Adoption - Am I missing something

[Deacon]

I understand your problem, as I don't see God's word telling me that my adoption coincided with my justification;
Rather, they happen at different times, from our perspective.

Contrary to how I was taught from pulpits many years ago, I now see things quite differently:

To me, justification was at the cross.
The new birth coincides closely with when I first believed on Christ for the forgiveness of my sins.
Physical, or bodily adoption is at my glorification...at the first resurrection when I will receive my glorified body.

Hummm, that explains things better for me....I'm beginning to understand the argument.

Thanks
Rob

 

[COrick]

I understand it a little differently.
I've received the Spirit of my adoption ( the Holy Spirit, the "earnest" or down-payment of my inheritance ) at the new birth, but my justification was performed at the cross when my Saviour died for me and shed His blood. I cry "Abba, Father" through my spirit because of the work of the Holy Spirit in me.

The only difference I see here in your answer as opposed to mine is the statement concerning justification. You are referring to when justification was accomplished; whereas, I was referring to when that justification was applied to me.

I agree, and see the believer as being fully adopted in the first resurrection...even though we are eternally secure in our adoption before then.

I agree that we have been promised adoption and that we have received the "Spirit of adoption" as the guarantee of the adoption to come; however, my problem with your statement would be the word "fully" as I would say that I am guaranteed to be adopted at the resurrection. My question boils down to any direct Biblical evidence that any portion of the adoption has already occurred. While I believe that the "Promise produces the position", I do not believe that "the promise is the same thing as the position"

However, I see Romans 9:4 speaking to a different set of people...national Israel, who were adopted into an earthly covenant ( not an eternal one ) with earthly promises...temporal penalties and rewards for either obedience to the Law of Moses, or disobedience to it.
The covenant that we as Gentile believers have been grafted into, is an eternal and spiritual covenant made between God the Father and God the Son....and includes all those whom the Father has given to the Son to be saved; Both Jew and Gentile.

While this passage is directly referring to the Israelites, it is shortly after the Romans 8 discussion of adoption and so (I would say) in the same context. Further, It tells us that the adoption is related to the Israelites not that all physical Israelites receive the adoption (I would argue that the remnant receives the adoption). In addition, the word "the" is g3588 which is the same word for "the" used in John 14:6 when Jesus calls himself "the way, the truth and the life", So, I would contend that If we make Romans 9:4 refer to a different adoption, then we open the door for a different way, a different truth, and a different life.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You seem to be quoting people and not answering questions.

- I addressed these in my question - please respond to the question asked

this is addressed in my question, please address the question

, in other words it does not address the when of adoption as mentioned in the question.

you leave out the fact that the child was also waiting for the adoption, and fail to address the question,

The only question you ask is:

Am I missing something?!?!?! I would really like to know.

which was about the "and" being the Greek word "de" and not "kai"

Really?

Gal. 4:6 says "And because ye are sons", which I believe is the best argument in the English for past adoption; however, the Greek word for "And" is G1161 ("de") which is "a particle adversative, distinctive, disjuctive". Therefore, I understand the "And" to mean that while the Gal. 4:5 statement and the Gal. 4:6 statement are true, they are not related and do not build on each other.

Try "now".

1161 [e]

δέ, de

now,

Conj

 

[COrick]

(ONE) CLARIFICATION PLEASE:
Your statement: "I fail to see sufficient support for adoption at the moment of Justification".

Are you looking for someone to prove that adoption occurs upon believing (at the moment of justification)?

My concern is that I was taught that adoption occurs in the same instant that we believe and I do not see sufficient evidence for it in scripture. If we have moved from the historical context of the word adoption and are teaching wrongly, then we are in error - and that's a problem.

(TWO) So let me get this straight, your reason for rejecting the Galatians passage is:


I fail to see how the subtle difference between the Greek, καί; δέ, might the meaning of the Galatians passage. It's not a manuscript variant. Why even bring it up? Please elaborate!

Since it is not a variant, we should have differences concerning the following definitions...

"Kai" is copulative or additive.
"De" is adversative, distinctive or disjuctive

Therefore, since the "and" that starts verse 6 is "de", should we not understand that, while both the statement before and after are true, the statement that is after is a statement that is not related to the adoption, Therefore, the sonship that is referred to in verse 6 should be related to the new birth.

(THREE) Just a comment about Thayer's Lexicon of 1886,

IT'S STRENGTHS:
1) It's free,
2) t's available online,
3) it's linked to Strong's Concordance

IT'S WEAKNESSES:
1) It's old.
2) Thayer's definitions are often drawn from Classical Greek rather than NT Koine Greek.
3) It was published prior to the discovery of the papyri, so it often gives less than complete definitions.

Use Thayer's with care, recognizing its weaknesses.
When confronted with a problem, confirm your conclusion by consulting other sources.

What other, in your opinion better, Greek lexicon would you use that is true to the Stephens 1550. I am open to further study; however, I do not personally accept any Greek text that is concurrent with, or post, Westcott and Hort.

(FOUR) Adoption (huiothesia) is a simple metaphor, picturing a believers change of (legal) status, both present and prospective.
As a metaphor it shouldn't be stretched beyond its intended use.

So, am I understanding correctly? Are you saying that your entire relationship as a child of the God of the universe is based on a metaphor that you have trouble defending when pressed? - If that is true, it sounds like a problem.

The "proof" is provided in the Scripture that you presented in your opening post. look, I'm no Greek expert but don't get too carried away with the various Greek cases ...distinctive, adjunctive subjective disjuctives... [I think we could make a Sesame Street rhyme out of that].
The translations we use were make by experts with far more education that we have.

Are you saying that we are not well enough trained to use the tools that God has allowed us to have? I know that the translators were much better versed in the original languages that I am (and by your own admission you are) however, I posted to find someone better versed than me, not to be told not to worry about it. If I could let this go, I would have - over a year ago.

Romans 8:15 (AV 1873) [context, Romans 8:14-23]
...but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

States that I have received the Spirit, and that Spirit is the Spirit of Adoption - does not state that I have received the adoption. States that I cry "Abba, Father" by the Spirit that is in me.

Galatians 4:4–7 (AV 1873)
...And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Dealt with this verse in the definition of "kai" and "de" above.

Both in Romans and Galatians, Paul says we cry out, "abba" (father), a description of a believers present relationship with God.

I agree that we have a present relationship with God. I just say that, while I am promised adoption in the future, my present relationship is based on the new birth.

1 John 3:1–2 (ESV 2016)
See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. ... Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

See my answer above.

Thanks, Chris

 

[COrick]

The only question you ask is:


Really?


Try "now".

1161 [e]

δέ, de

now,

Conj

The title of this thread includes the question "Am I missing something?" I then stated what I see and asked the question "Am I missing something?" again - thereby turning the entire post into one long question. Sorry if you did not understand what I did.

 

[COrick]

The only question you ask is:


Really?


Try "now".

1161 [e]

δέ, de

now,

C

Which Lexicon did you use? Or are you just using the 166 times that the word is translated "now" - as opposed to the 1237 times it is translated "but", the 934 times it is translated "and", the 132 times it is translated "then", the 18 times it is translated "also", etc. - to obfuscate the discussion by providing "now" as a definition, as opposed to what the translators sometimes translated it to when that English word fit the meaning better.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

the Greek word for "And" is G1161 ("de") which is "a particle adversative, distinctive, disjuctive". Therefore, I understand the "And" to mean that while the Gal. 4:5 statement and the Gal. 4:6 statement are true, they are not related and do not build on each other.

Since it is not a variant, we should have differences concerning the following definitions...

"Kai" is copulative or additive.
"De" is adversative, distinctive or disjuctive

Therefore, since the "and" that starts verse 6 is "de", should we not understand that, while both the statement before and after are true, the statement that is after is a statement that is not related to the adoption, Therefore, the sonship that is referred to in verse 6 should be related to the new birth.

I would feel as if I could be doing violence to the text, if I attempted to set your definitions in concrete.

There may be a need for more flexibility.

I don't see you as missing something, as much as simply forcing the Bible text to agree with those presupposed assumptions and how being dependent on them has you spinning in your head trying to reconcile an understanding, while operating under a self sabotaging handicap.

Notice "I. Traditional", below.

"To provide an example, Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is a case in point. Consider the amount of overlap between the following conjunctions (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 761):

Logical Functions
A. Ascensive: even...καί, δέ, and μηδέ
B. Connective: and, also... καί and δέ

C. Contrastive (adversative): but, rather, however... ἀλλά, πλήν, sometimes καί and δέ

D. Correlative: μέν...δέ (on the one hand...on the other hand); καί...καί (both...and)

E. Disjunctive (alternative): or...ἤ
F. Emphatic: certainly, indeed...ἀλλά (certainly), οὐ μή (certainly not or by no means), οὖν (certainly); true emphatic conjunctions include γε, δή, μενοῦνγε, μέντοι, ναί, and νή
G. Explanatory: for, you see, or that is, namely...γάρ, δέ, εἰ (after verbs of emotion), andκαί
H. Inferential: therefore...ἄρα, γάρ, διό, διότι, οὖν, πλήν, τοιγαροῦν, τοινῦν, and ὥστε
I. Transitional: now, then...οὖν and especially δέ

"Wallace provides functional categories based upon english grammatical concepts. One is really left with very little distinction, especially between, καί and δέ. They both appear in the similar categories; therefore, one is left to assume they have no pragmatic difference.

"Runge seeks to revert to semantic categories instead of pragmatic distinctions. Καί can have connective and adversative functions, but its semantic value, according to Runge, "links items of equal status" (Runge, 26).

"Δέ traditionally has been understood as a disjunctive particle, but it too can have connective, transitional, and contrastive functions. It is also used with μέν...δέ clauses too, which do not necessarily function as a connective or contrastive. Instead of traditional grammatical definitions for δέ, Runge attempts to define δέ as a "developmental marker" (Runge, 29).

"That is, it is not necessarily developing the temporal development of the argument, but the logical development (Runge, 36).

"Therefore, καί and δέ can function very similarly but they have two distinct semantic meaning.

"Runge does not use Matt 1:2–3 as an example. I will provide it here to demonstrate the differences between καί ("linking items together of equal status") and δέ (developing the argument).

• 2 Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ,
• Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ,
• Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ,
• 3 Ἰούδας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Φάρες καὶ τὸν Ζάρα ἐκ τῆς Θαμάρ,
• Φάρες δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἑσρώμ,
• Ἑσρὼμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀράμ,

Translation:

• Abram begot Isaac
• Isaac begot Jacob
• Jacob begot Judah and his brothers
• Judah begot Perez and Zerah from Tamar
• Perez begot Hezron
• Hezron begot Aram

"Noting each bold word, δέ begins a new idea and therefore develops the flow of the argument. Each italic word fits between two δέ clauses, linking two closely related ideas. In this case, Runge's paradigm holds true.

"Furthermore, the rest of Matt 1 continues this idea of καί serving as closely "linking items of equal status" whereas δέ serves as a "developmental marker" highlighting a new development (either disjunctive or continuative) in the storyline.

"Runge is on to something, especially his understanding of conjunctions.

"He currently blogs at NT Discourse and serves as the Resident Scholar at Logos Bible Software."

From: Pragmatic vs. Semantic Descriptions of Greek Conjunctions — Shawn J. Wilhite.


The Pulpit Commentary puts it this way:

" - And because ye are sons"
(ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί).

"The apostle is adducing proof that God's people had actually received the adoption of sons; it was because it was so, that God had sent into their hearts the Holy Spirit, imparting that vivid consciousness of sonship which they enjoyed.

"The fact of the adoption must have been there, to qualify them to be recipients of this divinely inspired consciousness.

"The affirmation in Romans 8:16,
"The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God," closely resembles our present passage; but it is not identical.

"We are not made sons (the apostle intimates) by the Spirit giving us the consciousness of sonship;

"but, having been previously made sons, the Spirit raises in our spirits sentiments answering to the filial relation already established."

Which Lexicon did you use?

Strong's usage shown at: Galatians 4:6 Greek Text Analysis

 

[Dave G]

The only difference I see here in your answer as opposed to mine is the statement concerning justification. You are referring to when justification was accomplished; whereas, I was referring to when that justification was applied to me.

Here, read this:

" For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

Since we, as believers, were justified by His blood...and that blood was shed at the cross, then that is when I see justification for God's people taking place. This is why I see my own justification as happening at the cross, because that is when I was reconciled to God... by the death of His Son... and when I was His enemy.

I may be in error here, but that is my current understanding of it

Now, out of curiosity, where in the Scriptures do you see when justification is or was "applied", or made real, for the believer?
Please keep in mind that I'm not asking for where you might see anything that is "implied"...only declared.

While I believe that the "Promise produces the position", I do not believe that "the promise is the same thing as the position"

I respect that, but consider this:
In God's eyes, the promise unfailingly results in the position. When He makes a promise, He always carries through on it.

(I would argue that the remnant receives the adoption)

And I would agree with you.

 

[37818]

Romans 8:23 says that we (as Christians) are "waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body"; therefore, the adoption has not yet occurred according to this verse and, in context, is what all of creation "the creature" is waiting for. Romans 9:4 (still in the same context) states that this adoption pertains to the Israelites (The Abrahamic Covenant which I understand us to have been grafted into).

There are three different interpretations of the adoption that Christians might hold.
1. The common view,, the adoption occurred at being born again.
2. The minority view, the adoption is yet future being our bodily resurrection. The view I hold.
3. The third view, combines those two. The adoption being a process.

 

[COrick]

I would feel as if I could be doing violence to the text, if I attempted to set your definitions in concrete.

There may be a need for more flexibility.

I don't see you as missing something, as much as simply forcing the Bible text to agree with those presupposed assumptions and how being dependent on them has you spinning in your head trying to reconcile an understanding, while operating under a self sabotaging handicap.

Notice "I. Traditional", below.

"To provide an example, Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is a case in point. Consider the amount of overlap between the following conjunctions (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 761):





"Wallace provides functional categories based upon english grammatical concepts. One is really left with very little distinction, especially between, καί and δέ. They both appear in the similar categories; therefore, one is left to assume they have no pragmatic difference.

"Runge seeks to revert to semantic categories instead of pragmatic distinctions. Καί can have connective and adversative functions, but its semantic value, according to Runge, "links items of equal status" (Runge, 26).

"Δέ traditionally has been understood as a disjunctive particle, but it too can have connective, transitional, and contrastive functions. It is also used with μέν...δέ clauses too, which do not necessarily function as a connective or contrastive. Instead of traditional grammatical definitions for δέ, Runge attempts to define δέ as a "developmental marker" (Runge, 29).

"That is, it is not necessarily developing the temporal development of the argument, but the logical development (Runge, 36).

"Therefore, καί and δέ can function very similarly but they have two distinct semantic meaning.

The information to here has been very informative, Thank you.

"Runge does not use Matt 1:2–3 as an example. I will provide it here to demonstrate the differences between καί ("linking items together of equal status") and δέ (developing the argument).



"Noting each bold word, δέ begins a new idea and therefore develops the flow of the argument. Each italic word fits between two δέ clauses, linking two closely related ideas. In this case, Runge's paradigm holds true.

"Furthermore, the rest of Matt 1 continues this idea of καί serving as closely "linking items of equal status" whereas δέ serves as a "developmental marker" highlighting a new development (either disjunctive or continuative) in the storyline.

"Runge is on to something, especially his understanding of conjunctions.

"He currently blogs at NT Discourse and serves as the Resident Scholar at Logos Bible Software."

I have bookmarked his page and will check him out

From: Pragmatic vs. Semantic Descriptions of Greek Conjunctions — Shawn J. Wilhite.


The Pulpit Commentary puts it this way:

" - And because ye are sons"
(ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί).

"The apostle is adducing proof that God's people had actually received the adoption of sons; it was because it was so, that God had sent into their hearts the Holy Spirit, imparting that vivid consciousness of sonship which they enjoyed.

"The fact of the adoption must have been there, to qualify them to be recipients of this divinely inspired consciousness.

"The affirmation in Romans 8:16,
"The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God," closely resembles our present passage; but it is not identical.

"We are not made sons (the apostle intimates) by the Spirit giving us the consciousness of sonship;

"but, having been previously made sons, the Spirit raises in our spirits sentiments answering to the filial relation already established."

While I do not currently accept your position, you have now given me new information to study - I will attend to that.

Strong's usage shown at: Galatians 4:6 Greek Text Analysis

As I only use the KJV, I did not recognize that you were using a different translation of the Bible. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[COrick]

There are three different interpretations of the adoption that Christians might hold.
1. The common view,, the adoption occurred at being born again.
2. The minority view, the adoption is yet future being our bodily resurrection. The view I hold.
3. The third view, combines those two. The adoption being a process.

Are there any books put out by holders of the minority view?

 

[percho]

How is this verse to be understood;

for in [to] hope we were saved, and hope beheld is not hope; for what any one doth behold, why also doth he hope for it?

Relative to this verse;

And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body;

relative to the word adoption?

 

[COrick]

How is this verse to be understood;

for in [to] hope we were saved, and hope beheld is not hope; for what any one doth behold, why also doth he hope for it?

Hope is faith that God will do what he promised and placing our desire upon it. That is why the greatest is Charity, when all promises are completed, hope (what God has promised to accomplish and we rest assured that He is faithful to his promise) no longer exists (for we have what we hoped for).

Relative to this verse;

And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body;

relative to the word adoption?

We (as Christians) are hoping for and undergoing the miseries of this life while we move toward the fulfillment of the promise of God to adopt us. When it is completed (at our glorification), we will still have joy in it (the souls deep emotional response to seeing the hand of God at work in anything), however, we will no longer hope for it (we will already have the adoption.)