If you think I'm going overboard, consider but one example. Paragraph 16 in chapter 14 of the Jeremiah book states: "Hence, even now these gain a certain righteous standing before God. They are being declared righteous as Jehovah's friends. (Rom. 4:2, 3; Jas. 2:23)"
"A certain righteous standing"??? Not the righteous standing conferred upon the tiny minority of anointed ones, No; but still, some kind of righteous standing, a "certain kind". And what is that to be? Not sonship, No sir! Not the inheritance of children. These ones cannot call God their Father, but they can call him their friend...like Abraham was. That's pretty good, isn't it? Nothing to scoff at, no sirree!
This baldfaced assertion, that the great crowd are being declared righteous as Jehovah's friends, is not found in Scripture--not even hinted at in Scripture. If it were, don't you think we'd have those texts plastered all over the article? But what about the two scriptures referenced in parentheses? (Rom. 4:2, 3; Jas. 2:23) Isn't that proof? We are meant to think so. We are meant to read them and see that Abraham was God's friend and so if he could be, so could we. But is that proof that we are? Is that the point that Paul is making? Why wasn't Abraham called God's son? Few men were more esteemed by God. His faith was outstanding. He is one of those mentioned specifically in Hebrews chapter 11. So again, why wasn't he called God's son?
Simply put, Araham wasn't a Christian. He died centuries before Christ opened the way for men to be called, not friends, but sons of God. Is any imperfect man called God's son in the Hebrew Scriptures? NO! Why not? Because it wasn't possible until Jesus died and opened the way for the "glorious freedom of the children of God".
If someone cares to take the time to read those two references, it is plainly evident that Paul and James are both making similar points about faith vs. works. As a result of his faith, not his works, Abraham was called God's friend. If he had been living in the first century, he would not have been called God's friend. He would have been called God's son, not due to works, but due to faith. Both writers are writing to anointed Christians who already knew they were God's children. Being God's friend would be a step down for them. Is there something in the two passages to indicate to first century Christians that a new class, a "friends of God" class of Christian would appear in the distant future? It would simply be impossible to twist these scriptures far enough to make that plausible. In fact, to say that these verses are being misapplied is to abuse the term "misapplied".
These are the only instances in the Christian Scriptures of someone being called God's friend and they apply to Abraham with no allusion that the term would be extended to anyone in the Christian Congregation. Yet in thousands of congregations around the world will a hand be raised to object? No, but there must be many--a minority perhaps--but still, many, who are 'sighing and groaning over the things being done in Jerusalem.'
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by on 2013-09-27 02:43:02
A step down from a son to a friend? Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian, He was indeed an example of faith in the One True God. Not polytheistic like his forefathers and the people around him were at that time as some people are today. Calling oneself a literal 'son of God' is blasphemy against God, It is a major sin known as shirk. Please do some research
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-27 08:53:58
This is a site for those interested in Bible research. The Bible clearly teaches that both men and angels, being created in the image of God, are his sons. Sonship was lost by Adam, and its restoration is one of the key messages of holy Scripture. As an Islamist, you recognize the Bible is a holy book and actually base your faith on the first five books, so you cannot reject the idea of man being a son of God without rejecting the idea that the Bible is a holy book.
The fact is that the devil broke up the family relationship in the beginning. He has been trying to do that every since and has had great success. Two-thirds of earth's population follow religions, such as Hinduism and Islam, that hold no concept of God as the Eternal Father. With Christianity, he had to be less direct, so he confused the issue by turning the Son of God, Jesus, into God himself. How can we have a personal father-son relationship if our Father, Jehovah, and our brother, Christ, are one and the same?
If you wish to continue contributing to the site, please don't tell us to do research. Do it yourself and present it for us to review. However, if your research doesn't involve the Bible, then this is not the site for you.
Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-27 09:34:47
(1 John 2:23) Everyone that denies the Son does not have the Father either. He that confesses the Son has the Father also.
Comment by emilyjeff on 2013-09-27 14:54:48
Thank you Meleti for such a well presented post. It was a revelation for me to find out the truth, that we are indeed children of God and Christ is our Mediator. I am grateful for the information found on this site that led me to this Bible understanding. “14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God 15 So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God's Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, "Abba, Father." 16 For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God's children.” Romans 8:14-16 Through Jesus, the Son, we can enter into an intimate relationship with the Father and get to know Him as only a child can know his Father. As we read at John 14:7 “If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." It is such a privilege.
Comment by Chris on 2013-09-27 17:06:49
Thank you also Meleti,
One of the things that appealed to me upon becoming a Jehovah's Witness was the prospect of a future for obedient mankind on Earth. (And lets face it there is nothing wrong with the planet, just the tenants).
The prospect of heavenly life certainly wasn't entertained by the Jews, and the promise to Abraham confirms this. Their hope of resurrection was to the Earth, not Heaven.
Russell and others tried to resolve what would happen to those who were not of a heavenly disposition or Christian, and clarify the resurrection hope. Despite the machinations of Rutherford leading to many falling away, his apparent revelation that "millions now living will never die/Jonadab class" seemed to fit the bill at the time.
We all know most Witnesses that have absolutely no heavenly inclination but a firm resolve to live on a restored paradise Earth.
It is quite clear from reading the Gospel accounts that Jesus was extending heavenly hope to his followers and Acts & Letters are all written for a community with a common heavenly theme.
While I agree that Adam was God's earthly son and, by extension, all his children must be sons & daughters of God, an area that is still unresolved for me is those who do not claim heavenly calling but claim Christianity and Christ as their Mediator.
Regardless it is not for the GB to come up with yet another classification of status before Jehovah which they have made themselves the adjudicators of.
I hope I have made sense:)Reply by crazyguy on 2013-09-27 18:16:02
Chris you will find that the jw's have changed the understanding of the Greek word naos to try to show the greatcrowd not in heaven but on earth. Upon more research it become clear they are wrong on this two. But on the main subject, the gb of jw's have declared that only the 144k are the anointed sons of god even though there's no place in the bible that says the 144k are anointed and the scriptures show all Christians are. The have taken away our gift of righteousness, May 3 daily text as well as told us that Jesus is not our messiah. They tell us not to partake of the emblems to have life and then tell us to sacrifice ourselves and our children to god in order to abstain from blood. They have this summer declared themselves the vicar of Christ and we have to follow them inorder to be saved not Christ. This religion is an obination and I no longer refer to myself as a jw.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-27 21:31:27
You have. I think that the issue of many not having a heavenly hope is the result of decades of indoctrination. I myself never envisioned it and had no desire for it, because I was told it wasn't for me. Why desire something you cannot have. However, if I had believed since my youth that I had this hope open to me, then I would have thought about it and dwelt on it, and I'm sure a desire would have been the result. However, the fiction that Jehovah puts this desire into the heart of certain ones is just part of JW lore and has no basis in Scripture.
Reply by Chris on 2013-09-28 01:38:04
Thank you both, and I do agree that to be a Christian you must partake of the emblems and by default our hope must be a heavenly one.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the Earth must have a purpose, or are we to conclude like some groups that the Earth will be destroyed and new earth will be created and be populated with the faithful at some later stage.
Abraham, John the Baptiser and those resurrected to judgement etc are not going to heaven upon their resurrection are they? So God's purpose for the Earth remains does it not? If we are to rule as kings with Christ there must be subjects to rule over, and as with all kingdoms the rulers do not outnumber their subjects.
The purpose of Christs kingdom is to ultimately hand the ruler-ship back to Jehovah.
So this has implications for Armageddon and who will survive? It also says to me that despite the graphic representations of the WTS that depict wholesale destruction of all non- JW mankind, there will only be a destruction of those who Jesus judges to be unrighteous. Like all the kingdoms depicted in the Daniel's image, God's kingdom will conquer mans rule, not completely destroy their subjects.
For me, the trigger to discovering the falsehoods of the WTS was a heartfelt almost overwhelming belief that Jehovah will not destroy good, yet misguided, people at Armageddon but it will be a worldwide change of government. To that end the graphic and sometimes symbolic language of Revelation and other accounts is not out of place because it represents the massive impact this change of kingdoms will have, especially to those who try and fight against it.
This also allows me to see that the preaching work will not reach that far into Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc before the end comes because these nations will be brought under the Christ and his co-rulers during the 1000 year reign.
Perhaps I am misguided or sentimental but I believe that Jesus doesn't need to wreck the Earth and slaughter everybody to conquer them.
Which brings me back to my point that a Christians hope must be to be a co-ruler with Christ otherwise our hope is misguided. I also means that many who entertain the hope of heavenly life do not appreciate its significance and will be rejected and "gnash their teeth" at having missed out.
It does seem to me that many of the parables make more sense when we view them in the light of God's mercy not his judgement.
Again, somewhat of a rambling post yet I think I have expressed what I feel and I am sorry for the lack of supporting scriptures, but I believe most here can join the dots.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-28 07:26:10
You make some really interesting points, Chris. I have only recently entertained the thought that Armageddon might not see the destruction of all mankind. But that there may be survivors. Another possibility is that all will be destroyed, as Sodom and Gomorrah were, but there will be a resurrection to allow for all humankind, including those killed in Sodom and Gomorrah, to become reconciled with God. (Mt. 10:15) Having thrown off the shackles of the 1914 doctrine, we are free to once again explore Revelation with an open mind. Of course, all we can do is speculate at this point, but it does hold some interesting possibilities for us.
While the publications say that the theme of the Bible is the issue of God’s sovereignty, I’m wondering if it isn’t something else. Jehovah’s sovereignty is important, of course, but what stands out as a common thread throughout the Scriptures is the revealing of the seed. From Genesis through to Revelation, identifying the seed has been the recurring theme. The Devil’s efforts throughout our history have been directed to destroying the seed.
The way that Jehovah restores paradise is by means of the seed, Christ and his anointed, glorified brothers who will reign from heaven to restore all things. Armageddon isn’t a time of judgment upon the people of earth but a time of judgment upon those called to make up the seed. Judgment starts with the house of God. (1 Pet. 4:17) Some will ascend, while others will be brought down. That will be a day of wrath and judgment, but not Judgment Day. (Rom. 2:3-11) Once that number has been sealed, then a secondary judgment and execution can come, as you rightly point out, upon the nations. Again, not individuals, but governments. With the way clear of human rulership, God’s kingdom can set about restoring paradise. (Luke 23:42, 43) The judgment of individuals takes place over the thousand year judgment day. (Mt. 12:36)
So, does he destroy everyone and start fresh, or allow some individuals to enter as survivors? Time will tell.Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-28 16:32:04
Meleti, you said:
"...While the publications say that the theme of the Bible is the issue of God’s sovereignty, I’m wondering if it isn’t something else. Jehovah’s sovereignty is important, of course, but what stands out as a common thread throughout the Scriptures is the revealing of the seed. From Genesis through to Revelation, identifying the seed has been the recurring theme. The Devil’s efforts throughout our history have been directed to destroying the seed."
What was interesting you said was, "identifying the seed has been the recurring theme..."
Most religionists would say, "identifying the seed," is easy. Its Jesus of course.
However, there are a handful of former Jehovah's Witnesses on the net, a few years back, who have taken a very unusual and unique slant on this established fact...particularly using Genesis 3:15. If you are interested, I could share some of their findings on this topic.
Observer17Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-29 09:17:20
Sure. My email is meleti.vivlon@gmail.com. Thanks.
Reply by Observer17 on 2013-09-28 19:12:09
Here is some of the information I was referring to about the "Seed" and Genesis 3:15, that is taught by a group of former Jehovah's Witnesses.
Seven (7) Pivotal Points to Consider in Understanding Genesis 3:15
1) The Watchtower Society simply assumes the "woman" cannot be Eve because she could not produce a perfect "seed." (But we can ask ourselves, does the "seed" need to be perfect to accomplish God's Will in this instance?)
2) If the "woman"" pictures the heavenly organization (as taught by the Watchtower Society), then her "seed" could NOT be Jesus because Jesus was created directly by Jehovah as His "only-begotten," and thus existed before any other spirit creature in heaven. And as we know, Jesus was responsible for the creation of the entire angelic family and so could not come from this group of angels, but instead they come from him. (John 1:18; Colossians 1:15, 16)
3) The churches who say the "woman" is Mary, overlook the obvious fact if you say the "seed" comes through Mary, you are still saying that the "seed" still came from Adam & Eve. You can't separate that fact. -- See Genesis 4:25; 12:3; 17:5; 22:17, 18; 2 Samuel 7:11-15; Psalms 89:3, 4.
Further, if the "woman" is Eve, Jesus could not be her "seed" or descendant because no imperfect human male was involved in his conception. This of course means in medical terms, Mary was used ONLY as a "Surrogate" mother in giving birth to Jesus. -- Please see the ***Footnote*** below for more information on Surrogacy and/or being a “Surrogate Mother.”
4) The foretold "enmity" spoken of in this verse is strictly between Satan and the "woman" and then, between the "seed" of Satan and the "seed" of the "woman." Isn't that true?
5) Since we know Satan's "seed" is earthly, so must the woman's "seed" be also. Further, they must co-exist together on earth, in order for genuine "enmity" to be expressed between the two, as foretold.
6) Since the foretold "enmity" is between the two earthly "seeds," so must the accompanying "bruising" action be delivered to one another, on earth. Otherwise, it would have been pointless to mention the predicted "enmity" was to be strictly between the "seed" of the Woman and the "seed" of Satan [Serpent]. If the "bruising" actions were to be between the Messianic Seed and Satan [Serpent], then why even bring up the "enmity" between the two "seeds" in the first place.
7) The Bible emphatically states Satan is to be destroyed by God, and not by the "seed" of the "woman" or messiah. So the "seed" of the "woman" does not "bruise" Satan or destroy him. (Romans 16:20)
End of quote.
Additionally, this group of former Jehovah's Witnesses have also an interesting take on Leviticus 16:10 from the New World Translation. In this verse, the 2nd goat is viewed as the "live" goat, or the "Scapegoat" that is sent to the wilderness. The group claims the New World Translation uses the correct Hebrew word "ATONED FOR" in its translation, and is specifically referring to the 2nd goat. For this reason,they say he [2nd goat] could not picture Jesus Christ, since Jesus never needed any "atonement" for sins. As you know, the Watchtower Society teaches Jesus pictures BOTH goats, the "live" goat, and the one that is killed or sacrificed, as shown in Leviticus 16th chapter. (See Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 1, page 226 paragraph 3.)The group claims Jehovah and Jesus have sent to earth, this "seed" also referred to as the "spirit of truth" to be a "guide" for all. He is also known as "Elijah" who was to "restore all things." (John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:13, 14; Malachi 4:5; Matthew 17:11)
Observer17
Reply by smolderingwick1s on 2013-09-28 02:14:55
My own take on the heavenly hope is that it has inspired such an arrogant attitude among the majority declaring themselves as such. This elevated class distinction is not just difficult, but next to impossible to address to the proud and arrogant among us. As for me, I regard myself as 'Jehovah's witness' in the same manner given the prophets. If I am made aware of what the spirit gives, I am also humbled to accept what I am within the framework I know to be written. What ever I am or will be is God's choice through Christ my Lord and I will not speculate beyond what I know to be written. When we finally reach that point of Revelation in its finality, whatever men say I must be won't matter anymore since I already know who I am in the sight of God and Christ.
As for this business of whether I am to be of an anointed ruling class, whether in heaven or earth and whether I am to rule or be ruled over, these are eventualities determined not by me, but God! While I might get frustrated with this arrogance permeating our present ruling class, I also pity those caught up in it because the fall from grace will be that much harder for those succumbing to this seduction of our proud enemy Satan. Being that I've long since resigned from that attitude, its anger along with the hatred has also departed me finally to leave plenty of room to love my God and neighbour more fully.
I can only encourage all to do the same.
Affection in Christ,
swReply by Chris on 2013-09-28 03:44:24
When I write replies I must admit that I sometimes get a little bit paranoia that a point I have laboured over might be misconstrued as dogmatism.
I did not intend any offense and my comments were not directed at those of us struggling under the burden of WT doctrine.
My aim was to point out that sometimes we must put a stake in the ground over what the Bible actually says, and it does seem clear to me that, whether we are found worthy or not, or even feel worthy of such a privilege, our hope must be to be part of a loving restorative heavenly kingdom under our Master, Jesus.
That is our hope and unlike the GB we do not claim to be approved or appointed before Jesus returns.
Their attitude is presumptuous and they stand condemned if they do not repent.Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-09-28 12:36:01
And I totally agree, Chris. And sorry if my comments sounded as though I was targeting anyone as I was generalizing.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-28 08:07:18
I'm sure no one took your words as dogmatism. We welcome insightful and thought-provoking comments. From time to time we all say the wrong things, or get off on the wrong track. I know I have. However, the benefit of a forum like this is that others can share their point of view and their own scriptural reasoning to help us all to a better understanding of Scripture. It is the unchallengeable dogmatism of our publications that has no place here.
Reply by crazyguy on 2013-09-28 14:44:34
When one reads the bible it indicates one will be kings or prince's and inherit the land. This is about freedom and not having anyone else rule over us except Jesus, not that Christians will rule over anyone else. The bible says in Romans and acts thatall christans are the same no distiction. There is no two class system like Rutherford started. You will also notice when u read Romans its not about living on earth or in heaven its about the reconciliation, getting back to an intimate relationship with god like Adam had.
Comment by anderestimme on 2013-09-28 16:42:00
Just a quick question: Are we sure that pre-Christians won't rule in the Kingdom? I ask because, in the account of the transformation, Elijah and Moses were present, talking to the future king. Do we have anything besides Jesus' statement about the least one in the Kingdom being greater than John the Baptizer?
I am not, by the way, arguing in favor of everybody going to heaven. In fact, 144,000 has always seemed to me to be more than enough. But I wonder if the 33 C.E. reverse cut-off date is a line in the sand.Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-29 08:01:49
anderestimme,
I believe that there is ample evidence that pre-Christians will rule in the kingdom. Matt 8:11, Heb 11:10, 16, 40 all seem to indicate this, and as you say Matt 11:11 is just making a point about the greatness of the least of those with a heavenly hope in relation to a human existence.
But more recently another line of reasoning struck me that reinforces this idea further. The covenant made with Abraham's fleshly seed would have been a heavenly one if they had not failed to keep it:
(Exodus 19:6) And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
Firstly this means that dying before the ransom opened the way to heaven could not be a barrier to later receiving a resurrection to that heavenly role once the door was opened. Secondly, although the nation as a whole failed to fulfill their side of the covenant, what of the individuals who were faithful? What logical reason would there be for God to now exclude them from the promise considering what the original terms of the covenant were?
Apollos
Comment by ivan on 2013-09-30 03:32:04
I'd seriously question the notion that to be a "son" of God one must have been a Christian, and thus excluding Abraham. According to Hosea 11:1 (cf Exodus 4:22), the entire nation of Israel was God's "son." Naturally, the individual Jews composing this nation would too be sons of God. (Deuteronomy 32:18-19) That Abraham was called God's friend doesn't preclude him from being God's son. To argue as such is fallacious.
If Adam was God's son (Luke 3:38), then naturally so was Abraham, who is a son of the kingdom (Matthew 8:11). According to Paul, if you are Abraham's son you are also the son of God in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:29)
Thus, sonship is not exclusively Christian. The difference, however, is that Jews were sons of God by birthright because of the covenant. Now, with the Christ event, one is son because of adoption.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-30 08:19:02
The idea is that sonship was only made possible through Christ. So while alive, Abraham was not yet a son of God, because the way had not been opened. However, once opened through the sacrifice Jesus made, Abraham can be declared a son of God. To Jehovah, he is not dead, but lives. (Matthew 22:32) So his resurrected will be one of the son's of God in the kingdom of the heavens. (Matthew 8:11)
Reply by crazyguy on 2013-09-30 10:54:05
This may seem abit out if the box but was Adam only to live on earth forever? Maybe not, this may have only been a starting point for mankind. And again is where one live the issue in the bible no, Paul again talks about a reconciliation in Romans. Many bible students believe that the Israel of god is the twelve tribe mentioned in rev chapter 7 and that the 144k represent the firstborn or firstfruits that were saved by the blood of the lamb like in exodus and the greatcrowd represent all that come out of the tribulation just like those that were not Jews but left with themin the exodus and all became israel.
Reply by ivan on 2013-09-30 13:46:18
The problem with saying sonship is only possible through Christ is that there's evidence to the contrary, as the texts I cited show. According to Galatians 3, Jesus is Abraham's seed/son. What you are suggesting is that Abraham is not God's son, but Abraham's son is. Why wouldn't the 'father of the faithful' be God's son? (Romans 4:16) Even Adam was God's son.
No one will fully be God's son until the resurrection (Luke 20:36), but they are God's sons in some sense even now.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-30 14:34:36
Adam was God's son, but was disinherited. The nation was a metaphorical son, but that is not the sonship we are speaking of. In a relative sense, any human is a son of God by virtue of being born from Adam. That is not in question. There is much more to say on this subject and what the Bible reveals about the sonship Jesus made possible is most uplifting. I'm preparing a post on it, and hope to have it up on the site shortly.
Reply by ivan on 2013-09-30 14:39:33
Where does the bible say Adam lost his sonship? The nation of Israel may have been a figurative son, since it is not a person, but Israelites were real people who were in covenantal arrangements with God. Jews called God their Father, were they then not his sons?
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-30 15:39:35
Where in Scripture is it recorded that the Jews called God their Father? I'm not saying they didn't, but I'd really like to know where it says that.
Comment by ivan on 2013-09-30 15:49:34
(Malachi 2:10) . . .“Is it not one father that all of us have? Is it not one God that has created us? . . .
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-30 16:24:55
Thanks Ivan. I would submit that the father he is referring to is Abraham. The verse continues, "Why is it that we deal treacherously with one another, in profaning the covenant of our forefathers."
Reply by ivan on 2013-09-30 17:14:32
That seems to be unlikely as there's a clear contrast between the "one father" and "our forefathers." It is the latter which includes Abraham. Moreover, "father" and "God" seem to be in apposition to one another, suggesting the"father" and the "one God" are the same. A comparison with Malachi 1:6 buttresses the point.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-30 17:32:09
It is arguable. However, my point is that the sons of God that Christians become is different. Adam was a son of God, and therefore all humans are sons of God in a sense. However, there must be a distinction otherwise there is no significance to Romans 8:21.
I'm not sure what your point is and it may be that we are arguing at cross purposes, when we are really in agreement. Please understand that I'm not saying that the term "son" only applies to Christians in every sense of the word.
To put it another way, genetically, I'm a child of Adam. Adam was a son of God. I therefore am a son of God. That does me no good. I am still dying because my father Adam gave me an inheritance of death. However, to be a son of God through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is a son of a different sort. That sonship gives me the inheritance of life.Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-09-30 17:52:52
Perhaps Ivan is simply referring to God as Jesus instructed his fellow Jews at Matthew 6:9?
“YOU must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified?"
Sorry for the intrusion. Just a thought.
swReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-30 18:18:35
No intrusion at all.
Actually, I believe there is a remarkable aspect to that simple statement of Jesus'. However, rather than discuss it here, I'm preparing a post to cover the topic more fully.
Reply by ivan on 2013-09-30 17:57:20
I see what you're saying, but Jews were more than "sons of God" in some Adamic sense. They called God their Father. (Deut 32:6) No one else could call YHWH their "father." This is covenantal language. God wasn't in a covenant with all humans but with Jews specifically. The point being Jews were God's heirs by covenant and their God's sons.
It seems your point is the sonship of Christians is different than the sonship of covenantal faithful Israel. I'd be open to the evidence if any is presented.
From my view, religious sonship in its current form is merely inaugurated and not thoroughly consummated until the resurrection where they will be truly, fully sons of God. (Luke 20:36; Romans 8:23) Note the adoption as sons of God in Romans 8:23 is yet future. Thus, there's a sense in which Christians and OT saints are/were sons of God, but won't fully reach that pinnacle until the resurrection.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-30 18:21:10
I see your point. I agree with you, but there's an aspect to the whole issue I haven't introduced. I'm not being coy. It's just that it's complex, touching on a number of topics and it wouldn't do it justice to introduce it here as a comment. So I'm holding off for a week or two while I find the time to complete my research.
Thanks so much for your insights as they will help me.
Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-10-01 08:06:26
Re: Romans 8
In some ways v23 seems to be at odds with the rest of the passage. v15 talks of having received "a spirit of adoption as sons" in the past tense. v16 say "we are God's children" in the present tense. And the entire passage makes clear that these terms are being used in the sense of special sonship through the spirit, rather than sons of God as Adam and all of his offspring were/are.
Therefore it should be noted that the suggested future "adoption as sons" of v23 is not found in the oldest manuscript that we have available - Papyrus Chester Beatty 2, Gr, c 200 C.E.
I'm not saying that this nullifies the text, but it does give pause for consideration that without it there is no question that the entire passage reads as if the adoption is complete. The only future event is the "revealing of the sons of God" (v19).
Just a thought.
Apollos
Comment by Midweek Meeting Comments – Jan. 20, 2014 | Beroean Pickets on 2014-01-20 06:05:33
[…] what we have been recently re-taught—specifically, that we are not God’s children but his friends. If we are not God’s children, then by what right to we call him […]