Spirit Of Adoption (5)

For the other chapters in this series and my series "waiting for the huiothesia" see the link in the upper right of this blog titled "Adopted or Born" which contains all that I have written on this topic.

If we look in the first century, what were the words used by the Greeks and Romans to signify an adoption? The Romans who spoke Latin had the word "adoptio." The Latin word adoptio refers broadly to "adoption," which was of two kinds: the transferral of potestas over a free person from one head of household to another; and "adrogatio," when the adoptee had been acting sui iuris as a legal adult but assumed the status of unemancipated son for purposes of inheritance. There was adoption of teenage boys who were not yet legal adults, but there was also adoption of grown boys or young men (adrogatio). It seems to me that this second kind of adoption is more akin to "huiothesia" for huiothesia involves the declaration and placing of adult sons into a position where the family inheritance becomes his to possess and to rule over. In adoptio the young boy being adopted had no choice in the matter, but in adrogatio the adult son had to consent to it, for he was emancipated from the power of any parent.

With this information in mind, I ask my teaching brothers who believe that God adopts his children after the Roman model, "why did Paul not use the above Latin words, but used the Greek word huiothesia instead?" 

A writer with Dallas Theological Center, Dr. Joseph D. Fantin, writes the following (See here), citing from the work of Hugh Lindsay, an expert in Roman adoptions in the first century:

"Two of the most striking differences between modern Western adoptions and the ancient Roman practice are related. First, the adoptee in Rome was usually an adult male. Second, the reason for adoption was usually to pass on one’s inheritance (and one could add, to provide responsibility for the adoptee to care for the parents) rather than the modern reason of nurture." 

I have covered these things in my series "Waiting for the Hiouthesia" and shown how the Roman model of adoption is different from modern day Western adoptions. I showed that God does not adopt as did the Romans or the Greeks. Certainly not for the same reason. Also, as we have seen in that series, "son placement" occurs when a son reaches maturity, corresponding to the ceremony of Bar Mitzvah among the Jews or to the Toga Virillis rite among the Romans, or to some other ceremony following those rites of passage. Begotten children, when they reach maturity, are formally declared to be the adult sons of the father who makes the declaration and with that declaration comes specified rights and responsibilities and privileges. Thus, there are a lot of years between being born and being "son placed." For more on this see my chapter titled "Teknon, Huios & Huiothesia" (here). 

So, huiothesia corresponds more to "adrogatio" than to "adoptio." This declaration and rite of passage is alluded to by Paul when he speaks of children reaching manhood at a "time appointed by the Father" and receive their inheritance and full rights as adult men. (Gal. 4: 1-6) That text makes it clear that the ones under consideration were "children" by birth many years before they became full grown "sons" and therefore those who say that God begets and adopts at the same time are wrong. Of course, as we have seen, Romans 8: 23 says the children of God are waiting for the adoption or son placement in conjunction with the resurrection or redemption of their bodies.

The same source also adds:

"First, was adoptio, in which the adoptee prior to adoption was under the authority of another. Second, in adrogatio the adoptee was independent. Both demand legal requirements to be met in order for the adoption to be official." 

So, which kind of Roman adoption do those theologians who believe that "huiothesia" means adoption and the way God acquires children put forth?

Greek Words for Adoption 

In classical Greece, the words for adoption included: 

 

Eispoiēsis: A noun that specifically refers to the adoption procedure

Poiēsis: A more general term for adoption

Eispoieō: A verb that means "to adopt"

Eisagein huion: An expression that means "to adopt"

The noun specifically indicating the adoption procedure is eispoiēsis, the use of which in the classical age is quite limited compared, at least, to the corresponding verbal forms; the more general term of poiēsis (adoption) is also attested.

One source says this (See here - emphasis mine):

"Adoption was a possibility for the head of the oikos in ancient Athens, providing he had no legitimate sons. This artificial introduction of a new member into the family was called poiesis or eispoiesis and was analogous to the procedure whereby the city received a stranger into its bosom and recognized him as a citizen. The rights of the adopted person were never exactly the same as those of the natural members of the oikos. He could not, for example, draw up a will, and the blood relatives (anchisteis) of his foster-father took precedence, in the adopted son's inheritance, over his own descendants."

Notice that this writer does not even mention "huiothesia." So, why did not Paul use the above Greek words? Notice also how an adopted son did not have the same rights as those who were born and matured into sons. In earlier chapters I addressed the writing of some other theologians who wanted to say that adoption was greater than being born of God and showed how that was no little error. Some theologians who promote the adoption model say that Roman law forbad an adopting father from ever disinheriting an adopted son, but could disinherit a begotten child. But, of course, God cannot, because he keeps his word, never disinherits his begotten children and so they do not need this extra security.

Another source says (See here):

"Adoption was called by the Athenians εἰσποίησις, or sometimes simply ποίησις or θέσις...The Greek writers use θέσις also as equivalent to the Roman adoptio, and θετοί as equivalent to adoptivi. (App. BC 3.13, 14.) The adoptive father was said ποιεῖσθαι, εἰσποιεῖσθαι, or sometimes ποιεῖν: and the father or mother (for a mother after the death of her husband could consent to her son being adopted) was said ἐκποιεῖν; the son was said ἐκποιεῖσθαι, with reference to the family which he left; and εἰσποιεῖσθαι, with reference to the family into which he was received. The son, when adopted, was called ποιητός, εἰσποιητός, or θετός: in opposition to the legitimate son born of the body of the father, who was called γνήσιος." (See A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890))

In another source, writing under the title "Word Study #201 — "Adoption in the First Century" (See here), we have these words (emphasis mine):

"It is also interesting, that although the English translation “adoption” historically represented eleven different classical Greek words, related to at least three different roots, only a single form, huiothesia, appears in the New Testament writings, and is unique to Paul’s epistles."

Isn't that interesting and revealing? It shows to me that Paul is not talking about Greek or Roman or modern western ideas about adoption when he uses the word "huiothesia." 

The same writer continues:

"Accurate understanding of the cultural implications of huiothesia – etymologically a combination of huios (son) and a noun iteration of tithemi (to put or to place) – is complicated by the fact that in the first century middle east, one is confronted with three major cultural streams: Greek, Roman, and Hebrew. These are augmented with a smattering of other customs introduced by traders who frequented the area from farther afield. Roman law prevailed, of course, since the legions of Rome had subjugated the whole area. I found the old classic, Gibbons’ The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, most helpful in this research. As pointed out in the Jewish Encyclopedia (online), the subject was not really addressed in the Hebrew context, because their system of requiring the brother (or another “near kinsman”) of a deceased man to provide for his wife and children filled the need for both the responsibility and the privilege of inheritance."

About those "three major cultural streams" I dealt with in my first chapters in that series "waiting for the huiothesia." I encourage you to read those chapters.

The author writes further:

"In the case of any family, but especially one with multiple sons, another legal provision came into play. When the designated heir attained majority, the father was required to make a formal statement to that effect. This was necessary whether the son in question was naturally born or adopted. This too was described as huiothesia – the same word."

That is what I believe and have contended for. We will see where this even occurred in the life of Jesus, though not exactly as those who believed in the heresy of monarchianism. But, more on that in the next chapters. Therefore, when any bible student sees those five passages where Paul, and Paul alone, used the term "huiothesia" and substitutes for it "declaration of a father that his son has reached manhood and is now entitled to his inheritance and family rule," he would be saved from confusion about how one can be a child of God by birth and adoption, which is nonsensical. 

The author writes further:

"It has been suggested that this custom may also have been one reason for the affirmative “voice from heaven” mentioned at Jesus’ baptism and again at the Transfiguration. Although the word does not appear there, the statement “This is my Son” would have been recognized as the standard legal acknowledgment."

Again, we will address this question further in the next chapter. I do not believe that Christ, in his manhood, was adopted by the Father, although I do believe that his humanity became one with his divinity at some point. Christ, even in his humanity, was begotten of the Father and Spirit. He is therefore the "Son of God" in his humanity as well as in his divinity. His divine sonship had no beginning, being eternally begotten, but his human sonship had a beginning. I dealt with this to some extent in the post titled "Adoption is Future" (See here) In that post we saw three major points in the life of a "son." First was his birth and circumcision (when he was brought to the Temple for it). Second was his Bar Mitzvah (which corresponds to the time when Christ was in the Temple at twelve years of age). Third was when he reached full manhood at thirty years of age and heard, at his baptism by the Baptist, the Father's words "this is my beloved Son." 

The author writes further:

"Huiothesia is, however, the word used in all five New Testament occurrences: Romans 8:15, 8:23, and 9:4; Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5. It is a designation, not only of privilege, but of responsibility faithfully to administer the assets and care for the people and property of the father."

So, "huiothesia" does not refer to becoming a child of a father, but refers to a child reaching maturity and being able then to be about his father's business (as it was with Christ who said to Mary and Joseph "I must be about my Father's business" - Luke 2: 49)

The author writes further:

"Might it be, that Paul’s use of the term is another of his many admonitions to the Lord’s people to “grow up” into the inheritance for which we have been chosen?

For insight into the inclusiveness of that term, please also see the treatment of “sons” (W.S. 100) and the explanation in the essay “The Task of a Translator”."

So, since "huiothesia" alludes to the time appointed by the father when a child reached manhood (or perfection), then it obviously does occur after the resurrection, for not until then will the saints be perfect. Paul alludes to this when he writes:

"For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Heb. 2: 10 nkjv) 

In verse 14 those "sons" were first "children." Also, as we have seen, those resurrected to life and immortality are called "sons of the resurrection." (Luke 20: 36)

The author writes further:

"Perhaps this historical information will help , if not to answer, at least to shed a bit of light on the confusion of folks who wonder, “Why the talk about adoption, if we are born into the Lord’s family?”

BOTH are significant, when viewed in their cultural context. This is why, in the PNT translation, I have substituted “acknowledgment” for “adoption”. The terms are supplementary, not contradictory, both derived from the same original word, but simply applied to two phases of the same process.

Life indeed begins with “birth”, but huiothesia is for “grown-ups.”

I think this is absolutely a fact. As I have stated, along with others, had translators not translated "huiothesia" as "adoption" there would have been no confusion on this topic.