded God’s reiterated promise of innumerable descendants.
God says in this narrative - "An adopted child will not be your heir" and "your child will be your child by birth and not by adoption."
This ought to warn us about making adoption to be the vehicle for God acquiring children and of them becoming heirs, and about trying to make birth and adoption to be complimentary models. The Lord is not only strong in affirming that the heir to the Abrahamic promises will be made so by procreation, but also in denying that it is by adoption. Yet, in spite of this, commentators will continue to speak of both models as necessary to explain how people become the children of God. Just as adopted children were rejected from being the physical seed of Abraham, the seed being restricted to those born of the flesh, so the spiritual seed also are not adopted children, but those who are so by a new birth of the Spirit.
Does God Need To Adopt?
To speak after the manner of men, is God sterile? Is it because he cannot have children (again speaking carnally)? Is it because he is childless and must need adopt? This is the reason for most adoptions, among men historically, especially among the Greeks and Romans. It is because a man has no male heir, one of his seed, that he must therefore adopt. This is important, because all scholars know that if "adoption" be the correct rendering of "huiothesia," then it must be either a Greek or Roman model that is being used. Those who use a later English model have no authority to do so, for modern English adoption is unlike Greek or Roman in purpose and procedure. Knowing this, we must conclude that God is adopting children because he cannot have any of his own. This is one wholly untenable and yet a logical result arising from making Greco-Roman adoption the model for how and why God acquires children.
Someone might respond by saying - "Of course God is not sterile. He only chooses to adopt because he wants more children than birthed children, like many today." But, there are several things wrong with this reply and reveals much about how people can hold on to a false idea no matter what the logical consequences.
If you listen to the teaching of most commentators, then you will come away thinking that God is sterile, because, as we have seen, the reason why Greek and Roman men adopted males to be heirs was because they had none of their own, nearly always resulting from infertility. These are theological consequences of the view that says that God adopted Israel to be his son, and says that Christians likewise have been adopted into the family of God, all after the Roman or Greek fashion.
Further, the way adoption is explained today, it is God who adopts because it is his way of caring for orphans, and people are encouraged to imitate him in this and adopt orphans. He adopts for the benefit of the orphan. But, Greek and Roman adoption was not for the purpose of helping orphans, nor for the chief good of the one adopted, but rather for the greater good of the childless man. If this be a model for Christian theology, then God not only is represented as sterile and childless, but also as adopting chiefly for his own good.
In "The Law of Adoption" by John Francis Brosnan in the Columbia Law Review (Vol. 22, No. 4, Apr., 1922, pp. 332-342 - SEE HERE - emphasis mine), we read:
"Roman law is the unquestioned source of our adoption statutes of to-day. It is, therefore, of interest to consider, although briefly, the place and development of adoption under that system of jurisprudence.
Its purpose was to create artificially the parental power for the benefit of a head of a family over a person not subject thereto by birth. It was designed to avoid the extinction of the family and to perpetuate the rites of family religious worship, so that it was frequently resorted to and became extremely important."
If in Roman adoption the father, or paterfamilias. is a type of God as father, then it fails miserably. Is the Roman father, in his purpose and procedure in acquiring sons and heirs a picture of God doing the same? Who can believe it? Yet, if the Roman system of adoption be the model put forth by Paul to illustrate God's adoption of sons and heirs, we have many problems, as is being shown. By the Roman model one must view God as adopting children because either 1) he has none of his own, or 2) because his own biological sons are rejected as not being worthy to be heir.
Trevor Burke wrote the following in "Pauline Adoption: a Sociological Approach" (emphasis mine - SEE HERE):
"Given the fundamental importance of the family to Roman society, adoption was a lifeline 'for a family in danger of dying out' . This was usually due to a paterfamilias (head of the household) being unable to have children of his own, or because his own children had failed to live to adulthood, and so, in order that he might have an heir, recourse was made to adopting a son from another family...where childlessness is one of the main reasons for embarking on such a course, The Roman conception of adoption was rooted in the old religious basis of the Roman family where each family had its own cult or sacra ('sacred things'). It was paramount that the family worship should continue and where this was threatened, or in doubt, due to a lack of persons to carry it on, adoption was called into practice. Again, unlike society today where children are adopted, the normal subjects of adoption in the Roman world were already adults, by which time the chances of survival were greater and the adopting father could see what he was getting as a son and heir."
Does God adopt for the reason that Roman men did? Was it a "lifeline for a family in danger of dying out"? Who can believe that this would be a reason for God to adopt! Does God adopt because he is "unable to have children of his own"? Does he adopt because some of his biological sons are unworthy? Does God adopt adults or children?
Consider also the fact that in Roman adoptions, the male chosen to be adopted, slave or near kin, had choice whether to be adopted or not. This is because the purpose of Roman adoption, to acquire a male heir, nearly always excluded babies or small children, as noted. "Sons" were adopted, that is, adolescents or young mature men. These men had to agree to the adoption. Yet, in modern adoptions, not only is the purpose generally not to acquire a male heir, but the age of the adoptee is different, for today adoption is rarely of young men, it nearly always being adoption of babies or very small children, whose consent is not required. Clearly, whether we choose an adoption model where the choice of the adoptee is involved, or not, each model has its consequences theologically.
The Eternal Family & Son
God has never been childless or without an heir. Just as the first person in the Trinity is styled the "Father," and has ever been so, likewise the second person has always been styled the "Son," and this has ever been so. Likewise, the Spirit is the third member of this divine family.
Christ is "the Son of God" and "the only begotten of the Father," and this by birth and not by adoption. This begetting of "the Son of God" is an immanent act of God, eternal and without beginning. As long as God has been "Father" he has also been "Son" and "Spirit." So, it is not proper to say that God adopts children from among men because he is childless or without a male heir.
"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water." (Prov. 8:22-24)
The Son of God was "brought forth" in eternity past. His sonship is without beginning. It was the Father, Son (or Word) and Spirit that said "let us make man in our image after our likeness."
Not only will the purpose of Greek or Roman adoption, or of that adoption suggested by Abraham, not serve as a model for why God is "father" to his children, but it will not picture how he actually makes or produces children, as has been shown. Certainly God does not adopt because he wants more children than he is able to produce, the reason for many modern adoptions, nor because he is sterile or unable to produce children, nor because he lacks an heir.
God was not creating a totally new family by begetting children from among fallen men. As shown, there is the eternal family of Father, Son, and Spirit. Those who are "born of God" are they who become new members of the eternal family. Not that they ever become members of the Trinity or become God, but are created children, who are not so from eternity. Angels are, in the OT, called "sons of God," and this is due to them being created as such. So, likewise, Christians are "sons of God" by a new creation.
Romans Adopted Their Own Kin
Considering that the main purpose of Roman adoption was the preservation of the family clan or cult, only males were chosen. Generally heirless Roman men looked within their own extended family for a suitable man to adopt as son and heir. If a worthy man was not found there, one could be taken from among the slave population and made an heir. Caesar adopted his great-nephew Octavius. Actually, many Roman emperors adopted their successors. Adopting nephews was very common.
Now, if all this be a picture of how God supposedly adopts men and makes them heirs, then does he not look first to his own kin? If he does have begotten children, yet he adopts, is it because his own children have proved unworthy?
At this point, by way of introduction, mention must be made about the fact that Romans "adopted" or "son placed" their own biological sons in the Toga ceremony. But, that will be addressed in coming chapters.
I am sure that it has by now become quite obvious that the theological consequences for arguing for a doctrine of adoption to explain the manner in which people become children of God, and enter into his family, is quite untenable.
Wrote Dr. John MacArthur in "Marks of a Child Adopted by God" (See Here - emphasis mine):
"The theme of these three verses then clearly is our being adopted as sons of God. One of the most beautiful and rich theological concepts of the Scripture is this theme of adoption. In fact the very word is filled with grace and mercy and love. Adoption by definition refers to a legal action by which a person takes into his family a child not his own and usually not even related to him for the purpose of treating him as and giving him all the privileges of his own child. That's adoption, a legal action by which we take someone who is not a part of our family in to grant them all the privileges of being our true child."
One should be able to see the several errors in Dr. MacArthur's words. First, is it so that Christians, by adoption, are not God's own children, as MacArthur affirms? MacArthur, like Piper and others, argue that God will later, after adoption, make those "not his own," to become his own children by the new birth, but, as observed in the previous chapters, this is fraught with all kinds of difficulties. One wonders what a later spiritual birth does for the adopted person?
MacArthur again wrote:
"In the first century, you will be happy to know this, in the first century when Paul was writing this adopted children were in many cases more honored than natural children. That's right. In many cases, in all cases it was seen as an act of honor to be adopted. And to be able to say in a world of illegitimate children and in a world of orphaned children I was chosen by someone. I wasn't just born into a family and you got what you got; I was chosen. Being adopted was a noble thing. An adopted son was deliberately chosen by the adopting father to perpetuate that father's name and to inherit that father's estate. And when a father in the Greek world didn't have a son he would go find the noblest available son and adopt him and give him all the rights and privileges. He was in no way inferior; in fact he was chosen because he may be superior. There were many fathers who had sons but their sons didn't meet their qualifications to pass on the estate so they went out and found one that did. An adopted son may have well received the joy of his father...father's affection more than a naturally born son and he may well have reproduced his father's moral standards more perfectly than natural sons."
Notice how MacArthur exalts the idea of being God's adopted children over being his own children by birth. He says that the birth is inferior to the adoption because in the latter case the child is chosen for its worthiness, while the former is not the result of a choice. He said - "when a father in the Greek world didn't have a son he would go find the noblest available son and adopt him." Is that what MacArthur believes about election, that God chose the most worthy? The child thus feels more loved and more important by being adopted rather than by being born? It is ironic that MacArthur, a Calvinist who believes in the doctrine of unconditional election, could think that his model of God choosing to adopt children, based upon their worthiness, is consistent with that.
It is hard to believe that MacArthur could so belittle the "birth" of Christians into the family of God, in favor of his adoption model, by saying "I wasn't just born into a family"? No, I was both born and adopted, and the latter is so much more precious than the former! No, I was adopted, which means I was chosen, but to be born does not imply choice. Such false reasoning from one who ought to know better!
Surely MacArthur knows that God is in control of all things, and that his birthing of children is a result of choice? Does he believe that some of God's children are "accidental pregnancies," that happened not as a result of choice? Surely he believes that every child that he has ever sired was sired on purpose? But, more on that later.
Dr. MacArthur wrote further:
"And that's the whole point of biblical adoption, that we become children of God by sovereign, divine choice. We are the preferred choice of God. That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? On the basis of free and voluntary election God has chosen us to be adopted as His sons."
Again, he is arguing for a Pelagian or Arminian view of election. God chooses on the basis of some qualitative difference or condition in the individual in a group. He says "we are the preferred choice of God," God choosing the fittest.
Dr. MacArthur wrote further:
"Throughout the New Testament you see this imagery over and over again that when you become a Christian you enter into the very family of God. You did nothing to earn it, you did nothing to deserve it, you did nothing to choose it,"
In speaking of adoption he said "throughout the New Testament you see this imagery over and over again," but, as shown already, the NT does not promote the idea of adoption "throughout," but rather teaches that people are designated as children and sons of God as a result of spiritual birth. But, men like Piper and MacArthur, think that being born of God does not do for us all that we need to make us his children, being deficient in that respect.
In these words he also contradicts what he said previously. He said that God chose the worthy to be his heir, but here he says that becoming God's child by adoption is something that a person did not do anything to earn. Then, he says, "you did nothing to choose it." But, he must be arguing from modern English adoption modes, which the Apostle knew nothing about, of course, for in Roman adoption the adoptee, as stated previously, had to approve of the adoption.
So, we see more of the fact that the birth model and the adoption model are not complimentary, but rather at odds. First, in the case of Roman adoption, the person chooses whether he wants to be the son of another. Yet, in birth, the child does not choose such. So, which is it?
Dr. MacArthur wrote further:
"Now, when we talk about salvation in the terms of adoption, I just want to put in a footnote here so you don't miss the full picture. That's just one view of salvation. You could talk about salvation with the term of justification, which is a different issue. It looks at salvation from the forensic side, from God declaring us righteous on the merits of Christ. You could look at salvation as regeneration, which looks at salvation as the new birth. You could look at salvation under the term “sanctification,” which means you're set apart from sin unto holiness. And you can look at salvation as adoption.Those are all facets of salvation. It's like one diamond with many facets; you can look at from many angles and see its beauty. We are regenerate, we are justified, we are sanctified, we have been converted and we have been adopted. So in one sense we are sons by adoption and we are also sons by birth. Right? Regeneration. You shouldn't be confused, you shouldn't say are we adopted or are we born? Both. Those are just images. Those are just magnificent ways to look at what happened to us. And I think the reason that the New Testament introduces adoption is because adoption was such a remarkably lofty thing. To say that you were born into the family of God might not be something very special but to say that out of all the world of people God Himself chose you and lifted you to the status of an heir and a joint heir with Jesus Christ to become His own son forever that says something unique."
Yes, there are "facets" to the diamond of soteriological truth. But, to argue that justification and sanctification are facets of salvation in the same way as are birth and adoption, fails to see how the one involves a contradiction while the other does not. It is not a contradiction to say one has both been justified and sanctified, yet it is a contradiction to say that one has been both adopted and born by the same parents. Further, he tries to cover up such contradictions by saying "those are just images," as if this meant that it is okay for such contradictions to exist. Also, he again reiterates the fact that birth alone is deficient, and requires adoption as an addition, with adoption being the more important facet. Again, he belittles the importance of being born a child.
Dr. MacArthur wrote further:
"That's why the issue of adoption, picture of adoption, is given for us in the New Testament, because it opens up and enriches us with this tremendous dimension of salvation."
With this, like Piper, MacArthur admits that the doctrine of adoption was not an OT teaching. In this admission, he gives up a large basis for his case being truth. NT teaching is based upon the OT. Further, as has been shown, the NT does not contradict the OT, for the NT also does not teach the doctrine of adoption.
Aug 15, 2016
Waiting For The Huiothesia IV
Chapter Four - Israel's Sonship
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." (Exodus 4: 22-23 KJV)
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." (Hosea 11:1 KJV)
"You are the sons of the Lord your God." (Duet. 14:1 English Standard Version)
These are among the leading texts of the OT that identify Israel as God's "son." Sometimes the singular "son" is used, when referring to the nation or commonwealth as a whole, but sometimes the plural "sons" is used when referring to individual "Israelites," to whom belongs "the placement of sons." The title or designation of "son of God" belongs to Israel and to Israelites. The above verses from the OT teach this and Paul affirms the same in Romans 9:4. The more frequent designation for the paternal relationship between God and his chosen people, in the OT, is "children of God" rather than "sons of God." On this point more will be said in following chapters.
So, just how did Israel become God's son? Was it by adoption? If so, then Israel was not begotten. Was it by being begotten? If so, then it was not by adoption. Or, was Israel, like many commentators affirm, somehow God's son by both birth and adoption? Where is the proof of it?
Many Bible interpreters and expositors will first presume that God adopts people to be his children, based primarily upon translating "huiothesia." as "adoption." Next, they will admit that adoption falls short of making a child "like" his adopted parents. This, they affirm, requires a birth. There are several serious flaws with this way of thinking.
First, why first presuppose adoption as necessary to birth? Second, if birth is first presupposed, what need is there of being adopted? Adoption would not, in such a case, give one additional identifying quality towards what it means to be a "child," "offspring," "son," "daughter," etc. Adoption cannot make the begotten child any more "like" his father genetically. He cannot become any more in "nature" a child to his father by being adopted. He cannot receive any more inheritance or ruling family authority by being adopted, for he has all this by virtue of birth.
Which comes first, birth or adoption in the scheme of most theologians who accept the idea of adoption as a way in which people become the children of God? If one insists that God first adopts and then gives birth, then why the birth? The reason can't be to make the adopted person a child, for he is already so by adoption. Such a view forces one who holds to this scheme to affirm that the new birth is not what makes one a child of God, for he is already such by adoption. That is simple reductio ad absurdum. This scheme leads to a slim view of what it means to be born of God. In such a scheme the birth becomes almost meaningless theologically. On the other hand, one who says that God first begets and then adopts has the problem of making adoption meaningless, for it does nothing for the child that the birth has not already done. Also, to say that God gives birth to take up deficiencies owing from mere adoption, begs the question.
Are there sons of God who were adopted but were never born? Are there some who are born but not adopted? Is the family of God so divided? As stated in the Introduction, going into error on the meaning of "the huiothesia" has given rise to sects who have so divided the family of God. After all, it is reasonable to assume that one who has been adopted may die before he is born, and so could not possibly be equal to other children of God who had been both adopted and born.
Those who accept that both adoption and birth are ways in which God produces children have many difficulties over which to overcome, as is evident. Is the person who is adopted but not born an equal heir to those who are both? Is the mere adopted child but half a child?
Was Israel Begotten or Adopted?
"Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And the LORD saw, and spurned, because of the provoking of His sons and His daughters." (Dt. 32:18-19)
In the opening verses cited in this chapter we saw that LORD God called Israel not only his "son" but also his "firstborn," or "first begotten." Here the Lord specifically says that he "begat," or gave birth to, the nation of Israel. Further, it is because of this "begetting" that Israel is God's child.
No where in the OT does the Lord affirm that Israel is his child by having been adopted. If so, would Israel not wonder who then was his real father, like most adopted children do? The adopted child may have grown to love dearly his adopted parents, but still, that child will know that they are not his real parents. He will, as a typical adoptee, possess a longing to meet his parents, assuming they are still alive. Even if dead, the child will still want to know all about his biological parents, and perhaps even desire to be more like them rather than like his adopted parents.
Also, though the title of "firstborn" may not always be held by the actual first born male child (for it has more than once been transferred to a younger brother), yet it was never conferred upon an adopted son, nor upon one who was not of the "seed" of the father. So, not only does God expressly say, in the above verse, that he had "given birth" to the nation (which excludes the idea of adoption), but the idea of birth is also strongly implied in the opening verses (that state that Israel was the Lord's "firstborn"). So then, where in the OT is adoption given as the reason for Israel being God's child or son? Will one impose such a model on it based upon a faulty translation of "huiothesia"? Upon a faulty interpretation of what Paul meant when he said that "the huiothesia" belonged to Israel?
To show how commentators err in their thinking when contemplating these facts, notice what Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says regarding "adoption":
(4) The adoption.—They are the theocratic people, the people whom God had, as it were, adopted to Himself, and taken into the special filial relation. (Comp. Hosea 11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt;” Exodus 4:22, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn;” et al.)
But, where did LORD God ever say that Israel was his son by a legal process of adoption? Certainly not in the verses cited. Did he not rather say that Israel was his son as a result of begetting?
In Matthew Poole's Commentary here is what is said:
"That begat thee, i.e. who hath adopted you to be his people, and hath showed as much care and kindness to you as if he had begotten you."
This is blatant error and goes against common sense. The text says that God "begat" but the commentary says that means that God had "adopted" them? Who can believe such interpretation? Not only this, the comment is further wrong in saying "as if he had begotten them," a denial of the fact stated in the sacred text.
Dr. John Piper, present day Bible expositor, wrote in "Adoption: The Heart of the Gospel" (SEE HERE - emphasis mine):
"The biblical foundation for the act of adopting children is primarily in the New Testament rather than the Old. There are only three adoptions in the Old Testament (Moses, Esther, and Genubath, 1 Kings 11:20). Israel is called God’s son (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:6; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1) but not until the New Testament is this called adoption."
It is good that Dr. Piper agrees that the act of adopting children was generally not known in the OT. It is good that he admits that God calling Israel his son was not known in the OT as "adoption." But, sadly, in spite of these admissions, he will nevertheless teach that Israel was the son of God by adoption, rather than by begetting. Further, he is wrong to affirm, as is being shown, that the NT calls the act of producing children of God "adoption." The only authority for such a view is based upon the five passages of Paul that have the Greek word "huiothesia." Further, Dr. Piper is wrong on the number of supposed "adoptions" in the OT. Others find more examples. But, as stated previously, none of the examples given were evidence of full formal adoption, nor the result of a Hebrew law or custom. As promised, these examples will be looked at in their place.
He also said:
"The deepest and strongest foundation of adoption is located not in the act of humans adopting humans, but in God adopting humans. And this act is not part of his ordinary providence in the world; it is at the heart of the gospel."
But, there is no where in the Bible that says that God adopts children. The only proof, being the five passages of Paul, is no proof at all, as has been shown, and will show yet further. Strange, however, is the statement of Dr. Piper that this doctrine, that affirms that God adopts children, is "the heart of the Gospel" when it is only based upon the five passages of Paul and is not mentioned in other places in the NT in connection with the defining elements of the Gospel. However, God begetting children is often mentioned.
You simply cannot have a misinterpretation of "huiothesia" to be the sole basis for such a doctrine, a doctrine which is foreign to both testaments. Further, you cannot base cases of informal or heathen adoptions, in the OT, as proof that it is another model of how God saves us. The adoption model, as has been shown, and will be shown even further, is at odds with the birth model. To affirm the use of the adoption model, with all its theological difficulties, on the basis that "huiothesia" means adoption is poor theology.
Dr. Piper admits that God did not explain the making of Israel his child by adoption. But, he says that this does not mean that this was not the reason or explanation. He says that justification for imposing the adoption model on the OT is because there is authority in the NT to do so. But, again, it is very weak authority to base it upon the five passages of Paul and upon the meaning of the Greek word.
He also said:
"God did not have to use the concept of adoption to explain how he saved us, or even how we become part of his family. He could have stayed with the language of new birth so that all his children were described as children by nature only (John 1:12-13, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”). But he chose to speak of us as adopted as well as being children by new birth. This is the most essential foundation of the practice of adoption."
You would think that the "doctrine of adoption" as understood by Piper and the majority of biblical commentators, would be as talked about in the NT as is the idea of being God's children by a spiritual birth. Yet, not only was adoption not a model in the OT to explain how Israel became God's child and son, so too the NT has no such model. Piper admits that "the concept of adoption" is a way for God "to explain how he saved us" and "how we become part of his family." This, as stated previously, is important because if the model of salvation is wrong, then what is illustrated and taught from it will not all be right. Notice also how Piper considers the "doctrine of adoption" to be "the most essential foundation practice."
Obviously the reasoning of Dr. Piper leads one to the idea that the birth model, which is the only one in the OT, and the one that he admits is the general NT model, is deficient, either in the model or in the reality it represents. The adoption model is, therefore, supposed to solve the deficiencies of the birth model. For obviously, the adoption does something that the birth does not do. But, what could that possibly be? If one is a child or son by birth, he cannot be made more of a child or son by adoption. He cannot be more of an heir by adoption than he already is by birth. In fact, there is nothing that adoption can give to an existing child that he does not already have from his father. So, as stated previously, adoption becomes meaningless. But, not only that, but full of contradictions and absurdities, as will be observed in the next chapter.
Further, Dr. Piper speaks of "the language of the new birth." Well, that is the language of both testaments, but the language of "adoption" is of neither.
He also said:
"This means that the status of being a son legally preceded the experience of the Spirit coming to give us the affections of sons. We are legally sons before we experience the joy of sonship. The object work of our salvation (two thousand years ago at Calvary) precedes and grounds the subjective experience of our salvation by the Spirit today."
As noted earlier, men who teach adoption as a model of salvation and of the way that God acquires offspring, as does Piper and the majority of commentators, will debate among themselves the ordo salutis relating to birth (regeneration) and adoption. Some will put birth before adoption, others, like Piper, will put adoption before birth. Either way, as we have seen, and will yet see further, there are serious flaws for them.
Dr. Piper believes one becomes "legal sons" first, before the experience of sonship in the new birth. He also looks at adoption from the standpoint of what God did at Calvary, at a time when the adopted did not exist, being the objective aspect of legal adoption procedure. In other words, believers became legally the children of God at Calvary. Of course, he will also say that in some respect adoption occurs in time when one repents and believes the Gospel. Further, he will even say that adoption is not complete till the resurrection. But, of all these wrong notions more will be said in the next.
He also said:
"Adoption brought us, and brings our children, the rights of being heirs of the Father."
Adoption is what brings "the rights of being heirs"? I thought birth is what did that according to the Scripture?
He also said:
"Consider too, that according to Romans 9:4, the people that God chose in the Old Testament, the Israelites, were adopted out of a terrible situation. “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.” But how was this adoption effected? Hosea 11:1, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” They were slaves in Egypt. But not only that, they were often also rebellious against God. “Our fathers, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love, but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea” (Psalm 106:7)."
God adopted Israel when he brought them out of Egypt? Then, they were not already his children before leaving Egypt? And, if they were his children before the Exodus, then what did adoption do for them?The text cited by Dr. Piper from Hosea 11:1 says that Israel went into Egypt, like Christ, a "child," but came out from Egypt a "son," someone who was at Bar Mitzvah age. There is no adoption in the verses cited nor in the entire OT that identifies the father child relationship between God and Israel as owing to anything other than to a birth relationship.
Adoption means to be "adopted out of a terrible situation"? By this reasoning it has nothing to do with becoming children but rather with deliverance, and this leads one to believe that one is adopted by God every time he delivers from a terrible situation.
He also said:
"Therefore, God went and took a son from Egypt who was both enslaved and rebellious. The pattern is set: adoptions does not just come from nice, healthy, safe, auspicious situations."
The same reply as above may be applied to these words. Dr. Piper finds no foundation in the OT for viewing the deliverance from Egypt as the time of Israel's adoption, but does admit that he finds "the language of" birth as that foundation.
Further, one does not know what precise model for adoption Piper is using to uphold his doctrine of adoption. Is he using the Roman or Greek model? If so, why does he constantly reason from facts that are purely English and modern, and not upon the former? But, more upon this in the next chapter.
He also said, in regard to Paul's statement that the huiothesia is yet future::
"This strikes us as strange. Aren’t we already adopted? Why does Paul say that we are “waiting for our adoption”? Yes, we are already adopted. When Christ died for us, the price was paid, and when we trust him, we are legally and permanently in the family. But God’s purpose for adoption is not to leave any of his children in a state of groaning and suffering. He raised Jesus from the dead with a new body, and he promises that part of our adoption will be a new resurrection body with no more disabilities and no more groaning. Therefore, what we wait for is the full experience of our adoption—the resurrection of our bodies."
The fact that Paul clearly and plainly says that "the huiothesia" is future would indeed strike as strange someone who teaches that it is something of the past, present, and future. Dr. Piper speaks of "that part of our adoption," and this is in keeping with how most commentators speak, for with them adoption is not one act, but several, and a process. Of course, such an idea begets (pun intended) numerous theological absurdities and glaring contradictions, as has been shown, and will be shown further.
He says that Christians are "already adopted" and yet the text says it is future. Paul does not say "waiting for the completion of the adoption (huiothesia)." Yet, like Piper, many will interpret "waiting for the huiothesia" as a present reality.
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." (Exodus 4: 22-23 KJV)
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." (Hosea 11:1 KJV)
"You are the sons of the Lord your God." (Duet. 14:1 English Standard Version)
These are among the leading texts of the OT that identify Israel as God's "son." Sometimes the singular "son" is used, when referring to the nation or commonwealth as a whole, but sometimes the plural "sons" is used when referring to individual "Israelites," to whom belongs "the placement of sons." The title or designation of "son of God" belongs to Israel and to Israelites. The above verses from the OT teach this and Paul affirms the same in Romans 9:4. The more frequent designation for the paternal relationship between God and his chosen people, in the OT, is "children of God" rather than "sons of God." On this point more will be said in following chapters.
So, just how did Israel become God's son? Was it by adoption? If so, then Israel was not begotten. Was it by being begotten? If so, then it was not by adoption. Or, was Israel, like many commentators affirm, somehow God's son by both birth and adoption? Where is the proof of it?
Many Bible interpreters and expositors will first presume that God adopts people to be his children, based primarily upon translating "huiothesia." as "adoption." Next, they will admit that adoption falls short of making a child "like" his adopted parents. This, they affirm, requires a birth. There are several serious flaws with this way of thinking.
First, why first presuppose adoption as necessary to birth? Second, if birth is first presupposed, what need is there of being adopted? Adoption would not, in such a case, give one additional identifying quality towards what it means to be a "child," "offspring," "son," "daughter," etc. Adoption cannot make the begotten child any more "like" his father genetically. He cannot become any more in "nature" a child to his father by being adopted. He cannot receive any more inheritance or ruling family authority by being adopted, for he has all this by virtue of birth.
Which comes first, birth or adoption in the scheme of most theologians who accept the idea of adoption as a way in which people become the children of God? If one insists that God first adopts and then gives birth, then why the birth? The reason can't be to make the adopted person a child, for he is already so by adoption. Such a view forces one who holds to this scheme to affirm that the new birth is not what makes one a child of God, for he is already such by adoption. That is simple reductio ad absurdum. This scheme leads to a slim view of what it means to be born of God. In such a scheme the birth becomes almost meaningless theologically. On the other hand, one who says that God first begets and then adopts has the problem of making adoption meaningless, for it does nothing for the child that the birth has not already done. Also, to say that God gives birth to take up deficiencies owing from mere adoption, begs the question.
Are there sons of God who were adopted but were never born? Are there some who are born but not adopted? Is the family of God so divided? As stated in the Introduction, going into error on the meaning of "the huiothesia" has given rise to sects who have so divided the family of God. After all, it is reasonable to assume that one who has been adopted may die before he is born, and so could not possibly be equal to other children of God who had been both adopted and born.
Those who accept that both adoption and birth are ways in which God produces children have many difficulties over which to overcome, as is evident. Is the person who is adopted but not born an equal heir to those who are both? Is the mere adopted child but half a child?
Was Israel Begotten or Adopted?
"Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And the LORD saw, and spurned, because of the provoking of His sons and His daughters." (Dt. 32:18-19)
In the opening verses cited in this chapter we saw that LORD God called Israel not only his "son" but also his "firstborn," or "first begotten." Here the Lord specifically says that he "begat," or gave birth to, the nation of Israel. Further, it is because of this "begetting" that Israel is God's child.
No where in the OT does the Lord affirm that Israel is his child by having been adopted. If so, would Israel not wonder who then was his real father, like most adopted children do? The adopted child may have grown to love dearly his adopted parents, but still, that child will know that they are not his real parents. He will, as a typical adoptee, possess a longing to meet his parents, assuming they are still alive. Even if dead, the child will still want to know all about his biological parents, and perhaps even desire to be more like them rather than like his adopted parents.
Also, though the title of "firstborn" may not always be held by the actual first born male child (for it has more than once been transferred to a younger brother), yet it was never conferred upon an adopted son, nor upon one who was not of the "seed" of the father. So, not only does God expressly say, in the above verse, that he had "given birth" to the nation (which excludes the idea of adoption), but the idea of birth is also strongly implied in the opening verses (that state that Israel was the Lord's "firstborn"). So then, where in the OT is adoption given as the reason for Israel being God's child or son? Will one impose such a model on it based upon a faulty translation of "huiothesia"? Upon a faulty interpretation of what Paul meant when he said that "the huiothesia" belonged to Israel?
To show how commentators err in their thinking when contemplating these facts, notice what Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says regarding "adoption":
(4) The adoption.—They are the theocratic people, the people whom God had, as it were, adopted to Himself, and taken into the special filial relation. (Comp. Hosea 11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt;” Exodus 4:22, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn;” et al.)
But, where did LORD God ever say that Israel was his son by a legal process of adoption? Certainly not in the verses cited. Did he not rather say that Israel was his son as a result of begetting?
In Matthew Poole's Commentary here is what is said:
"That begat thee, i.e. who hath adopted you to be his people, and hath showed as much care and kindness to you as if he had begotten you."
This is blatant error and goes against common sense. The text says that God "begat" but the commentary says that means that God had "adopted" them? Who can believe such interpretation? Not only this, the comment is further wrong in saying "as if he had begotten them," a denial of the fact stated in the sacred text.
Dr. John Piper, present day Bible expositor, wrote in "Adoption: The Heart of the Gospel" (SEE HERE - emphasis mine):
"The biblical foundation for the act of adopting children is primarily in the New Testament rather than the Old. There are only three adoptions in the Old Testament (Moses, Esther, and Genubath, 1 Kings 11:20). Israel is called God’s son (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:6; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1) but not until the New Testament is this called adoption."
It is good that Dr. Piper agrees that the act of adopting children was generally not known in the OT. It is good that he admits that God calling Israel his son was not known in the OT as "adoption." But, sadly, in spite of these admissions, he will nevertheless teach that Israel was the son of God by adoption, rather than by begetting. Further, he is wrong to affirm, as is being shown, that the NT calls the act of producing children of God "adoption." The only authority for such a view is based upon the five passages of Paul that have the Greek word "huiothesia." Further, Dr. Piper is wrong on the number of supposed "adoptions" in the OT. Others find more examples. But, as stated previously, none of the examples given were evidence of full formal adoption, nor the result of a Hebrew law or custom. As promised, these examples will be looked at in their place.
He also said:
"The deepest and strongest foundation of adoption is located not in the act of humans adopting humans, but in God adopting humans. And this act is not part of his ordinary providence in the world; it is at the heart of the gospel."
But, there is no where in the Bible that says that God adopts children. The only proof, being the five passages of Paul, is no proof at all, as has been shown, and will show yet further. Strange, however, is the statement of Dr. Piper that this doctrine, that affirms that God adopts children, is "the heart of the Gospel" when it is only based upon the five passages of Paul and is not mentioned in other places in the NT in connection with the defining elements of the Gospel. However, God begetting children is often mentioned.
You simply cannot have a misinterpretation of "huiothesia" to be the sole basis for such a doctrine, a doctrine which is foreign to both testaments. Further, you cannot base cases of informal or heathen adoptions, in the OT, as proof that it is another model of how God saves us. The adoption model, as has been shown, and will be shown even further, is at odds with the birth model. To affirm the use of the adoption model, with all its theological difficulties, on the basis that "huiothesia" means adoption is poor theology.
Dr. Piper admits that God did not explain the making of Israel his child by adoption. But, he says that this does not mean that this was not the reason or explanation. He says that justification for imposing the adoption model on the OT is because there is authority in the NT to do so. But, again, it is very weak authority to base it upon the five passages of Paul and upon the meaning of the Greek word.
He also said:
"God did not have to use the concept of adoption to explain how he saved us, or even how we become part of his family. He could have stayed with the language of new birth so that all his children were described as children by nature only (John 1:12-13, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”). But he chose to speak of us as adopted as well as being children by new birth. This is the most essential foundation of the practice of adoption."
You would think that the "doctrine of adoption" as understood by Piper and the majority of biblical commentators, would be as talked about in the NT as is the idea of being God's children by a spiritual birth. Yet, not only was adoption not a model in the OT to explain how Israel became God's child and son, so too the NT has no such model. Piper admits that "the concept of adoption" is a way for God "to explain how he saved us" and "how we become part of his family." This, as stated previously, is important because if the model of salvation is wrong, then what is illustrated and taught from it will not all be right. Notice also how Piper considers the "doctrine of adoption" to be "the most essential foundation practice."
Obviously the reasoning of Dr. Piper leads one to the idea that the birth model, which is the only one in the OT, and the one that he admits is the general NT model, is deficient, either in the model or in the reality it represents. The adoption model is, therefore, supposed to solve the deficiencies of the birth model. For obviously, the adoption does something that the birth does not do. But, what could that possibly be? If one is a child or son by birth, he cannot be made more of a child or son by adoption. He cannot be more of an heir by adoption than he already is by birth. In fact, there is nothing that adoption can give to an existing child that he does not already have from his father. So, as stated previously, adoption becomes meaningless. But, not only that, but full of contradictions and absurdities, as will be observed in the next chapter.
Further, Dr. Piper speaks of "the language of the new birth." Well, that is the language of both testaments, but the language of "adoption" is of neither.
He also said:
"This means that the status of being a son legally preceded the experience of the Spirit coming to give us the affections of sons. We are legally sons before we experience the joy of sonship. The object work of our salvation (two thousand years ago at Calvary) precedes and grounds the subjective experience of our salvation by the Spirit today."
As noted earlier, men who teach adoption as a model of salvation and of the way that God acquires offspring, as does Piper and the majority of commentators, will debate among themselves the ordo salutis relating to birth (regeneration) and adoption. Some will put birth before adoption, others, like Piper, will put adoption before birth. Either way, as we have seen, and will yet see further, there are serious flaws for them.
Dr. Piper believes one becomes "legal sons" first, before the experience of sonship in the new birth. He also looks at adoption from the standpoint of what God did at Calvary, at a time when the adopted did not exist, being the objective aspect of legal adoption procedure. In other words, believers became legally the children of God at Calvary. Of course, he will also say that in some respect adoption occurs in time when one repents and believes the Gospel. Further, he will even say that adoption is not complete till the resurrection. But, of all these wrong notions more will be said in the next.
He also said:
"Adoption brought us, and brings our children, the rights of being heirs of the Father."
Adoption is what brings "the rights of being heirs"? I thought birth is what did that according to the Scripture?
He also said:
"Consider too, that according to Romans 9:4, the people that God chose in the Old Testament, the Israelites, were adopted out of a terrible situation. “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.” But how was this adoption effected? Hosea 11:1, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” They were slaves in Egypt. But not only that, they were often also rebellious against God. “Our fathers, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love, but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea” (Psalm 106:7)."
God adopted Israel when he brought them out of Egypt? Then, they were not already his children before leaving Egypt? And, if they were his children before the Exodus, then what did adoption do for them?The text cited by Dr. Piper from Hosea 11:1 says that Israel went into Egypt, like Christ, a "child," but came out from Egypt a "son," someone who was at Bar Mitzvah age. There is no adoption in the verses cited nor in the entire OT that identifies the father child relationship between God and Israel as owing to anything other than to a birth relationship.
Adoption means to be "adopted out of a terrible situation"? By this reasoning it has nothing to do with becoming children but rather with deliverance, and this leads one to believe that one is adopted by God every time he delivers from a terrible situation.
He also said:
"Therefore, God went and took a son from Egypt who was both enslaved and rebellious. The pattern is set: adoptions does not just come from nice, healthy, safe, auspicious situations."
The same reply as above may be applied to these words. Dr. Piper finds no foundation in the OT for viewing the deliverance from Egypt as the time of Israel's adoption, but does admit that he finds "the language of" birth as that foundation.
Further, one does not know what precise model for adoption Piper is using to uphold his doctrine of adoption. Is he using the Roman or Greek model? If so, why does he constantly reason from facts that are purely English and modern, and not upon the former? But, more upon this in the next chapter.
He also said, in regard to Paul's statement that the huiothesia is yet future::
"This strikes us as strange. Aren’t we already adopted? Why does Paul say that we are “waiting for our adoption”? Yes, we are already adopted. When Christ died for us, the price was paid, and when we trust him, we are legally and permanently in the family. But God’s purpose for adoption is not to leave any of his children in a state of groaning and suffering. He raised Jesus from the dead with a new body, and he promises that part of our adoption will be a new resurrection body with no more disabilities and no more groaning. Therefore, what we wait for is the full experience of our adoption—the resurrection of our bodies."
The fact that Paul clearly and plainly says that "the huiothesia" is future would indeed strike as strange someone who teaches that it is something of the past, present, and future. Dr. Piper speaks of "that part of our adoption," and this is in keeping with how most commentators speak, for with them adoption is not one act, but several, and a process. Of course, such an idea begets (pun intended) numerous theological absurdities and glaring contradictions, as has been shown, and will be shown further.
He says that Christians are "already adopted" and yet the text says it is future. Paul does not say "waiting for the completion of the adoption (huiothesia)." Yet, like Piper, many will interpret "waiting for the huiothesia" as a present reality.
Aug 12, 2016
Waiting For The Huiothesia III
Chapter Three - Jewish Origin of Paul's Concept
In the previous chapters it has been affirmed that "the huiothesia" is Jewish in origin and not Greek, Roman, or English. Most scholars of the word, who see "adoption" as its proper signification, will take such a definition into the OT with the intent of seeing it there explained and referred to, or practised in Israelite society, for, after all, it belongs to them according to Paul. But, seeing that "adoption" was not an Hebrew institution or practice, the scholar or Bible student must do one of two things, if he is intent on keeping his erroneous definition of "huiothesia." First, he must find examples where western style adoption of children was legally provided for and practiced in the OT, and second, not finding it, he must impose such upon it. Then, having done this, the Bible scholar and commentator will attempt to show how Roman or Greek adoption was an additional model to the biblical birth model to illustrate how both Israelites and Christians become children or sons of God.
The few examples generally offered from the OT will be looked at more closely in later chapters, but it has already been affirmed that such examples are not of actual adoptions, after western fashion, but of either informal adoptions or else reflect a non-Jewish practise. Many biblical commentators have erred in assuming that by "the hiuothesia" Paul is alluding to either a Greek or Roman model of "adoption," and then err even further by taking that assumption to the OT and then forcing that model on it, and thus of course, on the manner in which "Israelites" became either the "children" or the "sons" of God.
The fact that Greek or Roman adoption was not practiced in Israel ought to cause those who accept "adoption" as the proper signification of "huiothesia" to pause and deeply consider such a stunning fact. It ought to lead them to retrace their steps and to take a different interpretation of what Paul meant by "the huiothesia." A person's reasoning at this point should go something like this:
Defining "huiothesia" as "adoption," as I do, and knowing that it peculiarly belongs to Israelites, I should then find it used as an idea or model in the OT for illustrating the relationship that God had with Israel. But, I do not find it there, but rather find that God spoke of Israel as being his "begotten" child or son, and not his "adopted" child or son. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the definition of "huiothesia."
Once a person is at this point he will do as others have done and research the meaning of the Greek term and how it is used by the apostle. If this is done honestly, he cannot but come to the same conclusion as have others, which concludes "adoption" to be an awful translation and the cause of the problem. Once that is accepted as true, and the real meaning discovered, a person will experience his Eureka moment on this important issue, and come to greater understanding, and be able to help others who struggle with the difficulty of trying to reconcile how one can be both God's child by birth and by adoption.
Concerning the other things in Romans 9: 4 that are said to "belong" or "pertain to" those who are "Israelites," besides "the huiothesia," are "the glory," "the covenants," "the giving of the law," "the covenants," and "the promises." Why think that all these things are found in the OT except for "the huiothesia"? But, "adoption" is not found in the OT, therefore "adoption" is not "huiothesia."
It is interesting to notice how in Romans 9: 4 "adoption" ("υἱοθεσία") is in the same form as "giving of the law" (νομοθεσία) though translated into English differently. If we translated the latter part of the compounds by "placing" then it would be "son placing" and "law placing," but if by the word "giving" then it would be "son giving" or "law giving" (or expressed another way, either "giving of the sons" or "giving of the law"). Another example of a Greek compound word with "thesia" is the word ὁροθεσίας which is translated in many English translations as either "bounds" or "boundaries" but is literally the "placing" or "fixing" of bounds or limits (Acts 17:26). Also, if "fixing" be another word to use to translate "thesia," then we may translate "huiothesia" as "fixing of sons."
The Use Of The Definite Article
In Romans 9: 4, as well as in three of the four other instances where Paul used the word "huiothesia," he uses the definite article "the." The one exception is Romans 8: 15, which will be examined in its place, and the absence of it there is itself significant, being the exception.
Here are the five passages where "huiothesia" (adoption) is used, in the KJV, and all have the definite article before the word. Erringly, the KJV often added the definite article to the English text when there was none in the Greek. However, in the Greek text all have the definite article except Romans 8: 15 and Ephesians 1: 4.
Romans 8:15—“. . . but ye have received the Spirit of adoption. . .”
Romans 8:23—“. . . waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”
Romans 9:4—“. . . Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption. . .”
Galatians 4:5—“. . . that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
Ephesians 1:5—“ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself...”
Some English translations do however omit the definite article for Romans 8: 15, and concerning this I will have more to say in later chapters. A better translation of Romans 8: 15 would be "huiothesia spirit." Neither the word "pneuma" (spirit) or the word "huiothesia" have the definite article before them. But, the KJV made several errors along this line which does not help one discern the meaning of the Apostle Paul. Looking at the above translations of the five verses they translate the same Greek word "huiothesia" differently. In one case it is "adoption of children" and in another it is "adoption of sons." Who gave the KJV translators the right to translate "children" rather than "sons" and to blur the distinction? But, again, more on this passage and its implications will be taken up in upcoming chapters.
By use of the definite article in Romans 9: 4 Paul is 1) pointing to something specific and 2) calling attention to what he has already spoken about previously in Romans 8: 15 and 23, where he first introduced the term in the epistle. The definite article in "the huiothesia" may therefore be viewed not only as indicating what is specific, the difference and not to the genus, but may be adjectival, demonstrative, or relative. What has Paul previously said about "the huiothesia"? He said these remarkable things:
1) Christians now possess a huiothesia spirit
2) Christians are waiting for "the huiothesia"
3) "the huiothesia" is the same thing as "the redemption of the body"
Now, to such commentary, the Apostle adds, in 9:4, the fact that "the huiothesia" belongs particularly to "Israelites." Concerning each of these statements more will be said as each of the five passages are analyzed.
The NT Is Contextually Hebrew
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4)
If we can substantiate the fact that Paul in Romans, as well as elsewhere in his epistles, nearly always makes use of Hebrew models and metaphors for illustrating the way God saves sinners, and makes them members of his family, rather than those of the Gentiles, then one should first assume the Jewish and not opt for the Gentile unless there is clear reason to do so.
To help show further that "the huiothesia" is Jewish and not Greek, Roman, or English, in addition to the proof already given, it will be demonstrated that Paul's letter to the Romans as well as the whole new testament is based upon OT or Jewish laws, rites, and history, and not that of the Greeks or Romans. The above passage of Paul in Romans indicates this fact.
The view that says "the huiothesia" is a direct reference to Greco-Roman adoption law and practise violates the Apostle's own words as cited above. In such a view it is not what "son placement" may have meant in the OT, for the Israelites, that becomes a model of salvation, "for our learning," but rather what it meant in Roman writings, for non Israelites. Thus, in this instance, Paul goes outside of the writings of the OT, outside its types, figures, examples, etc., in order to find an example of how people come to be God's children and sons. In regard to "the huiothesia" too many translators and Bible commentators may well say "whatever was written aforetime in Roman law was written for our learning."
If we look at the figures and terminology of the Book of Romans, is it Roman, Greek, or Jewish? If it is a mixture, which is the predominant source? The Book of Romans is like the entire NT in regard to its nigh universal use of Hebrew OT words and metaphors to illustrate some aspect of salvation.
New Testament theology is based not only upon express statements of the Old Testament, and upon its legal code, but also upon its types, shadows, figures, examples, word usage and definition, leading personages, historical events, etc., as well as its customs and traditions. Only occasionally does the NT make use of laws and customs outside of a Jewish context in order to serve as theological mediums. Therefore, the hermeneutic rule is to first view a term, citation, figure of speech, types, etc., in the NT, as Hebrew and only allow that Greek and Roman are the exceptions. Assumption and a prima facie case are with the view that "the huiothesia" is a Jewish idea first and foremost.
The new testament uses words like "figures" for old testament people and events. So likewise with the words "types" and "shadows."
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Col 2: 16-17)
Notice that it is the religious and civil activities of the Jews of the OT that are "a shadow of things to come." Israel's law and feasts serve as models and metaphors of the facets of redemption, and not those of the Greeks or Romans. Elsewhere in the NT it is Hebrew laws and practises that are called "examples," "types," "figures," etc., especially in the Book of Hebrews, not those of the Gentile world. All this is but further evidence that the concept of "son placement" was not taken from the Greek or Roman world but from the Jewish world of the OT.
Christ and the NT writers not only used things in Israelite culture to illustrate aspects of God's saving work, but also made use of things in nature, in the physical world, to picture divine truth, and even made use of common every day occurrences to illustrate moral and spiritual truth.
Jesus talked about men finding treasure and likened it to men finding the kingdom of God. He taught that fishing was like preaching. He also compared being stewards or managers of earthly things with being so in spiritual or heavenly things. He taught that farming, with its sowing and reaping, was a picture of the preaching of the Gospel, of salvation and damnation, and of the end of time, which is a harvest.
Like Jesus, Paul and the other NT writers made use of not only physical models of the universe to illustrate or adumbrate spiritual truth, but also common things such as building and buildings, doctors and doctoring, going to court, buying and selling, maturing and going to school, beside all kinds of human relationships and interactions that serve as metaphors of salvation. Consider also how in the NT water is a symbol of that which is spiritual, of the Spirit of God or of the word of God, a metaphor for the instrument of moral cleansing, and that bread and food serve as metaphors of some aspect of salvation in Christ. Even the idea of spiritual "birth" is a metaphor.
Paul often alluded to the Greek games and athletic contests, such as those of the Olympic or Isthmian games. He used references to fights and races, to winning crowns at competitions, of battling various foes, all to illustrate truth about God and salvation. Paul often used military terminology, perhaps in Greek or Roman language, to talk about the Christian warfare. But, it may be said, that these uses of Gentile institutions and practises were not so unique to Greece or Rome that they were unknown in Israel.
Peter used the figure of the Pyramid of five corners when he spoke of the chief or head corner. He also used the eye disease of nearsightedness as an illustration of those who "cannot see afar off," cannot see the end and purpose of all things.
James used the example of great fires starting from small ones to illustrate how a misspoken word causes damage. He said that looking into the word of God was like looking into a mirror.
But, acknowledging all this does not warrant us to think that the major metaphors and comparisons, used by the Bible writers to illustrate divine truth, were borrowed from outside of the Jewish world. All the leading metaphors in the NT that are used to teach something about salvation are taken from the Hebrew OT, and even most of the secondary metaphors, taken from outside of the OT and from Hebrew culture, are such that can be found in any culture, even Israel.
Interesting and ironic is the fact that when NT writers refer to some event or institution in the Gentile world, it is not to illustrate or reveal something about salvation, but about judgment and damnation, and about things that are wrong. Thus, to Peter, the deluge was an "example," but of what? The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were events with lessons to teach. But, what does it teach?
Consider also the fact that the OT often denounces Gentile culture, with its laws and institutions, as being vain, without meaning. "Learn not the way of the heathen...For the customs of the people are vain." (Jer. 10:2-3) Shall we say that the Roman and Greek custom of adoption, in light of all this, is a adumbration and picture of how God takes sinners and makes them into his image?
Roman Epistle is Contextually Jewish
Paul's habit was to use Hebrew laws and customs as types and shadows of theological truth, especially as revealed in the new testament. Illustrations about salvation, redemption, justification, etc., are taken from Hebrew law and thought. This is the NT rule, with but few exceptions. If reference is made to laws, teachings, and ideas concerning marriage and family, inheritance, government, righteousness, justice, holiness, sin, guilt, punishment, theology, divine worship, sacrifices, priesthood, etc., they are taken from the Hebrew OT and not from the writings and institutions of the Gentiles.
Illustrations of Salvation are Nearly Always Hebrew
Israel's seven festivals were all ordained by God to be pictures of salvation and redemption, but not so those of the Gentiles. The family laws of Israel were used by NT writers as paradigms of the relationship that God has to Christians, and they to each other, and not the family laws of Greeks or Romans. Israel's laws of inheritance served as the foundational context for explaining the Christian inheritance. Incidents in the history of Israel's patriarchs, and of the nation itself, all serve as examples and means of illustration to convey new testament truth about Christ and the way of salvation. The NT writers would never consider viewing God's dealings with other nations as pictures of salvation. Incidents in the history of Israel teach NT truth about salvation through Christ, such as their deliverance from bondage in Egypt, their baptism in the Red Sea, their journey through the wilderness to the promised land, their conflicts with their enemies, etc., all serve all examples of NT truth, but not so with any other nation.
Of course, as stated, the NT contains teaching illustrations that are based in Gentile laws and customs, but these are the exceptions, and are merely supplementary to the Hebrew.
In the previous chapters it has been affirmed that "the huiothesia" is Jewish in origin and not Greek, Roman, or English. Most scholars of the word, who see "adoption" as its proper signification, will take such a definition into the OT with the intent of seeing it there explained and referred to, or practised in Israelite society, for, after all, it belongs to them according to Paul. But, seeing that "adoption" was not an Hebrew institution or practice, the scholar or Bible student must do one of two things, if he is intent on keeping his erroneous definition of "huiothesia." First, he must find examples where western style adoption of children was legally provided for and practiced in the OT, and second, not finding it, he must impose such upon it. Then, having done this, the Bible scholar and commentator will attempt to show how Roman or Greek adoption was an additional model to the biblical birth model to illustrate how both Israelites and Christians become children or sons of God.
The few examples generally offered from the OT will be looked at more closely in later chapters, but it has already been affirmed that such examples are not of actual adoptions, after western fashion, but of either informal adoptions or else reflect a non-Jewish practise. Many biblical commentators have erred in assuming that by "the hiuothesia" Paul is alluding to either a Greek or Roman model of "adoption," and then err even further by taking that assumption to the OT and then forcing that model on it, and thus of course, on the manner in which "Israelites" became either the "children" or the "sons" of God.
The fact that Greek or Roman adoption was not practiced in Israel ought to cause those who accept "adoption" as the proper signification of "huiothesia" to pause and deeply consider such a stunning fact. It ought to lead them to retrace their steps and to take a different interpretation of what Paul meant by "the huiothesia." A person's reasoning at this point should go something like this:
Defining "huiothesia" as "adoption," as I do, and knowing that it peculiarly belongs to Israelites, I should then find it used as an idea or model in the OT for illustrating the relationship that God had with Israel. But, I do not find it there, but rather find that God spoke of Israel as being his "begotten" child or son, and not his "adopted" child or son. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the definition of "huiothesia."
Once a person is at this point he will do as others have done and research the meaning of the Greek term and how it is used by the apostle. If this is done honestly, he cannot but come to the same conclusion as have others, which concludes "adoption" to be an awful translation and the cause of the problem. Once that is accepted as true, and the real meaning discovered, a person will experience his Eureka moment on this important issue, and come to greater understanding, and be able to help others who struggle with the difficulty of trying to reconcile how one can be both God's child by birth and by adoption.
Concerning the other things in Romans 9: 4 that are said to "belong" or "pertain to" those who are "Israelites," besides "the huiothesia," are "the glory," "the covenants," "the giving of the law," "the covenants," and "the promises." Why think that all these things are found in the OT except for "the huiothesia"? But, "adoption" is not found in the OT, therefore "adoption" is not "huiothesia."
It is interesting to notice how in Romans 9: 4 "adoption" ("υἱοθεσία") is in the same form as "giving of the law" (νομοθεσία) though translated into English differently. If we translated the latter part of the compounds by "placing" then it would be "son placing" and "law placing," but if by the word "giving" then it would be "son giving" or "law giving" (or expressed another way, either "giving of the sons" or "giving of the law"). Another example of a Greek compound word with "thesia" is the word ὁροθεσίας which is translated in many English translations as either "bounds" or "boundaries" but is literally the "placing" or "fixing" of bounds or limits (Acts 17:26). Also, if "fixing" be another word to use to translate "thesia," then we may translate "huiothesia" as "fixing of sons."
The Use Of The Definite Article
In Romans 9: 4, as well as in three of the four other instances where Paul used the word "huiothesia," he uses the definite article "the." The one exception is Romans 8: 15, which will be examined in its place, and the absence of it there is itself significant, being the exception.
Here are the five passages where "huiothesia" (adoption) is used, in the KJV, and all have the definite article before the word. Erringly, the KJV often added the definite article to the English text when there was none in the Greek. However, in the Greek text all have the definite article except Romans 8: 15 and Ephesians 1: 4.
Romans 8:15—“. . . but ye have received the Spirit of adoption. . .”
Romans 8:23—“. . . waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”
Romans 9:4—“. . . Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption. . .”
Galatians 4:5—“. . . that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
Ephesians 1:5—“ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself...”
Some English translations do however omit the definite article for Romans 8: 15, and concerning this I will have more to say in later chapters. A better translation of Romans 8: 15 would be "huiothesia spirit." Neither the word "pneuma" (spirit) or the word "huiothesia" have the definite article before them. But, the KJV made several errors along this line which does not help one discern the meaning of the Apostle Paul. Looking at the above translations of the five verses they translate the same Greek word "huiothesia" differently. In one case it is "adoption of children" and in another it is "adoption of sons." Who gave the KJV translators the right to translate "children" rather than "sons" and to blur the distinction? But, again, more on this passage and its implications will be taken up in upcoming chapters.
By use of the definite article in Romans 9: 4 Paul is 1) pointing to something specific and 2) calling attention to what he has already spoken about previously in Romans 8: 15 and 23, where he first introduced the term in the epistle. The definite article in "the huiothesia" may therefore be viewed not only as indicating what is specific, the difference and not to the genus, but may be adjectival, demonstrative, or relative. What has Paul previously said about "the huiothesia"? He said these remarkable things:
1) Christians now possess a huiothesia spirit
2) Christians are waiting for "the huiothesia"
3) "the huiothesia" is the same thing as "the redemption of the body"
Now, to such commentary, the Apostle adds, in 9:4, the fact that "the huiothesia" belongs particularly to "Israelites." Concerning each of these statements more will be said as each of the five passages are analyzed.
The NT Is Contextually Hebrew
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4)
If we can substantiate the fact that Paul in Romans, as well as elsewhere in his epistles, nearly always makes use of Hebrew models and metaphors for illustrating the way God saves sinners, and makes them members of his family, rather than those of the Gentiles, then one should first assume the Jewish and not opt for the Gentile unless there is clear reason to do so.
To help show further that "the huiothesia" is Jewish and not Greek, Roman, or English, in addition to the proof already given, it will be demonstrated that Paul's letter to the Romans as well as the whole new testament is based upon OT or Jewish laws, rites, and history, and not that of the Greeks or Romans. The above passage of Paul in Romans indicates this fact.
The view that says "the huiothesia" is a direct reference to Greco-Roman adoption law and practise violates the Apostle's own words as cited above. In such a view it is not what "son placement" may have meant in the OT, for the Israelites, that becomes a model of salvation, "for our learning," but rather what it meant in Roman writings, for non Israelites. Thus, in this instance, Paul goes outside of the writings of the OT, outside its types, figures, examples, etc., in order to find an example of how people come to be God's children and sons. In regard to "the huiothesia" too many translators and Bible commentators may well say "whatever was written aforetime in Roman law was written for our learning."
If we look at the figures and terminology of the Book of Romans, is it Roman, Greek, or Jewish? If it is a mixture, which is the predominant source? The Book of Romans is like the entire NT in regard to its nigh universal use of Hebrew OT words and metaphors to illustrate some aspect of salvation.
New Testament theology is based not only upon express statements of the Old Testament, and upon its legal code, but also upon its types, shadows, figures, examples, word usage and definition, leading personages, historical events, etc., as well as its customs and traditions. Only occasionally does the NT make use of laws and customs outside of a Jewish context in order to serve as theological mediums. Therefore, the hermeneutic rule is to first view a term, citation, figure of speech, types, etc., in the NT, as Hebrew and only allow that Greek and Roman are the exceptions. Assumption and a prima facie case are with the view that "the huiothesia" is a Jewish idea first and foremost.
The new testament uses words like "figures" for old testament people and events. So likewise with the words "types" and "shadows."
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Col 2: 16-17)
Notice that it is the religious and civil activities of the Jews of the OT that are "a shadow of things to come." Israel's law and feasts serve as models and metaphors of the facets of redemption, and not those of the Greeks or Romans. Elsewhere in the NT it is Hebrew laws and practises that are called "examples," "types," "figures," etc., especially in the Book of Hebrews, not those of the Gentile world. All this is but further evidence that the concept of "son placement" was not taken from the Greek or Roman world but from the Jewish world of the OT.
Christ and the NT writers not only used things in Israelite culture to illustrate aspects of God's saving work, but also made use of things in nature, in the physical world, to picture divine truth, and even made use of common every day occurrences to illustrate moral and spiritual truth.
Jesus talked about men finding treasure and likened it to men finding the kingdom of God. He taught that fishing was like preaching. He also compared being stewards or managers of earthly things with being so in spiritual or heavenly things. He taught that farming, with its sowing and reaping, was a picture of the preaching of the Gospel, of salvation and damnation, and of the end of time, which is a harvest.
Like Jesus, Paul and the other NT writers made use of not only physical models of the universe to illustrate or adumbrate spiritual truth, but also common things such as building and buildings, doctors and doctoring, going to court, buying and selling, maturing and going to school, beside all kinds of human relationships and interactions that serve as metaphors of salvation. Consider also how in the NT water is a symbol of that which is spiritual, of the Spirit of God or of the word of God, a metaphor for the instrument of moral cleansing, and that bread and food serve as metaphors of some aspect of salvation in Christ. Even the idea of spiritual "birth" is a metaphor.
Paul often alluded to the Greek games and athletic contests, such as those of the Olympic or Isthmian games. He used references to fights and races, to winning crowns at competitions, of battling various foes, all to illustrate truth about God and salvation. Paul often used military terminology, perhaps in Greek or Roman language, to talk about the Christian warfare. But, it may be said, that these uses of Gentile institutions and practises were not so unique to Greece or Rome that they were unknown in Israel.
Peter used the figure of the Pyramid of five corners when he spoke of the chief or head corner. He also used the eye disease of nearsightedness as an illustration of those who "cannot see afar off," cannot see the end and purpose of all things.
James used the example of great fires starting from small ones to illustrate how a misspoken word causes damage. He said that looking into the word of God was like looking into a mirror.
But, acknowledging all this does not warrant us to think that the major metaphors and comparisons, used by the Bible writers to illustrate divine truth, were borrowed from outside of the Jewish world. All the leading metaphors in the NT that are used to teach something about salvation are taken from the Hebrew OT, and even most of the secondary metaphors, taken from outside of the OT and from Hebrew culture, are such that can be found in any culture, even Israel.
Interesting and ironic is the fact that when NT writers refer to some event or institution in the Gentile world, it is not to illustrate or reveal something about salvation, but about judgment and damnation, and about things that are wrong. Thus, to Peter, the deluge was an "example," but of what? The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were events with lessons to teach. But, what does it teach?
Consider also the fact that the OT often denounces Gentile culture, with its laws and institutions, as being vain, without meaning. "Learn not the way of the heathen...For the customs of the people are vain." (Jer. 10:2-3) Shall we say that the Roman and Greek custom of adoption, in light of all this, is a adumbration and picture of how God takes sinners and makes them into his image?
Roman Epistle is Contextually Jewish
Paul's habit was to use Hebrew laws and customs as types and shadows of theological truth, especially as revealed in the new testament. Illustrations about salvation, redemption, justification, etc., are taken from Hebrew law and thought. This is the NT rule, with but few exceptions. If reference is made to laws, teachings, and ideas concerning marriage and family, inheritance, government, righteousness, justice, holiness, sin, guilt, punishment, theology, divine worship, sacrifices, priesthood, etc., they are taken from the Hebrew OT and not from the writings and institutions of the Gentiles.
Illustrations of Salvation are Nearly Always Hebrew
Israel's seven festivals were all ordained by God to be pictures of salvation and redemption, but not so those of the Gentiles. The family laws of Israel were used by NT writers as paradigms of the relationship that God has to Christians, and they to each other, and not the family laws of Greeks or Romans. Israel's laws of inheritance served as the foundational context for explaining the Christian inheritance. Incidents in the history of Israel's patriarchs, and of the nation itself, all serve as examples and means of illustration to convey new testament truth about Christ and the way of salvation. The NT writers would never consider viewing God's dealings with other nations as pictures of salvation. Incidents in the history of Israel teach NT truth about salvation through Christ, such as their deliverance from bondage in Egypt, their baptism in the Red Sea, their journey through the wilderness to the promised land, their conflicts with their enemies, etc., all serve all examples of NT truth, but not so with any other nation.
Of course, as stated, the NT contains teaching illustrations that are based in Gentile laws and customs, but these are the exceptions, and are merely supplementary to the Hebrew.
Aug 11, 2016
Waiting For The Huiothesia II
Chapter Two - The Huiothesia Belongs To Israelites
“Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;” (Rom. 9: 4; KJV)
Of the five occurrences of "huiothesia" this seems to be the best place to begin a study of Paul's use of the term. First, because it is definitive in regard to what is meant by the term, giving an historic Jewish setting to it, and Second, because it is in the context where three of the five occurrences of the word are found, and Third, because many scholars of the word, even among those who translate wrongly, agree that this is a proper starting place to examine its Pauline usage, and agree that it has been often overlooked and not given its proper due. In the debate over whether "the huiothesia" alludes to a Jewish, Greek, or Roman institution or practise, this verse's bearing on the question is obvious and cannot be ignored.
Paul is express in affirming that η υιοτεσια — hē huiothesia (the huiothesia) "pertains to" or "belongs to" those who are "Israelites." If it belongs to them, then it does not belong to Greeks or Romans as such. Those scholars who try to find the Pauline significance of "the huiothesia" in Greek or Roman law and customs are on the wrong track. If one wanted to know about "the glory" that Paul says belongs to Israelites, then would he not go to the OT to find it? Would he go to Greek or Roman history and community to find "the glory," or the other things mentioned as peculiarly belonging to Israelites? Then why go there to find the meaning of "the huiothesia"?
This is the only time that the term “adoption” is directly applied to Israel in most English translations. This is odd seeing that the term “adoption” does not generally appear in English translations of the Old Testament, nor does "huiothesia" appear in the Septuagint. This oddity ought to prompt Bible students to question the translation of the Greek word, and instead of going into the OT to find the practise of western "adoption," they should rather go looking for "son placement." As we will see, there was no "adoption" per se in Israel, in the OT, yet there certainly was "son placing" or "son positioning," as we will see.
No Adoption In Israel
The Jews did not have adoption laws, it not being practiced among them. So, how did they take care of orphans and men who died childless and without a male heir? Was it different from how the Greek and Roman world dealt with the matter?
In each of the three cultures mentioned, all were patriarchal, the father being the head of the family. He was lord and ruler over the "clan" or "cult," or sub tribe. He was also the family priest, responsible for the religious education of the family. Further, in each culture, the laws of succession and inheritance, for both property and family status and authority, required a male heir, a full grown son to perpetuate the family and its name. But, besides these basic similarities, there are marked differences between how Israel, through her laws and customs, dealt with the problem of fathers who had no male heirs, as compared with that which is either Greek or Roman.
The Greco-Roman world used the vehicle of adoption to solve the problem of a father having no male heir. The Jews, however, dealt with it in a different manner.
The Law of Levirate Marriage
"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel." (Deut. 25:5-6)
The Jew then handled the problem of a man who dies without a male heir differently than did the Gentile world. The Jew, by LORD God's instruction, dealt with it by what is called "levirate marriage." The Greco-Roman world dealt with it by adoption. Further, the purpose of adoption in the Greco-Roman world was not the same as it is in today's western world.
Men today, in the English world, do not generally adopt adolescent or adult males, or "sons," and certainly not because they lack a male heir to preserve their family estate or heritage. Nearly all adoptions today in the western world involve adopting babies, or very small children, who are orphans. However, in the Greco-Roman world, this was not the reason. Adoption was not practiced as a way to deal with orphans or with the fatherless. Its whole purpose was in order to give a male heir to a man who had no male children.
The fact that Roman adoption is unlike modern English adoption creates difficulty for those who proceed in their explanations of the Pauline doctrine of "huiothesia" on the basis that "huiosethia" means "adoption."
The Roman Model is not like the English
So, which model of adoption do we choose? If we reject the Jewish model, accepting the translation of "adoption" for "huiothesia," then we must opt for either the Roman, Greek, or the English. Each one has serious consequences in theology, for as all agree, the "adoption" or "huiothesia" theology of Paul is a paradigm or illustration of some important aspect of salvation. If we get the model wrong, then we will get the doctrinal implications wrong.
The place that a Bible student finds himself at this point is confusing. Having left the path of truth by accepting "adoption" as the proper translation of "huiothesia," he comes to a fork in this errant path and must decide which way to go. Shall he go the Greco-Roman way, or the English way? Do I use the Roman model to illustrate how I become God's child by adoption or the English?
As we have seen, and will see yet further, accepting either of these models as a paradigm of how people become children or sons of God produces insurmountable theological difficulties, leads to heretical opinions of all kinds, and brings unease to the Christian's peace of mind.
Why Adopt?
The sole reason for adoption in the Greco-Roman world was in order for a man who had no male heir to acquire one. The idea of adopting daughters was not the reason for it and was not even practiced. This being the reason, such a man often chose either an adolescent or a mature young man who was of age. This young man would become, by legal act, the "son" of the adopter. The "son" then would become the heir of the family estate and preserve the name and heritage of his "father." Had the Greeks and Romans adopted (pun intended) the Jewish law of levirate marriage, they would, like the Jews, had not had such an institution as "adoption."
Unlike Greco-Roman adoption, English or general modern "adoption" rarely has for its reason the preservation of a man's name, estate, or family heritage. This is not to deny that many people adopt children today because they cannot have any of their own. In fact, as all know, many people who adopt already have their own biological children. Thus, the "family" consists of both biological and adopted children. Consider also that adoption in our day has even come to include the idea of single parents adopting children, yet in Roman and Greek society only men adopted males and not for the benefit of the adopted, but for the benefit of the adopter. Women did not adopt in the Greco-Roman world nor did men adopt girls to become daughters.
With these differences before us, which path (model) we take will have its theological consequences. Keep in mind that the person choosing which path to take is already on the wrong path by having interpreted "huiothesia" to mean "adoption." Whichever model of adoption we then take will bear on our views regarding salvation. The particulars of the "adoption process" are used by theologians and Bible teachers to explain the legal process involved in a person becoming God's child. But, as we have seen, the particulars of the adoption legal process are quite different in each context.
Fostering Children, Taking in Strangers, and Informal Adoption
One of the ways that the western world today deals with orphans is by encouraging their adoption. Those not adopted are either placed in temporary "foster homes," with "foster parents," being "wards of the state," or in "orphanages." Also, many Christians, especially Catholics, practise "God fathering" and "God mothering" where people become a kind of second parent, or "God parents." Sadly, also, many today, as always in the past, are orphans who simply live on the streets. However, in neither the Jewish, Greek, or Roman world was modern English adoption practiced. This is one of the reasons why it is wrong for modern English translators to continue to translate "huiothesia" as "adoption." The average young Bible student will at once think in the mode of his ideas of modern English adoption.
There is no command from LORD God in the OT for Israelites to adopt orphans. God did, however, speak directly to them about caring for them in other ways.
"When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied." (Deuteronomy 26:12-13)
The ancient Hebrews provided for both strangers and orphans, yet they did this without formal adoption. Many of them "took in" strangers and foreigners into their homes, making them either indentured servants, or as a kind of informal adoption that was meant to be temporary. Every Israelite was to fill the vacuum created in the lives of children who lost their parents by being parents to them, being fatherly and motherly towards them. It is also done with the view that such orphans will one day no longer need their care and either start their own families (in the case of males) or become part of one by marriage (in the case of females). The cases of supposed adoption practises in the OT, as we will see, are not cases of formal adoption, nor the result of Jewish law and practise, but were at best but informal adoptions, and done in a Gentile environment. Adoption, as I have shown, was not practiced by Jews in the OT and to go looking for it there (because of an erroneous translation) leads to doubt and theological confusion.
“Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;” (Rom. 9: 4; KJV)
Of the five occurrences of "huiothesia" this seems to be the best place to begin a study of Paul's use of the term. First, because it is definitive in regard to what is meant by the term, giving an historic Jewish setting to it, and Second, because it is in the context where three of the five occurrences of the word are found, and Third, because many scholars of the word, even among those who translate wrongly, agree that this is a proper starting place to examine its Pauline usage, and agree that it has been often overlooked and not given its proper due. In the debate over whether "the huiothesia" alludes to a Jewish, Greek, or Roman institution or practise, this verse's bearing on the question is obvious and cannot be ignored.
Paul is express in affirming that η υιοτεσια — hē huiothesia (the huiothesia) "pertains to" or "belongs to" those who are "Israelites." If it belongs to them, then it does not belong to Greeks or Romans as such. Those scholars who try to find the Pauline significance of "the huiothesia" in Greek or Roman law and customs are on the wrong track. If one wanted to know about "the glory" that Paul says belongs to Israelites, then would he not go to the OT to find it? Would he go to Greek or Roman history and community to find "the glory," or the other things mentioned as peculiarly belonging to Israelites? Then why go there to find the meaning of "the huiothesia"?
This is the only time that the term “adoption” is directly applied to Israel in most English translations. This is odd seeing that the term “adoption” does not generally appear in English translations of the Old Testament, nor does "huiothesia" appear in the Septuagint. This oddity ought to prompt Bible students to question the translation of the Greek word, and instead of going into the OT to find the practise of western "adoption," they should rather go looking for "son placement." As we will see, there was no "adoption" per se in Israel, in the OT, yet there certainly was "son placing" or "son positioning," as we will see.
No Adoption In Israel
The Jews did not have adoption laws, it not being practiced among them. So, how did they take care of orphans and men who died childless and without a male heir? Was it different from how the Greek and Roman world dealt with the matter?
In each of the three cultures mentioned, all were patriarchal, the father being the head of the family. He was lord and ruler over the "clan" or "cult," or sub tribe. He was also the family priest, responsible for the religious education of the family. Further, in each culture, the laws of succession and inheritance, for both property and family status and authority, required a male heir, a full grown son to perpetuate the family and its name. But, besides these basic similarities, there are marked differences between how Israel, through her laws and customs, dealt with the problem of fathers who had no male heirs, as compared with that which is either Greek or Roman.
The Greco-Roman world used the vehicle of adoption to solve the problem of a father having no male heir. The Jews, however, dealt with it in a different manner.
The Law of Levirate Marriage
"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel." (Deut. 25:5-6)
The Jew then handled the problem of a man who dies without a male heir differently than did the Gentile world. The Jew, by LORD God's instruction, dealt with it by what is called "levirate marriage." The Greco-Roman world dealt with it by adoption. Further, the purpose of adoption in the Greco-Roman world was not the same as it is in today's western world.
Men today, in the English world, do not generally adopt adolescent or adult males, or "sons," and certainly not because they lack a male heir to preserve their family estate or heritage. Nearly all adoptions today in the western world involve adopting babies, or very small children, who are orphans. However, in the Greco-Roman world, this was not the reason. Adoption was not practiced as a way to deal with orphans or with the fatherless. Its whole purpose was in order to give a male heir to a man who had no male children.
The fact that Roman adoption is unlike modern English adoption creates difficulty for those who proceed in their explanations of the Pauline doctrine of "huiothesia" on the basis that "huiosethia" means "adoption."
The Roman Model is not like the English
So, which model of adoption do we choose? If we reject the Jewish model, accepting the translation of "adoption" for "huiothesia," then we must opt for either the Roman, Greek, or the English. Each one has serious consequences in theology, for as all agree, the "adoption" or "huiothesia" theology of Paul is a paradigm or illustration of some important aspect of salvation. If we get the model wrong, then we will get the doctrinal implications wrong.
The place that a Bible student finds himself at this point is confusing. Having left the path of truth by accepting "adoption" as the proper translation of "huiothesia," he comes to a fork in this errant path and must decide which way to go. Shall he go the Greco-Roman way, or the English way? Do I use the Roman model to illustrate how I become God's child by adoption or the English?
As we have seen, and will see yet further, accepting either of these models as a paradigm of how people become children or sons of God produces insurmountable theological difficulties, leads to heretical opinions of all kinds, and brings unease to the Christian's peace of mind.
Why Adopt?
The sole reason for adoption in the Greco-Roman world was in order for a man who had no male heir to acquire one. The idea of adopting daughters was not the reason for it and was not even practiced. This being the reason, such a man often chose either an adolescent or a mature young man who was of age. This young man would become, by legal act, the "son" of the adopter. The "son" then would become the heir of the family estate and preserve the name and heritage of his "father." Had the Greeks and Romans adopted (pun intended) the Jewish law of levirate marriage, they would, like the Jews, had not had such an institution as "adoption."
Unlike Greco-Roman adoption, English or general modern "adoption" rarely has for its reason the preservation of a man's name, estate, or family heritage. This is not to deny that many people adopt children today because they cannot have any of their own. In fact, as all know, many people who adopt already have their own biological children. Thus, the "family" consists of both biological and adopted children. Consider also that adoption in our day has even come to include the idea of single parents adopting children, yet in Roman and Greek society only men adopted males and not for the benefit of the adopted, but for the benefit of the adopter. Women did not adopt in the Greco-Roman world nor did men adopt girls to become daughters.
With these differences before us, which path (model) we take will have its theological consequences. Keep in mind that the person choosing which path to take is already on the wrong path by having interpreted "huiothesia" to mean "adoption." Whichever model of adoption we then take will bear on our views regarding salvation. The particulars of the "adoption process" are used by theologians and Bible teachers to explain the legal process involved in a person becoming God's child. But, as we have seen, the particulars of the adoption legal process are quite different in each context.
Fostering Children, Taking in Strangers, and Informal Adoption
One of the ways that the western world today deals with orphans is by encouraging their adoption. Those not adopted are either placed in temporary "foster homes," with "foster parents," being "wards of the state," or in "orphanages." Also, many Christians, especially Catholics, practise "God fathering" and "God mothering" where people become a kind of second parent, or "God parents." Sadly, also, many today, as always in the past, are orphans who simply live on the streets. However, in neither the Jewish, Greek, or Roman world was modern English adoption practiced. This is one of the reasons why it is wrong for modern English translators to continue to translate "huiothesia" as "adoption." The average young Bible student will at once think in the mode of his ideas of modern English adoption.
There is no command from LORD God in the OT for Israelites to adopt orphans. God did, however, speak directly to them about caring for them in other ways.
"When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied." (Deuteronomy 26:12-13)
The ancient Hebrews provided for both strangers and orphans, yet they did this without formal adoption. Many of them "took in" strangers and foreigners into their homes, making them either indentured servants, or as a kind of informal adoption that was meant to be temporary. Every Israelite was to fill the vacuum created in the lives of children who lost their parents by being parents to them, being fatherly and motherly towards them. It is also done with the view that such orphans will one day no longer need their care and either start their own families (in the case of males) or become part of one by marriage (in the case of females). The cases of supposed adoption practises in the OT, as we will see, are not cases of formal adoption, nor the result of Jewish law and practise, but were at best but informal adoptions, and done in a Gentile environment. Adoption, as I have shown, was not practiced by Jews in the OT and to go looking for it there (because of an erroneous translation) leads to doubt and theological confusion.
Aug 5, 2016
Waiting for the Huiothesia I
Chapter One - Jewish, Greek, or Roman?
It would perhaps be easy to settle the matter of the meaning of "huiothesia" (υίοθεσία) if we had a first century koine Greek dictionary. We would look up the word and then know its meaning(s); unless Paul coined it, making a new word, a compound word, or else borrowed it and then gave to it a higher meaning in Christian theology, something done by him elsewhere. Not having such, researchers must look to Greek writings for instances where the word was used in order to help discover its etymology and meaning(s). How early or late in Greek history do we find the word? Is it a Greek word that describes something that is Hebrew, Greek, or Roman? Though Greek, was the word, or concept behind the word, borrowed from another culture and language? Did it mean "adoption" at the time Paul used it?
Paul's use of a Greek word does not warrant thinking that the idea or concept behind the word was necessarily Greek. Paul wrote in Greek words to describe things that were either Hebrew, Greek, or Roman (Latin). Paul was a translator himself, choosing Greek words that conveyed the meaning of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin words.
Who is Paul's audience in the three epistles where he speaks of "the huiothesia"? Are the Christian congregations in Ephesus, Galatia, and Rome, to whom Paul speaks about "the huiothesia," Jewish, Gentile (Greek, Roman, etc.), or a combination of each? We can reasonably assume that Paul's Christian audience, in the above named epistles, were familiar, to some degree at least, with what was meant by "the huiothesia." It is doubtful that he was introducing to them something entirely new by the term. I will show, however, that in the three epistles where Paul spoke of "son placing" that Paul is speaking chiefly to Jews and Jewish Christians and speaks in the language of Jewish laws and customs.
By "ἡ υἱοθεσία" ("the huiothesia") Paul is not alluding to a Greek or Roman practice, but to a Hebrew (even though Greeks and Romans had something similar, as we will see). This is evident from how Paul uses the word in the several contexts mentioned. In what respects an Hebrew "huiothesia" differed from a Greek or Roman "huiothesia" will also be studied. Paul is very clear in settling this matter for us when he says that to "Israelites" belong "ἡ υἱοθεσία" ("the son placing"), not to Greeks or Romans (Romans 9: 4), that is, to "Gentiles."
It is admitted by all researchers on the ancient meaning of "huiothesia" that the occurrences of its use are not only rare in Scripture but also in Greek writings. From these occurrences in Greek writings not much can be learned for certain about how the word was understood by people in the time of Paul. This does not mean, however, that we cannot discover what Paul had in mind. How Paul uses the word in the five instances mentioned furnish enough evidence to give a fairly good definition of the term and of what Paul had in mind by it. For this reason, we will first examine Paul's use of the word before looking at its use outside of the writings of Paul.
As I stated in the Introduction, "the adoption of sons" is a faulty and misleading translation and is the reason for most of the confusion on this subject. Truly, in this case, the "devil is in the definition." It is also a case where the "most scholars" argument, a form of the ad hominem argument, or argument from majority opinion, is invalid, for surely they got it wrong in this case. With this in mind, let us first look at the literal meaning of the word.
The literal meaning of "huiothesia"
Strong says on "huiothesía":
"...from a presumed compound of huios and a derivative of tithēmi; the placing as a son..."
I don't know of any Greek translator who would deny that literally "huios" means "son" and "thesia" means to place, set, put, lay, etc. Had the translators who wrongly chose "adoption" translated literally as "son placing," it would have been far better. With such a literal translation, the English reader would not only have been spared going into a wrong direction, and much confusion, but would have delved deeper into what is denoted by the idea of "son placing." With such a literal translation there would be little reason to think that the term referred to the common English idea of "adoption."
Not only the literal translation of the word, but the context of each of the five passages show us much about what Paul had in mind by the term. This, of course, is paramount, taking precedence over how the word may have been used by others in the Greek speaking world.
Putting or Placing Sons
It is not unusual to speak of certain kinds of adoption by use of words like "placing" or "putting." For instance, we may say of an orphan juvenile that he was "placed" in a foster home. Yet, it is not a word that parents of adopted children generally use when they speak of the legal act that makes a child their own. People say "we adopted a child" and do not say "we placed a child."
If we ponder what could possibly be meant by someone "placing" a "son," then our minds may think of many things. Fathers and mothers often "place" their sons. Likewise, children in general, son or daughter, at times may be said to be placed. Sometimes this is literally so, sometimes metaphorically so. Let us look at some examples.
"I put my son in school"
"I placed my son on my lap"
"My son was placed in charge"
In these examples there is both physical placing of a son but also the metaphorical, of being placed in a position of authority.
Notice this example of literal physical son placing in the old testament.
"Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;" (Gen. 31:17; see also Exodus 4:20))
Here is an instance of literally placing of sons, but it is without signification.
When such a physical placing is in view then there are generally prepositions used to denote where the thing was placed, such as "placed upon," or "placed over," etc. Yet, in the five places where Paul uses the word there are no prepositions used, which fact points to "son placing" probably being a title for an event. It is like the word "enthronement." According to Webster it means "to seat in a place associated with a position of authority or influence," or to simply "place on the throne." But, the literal act is quite distinct from what is signified by the act. As will be shown, this son placing is a kind of enthronement, a time of "investiture" and "induction," which will occur with "solemn declaration" at the second coming of Christ and of "the redemption of the body."
Paul's son placing involves more than the mere placing of a person in a physical location. It is not mere physical placing that is in view, but what that son placing signifies. As we will see, "the huiothesia" is an event, and one significant of a change of status and position, the result of having been perfected.
In all these instances the thing being placed is passive. The son is not placing himself but is being placed by someone else. Movement is involved in the idea of putting, placing, or setting. One thing is here, literally or metaphorically, and then it is moved to another place. There is a change of location or position. If I move (or place myself) from one seat to another in a theatre, it is generally insignificant. But, if I move from a board room table from the seat of lessor executives to the head seat, this is both physical and significant. Who is it that places the son? The father is the one who places his son into this position, as we will see.
In the compound word Paul uses, does "son" modify "placing" (or 'placement'), or vice verso? Should we view the word as meaning "placed sons" or "son placement"? Doubtless, both ideas are true, though one was foremost in the mind of the apostle.
"Thesia" as stated, means to put or place, literally speaking. Yet, depending upon what is the thing being placed, more may be signified than a mere change of physical location. Oftentimes, the placing of certain things or persons into some position has great significance. Think of the word "install." When used in regard to persons, it signifies being placed in a new position of authority, especially with ceremony. If Paul is thinking of "thesia" in this respects, which is highly likely, then "son placing" involves the idea of sons being installed into their destined place of honor, glory, and ruling authority.
Not only the word "install" but the word "set" is also sometimes used instead of the simple words "place" or "put." Like the word "install," the word "set" often connotes much more than do the mere words "put" or "place," depending upon the nature of the thing being "set." People are "set" in office, meaning that they are "placed in office."
Paul's future "son placing" is no doubt more than the mere placing of resurrected saints, with their new bodies, into a certain physical place, but is significant of the final glorified position of the elect as full grown sons who are in every respect like their Father and one with him and the whole Trinity.
"Set" is also part of the idea in "sanctification," which is a "setting apart." or a placing apart, or a separating of it from others in a group, so as to make it different, to distinguish it. In biblical sanctification there are two aspects of it. One is purely positional, objective, where one's legal position is changed, or his God position. The other is experiential, subjective, the place where one's psyche is located.
Notice these verses related to this. Some of them we may refer to later.
"But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him." (Psalm 4:3)
"Set apart" (Hebrew "palah") to be distinct, marked out, be separated, be distinguished
"I will set him in safety" (Psalm 12:5)
"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalm 2: 6,7; See also Isaiah 7: 6)
The Use Of The Compound Word
Why use the singular compound word "huiothesia" instead of two words? Why not keep "huios" a separate word from "tithemi"? Did Paul put these two words together himself to coin a new word? What does breaking down the compound word into two distinct words tell us?
"For the most frequent type of compounds, one component is the head (determining the grammatical properties of the compound) and the other the modifier (modifying the meaning of the head, usually by adding information). Examples: drugstore, workload, word form. A regular compound is a compound whose meaning can be derived by a general rule, e.g. teapot, but not butterfly. For types of compounds see argument compound, frame compound, synthetic compound, value compound."
("Compounding" by NIGEL FABB - SEE HERE)
Is "huiothesia" a regular compound word like "teapot" or is it more like the irregular word "butterfly"? Breaking apart the word "teapot" reveals all, but not so with words like "butterfly." You would not know what "butterfly" meant by simply breaking down the word. Unless someone tells you what it means or signifies, then you could not discover it. Consider the word "understand." Though broken down it is stand under, yet this is hardly the meaning.
Under "Structure and interpretation" Fabb wrote (emphasis mine):
"The meaning of a compound is usually to some extent compositional, though it is often not predictable. For example, popcorn is a kind of corn which pops; once you know the meaning, it is possible to see how the parts contribute to the whole – but if you do not know the meaning of the whole, you are not certain to guess it by looking at the meaning of the parts. This lack of predictability arises mainly from two characteristics of compounds: (a) compounds are subject to processes of semantic drift, which can include metonymy, so that a redhead is a person who has red hair; (b) there are many possible semantic relations between the parts in a compound, as between the parts in a sentence, but unlike a sentence, in a compound, case, prepositions and structural position are not available to clarify the semantic relation."
Compound words are plentiful in the Greek new testament, and this presented both opportunity and challenge for translators. To think that any given group of English translators will always get such compounds right is fool hearty.
In "A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, In SECTION XVI. FORMATION OF DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS (SEE HERE) we read these words:
"The N. T. contains a number of words not used by Greek authors, which were either derived from the spoken language, or were newly coined: we find most examples of the latter class in the writings of Paul. The more numerous such words are, the more necessary is it to compare the established laws of derivation in Greek with these formations peculiar to the N. T."
Thus, it is entirely possible that the Apostle Paul gave to "huiothesia" a new or enlarged usage and meaning, using it to refer to something that was Hebrew first and foremost, but what was also akin to other "rites of passage" in other cultures in regard to reaching adulthood or manhood.
It would perhaps be easy to settle the matter of the meaning of "huiothesia" (υίοθεσία) if we had a first century koine Greek dictionary. We would look up the word and then know its meaning(s); unless Paul coined it, making a new word, a compound word, or else borrowed it and then gave to it a higher meaning in Christian theology, something done by him elsewhere. Not having such, researchers must look to Greek writings for instances where the word was used in order to help discover its etymology and meaning(s). How early or late in Greek history do we find the word? Is it a Greek word that describes something that is Hebrew, Greek, or Roman? Though Greek, was the word, or concept behind the word, borrowed from another culture and language? Did it mean "adoption" at the time Paul used it?
Paul's use of a Greek word does not warrant thinking that the idea or concept behind the word was necessarily Greek. Paul wrote in Greek words to describe things that were either Hebrew, Greek, or Roman (Latin). Paul was a translator himself, choosing Greek words that conveyed the meaning of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin words.
Who is Paul's audience in the three epistles where he speaks of "the huiothesia"? Are the Christian congregations in Ephesus, Galatia, and Rome, to whom Paul speaks about "the huiothesia," Jewish, Gentile (Greek, Roman, etc.), or a combination of each? We can reasonably assume that Paul's Christian audience, in the above named epistles, were familiar, to some degree at least, with what was meant by "the huiothesia." It is doubtful that he was introducing to them something entirely new by the term. I will show, however, that in the three epistles where Paul spoke of "son placing" that Paul is speaking chiefly to Jews and Jewish Christians and speaks in the language of Jewish laws and customs.
By "ἡ υἱοθεσία" ("the huiothesia") Paul is not alluding to a Greek or Roman practice, but to a Hebrew (even though Greeks and Romans had something similar, as we will see). This is evident from how Paul uses the word in the several contexts mentioned. In what respects an Hebrew "huiothesia" differed from a Greek or Roman "huiothesia" will also be studied. Paul is very clear in settling this matter for us when he says that to "Israelites" belong "ἡ υἱοθεσία" ("the son placing"), not to Greeks or Romans (Romans 9: 4), that is, to "Gentiles."
It is admitted by all researchers on the ancient meaning of "huiothesia" that the occurrences of its use are not only rare in Scripture but also in Greek writings. From these occurrences in Greek writings not much can be learned for certain about how the word was understood by people in the time of Paul. This does not mean, however, that we cannot discover what Paul had in mind. How Paul uses the word in the five instances mentioned furnish enough evidence to give a fairly good definition of the term and of what Paul had in mind by it. For this reason, we will first examine Paul's use of the word before looking at its use outside of the writings of Paul.
As I stated in the Introduction, "the adoption of sons" is a faulty and misleading translation and is the reason for most of the confusion on this subject. Truly, in this case, the "devil is in the definition." It is also a case where the "most scholars" argument, a form of the ad hominem argument, or argument from majority opinion, is invalid, for surely they got it wrong in this case. With this in mind, let us first look at the literal meaning of the word.
The literal meaning of "huiothesia"
Strong says on "huiothesía":
"...from a presumed compound of huios and a derivative of tithēmi; the placing as a son..."
I don't know of any Greek translator who would deny that literally "huios" means "son" and "thesia" means to place, set, put, lay, etc. Had the translators who wrongly chose "adoption" translated literally as "son placing," it would have been far better. With such a literal translation, the English reader would not only have been spared going into a wrong direction, and much confusion, but would have delved deeper into what is denoted by the idea of "son placing." With such a literal translation there would be little reason to think that the term referred to the common English idea of "adoption."
Not only the literal translation of the word, but the context of each of the five passages show us much about what Paul had in mind by the term. This, of course, is paramount, taking precedence over how the word may have been used by others in the Greek speaking world.
Putting or Placing Sons
It is not unusual to speak of certain kinds of adoption by use of words like "placing" or "putting." For instance, we may say of an orphan juvenile that he was "placed" in a foster home. Yet, it is not a word that parents of adopted children generally use when they speak of the legal act that makes a child their own. People say "we adopted a child" and do not say "we placed a child."
If we ponder what could possibly be meant by someone "placing" a "son," then our minds may think of many things. Fathers and mothers often "place" their sons. Likewise, children in general, son or daughter, at times may be said to be placed. Sometimes this is literally so, sometimes metaphorically so. Let us look at some examples.
"I put my son in school"
"I placed my son on my lap"
"My son was placed in charge"
In these examples there is both physical placing of a son but also the metaphorical, of being placed in a position of authority.
Notice this example of literal physical son placing in the old testament.
"Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;" (Gen. 31:17; see also Exodus 4:20))
Here is an instance of literally placing of sons, but it is without signification.
When such a physical placing is in view then there are generally prepositions used to denote where the thing was placed, such as "placed upon," or "placed over," etc. Yet, in the five places where Paul uses the word there are no prepositions used, which fact points to "son placing" probably being a title for an event. It is like the word "enthronement." According to Webster it means "to seat in a place associated with a position of authority or influence," or to simply "place on the throne." But, the literal act is quite distinct from what is signified by the act. As will be shown, this son placing is a kind of enthronement, a time of "investiture" and "induction," which will occur with "solemn declaration" at the second coming of Christ and of "the redemption of the body."
Paul's son placing involves more than the mere placing of a person in a physical location. It is not mere physical placing that is in view, but what that son placing signifies. As we will see, "the huiothesia" is an event, and one significant of a change of status and position, the result of having been perfected.
In all these instances the thing being placed is passive. The son is not placing himself but is being placed by someone else. Movement is involved in the idea of putting, placing, or setting. One thing is here, literally or metaphorically, and then it is moved to another place. There is a change of location or position. If I move (or place myself) from one seat to another in a theatre, it is generally insignificant. But, if I move from a board room table from the seat of lessor executives to the head seat, this is both physical and significant. Who is it that places the son? The father is the one who places his son into this position, as we will see.
In the compound word Paul uses, does "son" modify "placing" (or 'placement'), or vice verso? Should we view the word as meaning "placed sons" or "son placement"? Doubtless, both ideas are true, though one was foremost in the mind of the apostle.
"Thesia" as stated, means to put or place, literally speaking. Yet, depending upon what is the thing being placed, more may be signified than a mere change of physical location. Oftentimes, the placing of certain things or persons into some position has great significance. Think of the word "install." When used in regard to persons, it signifies being placed in a new position of authority, especially with ceremony. If Paul is thinking of "thesia" in this respects, which is highly likely, then "son placing" involves the idea of sons being installed into their destined place of honor, glory, and ruling authority.
Not only the word "install" but the word "set" is also sometimes used instead of the simple words "place" or "put." Like the word "install," the word "set" often connotes much more than do the mere words "put" or "place," depending upon the nature of the thing being "set." People are "set" in office, meaning that they are "placed in office."
Paul's future "son placing" is no doubt more than the mere placing of resurrected saints, with their new bodies, into a certain physical place, but is significant of the final glorified position of the elect as full grown sons who are in every respect like their Father and one with him and the whole Trinity.
Notice these verses related to this. Some of them we may refer to later.
"But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him." (Psalm 4:3)
"Set apart" (Hebrew "palah") to be distinct, marked out, be separated, be distinguished
"I will set him in safety" (Psalm 12:5)
"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalm 2: 6,7; See also Isaiah 7: 6)
The Use Of The Compound Word
Why use the singular compound word "huiothesia" instead of two words? Why not keep "huios" a separate word from "tithemi"? Did Paul put these two words together himself to coin a new word? What does breaking down the compound word into two distinct words tell us?
"For the most frequent type of compounds, one component is the head (determining the grammatical properties of the compound) and the other the modifier (modifying the meaning of the head, usually by adding information). Examples: drugstore, workload, word form. A regular compound is a compound whose meaning can be derived by a general rule, e.g. teapot, but not butterfly. For types of compounds see argument compound, frame compound, synthetic compound, value compound."
("Compounding" by NIGEL FABB - SEE HERE)
Is "huiothesia" a regular compound word like "teapot" or is it more like the irregular word "butterfly"? Breaking apart the word "teapot" reveals all, but not so with words like "butterfly." You would not know what "butterfly" meant by simply breaking down the word. Unless someone tells you what it means or signifies, then you could not discover it. Consider the word "understand." Though broken down it is stand under, yet this is hardly the meaning.
Under "Structure and interpretation" Fabb wrote (emphasis mine):
"The meaning of a compound is usually to some extent compositional, though it is often not predictable. For example, popcorn is a kind of corn which pops; once you know the meaning, it is possible to see how the parts contribute to the whole – but if you do not know the meaning of the whole, you are not certain to guess it by looking at the meaning of the parts. This lack of predictability arises mainly from two characteristics of compounds: (a) compounds are subject to processes of semantic drift, which can include metonymy, so that a redhead is a person who has red hair; (b) there are many possible semantic relations between the parts in a compound, as between the parts in a sentence, but unlike a sentence, in a compound, case, prepositions and structural position are not available to clarify the semantic relation."
Compound words are plentiful in the Greek new testament, and this presented both opportunity and challenge for translators. To think that any given group of English translators will always get such compounds right is fool hearty.
In "A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, In SECTION XVI. FORMATION OF DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS (SEE HERE) we read these words:
"The N. T. contains a number of words not used by Greek authors, which were either derived from the spoken language, or were newly coined: we find most examples of the latter class in the writings of Paul. The more numerous such words are, the more necessary is it to compare the established laws of derivation in Greek with these formations peculiar to the N. T."
Thus, it is entirely possible that the Apostle Paul gave to "huiothesia" a new or enlarged usage and meaning, using it to refer to something that was Hebrew first and foremost, but what was also akin to other "rites of passage" in other cultures in regard to reaching adulthood or manhood.
Jul 26, 2016
Waiting for the "Huiothesia"
Introduction
Students of the Bible, if they are using an English translation, will find that the word "adoption" has most often been chosen by the English translators to convey the meaning of the Greek word "huiosethia," the word used solely by the Apostle Paul, only five times (with variant case endings) in his epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and to the Romans. Unless instructed not to do so by a Bible teacher, they will naturally give to the word "adoption" its current definition in the English language, which speaks of the act of taking a child that is not one's own child by birth and making him/her a child by legal process.
Taking this definition and idea into consideration creates an incongruity in the mind of Bible students, for they ask themselves "how can I be an adopted child of God if I am so by birth of the Spirit?" Or, perhaps ask "if I am God's child by birth, what need is there for me to be adopted?"
Doesn't being adopted mean that my legal father is not my actual father by procreation? Whoever in the English speaking world ever had a child that was so by both birth and adoption? Don't all know that one excludes the other?
A search for a solution to this problem is sought, especially by those who are serious and industrious in their Bible studies. Others, sadly, simply accept the solution most often given to the problem, which solution leaves the incongruity in place, and so the Bible student goes on thinking that he is God's child both by birth and by adoption, though such a case is not possible by western ideas about the word "adoption." Simply put, he accepts the contradiction, though often not without some hesitancy and dissatisfaction.
A search, by the more serious Bible student, is made for the views of commentators, translators, and leading interpreters, men and women who are expert in the Greek and English languages. He will discover how the majority of such "scholars" give the English word "adoption" as the correct translation of "huiosethia." Yet, if he is studious enough he will discover that there are a minority of scholars who reject "adoption" as being correct, averring rather that such is even misleading and the cause of the whole knotty problem.
Had none of the five "huiosethia" verses been translated as "adoption" then there would never have been the problem to start with. Discovering the meaning of the Greek word is paramount.
We cannot escape personal responsibility in our Bible studies. Each Bible student must judge of the reliability of "translations," because translations are in fact but "interpretations." I know that those who think that the KJV is without error will not even consider whether "adoption" is correct. Others, thankfully, will be led to enter more fully into the debate on this matter, and then hopefully come to the truth of the matter by the Holy Spirit and in the fear of God.
In order to give what is to me the correct solution to this incongruity I am publishing these chapters for my book on the subject. I will show that Christians are God's children by birth and not by adoption. I will show that "huiothesia" does not mean "son making" but "son placing."
I give thanks to God for blessing me to see the truth on this subject and for the joy in spirit that it has given to me as I spend my time as a Christian in eager anticipation of "the huiothesia."
Students of the Bible, if they are using an English translation, will find that the word "adoption" has most often been chosen by the English translators to convey the meaning of the Greek word "huiosethia," the word used solely by the Apostle Paul, only five times (with variant case endings) in his epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and to the Romans. Unless instructed not to do so by a Bible teacher, they will naturally give to the word "adoption" its current definition in the English language, which speaks of the act of taking a child that is not one's own child by birth and making him/her a child by legal process.
Taking this definition and idea into consideration creates an incongruity in the mind of Bible students, for they ask themselves "how can I be an adopted child of God if I am so by birth of the Spirit?" Or, perhaps ask "if I am God's child by birth, what need is there for me to be adopted?"
Doesn't being adopted mean that my legal father is not my actual father by procreation? Whoever in the English speaking world ever had a child that was so by both birth and adoption? Don't all know that one excludes the other?
A search for a solution to this problem is sought, especially by those who are serious and industrious in their Bible studies. Others, sadly, simply accept the solution most often given to the problem, which solution leaves the incongruity in place, and so the Bible student goes on thinking that he is God's child both by birth and by adoption, though such a case is not possible by western ideas about the word "adoption." Simply put, he accepts the contradiction, though often not without some hesitancy and dissatisfaction.
A search, by the more serious Bible student, is made for the views of commentators, translators, and leading interpreters, men and women who are expert in the Greek and English languages. He will discover how the majority of such "scholars" give the English word "adoption" as the correct translation of "huiosethia." Yet, if he is studious enough he will discover that there are a minority of scholars who reject "adoption" as being correct, averring rather that such is even misleading and the cause of the whole knotty problem.
Had none of the five "huiosethia" verses been translated as "adoption" then there would never have been the problem to start with. Discovering the meaning of the Greek word is paramount.
We cannot escape personal responsibility in our Bible studies. Each Bible student must judge of the reliability of "translations," because translations are in fact but "interpretations." I know that those who think that the KJV is without error will not even consider whether "adoption" is correct. Others, thankfully, will be led to enter more fully into the debate on this matter, and then hopefully come to the truth of the matter by the Holy Spirit and in the fear of God.
In order to give what is to me the correct solution to this incongruity I am publishing these chapters for my book on the subject. I will show that Christians are God's children by birth and not by adoption. I will show that "huiothesia" does not mean "son making" but "son placing."
I give thanks to God for blessing me to see the truth on this subject and for the joy in spirit that it has given to me as I spend my time as a Christian in eager anticipation of "the huiothesia."
Jul 2, 2016
Sound The Alarm!
Copied from "My Daily Bread" from JULY 7, 2007 (See Here)
"Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for [it is] nigh at hand; A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, [even] to the years of many generations." (Joel 2:1,2)
Alarms are of such value to us today.
We have alarm clocks, fire alarms, burglar alarms, and all kinds of high tech alarm systems, all designed to either "wake up" one from sleep or to "detect" dangers. They are designed to "give warning," so that one might thereby be "alerted" and escape threatening dangers. "Sirens" are also a kind of "alarm," used to alert of tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and other perils.
Alarms are meant to save and preserve life, to aid in preparation against possible loss. Thankfully Lord God has his ways to alarm and alert people! Lord God has given instruments of alarm, men who "sound" the alarm, who metaphorically "blow the trumpet" and are"sirens" for the truth, all in order to give "alert" and to alarm the unconverted and the spiritually and morally careless.
We ought to know when we should become "alarmed" and when we ought not to become alarmed. We are often alarmed when we have no reason to be. On the other hand, we are also often not alarmed when we ought to be alarmed.
It is a balancing act! This trying to "sound an alarm" about real dangers without appearing to be "Chicken Little" or guilty of "crying wolf," or of being an "alarmist." But, there are indeed serious and real dangers about which all surely need to be urgently and regularly warned.
Sin, evil, guilt, death, pain, sorrow, Satan and evil spirits, and the coming judgment of God, are things that ought to alarm all. These things ought, in themselves, to "alert" all of the seriousness of these pressing "dangers" and to heed the "warnings" and "alarms" given of the Lord.
"By them (God's oracles) is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward." (Psalm 19: 11 NIV)
The Scriptures are filled with warnings!
If we took all these scriptures and put them together, we would be saying to sinners, to ourselves, in our modern vernacular, -- Watch out! Be careful! Warning! Danger! Look out! Beware! Caution! Attention! Be on the alert! Keep your wits about you! Be circumspect!
The intent of all these imperatives is to spur us to become more "alert," more "on guard," more "careful." They can scarcely be uttered or written without the exclamation mark (!), for urgency is integral to such warnings. Sinners also are in a desperate "emergency" situation, and to delay heeding God's warnings increase one's odds of being destroyed.
"From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, "Obey me."" (Jeremiah 11: 7 NIV)
Obviously the thing warned against is "disobedience" and "rebellion"against the Lord.
We need to always be telling ourselves to "be careful"; And, not simply careful about driving our cars or doing some physically dangerous work. Rather, it ought to be a constant warning echoed in our spiritual ears about dangers to our souls as well.
Notice how Lord God is the one who is giving warning. He is personally involved in the work. He has been faithful in giving out his warnings.
"In every case that comes before you from your fellow countrymen who live in the cities—whether bloodshed or other concerns of the law, commands, decrees or ordinances—you are to warn them not to sin against the LORD; otherwise his wrath will come on you and your brothers. Do this, and you will not sin." (II Chronicles 19: 10 NIV)
God "warns" by various means. His word is the chief means. Those who preach and teach God's word and relate the warnings of God to others, are those who God uses to that end. All good leaders are they who have foresight of perils and who are able to give good warning."
Ministers of the word of the Lord are they who warn sinners about "sinning against the Lord."
"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself." (Ezekiel 3: 17-21 NIV -See also 33: 5-9)
It is a sin to not give warning. God is bolder through Ezekiel about this matter. Those who fail to warn others of the dangers they see are accountable to the Lord for their failure and manifest their own unbelief, and of their doubt about the seriousness and reality of the dangers.
"You warned them to return to your law, but they became arrogant and disobeyed your commands. They sinned against your ordinances, by which a man will live if he obeys them. Stubbornly they turned their backs on you, became stiff-necked and refused to listen...Our kings, our leaders, our priests and our fathers did not follow your law; they did not pay attention to your commands or the warnings you gave them." (Nehemiah 9: 29, 34 NIV)
It is easy to go to sleep in this regard, to become careless, to get a false sense of safety and security, and fail therefore to "take warning" when it is given. We ought to be in the warning business, especially as the people of God. We both receive and give warning.
"I warned you when you felt secure, but you said, 'I will not listen!' This has been your way from your youth; you have not obeyed me."(Jeremiah 22: 21 NIV)
How many warnings have parents given to their children! Is God not a"father"? Has he not warned all since the world began? Did he not warn the antediluvians through the preaching of Noah, God's "watchman"? Those wicked sinners were all warned at a time when they had a "false sense of security" and "felt secure," when they were all crying "peace, peace, when there is no peace." God also warned the inhabitants of Sodom also at a time when she "felt secure." (See Ezekiel 16: 16) Again, notice how God is a faithful watchman who has never failed to give warning to sinners.
"To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it." (Jeremiah 6: 10 NIV)
How many have died or been severely harmed by "not listening" to the words of warning! What makes people so careless? Why do some people "live dangerously"? Especially in spiritual and moral matters? Why do they "live on the edge" of danger? Part of the answer is given in the words above. They are deaf! They have "closed their ears"! They are like a man who sets his alarm clock to wake up but muffles his ears before he goes to bed! The reason also lies in the fact that they despise and disbelieve the watchman, and reject his words, and "find no pleasure in the word of the Lord."
"So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled." (I Thessalonians 5: 6 NIV)
"Let us be alert"! Let us take heed to the "alarms" sounded by the Lord through his word. Let us not hinder our ability to hear the warnings, for then they will do no good. The alarm of God is now sounding and it is not time to sleep or to be careless, but a time to wake up and be prepared. Notice how the apostle connects being "alert," warned, or "alarmed," with "self-control" or "continence."
"Be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour." (I Peter 5:8 KJV)
Certainly the words "be careful" apply to anyone who is in a jungle with lions all around, all hungry and looking for food! Christians, like men in the midst of perils, have all their energies engaged in "watching" and in "preparation" for possible harms and dangers. In this world, they are like soldiers in war and who are constantly "on alert."
"So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20: 31 NIV)
Paul was, like Ezekiel, like Christ, yea, like God himself, a faithful herald of warnings, a faithful watchman upon the wall, one who did not fail to give warning upon every occasion to every soul. It is done earnestly and fervently, with pleading, with urgency, with strong cries and yells for the careless to wake up to the impending dangers about them.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
"See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm (alertness), what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter." (II Cor.7:11 NIV)
There are lots of areas in our Christian lives where we need to be constantly warned and thanks be to God for those faithful watchmen who give out their fervent warnings, yea, even blowing loudly upon the trumpet of truth, of scripture. We need to learn to be "alert, "like men in war, who are expecting imminent attack, and who are appropriately "on alert."
"In my alarm I said, "I am cut off from your sight!" Yet you heard my cry for mercy when I called to you for help." (Psalm 31: 22 NIV)
Even the Lord's people, who trust in the Lord and believe his word, have their times when they become alarmed due to lack of faith and understanding of their alarming situations. They need to be told that they have little or no cause for alarm.
"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come."(Matthew 24: 6 NIV)
"Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." (Mark 13: 33 NIV)
See how Jesus sought to remove all causes for alarm in the hearts of his people! How he exhorted and encouraged them, assuring them that with them it would "all be well," as it is promised to be for the"righteous."
"As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him." (Mark 16: 5, 6 NIV)
He is risen! He is victorious over death and its awful curse! No more reason to be alarmed about death and judgment! Jesus assures the believer and tells him that he has no reason to be alarmed. Others do, they however, do not.
"And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints." (Ephesians 6: 18 NIV)
"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easilyunsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come." (II Thessalonians 2: 1, 2 NIV)
More exhortations against the believer becoming alarmed!
We have been forewarned and alerted to the coming judgment. Are you ready to stand before the awesome God of Scripture? Have you fled for refuge in Jesus? He is the Rock of Ages, the cleft in which you may hide and be safe. Will you come to him today and be safe?
"Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for [it is] nigh at hand; A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, [even] to the years of many generations." (Joel 2:1,2)
Alarms are of such value to us today.
We have alarm clocks, fire alarms, burglar alarms, and all kinds of high tech alarm systems, all designed to either "wake up" one from sleep or to "detect" dangers. They are designed to "give warning," so that one might thereby be "alerted" and escape threatening dangers. "Sirens" are also a kind of "alarm," used to alert of tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and other perils.
Alarms are meant to save and preserve life, to aid in preparation against possible loss. Thankfully Lord God has his ways to alarm and alert people! Lord God has given instruments of alarm, men who "sound" the alarm, who metaphorically "blow the trumpet" and are"sirens" for the truth, all in order to give "alert" and to alarm the unconverted and the spiritually and morally careless.
We ought to know when we should become "alarmed" and when we ought not to become alarmed. We are often alarmed when we have no reason to be. On the other hand, we are also often not alarmed when we ought to be alarmed.
It is a balancing act! This trying to "sound an alarm" about real dangers without appearing to be "Chicken Little" or guilty of "crying wolf," or of being an "alarmist." But, there are indeed serious and real dangers about which all surely need to be urgently and regularly warned.
Sin, evil, guilt, death, pain, sorrow, Satan and evil spirits, and the coming judgment of God, are things that ought to alarm all. These things ought, in themselves, to "alert" all of the seriousness of these pressing "dangers" and to heed the "warnings" and "alarms" given of the Lord.
"By them (God's oracles) is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward." (Psalm 19: 11 NIV)
The Scriptures are filled with warnings!
If we took all these scriptures and put them together, we would be saying to sinners, to ourselves, in our modern vernacular, -- Watch out! Be careful! Warning! Danger! Look out! Beware! Caution! Attention! Be on the alert! Keep your wits about you! Be circumspect!
The intent of all these imperatives is to spur us to become more "alert," more "on guard," more "careful." They can scarcely be uttered or written without the exclamation mark (!), for urgency is integral to such warnings. Sinners also are in a desperate "emergency" situation, and to delay heeding God's warnings increase one's odds of being destroyed.
"From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, "Obey me."" (Jeremiah 11: 7 NIV)
Obviously the thing warned against is "disobedience" and "rebellion"against the Lord.
We need to always be telling ourselves to "be careful"; And, not simply careful about driving our cars or doing some physically dangerous work. Rather, it ought to be a constant warning echoed in our spiritual ears about dangers to our souls as well.
Notice how Lord God is the one who is giving warning. He is personally involved in the work. He has been faithful in giving out his warnings.
"In every case that comes before you from your fellow countrymen who live in the cities—whether bloodshed or other concerns of the law, commands, decrees or ordinances—you are to warn them not to sin against the LORD; otherwise his wrath will come on you and your brothers. Do this, and you will not sin." (II Chronicles 19: 10 NIV)
God "warns" by various means. His word is the chief means. Those who preach and teach God's word and relate the warnings of God to others, are those who God uses to that end. All good leaders are they who have foresight of perils and who are able to give good warning."
Ministers of the word of the Lord are they who warn sinners about "sinning against the Lord."
"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself." (Ezekiel 3: 17-21 NIV -See also 33: 5-9)
It is a sin to not give warning. God is bolder through Ezekiel about this matter. Those who fail to warn others of the dangers they see are accountable to the Lord for their failure and manifest their own unbelief, and of their doubt about the seriousness and reality of the dangers.
"You warned them to return to your law, but they became arrogant and disobeyed your commands. They sinned against your ordinances, by which a man will live if he obeys them. Stubbornly they turned their backs on you, became stiff-necked and refused to listen...Our kings, our leaders, our priests and our fathers did not follow your law; they did not pay attention to your commands or the warnings you gave them." (Nehemiah 9: 29, 34 NIV)
It is easy to go to sleep in this regard, to become careless, to get a false sense of safety and security, and fail therefore to "take warning" when it is given. We ought to be in the warning business, especially as the people of God. We both receive and give warning.
"I warned you when you felt secure, but you said, 'I will not listen!' This has been your way from your youth; you have not obeyed me."(Jeremiah 22: 21 NIV)
How many warnings have parents given to their children! Is God not a"father"? Has he not warned all since the world began? Did he not warn the antediluvians through the preaching of Noah, God's "watchman"? Those wicked sinners were all warned at a time when they had a "false sense of security" and "felt secure," when they were all crying "peace, peace, when there is no peace." God also warned the inhabitants of Sodom also at a time when she "felt secure." (See Ezekiel 16: 16) Again, notice how God is a faithful watchman who has never failed to give warning to sinners.
"To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it." (Jeremiah 6: 10 NIV)
How many have died or been severely harmed by "not listening" to the words of warning! What makes people so careless? Why do some people "live dangerously"? Especially in spiritual and moral matters? Why do they "live on the edge" of danger? Part of the answer is given in the words above. They are deaf! They have "closed their ears"! They are like a man who sets his alarm clock to wake up but muffles his ears before he goes to bed! The reason also lies in the fact that they despise and disbelieve the watchman, and reject his words, and "find no pleasure in the word of the Lord."
"So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled." (I Thessalonians 5: 6 NIV)
"Let us be alert"! Let us take heed to the "alarms" sounded by the Lord through his word. Let us not hinder our ability to hear the warnings, for then they will do no good. The alarm of God is now sounding and it is not time to sleep or to be careless, but a time to wake up and be prepared. Notice how the apostle connects being "alert," warned, or "alarmed," with "self-control" or "continence."
"Be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour." (I Peter 5:8 KJV)
Certainly the words "be careful" apply to anyone who is in a jungle with lions all around, all hungry and looking for food! Christians, like men in the midst of perils, have all their energies engaged in "watching" and in "preparation" for possible harms and dangers. In this world, they are like soldiers in war and who are constantly "on alert."
"So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20: 31 NIV)
Paul was, like Ezekiel, like Christ, yea, like God himself, a faithful herald of warnings, a faithful watchman upon the wall, one who did not fail to give warning upon every occasion to every soul. It is done earnestly and fervently, with pleading, with urgency, with strong cries and yells for the careless to wake up to the impending dangers about them.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
"See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm (alertness), what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter." (II Cor.7:11 NIV)
There are lots of areas in our Christian lives where we need to be constantly warned and thanks be to God for those faithful watchmen who give out their fervent warnings, yea, even blowing loudly upon the trumpet of truth, of scripture. We need to learn to be "alert, "like men in war, who are expecting imminent attack, and who are appropriately "on alert."
"In my alarm I said, "I am cut off from your sight!" Yet you heard my cry for mercy when I called to you for help." (Psalm 31: 22 NIV)
Even the Lord's people, who trust in the Lord and believe his word, have their times when they become alarmed due to lack of faith and understanding of their alarming situations. They need to be told that they have little or no cause for alarm.
"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come."(Matthew 24: 6 NIV)
"Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." (Mark 13: 33 NIV)
See how Jesus sought to remove all causes for alarm in the hearts of his people! How he exhorted and encouraged them, assuring them that with them it would "all be well," as it is promised to be for the"righteous."
"As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him." (Mark 16: 5, 6 NIV)
He is risen! He is victorious over death and its awful curse! No more reason to be alarmed about death and judgment! Jesus assures the believer and tells him that he has no reason to be alarmed. Others do, they however, do not.
"And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints." (Ephesians 6: 18 NIV)
"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easilyunsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come." (II Thessalonians 2: 1, 2 NIV)
More exhortations against the believer becoming alarmed!
We have been forewarned and alerted to the coming judgment. Are you ready to stand before the awesome God of Scripture? Have you fled for refuge in Jesus? He is the Rock of Ages, the cleft in which you may hide and be safe. Will you come to him today and be safe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)