Nevertheless, despite
his failure, it remains the case that Adam, according to Scripture, which is written
with a conceptual framework dominated by Jewish tradition and custom, is
thought of as the son of God. The Scriptures posit multiple sons of
God. Indeed, to remain consistent with terminology employed by the
author, Scripture contains multiple revelations of the sons of God. This
is quite important to consider when returning to the place of embarkation upon
the theological, Christological, and missiological voyage of this study, which
was the tenth verse of the fourth chapter of this first letter of John.
Even the author’s own choice of words and structure spur the reader on to a
remembrance of the multiple revelations of God’s sons, as can be seen in the
regular usage of “revealed” throughout the third chapter, and on into the
fourth chapter.
The repeated use of
“revealed” in the third chapter seem to hang on and gain their meaning from the
most direct and purposeful statement in connection with the word, which was
that the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. Here,
one makes note of the fact that this author is not alone in his appeal to the
revelation of the Son of God (or sons of God) as an obvious part of the divine
plan of the Creator.
To that point, in his
letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul engages in similar rhetoric, writing
that “the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God… in hope
that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into
the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:19,20b-21). Can one not
surmise what it is that Paul is implying by the use of such language? Can
one not equate the setting free of creation, in connection with the revelation
of the sons of God, with the destruction of the works of the devil? Doing
so does not at all seem like an unrealistic or implausible application of the
premise.
So now there are two
New Testament witnesses to the idea of the revelation of the sons of God, which
should certainly lead an observer to explore this idea. The application
of the title of son, in relation to God, is not limited to Adam and
Jesus. Adam is merely the first. It would seem that he is the first
to be given a task related to destroying the works of the devil, with this task
connected to his righteousness, or his being righteous, and that in the context
of faithfulness to a covenant. The second son, or at least the second
explicit reference to a son whose revelation is in connection with a charge to
do battle with the works of the devil, with this son-ship presented in a manner
consistent with that of Adam (righteousness---covenant faithfulness marked out
by obedience to specific commands), is the nation of Israel.
It is necessary to
qualify this statement for a number of reasons. The first reason is that
Adam, in Genesis, is never referred to as the son of God. This can only
be seen for the first time in the Gospel of Luke. When seen here, one must also come to the
realization that the thought therein reflected likely demonstrates a long-held
opinion. The first Scriptural reference to sons of God occurs in the
sixth chapter of Genesis, where it is reported that “the sons of God saw that
the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for
themselves from any they chose” (6:2). The Creator God’s reaction to this
is indicative that such activity was not pleasing to Him, as the text there
quickly progresses to the pointing out of the wickedness of humankind
(6:5). Clearly, these sons were not sons purposefully revealed to destroy
the devil’s works, and there is no reference to any type of covenant of
obedience.
No comments:
Post a Comment