Editor’s Note: On June 1, 2026 Dr. Robert Letham and Dr. Lane Tipton published essays interacting with Dr. David Garner’s view of the Son’s adoption.  What follows is Dr. Garner’s response to those essays.

Here begins Dr. David Garner’s response.

Conciliar Christology delivers clear summaries of core biblical revelation concerning the Son of God, the one Mediator between God and man. I thank God for the formulations of Nicaea, Chalcedon, Ephesus and Constantinople; what I have written before and what I write now self-consciously and actively promotes orthodox Christology—with no deviation, no detraction, and no disappointment.

Drs. Letham and Tipton have posted at a single Ref21 hyperlink distinct but overlapping essays, “Is Jesus Christ the Natural and Adopted Son of God?” and “The Impossibility of the Adoption of the Incarnate Mediator,” which challenge my orthodoxy^[1] and the orthodoxy of a host of others—curiously left unnamed and unaddressed in their essays—who hold the view that I do.

For my own defense and that of others necessarily impugned, some of whom I will identify below, I respond expeditiously and selectively to Drs. Letham and Tipton. In so doing, I hope that some benefit will accrue to any others who may find themselves disturbed or confused. Any possible longer response with supplemental constructive work must wait.

The crux now concerns whether or not the resurrection of Christ can or should, in any sense, be considered his adoption, particularly in light of Romans 1:3–4. Put differently, does the resurrection of Christ carry adoptive significance for Christ in his role as the one Mediator between God and man? In 2022, Dr. Richard Gaffin, Jr. and I published in Themelios an interaction with largely the same concerns as Dr. Letham and Dr. Tipton have now put forward,^[2] but neither of their reviews accounts for that earlier response.

For those wondering, Westminster Theological Seminary has taken no official position on the interpretation of Romans 1:3–4, and the concerns raised by these two scholars expose no debate among the Seminary faculty or trustees. No such controversy exists.

Several scholars inside and outside of Westminster Theological Seminary provided constructive input for this response. I specially wish to note and to thank Drs. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Mark A. Garcia, David O. Filson, and Stephen M. Coleman. Their guidance proved useful, but what follows in this answer should be understood as my own.

A Response to Dr. Letham’s “Is Jesus Christ the Natural and Adopted Son of God?”

Two governing points drive Dr. Letham’s critique—one definitional and one axiomatic. Dr. Letham’s analysis rides on the meaning of “adoption” and Aquinas’ axiom he summarizes to mean that sonship and personhood are coextensive. Unless the constraints of his definition of adoption and this axiom are found to be correct, the validity of his concerns vanishes.

Aquinas’s axiomatic insistence that persons are adopted, not natures, is one of several ways he participates in the critically important and effective rejection of the Christological heresy of adoptionism, according to which Jesus Christ was born fully human (but not the Son of God) and was later “adopted” as God’s Son. The early church rejected adoptionism and Nestorianism because these theologies are dangerously wrong. They misrepresent the Person of Christ and his soteric work, and thereby always require stout rebuttal. The Son of God is the eternal Son. He did not acquire divine status or assume divine proprieties. In his incarnation, he did not become two persons. To affirm otherwise is heretical, and such dangerous errors should never be treated lightly.

However, preserving creedal Christology does not imply the Church has nothing more to learn or to say. Christological reflection did not end with the councils. For a thousand years after the councils, the Church continued to explore and unpack the further implications and facets of the truth of the incarnation and the character and effects of his redemptive work. By their own probing of Holy Scripture, and by the return to previous formulations (e.g., Constantinople II), ecumenical council members’ practices press us to go repeatedly to Holy Scripture for fuller and richer insights. The ecumenical councils issued critical insights in Christology; they decidedly did not issue a mandate for the church to cease studying the Bible. Yet despite this dictate to continue searching Scripture for fuller understanding of Christ’s Person and work, Dr. Letham critiques my writings on Christ’s adoption only in terms of church history and the conciliar councils and not with reference to the biblical and covenantal insights emerging from post-Reformation reformed scholarship—including that of the Westminster divines, nor even to the redemptive-historical insights of the biblical theology pioneered by Geerhardus Vos.

As students of Scripture, neither errors in Christology (ancient or revived) nor responses to those errors should tempt us to cloud the rich covenantal and redemptive contours of the filial language of New Testament Christology, lines which, as Reformed biblical theology has variously and increasingly shown, color Christ’s sonship in radiant pluriformity. To be sure, first and foremost is Christ’s natural Sonship as the One eternally begotten of the Father. His Sonship is eternal, essential, and irreversible. Jesus is God the Son. Second, as incarnate, the Son enters time, space, and the covenantal framework of history. Though being God and not from creation, the eternal Son by way of his incarnation becomes of and works for and within the conditions of creation. The eternal Son of God took up his incarnate mediatorship in the fulness of all it means to be genuinely human. Without fearless embrace of Christ’s full humanity and the according-to-his-human-nature sonship contours it dictates, we drift toward Docetism. In other words, if Christ’s sonship can only be viewed in accordance with his divinity, we risk eclipsing the critical force of his incarnation as true man and Last Adam.

Notably, the confessional Reformed tradition took its point of departure in the eucharistic controversy by insisting on the reality of Christ’s historical work and presence without compromising in any way his eternal identity and status as the Son of God. They did so by carefully using the language of the one Person or Son who acts, or of whom we may speak in certain contexts, “according to” either his divine or human nature: one person (not two), acting or spoken of “according to” either nature (not only one).^[3]

The Meaning of Adoption

The meaning of adoption must draw upon biblical revelation. Imposed definitional boundaries risk clouding interpretive judgment. To this end, note some brief definitional-framing points in the Introduction to my Sons in the Son: (1) “Concepts of biblical adoption birthed largely out of contemporary practices or out of compelling altruistic analogies may brush with points of biblical insight, but at best suffer from truncated theological expression and at worst distort the theological riches of the believers’ adoption in Christ” (xxii) and  (2) “Human adoption is marvelous but its customary strictures do not shape gospel adoption” (xxiii).^[4] 

In the remainder of the book, I explore the redemptive-historical framework for understanding theological adoption,^[5] illuminated by the first-century Roman imperial adoptive practice that, by analogy, reinforces Paul’s inter-testamental theology of huiothesia (adoption). The Apostle’s first-century context did not create his conception of theological adoption, but its unique features provided meaningful parallels[6] for the covenantal and redemptive-historical revelation that shaped his understanding.[7]

Well-recognized in the Reformed tradition, Christ’s eternal, ontological Sonship is absolutely necessary but insufficient for our adoption. Incarnation, in all of its temporal and eschatological dimensions, was necessary for Christ to become the effectual Savior; none of his actions on the stage of history operates perfunctorily. Instead, salvation accrues by the personal work of the eternal Son made incarnate. So, writes Geerhardus Vos, “It is not what Christ is but what He, as κοινωνóς [koinōnos, ‘sharer’] of both natures, does that saves us. Our salvation is a salvation by deeds, not by modes of existence.”^[8] The emphasis then of the biblical text is that his efficacy as Mediator rests upon his personal, perpetual, and perfect obedience as the obedient Son of the covenant (WLC 20; WCF 7.2; 8.5; WSC 12).

As attested in Acts 13, Romans 1, Hebrews 1, and Philippians 2,^[9] the incarnate Son attainedhis royal, official sonship status and title at the end of his career. Earlier declarations concerning the Lord Jesus identify him as the promised Messiah—“the beloved Son” (e.g., his baptism, Matt. 3:17, and his transfiguration, Matt. 17:5), but only at his resurrection does he openly receive final vindication (1 Tim. 3:16), receive the declaration of his Father as “Son of God in power” (Rom. 1:4), and secure his sonly inheritance.[10] Being the Son of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3) was a necessary condition of his messiahship, but his ascension to the Davidic throne required his meeting the final conditions of the divine covenant—flawless obedience unto death on the cross, all culminating in this resurrection-vindication-exaltation as Son (cf. Psalm 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14). [11] Thus, as Paul openly expresses in Rom. 1:3-4 and 2 Timothy 2:8, this royal Davidic enthronement is viewed through the lenses of historical, official, covenantal sonship. The eternal Son is hereby acknowledged as the successful covenant Son, or to deploy another central Pauline conception, the successful Last Adam (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:20–49). On behalf of his people and in obedience to the Father, this Last Adam and Davidic Son completed his career faithfully and flawlessly.

Moving from Christ to Christian, Christ’s royal and filial attainment marked the culmination of his redemptive work, so that now resurrected, the Son became the “Firstborn among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29). These brothers are adopted sons, and for them to be so, in Paul’s mind, Christ Jesus had to become the First among them. In this all-important fashion, the Apostle unites the adopted sons of Romans 8:15–17 and 8:23 to the Firstborn from the dead (8:29), the one who has become the Son of God in power (1:4). As such he now reigns in power as the Firstborn among these many brothers (Rom. 8:29), who by the Spirit of adoption receive by grace the inheritance he secured by right, and are thereby “heirs of God.” United to Christ, believers become co-heirs with him (Rom. 8:15–17).

Summarily, because of his utter success and unqualified excellence, Christ Jesus was appointed and enthroned as the Son of God in power. That event does not mark a change in the relationship of the eternal Son to the eternal Father (such a change is impossible). It does mark the moment when he, according to his human nature, and—as the “public” Man he is—having assumed to himself the full conditions of the condemned and judged humanity he came to save, and whose very existence and prospects he embodies as their Covenant Head, enters his unprecedented state of sonship. And, most remarkably and graciously, the sons of God are joint heirs with him.  

Only by this successful obedience to his Father, does Christ attain his exalted filial status and secure the inheritance, and by his marvelous and magnanimous grace, he bestows this sonship benefit upon his brothers—the filial benefit, which the Apostle Paul uniformly calls adoption. For this confluence of reasons and many others, Christ’s resurrection can responsibly and reasonably, based upon the mutually informing force of the Scriptural data and within the boundaries of conciliar Christology, be considered in a certain sense, his adoption.

The Person/Sonship Axiom

So, what about Dr. Letham’s insistence upon the person/son coterminosity axiom? As noted above, this axiom served a useful purpose in confronting the heresy of adoptionism. But it is critical to recognize the whole of the New Testament surges with filial language that extends its conceptual and theological reach beyond the ontological/hypostatic (John 1:1, Heb. 1:3). Biblical sonship language involves the mutually-informing features of covenant, including that with Adam (Luke 3:38), typology (Rom. 9; 2 Cor. 6:18; cf. Exod. 4:22), royalty and messiahship (Acts 13:33; cf. Ps. 2:7), adoption (Rom. 8:15–17), and eschatology (Rom. 8:23). Even metaphorical Hebraisms, such as, “sons of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2) and “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) expose the ethical, covenantal contours of biblical filial language.^[12]

The incarnation of the Son of God and his mediatorial work draw this vast array of filial features together, with the biblical data understandably generating Adamic and Davidic Christologies in theological discourse. For our purposes, note briefly how apostolic preaching tethers Psalm 2:7 with the resurrection of Christ, as the “today” of Acts 13:33 marks the event of the resurrection. That is, at his resurrection, he fulfills this paradigmatic declaration when he, according to his human nature, enters a new state of sonship—in all of its covenantal, antitypical, and eschatological contours. Raised from the dead, he fulfills the Davidic promise and is appointed the Son of the covenant, confirmed and consecrated as great David’s Greater Son.

This regal, filial event introduces no second person, nor does it threaten the foundational insights of historic creedal Christology. Rather, it illuminates the robust filial, covenantal and soteriological interest of the New Testament and builds these features upon his eternal, ontological sonship in the context of his human experience.^[13] To reiterate, when Christ was raised from the dead, he did not for the first time become the Son of God. That is both absurd and impossible, as Christ the Mediator is the Son of God eternally and unchangeably. He also did not, in any way, become a second Son. Let the reader hear. This Son of God is One Person, the eternally-begotten Son of the Father. That conviction we must maintain ex animo. And according to Scripture, there is more to say, with truths that neither pollute nor dilute the waters of this ontological font.

In Acts 2:36, Peter declares that at his resurrection, Christ is “made” (poieō) “both Lord and Christ.” It would introduce an unthinkable conclusion to insist that only the Son’s human nature was made Lord and Christ. Moreover, it would be theologically inaccurate to say that he was not already Lord and Christ prior to his resurrection. However, the events of his life, death, and resurrection bear directly upon his covenantal, mediatorial, and regal status. And that culminating moment of resurrection delivered a change in status for him, so that in some sense the eternal Son made incarnate became Lord and Christ at his resurrection in a way previously unattained. That is clear apostolic teaching.

In summary, the New Testament, including the Gospels, the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews, presents Christ’s sonship in a multi-valent fashion—ontologically (eternal sonship) and covenantally or, as Michael Horton describes it, ontologically and officially.^[14] Biblical sonship conceptions extend beyond the ontological limits of Aquinas’ person/son axiom.

Conclusion

Dr. Letham insists on a definitional and axiomatic framework that does not withstand scrutiny. If one’s understanding of adoption draws from www.dictionary.com or the Oxford English Dictionary pulled from our shelves, we will unwittingly impose anachronistic and extra-biblical demands upon our theological speech. Even the language of the councils—hypostasis, ousia, persona, et al.—would not survive the Greek or Latin dictionary standard, as the church fathers knew when they ultimately settled the meaning of these words in terms of how they would use them, not their lexical meaning as such.

Looking to external sources first for the biblical meaning of adoption or to establish an interpretive metaphysical axiom generates methodological problems and obscures biblical teaching. I have been explicit that I do not feel bound to Thomas’ axiom or to extra-biblical definitions of adoption, as neither does full justice to the richness of the biblical witness. Yet Dr. Letham imposes these strictures on the meaning of adoption and an axiom that I reject and then levels his claims of my heterodoxy based on those constraints.

The view then that Christ was in some sense adopted at his resurrection operates within biblical and conciliar orthodoxy and concretizes biblical soteriology, particularly with reference to the vital relationship between Christology, Pneumatology, and Soteriology. My understanding of adoption as it applies to the resurrected Christ traffics in the same theological reasoning that we use to explain Peter’s words Acts 2:36: God has made him both Lord and Christ. To test the veracity of this position, the living and active Scripture must remain our self-interpreting guide for all things, and as such, must govern our proper understanding of Christology and adoption.

I can put these points summarily no better than Westminster Divine Edward Reynolds has already done, when he attends to the “the safety and firmness of … life in Christ”:

The sonship, and, by consequence, inheritance of Christ is ours. I speak not of his personal sonship by eternal generation, but of that dignity and honour which He had as the first-born of every creature, and heir of all things. That sonship which he had as he was born from the dead; “Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee,” namely in the resurrection, in which respect he is called “the first born,” and “the first begotten of the dead.” In this dignity of Christ, of being heirs, and a kind of first-born unto God, do we in our measure partake, for we are called the church of the first-born, and a kind of first-fruits of his creatures: for though those attributes may be limited to the Jews in regard of precedency to the Gentiles; yet in regard of the inheritance (which was usually and properly to descend to the first-born) they may be applied to all; for of all believers the apostle saith, If ye are sons, then are ye heirs, coheirs with Christ. [15]

With the clarity provided above concerning the theological contours of adoption and how official/adoptive sonship functions in Scripture, I am hopeful that if others and I engage Dr. Letham about the “resurrection as adoption” thesis, that may be done without the needless noise of alleged heterodoxy drowning out the conversations. To this point, misplaced accusations of unorthodoxy muffle what could become useful and collaborative conversations around the exegesis of key passages, the nature of union and communion with Christ, the relationship of the historia salutis to the ordo salutis, and the ways in which Scripture speaks of the One eternal Son made incarnate for our salvation.

I hope earnestly and prayerfully for such an outcome.

A Response to Dr. Tipton’s “The Impossibility of the Adoption of the Incarnate Mediator”

Dr. Tipton’s essay is thoroughly baffling.

Puzzling Points

That Christ in some sense was adopted at his resurrection cannot reasonably be considered “Garner’s unique thesis,” as Dr. Tipton describes it. Many highly-acclaimed and confessionally-orthodox scholars have made this assertion. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr,^[16] Sinclair B. Ferguson,^[17] Gregory K. Beale,^[18] and Michael Horton,^[19] among others, have demonstrated its exegetical grounds, its theological import, and its pastoral usefulness. By ignoring other authors and their writings, Drs. Letham and Tipton obfuscate the weight of orthodox scholarship advancing this thesis.

To the list of scholars mentioned above who have affirmed, expounded, and defended Christ’s resurrection as his adoption, we must add Dr. Lane Tipton. Yes, Dr. Tipton—whose work on the relationship between the historia salutis and the ordo salutis, union with Christ, and the adoption of Christ, is positively referenced in my book, Sons in the Son.

Dr. Tipton has spent his teaching career contending for the concretizing function of Christ’s personal and historical work as the grounds for the genuine efficacy of our salvation. He has openly asserted the resurrection as Christ’s adoption, while building his entire soteriology around Christ’s historic accomplishment of justification, adoption, and sanctification to provide the only basis for the application of these and other benefits to his people.

It seems to me that both the title of the critique, “The Impossibility of the Adoption of the Incarnate Mediator,” and the litany of statements within it, require that Dr. Tipton reconciles these statements with his consistent, two-decade-long unambiguous insistence upon Christ’s own adoption. I supply here two representative quotations from Dr. Tipton’s publications:

2007:  “Third, and supplying the basic redemptive-historical rationale for both the point that precedes and the points that follow, Christ’s bodily resurrection, as an eschatological event in redemptive history, includes within it his own justification, adoption and sanctification (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 1:4; 6:9-11). Not only does Paul speak of Christ’s death and resurrection as the basic redemptive category that structures union with Christ, but he also thinks in concrete categories about the nature of Christ’s own bodily resurrection. Paul understandsJesus’ resurrection as his justification, sanctification, and adoption, and each benefit is a distinct- yet-inseparable aspect of the one eschatological act of resurrection.”^[20]

2023: He affirms Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.’s explication of the relationship between the historia salutis and ordo salutis: “To deepen our understanding of salvation, we must recognize the benefits we obtain through our union with Christ. In his book Resurrection and Redemption, Richard B. Gaffin Jr. suggests that our union with Christ finds its climactic efficacy because of Christ’s resurrection. In fact, Gaffin argues that Paul presents Jesus’ resurrection as his own justification, sanctification, adoption, and glorification (historia salutis) with the essential caveat that Jesus as a divine person incarnate was without sin. That reality in the history of salvation grounds the sinner’s reception of justification, sanctification, adoption, and glorification in our union with Christ (ordo salutis). In other words, believers are justified in Christ, sanctified in Christ, adopted in Christ, and glorified in Christ. This ordo salutis realityrests in union with the Christ who was himself justified, sanctified, adopted,and glorified in his own resurrection from the dead.”^[21]

For those puzzled by this recent opposition to the “resurrection as adoption” thesis, open explanation for Dr. Tipton’s reversal of view is surely in order. A scholar is fully entitled to change his position, but after 20 years of teaching it, the critique of another scholar who propounds this view is simply not a satisfactory way of providing a recantation, especially when the proposal is now thought to be heterodox.

Further Bewildering Points and a Prayer

Exchanges between theologians seeking to refine and clarify positions can, in principle, prove to be quite useful to the Church. Published works open the door for public critique and I sincerely welcome such. But misrepresentation serves no one.

Sons in the Son was published in 2016, the same year Dr. Tipton became chairman of the Systematic Theology department at Westminster. The webpage with the ten bullet points referenced by Drs. Letham and Tipton has been posted since that same year. This critique surprisingly appeared on the Ref21 website on June 1, 2026, one decade after publication and one month before I assume the presidency at Westminster.

To the matters of substance, Dr. Tipton’s contention that I teach that Christ needed redemption himself and that his adoption bore redemptive efficacy for him is simply careless. The idea that our sinless Savior personally needs redemption and adoption is repugnant and blasphemous. Not only do I repudiate such views; I don’t know anyone who holds them. 366 pages of Sons in the Son exhibit why no one else has ever read me that way. From start to finish, the critique leveled here fails to land with effect, as its assertions are foreign to my thesis and its argumentation.

In keeping with the high priestly prayer of the Son of God (John 17), I pray the Lord will use this response as a catalyst for seeing his holy and loving intercession for unity among brothers realized.

---

^[1] Dr. Letham insists, “To ascribe adoption to Jesus cannot cohere with orthodox Christology,” and “To make any sense, such a proposal would make Christ’s human nature an active agent, a second person. This is a form of the Nestorian heresy; it requires two persons,” (https://reformation21.org/is-jesus-christ-the-natural-and-adopted-son-of-god/). Dr. Tipton openly builds his essay around agreement with Dr. Letham. Accessed June 12, 2026.

^[2] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., and David B. Garner, “The Divine and Adopted Son of God: A Response to Joshua Maurer and Ty Kieser, Themelios 47.1 (April 2022): pp. 144–155,

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-divine-and-adopted-son-of-god-a-response-to-joshua-maurer-and-ty-kieser/. Accessed June 15, 2026.

^[3] For example, the one Son who is eternal life himself and cannot die nevertheless dies on the cross “according to his human nature”—he dies, not a nature, but he dies according to one nature alone. This is a familiar and important way of speaking in Reformed theology. [Thanks to Dr. Mark Garcia for raising this important set of points.]

^[4] David B. Garner, Sons in the Son: The Riches and Reach of Adoption in Christ (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2016), xxii–xxiii.

^[5] Cf. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (transl. John Richard De Witt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 197–98.

[6] See Garner, Sons in the Son, pp. 40–48, 207–18.

[7] It is noteworthy that the features common to modern adoption practice, and frequently but mistakenly assumed and imposed on the biblical text, are starkly different from the first-century imperial adoption practices.

^[8] Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics (trans. and ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Vol. 3: Christology; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 63, my emphasis.

^[9] Contrary to Dr. Letham’s insistence that sonship is not attained, with reference to Phil. 2:5–11, Michael Horton notes, “Here it should be noticed again that the sonship-as-office is as important as his ontological sonship as the eternal Word. It is because he has been obedient throughout his life, even to the point of taking upon himself the curse of the cross, that he is exalted above every name. He is the royal son, the faithful Adam, who has led creation in triumphant procession into the everlasting Sabbath. It is for that reason—not simply because of his deity—that he is worthy to assume such exalted status. Everything that humanity was created to be as God’s image-bearer (royal son, glorious representative, and prophetic witness) Jesus Christ actually attained in his humanity. And yet the status of Jesus as God’s preexistent Son is just as obvious from this passage,” Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), p. 463, my underline.

[10] Declarations by the Father concerning his Beloved Son” at the baptism, transfiguration, and resurrection are positively affirmations of the eternal Son; for that is who he is. But that is neither the exclusive nor the primary thrust of these filial declarations; their covenantal, redemptive-historical, and eschatological focus rises to prominence in the New Testament. So, writes Michael Horton, “God is pleased with him not simply because he is the eternal Son but because he is the true and faithful son of Adam, Abraham, and David,” The Christian Faith, p. 461.

[11] For a more thorough examination of the two-part, two-stage dimensions of the Davidic covenant, see David B. Garner, “The Gospel Of God Concerning His Beloved Son: Further Steps On A Well-Traveled Text,” Westminster Theological Journal 84.2 (Fall 2022): pp. 257–79.

^[12] See, inter alia, Deut. 13:13, Luke 10:6, Luke 16:8, John 12:36, and Eph. 5:8.

^[13] R. B. Jamieson rightly alerts us not to reduce Christ’s sonship into a zero-sum gain—that he is either the ontological Son or the covenantal One.  As pointed out in Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.’s and my, “The Divine and Adopted Son: A Response to Joshua Maurer and Ty Kieser,” I summarize Jamieson’s  insistence that Hebrews deploys “‘Son’ to name both who Jesus is by divine nature and what he became at the conclusion of his incarnate mission. If a twofold use of ‘Son’ in both divine and messianic registers in Romans 1:3–4 is regarded as overly subtle or linguistically implausible, Hebrews provides a precise parallel in close historical and conceptual proximity,” R. B. Jamieson, The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2021), 166. See Gaffin and Garner, “The Divine and Adopted Son,” 150.

^[14] Horton, The Christian Faith, pp. 458–64.

[15] Edward Reynolds, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Edward Reynolds (Six volumes; reprint; Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), 1.402. Reynolds goes on to say, “We have communion with Christ in his sonship; from whence it comes to pass, that Christ and his church do interchangeably take one another’s names” (p. 418, italics added).

^[16]Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1987), pp. 117–19;

^[17] Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Contours of Christian Theology; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 105.

^[18] G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 500.

^[19] Horton speaks of the two dimensions of Christ’s sonship: “his eternal sonship (which is unique) and the sense in which he is fulfilling the adoptive sonship of Adam and Israel on behalf of his people,” Horton, The Christian Faith, pp. 460.

^[20] Lane G. Tipton, “Union with Christ and Justification: Biblical and Systematic-Theological Considerations,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification (edited by K. Scott Oliphint; Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, Christian Focus Publications, 2007), pp. 27-28, underlines added.

^[21] Camden M. Bucey and Lane G. Tipton. Unfolding Redemption: Exploring the History and Order of Salvation (Libertyville, IL: Reformed Forum, 2023), 20, underlines added. Also watch the “Christ the Center” podcast, which advances this view: Reformed Forum Episode 700 (May 26, 2021, at 10:17 am), notably entitled “Adoption Accomplished and Applied,”  https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc700/. Accessed June 12, 2026.