What Is the Difference Between Being Born Again and Being Adopted Into the Family of God
Born or Adopted
Near of the time when I have been asked, "Is a man born into the family of God, or adopted?" I have replied, " 'Born' or 'adopted' are simply two unlike terms indicating a method of entering a family, and so information technology does non matter." I was simply indicating what every reference piece of work and lexicon to which I take access says. I now believe we accept overlooked some interesting, though not crucial things.
The Greek term translated "adoption" is "huiothesia" about which Thayer says, "The nature and condition of the true disciples of Christ, who past receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God." He adds, "It also includes the blessed land looked for in the time to come life after the visible return of Christ from heaven -- i.east., the consummate condition of the sons of God which will return it evident that they are sons of God." We wish that we and our readers were always able to differentiate between a coincidental stance expressed by an "authority," and a scholarly, definitive conclusion, arrived at and proven by the proper analytical methods. Besides, we wish the authority or the student would make a proper distinction betwixt the meaning of a term and the matter to which the term refers in a item context. For example, "baptizo" means "dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm, etc." It may refer to immersion in water for the remission of sin, being overwhelmed with grief, suffering, etc., or in some denominational terminology, "a water ritual by which i is designated a fellow member of a religious grouping."
So, nosotros suggest to you that the term "huiothesia" means "continuing as sons." Whether it refers to some 'standing' or 'position' which sons may have in a particular situation, or whether it refers to a COMING INTO a position as a son depends on how we actually find it used in the Bible. The merely clear statement of which nosotros are aware which indicates its use in the New Attestation is the one in which Thayer says "it Likewise includes" in Romans 8:23, which says, "And not only and then, but ourselves likewise, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body."
As far as we know, information technology is not used in the Septuagint, and every bit far as our limited ability and resources allow us to check, we find no case from Herodotus to the "church Fathers" (including the New Testament) where the give-and-take conspicuously means "coming into a family."
We admit that all the reference works to which we have admission ascertain the word "adoption" as "an act by which a person takes another person into his family," or words to that effect. But a careful student may observe that NONE of them in that definition gave every bit a reference the word "huiothesia" and shows that IT was used in that way. In EVERY case we accept checked, the "authority" takes the English word, "adopted," and applies IT to what has happened, such as Jacob adopting Ephraim and Manasseh, or Mordeciah adopting Esther, or the girl of Pharaoh adopting Moses. Just the word "huiothesia" is never used almost these cases.
We take no objection to the utilise of the word "adopted" in those cases, but we DO have serious objections when a "scholarly authority" makes a grouping of statements about "adoption" and ASSUMES, and allows his readers to assume, that he has somehow defined the term "huiothesia" which God used, and which men have erroneously translated "adoption." The reason we say this is because the discussion, in whatever utilize nosotros take found, NEVER clearly refers to what the term "adoption" ways to united states -- "the act past which a person takes a stranger into his family unit."
The etymology of the word suggests that it literally ways "standing every bit a son," and probably most of the states, including the "authorities," accept Assumed that means "becoming a son." Keenly aware of my limited power, training, and resources for scholarly research, I am nonetheless forced to conclude, at this moment, that the word refers to one who IS a son coming into a certain continuing AS a son, but in NO case, just Becoming a son, equivalent to what we mean by being born, or adopted. In EVERY case, we call up information technology is not "sonship," per se, that is being considered, but the standing or position to which the sonship entitles ane.
The only verse I know that clearly defines one such aspect of "adoption" is Romans 8:23, to which we previously alluded. The "redemption of the trunk" CANNOT refer to our Present Conservancy, for it is "nosotros who accept the firstfruits of the Spirit" who are "waiting for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies." There are four other times the word is used in the New Testament, NONE of which violates the basic pregnant of the term. It is true that they practise not as clearly express the idea every bit this passage, but if Ane passage sets out what a term means, and no other passages bear witness whatever other meaning, how better can we discover the meaning of ANY term?
In Romans 8:15, nosotros find, "For ye received not the spirit of chains unto fear, only ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we weep, 'Abba, Begetter'." It is manifestly assumed by most of us that Paul means, "When you BECAME a son, you received the spirit of a son, whereby you can now say, 'Male parent'." My judgment is that the "spirit of adoption" is the spirit of one who IS ALREADY A SON, now looking forward to what Paul expresses in the next two verses -- the glorification with Christ when nosotros come into our inheritance as heirs of God and articulation heirs with Christ. Is there anything wrong with the concept that one who IS a son should have the "the spirit of sonship" -- the spirit in which he yearns for a particular standing as a son (which is what the discussion "huiothesia" means)?
In Romans ix:4, the Israelites are mentioned as those "whose is the adoption." Most commentators, I presume, would admit that the term has nothing whatever to do with "being built-in once more," but refers to their standing as sons. Nonetheless, no commentary of which I am aware does whatsoever more than make a statement about the meaning of the English discussion "adoption" every bit if information technology were the meaning of "huiothesia" which all scholars admit means "standing every bit sons" non "condign a son." The betoken I am making is that "huiothesia" NEVER refers, equally far every bit nosotros tin can tell, to COMING INTO THE FAMILY, as existence "built-in again" or literally, "being generated from to a higher place" does. Information technology E'er refers to the continuing or position of a son who has the rights and privileges of the inheritance -- whatever they may exist. In our example, they involve the redemption of the body, and whatever glorification we shall have with Christ.
This seems to exist very close to the idea found in Galatians 4:1-4. The Israelites were heirs, but it did not do them much proficient every bit long as they were like bondservants. But God sent forth his Son to redeem them that they might receive the "adoption of sons." Nigh of united states have obviously ASSUMED that he meant "that they might exist adopted AS sons." Merely it does non say that. Although I do not approve of the NIV in general, I happened to notice correct now that it is here translated, "The full right of sons." I do non know how the translators arrived at the conclusion that this is the correct idea, but I suppose fifty-fifty a blind pig can occasionally notice an acorn. Instead of Paul maxim that Christ came to redeem the Israelites that they might COME INTO the family of God, he is saying that he came to redeem them that they might receive the "adoption OF sons" -- the full right of sons -- a special position that an developed son volition receive every bit an heir, equally poesy vii suggests.
In Ephesians 1:5, we are told that he "foreordained united states unto adoption every bit sons." This has been understood (or misunderstood) to mean "adopted INTO the family unit of God that nosotros might Become sons." Information technology does not say that. What information technology really teaches is that he chose the states before the foundation of the world that we, who have chosen to exist holy and without blemish -- sons of God -- might receive the "adoption every bit sons" -- the standing or position Equally adult sons, to the praise of the glory of His grace, or as verse 14 climaxes information technology, "Unto the redemption of God's own possession."
I exercise non know that this concept is crucial, but I call back information technology better to be right than incorrect. When God speaks of generating united states of america from above (usually translated "born again"), the idea involves the fact that nosotros thus become partakers of a new nature. The English word "adoption" does not involve that fact! It is therefore inadequate and inaccurate representation of our relationship with God. But the Greek word, "huiothesia," since it does not actually mean "adoption" in the first place, DOES represent accurately the STANDING OR POSITION which nosotros, every bit sons, will have at the redemption of our bodies. Being built-in from above is an ACT. "Huiothesia" is a Land. I am willing to stick with Paul'south definition in Romans eight:23, unless someone can show that God somewhere gives another i. And then far I have not found it. Take you?
Since writing the in a higher place, I checked Vine's Expository Dictionary and detect that on page 32 he says, "Adoption is a term involving the dignity of the relationship of believers equally son; it is non a putting into the family by spiritual nascence, but a putting into the position of sons." (Emp. mine, TPB).
T. Pierce Brown
(http://www.oldpaths.com)
Source: http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/adoption.html
0 Response to "What Is the Difference Between Being Born Again and Being Adopted Into the Family of God"
Post a Comment