Spirit Of Adoption (8)

Thesis: huiothesia means to be formally placed as an adult son within God's family, and according to the apostle Paul it is what all those who are born of God will experience in the day when they are resurrected and perfected. This will be when they fully become "sons" of God and perfectly conformed to the sonship of Jesus Christ, when they are fully like their heavenly Father and like his Son. 

Minor Thesis: Paul uses the Greek word for "adoption" (huiothesia) because he is focusing on one particular action or aspect in the Greek or Roman adoption process, i.e. on the final formal act where a father publicly declares to the assembled witnesses that a particular male boy or man was now his adult son and entitled to all that belongs to him, i.e. to the family rule and inheritance.

As we will see, in this sense, the declaration by the father, the act of huiothesia, i.e. the son placing, is the chief thing, or perhaps the only thing, that Paul sees as resembling that future declaration that will occur when believers are resurrected and made fully into the image of the Father and into the image of the heavenly. This act of declaring a male as an heir and as a son and as a master of all is an act that may be made to a man's own male child or to a male who is adopted. But, Paul uses it in the former case and not the latter. God the Father is declaring and acknowledging that his own begotten child has now reached maturity (perfection) and may now rule over his inheritance.

Huiothesia & Adoption in Greek Literature

In "HUIOTHESIA: THE WORD AND THE INSTITUTION" by Martin W. Schoenberg (see here) we have this information about the etymology and usage of "huiothesia" in Greek literature. First, he says (emphasis mine):

"Greek literature and inscriptions preceding the Christian era show that the term huiothesia and the corresponding institution were known among the Greeks from at least the fifth century before Christ from the time of Pindar (522-433 B.C.) and Herodotus (484-425 B.C.).4 Nor did huiothesia denote merely an imaginary occurrence; the practice itself was a common event among the Greeks of that time. This is evident from the frequency with which the formula ' A., son of B., kath' huiothesian de son of C ... .' occurs in the pre-Christian inscriptions of the Aegean islands.5"

We do not doubt that huiothesia may involve the idea of adoption in such cases. But, we deny that it is limited to such. If we focus on the one act of a father declaring or proclaiming that a particular boy has become a man and heir and now entitled to possess his inheritance and to represent the father in every way, then this may be done to a father's own biological son just as well. So, the error of translators comes because they assume that a man cannot make such a declaration in regard to his own biological son. 

If we insist that "adoption" is the way Paul uses the term huiothesia, then we create problems for ourselves. First, as we have repeatedly said, a father does not need to adopt his own begotten son. However, if huiothesia means "declare a child or birth son to be old enough now to obtain his inheritance and become master of all," then it does not denote taking a child of another and making him his child or son. If the word simply refers to this act of formally and publicly and ceremoniously placing one into the position of a full grown son and heir, of declaring him now "master of all," then it could be said of either a begotten son or an adopted son. But, we insist, that Paul uses it as a declaration concerning his begotten sons.

Even those who insist that huiothesia means to adopt, i.e. to take another person's child and make him your own, will say that God both begets and adopts the same child. We say, however, that God adopts his own child but argue that "adopt" does not mean what it commonly means today. So, we both agree that huiothesia involves doing something to a begotten child. We just disagree on 1) what that act of huiothesia is, and 2) when that act of huiothesia occurs. We deny that Paul uses it to denote taking a child that is not your own and making him your own.

Schoenberg writes further:

"References to huiothesia are also found in the papyri dating from the early centuries after Christ. From an example taken from one of these papyri we can at the same time ascertain the notion of huiothesia as the accepting of a stranger and establishing him as one's own son and imposing on him all the rights and obligations of sonship. We may cite P. Oxy. IX, I206, 8 (A.D. 335): 'We agree, Heracles and his wife Isarion on the one part, that we have given away to you Horion, for adoption our son Patermouthis, aged about two years, and I Horion on the other part, that I have him as my own son so that the rights proceeding from succession to my inheritance shall be maintained for him.' " 

Here is a problem for those who believe that God adopts his children. They cannot make God's adoption to be in every respect like Greek, Roman, or Western adoption. Must our former father (Satan?) give up his children for adoption, or give up his parental rights to God the Father as was required in the case of underage boys in the Greco-Roman world? Surely not. Therefore, we see at least one way that human adoption is unlike divine adoption. But, there are others, as we have seen in earlier chapters. Therefore we can agree and affirm that there are both similarities and differences between human adoption and divine adoption. 

That part of the adoption or huiothesia process that involves taking a child who is not your own and making him such is one aspect that Paul does not have in mind in speaking of God's son placing. The one way in which they are the same lies in the fact that there is a declaration made that says "this is my son." That culminating act of adoption or huiothesia is what Paul is focusing upon. Many of these declarations were made in the marketplace or forum of the Greco-Roman world and often with ceremonial pomp and circumstance, and Paul must have witnessed several of them in his travels and when he was in the places where citizens assembled for such purposes.

Schoenberg writes further:

"Etymology - For the etymological explanation of the word huiothesia the writers in the various lexica are quite uniform in noting the first occurrences of the term, its meaning and later usage. Thus the writers in Liddell Scott, though they do not analyse the word into its component parts, 'insinuate its derivation by developing the notion of huiothesia through the verb form huiotheteo, to adopt as a son, and the verbal adjective ludothetos, adopted as a son. 2 H. Stephan also qualifies the notion of huiothesia by referring to the verb huiotheteo, where he stresses the notion of action in theteo (poieo) as against the notion huios phusei, son by nature.3 Fr Zorell explains the term as huion thesthai tina, huios thetos. 4 Huiothesia is accordingly defined as adoptio, adoptatio,5 die Annahme an Kindestatt, die Adoption,6 ' adoption, the receiving into the relationship of a child.' 7"

But, no doubt Paul is focusing on the word in its "component parts" of the compound word, and sees "son placement" as denoting a formal ceremony wherein a son is placed on the right hand of his father and the father declares that the one standing on his right is his beloved son and now entitled to his inheritance and to be "master of all." 

Further, we use the word "adopt" everyday to denote taking something as our own. I could say "I adopt the words of the poet." That means, I take them as being my own sentiments. So, God, in this sense, says of his own grown up sons, "I take this my son to be truly my own heir." In this way it is a way to express ownership and to endorse and approve and to acknowledge that his son has matured and completed his father's training. The father acknowledges that his son reflects himself and is able to represent both him and the family.

Schoenberg writes further:

"So much for the etymological derivation of the word. It is a different matter to discover what the term means in actual practice. What thing or action is signified by huiothesia?" 

Amen to that! We have already seen how it is not possible that Paul could mean that God's adoption (huiothesia) is in every way the same as human adoption for there are so many dissimilarities. Even those who say that adoption means taking a child who is not your begotten child and making him your child by legal means, cannot make them similar or alike in every way, or say that Paul means such by his use of the word. That being so, they cannot insist that the comparison must be the same in regard to a father adopting someone who is not his own begotten child. The fact is, the one who experiences the huiothesia or son placement is one who was indeed begotten by his father.

There are several actions involved in the process of adoption. So, which one(s) is Paul focusing on by his use of huiothesia? I say it is the culminating act involving the formal declaration of the father at the time appointed by the father.

Schoenberg writes further:

"Recently, however, a protest has been raised against this more generally accepted opinion that Paul developed his adoption metaphor from the Graeco-Roman practice. Chief among those disagreeing is W. H. Rossell, who argues 1: (I) that Paul is a Jew, writing to a core of people within each community which is predominantly Jewish in background; and (2) that Paul refers almost entirely to the Jewish Scriptures as a basis for what he has to say."

I wrote in depth on this question in the opening chapters of my series "Waiting For The Huiothesia." I believe that when Paul says that "the huiothesia" belongs to Israel (Rom. 9: 4) that he is not looking at the Greco-Roman model but at a Jewish model. This being so, and since he is writing in Greek, he chose "huiothesia" to convey the ideas he has in mind. That is a good word to describe that "time appointed by a father" for his son to enter upon and rule over his inheritance, which time Paul places at the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the righteous dead.

Schoenberg writes further:

"Rossell's appeal to Rom. 9:4 as a starting-point for the study of the Pauline notion of adoption is seconded by other writers. Thus W. Twisselman in a study on the nature of our divine sonship in the New Testament states in so many words that St Paul holds this divine sonship to have originated through adoption; that his idea in turn must be conceived in terms of the Old Testament and Judaism; and that Paul evidently bases himself on these as his background, since he states that adoptive divine sonship was formerly the prerogative of the Israelites."

 

This idea is also seconded by me.

Similarity or Difference?

1. The legal authority (parents, or slave masters) had to give over their underage son for adoption before the new father could become the father of the son being given.

Question: is this like or unlike how God adopts or son places?

Answer: both sides of the adoption debate will affirm that this aspect of adoption is dissimilar.

2. The boy or man being adopted had to agree to the adoption if old enough to say.

Question: Is this like or unlike how God adopts or son places?

Answer: Most bible believers will say the adopted has to agree. Hyper Calvinists would say no.

3. The reason for nearly all adoptions in the Greco-Roman world was because the father had no son or heir and so adopted a male.

Question: Is this like or unlike how God adopts or son places?

Answer: No, for the Son of God was always with his Father, plus God has many begotten sons.

4. The adopter chooses a male based upon his worthiness.

Question: Is this like or unlike how God chooses to adopt or son place?

Answer: Some Arminians or Pelagians might say yes, while Calvinists would say no.

5. People do not adopt their own children, though the Romans sometimes adopted their kin, such as nephews. Adoptees were never both begotten and adopted by the same father.

Question: Is this like or unlike how God adopts or son places?

Answer: The majority (adoption view) says God does both and so his huiothesia is different than all others. The minority view (mine) says God does not do both and that huiothesia does not mean adoption in the mind of Paul.

6. There is a final act involving declaration in ancient adoptions.

Question: Do the words of the adopter, for acquiring a son of another in legal ceremony, differ from the words of a father spoken over a son who has reached the age of emancipation or when he becomes "master of all"?

Answer: No, they are the same or similar.

Therefore my sub thesis is proven. Paul can call this future declaration huiothesia not because God is adopting a child that is not his own begotten son for it is a recognition that a begotten son has reached full age.

General Questions

1. Can you give an example in the Greco-Roman world where a man adopted his own birth son?

2. Since all men are God's offspring by original creation (Acts 17:28) and became children of the Devil by sin, did this require that God give them up for adoption and for the Devil to adopt them?

3. If a man says that he is the adopted son of father A, is it not implied that he is not the biological son of A?

4. If a man says he is the biological son of father A, does this not imply that he is not A's adopted son?

5. Why does God need to adopt his own birth child?

6. If God adopts his own child, for what purpose?

7. In such a case, what did adoption do for the child that birth did not do for him?

8. Since huiothesia among the Greeks and Romans is not in every way like the huiothesia of the birthed sons of God, why cannot one dissimilarity be that the ones being "son placed" are a father's own birth son?

9. Was Israel God's son by birth or adoption or both in the old testament?

10. If old testament believers were God's adopted sons, why is huiothesia not in the Septuagint? 

11. If you say that God the Father both begets and adopts his sons at the same time, then how can this be reconciled with bible passages that say one is a begotten child before he becomes a "son" (as in Gal. 4: 1-6 and Hosea 11:1)?

12. Do not all of the Greek words of the NT denoting a child, such as teknon, denote a birth child?

13. Why is Paul the only one to speak of huiothesia?

14. If one is adopted at the same time he is begotten then why does Paul say that believers are waiting for the adoption at the time of their resurrection?

15. Can a believer be half adopted?

16. If huiothesia means to adopt, when is the believer adopted by God his Father? Now, or at the second coming?

17. What does final adoption do that adoption occurring in conjunction with being born of God did not do?

I have one more posting to complete in this series. This book on the subject has two main series, the first "Waiting For The Huiothesia" and the second "Spirit Of Adoption." I also have a couple of shorter single postings. I have put all these writings in one blog titled "Adopted or Born." It can be accessed by the link on this blog in the list of links under the picture of Spurgeon on the top right of this blog page.