ADOPTION is an act by which a person takes a stranger into his family, in order to make him a part of it; acknowledges him for his soul, and constitutes him heir of his estate. Adoption, strictly speaking, was not in general use among the Hebrews, as Moses says nothing of it in his laws ; and Jacob's adoption of his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, (Gen. xlviii. 5.) was a kind of substitution, whereby he in tended that his grandsons, the two sons of Joseph, should have each his lot in Israel, as if they had been his own sons: "Ephraim and Manasseh are mine ; as Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine." As he gives no inheritance to their father Joseph, the effect of this adoption extended only to their in crease of fortune and inheritance ; that is, instead of one part, giving them (or Joseph, whom they represented) two parts.

Another kind of adoption in use among the Israelites, consisted in the obligation one brother was under to marry the widow of another who died without children ; so that the children born of this marriage were regarded as belonging to the deceased brother, and went by his name, Deut. xxv. 5 ; Matt. xxii. 24. This practice was also customary before the time of Moses ; as we see in the history of Tamar, Gen. xxviii. 8. See Marriage.

But Scripture affords instances of still another kind of adoption — that of a father having a daughter only, and adopting her children. Thus, 1 Chron. ii. 21. Machir, (grandson of Joseph,) called " Father of Gilead," (that is, chief of that town,) gave his daughter to Hezron, who took her ; and he was a son of sixty years, (sixty years of age,) and she bare him Segub ; and Segub begat Jair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead, which, no doubt, was the landed estate of Machir, who was so desirous of a male heir. Jair acquired a number of other cities which made up his possessions to threescore cities, (Joah. xiii. 30 ; 1 Kiugs iv. 13.) however, as well he, as his posterity, and their cities, instead of being reckoned to the family of Judah, as they ought to have been, by their paternal descent from Hezron, are reckoned as sons of Machir, the father of Gilead. Nay, more, it appears, (Numbers xxxii. 41.) that this very Jair, who was, in fact, the son of Segub, the son of Hezron, the sou of Judah, is expressly called "J air, the son of Manasseh," because his maternal great-grandfather was Machir, the son of Manasseh ; and Jair, inheriting his property, was his lineal representative. So that we should never have suspected bis being other than a son of Manasseh, naturally, had only the passage in Numbers been extant.— hi like manner, Sheshan, of the trite of Judah, gives his daughter to Jarha, an Egyptian slave ; (whom he liberated, no doubt, on that occasion ;) the posterity of this marriage, however, Attai, &c. not being reckoned to Jarha, as an Egyptian, but to Sheshan, as an Israelite, and succeeding to his estate and station in Israel, 1 Chron. ii. 34, &c. So we read, that Mordecai adopted Esther, his niece ; he took her la himself to lie a daughter (Heb. "for a daughter") This being in the time of Israel's captivity, Mordecai had no landed estate ; for if he had had any, he would not have adopted a daughter, but a sou, Esther ii. 7. So the daughter of Pharaoh adopted Moses ; and he was to her for a son, Exod. ii. 10. So we read, Ruth iv. 17. that Naomi had a son ; a son is born to Naomi ; when indeed it was the son of Ruth, and only a distant relation, or, in fact, none at all, to Naomi, who was merely the wife of Elimelech, to whom Boaz was a kinsman, but not the nearest by consanguinity. In addition to these instances, we have in Scripture a passage which includes no inconsiderable difficulty in regard to kindred ; but which, perhaps, is allied to some of these principles. The reader will perceive it at once, by comparing the passages below.


2 Kings 24:17. ''And he appointed Matthanias, his uncle, in his stead: and called his name Zedekiah."

1 Chron. 3:15.  "And the sons of Josias were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Joakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Sellum."

Jeremiah 1:3. "In the days of Joakim the son of Josias king of Juda, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedehiah the son of Josias king of Juda," Also, chap. 37:1. "Now king Zedekiah the son of Josias reigned instead of Jechonias the son of Joakim." By this it appears that Zedekiah was son to Josiah, the father of Jehoiakim ; and, consequently, that he was uncle to Jehaiachin.

2 Chron. 36:9-10. " Jehoiachin reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the Lord ; and made Zedekiah, his brother, king over Judah and Jerusalem." By this it appears that Zedekiah was son to Jehoiakim.



How is this? Zedekiah is called, in Kings and 1 Chronicles, "the son of Josiah ;" in 2 Chronicles ho is called, " the son of Jehoiakim." ... By way of answer, we may observe, that perhaps Zedekiah was son, by natural issue, of Jehoiakim, whereby he was grandson to Josiah ; but might not his grandfather adopt him as his son ? We find Jacob doing this very thing to Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph; "as Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine :" and they, accordingly, are always reckoned among the sons of Jacob. In like manner, if Josiah adopted Zedekiah, his grandson, to be his own son, then would this young prince be reckoned to him ; and both places of Scripture are correct ; as well that which calls him son of his real father, Jehoiakim, as that which calls him son of his adopted father, Josiah. That this might easily be the fact, appears by the dates; for Josiah was killed ante A. D. 606, at which time Zedekiah was eight or nine years old ; he being made king ante A. D. 594, when he was twenty-one. By this statement the whole difficulty, which has greatly perplexed the learned, vanishes at once. [This mode of accounting for the apparent discrepancy in question, rests wholly on conjecture, and is quite unnecessary. We have only to take the word brother in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10. in the wider and not unusual sense of kinsman, relative, and the difficulty vanishes much more easily than before. Thus hi Gen. xiv. 16, Abraham is said to have "brought back his brother Lot," although Lot was really his nephew. In the same manner in Gen. xxix. 12, 15, Jacob is said to be the brother of Laban, his uncle.

It should seem, then, that in any of the instances above quoted, the party might be described, very justly, yet very contradictorily : — as thus,



This kind of double parentage would be very perplexing to us, as we have no custom analogous to it; and possibly it might he somewhat intricate where it was practiced ; however, it occurs elsewhere, beside in Scripture. — We have a singularly striking instance of it in a Palmyrene inscription, copied by Mr. Wood, &c. who remarks, that it is much more difficult to understand than to translate: " This," says he, "will appear by rendering it literally, which is easiest done into Latin," thus:

" Senatus populusque Aliatamenem, Pani filium, Mocimi nepolem, Aeranis pronepotem, Mathae abnepotem ; et Aeranem patrem ejus, viros pios et patriae amicos, et omnimodi placentes patriae patriisque diis, honoris gratia : Anno 450, mense Aprili."

"Our difficulty is, that Aeranes is called the father of Aliatamenem [whereas Aliatamenes is him self called] the son of Panus." Wood's account of Palmyra.

The sense of this inscription may be thus rendered :

Erected by the senate and the people to Aliatamenes, the son of Panus, grandson of Mocimus, great-grandson of Aeranes, great-great-grandson of Matheus ; and to Aeranes, his (that is, Aliatamenes's) father ; pious men, and friends to their country," &c.

Now, this is precisely the case of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus ; — of whom Matthew says, "Jacob begat Joseph ;" but Luke calls Joseph " the son of Heli ;" — unless, as is more probable, Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. This contradiction in the inscription is so very glaring, that we are persuaded it is no contradiction at all, but must be explained on principles not yet acknowledged by us ; for no man could possibly, under direction of the senate and people, in a public monumental inscription, and in the compass of a few short lines, call Aliatamenes the son of Partus, and call Aeranes the father of Aliatamenes, without perceiving the gross error in which he involved as well himself as his country, the senate and people his employers, and all his readers!

This descent struck Dr. Halifax so much, who copied the same inscription, (Phil. Trans. No. ccxvii. p. 83.) that he observes upon it, "This custom of theirs, of running up their genealogies or pedigrees to the 4th or 5th generation, shows them to have borrowed some of their fashions from their neighbors the Jews, with whom it is not unlikely they had of old great commerce; and perhaps many of them were descended from that people, Zenobia herself being said to have been a Jewess; or else this must have been the manner of all the Eastern nations." — The reader will recollect that Palmyra is usually thought to be the "Tadmor" of Solomon, (1 Kings xix. 19; 2 Chron. viii. 6.) which is its present name.

"The date is that of the Greeks, from the death of Alexander the Great; as the Syrians generally date ; the very Christians, at this day, following the same usage. It is 450, or A. D. 126." So that it is near enough to the age of Joseph and Mary. But it is generally thought the date is from the era of tho Seleucidae, some years later, that is, beginning ante A. D. 312.

We think this yields a fair argument, and worthy the consideration of the learned among the Jews, who have objected to the genealogies in the evangelists.

We learn from various writers that the custom of adoption is frequent in the East. Lady Wortley Montague says, (Letter xlii.) " Now I am speaking of their law, I do not know whether I have ever mentioned to you one custom peculiar to their country, I mean Adoption, very common among the Turks, and yet more among the Greeks and Armenians. Not having it in their power to give their estate to a friend, or distant relation, to avoid its falling into the grand seignor's treasury, when they are not likely to have any children of their own, they choose some pretty child of either sex, amongst the meanest people, and carry the child and its parents before the cadi, and there declare they receive it for their heir. The parents at the same time renounce all future claim to it ; a writing is drawn and witnessed, and a child thus adopted cannot be disinherited. Yet I have seen some common beggars that have refused to part with their children in this manner to some of the richest among the Greeks ; (so powerful is the instinctive affection that is natural to parents ;) though the adopting fathers are generally very tender to those children of their souls, as they call them. I own this custom pleases me much better than our absurd one of following our name. Methinks it is much more reasonable to make happy and rich an infant whom I educate after my own manner, brought up (in the Turkish phrase) upon my knees, and who has learned to look upon me with a filial respect, than to give an estate to a creature without merit or relation to me, other than that of a few letters. Yet this is an absurdity we see frequently practiced."

We request the reader to note, in this extract, the phrase " brought up upon the parents' knees.'" Will this give a determinate sense to the awkward expression (in our version, at least) of Rachel, "My maid Bilhah shall bear upon my knees ?" what can we understand by this phrase? but may we take it — "shall bear (children) for my knees," that is, to be nursed by me, to be reared by me as if I were their natural mother — " an infant whom I educate after my own manner," as Lady Montague explains it. This seems a proper rendering of the passage. We think also the phrase (Gen. 1. 23.) "the children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were brought up on Joseph's knees," expresses a greater degree of fondness now than it has done before ; — was not this something like an adoption ? does it not imply Joseph's partiality for Manasseh ? which is perfectly consistent with his behavior to the dying Jacob, (Gen. xlviii. 18.) when he wished his father to put his right hand on the head of Manasseh, the eldest — to whom, and to whose posterity, he still maintains his warmest affection, notwithstanding the prophetic notice of Ephraim's future precedence given him by the venerable patriarch.

Among the Mohammedans, the ceremony of adoption is sometimes performed by causing the adopted to pass through the shirt of the person who adopts him. Hence, to adopt is among the Turks expressed by saying — " to draw any one through one's shirt ;" and they call an adopted son, Akielogli, the son of another life — because he was not begotten in this. (D'Herbelot, Bibl. Orient, p. 47.) Something like this is observable among the Hebrews : Elijah adopts Elisha by throwing his mantle over him, (1 Kings xix. 19.) and when Elijah was carried off in a fiery chariot, his mantle, which he let fall, was taken up by Elisha his disciple, his spiritual son, and adopted successor in the office of prophet, 2 Kings ii. 15. It should be remarked also, that Elisha asks not merely to be adopted, (for that he had been already,) but to be treated as the elder son, to have a double portion (the elder son's prerogative) of the spirit conferred upon him.

There is another method of ratifying the act of adoption, however, which is worthy of notice, as it tends to illustrate some passages in the sacred writings. The following is from Pitts: — "I was bought by an old bachelor; I wanted nothing with him; meat, drink, and clothes, and money, I had enough. After I had lived with him about a year, he made his pilgrimage to Mecca, and carried me with him ; but before we came to Alexandria, he was taken sick, and thinking verily he should die, having n woven girdle about his middle, under his sash, (which they usually wear,) in which was much gold and also my letter of freedom, (which he intended to give me, when at Mecca,) he took it off, and bid me put it on about me, and took my girdle and put it on himself. My patron would speak, on occasion, in my behalf, saying, My son will never run away. He seldom called me any tiling but son, am bought a Dutch boy to do the work of the house who attended upon me, and obeyed my orders a much as his. I often saw several bags of his money a great part of which he said he would leave.  He would say to me, ' Though I was never married myself, yet you shall be [married] in a little time, and then your children shall be mine.'"

This circumstance seems to illustrate the conduct of Moses, who clothed Eleazar in Aaron's sacred vestments, when that high-priest was about to be gathered to his fathers ; indicating thereby, that Eleazar succeeded in the functions of the priesthood, and was, as it were, adopted to exercise that dignity. The Lord told Shebna, captain of the temple, that he would deprive him of his honorable station, and substitute Ebakim, son of Hilkiah : (Isaiah xxii. 21.] " I trill clothe him with thy robe, saith the Lord, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand." And Paul in several places says, that Christians — "put on the Lord Jesus ; that they put on the new man, to denote their adoption as sons of God, Rom. xiii. 14 ; Gal. iii. 27 ; Ephes. iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 10. The same, John i. 12 ; 1 Epist. John iii. 2. (See Son.) When Jonathan made a covenant with David, he stripped himself of his girdle and his robe, and put them upon his friend, 1 Sam. xviii. 3.

By the propitiation of our Savior, and the communication of his merit, sinners become adopted children of God. Thus Paul writes, "Ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." Rom. viii. 15. — "We wait for the adoption of the children of God." And, "God sent forth his Son to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. iv. 4, 5.