 |  |
Bishop Westcott, writing in Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New
Testament says of these two great words huios and teknon:
"There is the position of `sonship' (characteristic of the teaching of St. Paul), which
suggests thoughts of privilege, of inheritance, of dignity; and there is also the position of
`childship' (characteristic of the teaching of St. John), which suggests the thoughts of
community of nature, of dependence, 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 felt."
The full value of the Greek word `son' and the idea of privilege that it contains, cannot
be estimated apart from a knowledge of what is intended by the word translated
`adoption' which is huiothesia `the placing as a son'. Israel, God's firstborn among the
nations, had this `adoption' as their distinctive privilege (Rom. 9: 1-5). The seed of
Abraham, partakers of the heavenly calling, the church of the firstborn whose names are
written in heaven, whose mother is Jerusalem that is above, this company have the right
of the adoption as their special privilege (Gal. 4: 5) which is very parallel with the
`birthright' which Esau despised (Heb. 12: 16) and which these members of the heavenly
calling were urged to avoid. Then the Church of the Mystery, the calling that pertains to
the dispensation of the grace of God among the Gentiles of today, that also has, in its
super-heavenly sphere, this privilege of `adoption' (Eph. 1: 3-5). If our contention is true,
namely, that John's Gospel ministers to the great outside world, while Paul's prison
ministry ministers to the smaller circle of the Mystery, it is but another evidence in its
favour, that whereas Paul speaks of the believer as both `children of God' and `sons of
God', for all the `sons' are of course `children' too, John never calls a believer a `son of
God', he always refers to them as `children', and the reader is advised to follow the R.V.
here where the necessary correction has been faithfully carried out.
The idea of both `son' and `adoption' is the appointing of the heir. Now we have
already learned from the allegory of Isaac and Ishmael (Gal. 4: 22-30) that the child of
the bondwoman cannot inherit with the child of the free. One of the characteristics of a
`child' as distinct from a `son' says Gal. 4: 1-3 is that even though lord of all, yet is
under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. In this state and period,
he `differeth nothing from a servant' (Gal. 4: 1).
"But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman,
made under the law, to redeem (exagorazo, `buy out of the market place') them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God
hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4: 4-6).
Selden has shown that slaves were not permitted to use this word in addressing the
master of the family, which enables us to see the aptness of the introduction of such a
strange word here. Ab, is the Hebrew `father', but Abba is the Chaldee equivalent. As
the Aramaic or Chaldee does not possess the definite article, the lack is compensated by
the addition of a syllable at the end, thereby rendering the word either emphatic, "The
Father", or putting it into the vocative "O Father". Lightfoot says: