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.

 

Spirit Of Adoption (7)

Norm Mundhenk in "Adoption: Being Recognized as a Son." has some good things to say on this subject. He is a recently retired UBS translation consultant for the Asia-Pacific Area. (See here) He wrote (emphasis mine):

"In v. 5 Paul uses the Greek word huiothesia, a word that is often understood to mean “adoption.” Apparently this word is used in the ancient Greek papyri in places where the English word “adoption” would seem to fit, and as a result the lexicons often say that the word means “adoption” (see the entry in BAGD). I am not in a position to study the papyri and other places where this word may appear outside of the New Testament, so I do not want to discuss the meaning of the word in those places. But in the New Testament itself, this word is used only by Paul, three times in Romans and once in Galatians. (It is also found in Eph 1.5, a passage which may not have been written by Paul.) Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask a very specific question: “When Paul used this word, what did he mean by it?”

In the next closing chapter I will deal with those places in Greek literature where huiothesia denotes an adoption (that is, a taking of someone else's son to make him his own son by a legal process) and answer the arguments made upon that fact. However, as I stated in my series on the huiothesia, we can discern what Paul had in mind by seeing how he used that word in the several contexts in which he used the term and this weighs much heavier than citations from ancient Greek literature and from its usage among the Greeks. Who can deny that the new testament writers often took a Greek word and enlarged its meaning? Certainly this is true with the word "grace." 

Mundhenk continued:

"In the passage that we have just looked at, from Gal 4, Paul is talking about people who are in fact heirs, but who have not yet reached the age when their rights as heirs take effect. They have to wait until “the date set by [their] father.” When that time comes, Paul says, we receive huiothesia. In the context of this passage, where Paul is talking about people who are already children of the father, “adoption” seems to be a very inappropriate English word to describe what Paul is thinking of. That is why, in my summary of the passage above, I translated “receive huiothesia” as “be recognized as God’s sons.”"

Those who argue that adoption and divine begetting occur simultaneously have a problem in the Galatians passage for it is clear that those who were adopted as sons were already children long before they became sons, i.e. adult sons. "The time appointed by the father" denotes a time when the biological father declared that his child had now grown and reached the age where he would rule with his father over the inheritance, or the time when his education was ended. In other words, "the time" when a child was born into the family was not the same time when the child was put into the place of a mature son. 

Also, the likeness to the father that came with being begotten was not as great as the likeness that comes with having been trained by the father's appointed means and tutors and through having been personally working beside the father. Up till a Hebrew son's Bar Mitzvah the child was not with his father much of the time but was with the tutors appointed by his father. After Bar Mitzvah the child continued his training towards full sonship but it was now through direct contact with his father. I see this in the life of Jesus. He no doubt was under tutors mostly until he was about twelve years of age but after his Bar Mitzvah he no doubt worked in the carpenter shop with his father Joseph. Those are two stages in his growth towards full sonship. The final stage occurred when he was about thirty years of age. Following each of these stages there was greater likeness to the father. But, more on that shortly.

As I also stated in the huiothesia series, Paul says that new testament believers are far ahead of old testament believers in their becoming mature sons. Yet, even new testament believers must await the resurrection to become fully matured sons who are in every whit the image of their father. 

Mundhenk then cites Sandra Hack Polaski who says "To be adopted as a son in Paul’s day meant to be granted a share in the inheritance."

That is correct. Yet, believers only receive a small portion of this inheritance now in their lives. Also, they are sons in training, being made not into birth sons, but into mature sons. Full likeness to the Father comes not by birth alone, but by the spiritual training and the resurrection.

We must also see in Galatians chapter four how Paul uses what is called a "futuristic present tense" when he says "and because you are sons, God has sent for the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father." That could means "because you are sons via being born of God," or "because you are appointed or predestined sons." Or, we could read it as follows: "and because you are (evidently) sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father." There are stages to sonship and at each stage it may be increasingly said "this is my son." However, as we have shown, "son" often carries the connotation of being full grown and of ones who in every way reflect the image and likeness of God the Father in their character and in their thoughts and deeds.  Notice these words from Galatians chapter four: 

"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all." (vs. 1) Notice the present tense "he IS master of all." But, in reality he is not yet master of all, for he is still a child and is as a slave when it comes to rights and privileges. When contemplating the end destiny of the child we can say "he is the master of all." Also, Paul calls the child an "heir" when he has not yet received his inheritance (except as a small portion). That is another futuristic present tense. If I say "believers are (present tense) the ones who inherit the earth" I am using a futuristic present tense, for believers are not now inheriting the earth. Further, notice the words "as long as he is a child." Are not those who are born again always the children of God, always his offspring? Yes, and therefore, we see how "child" here means a mere babe or toddler. Therefore "the time appointed by the father" denoted the time when the child ceased to be a child, but reached a stage of development beyond childhood and further toward manhood or complete likeness to a father.

Notice also how being sons of God precedes having the Spirit sent into the hearts. The word "because" tells us that they were sons before they received the Spirit of God. If receiving the Spirit refers to being born of God, then they were sons before they were born of God. This is a difficulty for those who say that God adopts and begets his children at the same time. I therefore believe "because you are the sons" means the same thing as "because you are masters of all" and this is because Paul is looking to the predestined end.

Mundhenk continues:

"In Newman’s lexicon at the back of the UBS Greek New Testament we are  offered a choice. The word huiothesia can be translated either as “adoption” or as “sonship.” With the cultural background offered by Polaski and the exegetical background we have reviewed regarding the use of this word in Gal 4, it seems to me that the English word “adoption” does not fit the context, whereas “sonship” or something like it is precisely what Paul is talking about." 

Exactly. The idea of adoption does not only not work in the Galatian's passage but not in the other four places where Paul speaks of "huiothesia." By becoming "sons" Paul is thinking of the time when the child is no longer a child but becomes a man, an adult "son" who is now more like his father than when he was born.

Mundhenk continues:

"There is nothing that I can see in this particular passage of Romans that would help us to choose between the translation “adoption” and the translation “sonship.” That is, in this passage, unlike in the Galatians passage, Paul has not previously described the believers as “sons.” Therefore, one might argue that he is thinking of those who are not sons being legally made into sons, which is the meaning of “adoption” in English. However, the clear connection of the thinking here to the thinking in Gal 4 suggests that if a word like “sonship” was appropriate for conveying Paul’s meaning there, it would be equally appropriate here. Certainly the emphasis of the passage is on our status as God’s children and heirs. There is nothing whatever that would suggest that “adoption” is a more appropriate term than “sonship.” On the contrary, the choice of the word “adoption” might introduce components of meaning which are irrelevant or misleading."

Nothing to add to this except to say that I strongly believe this is correct.

Mundhenk continues:

"Here we meet again the word huiothesia. As we have seen, in the preceding verses Paul has made much of the fact that we are already children of God, appropriately addressing him as “Abba, Father!” Then, in this passage, where Paul turns to the wonderful things that are to come, we are described again as “sons of God” (v. 19) and “children of God” (v. 21). So what is this state of huiothesia that we (and all creation) are waiting for with such high expectation? It clearly cannot refer to “adoption.” Even “sonship” does not seem fully appropriate here, since our status as “sons” has already been stressed so much."

Rather than "sonship" being a word for word translation where huiothesia is used, we should use several words (a common practice by translators), such as "public declaration or acknowledgment that this child is now my son, fully conformed to the image of his father." 

Mundhenk continues:

"The commentaries on this passage remind us of the frequent tension in the New Testament between “the already” and “the not-yet.” Perhaps Paul’s metaphor in Gal 4.1-2 can help us here. We are sons of God; we have received the Spirit; we can even be described as heirs. But we have not yet received the inheritance. We are still waiting for “the time appointed by the Father.” That is precisely what Paul is talking about in this passage, the glorious inheritance that we, God’s children, are waiting for. At the time when we finally receive our inheritance we are finally revealed as what we are, the sons of God (8.19). In this passage “adoption” is a strikingly inappropriate word to show what Paul is thinking of. If “adoption” is ever appropriate to describe some stage of a Christian’s relationship to God, by the time we get to this passage it is a stage that has long been passed. What Paul has in mind when he uses the term huiothesia here might be better described as “our full sonship” or “our reception of all that belongs to us as God’s sons.”

This is just excellent commentary! I could not have said it better myself. This is what the body of Christ needs to see and quit confusing others by telling them that they are adopted children of God rather than born of God. That idea confuses them, but the truth about what Paul had in mind about "the huiothesia" enlightens them.

Mundhenk continues:

"In this passage, huiothesia clearly focuses on Israel’s special status as “sons of God.” As in the other examples of this word that we have looked at, there is no reason that the sense of “adoption” should be selected here. Even if one wanted to argue that for Paul the word can sometimes mean “adoption,” in this passage it is the status as sons, the result of the adoption, which is in focus. But in view of Paul’s other uses of this term, which we have already looked at, it is very unlikely that Paul thinks of this word as meaning “adoption” at all. It is better to assume that here too he has a meaning more like “sonship” in mind."

On this we have elaborated in our series on the huiothesia. Israel was never said to be adopted in the old testament but rather they are always described as begotten by Jehovah. Further, we have seen where Israel went into Egypt as God's begotten "child" but came out of Egypt God's "son." The time in Egypt equates to the tutoring of the child Israel, or to the first stage of growth. Their emancipation out of childhood would then correspond to their redemption or exodus from Egypt. Their second stage of training, towards being fully conformed to their Father, occurred during their wilderness journey. The final stage was when they entered the land of promise.

Mundhenk continues:

"As with the passage in Rom 9.4, even if the word is thought to mean “adoption,” the meaning here surely focuses not on the event of adoption but on the state of relationship with God that results from it, that is, on “sonship.” If Paul is the writer of Ephesians, one can argue on the basis of other passages that the word does not mean “adoption” at all, but “sonship.” If Paul is not the author, then that particular argument is not so strong. Nevertheless, the sense of “sonship” would seem to be more appropriate in the context than the sense “adoption.” As Polaski pointed out in her comments on Roman culture, the emphasis in any case is on the status and rights of the son and heir. In general “sonship” would seem to be a more relevant translation than “adoption.”"

Of course, I fully believe that Ephesians was written by Paul. Again, I agree with what Mundhenk says.

Mundhenk continues:

"The English word “adoption” refers to a legal process by which someone who is not one’s child by birth can be officially declared to be one’s child, and therefore to have the same status as any other children one may have. There are several ways in which this term is not the right word in English to convey Paul’s meaning in the passages where he uses huiothesia."

Agreed.

Like Father, Like Son

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom. 8: 29 kjv)

So, when will the foreknown ones be conformed to the image of God's "Son"? When will they themselves become fully sons themselves, fully like their Father in heaven and fully like Christ the firstborn? All these sons are begotten sons, and none are adopted sons. Christ was not an adopted Son, either in his divinity or in his humanity. Yes, they partake of some of the Father's traits by being begotten of him, having his spiritual "seed" (I John 3: 9; I Peter 1: 23) or DNA, so to speak, but they are not yet like him in thought, word, deed, or character. That comes in stages and the final stage is one where the child has fully become the image of his father.

Wrote Paul further: 

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (I Cor. 15: 49 kjv)

In this text Paul is speaking particularly of the physical bodies of believers. Their bodies, as they dwell in them during their lifetimes, are "the image of the earthy." But, after they have become "sons of the resurrection," they will then in their bodies "bear the image of the heavenly." But, what about their minds and spirits and souls? When will they bear the image and likeness of God? Wrote Paul again:

"But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (II Cor. 3: 18 kjv)

The words "beholding" and "are changed" speak of an ongoing experience (present tense linear) and should be translated "are continuously beholding" and "are continuously and progressively being changed" (or transformed). And, in this context the apostle is not speaking of any transformation of the physical body or "outer man," but of the ongoing transformation of the soul and spirit, and of the mind, or of the "inner man." This perfection of the inner man, of making it to perfectly image the Father and Son, will not occur till the saint enters into heaven upon either the death of the body, or at the rapture and resurrection of their bodies at the time of Christ's second coming.

Think of how many times a proud father has exclaimed of his son, after his son has done something extraordinarily good, "that's my boy" or "that's my son"? That is said because the father sees the son as imaging himself and his father to son teaching. 

Paul also said, along these lines:

"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col. 3: 10 kjv)

"Which is renewed" is again linear reflecting a continuous action, being a present tense participle. So, becoming like the Father occurs not all at once, nor all at once when the believer has been born of God. Rather, being conformed to the image of the Son, and of the Father, is progressive for the soul, mind, and spirit, unlike the transformation of the body which will occur at once. Notice also how this likeness to the divinity is "in knowledge." This renewal in knowledge is only rudimentary when one is a baby or toddler, and is often merely intuitive at that time. It is only as the child matures that he becomes more like his father, or parents, in thought and action. None will be perfectly like God in their knowledge until they are with God in heaven and perfected.

"And to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4:24)

"Therefore be imitators of God as dear children." (Eph. 5: 1 nkjv)

The "spirit of sonship" or "huiothesian spirit" is thus described. It is the desire and attitude that, out of adoration and admiration of one's father, a birth son desires to be "like" his father. In pursuit of this he will imitate his father, the one who begat him.  

Spirit Of Adoption (6)

Throughout all my writings on this subject so far I have sought to prove that "huiothesia" should not have been translated as "adoption." I have presented various kinds of evidence to prove this. I have presented evidence from scripture that says that people enter the family of God by a birth, and that this fact nullifies any claim that they are adopted into the family. I have shown evidence as to what "huiothesia" is, which is a point in time when a birth son reaches a state of maturity or adulthood and is allowed to possess his inheritance and to rule over the family in the stead of his father. I have shown that "the huiothesia" belonged first to Israel and speaks to the time when the nation had come out of Egypt as a mature son of Jehovah. Israel went into Egypt as a child but came out a mature adult son, a time when the child was emancipated. So, we read in Hosea 11: 1: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." This text shows us that Israel was a child by being begotten of Jehovah many years before Israel became a mature adult son.

I have shown that "the huiothesia" is yet future, as Paul affirmed in Romans 8: 23, and occurs in connection with the "redemption" and resurrection of the bodies of the children of God, being the time when the children become full grown, perfected, fully made into the image of the Father. We have also seen where the Greeks had other words that meant adoption, though huiothesia was one of them. In this chapter we will continue to give evidence for these things. Further, as we stated in earlier posts on this subject, the Greek word huiothesia is not in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew old testament. That is surprising on the assumption that Israel was God's adopted son.

In a future chapter we will look at the examples in Greek where the term huiothesia was used to denote adoption, it being the reason why so many Greek scholars give that as the English word equivalent to the Greek word, and will deal with that argument, which is the only real argument that those who believe in adoption have for their case. But, for now, we will continue to give exegetical reasons why "adoption" is not the best word to convey Paul's meaning or usage of huiothesia. Also, as I have argued, just because the majority of translators give "adoption" as the English equivalent of huiothesia and just because the majority of commentators agree, does not mean it is right, it being a fallacious argument for the majority is not always right. 

In an article titled "The True Meaning of (Huiothesia, G5206) Adoption, and the Doctrine of Reward!"  (See here), in a Christian Forum by Antonio, we have these insightful words (enphasis mine):

"The Greek word “huiothesia” translated “adoption” occurs five times in the N.T. (Rom.8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal.4:5; Eph.1:5); and is a compound of two words in the Greek; the first is (tithemi, G5087), which has the meaning “to assign or appoint”; the second is (huios, G5207) meaning “son”. This is the biblical theme of the (beracah) blessing of the (becorah) First born right; this motif runs throughout scripture; and it concerns abundant life, and a position of preeminence in the house of the father, which is rewarded for being an obedient son (Gen.12:1-3; 22:16-17; 25:1; 27:3-4, 7-8, 26-38; 49:1-28; cp. 37:2,14; cp. 2-14;48:9-22; 49:8-10; cp. 44:33-45:3). The “huiothesia” takes place at the time appointed by the father; it is the time when the son is appointed as ruler over all the father’s house (Gal.4:1-2; Mt.24:45-47; cp. Rev.2:26-27; Ps.2:8-9;89:27); when he receives the blessing of the firstborn right (Rom.8:17, 29); the “reward of the inheritance” received by the matured obedient image bearing sons (Col.3:10, 23-25; cp. 1:9-12, 28)."

That is exactly right. We will see, or have seen, how this was true in the life of the man Christ Jesus and how it will be true for every believer in Jesus. He will not be declared as fully grown, or a son who is in the full likeness of the Father, until the resurrection, perfection, and glorification of their bodies and whole selves.

Said the same further:

"It will be necessary to gain a proper understanding of how the word for “son” (huios) is used (in the context under consideration), being the root of “huiothesia”. In doing this, we will also look at two other words; that have different meanings in the Greek but have (like huios) been interchangeably rendered “child” or “son”. Making it difficult for the reader to see the differences of meaning, thinking they are one in the same. Which has resulted in confusing the “huiothesia” to be what takes place at the time one becomes a child of God (becoming a member of Gods family); instead of being the reward of the inheritance (Jn.3:16; Col.3:24; cp.2Tim.2:10-13)."

In the earlier chapters in "waiting for the huiothesia" I spent a lot of time showing how the word "son" in scripture meant "likeness" to a father, and rarely referred to a newborn or birth son, referring rather to a son who has grown up under the supervision of the father via teachers and care givers appointed by the father. So, we are, as Christians, growing towards being "son" in the fullest sense. See especially that chapter titled "Teknon, Huios, and Huiothesia." (See here)

Said the same further:

"The first word is (teknon, G5043) which should be properly rendered “child” and has the meaning of producing, to bare, to generate, and is used of one who is born; this word's theological usage refers to when one becomes a child of God, upon placing faith in Christ (Jn.1:12; Rom.8:16). And has wrongly been rendered “son” in many occurrences in different bible translations, not making the distinction of when huios is being used."

I have argued the same in my writings thus far. The Greek words for a "child," at whatever stage of growth, always signified a birth child and not an adopted child. So, those who say that a child is such by adoption, in a given text, miss this truth, a truth that a simple study of the etymology of teknon would reveal. 

Said the same further:

"Huios “son” has the meaning of being full grown, or maturity; and is used in a conditional sense (in the context under consideration), which rest upon the believers walk as being led after the spirit in obedience: “for those who are led by the spirit of God, these are the sons (huios) of God”; this speaks of the child of God who images the character and wisdom of the father, “pray for them which despitefully use you,…..that ye may be the sons (huios) of your Father which is in heaven….Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons (huios) of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Rom.8:14; Mt.5:44-48; Lk.6:36)."

Again, this was fully shown to be true in earlier chapters in this work. Others, like Antonio, have affirmed the same. A study of the use of "huios" (son) in the new testament will demonstrate this. We have insisted that the KJV has greatly erred in seeing no distinction between "children" and "sons," between tekna and "huioi." 

Said the same further:

"The second word (nepios, Gr3516) has the meaning of immaturity, or adolescence, rendered “underage” (Gal.4:1, NIV) “nepios” is in contrast with “son” (being full grown), and is used of the carnal believer, as babes in Christ, not skillful in the word of God (1 Cor.3:1; Eph.4:14; Heb.5:13)."

Again, in earlier writings we went through these various Greek words that represent the various stages in the life of a child. Just as we have several words, such as child, toddler, adolescent, teenager, etc., so too did the Greeks. One passage that clearly shows this are the words of the Apostle John in I John 2: 12-14 where he addresses believers as being either fathers, children, young men, etc. In one of my preceding posts I dissect that passage and show how John is referring to Christians who are on various levels of growth.

Said the same further:

"Romans 8:23 clearly states, without a question of a doubt that the “huiothesia” is the future hope of the believer “waiting for the adoption (huiothesia), that is the redemption of the body". Here Paul equates the timing of the adoption to be when the body is redeemed, which takes place at the appearing of Christ (Phil. 3:21)."

Again, I have stressed the importance of Romans 8: 23 for it not only says that "the huiothesia" is not a present experience, but says what it is, i.e. "the redemption of the body," and could not be adoption, because those who believe in adoption say that Romans 8: 15 proves that adoption is a present reality because it says that believers now receive "the spirit of huiothesia." As I argued before, how can adoption be both a present reality and also a future reality? The response by believers in adoption say that adoption is begun when one becomes a believer but is finished at the second coming of Christ. But, if that is so, when does a child become the adopted child of another? When the process o

 

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. 

 

Wuest on Adoption

"This word (adoption) is the translation of huiothesia, a word of huiso "a son," and thesia, a form of the verb tithemi meaning "to place," the compound word meaning "to place as a son." The Greek word teknon which means "a child," comes from the verb tikto "to give birth to." It therefore has in it the idea of birth relationship. The word means "a born-one." The word huios does not have this implication. Huios is used in Gal. 3: 26 of the believer under law. The latter was under the schoolmaster (the paidagogoso, a slave charged with the moral supervision of a child in its minority. The word teknon is used in Galatians (4:25, 27, 28, 31) of the believer under law. Thus a teknon is a believer in his minority, a huios, an adult son. Believers under the covenant of law were teknon, that is born children of God in their minority. Believers under grace, are both teknon, born children of God and huios, adult sons of God. This meaning of an adult son is to be used only where the word refers to a believer in this age of grace. The word is used also in the N.T., as a Hebrew idiom, where a person having a peculiar evil, is called the son, (huios) of that quality (Lk. 10: 6, Eph. 2: 2, 5: 6, 8). The word huios is also used to refer to the male issue of child.

The A.V., uniformly translates teknon by the word "child" except in the following places where it is rendered by the word "son," which is the proper translation of huios. Mt. 9:2, 21:28; Mk. 2:5, 13:12; Luk. 2:48, 15:31, 16:25; John 1:12; I Cor. 4:14, 17; Phil. 2:15, 22; I Tim. 1:2, 18; II Tim. 1:2, 2:1; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 10; I John 3: 1, 2. Study these passages, using the word "child" in the translation, keeping in mind the idea of the birth-relationship existing, and see what clearer light is thrown upon them. For instance, Mary calls Jesus "child." He was only twelve years old at the time. Yet this child was confuting the learned Doctors (Lk. 2:48). Timothy was Paul's child and the latter was his spiritual father, for Paul had won Timothy to the Lord. In John 1:12, regeneration is in view. In I John 3: 1,2, the fact that we are born-children of God, is in view, having the nature of God. In Phil. 2:15, believers, being children of God, and possessing therefore the nature of God, are expected to reflect in their lives the holiness, love, and other qualities of God.

The word huios is uniformly translated "son" except in certain places, some of which rightfully use the word "children" where the plural refers to children of both sexes. But the following places should be translated by the word "son": Mt. 23:15; Lk. 6: 35, 16:8, 20-34, 36; John 12:36; Acts 3: 25, 13:10; Rom. 9:26; Gal. 3: 26; Eph. 2:2, 5:6; Co. 3:6; I Thes. 5:5. It will be observed that in many of the above places the Hebrew idiom is used where a person having a peculiar quality or is subject to a peculiar evil, is called the son (huios) of that quality or evil. He partakes of the nature of that quality.

Coming now to the word "adoption" (huiothesia), we find that it was a term used in Roman legal practice. It referred to a legal action by which a person takes into his family a child not his own, with the purpose of treating him as and giving him all the privileges of an own son. The custom was not common among the Jews, but was so among the Romans, with whom an adopted child is legally entitled to all rights and privileges of a natural-born child. This custom, well-known in the Roman empire, is used in the N.T., as an illustation of the act of God giving a believing sinner, who is not His natural child, a position as His adult son in His family. This is a legal act and position, and not the same as regeneration and a place in the family as a born-child of God.

The word is found in Rom. 8:15, 23, 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5. In Rom. 8:15 it is the Holy Spirit who places believing sinners in the family of God as adult sons. In Rom. 8:23, believers have already been placed in the family of God, and are led by the Spirit as the adult sons of God. But only when their mortal bodies have been glorified at the Rapture, will they possess all that sonship involves. In Rom. 9:4, the nation Israel is said to have been placed in the special relationship as the peculiar people of God, thus God's own by adoption. Gal. 4:5 and Eph. 1:5 refer to the same thing that Rom. 8:15 refers to."

See here

I will be having more to say about this in upcoming postings.

Teknon, Huios & Huiothesia

A writer said:

"In the Western world we think of adoption in terms of taking a child from one family and making it a member of another. However, the Greek or Roman father adopted as a son his own child. Birth made him a child (teknon); adoption made him a son (huios). Between the period of birth and adoption, there were stages of growth, education and discipline, until the maturity was reached for adoption into sonship. With adoption the son was recognized as one who could faithful (sic) represent the father. He had arrived at the point of maturity, where the father could entrust him with the responsibility of overseeing the family business. The son becomes the “heir” of his father’s inheritance. Birth gives one the right to the inheritance, but adoption gives one the participation in the inheritance.

R. B. Jones, Bible commentator states: “To be a son is infinitely more than to be a child, and the terms are never loosely used by the Holy Spirit. It is not a difference in relationship, but in position. Every “born again” child of God has in him the nature of His Father, and is a beloved member of His Father’s family. Adoption cannot make the child any nearer or dearer, yet it gives the child a status he did not enjoy before, a position he did not occupy. It is his recognition as an adult son, the attaining of his maturity, the seal upon his growth to maturity of mind and character. A child is one born of God; a son is one taught of God. A child has God’s nature; a son has God’s character.

Another aspect of this Greek word, huios, that cannot be overlooked involves “likeness.” The New Testament contains the concept expressed in the proverb, “Like father, like son” (Matt. 5:45,48). It was typical Hebrew usage to employ the word “son” to express likeness. For instance, those who are peacemakers will be called God’s sons because they are like God (Matt. 5:9). God’s likeness, His image, will be “stamped” upon those who have been brought to maturity and adopted as sons (Rom. 8:29; I John 3:2-3).

Sonship and Maturity

The Bible speaks of sonship both in terms of “positional” and “experiential” truth. For example, some passages relate to the “positional” aspect of sonship, where God declares us legally to be “adopted” as sons through His sovereign election (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 3:26; 4:5-7). The Scriptures do clearly indicate that there is a degree to which we are expected to enter into sonship “experientially,” in this present age ( Matt. 5:9, 45; Rom. 8:14). For instance, we are exhorted in Hebrews 6:1 to “press on to maturity” (i.e.; “sonship”), to think as mature men (I Cor. 14:20), and we are to grow up in all aspects into Him (Ephes. 4:15).

All of these passages, and numerous others, call us to maturity, which is synonymous with the concept of sonship.” (Understanding “Sonship”
by Don Walker)

See here

Another writer says:

"The word translated poorly as “adoption” is huiothesia and it occurs only five times in the New Testament. It is not found in the gospels although the proper meaning or principle is there. Before we examine the five Scriptures, and the context in which they are used, it is better to first look at the word huiothesia itself. Lexicons do not agree precisely on the meaning of the word. Typically, they give meanings such as, adoption as a son, but this is a vague compromise."

"The word huiothesia is never used to mean make anyone a son. It is to place a son. Each son who is placed already exists as a son. The Greek does not suggest making anyone a son and some lexicons point this out. Strong G5206 also gives the placing of a son. Following this up in Thayer we find: “That relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites, in preference to all other nations … that blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven …”

"The word appears in five verses where we should read placing of a son rather than “adoption.”

"Rom 8:15 “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption (placing of a son), whereby we cry, Abba, father”.

It is this indwelling spirit which enables those who are begotten from above to cry [krazo] “Abba Father”. Dr. Bullinger’s comments: Abba that is, father. Is said that slaves were never allowed to use the word Abba. Strictly therefore, it can be employed only by those who have received the gift of the Divine nature.

Paul continues:

v16 The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

Rom 8:22,23 “For we know that the whole creation (ktisis) groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption (placing as sons), to wit, the redemption of our body”.

In this verse we can see an explanation of what adoption is, namely the redemption of our body.

See here for citation.

"The AV does not discriminate between teknon and huios." (W.E. Vine in Vine's New Testament Words)

(All emphasis are mine - SG)

 

Birth or Adoption? Cayce's Answer

Elder Claud H. Cayce was one of the leaders of the "Primitive Baptist Church" from the late 19th century until his death in the 1940s. He had many errors and helped to lead the Hardshells further away from the faith of their fathers. That being said, he did get it right on the subject of "adoption." I have written on this subject much under the heading "Waiting for the Huiothesia." I find it interesting that Elder Harold Hunt, an aged leader still with the Hardshells, and one who I have written critically against over the years respecting his heretical views, thinks very highly of Cayce and thinks that the young ministers should study his writings. But, Hunt should have listened to what Cayce wrote.

First, let me cite from Hunt. Hunt wrote (see here - emphasis mine):

"I cannot think of a subject which I had more difficulty in understanding than I had with the subject of adoption. But, for that matter, there is probably not a simpler subject in the Bible. The problem that arose in my mind, and the problem that bothers most people, is simply this: If we are born of the Spirit of God, why is it necessary for us to be adopted? My wife and I have four natural born children, and the thought of adopting those children has never entered our minds. Can you imagine how people would react if I told them that we were to go about adopting those children? The Bible does teach that we are born of the Spirit of God, and it does also teach that we are adopted. But, why are both necessary?"

Of course, as I have shown in my writings on this topic, we are not adopted, but born. The word "adoption" is not the right translation of huiothesia.; And, in scripture, whatever is "adoption," it is yet a future event.

Under the heading "Birth and Adoption" (September 19, 1911) Elder C.H. Cayce wrote:

"Brother G. M. Birdwell, of Dunlap, Tenn., asks us to explain the difference between being begotten or born and adoption. There are but two ways by which one can become a legal heir to an estate, or be brought into a family. One way is by birth and the other is by adoption. No one adopts his own child, for the child is already his by birth. This is true in nature. For one to adopt a child, he must take a child out of another family and receive it into his own family as his own child. Adoption, therefore, is the transferring of one from one family into another. In the work of regeneration, or the new birth, the sinner receives the divine nature. He is born into the heavenly family, and is made akin to God. This is a work of the Holy Spirit upon the spirit, or soul, of the sinner. As stated, in this work the sinner is born into the heavenly family, so that when the body dies the spirit, or soul, goes to a place of rest in the presence of God. The body, being mortal, decays and goes back to dust. But it shall not remain that way. In the last great day the body will be raised again and adopted into the heavenly family. In (Romans 8:23) the Apostle Paul says, “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.'' This seems to be very plain to us that the adoption is the redemption of the body. The body will be changed and received into the heavenly family. This is complete deliverance or salvation of the whole man - salvation of the sinner of Adam's race - the whole man, soul, body and spirit, finally saved."

Now, Cayce was on the right track and Hunt is on the wrong track. Adoption is "son placement," and is connected with "the day of redemption," the time of the resurrection, the event called "the apocalypse (manifestation)" of both Christ and his people, who will at that time reach their full maturity as "sons" of God, and not mere babes and children.