Featured Adoption

But to all who did receive him, swho believed in his name, the gave the right uto become vchildren of God, 13 who wwere born, xnot of blood ynor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Esv John 1:12-13

John saw those of us saved as right NOW being called sons/daughetrs of God, do you?

 

You are referring to one verse. You probably quoted Vine's commentary in reference only to verse 23. Therefore your knowledge is limited. You are not looking at the whole picture. Let me give you the picture again by quoting from Vincent's Word Pictures from verse 15:

(emphasis mine)

Scripture please. You are wrong. She said: "Look! it is one of the Hebrew children...Go fetch a nursing woman of the Hebrews for me." She never claimed it was her own. She couldn't even nurse him. She adopted the child as her own, and on the legal process of adoption claimed him as her own.

That is true on a physical plane. In the example I gave you, however the seven year old child had to be adopted by the father, even though he was the natural born son of the mother whom he married. He still had to be adopted. Both took place. Earthly illustrations are always weak. But it is there.
On a spiritual plan we are born into the family of God as His children; true.
But we are not mature sons, heirs. We need to be adopted and placed into that position. That has nothing to do with the resurrection. How does the resurrection make us adopted? It doesn't. At salvation we are placed into His household as mature sons with all the privileges and rights as a son; not at the resurrection. That doesn't make sense to be adopted at the resurrection.

Placing doesn't mean "promised resurrection." That is something you have made up, and it is wrong. You do err. You rest your entire case on one verse in the Bible ignoring the rest of the Bible, both NT and OT. You ignore the other four times the word is used in the NT, and thy myriads of times people were adopted in the OT, including the nation of Israel itself. Did the Lord adopt the nation at Mount Sinai, when she became a nation, at the beginning of its existence or in 70 A.D., when the Temple was destroyed and the nation scattered, and she was finally no longer a nation. When did the adoption take place? You teach the latter. Does it make sense? Of course not!

 

Van has relied on a quote from Vine as his authority. But what did this quote really say. Here is what Vine said in its entirety:

The entire quote from Vine does not say what Van is asserting.
Vine believes adoption takes place at the same time that the new birth takes place. It is different than the new birth, but takes place at the same time.

 

Would assume the Spirit of "promised resurrection" is dubious as well!

 

It defeats your case Van. The KJV obscures the meaning a little. Dig a bit deeper. Here is what the WEB says more accurately:

Acts 7:21 When he was thrown out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and reared him as her own son.

She always knew that Moses was not her own son. She drew him out of the water and gave him a name that reflected as much.

Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
--Right here is the picture of adoption. She knew the baby wasn't hers.
Even the name given didn't reflect an infant given to her, but rather one drawn from the water, not one born from her.
--She adopted the baby and when Moses came of age he fled, and from that time forward refused "the adoption" and the inheritance, the opportunity to become king/pharaoh of all of Egypt.

Something else to think about:
Exodus 2:7 Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?
8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother.
--It is evident that the child's mother would always be a Hebrew mother, and Moses would always know that. Some day he would reject his adopted mother.

 

Right NOW we called the children of God , so we are sons/daughters of God , so right now are adopted, as ONLY those adopted now God will call them by those labels!

 

Let's look at this way. There is no actual scripture that teaches that we are adopted at the time of our resurrection. That is your misinterpretation of Rom.8:23.
Tell me. Are all the apostles (who died some 2,000 years ago) still waiting their adoption? Or are they simply waiting for the redemption of their bodies? Which one? Do you not think that the Apostle Paul has not already been adopted as a son of God, placed into the household of God which he now resides? To say "No," would be ridiculous, seeing that he is heaven right now.

Can you give any earthly example where anyone has to wait for the end of their life to be adopted. I have given you plenty of examples of how individuals adopt infants and young children. But how often do people go into a palliative care center and adopt someone from there. To my knowledge I have never seen it happen. But that is what you are suggesting or teaching. It is on the fringe of heresy IMO.

As Vincent explained, the word for adoption is taken from two Greek words (neither of which have to do with promised resurrection). The first word is uios. Having taken some Greek, I know well that that work means son. That is evident. The second part of the word is "placing." Ergo, "son-placing." He places us as His own sons in his own household, now as free servants in contrast to being servant to the bondage of law and sin. The status of son in this respect is not one of regeneration, but rather of a mature son, an heir, with the privilege of gaining the inheritance of an heir (an heir of God and joint heir with Christ).
He has placed us in his family as sons.
You don't seem to understand the difference between that and regeneration, but it is a big difference.
There is no such thing as being adopted when you are on your death bed. That would be the earthly illustration you are offering up. If adoption were only at the resurrection there would not be any adoption, for God would not give a glorified body to a stranger (one not previously adopted into his family)--thus the heretical position of your teaching.

 

None of the above has anything to do with adoption. I agree with what you said in this post. Notice you didn't refer to adoption; talked nothing of adoption. We wait for the redemption of our bodies. All believers do. When we see him we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. Oh what glory that will be. That has nothing to do with adoption. Where do you get that idea from.

Moses was adopted at the age of 3 years by the daughter of Pharaoh; when he was older he rejected that adoption, and was used of God to be the leader of Israel wherein the Lord adopted the entire nation for his own.

Ruth was adopted by Boaz. Boaz became her redeemer; redeemed the land and her as well. At the same time she became his bride, she became part of the covenant of Israel, she became adopted by him, she was redeemed by him, etc. It all took place at the same time--just like our salvation. Later she gave birth to Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David.
Ruth was adopted in more ways than one. But she awaits her resurrection.
Adoption had nothing to do with resurrection.
Ruth was adopted physically by Boaz, spiritually into the nation of Israel whose God she believed.

If you are not placed as a son in God's household at the time of salvation, the Lord will not give you a glorified body. He will not give a stranger, one outside of his household a glorified body. First you must be an adopted son. One is adopted when or at the time of regeneration. It can be no other way. If you are not adopted; you are not saved. If you are not adopted, you have no inheritance. If you are not adopted you have no right to call God "Abba," Father. You are not his son, if you are not adopted.

 

υἱοθεσία
uihothesia
Thayer Definition:

The above is Thayer's definition of the word for adoption, "uihotesea," υἱοθεσία.

It is plain to see that the first half of the word "uios" means son.

What does the second half of the word mean?

--"to place" is the very first meaning.

Thus the word υἱοθεσία (uihothesia) means "son-placing." Every time you read the word adoption you can read "son-placing." I don't need a verse. I need you to correctly read the five verses in the NT that use the word "adoption" as "son-placing," because that is what the word means.
We are placed as sons in His household when we are born again.

 

Exodus 2:10 The child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. She named him Moses, and said, "Because I drew him out of the water."
--The only way one son can be the son of another is if she adopts him. Notice the words: "He became her son.
IOW, Moses became the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter. She even sent him back to his birthing mother for three years to be nursed by her. Then he was legally adopted by her, and groomed by her to be the king (or Pharaoh) of the land.
If that were not the case, then Moses would have died like all other male children.

Heb 11:24-26
24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

But God had his own plans. When Moses matured he refused the legal adoption of Pharaoh's daughter and maintained that he was a Hebrew and not an Egyptian. Instead of inheriting the throne he would rather suffer the affliction that his own people were suffering. He rejected his own earthly adopted inheritance. For he esteemed the reproach of Christ greater than the treasures in Egypt. He rejected his Egyptian adoption as a son, and all the privileges that went with it.
Instead he chose Jehovah, and became Jehovah's servant--a matured son.
He would gain the riches of Christ, the adoptive right of a son of God, instead of the riches of Egypt, the adoptive right a son of Pharaoh.
Which do you think was greater?

 

In ca. 1520 B.C. what do you think the process of adoption was?
What placement agency in California would you have recommended to the parents of Moses, as they were to put up their child for adoption? They probably would have been refused because they threw him in the water, and their neighbors were killing their own infants.
Do you always try to fit your 21st laws and cultural mores into the OT?

In contrast to allowing her son to being murdered:
Exodus 2:2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.
3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink.
--She acted on faith, hoping that someone else would "adopt" the child. She was willing to surrender her "parental rights" if only her child would be saved.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adoption


Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
--What is the meaning here?
Look at a translation that is quite a bit more loose:
(CEV) Then after Moses grew up, his faith made him refuse to be called Pharaoh's grandson.
--He was refusing his adoptive inheritance. He was rejecting to be called the grandson of Pharaoh and giving up his right to be the king of the nation. That, no doubt, was one of the reason's that Pharaoh's daughter had in mind when she adopted him. "Adoption" is the correct word to use. She assumed the parental rights of the child.
Moses' birth mother willingly gave them up, both at the age of three months (when she could hide him no longer), and at three years (approximately), when she had finished nursing him. The daughter of Pharaoh paid the mother for raising her own child in his most formative years. That is the sovereignty of God! Then she gave up those parental rights and gave them to the daughter of Pharaoh. That is adoption.
That is a shut and closed case.