"Glorious Freedom of the Children of God.---- The apostle speaks of “the glory that is going to be revealed in us” and also of “the eager expectation of the creation . . . waiting for the revealing of the sons of God.” (Ro 8:18, 19)
Since the glory of these sons is heavenly, it is clear that such “revealing” of their glory must be preceded by their resurrection to heavenly life. (Compare Ro 8:23.)
However, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 indicates that this is not all that is involved; it speaks of “the revelation of the Lord Jesus” as bringing judicial punishment on those judged adversely by God, doing so “at the time he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones.”—
Since Paul says that “the creation” is waiting for this revealing, and will then be “set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God,” it is apparent that others aside from these heavenly “sons of God” receive benefit from their revelation in glory. (Ro 8:19-23)
The Greek term rendered “creation” can refer to any creature, human or animal, or to creation in general. Paul refers to it here as being in “eager expectation,” as “waiting,” as “subjected to futility, [though] not by its own will,” as being “set free from enslavement to corruption [in order to] have the glorious freedom of the children of God,” and as “groaning together” even as the Christian “sons” groan within themselves;
these expressions all point conclusively to the human creation, the human family, hence not to creation in general, including animals, vegetation, and other creations, both animate and inanimate. (Compare Col 1:23.)
This must mean, then, that the revelation of the sons of God in glory opens the way for others of the human family to enter into a relationship of actual sonship with God and to enjoy the freedom that accompanies such relationship.—
Since Christ Jesus is the one foretold to become the “Eternal Father” (Isa 9:6) and since the Christian “sons of God” become his “brothers” (Ro 8:29), it follows that there must be others of the human family who gain life through Christ Jesus and who are, not his joint heirs and associate kings and priests, but his subjects over whom he reigns.—Compare Mt 25:34-40; Heb 2:10-12; Re 5:9, 10; 7:9, 10, 14-17; 20:4-9; 21:1-4.
It may be noted also that James (1:18) speaks of these spirit-begotten “sons of God” as being “certain firstfruits” of God’s creatures, an expression similar to that used of the “hundred and forty-four thousand” who are “bought from among mankind” as described at Revelation 14:1-4.
“Firstfruits” implies that other fruits follow, and hence the “creation” of Romans 8:19-22 evidently applies to such ‘after fruits’ or ‘secondary fruits’ of mankind who, through faith in Christ Jesus, gain eventual sonship in God’s universal family.
In speaking of the future “system of things” and “the resurrection from the dead” to life in that system, Jesus said that these become “God’s children by being children of the resurrection.”—Lu 20:34-36.
From all the foregoing information it can be seen that ‘sonship’ of humans in relation to God is viewed from several different aspects. In each case, then, the sonship must be viewed in context to determine what it embraces and the exact nature of the filial relationship.
Christ Jesus, the Son of God. ----The Gospel account by John particularly emphasizes Jesus’ prehuman existence as “the Word” and explains that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father.” (Joh 1:1-3, 14)
That his sonship did not begin with his human birth is seen from Jesus’ own statements, as when he said, “What things I have seen with my Father I speak” (Joh 8:38, 42; compare Joh 17:5, 24), as well as from other clear statements of his inspired apostles.—Ro 8:3; Ga 4:4; 1Jo 4:9-11, 14.
“Only-begotten.”----- Some commentators object to the translation of the Greek word mo·no·ge·nes' by the English “only-begotten.” They point out that the latter portion of the word (ge·nes') does not come from gen·na'o (beget) but from ge'nos (kind), hence the term refers to ‘the only one of a class or kind.’ Thus many translations speak of Jesus as the “only Son” (RS; AT; JB) rather than the “only-begotten son” of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9)
However, while the individual components do not include the verbal sense of being born, the usage of the term definitely does embrace the idea of descent or birth, for the Greek word ge'nos means “family stock; kinsfolk; offspring; race.” It is translated “race” in 1 Peter 2:9.
The Latin Vulgate by Jerome renders mo·no·ge·nes' as unigenitus, meaning “only-begotten” or “only.” This relationship of the term to birth or descent is recognized by numerous lexicographers.
Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (1885, p. 471) gives the definition of mo·no·ge·nes' as: “only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.” The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by W. Hickie (1956, p. 123) also gives: “only begotten.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, states: “The µ???- [mo·no-] does not denote the source but the nature of derivation.
Hence µ????e??? [mo·no·ge·nes'] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters. This gives us the sense of only-begotten. The ref. is to the only child of one’s parents, primarily in relation to them. . . . But the word can also be used more generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of ‘unique,’ ‘unparalleled,’ ‘incomparable,’ though one should not confuse the refs. to class or species and to manner.”—
Translator and editor, G. Bromiley, 1969, Vol. IV, p. 738.
As to the use of the term in the Christian Greek Scriptures or “New Testament,” this latter work (pp. 739-741) says: “It means ‘only-begotten.’ . . . In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9;
John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. . . . In Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 µ????e??? denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus.
In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In Jn. µ????e??? denotes the origin of Jesus. He is µ????e??? as the only-begotten.”
In view of these statements and in view of the plain evidence of the Scriptures themselves, there is no reason for objecting to translations showing that Jesus is not merely God’s unique or incomparable Son but also his “only-begotten Son,” hence descended from God in the sense of being produced by God.
This is confirmed by apostolic references to this Son as “the firstborn of all creation” and as “the One born [form of gen·na'o] from God” (Col 1:15; 1Jo 5:18), while Jesus himself states that he is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Re 3:14.
Jesus is God’s “firstborn” (Col 1:15) as God’s first creation, called “the Word” in his prehuman existence. (Joh 1:1) The word “beginning” in John 1:1 cannot refer to the “beginning” of God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning. (Ps 90:2)
It must therefore refer to the beginning of creation, when the Word was brought forth by God as his firstborn Son. The term “beginning” is used in various other texts similarly to describe the start of some period or career or course, such as the “beginning” of the Christian career of those to whom John wrote his first letter (1Jo 2:7; 3:11), the “beginning” of Satan’s rebellious course (1Jo 3:8), or the “beginning” of Judas’ deflection from righteousness. (Joh 6:64; [Became Corrupt].)
Jesus is the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16) in that he is the only one of God’s sons, spirit or human, created solely by God, for all others were created through, or “by means of,” that firstborn Son.—Col 1:16, 17; Hebrews 1:1,2--
Spirit begettal, return to heavenly sonship. Jesus, of course, continued to be God’s Son when born as a human, even as he had been in his prehuman existence. His birth was not the result of conception by the seed, or sperm, of any human male descended from Adam, but was by action of God’s holy spirit. (Mt 1:20, 25; Lu 1:30-35; compare Mt 22:42-45.)
Jesus recognized his sonship in relation to God, at the age of 12 years saying to his earthly parents, “Did you not know that I must be in the house of my Father?” They did not grasp the sense of this, perhaps thinking that by “Father” he was referring to God only in the sense that the term was used by Israelites in general, as considered earlier.—Lu 2:48-50.
However, about 30 years after his birth as a human, when he was immersed by John the Baptizer, God’s spirit came upon Jesus and God spoke, saying: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Lu 3:21-23; Mt 3:16, 17)
Evidently Jesus, the man, was then “born again” to be a spiritual Son with the hope of returning to life in heaven, and he was anointed by spirit to be God’s appointed king and high priest. (Joh 3:3-6; compare 17:4, 5; [His Baptism].)
A similar expression was made by God at the transfiguration on the mount, in which vision Jesus was seen in Kingdom glory. (Compare Mt 16:28 and 17:1-5.) With regard to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, Paul applied part of Psalm 2 to that occasion, quoting God’s words, “You are my son, I have become your Father this day,” and he also applied words from God’s covenant with David, namely: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son.” (Ps 2:7; 2Sa 7:14; Ac 13:33; Heb 1:5; compare Heb 5:5.)
By his resurrection from the dead to spirit life, Jesus was “declared God’s Son” (Ro 1:4), “declared righteous in spirit.”—1Ti 3:16.
Thus, it is seen that, even as David as a grown man could ‘become God’s son’ in a special sense, so, too, Christ Jesus also ‘became God’s Son’ in a special way, at the time of his baptism and at his resurrection, and also, evidently, at the time of his entrance into full Kingdom glory.
False charge of blasphemy.---- Because of Jesus’ references to God as his Father, certain opposing Jews leveled the charge of blasphemy against him, saying, “You, although being a man, make yourself a god.” (Joh 10:33) Most translations here say “God”; Torrey’s translation lowercases the word as “god,” while the interlinear reading of The Emphatic Diaglott says “a god.”
Support for the rendering “a god” is found principally in Jesus’ own answer, in which he quoted from Psalm 82:1-7. As can be seen, this text did not refer to persons as being called “God,” but “gods” and “sons of the Most High.”
According to the context, those whom Jehovah called “gods” and “sons of the Most High” in this psalm were Israelite judges who had been practicing injustice, requiring that Jehovah himself now judge ‘in the middle of such gods.’ (Ps 82:1-6, 8)
Since Jehovah applied these terms to those men, Jesus was certainly guilty of no blasphemy in saying, “I am God’s Son.” Whereas the works of those judicial “gods” belied their being “sons of the Most High,” Jesus’ works consistently proved him to be in union, in harmonious accord and relationship, with his Father.—Joh 10:34-38.and 20:17 "
---BIBLE COMMENTARY --
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
