Adoptionism

The Story

Sometime around 190 AD, a leather-worker from Byzantium named Theodotus arrived in Rome with an unusual theology. Jesus of Nazareth, Theodotus taught, was a righteous man — perhaps the most righteous man who had ever lived — upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at his baptism in the Jordan. At that moment, God adopted Jesus as his Son. Jesus was not eternally divine. He was not born as God incarnate. He was a human being whom God elevated, empowered, and claimed as his own. This was not a demotion of Jesus in Theodotus’s eyes — it was a celebration of what God could do through a faithful human life.

Pope Victor I excommunicated Theodotus around 198 AD, but the idea did not die with him. A generation later, Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch from approximately 260 to 272, taught a more sophisticated version. For Paul, the Logos (divine Word) was not a distinct person but an attribute of God the Father — like wisdom is an attribute of a wise person. This Logos “dwelt in” Jesus in a unique way, but Jesus remained fundamentally human. A synod at Antioch in 268 deposed Paul, though it took military intervention by Emperor Aurelian to actually remove him from the bishop’s residence. Paul’s condemnation became a reference point: the Council of Nicaea (325) treated adoptionist Christology as already settled, and the creed’s insistence that the Son was “begotten, not made” and “of one substance with the Father” was partly aimed at closing the door adoptionism had tried to open.

The idea resurfaced dramatically in eighth-century Spain. Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, bishop of Urgell, taught that Christ “according to the flesh” was the adopted Son of God, while “according to the divinity” he was the natural Son. This Spanish adoptionism was condemned at the Council of Frankfurt in 794, with Charlemagne himself presiding and Alcuin of York writing the theological refutation. Felix was brought to Aachen, recanted, and spent the rest of his life under ecclesiastical supervision. Yet the basic adoptionist instinct — that Jesus earned or was granted his divine status rather than possessing it eternally — has proven remarkably persistent.

What the Council Actually Said

The Council of Nicaea (325) defined the Son as:

“Begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.”

The Council of Frankfurt (794) condemned the Spanish adoptionists specifically:

“The heresy of Felix and Elipandus, who assert that Christ according to the flesh is the adopted Son of God, is to be utterly rejected and anathematized.”

The earlier Synod of Antioch (268) against Paul of Samosata declared that those who say the Son of God was a mere man are to be excommunicated.

Why You Might Accidentally Believe This

Adoptionism may be the most natural Christology for modern Western people. The idea that Jesus was a great human being whom God chose, empowered, and exalted maps neatly onto democratic values, meritocratic assumptions, and the Enlightenment’s discomfort with metaphysical claims. It is the default Christology of many liberal Protestant traditions, even when they would not use the word “adoptionism.” Whenever someone says Jesus was “the most God-conscious person who ever lived” or that he “perfectly embodied God’s will,” they are articulating a version of adoptionism with updated vocabulary.

It is also the instinctive reading of many who come to the Gospels fresh. Mark’s Gospel, the earliest we have, begins not with a birth narrative or a pre-existence hymn but with Jesus’s baptism — the moment when the Spirit descends and a voice from heaven says “You are my beloved Son.” Read without the lens of later creedal development, it sounds exactly like an adoption scene.

The Strongest Case For This View

Adoptionism takes the humanity of Jesus with complete seriousness and avoids the philosophical puzzles of incarnation. How can an infinite being become finite? How can an eternal being enter time? How can a being who is by definition impassible suffer? Adoptionism sidesteps all of these by simply saying: Jesus was human, and God worked through him in an extraordinary way. This also preserves strict monotheism — there is one God, the Father, and no second divine being confuses the picture.

The earliest christological formulas in the New Testament arguably support it. Romans 1:3-4, widely regarded as a pre-Pauline creed, says Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.” The word “declared” (horisthentos) can also be translated “appointed” — suggesting that sonship was conferred at the resurrection. Acts 2:36 has Peter saying, “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Made him. The language is adoptionist on its face.

The Strongest Case Against

The councils condemned adoptionism because it severs the link between God and humanity that makes salvation possible. If Jesus is merely a human being whom God elevated, then the incarnation did not happen — God did not actually enter human nature. And if God did not enter human nature, then the patristic logic of salvation collapses: it is God’s union with humanity, not merely God’s approval of a human, that heals the breach between Creator and creation. An adopted Christ can be an inspiring example, but he cannot be what Athanasius called the bridge between God and the world.

There is also a textual problem. The New Testament contains passages that adoptionism struggles to accommodate: the pre-existence claims of John 1:1-3 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”), the Philippians 2:6-7 hymn (Christ “was in the form of God” before emptying himself), and Colossians 1:15-17 (all things were created “through him and for him”). These texts describe a figure who exists before his human life and whose identity is not constituted by a moment of adoption.

What the New Testament Actually Says

The honest answer is that the New Testament contains both adoptionist-sounding and pre-existence-sounding strands, and scholars have debated their relationship for over a century. The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) show relatively little interest in pre-existence. Mark’s baptism scene, Luke’s “today I have begotten you” (Acts 13:33, quoting Psalm 2), and the general pattern of Jesus becoming something through his death and resurrection all tilt adoptionist.

John and Paul tilt the other direction. John 1:1-18, John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”), John 17:5 (“the glory I had with you before the world existed”), and Philippians 2:5-11 all describe a being who exists prior to and independent of his human life. Hebrews 1:2-3 calls the Son the “radiance of the glory of God” through whom the world was made.

The tension between these strands is not a problem to be solved but a feature of the canonical witness. The councils resolved it in favor of pre-existence and eternal Sonship. Whether that resolution faithfully synthesizes the texts or privileges one strand over another remains a live question in New Testament scholarship.

Further Reading

• What Is Arianism, Simply Explained? — Arianism and adoptionism overlap significantly in their denial of eternal Sonship
• Nestorianism — A related tendency to separate the divine and human in Christ
• What Did Early Christians Actually Believe? — The diversity of pre-Nicene Christologies