2. The custom. — St. Paul in these passages is alluding to a Greek and Roman rather than to a Hebrew custom. Its object, at any rate in its earliest stages, was to prevent the dying out of a family, by the adopting into it of one who did not by nature belong to it, so that he became in all respects its representative and carried on the race. But, though the preventing of the extinction of a family was thought important by the Israelites, and though adoption was a legal custom among the Babylonians (Box, in ERE i. 114), it was not in use among the Hebrews. With them childless- ness was to some extent met by the levirate, or in the patriarchal period by polygamy (cf. Gn 16'^-), or at a later date by divorce. The few instances of adoption in tlie OT (e.g. Moses by Pharaoh's daughter, Esther by Mordecai) exhibit a different reason for the act from that stated above, and are the result of foreign surroundings and influence. On the other hand, the custom was very common among both Greeks and Romans. It was at first largely connected with the desire that the family worship of dead ancestors should not cease — a cultus which could be continued only through males (Wood- house, in EBE i. 107 and 111). In Greece it dates from the Sth cent. B.C. It was afterwards used as a form of will-making. If a man had a legitimate son, he could not make a will ; but, if he had no legitimate son, he often adopted one that he might secure the inheritance to him rather than to rela- tives, who Avould otherwise be heirs. The adopted son at once left his own family and became a mem- ber of that of his adopter, losing all rights as his father's son. If he was adopted while his adopter was still living, and sons were afterwards born to the latter, he ranked equally with them ; he could not be disinherited against his will. Roman adoption was founded on the same general ideas ; it was called arro- gatio if the person adopted was sui Juris, but aduptio if he was under his own father's potestas (Wood- house, loc. cit. ). In the latter case he came under the adopter's po<esto5 as if he were his son by nature.
It appears, then, that St. Paul in the five pass- ages named above is taking up an entirely non- Jewish position ; so much so that some have doubted whether a Jew, even after he had become a Christian, could have written Epistles which con- tained such statements (cf. Ramsay, Galatians, p. 342). This, however, is one of the manj'^ instances of the influence of Greek and Roman ideas on St. Paul. W. M. Ramsay has endeavoured to show that, in so far as these differed from one anothei
42
ADOPTION
ADOPTION
in the matter under discussion, it is to Greek custom rather than to ' the Roman law of adoption in its original and primitive form ' that the Apostle refers in dealing with Gal S"^-, but that he uses a metaphor dependent on Roman law when writing to the Romans in Ro 4^^ {ib. pp. 339, 343 ; see also art. Heir). But this has been disputed.
3. St. Paul's metaphor of adoption. — The Apostle applies the metaphor to the relation of both Jews and Christians to the Father, {a) Somewhat em- phatically he applies it to the Jews in Ro 9*. Tlie adoption, the glory [the visible presence of God], the covenants [often repeated], the giving of the Law, the service [of the Temple], the promises, the fathers, all belonged to the Israelites, ' my kinsmen according to the tiesh,' of whom is Christ concern- ing the flesh — a passage showing the intense Jew- ish feeling of St. Paul, combined with the broader outlook due to his Graeco-Roman surroundings (see above, § 2). Here the sonship of Israel, for which see Ex 4-^ (' Israel, my son, my first-born'), Dt 141 32«. i9f., Ps 685 l03l^ Jer 3P, Hos IP, Mai 2^°, etc., is described as 'adoption.' It is noteworthy that the adoption is before the Incar- nation, although it could only be ' in Christ.' Lightfoot (on Gal 4') observes that before Christ's coming men were potentially sons, though actually they were only slaves (v.^). Athanasius argues that, since before the Incarnation the Jews were sons [by adoption], and since no one could be a son except through our Lord [cf. Jn 14*, Gal 3-^, Eph F, and see below, § 5], therefore He was a Son before He became incarnate (Orat. c. Avian, i. 39, iv. 23, 29).
(b) But more frequently St. Paul applies the metaphor of adoption to Christians. ' Sonship in the completest sense could not be proclaimed be- fore the manifestation of the Divine Son in the flesh' (Robinson, Eph., -p. 27 f.). We Christians ' received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father,' for 'we are children of God' (Ro 815'- )• It was not till the fullness (rb irX-ffpwfia — for the word see Robinson, pp. 42, 255) of tlie time came that God sent forth His Son that we might receive adoption (Gal 4^'-). In its highest sense adoption could not be received under the Law, but only under the Gospel. The context in these passages shows that the Spirit leads us to the Father by making us realize our sonship ; He teaches us how to pray, and puts into our mouth the words ' Abba, Father ' (cf. Kpa^ov Gal 4* with Kpd^o/xev Ro 8^5). We notice that St. Paul, though addressing those who were not by any means all Jewish Christians, but many of whom, being Gentiles, had come directly into the Church, yet seems at first sight to speak as if Christ's coming- was only to give adoption to those whom, being under the Law, He redeemed. But, as Lightfoot remarks {Com. in loc), the phrase used is toi>s virb vbfiov, not iiwb rbv vo/xov ; the reference is not only to those who were under the Mosaic Law, but to all subject to any system of positive ordinances (so perhaps in 1 Co 9^"). The phrase 'redeem . . .' is thouglit to reflect the Roman idea that the adopter purchased a son from the father by nature ; adoption was efi'ected before a praetor and five witnesses, by a simulated sale.