Adoption in the Old Testament

David McKay

Abstract: Although the language of adoption is not used in the OT, and the possible examples of adoption practice are few, the concept of adoption is present and significant. Israel is described by the Lord as his son, as at the time of the Exodus, and the relationship established by the Lord is fundamentally covenantal. The relationship between God and the king of Israel is also stated in terms of an adoptive father/son relationship. The concept of kingship in Israel is thus profoundly different from that common in other nations. The ultimate fulfilment of prophetic references to the king as God’s son is found in the person and work of the Messiah, the Son of God incarnate. In the NT context, believers in union with the Son become the adopted children of God and share in a fulness of blessing beyond that experienced by OT believers.  

Introduction

Having agreed to write an article on adoption in the Old Testament (OT), it is disconcerting at the outset of research to read the comment of Victor P. Hamilton: “The OT nowhere uses either the vb., adopt, or the nom., adoption. Nor does it contain any laws of adoption, and the evidence for the presence of adoption ceremonies is slim.”¹ It would seem that several thousand words will not be needed to express the absence of the subject of adoption from the OT canon.

It is generally agreed that legal adoption was not provided for by the laws of Israel, although the concept would have been known through contact with surrounding cultures. Some point to certain cases in the OT which might suggest the practice of some kind of adoption, even if not regulated by Israelite law. The ‘adoption’ of Moses by the daughter of Pharaoh (Exod. 2:10) and that of Ruth’s son by her mother-in-law Naomi (Ruth 4:17: “A son has been born to Naomi”) may seem to offer examples, but both may be better explained as a form of fostering, and there is no doubt that Ruth’s son was legally counted as bearing the name of Boaz’ deceased kinsman. We might also note Samuel’s being given to Eli, indicative of his being given to the Lord (1 Sam. 1:27-28; 2:18-21) and David’s treating Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth as one of his own sons (2 Sam. 9:11). Another possible case is that of Esther (Esth. 2:7). When her parents died, we are told, “Mordecai [her cousin] took her as his own daughter.”A further factor against the cases of Moses and Esther being counted as adoption in the Israelite community is that both took place in a foreign culture (Egyptian and Persian respectively).

Other possible examples are equally tentative. Childless Abraham seems to regard Eliezer his steward as his heir in some sense (Gen. 15:2), but no form of adoption is mentioned. Both Sarai (Gen. 16:2) and Rachel (Gen. 30:3) appear to count, or wish to count, the children fathered by Abraham on Hagar and by Jacob on Bilhah as their own children. Two interesting cases are the counting of grandchildren as the children of their grandfather. This occurs with Jacob in relation to Joseph’s sons (Gen. 48:5: “Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine”) and perhaps with Joseph in relation to the children of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 50:23). The outworking of each of these relationships is not described, and the use of the language of adoption to describe them seems unwarranted.

Nevertheless, as William E. Brown states, “The adoption metaphor was not lost to Israel, however.”² Whilst noting that the evidence for the presence of adoption ceremonies in Israel is slim, Victor Hamilton goes on to say, “Accordingly, the idea of adoption will be expressed by phrases like ‘I will be his father, and he will be my son’(2 Sam 7:14) or ‘I will take you as my people’ (Exod 6:7).”³

1. Israel as God’s Son

The message of the Lord to Pharaoh, conveyed by Moses before the exodus, was, “Israel is my firstborn son” (Exod. 4:22). It is clear from the wider OT context how this is to be understood. In contrast to the surrounding nations, Israel had no myth of descent from God (or the gods) – such a concept was utterly alien to Israelite thought, rooted as it was in divine revelation. As a consequence, as P. H. Davids points out,

“Adoption was the obvious category into which this act, as well as the deliverance from slavery in Egypt, would fit.”⁴ On a very few occasions the verb yld is used with reference to God, for example in Deuteronomy 32:18: “You are unmindful of the Rock that bore [or ‘fathered’] you.” Another example, Psalm 2:7: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” will be considered in relation to the king and the Messiah at a later point. Neither has implications of physical begetting.

The language of adoption is therefore used to describe the familial relationship of God to his people. Some key texts to note are:

• “Know then in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God disciplines you” (Deut. 8:5). 
• “You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead” (Deut. 14:1). 
• “I said, ‘How I would set you among my sons, and give you a pleasant land, a heritage most beautiful of all nations.’” (Jer. 3:19). A certain lifestyle flows from the status of being children of God.

The concept of inheritance is closely bound up with adoption: 

• “With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn (Jer. 31:9).” 
• “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos. 11:1). 

The Hosea 11:1 reference is clearly to the events of the exodus from Egypt and this fits well with the statement to Pharaoh already quoted – “Israel is my firstborn son” (Exod. 4:22). In considering the exodus, we must note the use of kinship terminology in connection with the Lord’s election of these people to be his children. As R.P. Martin puts it, “evidence of this election is seen primarily in the exodus,”⁵  and he cites Hosea 11:1. R.E. Ciampa rightly points out that God’s parental relationship with Israel as his son explains the way in which he treated the people in the wilderness (Deut. 8:2-5) and also serves as a basis for Israel’s obedience (Deut. 14:1-2).⁶ The lifestyle of Israel is always bound up with who she is, and can be linked especially with her status as an adopted son of God. Israel is claimed as Yahweh’s people and is consequently summoned to live as those who share his holy nature. They are “holy to the LORD your God” (Deut. 14:2).

We should also note Ezekiel 16:1-14, where the Lord paints a vivid picture of finding Jerusalem as an outcast child – “your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (Ezek. 16:3). He gives life to the child and provides for her until she becomes a queen (v. 13), richly adorned by the generosity of the Lord. Sadly she proves to be unfaithful and deeply promiscuous. Here is an ‘adoption’ which does not have a happy ending.

It is important to see the relevance of the theme of covenant to our understanding of adoption in the OT, and the events of the exodus are profoundly covenantal in nature. In considering the Sinai covenant, W.J. Dumbrell notes the use of political imagery in the covenant, but then states, “But when delineating the Sinai relationship we cannot overlook the very important use of kinship terminology and family terms which abound in the Exodus narratives.”⁷ The family language employed by the prophets to expand on the significance and implications of the Sinai is largely that of marriage (as in Hosea, for example). In the Book of Exodus, however, the theme of sonship by adoption is prominent, beginning with Yahweh’s announcement to Pharaoh (Exod. 4:22) which begins the sequence of events that culminates with his liberating his ‘firstborn son’ from Egyptian bondage.

Following Dumbrell’s exposition, we may say that on this foundation we have, “the description of Yahweh’s redemptive act of the Exodus as that of Israel’s next of kin who steps into the breach and redeems an enslaved relative.”⁸ The key term in this metaphor is the gō’ēl, which might be translated as ‘kinsman redeemer’. The tone is set by the Lord’s statement to Israel, through Moses, in Exodus 6:6: “I am the Lord and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment.”

The same language is used in Exodus 15:13: “You have led in your steadfast love the people whom you have redeemed.” The Hebrew verb indicates the returning of what had originally belonged to an individual owner or a family, but which they do not have the power to recover. In OT law the kinsman redeemer might redeem an enslaved relative or ensure the continuation of the family line in the case of a childless widow (as in the situation of Ruth). If this understanding of the role of the kinsman redeemer is applied to Exodus 15, “it is Yahweh who has bound himself to Israel as a self-designated relative, and thus the exodus there is commemorated as God’s redemptive act.”⁹

With reference to Israel’s liberation, God, the kinsman redeemer, acts as a father demanding the return of his son by the nation that has enslaved him. The son who is freed then comes under the power of the redeemer who, in effect, has purchased him. The themes of redemption, deliverance, adoption and covenant membership are thus tied closely together. The former bond slaves in Egypt have now been redeemed to become servants, more than that – sons – of their redeeming God.

A text such as Deuteronomy 32:10-14 describes the redeeming of Israel in terms of a father’s tender love: “he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye” (v. 10). The image of an eagle protecting its young, “bearing them up on its pinions” (v. 11), is particularly evocative.

Similar thoughts are expressed in Hosea 11. The Lord’s calling his son Israel out of Egypt is rooted in the fact that, “I loved him” (v. 1). The exodus is then expressed in these terms: “I led them with cords of kindness, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them (v. 4).” This is fully in harmony with the biblical concept of God’s covenant with his people as a bond of redemptive love. Here it is particularly the bond between parent and (adopted) child.

This warm covenant relationship, however, was frequently broken on the side of Israel, as the people forsook the God who had redeemed and adopted them and turned instead to the idols of the surrounding nations, crediting them with the gifts of love which the Lord had lavished on them. Their conduct is painful and incomprehensible. “The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols” (Hos. 11:2).

The pain of the Father’s heart is vividly expressed in Isaiah 1:2: “Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me.” Unlike oxen and donkeys, who know those to whom they belong, “Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (v. 3).

Similarly in Deuteronomy 32:15-18 the theme of ingratitude is prominent and “he forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation” (v. 15). The Father’s anger and jealousy are stirred (v. 16) and their status as God’s children is threatened – “they are no longer his children because they are blemished; they are a crooked and twisted generation” (v. 5).

Such ingratitude would result in exile from the land, as the Lord had frequently threatened through the prophets, yet even then all hope was not extinguished. Repentant Israel could count on the Father’s tender heart to show mercy and grant forgiveness. That is their plea, for example, in Isaiah 64:6-12. Although “you have hidden your face from us” (v. 7), nevertheless “O Lord, you are our father; we are the clay and you are our potter” (v. 8). This is also expressed vividly in Hosea 11:8: “How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel?… My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender.”

The Lord will restore them. When they repent and seek him (“his children shall come trembling from the west”), then “I will return them to their homes” (v11). The same picture of return is found in Isaiah 43:6: “I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.” The Lord in grace will provide them with a blessed future: “With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jer. 31:9)

2. Israel’s King as God’s Son

The other important strand in the OT relating to adoption relates to Israel’s king. Although the origins of kingship in Israel were inauspicious, growing out of a desire to imitate surrounding nations – “Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5) – and though the prophet Samuel warned them strongly of the problems that would arise from having such a ruler (1 Sam. 8:11ff.), these events were not outside the sovereign direction of the Lord. Ultimately, he granted their request by instituting the Davidic monarchy which would provide a paradigm for kingship that had the Royal Messiah in view.

In addition to the description of Israel as a nation being the adopted children of God, the OT also uses adoption as a metaphor to describe God’s relationship to the king as his son. As in the case of Israel already noted, there is, of course, no suggestion of physical fathering such as was characteristic of other nations. Interestingly in Luke 3:38, Adam is referred to as “the son of God” and it appears that the sonship of the Davidic kings is similar to the sonship of Adam as created to exercise godly dominion (see also Psalm 8). This we may also link with the position of Christ as the last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45, with reference to his kingly rule. The king is God’s son by gracious adoption. Among relevant texts are 2 Samuel 7:14, 1 Chronicles 17:13, 22:10, 28:6, and Psalms 2:7 and 89:27. The adoptive nature of the king’s sonship is clear, for example, from the Lord’s statement in Psalm 89:27: “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” Sonship is a status conferred by the ultimate King, the Lord himself.

The context of 2 Samuel 7:14 and 1 Chronicles 17:13 and 22:10 is God’s response to David’s desire to build a ‘house’ for worship, worthy of the Lord. The Lord rejects David’s plan and instead tells David that he will build a ‘house’ for David, consisting of a line of kings to rule over the people of God. The framework for this promise is clearly covenantal. As David G. Firth states, “Although the word bĕrît (covenant) does not occur here, it is so full of covenantal language that one must conclude that it establishes a covenant with David.”¹⁰

The covenantal promise regarding David’s son, Solomon, is “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Sam. 7:14, 1 Chron.17:13). Victor Hamilton suggests that the concept of divine adoption of the king may be rooted in covenants of grant, whereby the donor adopts the donee and the grant takes the form of an inheritance.¹¹ Whether or not that is the case, covenant and adoption are closely interwoven in the OT concept of the Davidic king.

God’s promise affirms that the father/son relationship between the Lord and the king will be established with David’s seed/offspring after his death, and, as Ciampa suggests, in the second part of the promise God indicates that he will fulfil the role of a father in raising his son.¹² In relation to discipline, therefore, God threatens, “When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,” yet the promise continues, “but my steadfast love will not depart from him” (2 Sam. 7:14).

A direct statement of the divine adoption of the king is found in Psalm 2:7: “The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’” In the first instance the Lord is addressing David. At this point in his experience, however, that is to be understood: David has the status of son of God conferred upon him. Many scholars see here some kind of investiture ceremony, by which David and his successors were established as king and, at the same time, as son of God. Alec Motyer suggests that “Psalm 2 may have been a ‘coronation psalm’, with this assertion of sonship (in an adoption sense) at its heart.”¹³ Geoffrey W. Grogan deals with this more fully: “The anointed king speaks, telling of God’s decree, perhaps an actual document presented to him (cf. 2 Kgs 11:12). At his enthronement (‘today’) he has been adopted as God’s son (cf. 2 Sam 7:14), for his rule is God’s gift and he accords him fatherly protection (cf. “watches over” in 1:6).”¹⁴ Derek Kidner also suggests, “The words here may have been spoken as an oracle by a prophet or spoken by the king (‘I will tell…’) in the coronation rite, as the word today suggests, to mark the moment when the new sovereign formally took up his inheritance and his titles.”¹⁵ Although some aspects of this proposed ‘coronation ceremony’ may be speculative, the core significance of the divine word expressing the Lord’s adoption of the king is clear.

3. The Messianic Trajectory

In Romans 1:3-4 Paul describes the Son of God in these terms: “Who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The transition from Son in humiliation to Son in power is marked by the resurrection in which the Father publicly testifies to the triumph of the Son. As Michael Wilcock puts it: “When now in the end of the ages the line of anointed kings, long since extinct, has burst into life again with the Anointed King, this one is in the deepest sense ‘declared with power to be the Son of God’.”¹⁶

The covenant made with David in 2 Samuel 7 had in view David’s son Solomon, who would build the ‘house’ that David had planned to build, and beyond Solomon, successive kings from the line of David. Repeatedly God would fulfil his promise, “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Sam. 7:12). A further aspect of the promise which links kingship to sonship/adoption is found in verse 14: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” Each successive king was to be regarded as God’s son.

The succession of kings born in the line of David was extinguished at the exile, but the promise of God, far from being extinguished, was brought to a deeper fulfilment. The trajectory of the promise led inexorably to the Messiah, the Son of God by his very nature. The key text in this regard is Psalm 2:7: ‘I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”’ It is quoted in Acts 13:33 and in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. In Acts 13:32-33 Peter quotes the text in this manner: “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’”

Derek Kidner’s comments, linking Psalm 2:7 to Paul’s quotation of the text in Acts 13:33, take us to the heart of the matter: “For any earthly king this form of address could bear only the lightest interpretation, but the New Testament holds us to its full value which excludes the very angels, to leave only one candidate in possession (Heb. 1:5). At Christ’s baptism and transfiguration the Father proclaimed Him both Son and Servant in words drawn from this verse and from Isaiah 42:1 (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; 2 Pet. 1:17).”¹⁷

Philip Eveson, commenting on Psalm 2, states that, “Jesus is not only God’s unique Son, the second Person of the holy Trinity, but in becoming truly human he is appointed to fulfil the promises made to David as well as the ones made to Adam and Eve and Abraham.”¹⁸ He sees the reference in Psalm 2 as being to Christ’s exaltation to God’s throne, from where he exercises universal dominion. He further notes: “We must be careful not to confuse Jesus’ sonship as the Messiah which is the main point of this psalm and his eternal sonship as the second Person of the triune God … nevertheless they are intimately connected in that as the Messiah he is God the Son.”¹⁹

Many commentators take the reference to “raising up” in Acts 13:33 as a reference to the resurrection of Christ, and there appears to be support for this in the following verse (v. 34) where Peter continues, “And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way,” and proceeds to quote from Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10.

This approach, however, is not the only one offered by biblical commentators. Another interpretation is offered by the commentator J.A. Alexander, who argues that Psalm 2:7 refers in fact to the eternal sonship of Christ and that the use of “today” is a figurative reference to eternity, just as the Scriptures by other figurative terms “represent things really ineffable in human language”.²⁰ The “raising up” then becomes a reference to the raising up of the incarnation, citing texts such as Acts 2:30, 3:22, 26, 7:36, and also of the resurrection. Alexander concludes, “There is nothing, therefore, inconsistent with the statement that the psalmist here speaks of eternal sonship, either in the passage just referred to, or in Heb. v. 5, where the words are only cited to prove the solemn recognition of Christ’s sonship, and his consequent authority, by God himself.”²¹

Commentators such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther argued that, since there is no time in eternity, it is always ‘today’ and so this verse is a reference to the Father’s eternal begetting of the Son.

This view is reflected in the exegesis of Francis Turretin in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, where he argues his case at length.²² Robert Reymond nevertheless concludes that, “His exegesis, however, is more assertive than probative, more scholastic than biblical.”²³ A helpful exposition of Psalm 2 is provided by Christopher Ash, who offers this paraphrase of verse 7: “Today, in your bodily resurrection and ascension to my right hand, I declare and constitute you, who have been Son of God by nature from all eternity, now to be Son of God in power (cf. Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11).”²⁴ This would appear to do justice to the text in its full NT context.

In Hebrews 1:5, Psalm 2:7 is used as evidence of the unique identity of the Son, in contrast to all created beings. In Hebrews 5:5, the writer is arguing for Christ’s appointment as high priest, rather than his taking the office on his own initiative: “So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’”

The focus in the Hebrews 5:4-8 is on Christ’s submission of himself entirely to his Father in order that he might fulfil his redemptive mission. In particular, the writer reminds his readers of Christ’s relationship to the Father. As Raymond Brown expounds the passage, “He waited submissively for the appointment of God to his eternal mission and was thus ‘designated’ as a priest for ever. At this point our writer makes further use of two psalms [2 and 110] to emphasize Christ’s eternal Sonship and his continuing priesthood, his relationship with God and his identification with man.”²⁵

4. New Testament Fulness

The position of Christ the King as the one who fulfils texts such as Psalm 2:7 opens the way for an understanding of the New Testament (NT) perspective on adoption, which entails greater blessing for the people of God.

In 1 Peter 2:9 we are informed that believers are, among other privileges, “a royal priesthood”, whilst in Revelation 5:10 we are told that Christ has made his blood-bought people “a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” Believers have a royal status because of their saving union with Christ. That union is described in, for example, Romans 6, as based on our dying and rising with Christ. As Son, Christ is king and priest, and in union with him, his people are kings and priests.

Here is the foundation for the fuller New Testament understanding of the adoption of believers as children of God. Believers die and rise with Christ and that is the bedrock of every aspect of salvation. As Lane Tipton puts it, “Union with Christ is a soteric replication of the structure of the believer’s life-experience of what happened antecedently in the life experience of Christ, namely death and resurrection.”²⁶ This entails that believers are justified, adopted and sanctified in Christ.

As far as adoption is concerned, Christ was not adopted as Son – he is Son by nature. Nevertheless, we do see in Romans 1:4 that the resurrection was of great significance for his sonship. Commentators such as John Murray and Thomas Schreiner have argued that the best translation of the verse is not “declared to be the Son of God”, but “appointed to be the Son of God”.²⁷ Here is his appointment, in consequence of his redemptive work, as Messianic King, and it is as “Son of God with power” that he is appointed.

United to Christ in the bonds of the Covenant of Grace, believers are constituted as adopted children of God, “and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God” (Shorter Catechism, Q. 34). It would take us too far from the theme of this study to examine the New Testament understanding of adoption in greater detail. We may say, however, that believers now have a deeper grasp of their individual status as children of God, able to cry “Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6) in a way not generally experienced by OT believers. It is difficult to discern their precise perception of adoption as children of God, but their awareness seems to have been more of being members of the corporate body of the people of God and less an individual experience. NT believers have an understanding of sonship that manifests the fulness of blessing poured out by the crucified and risen Messiah: “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (in fulfilment of Psalm 68:18). Not only is it one of the greatest privileges of believers, it is, as John Murray describes it, “the apex of blessing and privilege”.²⁸

As is the case with all the fundamental doctrines of the faith, the OT lays the foundations for an understanding of adoption as it relates to the people of God, to the Davidic king and to the Messiah who fulfils all the OT hopes. In the NT the full significance of the doctrine in the light of the redemptive work of Christ can then be expounded. Adoption in the OT is therefore not a negligible subject, but a significant element in the theological formulation of the person and work of the Messianic King.

---

1. Victor P. Hamilton, ‘Adoption’, in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), 4.362. ↩︎
2. William E. Brown, ‘Adoption’ in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by Walter Elwell (Carlisle and Grand Rapids: Paternoster Press and Baker Books, 1996), 11. ↩︎
3. Hamilton, ‘Adoption’, NIDOTT, 4.362. ↩︎
4. P. H. Davids, ‘Adoption,’ in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids and Carlisle: Baker Academic and Paternoster Press, 2001), 25. ↩︎
5. R.P. Martin, ‘Sonship,’ in New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Leicester and Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 652. ↩︎
6. R.E. Ciampa, ‘Adoption,’ in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. D. Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Leicester and Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 376. ↩︎
7. W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation. An Old Testament Covenantal Theology (Exeter and Flemington Markets NSW: Paternoster Press and Lancer Books, 1984), 99. ↩︎
8. Ibid., p.100. ↩︎
9. Ibid., 100. ↩︎
10. David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Nottingham and Downers Grove: Apollos and InterVarsity Press, 2009), 387. ↩︎
11. Victor P. Hamilton, NIDOTTE, 4.363. ↩︎
12. R. E. Ciampa, ‘Adoption’ in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 376. ↩︎
13. Alec Motyer, Psalms by the Day. A New Devotional Translation (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2016), 13. ↩︎
14. Geoffrey W. Grogan, Psalms: The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids & Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 45. ↩︎
15. Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, (Leicester: Inter-varsity Press, 1973), 51. ↩︎
16. Michael Wilcock. The Message of Psalms 1-72 (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 24. ↩︎
17. Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, 50. ↩︎
18. Philip Eveson, Psalms: From Suffering to Glory. Volume 1: Psalms 1-72 The Servant-King (Darlington: EP Books, 2014), 39. ↩︎
19. Ibid.,40. ↩︎
20. Joseph Addison Alexander, The Psalms Translated and Explained, 1873 edition (Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1975), 16. ↩︎
21. Ibid.,17. ↩︎
22. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, translated by George Musgrave Giger, edited by James T. Dennison, Jr., (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1992-1997), Third Topic, Question XXIX, 1.294-95. ↩︎
23. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd edition (Grand rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1997), 324. ↩︎
24. Christopher Ash, The Psalms: A Christ-Centered Commentary, four volumes (Wheaton: Crossway, 2024), vol.2, 24. ↩︎
25. Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews (Leicester and Downers Grove: Inter-varsity Press, 1982), 99. ↩︎
26. Lane G. Tipton, ‘Union with Christ and Justification,’ in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification, edited by K. Scott Oliphint (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2007), 25. ↩︎
27. See the comments on Romans 1:4 in John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1968 edition (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997) and in Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998). ↩︎
28. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), 170. ↩︎