Biblical Adoption References

     

There are various translations of Job 24:9: New International Version (©1984) "The fatherless child is snatched from the breast; the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.  New Living Translation (©2007) "The wicked snatch a widow's child from her breast, taking the baby as security for a loan. English Standard Version (©2001) (There are those who snatch the fatherless child from the breast, and they take a pledge against the poor.) New American Standard Bible (©1995) "Others snatch the orphan from the breast, And against the poor they take a pledge. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "[People] snatch the [nursing] orphan from a breast and take a poor woman's baby as security for a loan." King James Bible They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor. American King James Version They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor. American Standard Version There are that pluck the fatherless from the breast, And take a pledge of the poor; Bible in Basic English The child without a father is forced from its mother's breast, and they take the young children of the poor for debt. Douay-Rheims Bible They have violently robbed the fatherless, and stripped the poor common people. Darby Bible Translation They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor: English Revised Version There are that pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor: Webster's Bible Translation They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor. World English Bible There are those who pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor, Young's Literal Translation They take violently away From the breast the orphan, And on the poor they lay a pledge. Somehow, no matter how it's translated, it doesn't sound good. I am not a theologian, by any means. I understand the following article, about as well as I understand greek or physics...but it is a good argument for the "vertical" adoption theories of some Christian fundamentalists: Adoption - The Inheritance of a Son by Kevin Jackson    Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Galations 4:7 Adoption (huiothesia) is a term that the apostle Paul uses several times in his letters. The Greco-Roman concept of adoption is different than the English concept. In English adoption is an action. For example a father "adopts" a son. The Greco-Roman concept of adoption refers to something that sons receive. Sons are not adopted, rather, sons receive the adoption (Gal 4:1-7). This conceptual difference of what adoption is can contribute to a misunderstanding of certain Biblical passages. In the context of the Arminian / Calvinist debate, the meaning of adoption directly relates to our interpretation of Ephesians 1. In English we associate adoption with parents taking a baby into their family. The baby is "adopted". He is an outsider prior to adoption, and a son after adoption. However, Huiothesia refers to the standing of someone who is ALREADY a son. Adoption is the right of a son. Adoption is the "inheritance", "promise", or "reward" that the son receives as an heir. A father makes promises to his children. These promises are the adoption. Huiothesia is not synonymous with salvation (entrance into the family). Rather, it is the promise of God received by those who are believers in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:22-27). The reward of the adoption occurs now and after death. This can be seen in Romans 8 (bold mine): For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" -Rom 8:15 (NASB) And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. -Rom 8:23 (NASB) Observe in Romans 8:23 that Paul speaks of believers who wait for their adoption. There is a distinction between believing and the adoption. Conversely, sonship (having the legal rights of a son) doesn't guarantee that the son will apply and benefit from those rights. This can be seen in Romans 9:1-5 (bold mine) I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (NASB) Here Paul refers to the nation of Israel - his brothers. Israel has the rights of the adoption, but is failing to apply and benefit from those rights. Again, we see Paul treat adoption as a position rather than an action. Now, let's take a look at Ephesians 1:5-6. It is my contention that understanding the Greek concept of adoption takes away the Calvinistic flavor that is sometimes attributed to the passage (bold mine): In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (NASB) This could be accurately translated as follows: In love He predestined us [believers] to receive an inheritance as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In other words, God doesn't arbitrarily adopt particular humans to join his family. Rather, He promises believers an inheritance as His sons in Christ Jesus. In conclusion, adoption is a standing that believers have as sons in Christ Jesus. The Pauline concept of adoption is best understood as the position of a believer. It is not an action. AND...thanks to Amanda Transue Woolston for this: "Judaism did not recognize the Roman institution of adoption....since the Roman concept is directed toward substituting legal fiction for a biological fact and thus creating the illusion of a natural relationship between foster parents and the adopted son. Judaism stated its case in no uncertain terms: what the creator granted one and the other should not be interfered with; the natural relationship must not be altered. Any invention on the part of some legal authority would amount to interference with the omniscience and the original plan of the Maker." That was a quote by Soloveitchik from "Family Redeemed" on the Talmudic rabbi rejection of Roman adoption and adoption of other legal systems, included in John Witte Jrs book "The Sins of the Fathers: Law of Illegitimacy and Theology Reconsidered." Witte goes on to say: "None of the purported instances of adoption elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible [he quotes scripture references for Moses, Esther etc.] were real adoptions in the legal sense, rabbis contended--and most took place in locations outside of formal Jewish rule. And even if these could be regarded as legal adoptions per Roman law, no formal law of adoption was prescribed in the Torah to make this practice normative for the Jewish community." SEE previous blog post on biblical adoption references