In particnlar. tin Ic-n i|.i \.,i\< of ( iodV children
are connected Avith .'i^iir,!, ,,i ciiii-i\ work, (a) As Redeemer, lie soimuos in.-in^ .uloiiiion into the family of God (Ko S""', G:il 3-- -4''). This 'adop- tion ' has been interpreted, in connexion with the antithesis between sonship and servitude, to denote the emancipation of sons enslaved by sin. This is the shade of meaning prominent in Galatians. In Romans the idea of adoption of those not pre- viously sons is emphasized. In both cases, how- ever, the adoption is due to the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, ministereil to men by the holy Spirit. The word 'adoption' is not used in He- brews. But the idea is found there in the figure of the Aiithor of salvation leading many sons to glory (2'°). (/3) As High Priest, Jesus secures access to the Father for all who come unto God by Him (Eph 2", He V-''- -■'■). This priesthood is exercised by Him as our ' Brother,' and was granted to Him in view of His experience of our temptations (He 2" 4'^). (7) As King, Jesus Christ bestows a rich inherit- ance upon all His brethren. The children of God are 'joint-heirs with Christ ' (Ro 8").
In regard to this whole question, it should be remembered that in all proljaltility our human speech cannot describe adequately relations that reach into the eternal, and concern ( ;od. The figure of 'children' is an :iii:ilo;^y i.ilhor than an exact parallel. Therefore wo .-should ho misunder- standing the teaching of .l.-u-, if wo piessed the analogy too far and sought to disicor the exact
counterpart of each element of the I :ni rolation
in that which we bear to God. Al>o il is impnitant torecallthat Jesus wasnotconceriHil \mI h .ihstnict relations. His piiriiosoAvn- j.nictiial and religious, and He used tvyiu< jw^i -o lar as they .served that purpose. His tciininolo-y was consistent ; it may not seem conclusiM' on all |ioints that suggest themselves to abstract
Literature.— Articles in Hastings' DB on 'God, Children of," 'Jesus Christ,' 'Romans,' and 'Recreiieration '; Commentaries on the NT, especially thos» of SaTKhv-Heartlam, Westcott, and LightfOOt; Fairbairn, C/fri.-.! i,i M.«l,r„ Th.;.ln.,,i : Watson, TheMindoftheMaxl.r. liru.-., A'/.w./.-.,, ..Co',,,/, ,,,,.1 ,s7. /•„„?■., Conception of Christ i,!n I >, , w.1.,11, /■>,!, ■/,,„. , ../ ./. ..,«; v.ey. acbla,g, If T Theoloijji ; ( ■.,.•, yi.//. .(,.... ../ a j;.(0.,v .i;.,../, is7-:;i'«,
Education in Relii/iua ami .VunUs, 6i 11., J7;;ir. ; Dalman, irislian Docl. of Snlrati;ii, and
J. Edward Robert,?.
CHILIARCH (xiXi'apxos)-— The title of this mili- tary officer is twice used in the Gospels: Jn 18'= and Mk 6=' (AV 'captain,' 'high captains'; RV 'chief captain,' 'hi^h capt:iins'; RVm 'military tribune(s), Gr. cliiiiarcli(s) '). It is the Greek equivalent for the Roman otlic of trihiitni.s militum, an office of great liistoi i. ,il .•inticpiii v, from the analogy of which the fanujus tf,l,n'„i plehis took their name. The trlbuinix iitllltum is called by Mommsen ' the pillar of the Roman mili- tary system ' ; he was an officer commanding a cohort. See, further. Legion.
A chiliarch with his ' b.ind ' {lyTTf'pa) is repre- -.'iilcd l,y St. .lohii as coining with .ludas to take O'li Ion! in tlio CMiileii of (iethseinane. If this is lo l.c uml. istoud strictly as standing for a tribuniis mil it 1(1,1 and liis coliort, the use of so large a force
would ])()int to a great (real or assumed) fear of popular disturliance on the part of the authorities. The words may, however, be used in a general sense for a body of troops under an officer (see Westcott, cidloc).
In St. Mark's account of the martyrdom of John the Baptist, Herod the tetrarch of Galilee is repre- sented as making a feast to his iMeyiaraves (highest civil officials), x'^<"PX<" (hifjhest military officers), and TrpuiToi. riji TaXiXafas (leading provincials). These 'chiliarchs' were officers of the army of the tet- rarch, which would be organized on Roman models. For the association of ixeyiaraves and x'^'opx"' cf- Rev 6'=. (See Swete's St Mark, ad lor. ).
M. R. Newbolt.
CHOICE. — In the Gospels, choice is always ex- pressed 113' one small group of closely connected words, viz. iKX^yofiai, esXe/cTis, eKXoyri. And these at once define the nature of the choice, which is not that of ' decision,' but that of ' selection.' Perhaps the English term which more precisely than any other answers to iK\4yeLi> is to ' cull,' to choose here and there one, that is to say, out of a larger number laid out in view. And this force nf the word is rather cni].liasizc(l by the fa.t tli.al in the NT the active Noi.c of I ho \..ili i, n..l employed, but only the niiddl.. or p.assivo, wilh derivatives which are passive in character. It is not, then, the action of choosing which is prominent, but its result ; or else the status or nature of that which is chosen. And this point is of some importance in view of the use to which some pa-ssages of the NT have been put by those who have attempted to elaborate from them doctrines of election or predestination. Stress is never laid chiefly on the election or pre- destination of the Almighty, but on the fact that such and such are actually found among those whom God has culled for Himself, and who consti- tute His own people. It would be an advantage to accurate Christian thought if the rendering ' elect ' were eliminated from the NT, and were replaced Ijy ' chosen ' or ' select,' although it is a direct de- rivative of the original.