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 is 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.

Tom Hagler Jr. Butchers James 1:18!

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” (James 1:18)

As an example of the poor interpretation of scripture found in Tom Hagler Jr.'s book
Rightly Dividing The Word of Truth, notice what he has to say on this passage.

To begin, most of our problems are resolved if we understand which “word” is under consideration in the above scripture. As 2 Timothy 2:15 states, we should be “…rightly dividing the word of truth.” Many words will have more than one meaning.

Now, let us examine the word “word.” There are three kinds of “word” used in the Bible…there is the written word, the spoken word, and the living Word. Jesus Christ is the living Word of God. If we can prove the above “word” verses refer to Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, and not to the spoken word, or written word, then, to a great degree, we will have been successful in reconciling these verses.

 The fact that Jesus Christ is the Word being referred to in the following two verses is rarely disputed:

 1. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7) 

 2. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made….And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”(John 1:1-3, 14) The following should also be obvious: “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word.” (Luke 1:2) One cannot be an eyewitness of the written or spoken word, but can be an eyewitness of the living Word. The word eyewitness in the original Greek language was used to mean a direct vision of deity…such as in Greek mythology, a character claims he saw Zeus. Jesus was deity. Also, in this context, “ministers of the Word”…would mean “body servants” of the living Word…Jesus. 

The following should also be obvious: “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word.” (Luke 1:2) One cannot be an eyewitness of the written or spoken word, but can be an eyewitness of the living Word. The word eyewitness in the original Greek language was used to mean a direct vision of deity…such as in Greek mythology, a character claims he saw Zeus. Jesus was deity. Also, in this context, “ministers of the Word”…would mean “body servants” of the living Word…Jesus.

Using the above logic, James 1:18 is resolved, “…Of His own will begat He us with the Word of Truth….” Jesus did say, “…I am the way, the Truth, and the life….” John 14:6. Jesus is the living Word of Truth. James 1:18 could be quoted as follows: Of His own will begat He us by Jesus Christ.

What an interpretation!  To what commentator or bible scholar may we turn who agree with Hagler as evidence that this is an old or primitive explanation? Despite how ridiculous it is, there’s a reason why it is explained this way. James 1:18 is an obvious gospel means passage.  Consequently, the thought among the Hardshells is that this is one of those passages in the Bible that is a "problem" which must be “reconciled”.  Funny how 95% of the Christian community see no such problem. Hagler is at such pains to avoid what every average Christian sees when they read this text (i.e. that men are saved through the gospel) that he actually divides up the expression the word of truth into the word and the truth, citing verses which show that Christ is both. Since Christ is 1) the Word and 2) the Truth, in order to avoid gospel instrumentality, we therefore must make the leap that Christ is the word of truth. And this logic (appropriately stated by the way) is all done in the name of rightly dividing the word of truth!  Done as if completely oblivious that basic Bible interpretation should lead one to 2 Cor. 6:7 and Eph. 1:13 where the word of truth is proved to be the gospel!  And, perhaps even worse, done with a total disregard to the immediate context which verifies the same (v.19-23), as if this should have no say-so in the matter!

By the way, if the word of truth is Jesus, then did Paul actually mean in 2 Tim. 2:15 that we ought to rightly divide Jesus? Oh that's right. 2 Tim. 2:15 isn't talking about regeneration or salvation. Therefore, it's not a "problem" which needs to be "reconciled". It's okay for the word of truth to mean the gospel in that place just as it does in every other occurrence in the scriptures (i.e. Ps. 119:43; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 1:13).

My friends, do you really feel that this is an honest interpretation? Is it not rather that Hagler is forced according to a preconceived grid of Bible interpretation established by tradition to avoid means at all costs, regardless of how bad the text must be abused?

Open your eyes.

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 "huiosethia" 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.

Gill on The Means of Regeneration

The following are comments that Dr. Gill made on Isaiah 66: 8. How any Hardshell can read such words and still go away saying "Gill agrees with us on regeneration without means" is ludicrous.

"...and this is to be understood of the pains which Gospel ministers take in preaching the word, which is the means of regeneration, and they the instruments of it; and so are called fathers, who through the Gospel beget souls to Christ; and of their anxious concern for the conversion of sinners, and the formation of Christ in them, which is called a travailing in birth; see (1 Peter 1:23) (James 1:18) (1 Corinthians 4:15) (Galatians 4:19) (Romans 8:22 Romans 8:23)..."

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 "huiosethia"

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 vise versa? 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 "thesia"? 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 Is Now Available!

In February 2009 I published in The Baptist Gadfly blog a posting titled  Graves vs. Hardshells? where I was looking for issues of "The Baptist," published by Dr. J. R. Graves for the years 1873 and 1874. In these years (as the foregoing post states) R. S. Duncan published a long series of articles proving that the claims of the Hardshells were all false (a thing I have also done for many years). Sometime during the publishing of the articles Dr. R. W. Fain, Hardshell elder and close friend to Dr. John M. Watson, asked permission to answer Duncan and defend the Hardshell claims. At the time of the Gadfly posting the only issues of "The Baptist" available on the Internet were for the mid 1830s, many years before Dr. Graves became the editor. It was begun by Dr. R. B. C. Howell and in those 1830 issues there is much information about the disputes with the Hardshells, Howell taking Dr Watson to task for his Hardshell tenets.

Well, thank God these issues are now available! (SEE HERE) It will take time to read these old papers and hand type any citations. Anyone want to help? I am sure that there is much historical information to be gained from it for anyone doing research on the Hardshells.

Primitive Baptist Attends...and Agrees!

Yesterday was a good day. For only the second time since the constitution of our small church we were visited by current members of the "Primitive" Baptists, that order which barred me from their ranks years ago. Two ladies, whom I had recently seen at a funeral and who had been listening to my local radio program on Sunday mornings, walked through the doors while we were singing hymns. We are such a small group that we paused our service for the moment to greet them and express what a great delight it was for them to be with us.

I was greatly encouraged by their visit, and praying secretly that the Lord would bless my efforts this day.  My message was to be from Jeremiah 29:4-7, elaborating on the expression "Seek ye the peace of the city".  At some point in the sermon I was stressing the point that one of the ways we can do so in our own land was to pray for "kings, and for all that are in authority" as commanded in 1 Timothy 2:2. It was not my original intention but I decided on the spur of the moment to make mention that prayer, just like preaching, is to be done without discrimination. I used the illustration of the seed sower from Matt. 13 that we ought to spread the Word unto all who will hear, obviously, and not just the elect only. I did this of course in order to present a truth to our visitors for their consideration, as I knew this to be one of the major points of distinction between true evangelism and the Hyper-Calvinism to which they are routinely subjected. There was no way I could let slip a chance to plant a seed of my own.

To my surprise both nodded in agreement while one lady spoke out plainly, boldly, and clearly, "That's what I believe!" There can be no doubt that she wanted each and every one of us to know this.

With such an exclamation it’s difficult for me to imagine how she does not know that she is a member of a group that does not agree with what she just affirmed. So my question is this a new belief of hers, or an old one which she has maintained, despite the disagreement with her denomination of choice.  Of course, it is possible that she DOES NOT know that “Primitive” Baptists do not believe in the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel, but only want to cast their net towards those who are ‘already regenerated’.  I would not be shocked if this were in fact the case, for I have seen this sort of thing before.  On a few other occasions I have had to explain to current Hardshells what their own church believed before I could proceed to share what I believe!  In conversation with me one lady affirmed that she believed that all of God’s elect would come to believe in Jesus, and was shocked to learn that her home church did not!  One couple did not know how their order explained away the necessity of faith until I shared with them the modern novelty of seed faith.  And my aunt did not know they were opposed to God’s use of ministers for savings souls until I told her.

At this point I can’t help but recall a statement I once read from Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers. He stated that he had much experience with ex-cultists who affirmed that they did not know all of what was taught until after they had been delivered.

This seems to be the case.

A Lesson on Conditions for Hardshells

I'm currently reading a very good book by Greg Nichols entitled Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants. I came to a particular section which I thought would be very helpful to my Hardshell friends who automatically discard the notions of conditions, necessities, etc. as Arminianism.  The fact of the matter is that these terms are a most necessary addition to an explanation of how God saves sinners which the author correctly understands.  I cannot help but comment on his comments and how they relate to the heretical system I used to teach and the light God has since granted.

Nichols wrote:

"Good men speak of the covenant of grace as conditional to avoid errors and dangers."

Yes, such as the dangers which we see in Hardshellism in which it is affirmed that faith, repentance, personal holiness, and anything else subjective are not required for eternal salvation.  It is the failure of Hardshells to recognize the need for retaining such terms as necessities, conditions, requirements, etc. when discussing soteriology that they falsely accuse Calvinism as being the same as Arminianism, in which these terms are frequently associated with works and free-will.  Seeing the latter as an error, they then make an error of their own by rebelling to the opposite extreme, discarding any and all notions of conditions, and creating a theological system I think more fatal than the one against which it rebelled. This truth was observed by Elder Thomas Mann who concluded that in rebelling to one error, the Hardshells who first invented this notion ended up overstating their case, and fell into another error, whereas the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle.  I agree completely.

Nichols wrote:

"Further, when we say that the covenant of grace is unconditional in essence, we must take care to avoid fatalism. A fatalistic mentality would say, if God will certainly apply redemption to his elect, then why pray, why preach, why parent? Rather, we affirm, preach, pray, and parent, because God uses means. Unconditional in essence doesn't equal absolute, without means, in fulfillment!"

I saw this fatalistic mentality all throughout the years I was among my Hardshell brethren.  Not only “why pray, why preach, why parent”, but why believe and why repent?  For these are conditions are they not?  And so we would immediately flee from the idea that responsibility can be mentioned in the same breath as eternal salvation so that we may remain do-nothings with respect to our own salvation and that of others.

Nichols makes an essential distinction when he remarks that unconditional in essence does not equate to unconditional in fulfillment!  Amen!  Here in my opinion is the key to unravelling the whole conditional vs unconditional controversy.  Here me, my Hardshell friends!  Election is unconditional, agreed?  Yet election is not the summation of what’s called eternal salvation, so we err if we affirm that salvation is unconditional simply because election is.  Men were unconditionally elected unto salvation, but as God works out the matter of salvation in history means and conditions are employed to accomplish it both FOR those and IN those whom He unconditionally elected! When I was excluded by my former friends one of the things which began to be circulated was that “Kevin does not understand that salvation is unconditional”.  Oh no, Kevin understands it just fine.  It is you who does not understand the distinction between the decree of salvation and its administration.

Nichols wrote:

"We stand committed to teach unconditional election, even if men abuse the doctrine. The covenant of grace reflects and rests on this unconditional decree. Did God decree in eternity to require faith and repentance for initial salvation and perseverance in faith for final salvation? The answer is, yes. Does that make his decree conditional? The answer is, no, because God also decrees to supply all he requires, and that not for anything done by his elect. So also is his covenant of grace."

Faith and repentance belong not in the category of election, which we agree is unconditional, but in the administration of salvation in time, where things are required of men in order to be saved.  These requirements are unconditional in the sense that they are not accomplished by works and free-will, but are conditional in the sense that they must be obtained by the elect somehow.  The matter is solved in the teaching that what God requires of His elect he freely gives them.  Unfortunately, this is rejected by my Hardshell friends who have so sliced and diced the scriptures that they are left with the sad conclusion that the fulfillment of conditions are not to the praise and glory of God but rather merited by so-called regenerated men, to the praise of their works and free-will as they temporally save themselves (Acts 2:40).

Perhaps the most helpful thing is to understand this fact.  A condition is not necessarily the same thing as an efficient cause, meaning that all accusations that Calvinists are “adding” to the grace of God and blood of Christ are totally baseless.  By a condition we simply mean that something has to be in place for some transaction to occur.  I could say that a garden hose is a condition for my flowers to become wet, yet the life-giving source is in the water itself, whereas the hose is merely the means through which it is conveyed.  I could say that a new heart is a requirement for a transplant, meaning only that the heart must be put safely in place before the surgery can be called complete.  It is the same thing in the administration of salvation.  The birth of Christ was a necessity which needed to be met in order to the redemption of the family of God.  Those who crucified our Lord were the means by which He was placed on the cross (Acts 2:23).  When it comes to God’s dealings with the sinner himself, faith is a necessity in regeneration.  We are regenerated by grace not at the expense of it but through it (Eph. 2:8).  The sinner meets the condition by God’s gift of faith unto him in regeneration, and this new birth cannot be considered as complete until it is there, just like we would not consider heart surgery complete until a heart has been put in place.  The same holds true with final salvation, as it too is through faith (1 Peter 1:5; Heb. 10:39).  And when the scriptures look back from the perspective of those who have achieved it, it gives the impression that they met the requirements in their life.  "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth...their works do follow them." (Rev. 14:13). Good works did in fact follow!  Why?  Because God did effectually work in them the will and doing of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).  The tree being made good, it does in fact bear fruit!

There most definitely are conditions to salvation when the term is used properly as Nichols does.  It is , I think, because of my Hardshell friends' previous agenda against anything that gives an appearance of Arminianism that they fail to understand this or give it any consideration.