Paul's use of term "adoption"

[darinhouston]

On Wednesday's radio show, Steve and a couple of callers had a very interesting discussion about a potential interpretation of Paul's (and Romans at the time) usage of the term "adoption." This should prove an interesting discussion, and the below articles seem relevant to that discussion.

The main point as I understood it is that adoption may not mean only what we mean by it today. One theory (and one which resolves some otherwise seeming inconsistency of usage by Paul) is that adoption didn't necessarily imply that one who was not in a given family was then made legally to be in that family, but instead to one who may already be in a family but was not yet a "legitimate heir" of a family (by achieving a certain age or otherwise), and that they then (upon adulthood or whatever) became a mature member - one which had all rights of inheritance, etc. Also, there seems to be a distinction between justification and adoption, and we might do well not to conflate the two.

A related distinction seems to be made as between "sons" of God and "children" of God. As Christians, it's hard to say we were adopted as children of God (as we understand that term), since the bible says we were actually "begotten" in our new birth as His children. It does say we were "adopted" as sons or heirs, and if "sonship" implies a change in status "within" an already existing and begotten family, then this further supports the interpretation.

This is very interesting to me. I'd love some dialogue on this.


http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Da ... ine_12.htm
http://www.bibleone.net/Adopted%20Sons%20of%20God.doc

[steve7150]

and that they then (upon adulthood or whatever) became a mature member - one which had all rights of inheritance, etc.




Yes i heard also it meant a level of maturity within the family.

[Homer]

Hi Darin,

Interesting subject, which brings up many questions.

You wrote:

" but instead to one who may already be in a family but was not yet a "legitimate heir" of a family (by achieving a certain age or otherwise), and that they then (upon adulthood or whatever) became a mature member - one which had all rights of inheritance, etc."

"It does say we were "adopted" as sons or heirs, and if "sonship" implies a change in status "within" an already existing and begotten family"

This would seem to fit quite well within the ideas of the pedobaptist who would argue that the infant is born into God's family at (infant) baptism (sprinkling) and later is adopted (converted?) at the time of repentance, submission, etc. I have a book by a Lutheran titled "Infant Baptism and Adult Conversion" wherin the author, O. Hallesby, Professor of Theology, states that the infant became a child of God in baptism, and he goes on to discuss a change of status (conversion, adoption?) as the child becomes mature.

As Christians, it's hard to say we were adopted as children of God (as we understand that term), since the bible says we were actually "begotten" in our new birth as His children

But are "begotten", "born", "regeneration", and "adoption" all more or less metaphors for the same or similar thing? In our minds we try to make spiritual birth and physical birth exact analogies but the analogy is limited, for example, in that we have no choice regarding our physical birth but must choose to be born again, and after physical birth we can be raised by another parent(s) but will die again after spiritual birth if separated from our Father.

Paul wrote "I have begotten you through the Gospel", KJV, which is translated "became your father" in the NASB (1 Corinth. 4:15). The word "beget" in our minds refers to impregnation, which is what fathers do, while the mother gives birth. So we can get very confused if we push metaphors too far. Paul spoke of the church as both a "field" and a "building" in the same sentence in 1 Corinth. 3:9. And to add to the confusion, Paul seems to speak of our present state as adopted children and yet in Romans 8:23 an adoption is yet future.

I guess my point is are we making too much of metaphors, or are the scriptures pointing out very different things that we need to be aware of?

[anochria]

George MacDonald has some very interesting thoughts on this subject. I'll see if I can find the sermon....

[Paidion]

Here is the quote by GMD from The Hope of the Gospel --- last chapter:

I have omitted in my quotations the word "adoption" used in both English versions: it is no translation of the Greek word for which it stands. It is used by St Paul as meaning the same thing with the phrase, 'the redemption of the body'--a fact to bring the interpretation given it at once into question. Falser translation, if we look at the importance of the thing signified, and its utter loss in the word used to represent it, not to mention the substitution for that of the apostle, of an idea not only untrue but actively mischievous, was never made. The thing St Paul means in the word he uses, has simply nothing to do with adoption--nothing whatever. In the beginning of the fourth chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, he makes perfectly clear what he intends by it. His unusual word means the father's recognition, when he comes of age, of the child's relation to him, by giving him his fitting place of dignity in the house; and here the deliverance of the body is the act of this recognition by the great Father, completing and crowning and declaring the freedom of the man, the perfecting of the last lingering remnant of his deliverance. St Paul's word, I repeat, has nothing to do with adoption; it means the manifestation of the grown-up sons of God; the showing of those as sons, who have always been his children; the bringing of them out before the universe in such suitable attire and with such fit attendance, that to look at them is to see what they are, the sons of the house--such to whom their elder brother applied the words: 'I said ye are Gods.'

MacDonald is right. The word Paul uses has nothing to do with adoption. The word is υιοθεσια, a word whose etymology requires is to be translated as "sonship". The Greek word for "son" is υιος.

[DanielGracely]

RE: ADOPTION,
Here is a link to a chapter of my book against Calvinism, in which I give two lengthy quotes from: (1)Andrew Telford, a mid-20th century Bible professor at Philadelphia College of Bible (now Philadelphia Biblical University), and (2) T. Pierce Brown, who happens to be Church of Christ but whose comments I found helpful on this particular subject. Both take the position that "adoption" means "son-standing" or "son placement." BTW M.R. Vincent in his New Testament Word Studies takes the same basic position.
http://www.xcalvinist.com/category/chapter-16/

[Apollos]

Here is the quote by GMD from The Hope of the Gospel --- last chapter:

I have omitted in my quotations the word "adoption" used in both English versions: it is no translation of the Greek word for which it stands. It is used by St Paul as meaning the same thing with the phrase, 'the redemption of the body'--a fact to bring the interpretation given it at once into question. Falser translation, if we look at the importance of the thing signified, and its utter loss in the word used to represent it, not to mention the substitution for that of the apostle, of an idea not only untrue but actively mischievous, was never made. The thing St Paul means in the word he uses, has simply nothing to do with adoption--nothing whatever. In the beginning of the fourth chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, he makes perfectly clear what he intends by it. His unusual word means the father's recognition, when he comes of age, of the child's relation to him, by giving him his fitting place of dignity in the house; and here the deliverance of the body is the act of this recognition by the great Father, completing and crowning and declaring the freedom of the man, the perfecting of the last lingering remnant of his deliverance. St Paul's word, I repeat, has nothing to do with adoption; it means the manifestation of the grown-up sons of God; the showing of those as sons, who have always been his children; the bringing of them out before the universe in such suitable attire and with such fit attendance, that to look at them is to see what they are, the sons of the house--such to whom their elder brother applied the words: 'I said ye are Gods.'

MacDonald is right. The word Paul uses has nothing to do with adoption. The word is υιοθεσια, a word whose etymology requires is to be translated as "sonship". The Greek word for "son" is υιος.

Welcome back Paidion!

I think MacDonald has pushed the word too far. It's true it doesn't mean 'adoption' in our sense, but it is a legitimate word to use to translate the term, even if a bit misleading in our modern culture.

This is from Merivale (via Vincent's Word Studies):

The process of legal adoption by which the chosen heir became entitled not only to the reversion of the property but to the civil status, to the burdens as well as the rights of the adopter - became, as it were, his other self, one with him... this too is a Roman principle, peculiar at this time to the Romans, unknown, I believe, to the Greeks, unknown, to all appearance, to the Jews, as it certainly is not found in the legislation of Moses, nor mentioned anywhere as a usage among the children of the covenant. We have but a faint conception of the force with which such an illustration would speak to one familiar with the Roman practice; how it would serve to impress upon him the assurance that the adopted son of God becomes, in a peculiar and intimate sense, one with the heavenly Father

Also, we want to be careful about giving words meanings they don't have. The ending of the word (the θεσίας part) isn't ascribing a quality to the word 'son'; it is from the verb τίθημι, and therefore, etymologically, the word means 'placement as sons'. I don't usually say much about the Greek, because it is such a difficult language which takes years to master. I've had over five years of classroom instruction in Homeric, Classical and Hellenistic Greek, and I still have a long way to go. One thing I see a lot in the Christian world is the tendency for people to say 'the Greek means this' or 'the Greek means that' when those making the claims have only very elementary training in the language (I can think of one person in particular, who has publicly debated Steve, who likes to do that, even though it's obvious to me that he doesn't really know what he is talking about).

[Paidion]

Yes, Apollos. You are correct in stating that the word means "placing of sons". I used "sonship" as a single word to represent that. A son was "placed" when he became of age to peruse that which he inherited.

¶ WHAT I am saying is that so long as an heir is a child, though he is destined to be master of everything, he is, in practice, no different from a servant.
2 He has to obey guardians or trustees until the time which his father has chosen for him to receive his inheritance.
3 So is it with us: while we were "children" we lived under the authority of basic moral principles.
4 But when the proper time came God sent his own Son, born of a human mother and born under the jurisdiction of the Law,
5 that he might redeem those who were under the authority of the Law: so that we might become sons of God.
6 It is because you really are his sons that God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts to cry "Father, dear Father".
7 You are not a servant any longer; through God you are a son; and, if you are a son, then you are certainly an heir.

Galatians 4 ---- Philips

This "placing of sons" (verse 5) bears no relation to "adoption", as the word "adoption" is used today. So why translate the word in that way and so confuse the readers? Why not use a modern word which will bring out an understanding of placing a son as a mature son who can access his inheritance. Indeed, why not use the phrase "placing of sons"?

As George MacDonald pointed out, Paul put "the redemption of the body" in apposition to "the placing of sons". It makes sense that in the resurrection, God's people will have, by God's grace, reached maturity, so that they can enjoy their inheritance. But in what possible sense could "adoption" be tantamount to "the redemption of the body"?