I’ve been ready a bit about adoption in the Roman era – the time of Christ.
Both encouraging and discriminating. And a bit confusing in relation to the Biblical concept of adoption.
The Roman practice was basically a male thing amongst the upper class. Females were not often adopted. Men were adopted for their ability to provide leadership and to network relational support from rivals or supporters. This was not about making up for being childless – adoption was more about having to deal with the inadequate children you already had.
In other words, adoption was a power play in many cases.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around most Roman adoptions (at least those of the upper class). A rich man would choose his protege/successor – then adopt them so that they inherited the business. Not his children, but his adopted son/daughter would be the major beneficiaries.
Which brings me to my internal discussion points – that which goes on in my head.
If God adopted the Jewish nation (Abraham) as his protege (Romans 9:4), and then God set the Jewish nation aside because of their disobedience (Paul actually argues in Romans that only the true followers were the adopted ones, the rest of the branch has been cut off from God, and Christians grafted in), and now Christians (particularly Gentile Christians) are the adopted ones, how does that work?
Because of our own inabilities/sin, does God chose not to adopt us? Is the blanket covering of Jesus (his righteousness) given to his followers, in order that they might be considered as adopted children? Are we adopted into “Christ”, who was himself the epitome of faithfulness within the line of Abraham? Technically, is Christ the one who is adopted and we are merely subsumed in that adoption? What does it mean to be a fellow heir with Christ?
And so the questions go on in my head. Maybe I’ll have a few more (OK, I’m sure I’ll have a few more). Such is the conundrum of spending time reading the Bible.