By Rev. D. A. MACFARLANE, M.A., Dingwall.
It is generally allowed that, in the history of the Church, the subject of adoption has not received the study which it merits. In the early history of the Church, the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ were in the forefront of those which received the attention of the fathers. At the time of the Reformation, the truth concerning justification and saving faith, among others, mainly occupied the minds of the Reformers. Candlish states that adoption was at times made an appendix to that of justification, and at times was not even noticed. Dr. Hugh Martin complains that even Luther treated the subject inadequately, and that Owen, while handling it in a practical way, under the head of Communion with God, says nothing of the connection between our sonship and that of the eternal Son. Dr. H. Martin dismisses A. A. Hodge’s treatment of it summarily, namely, that in the “Outlines,” Hodge “treats the subject far too loosely to be regarded as of any authority, however subordinate.” On the other hand, such a writer as Thornton Whaling is well satisfied with the treatment of “Adoption” in the “Outlines.”
We wish to make it clear that what is presented here is no more than a note on adoption in its relation especially to justification. The subject of adoption is a far-reaching one. To appreciate its nature and place in the sphere of evangelical truth, one would need to go back to such subjects as the creation of man—to the relation of Adam to God—to study what such words as “image” and “likeness” mean, and whether “image” is the same as sonship. There is, further, the question of what man really lost by the fall. He lost holiness and communion with God. The subject also of the grace of God would necessarily come in, and especially the doctrine of the complex Person of Christ in its several aspects. There is also to be studied, if possible, the truth of the relation of the Holy Spirit to Christ as the God-Man. He mediates the fulness of the Godhead to Christ Himself considered as the Son of Man, according to the will of the Father and of the Word. From Christ as Head of His Church, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son comes to the members. This would bring one to the subject, among others, of the new birth and justification, and how adoption which has its ground inwardly in regeneration, followed by justification, ranks the believer as now an adopted son of God, who is imbued with the Spirit of Christ to be sanctified—until at last all believers are completely like Christ and see Him as He is.
With these general remarks, we proceed to point out that there has been, and is, a great deal of disagreement, even among the orthodox, as to whether Adam by creation was, in any proper sense, a “son” of God or not. There is common agreement that God was to Adam in the relation of Creator, Owner, Lawgiver, Sovereign and Judge. Adam, of course, is termed a “son” of God, but is this to be understood in a common way as a good king is often called the father of his people? Such writers as Candlish and Hugh Martin deny sonship in any strict and proper sense to Adam as created. So also C. H. H. Wright. Such a writer on the subject as Whaling views Adam’s sonship in three aspects, namely, natural (which is inalienable, even by the fall); also, what is involved in having the “image” of God; and finally, “legal sonship.” Dr. Hugh Martin points out that having the image of God is an internal spiritual state of soul (re Adam in innocence), but that “sonship” is a relation of a son to a father.
We leave this part of the matter. It is at any rate clear that God is the divine Creator, and Ruler, and Judge. Man is a creature, a subject, and accountable to his Maker. We take for granted of course here the scriptural revelation concerning the fall, and man’s guilt and need of salvation by grace, if any are to be saved at all.
This leads us to the subjects of justification and regeneration, which in order of thought are preliminary to adoption, which has its two sides of being a change of relation towards God, and also embraces believers being imbued with the spirit of adoption. If a guilty sinful soul is to be of God’s spiritual children and family, such must be justified freely by God’s gratuitous favour—or grace—through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. The blessings of pardon and acceptance in Christ are got by faith, which is the immediate exercise of regeneration, or a spiritual resurrection of the soul to newness of life. All this, of course, implies the need of Christ, and his work. We may remark in passing that Dr. Hugh Martin is specially illuminative in his treatment of the Person of Christ in its various aspects. Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God from eternity, who became God manifest in the flesh. Now, as the risen and exalted Saviour, He is the First-begotten from the dead, and the First-born among many brethren. The soul born of God, and thereby discerning the glories of God in the face of Christ Jesus; is there, and then introduced into the state of justification. The believer is, as God’s creature and subject, in a right relation with his Sovereign and Judge. But at the very same time, he is adopted by God or, in actuality, ranked with God’s adopted children, by faith in Christ Jesus. Our standards view adoption as being additional to justification. Indeed, one may well conclude that, owing to the manner in which it is brought forward in the Epistle to the Romans and that to the Galatians, it is the crown or copestone of the blessings which believers enjoy in the earnest of them here and in eternal fruition hereafter. God sent forth His Son (here we have God as the prime mover, followed by Christ becoming incarnate), to redeem (by price and by power those under the law accountable creatures, but in their fallen state as criminals in the dock, with closed mouths), that (being convinced, called effectually, and justified), they may be enrolled as sons, and have imparted to them the self-same oil wherewith He is anointed above his fellows, and so be sanctified in time, and in eternity be for ever replenished out of his fulness.
Let us note that, while they are partakers of the divine nature, this does not mean the divine essence. While Christ is their source of security and holy satisfaction for eternity, there are many things true concerning Christ which do not for a moment apply to them. Christ is unique in being the only-begotten Son from eternity, within the Godhead. Christ is unique in being God and Man. Christ as their Saviour and adorable Head is the First-begotten from the dead, and the First-born among many brethren. It is peculiarly with respect to Him in this aspect of being First-born that they are to be conformed to Him in soul and in body. The body of their humiliation is to be fashioned to be like the body of His glory. “As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly”; where “heavenly” in I Cor. xv, 49, refers to the “second man, the Lord from heaven,” of verse 47. God is their Father in a “proper sense,” as Candlish, Martin, and multitudes of God’s servants fully allow. They are “sons in the Son,” and are sealed with the Holy Spirit whereby they know inwardly, in some measure, what the experience and taste of holiness is. Of holiness and its experience and the power of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, they may venture at times at least to say, “Well, this is honey, and what is sweeter than honey?” and “This is the kind of ‘lion’ which I require within me, and what is stronger than a lion?” Adoption, as manifested in the life of sanctification, has its climax when Christ shall come the second time to gather in all the members of the “general assembly and church of the First-born.” The following quotation from C. H. H. Wright, quoted in the B. and F.E. Review, xx, 311, puts the matter in a nutshell:—”The evangelical sonship, the proper sonship, implies, first, that the individual who receives it has a permanent position in the family of God, in opposition to one which is liable to change, (John viii, 35); secondly, that he has a right to a share in the heavenly inheritance; thirdly, that he is made a partaker of the divine nature, (II Peter i, 4); and, lastly, the child of God, instead of being punished for his iniquities, is chastised for them in love.”
One point, and one only, we desire to refer to in conclusion, namely, that while God in Christ is their all-in-all, and that He, as their Glorified Redeemer and First-born, is their covenant, life-giving and governing Head, there is nevertheless an aspect of their relation to their Lord which the Holy Spirit led, and leads, the children in all ages to cherish; an aspect which affects them with becoming awe, while not affecting anything of the holy liberty and love enjoyed. This point is set forth in what is implied in the words, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.” What a meaning; what holy depths, must be in these words! It was commanded, regarding Mount Sinai, to “set bounds” to the Mount. If we may use this expression here, may we not discern and feel that “bounds” are to be “set,” indeed, are set necessarily, by the Lord of Glory, regarding the relations of His own blood-sprinkled and anointed brethren to Himself, Who is at once the Lord of Glory and the Glory of the Lord?