departed from this consistent rendering, as for example in Matt. 5: 45: "That ye may be

sons of your Father" (R.V.); The Revisers have rightly substituted "sons" for the A.V.

rendering "children", but have failed to make the other necessary change.

The N.T. uses two distinct terms to set forth the believer's filial relationship with the

Lord--"children" and "sons". Sonship, which is prominent in the writings of Paul,

conveys the ideas of inheritance, privilege and dignity. Childship, which is characteristic

of the teaching of John, suggests the thought of tender relationship.  Sons may be

adopted; children can only be born. The two conceptions are evidently complementary:

but they must be realized separately before the full force of the whole idea which they

combine to give can be understood. It was, however, felt to be impossible to change the

phrase "the children of Israel" to "the sons of Israel". With this exception (and one

accidental omission of the mark of reference in Matt. 21: 28) we believe that the use of

the word "child" (and "children") is always marked in the Revised Version; and that

with the clearest gain to the peculiar force of the narrative (Mark 2: 5; Matt. 9: 2;

Luke 15: 31; 16: 25; Matt. 21: 28), and of the address (I Cor. 4: 14; I Tim. 1: 2-18;

Titus 1: 4, etc.), no less than to the exact definition of spiritual relations. On the other

hand, the wonderful title "sons of God" holds its true place, according to the exact usage

of the original. Where the A.V. reads "sons" in John 1: 12, the R.V. correctly reads

"children" (so also in I John 3: 1, 2). Conversely, the A.V. incorrectly reads "children"

where "sons" is the true rendering (see Luke 20: 34 and Rom. 9: 26 where the R.V.

has made the necessary correction). Again the true rendering of Matt. 5: 9 is given in

the R.V.:--

This brings the passage into line with the correction of Matt. 5: 45, where "sons" is

again the true rendering.

The whole context of Gal. 3: 26 is concerned with adoption, the emancipation of the

full-grown "son" from the tutors and governors of his childhood (Gal. 4: 1, 2). The R.V.

makes the very necessary alteration:--

Much of the above is quoted from Dr. Westcott, but it is difficult to indicate the

quotations as they are so interwoven with our own remarks. Where possible we use

quotation marks in the remainder of this article.

Another example of the usefulness of the R.V. is found in its rendering of Rom. 3: 25.

The A.V. speaks of the "remission of sins that are past" with a marginal note: "or

passing over." The confusion of the two words aphesis and paresis