Adoption

[Yeshua1]

Hi DHK,

1) Is my view based on one verse (Romans 8:23)? No. Recall Vines, recall the lexicon, recall the parallel Romans 8:19 and revealing as sons?
Son-placing refers to placing spiritually born anew individuals into their glorified bodies.

2) Moses was not adopted, his Egyptian "mother" claimed he had been born of her.

3) When one is born into a family, they are not also adopted. This is the fiction at the core of your mistaken view.

4) I have made my case, Paul would not use the same word to mean two completely different things, in the same letter, only eight verses apart. I have a verse that defines son placing as our promised resurrection, you have absolute no verse which says son-placing refers to being made a son. Note we were already sons when we received the Spirit of Son-placing into our hearts.

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?

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK,

1) Is my view based on one verse (Romans 8:23)? No. Recall Vines, recall the lexicon, recall the parallel Romans 8:19 and revealing as sons?
Son-placing refers to placing spiritually born anew individuals into their glorified bodies.

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:

Spirit of adoption (πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας)
The Spirit of God, producing the condition of adoption. Ὑιοθεσία adoption, is from υἱός son, and θέσις a setting or placing: the placing one in the position of a son. Mr. Merivale, illustrating Paul's acquaintance with Roman law, says: “The process of legal adoption by which the chosen heir became entitled not only to the reversion of the property but to the civil status, to the burdens as well as the rights of the adopter - became, as it were, his other self, one with him... this too is a Roman principle, peculiar at this time to the Romans, unknown, I believe, to the Greeks, unknown, to all appearance, to the Jews, as it certainly is not found in the legislation of Moses, nor mentioned anywhere as a usage among the children of the covenant. We have but a faint conception of the force with which such an illustration would speak to one familiar with the Roman practice; how it would serve to impress upon him the assurance that the adopted son of God becomes, in a peculiar and intimate sense, one with the heavenly Father” (“Conversion of the Roman Empire”).

(emphasis mine)

2) Moses was not adopted, his Egyptian "mother" claimed he had been born of her.

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.

3) When one is born into a family, they are not also adopted. This is the fiction at the core of your mistaken view.

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.

4) I have made my case, Paul would not use the same word to mean two completely different things, in the same letter, only eight verses apart. I have a verse that defines son placing as our promised resurrection, you have absolute no verse which says son-placing refers to being made a son. Note we were already sons when we received the Spirit of Son-placing into our hearts.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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)

If van was right here, then NONE of us are really christians until Second Coming!

 

[DHK]

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:

Vine on Adoption:
Huiothesia (uiothesia, 5206) from huios, “a son,” and thesis, “a placing,” akin to tithemi, “to place,” signifies the place and condition of a son given to one whom it does not naturally belong. The word is used by the apostle Paul only.
In Rom.8:15, believers are said to have received “the Spirit of adoption,” that is, the Holy Spirit who, given as the Firstfruits of all that is to be theirs, produces in them the realization of sonship and the attitude belong to sons. In Gal.4:5 they are said to receive the “adoption of sons,” i.e., sonship bestowed in distinction from a relationship consequent merely upon birth; here two contrasts are presented,
(1) between the sonship of the believer and the unoriginated sonship of Christ,
(2) between the freedom enjoyed by the believer and bondage, whether of Gentile natural condition, or of Israel under the Law. In Eph.1:3 they are said to have been foreordained unto “adoption as sons” through Jesus Christ, RV; the KJV, “adoption of children” is a mistranslation and misleading. God does not “adopt” believers as children; they are begotten as such by His Holy Spirit through faith. “Adoption” is a term involving the dignity of the relationship of believers as sons; it is not a putting into the family by spiritual birth, but by a putting into the position of sons.

In Romans 8:23 the “adoption” of the believer is set forth as still future, as it there includes the redemption of the body, when the living will be changed and those who have fallen asleep will be raised. In Rom.9:4 “adoption” is spoken of as belonging to Israel, in accordance with the statement in Exodus 4:12, “Israel is My Son.” Cf. Hos.11:1. Israel was brought into a special relation with God, a collective relationship, not enjoyed by other nations, Deu.14:1; Jer.31:9, etc.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[Van]

As I said, we are not making any headway. Apparently reading Vines and comprehending it presents my position is beyond the grasp of those holding a differing view.

Note that DHK actually bolded the part that makes my case.

But lets address the Vincent Word Pictures quote, which asserts the Spirit of Adoption produces the condition of adoption. However, this is shown to be mistaken by the fact we are sons before, repeating again, before, we are sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit. So the assertion is bogus.

Next, DHK actually denies Hebrew babies were to be killed not adopted. See Exodus 1:16. DHK asks for scripture, i.e. Acts 7:21 which does not say adopted, but "as her own son."

 

[DHK]

Next, DHK actually denies Hebrew babies were to be killed not adopted. See Exodus 1:16. DHK asks for scripture, i.e. Acts 7:21 which does not say adopted, but "as her own son."

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.

 

[Van]

Hi DHK, as I said, we are getting nowhere. To raise someone as her own son means she pretended Moses was not a Hebrew boy under sentence of death. That is not adoption and does not even "picture legal adoption." It pictures deception to save a baby boy. Again, the issue is not that she knew Moses was not her baby, that has nothing to do with the issue. Why muddy the Nile?

Folks, the whole premise that when God causes us to be born anew (or fathers us from above or reborn from above) this means He also adopted us is absurd.

1) The actual text does not say adopted, it says son-placing.
2) The Spirit of Son Placing is sent into the hearts of sons, not outsiders.
3) Paul uses the same word to mean the same thing eight verses later, at Romans 8:23, son-placing being our promised resurrection.
4) We look forward to our "son-placing" in the same way we look forward to our revealing as sons of God. This is when we are clothed in glorified bodies, our promised resurrection.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi DHK, as I said, we are getting nowhere. To raise someone as her own son means she pretended Moses was not a Hebrew boy under sentence of death. That is not adoption and does not even "picture legal adoption." It pictures deception to save a baby boy. Again, the issue is not that she knew Moses was not her baby, that has nothing to do with the issue. Why muddy the Nile?

Folks, the whole premise that when God causes us to be born anew (or fathers us from above or reborn from above) this means He also adopted us is absurd.

1) The actual text does not say adopted, it says son-placing.
2) The Spirit of Son Placing is sent into the hearts of sons, not outsiders.
3) Paul uses the same word to mean the same thing eight verses later, at Romans 8:23, son-placing being our promised resurrection.
4) We look forward to our "son-placing" in the same way we look forward to our revealing as sons of God. This is when we are clothed in glorified bodies, our promised resurrection.

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!

 

[Van]

When we are born anew, we are born into God's family. No verse says we are also adopted. That is simply a man-made doctrine with absolute no support in scripture. None, zip, nada.

We are sons before God sends the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, so being indwelt does not cause adoption.

 

[DHK]

When we are born anew, we are born into God's family. No verse says we are also adopted. That is simply a man-made doctrine with absolute no support in scripture. None, zip, nada.

We are sons before God sends the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, so being indwelt does not cause adoption.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.


How can van hold that a sinner is now a son of God, and yet not yet have the presense of the indwelling Holy Spirit though?

For if we have NOT the Spirit of Christ, then we are NOT of Him yet, correct?

"We are sons before God sends the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, so being indwelt does not cause adoption."

 

[Van]

That is right DHK, no scripture anywhere teaches we are "adopted" at the time of our physical resurrection, but scripture does teach our "son-placing" refers to us being clothed in are glorified bodies at Christ's second coming, revealing us as sons of God.

Yes, all the saints in Heaven are awaiting Christ's return, all are eagerly awaiting their promised resurrection. And of course, anyone in Heaven has been born anew (for you must be born anew to enter and see Heaven) thus are spiritual children of God right now.

Adoption, the resurrection of our body in glorified form, does not occur at death, but at Christ's second coming. This view is orthodox, mainstream and your view is on the fringe of absurdity. When we are born of God, we are known by God, thus the born anew are not strangers. You view is nonsense, and unbiblical.

As far as Yeshua1, he posts fiction after fiction.

Galatians 4:6, "6 Because you are sons, (A)God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “(B)Abba! Father!”

This does not indicate we do not have the Spirit, it indicates we were sons before being indwelt, thus the Spirit of Promised Resurrection does not cause us to become children of God, we receive the Spirit of Promised Resurrection because we are spiritual children of God.

 

[Van]

What is the glory of God? Well, lots of things. But among them, Christ Jesus - He lives forever. He is holy and separated from the presence of sin. He is not constrained by physical barriers, i.e. He can walk through walls or ascend into heaven.

So while we have been glorified spiritually, we eagerly await being clothed in glorified bodies. And we have hope of that glorification because we have the Spirit of Christ indwelt within us.

This is not rocket science.

 

[DHK]

What is the glory of God? Well, lots of things. But among them, Christ Jesus - He lives forever. He is holy and separated from the presence of sin. He is not constrained by physical barriers, i.e. He can walk through walls or ascend into heaven.

So while we have been glorified spiritually, we eagerly await being clothed in glorified bodies. And we have hope of that glorification because we have the Spirit of Christ indwelt within us.

This is not rocket science.

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.

 

[Van]

Why continue to make the same oft refuted assertions. We become members of God's family when we are born anew. No verse says we are adopted in, but verse after verse says when we are born anew we become spiritual children of God.

As a born anew child of God, indwelt with the Spirit of His Son, I have every right to cry Abba Father.

Romans 8:23 defines "son-placing" as our bodily redemption, and not as our becoming a son of God. After we were born anew, and before God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, we were already sons of God.

No where in scripture does it say Moses was adopted. It says he was raised as her (an Egyptian) own child. This has nothing to do with the legal process of son-placing where the father declares a natural born child to be a member of his adult family, and puts the designation robe upon him. Paul uses this legal ceremony as a metaphor for us being clothed in our glorified bodies upon Christ's return.

One of the common errors of biblical interpretation is to read the modern meaning of a word used in translation back into the original text.
So today, adoption refers to making someone who is not a biological child, into a legally recognized child, just as if he or she was biological. But son-placing, refers to declaring a natural born child to be an adult member of the family.

Romans 8:23 says son placing refers to our promised resurrection. DHK has no verse, not even one, that says son-placing refers to becoming a child of God. Again we become a child when we are born anew.

 

[DHK]

Romans 8:23 says son placing refers to our promised resurrection. DHK has no verse, not even one, that says son-placing refers to becoming a child of God. Again we become a child when we are born anew.

υἱοθεσία
uihothesia
Thayer Definition:

1) adoption, adoption as sons
1a) that relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites in preference to all other nations
1b) the nature and condition of the true disciples in Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God
1c) the blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a presumed compound of G5207 and a derivative of G5087

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.

G5207
υἱός
uihos
hwee-os'
Apparently a primary word; a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.

What does the second half of the word mean?

G5087
τίθημι
tithēmi
tith'-ay-mee
A prolonged form of a primary word θέω theō (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to place (in the widest application, literally and figuratively; properly in a passive or horizontal posture, and thus different from G2476, which properly denotes an upright and active position, while G2749 is properly reflexive and utterly prostrate): - + advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, X kneel down, lay (aside, down, up), make, ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down.

--"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.

 

[DHK]

No where in scripture does it say Moses was adopted. It says he was raised as her (an Egyptian) own child. This has nothing to do with the legal process of son-placing where the father declares a natural born child to be a member of his adult family, and puts the designation robe upon him. Paul uses this legal ceremony as a metaphor for us being clothed in our glorified bodies upon Christ's return.

One of the common errors of biblical interpretation is to read the modern meaning of a word used in translation back into the original text.
So today, adoption refers to making someone who is not a biological child, into a legally recognized child, just as if he or she was biological. But son-placing, refers to declaring a natural born child to be an adult member of the family.

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?

 

[Van]

No verse says we are placed as sons when we are born anew. Not one.
But Romans 8:23 says we receive the promised resurrection when we are placed as sons. So, rather than adoption, son-placing refers to our promised resurrection.

No verse says or suggests Moses was legally adopted. If it had been known he was not the child of the Egyptian, he would have been killed just like all the other male children of Hebrews. Besides, this history of Moses has nothing to do with how Paul uses the metaphor of son-placing.
It is a effort to prove "A", and then claim "B" has been proved.

Again, no verse says Moses refused the "legal adoption" so the claim is yet another effort to add to scripture. Moses was not "adopted" or "born anew" by God during his lifetime. Moses gained approval through faith and was taken to Abraham's bosom when his life on earth ended.

How did Moses "become" her son? She raised his as her son. No legal process of adoption is mentioned or suggested.

 

[DHK]

How did Moses "become" her son? She raised his as her son. No legal process of adoption is mentioned or suggested.

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.

Adoption:
Act of transferring parental rights and duties to someone other than the adopted person's biological parents. The practice is ancient and occurs in all cultures. Traditionally, its goal was to continue the male line for the purposes of inheritance and succession; most adoptees were male (and sometimes adult).

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.