CHILDREN OF GOD

I. Biblical terms and their usage

בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִימ׃֙ (fem., בְּנֹ֣ות) or without the article; “sons or children (f., daughters) of God.” בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים, Psalms 29:1; 89:6 is rendered “sons of God” in ASVmg. after LXX, but RSV renders “heavenly beings.” בְּנֵ֖י עֶלְיֹ֣ון, once “sons of the Most High” echoed by our Lord in Luke 6:35. Υἱοί θεοῦ, and τέκνα θεοῦ, “sons” and “children” of God. Τέκνα suggests “community of nature with the prospect of development” (so Westcott on Epp. of John); ςἱοὶ̀ denotes in addition, “the recognized status and legal privileges reserved for sons” (Sanday and Headlam on Rom 8:14). Some (as Westcott and Hendrikson) stress the distinction, others regard it as merely stylistic (e.g. C. F. D. Moule, IDB s.v.). There is a difference, but only in general emphasis.

The Biblical phrase “son of” has a wide range of meaning, indicated as follows: (1) involved in, and so characterized (a common usage, but of little significance here); (2) in relationship with, by descent or consent; (3) deriving an affinity or similar nature from; (4) enjoying the privileges and potentialities of, the genitive subject. The ambiguity is more general in the OT and the rich implications of the phrase are found in passages relating to the divine fatherhood. These occur almost exclusively in prophetic utterances; hence the collective phrase בְּנִ֖י (b^enî) (my son) is found and occasionally בָּנַי׃֙ (bânây) (my children), e.g. Ezekiel 16:21. Often paralleled with בְּנִ֥י is בְּכֹר, H1147, “first-born” (e.g. Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9).

In the NT associated terms are ὑιοθεσία “adoption,” in the Pauline epistles; phrases like ἐκ θεοῦ γεννηθῆναι, “to be born of God,” which is characteristically Johannine (cf. 1 Pet 1:23). ̓Αποκύειν “to produce” (a word suggesting motherhood) appears once (James 1:18). Built into all aspects of the idea is the thought of permanency in the relationship.

II. Old Testament conceptions

In striking contrast with the beliefs of surrounding peoples, God’s fatherhood is never thought of in the OT in a biological sense, and this fact affects all Biblical teaching on the subject. (Refer to the pagan idea that appears in Jer 2:27.) The idea of sonship appears in a variety of ways.

A. Angelic beings. In Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (LXX ἄγγελος, G34); Psalm 29:1; 89:6; Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX, DSS, cf. Dan 10:5-13), the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings, forming a kind of retinue to Yahweh. An Aram. form in Daniel 3:25 is so interpreted in 3:28. The language appears to be primitive, imported from current mythology. Genesis 6:1f. so interpreted does indeed seem uniquely mythological in Scripture (cf. Luke 20:35f.; but cf. Jude 6f.); but other explanations, for example, as referring to the line of Seth, would make the usage linguistically unique (see discussion in ISBE, Sons of God [OT]).

Angels are regarded as children of God because they possess a spiritual nature akin to God’s by creation.

B. Judges and rulers. Psalm 82:6 calls magistrates “gods,” “sons of the Most High.” Some scholars regard this as a special case under A, but this is against the context and our Lord’s use (John 10:34f.); and is supported by Exodus 21:6 LXX, cf. 22:28. The usage prob. arises from the idea of judges as divine representatives, but there may be some analogy with the status of the Davidic kings (v. infra C3).

C. Israel. This is the characteristic use of the idea in the OT.

1. Israel as a nation is called by Yahweh “my Son, my first-born” (Exod 4:22f., cf. Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1). She is the special object of His care, endowment, mercy and—an idea specially significant throughout Judaism—chastisement. Her filial response was to be obedience and trust (cf. Isa 1:2), worship (Exod 4:22f., LXX esp. Mal 1:6). Deuteronomy 32 summarizes the chief grounds of Israel’s sonship: by God’s creation (cf. Isa 64:8), choice (cf. Deut 7:7), redemption (cf. Isa 43:1-6); in a word, by covenant (cf. Deut 14:1f.). J. Swetnam in Biblica (1966), has an interesting suggestion that the LXX use of δικθήκη arose from its representing a covenant of adoption with the purpose of deliverance from bondage, which could be applied to a cultic self-dedication to a god. The biological idea appears in Deuteronomy 32:18, but only as a striking metaphor. Else-where the covenant notion is stressed by describing Israel as the wife of Yahweh; and in Jeremiah 3:4 the two ideas apparently combine.

2. Individual Israelites. We have considered the thought of Israel’s children as born to Yahweh (Ezek 16:20f. [LXX τέκνα]; 23:4, 37). Such individualism finds other sources also: in their disobedience (Deut 32:19) and restoration (Jer 3:14-22) and right to consideration from compatriots (Ps 73:15; Mal 2:10). As national life declined the prophets tended to call for the individual response of a “remnant.” Psalm 103:13 stresses the filial blessedness of the faithful soul, an idea which continues in the Intertestamental period (Wisd Sol 2:18).

3. The Davidic King. As the Lord’s anointed, the king embodied the national covenant both in its immediate and future implications. In 2 Samuel 7:14 his divine sonship receives specially intimate emphasis (“his father...my son”). In Psalm 2:7 his designation as king and son is called a “begetting.” Similarly in Psalm 89:27 he is called “my first-born” where the blessings of sonship are the subject of large promises which significantly contribute to the OT messianic hope.

D. Mankind. While the idea of man as created in God’s image would have amply entitled him to be called בֶנ־אֱלֹהִים, in fact the idea is never expounded. “Have we not all one father?” (Mal 2:10), may refer to Abraham, and continues by condemning intermarriage, restricting the idea to Jews. At the same time there are indications that non-Israelites could become the children of God, (1) by inclusion in Israel (e.g. Rahab and Ruth), (2) even apart from national connections (Isa 63:16), (3) even as Gentiles (Isa 45:9-13; cf. 19:24). In this way the OT laid the groundwork for the universalism of the Gospel.

E. The idea of motherhood. The OT avoids both sexuality and sentimentality in its conception of the filial relationship, but does not entirely neglect the maternal element. His creative work is described in terms of a woman in travail (Job 38:28f.; Ps 90:2; cf. Israel, Deut 32:18). Wisdom is “brought forth” (Prov 8:24). His love for His children is more than a mother’s (Isa 49:15). He yearns for them as a mother (Jer 31:20) and they are reared as by a mother’s hand (Isa 46:3, 4; Hos 11:3). The idea reappears in DSS, Hymn 14, and in NT in James 1:18.

III. Intertestamental period

All the elements of the filial relationship of God’s people appear, though sketchily, in the lit. of the intertestamental period. God as a Father is spoken of as delivering the righteous (Ecclus 51:1ff.; Wisd Sol 2:16, cf. Matt 27:42f.), publicly owning them as His children (Wisd Sol 5:5). He is invoked as “Father and God of my life” in Ecclesiasticus 23:1, 4a. Verse 6 of the Prayer of Manasseh foreshadows the spiritual idea of descent (cf. Matt 3:9), and in Jubilees (1:23ff.) the sonship of 2 Samuel 7:14 is claimed for renewed Israel. The idea of chastening repeatedly appears (e.g. Ecclus 18:13, Tobit 13:4f.); this is used to explain both the sufferings of the loyal Israelite and the willingness of a holy God to tolerate his sin (cf. the thought of Wisd Sol 14:3). There is a remarkable passage in the Thanksgiving Hymn 14, where the writer addresses God as a “father of all...of Thy truth,” going on to compare God’s love with a mother’s love, and finally asserting that all creatures share in this father-care of God. But so far this is unique in the DSS which regularly use abstractions as periphrases for God in analogous phrases, e.g. “children of light,” “of truth,” even “of grace.” This has virtually the force of sense (1). (See Section I above, excluding any idea of communion.) While the explicit teaching of the idea that the faithful are children of God is comparatively uncommon, yet often in the devotional lit. of the period God is addressed as a child would address a father in the patriarchal society of the time. The idea may therefore be said to be found in personal experience, or at least in the longings of believing hearts.

IV. New Testament teaching

The fatherhood of God, which in the OT hardly ever left the confines of metaphor, becomes, in the NT, a dominant element in the conception of God. He is “the Father” absolutely and universally: the archetype of all fatherhoods (Eph 3:15 RSV “family”=πατρία). There is not thereby implied a universal sonship, except in a strictly qualified sense.

A. Our Lord’s teaching. Casual reading of the gospels may give a false impression of universalism here, until it is remembered that Christ was speaking to the covenant people. (In Luke 15 in the first instance the argument was to support His acceptance of Jewish prodigals [see vv. 1 and 2]; and often exclusively to His disciples [e.g. Matt 5:1]).

He did, however, teach that all were potentially children of God. To enjoy the kingdom was the privilege of His children (Luke 12:30ff.) and this was open to all nations (Matt 8:11). John 11:52 speaks of “the children of God who are scattered abroad.” The conditions of such sonship were universally available: They were in terms of moral character, to be (1) righteous (Matt 13:43), (2) ministering to the outcasts (Matt 25:34), (3) peacemakers (Matt 5:9), (4) loving to enemies (Matt 5:44-48). Matthew 5:48 raises the standard to an impossible height, and leads the way to conditions in terms of penitence and faith, incumbent upon all (Luke 13:5; 15:18, where a Jew would have to acknowledge that his national sonship was forfeit and worthless). John expressly makes faith in Christ an essential condition (John 1:12; 3:16), but the same idea is present in the synoptics: in the context of Matthew 13:43 is the parable of the Sower, in which the good seed are those who accept His word. He determines who shall enter the kingdom (Matt 7:21ff.) among those who base their claim on faith in Him. The famous “Johannine fragment” (11:25ff.) stresses the important idea that our experience of God as sons is mediated solely through Jesus as the unique Son of the Father.

The outstanding privileges of sonship are said to be inheritance of God’s kingdom: access to God in prayer (7:11), confidence in His provision (6:25), the gift of His Spirit (Luke 11:13), eternal life (John 3:1-16), and likeness to God (Matt 5:45).

B. John’s epistles and Revelation. John’s use of the word τέκνα and the ideas of begetting and birth show his particular interest in the idea that there is a spiritual heredity, a continuity of life between God and His children of which earthly parenthood provides a limited analogy. The believer’s life is spiritual and eternal (1 John 2:25); it is instinctively antagonistic to sin (3:9) with a family affinity of love to other believers (5:1); indeed, its essence is love (4:7); and inevitably overcomes mere human opposition (5:4).

The more public aspect (suggested in the term υἱὸ̀ς, though John reserves this word for Jesus), is already found in the gospel (John 1:12) where sonship is given as a privilege. A similar thought appears in 1 John 3:1, where such a title is the bestowal of God’s love. The passage moves on to the eschatological hope of likeness to Christ in “seeing him as he is” (cf. 2 Cor 3:18). In Revelation 21:7 the hope is seen as an inheritance allotted to the child of God by faith victorious in the cosmic struggle between two fatherhoods, God’s and the devil’s (1 John 3:10; 5:18f., cf. John 8:44).

C. Pauline epistles. The atmosphere of the forum pervades Paul’s thought, and his thought begins with the believer as having the status and privileges of a son. Appropriately, the term υἱοθεσία, G5625, “adoption,” appears (a common practice of the time, among Gentiles at least). It is further conditioned by his dominating interest in the themes of salvation and grace.

In relation to the Jewish religion Paul sees sonship as something properly belonging to his people (Rom 9:4). He develops the OT covenantal idea of sonship as conferred by choice and promise (cf. 2 Cor 6:16-18). Hence Paul speaks not of a new birth (except perhaps Titus 3:5) but a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Faith in Christ made a man “of age,” able to possess an inheritance and act freely. By contrast, those under the law were like minors being prepared for adulthood, but in practice no better off than slaves (Gal 3:17-4:6).

The subjective aspect of sonship is expressed in his references to the “Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry ‘Abba, Father’” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; cf. Eph 2:18; 3:12). The characteristic urge of the Christian is to approach God as his father in the most intimate sense (i.e. not the formal אָבִ֑י). Paul sets all this against a dark background of universal rebellion, alienation and spiritual blindness.

Paul’s conception reaches back into eternity in Ephesians 1:4f. where God is said to have predestined believers to be His children in Christ, and forward to the end of time when their true condition will be revealed in a glory and fulfillment to be shared by the entire natural order. Paul calls this in one breath the redemption of our bodies and our adoption as sons. Thus God’s children receive their inheritance jointly with Christ (Rom 8:17-23), and they are conformed to His image as a family likeness (Rom 8:29; cf. 1 John 3:2).

The moral character of the children of God is spoken of as responsive to His Spirit (Rom 8:14), imitating their Father (Eph 5:1) and distinguished from the world around by the OT ideals of holiness and blamelessness (2 Cor 6:18; Phil 2:15).

D. Other NT writings

1. Hebrews. The family aspect of sonship is prominent in Hebrews, and is used remarkably in Hebrews 2:10-17. The writer shows that it was appropriate for Christ to enter the human family and to suffer as man. He can call “those who are sanctified,” His brothers, having a common parentage (cf. Gal 4:1-6, and contrast, in the gospels, Christ’s deliberate avoidance of the phrase “Our Father” to include Himself with His disciples [e.g. John 20:17]). The idea of growth and progress is common through the epistle and in ch. 12 this is linked with suffering, which is seen as God’s discipline, distinguishing the true child from the bastard. The writer has already shown that such experience of sonship has had its prototype in Jesus Himself (Heb 2:18; 5:8).

2. James. The epistle speaks of God as universally “the Father” and “Father of lights,” but in one pregnant v. (1:17) he teaches that “the brethren” are born by the “word of truth” which, when accepted in practical life, has saving power (1:21-27); and that as such they are the “firstfruits,” the first promise of a new creation, dedicated to the Lord (Exod 22:29).

3. Petrine epistles. The Petrine teaching on the subject is almost exclusively confined to 1 Peter 1 and 2. Here Christians are spoken of as being “born anew”; a process associated with Christ’s resurrection in 1:3 and with the word of God in 1:23. Peter appears to pursue the metaphor in 1:14, where he stresses the duty of obedience, and even more in 2:2 where he exhorts his hearers to crave spiritual milk like newborn babes, so that they may grow, presumably, “in grace” (2 Pet 3:18). The privilege of sonship appears in 1 Peter 1:3f. where the believer’s hope is in receiving an incorruptible inheritance.

V. Doctrinal summary

As the fatherhood of God is the archetype of all fatherhoods, so the NT sees the sonship of Christ within the Trinity as the source and pattern of true sonship to God. Derivative sonships may be classified as follows.

1. Creatorial sonship. Under this category are the angels (Heb 12:9; James 1:17) and all men (“offspring” in Acts 17:29; God is “Father of all,” Eph 4:6, cf. Luke 3:38). The relationship is sustained in Christ as the agent of creation (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15ff.). It involves, as well as divine origin, a potential affinity and privilege, but is vitiated by sin.

As Dr. Strong (Systematic Theology, Pt. V ch 1) says: “God is the Father of all men in that He originates and sustains them as personal beings like in nature to Himself. Even towards sinners God holds this natural relation of Father. It is His fatherly love, indeed, which provides the Atonement.”

2. Sonship by election. Israel was God’s son in this way (Deut 32:6; Isa 63:16; Mal 1:6) and Christians are likewise sons as the New Israel (1 Pet 1:1, 2; Eph 3:6, 11). It is a form of sonship esp. connected with the covenant, and prob. Paul’s doctrine of adoption in Christ comes under this category. It involves, in particular, the actual privilege of bearing God’s saving revelation in Christ (Rom 9:5).

3. Spiritual sonship. The sin of man has meant that this, the fullest experience of sonship (sometimes called “special” as against “natural” or “general” sonship) comes through repentance, forgiveness of sins, redemption and rebirth. It is the work of God’s Spirit and it results in a present and consummated sharing of the divine nature and moral likeness, of the privileges of “dominion” (e.g. Rom 5:17; 6:9, 14) and of spiritual communion with God (Gal 4:6-9). Some have considered that what is here called spiritual sonship is really only the covenant idea fig. expressed, but this is hardly adequate to explicate the radical change which the NT envisages in the nature of the believer and the close connections with the indwelling activity of the Holy Spirit. Certainly the full experience of sonship is always represented in Scripture as available to mankind only by faith in Christ Jesus the Lord. (See Adoption; Regeneration; Fatherhood of God.)

Bibliography Haldane on Romans 8 in comm. Romans (1816); B. F. Westcott, The Epistle of John (1883); J. S. Candlish, “God, Children of,” HDB (1899); T. Whaling, “Adoption,” PTR XXI (1923), 223ff; R. A. Webb, Reformed Doctrine of Election (1947); Hendrikson, Comm. Gospel of John (1954); Kline, WTJ24 (1962), 187ff; Jeremias, Essential Message of the New Testament, ch. 1 (1964).