Adoption

[Douglas Summers]

Adoption: (Romans Chapter 8) (Epistle to the Galatians)

There are two men in Scripture that dominate the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ. Adam and Jesus. All men, born into this world are the son's of Adam, with it's inherited nature that is enmity toward God. Man in himself is not salvageable and God is going to destroy man and His original creation that man has polluted. (Gen. 6: 3-7)

But Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8) Noah was from the Godly line of Seth, Adam and Eve's third son (in which is the same Godly line of Jesus). The point is that through the Godly line of Seth, the worship and fellowship with the Lord was from generation to generation.
In Romans Chapter 8, the two men are compared to each other and God. The man without the Spirit of God is condemned to death, for it can not obey God, nor does it want to. But for God's Mercy and Grace, that was foretold in the Old Covenant as promised (Gen. 3:15; 12: 2-3) and arriving at the appointed time (Jesus Christ our Lord)
Romans explains to us the purpose of the law (the whole law of the priesthood, commandments, sacrifice, worship and morality). Non of these laws saved man, but they were teachers and tutors to the CHILDREN of God, till the appointed time, always pointing ahead to the future. But when the time came, there was no more need for teachers or tooter, for all the preparations and teachings by the teachers and tooters had come of age (The Christ)

In those teaching was the faith of Abraham, looking forward to what was taught and fulfilled in Jesus Christ on (Day of Pentecost). And all (by faith) in what was taught came, born again, Born again is not a "metaphor", (John 3: 1-10) it is what happens when we receive the Holy Spirit. It is a new man in Christ. Of which I'm a witness to. Now that we have come of age, we have become Son's of God (by birth, through faith) It is a supernatural action that the secular Christian is not privy to. We are no longer children, but we have been placed as Son's. That is not relationship, for as children of God we were already in the family, that is relationship, but "Adoption" (Gk. huios "placing as a son") (Rom. 8:14) is a position, from being "children"(Gr. teknon " one born, a child)

But many of those who were tooterd and taught under the law have refused to give it up for they use the Law for justification of self righteousness. That is the argument with which Paul comes against with Spiritual teaching in Romans.

The word Adoption is used by a multitude of church goers and even Dr.s of Divinity as a Roman law that Paul used to show how God has adopted one outside the family and bring them in as a permanent son, and that in Roman Law, an Adopted son had more rights than a blood son. And once adopted could never worry about being treated as a lesser son or rejected from the family. After a through study of 1st century Roman adoption Law and practices of society, this is what I found.

Adoption for the Israelite was for the welfare of the fatherless. Adoption law for Israel was much like what we had under American adoption law before the immorality of the last 50 or so years of our government administrations. Abortion and killing of unwanted children was considered murder to the Israel Jew under God. The New Covenant brings that out by the Spirit of the Church.
The Roman Adoption Law's discouraged adoption of children, in fact abortion and child abandonment was encouraged among the Roman. Adoption in Roman society was never for the care or welfare of the child. Orphans and homeless children were shunned or ignored by Roman society. Many orphans were taken to be slaves for a family with no compassion on the orphan.
The elite of Rome never adopted children, only legal adults. And never out of compassion, but for to have an heir to leave it's fortune to that were childless or to gain political or social latter climbing, it was never about compassion, and only adult males were adopted.

An adopted adult son had all the rights of a blood son, and if the blood son was a disappointment to the family, the adopted son could receive all the inheritance. But also the adopted son could be rejected (set free) or (emancipated) and returned to his own family. This is a lot different than what was taught about Roman adoption was a taking someone from outside the family and making them a permanent member with more rights then a son that was born into the family But through an in depth study,we find it was reversible for the adopted son, depending upon the fathers relationship to the adopted son.

References , Mirielle Corbier, Marriage, Divorce, and children in Ancient Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)

Jane Gardner, Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life (oxford: Clarendon Press 1998)

Meir Malul, "Adoption of foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents" (Fall 1990)

 

[WIP]

Did I miss something? What is the point you wish to discuss/debate/defend?

 

[Douglas Summers]

Did I miss something? What is the point you wish to discuss/debate/defend?

I was taught as a young born again believer that the use of the word Adoption by Paul in Scripture, came from the Roman law or custom. And because Paul was a Roman citizen, he was familiar with Roman law and customs. It is taught that Paul used the word Adoption to define the practice of taking one outside the family and making him a permanent member of the family with the same benefits as the legal son as a permanent position in the family, But a study (without the influence of men's doctrines) reveals something else. (Roman adoption of adult males could be emancipated by the adoptee, and left with nothing at all) Adoption as used by Paul is not about the adopting one outside the family as a permanent member of a family, which would qualify as relationship. But the word adoption as Paul uses it means (placing as a son). That is a position. For one who is a child of God is already part of the family of God. But placing as a son has to do with maturity. (from a child to an adult son) .

But the study of Greco-Roman adoption laws and customs is anything but charitable or acts of love and passion. Orphans were either killed, ignored or sold as slaves. Adoption by the elite Romans were of mature adults only, and only for political or financial gain. To compare Roman adoption as an example of God's calling out His Body "The Church" is like an oxymoron. For Roman adoption was never about compassion, but only for political or financial gain.