Israel, God's son through adoption

I just posted this article at my adoption blog. It should generate some significant discussion about the use of adoption language.

Israel, God's son through adoption

Here are the opening two paragraphs:

An important biblical theme often overlooked by Christians is the sonship of Israel. When we hear the expression, son of God, we think of Jesus (as we should), but we forget that the first son of God mentioned in Scripture is the nation of Israel.

Through the correspondence of two of Israel’s privileges listed in Romans 9:4 (”They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, and the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.”), we learn that God adopted Israel as His son at Mt. Sinai when He gave Israel the law. Israel officially became God’s son through adoption when He constituted Israel a nation at Mt. Sinai.

Here's the final paragraph:

Something to think about: Should this theological truth have any bearing on our adoption language? There are many who are opposed to calling a child who has been adopted an “adopted child.” They believe that the expression implies that the child is a second-class member of the family - whether or not the child is actually considered to be one. The line of reasoning goes like this: “adopted child” speaks of identity, whereas “child who was adopted” simply relates a historical fact about how the child entered the family. Opponents of the phrase “adopted child” say that a child’s entrance into a family through adoption is no more relevant to that child’s personal identity than the fact of a child’s coming into a family through C-section. Given this context, what bearing, if any, should the theology of this article, “Israel, God’s son through adoption,” have on our adoption language? We hope to address this issue in future posts.

Read the rest of the article here to find out what's in the middle.