The Judeo-Christian scriptures place enormous emphasis on the vulnerability of the “orphans” (cf., Deut. 27:19 and Zech. 7:10) and the “fatherless” (cf., Prov. 23:10-11 and Ps. 82:3) and our responsibility toward them. The need of human beings for a parent, or father, is reiterated throughout scripture. It becomes essential to Paul’s thought, which emphasizes what has traditionally been interpreted as our need for “adoption” by our father in heaven.
The nineteenth-century Scottish writer and theologian George MacDonald argues, however, in a sermon entitled “Abba, Father,” from Unspoken Sermons, Series Two. that “adoption” is a mistranslation of the Paul’s υίοθεσία. MacDonald actually goes so far as to take Liddell and Scott to task for translating υίοθεσία, as “adoption” in their Greek-English dictionary that is still the standard for classical scholars today. They cite only the New Testament for this translation, MacDonald complains, in a move that he describes as “a mere submission to popular theology.” The English “adoption,” he maintains, “can mean but one thing, and that is not what St. Paul means.” MacDonald sides rather with Luther’s translation of “The spirit of adoption” as “the spirit of a child,” and υίοθεσία itself as Kindschaft, which MacDonald translates as “childship.”
This paper argues that while it is certainly possible to construe "adoption" positively, MacDonald saw the translation of Paul’s υίοθεσία as “adoption” as tending to obscure the creaturely aspect of human beings, or the fact that they are God’s natural children and hence naturally loved by God as such. MacDonald argues that “the so-called doctrine of Adoption” suggests a separation between God and his creatures that can be bridged only artificially and sustained only precariously. Thus rather than encouraging faith in God’s universal love for his creatures as such, the doctrine of adoption serves to emphasize the unlikeness between God and human beings and hence to sow seeds of doubt in people concerning whether God could actually love them.
This paper argues that while it is certainly possible to construe “adoption” positively, MacDonald saw the translation of Paul’s υίοθεσία as “adoption” as tending to obscure the creaturely aspect of human beings, or the fact that they are God’s natural children and hence naturally loved by God as such. MacDonald argues that “the so-called doctrine of Adoption” suggests a separation between God and his creatures that can be bridged only artificially and sustained only precariously. Thus rather than encouraging faith in God’s universal love for his creatures as such, the doctrine of adoption serves to emphasize the unlikeness between God and human beings and hence to sow seeds of doubt in people concerning whether God could actually love them.