ECT Sonship vs. Adoption

[nikolai_42]

While listening to a popular minister on the radio yesterday (who was preaching on resurrection), the thought occurred to me that sonship is spoken of by Paul quite a bit but by John only a couple times. I was led to this when the minister quoted Paul on sonship and I was thinking in parallel of what John said but realized that there was a divide between them. Not necessarily a contradiction, but a place where Paul seemed to be fairly specific but where John was vague. that has to do with adoption.

Obviously, adoption or sonship is not an either/or matter. If one is a son, one is adopted as a son. But the seeming discontinuity makes me wonder about what I have always thought about these matters. Is one a son before one is adopted? Why would Paul say in Romans that adoption pertains to Israel (Romans 9:4) but in Galatians (where he roundly condemns the Judaizers) that Gentiles might receive the adoption of sons (Galatians 4:5)?

Further - and approaching the crux of the seeming contention between Paul and John - Paul says that this adoption is the redemption of our bodies (i.e. the resurrection):

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8:23

Yet to the Ephesians, Paul places adoption in a (seemingly) more immediate (if not accomplished) context :

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Ephesians 1:4-5

John says that those who believed on Christ were given power to become sons of God. And the scripture that really precipitated all this comes from his first epistle :

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
I John 3:2

The only way I see to be consistent is to say that no one is actually adopted until the resurrection. But even then, the spirit of what John is saying seems to tend more to the accomplished (already) understanding of sonship. If believers are NOW the sons of God, what does it mean, then to be adopted?

What's going on here?

 

[Cross Reference]

While listening to a popular minister on the radio yesterday (who was preaching on resurrection), the thought occurred to me that sonship is spoken of by Paul quite a bit but by John only a couple times. I was led to this when the minister quoted Paul on sonship and I was thinking in parallel of what John said but realized that there was a divide between them. Not necessarily a contradiction, but a place where Paul seemed to be fairly specific but where John was vague. that has to do with adoption.

Obviously, adoption or sonship is not an either/or matter. If one is a son, one is adopted as a son. But the seeming discontinuity makes me wonder about what I have always thought about these matters. Is one a son before one is adopted? Why would Paul say in Romans that adoption pertains to Israel (Romans 9:4) but in Galatians (where he roundly condemns the Judaizers) that Gentiles might receive the adoption of sons (Galatians 4:5)?

Further - and approaching the crux of the seeming contention between Paul and John - Paul says that this adoption is the redemption of our bodies (i.e. the resurrection):

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8:23

Yet to the Ephesians, Paul places adoption in a (seemingly) more immediate (if not accomplished) context :

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Ephesians 1:4-5

John says that those who believed on Christ were given power to become sons of God. And the scripture that really precipitated all this comes from his first epistle :

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
I John 3:2

The only way I see to be consistent is to say that no one is actually adopted until the resurrection. But even then, the spirit of what John is saying seems to tend more to the accomplished (already) understanding of sonship. If believers are NOW the sons of God, what does it mean, then to be adopted?

What's going on here?

Children are born. Sons are given. Jesus is the example in this. Jesus learned the ways of His Father, was adopted back by God, was filled with all grace and truth [His diploma], and then sent into the world to enable us to follow suit.

Fatherhood in God is what He is after in our sonship because fathers beget new sons unto Him. God wants a vast family of sons. By now you should know that.

 

[Danoh]

Consider that adoption as related by Paul and John is the issue of a day when a son receives all aspects - the reward - of his inheritance as a son.

The concept is not of adopting someone else's child, rather; of one's own child being acknowledged as no longer a child but a son; with all its' rights and privileges.

Note how that the passages you cited all speak of aspects that are present possessions but also of other aspects or possessions yet to come.

Think Bar Mitzvah Concept...

 

[nikolai_42]

Children are born. Sons are given. Jesus is the example in this. Jesus learned the ways of His Father, was adopted back by God, was filled with all grace and truth [His diploma], and then sent into the world to enable us to follow suit.

Fatherhood in God is what He is after in our sonship because fathers beget new sons unto Him. God wants a vast family of sons. By now you should know that.

If we are NOW the sons of God what does that say about our adoption?

Where do you get what I underlined in your response? Jesus learned, but adopted back by God? Don't see that...

 

[Cross Reference]

Consider that adoption as related by Paul and John is the issue of a day when a son receives all aspects - the reward - of his inheritance as a son.

The concept is not of adopting someone else's child, rather; of one's own child being acknowledged as no longer a child but a son; with all its' rights and privileges.

Note how that the passages you cited all speak of aspects that are present possessions but also of other aspects or possessions yet to come.

Think Bar Mitzvah Concept...

I believe I spelled that out quite nicely.

 

[nikolai_42]

Consider that adoption as related by Paul and John is the issue of a day when a son receives all aspects - the reward - of his inheritance as a son.

The concept is not of adopting someone else's child, rather; of one's own child either being acknowledged as no longer a child but a son; with all its' rights and privileges.

Note how that the passages you cited all speak of aspects that are present possessions but also of other aspects or possessions yet to come.

Think Bar Mitzvah Concept...

Why, then, does John say that NOW are we the sons of God? Paul's treatment of adoption seems largely to be dealing with resurrection (redemption of the body). John seems to be saying that the believer already IS adopted. Paul...doesn't.

 

[Danoh]

If we are NOW the sons of God what does that say about our adoption?

Where do you get what I underlined in your response? Jesus learned, but adopted back by God? Don't see that...

In the Bar Mitzvah concept is the child a stranger being "adopted" into one's family; or is the child one's own?

And what is the purpose of that practice, and what is it a type of?

What you are doing is reading your sense of the word adoption into this concept.

 

[Danoh]

I believe I spelled that out quite nicely.

I believe you are not the issue you want to be.

The key to overcoming that is to rest in your son ship, not merely pay it lip service.

 

[Cross Reference]

If we are NOW the sons of God what does that say about our adoption?

First and foremost, learning the ways of the father is the issue for sonship after first being born into the Roman/Jewish family, the blood relationship being the qualifier for entering into the schooling of son-ship. Now, isn't that the way is was with Jesus?

Where do you get what I underlined in your response? Jesus learned, but adopted back by God? Don't see that...

Adopted back by God are my words that explain what actually took place after 30 years of training by the indwelling Holy Spirit plus His familial relations. Question: When is the first time we read of God calling Jesus His son?

 

[nikolai_42]

In the Bar Mitzvah concept is the child a stranger being "adopted" into one's family; or is the child one's own?

And what is the purpose of that practice, and what is it a type of?

What you are doing is reading your sense of the word adoption into this concept.

I do understand - generally at least - the concept of adoption as sons. I know this isn't an issue of going to an agency to get a child. Were that so, then "children" and "sons" would imply the same thing. I know they don't.

But Paul says this adoption takes place at the resurrection (if I read him correctly) whereas John says we are NOW the sons of God - implying that the adoption has already occurred. To use your example of the bar mitzvah, Paul seems to be saying that it occurs at the resurrection but John says we have already had the barmitzvah.

Whence the (seeming) contradiction?

 

[Cross Reference]

I believe you are not the issue you want to be.

The key to overcoming that is to rest in your son ship, not merely pay it lip service.

I am not going to to indulge you Danno.

 

[nikolai_42]

First and foremost, learning the ways of the father is the issue for sonship after first being born into the Roman/Jewish family, the blood relationship being the qualifier for entering into the schooling of son-ship. Now, isn't that the way is was with Jesus?

Certainly after His humanity, this was the case. He learned obedience by the things He suffered. But this was the same one who (at least as early as 12) declared that He had to be about His Father's business.

Adopted back by God are my words that explain what actually took place after 30 years of training by the indwelling Holy Spirit plus His familial relations. Question: When is the first time we read of God calling Jesus His son?

His baptism. But Mark calls Him the Son of God at the beginning of his genealogy. Genealogy implying birth. And John witnesses as well as confers Jesus' baptism saying "this IS the Son of God". Not that He became one. He said he wasn't worthy even to untie the thongs of His sandals. Jesus already had that sonship ("only begotten Son"). And in Acts 13 we read Paul (again) :

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:32-34

So Jesus' resurrection (unless that was His begetting) was the introduction of sonship for man. It is where Paul takes his idea of adoption from - the resurrection of Jesus being that whereby sons of God are adopted.

 

[Danoh]

I do understand - generally at least - the concept of adoption as sons. I know this isn't an issue of going to an agency to get a child. Were that so, then "children" and "sons" would imply the same thing. I know they don't.

But Paul says this adoption takes place at the resurrection (if I read him correctly) whereas John says we are NOW the sons of God - implying that the adoption has already occurred. To use your example of the bar mitzvah, Paul seems to be saying that it occurs at the resurrection but John says we have already had the barmitzvah.

Whence the (seeming) contradiction?

This may not bode well with you, but the answer is found in the fact of Galatians 2's sense of the word "of."

That sense is the sense of "belonging to."

Galatians 2:

7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto
me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8. [For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:]
9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was
given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

What does the summary that is Galatians 2; what does it assert as to who had been assigned as a purveyor of what information "of" [or belonging to] whom?

Paul and John are not speaking of, nor speaking to the same people of [belonging to] God.

 

[Cross Reference]

Certainly after His humanity, this was the case. He learned obedience by the things He suffered. But this was the same one who (at least as early as 12) declared that He had to be about His Father's business.



His baptism. But Mark calls Him the Son of God at the beginning of his genealogy. Genealogy implying birth. And John witnesses as well as confers Jesus' baptism saying "this IS the Son of God". Not that He became one. He said he wasn't worthy even to untie the thongs of His sandals. Jesus already had that sonship ("only begotten Son"). And in Acts 13 we read Paul (again) :

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:32-34

So Jesus' resurrection (unless that was His begetting) was the introduction of sonship for man. It is where Paul takes his idea of adoption from - the resurrection of Jesus being that whereby sons of God are adopted.

OK. I see where this is going. Have a nice day.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Certainly after His humanity, this was the case. He learned obedience by the things He suffered. But this was the same one who (at least as early as 12) declared that He had to be about His Father's business.



His baptism. But Mark calls Him the Son of God at the beginning of his genealogy. Genealogy implying birth. And John witnesses as well as confers Jesus' baptism saying "this IS the Son of God". Not that He became one. He said he wasn't worthy even to untie the thongs of His sandals. Jesus already had that sonship ("only begotten Son"). And in Acts 13 we read Paul (again) :

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:32-34

So Jesus' resurrection (unless that was His begetting) was the introduction of sonship for man. It is where Paul takes his idea of adoption from - the resurrection of Jesus being that whereby sons of God are adopted.

Romans 8:14 KJV


14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


Romans 8:16 KJV


16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:




There is no difference here between children and sons.

All have an inner man.

The difference is between offspring and children.

Spoken of by Paul at Athens.

Acts 17:28 KJV


28 For in him we live , and move , and have our being ; as certain also of your own poets have said , For we are also his offspring.


Acts 17:29 KJV


29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.






The adoption program lasts longer than the Barmitzvah.

Actually all through the life of the believer.

You know these scriptures bro.

God is no half stepper.



Zechariah 9:12 KJV


12 Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee;


Hebrews 3:6 KJV

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.



Hebrews 6:18 KJV


18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie , we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us :





He is able to finish what he started in us.


12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed , not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

 

[nikolai_42]

OK. I see where this is going. Have a nice day.

I'm glad you can...because I'm still not sure.

 

[nikolai_42]

This may not bode well with you, but the answer is found in the fact of Galatians 2's sense of the word "of."

That sense is the sense of "belonging to."

Galatians 2:

7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto
me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8. [For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:]
9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was
given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

What does the summary that is Galatians 2; what does it assert as to who had been assigned as a purveyor of what information "of" [or belonging to] whom?

Paul and John are not speaking of, nor speaking to the same people of [belonging to] God.

So you are saying that adoption only pertains to Israelites? Ephesians 1:5 and Romans 8:15,23 seem to say otherwise. Hanging all that on the turn of a preposition seems dangerous to me anyway...

 

[nikolai_42]

Romans 8:14 KJV


14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


Romans 8:16 KJV


16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:




There is no difference here between children and sons.

All have an inner man.

The difference is between offspring and children.

Spoken of by Paul at Athens.

Acts 17:28 KJV


28 For in him we live , and move , and have our being ; as certain also of your own poets have said , For we are also his offspring.


Acts 17:29 KJV


29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.






The adoption program lasts longer than the Barmitzvah.

Actually all through the life of the believer.

You know these scriptures bro.

God is no half stepper.



Zechariah 9:12 KJV


12 Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee;


Hebrews 3:6 KJV

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.



Hebrews 6:18 KJV


18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie , we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us :





He is able to finish what he started in us.


12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed , not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

If that's true, then why isn't Jesus ever called a "child of God"?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

OK. I see where this is going. Have a nice day.

Yup, THE RESURRECTION POWER OF GOD. :thumb: :banana: :wave2:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

If that's true, then why isn't Jesus ever called a "child of God"?

Watch you talkin' 'bout, Willis?



Acts 4:27 KJV


27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed , both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together ,


Acts 4:30 KJV


30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.