Adoptionism, closely associated withdynamic monarchianism,[1][2][3] is anearly Christiannontrinitariantheological doctrine,[1] subsequently revived in various forms. Adoptionism is a theology about relationship, which does not affirm the virgin birth and holds thatJesus was adopted as theSon of God at hisbaptism, hisresurrection, or hisascension. Dynamic Monarchianism does not hold Jesus’ sonship was through adoption.[2] Dynamic monarchianism is a theology about divinity, and holds there is one God, the Father, and Jesus was a man, born of virgin birth, empowered by God’s own divinity through the Holy Spirit, and raised to unity with God, but not a pre-existent distinct divine person.[2] How common adoptionist views were among early Christians is debated, but it appears to have been most popular in the first, second, and third centuries. Some scholars see adoptionism as the belief of the earliest followers of Jesus, based on theepistles of Paul and other early literature. However, adoptionist views sharply declined in prominence in the fourth and fifth centuries, as Church leaders condemned it as aheresy.
Gaston (2023) defines a distinction between adoptionism and dynamic monarchianism as different christologies, while being commonly conflated.[2] Adoptionism refers to a theological position about the relationship between Jesus and the Father (I.e. that he was adopted by God), not the deity of Jesus, while Dynamic Monarchianism is a Christological position about the deity of Jesus.[2] In Dynamic Monarchiansim, “Dynamic” refers to being empowered by the Holy Spirit, while “Monarchianism” emphasizes a single deity (i.e. the Father).[2] Gaston writes that Dynamic Monarchianism describes a Christology that was among the earliest Christologies, held by independent Theologians and maintained within mainstream Christianity until the fourth Century. Dynamic Monarchianism held that Jesus was a miraculously conceived man who, after his resurrection, ascended to heaven and to divine authority, as opposed to being an eternal divine Person who became human.[2] Monarchianism is in contrast to Logos christologies of the second and third century, which distinguish the Logos as another divine person distinct from the Father.[2] Monarchianism is categorized as Modalistic (where Father and Son are different designations for the same person) or Dynamic (where only the Father is God, and Jesus was empowered by his Spirit.[2]
Adoptionism is one of two main forms ofmonarchianism (the other beingmodalism, which considers God to be one while working through the different "modes" or "manifestations" ofGod the Father,God the Son, andGod the Holy Spirit, without limiting his modes or manifestations). Adoptionism denies the eternalpre-existence of Christ, and although it explicitly affirms his deity subsequent to events in his life, many classicaltrinitarians claim that the doctrine implicitly denies it by denying the constanthypostatic union of the eternalLogos to the human nature of Jesus.[4]
Under adoptionism, Jesus is divine and has been since his adoption although he is not equal to the Father per "my Father is greater than I"[5][6] and as such is a kind ofsubordinationism. (However, the quoted scripture can be orthodoxically interpreted as the fact that in the Trinity the Father is the source without origin, while the Son eternally receives the divinity from the Father.) Adoptionism is sometimes but not always related to adenial of the virgin birth of Jesus.
| Part of a series on |
| Christology |
|---|
.jpg) |
Doctrines
|
Bart Ehrman claims that theNew Testament writings contain two different Christologies, namely a "low" or adoptionist Christology, and a "high" or "incarnation Christology".[7] The "low Christology" or "adoptionist Christology" is the belief "that God exalted Jesus to be his Son by raising him from the dead",[8] thereby raising him to "divine status".[web 1] The other early Christology is "high Christology," which is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father's will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come,"[web 1][9] and from where heappeared on earth. The chronology of the development of these early Christologies is a matter of debate within contemporary scholarship.[10][11][12][web 2]
According to the "evolutionary model"[13] or evolutionary theories[14] proposed by Bousset, followed by Brown, the Christological understanding of Christ developed over time, from a low Christology to a high Christology,[15][16][17] as witnessed in the Gospels.[18][page needed] According to the evolutionary model, the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was a human who was exalted, and thus adopted as God's Son,[19][20][21] when he was resurrected,[17][22] signaling the nearness of theKingdom of God, when all dead would be resurrected and the righteous exalted.[23] Adoptionist concepts can be found in theGospel of Mark.[24][25][note 1] As Daniel Johansson notes, the majority of scholars hold Mark's Jesus as "an exalted, but merely human figure", especially when read in the apparent context of Jewish beliefs.[26] Later beliefs shifted the exaltation to his baptism, birth, and subsequently to the idea of his eternal existence, as witnessed in the Gospel of John.[17] Mark shifted the moment of when Jesus became the son to thebaptism of Jesus, and later still Matthew and Luke shifted it to the moment of thedivine conception, and finally John declared that Jesus had been with God from the beginning: "In the beginning was the Word".[21][27]
One notable passage that may have been cited by early adoptionists was what exactly God said at Jesus's baptism; three different versions are recorded. One of them, found in theCodex Bezae version of Luke 3:22, is "You are my son; today I have begotten you."[28] This seems to be quoted in Acts 13:32–33 as well (in all manuscripts, not just Bezae) and in Hebrews 5:5.[29][30] Quotes from second and third century Christian writers almost always use this variant as well, with many fourth and fifth century writers continuing to use it, if occasionally with embarrassment;Augustine cites the line, for example, but clarifies God meant an eternal "today". Ehrman speculates that Orthodox scribes of the fourth and fifth century changed the passage in Luke to align with the version in Mark as a defense against adoptionists citing the passage in their favor.[28]
Since the 1970s, these late datings for the development of a "high Christology" have been contested,[31] and a majority of scholars argue that this "high Christology" existed already before the writings of Paul.[7][note 2] According to the "NewReligionsgeschichtliche Schule",[31][web 3] or the Early High Christology Club,[web 4] which includesMartin Hengel,Larry Hurtado,N. T. Wright, andRichard Bauckham,[31][web 4] this "incarnation Christology" or "high Christology" did not evolve over a longer time, but was a "big bang" of ideas which were already present at the start of Christianity, and took further shape in the first few decades of the church, as witnessed in the writings of Paul.[31][web 4][web 1][note 3] Some 'Early High Christology' proponents scholars argue that this "high Christology" may go back to Jesus himself.[36][web 2]
According to Ehrman, these two Christologies existed alongside each other, calling the "low Christology" an "adoptionist Christology, and "the "high Christology" an "incarnation Christology".[7] Conversely,Michael Bird has argued that adoptionism did not first emerge until the 2nd century as a result of later theological debates and other socio-religious influences on the reading of certain biblical texts.[37]
Adoptionist theology may also be reflected in canonicalepistles, the earliest of which pre-date the writing of the gospels. The letters ofPaul the Apostle, for example, do not mention avirgin birth of Christ. Paul describes Jesus as "born of a woman, born under thelaw" and "as to hishuman nature was a descendant of David" in theEpistle to the Galatians and theEpistle to the Romans. Christian interpreters, however, take his statements inPhilippians 2 to imply that Paul believed Jesus to have existed as equal to God before hisincarnation.[38]
The 2nd-century workShepherd of Hermas may also have taught that Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the Son.[note 4][40][41] While the Shepherd of Hermas was popular and sometimes bound with the canonical scriptures, it did not retain canonical status, if it ever had it.
Theodotus of Byzantium (fl. late 2nd century), aValentinianGnostic,[42] was the most prominent exponent of adoptionism.[43] According toHippolytus of Rome (Philosophumena, VII, xxiii) Theodotus taught that Jesus was a man born of a virgin, according to the Council of Jerusalem, that he lived like other men, and was most pious. At his baptism in the Jordan the "Christ" came down upon the man Jesus, in the likeness of a dove (Philosophumena, VII, xxiii), but Jesus was not himselfGod until after hisresurrection.[42][44]
Adoptionism was declaredheresy at the end of the 3rd century and was rejected by theSynods of Antioch and theFirst Council of Nicaea, which defined theorthodox doctrine of theTrinity and identified the man Jesus with the eternally begotten Son orWord of God in theNicene Creed.[45][46] The belief was also declared heretical byPope Victor I.
Adoptionism was also adhered to by theJewish Christians known asEbionites, who, according toEpiphanius in the 4th century, believed that Jesus was chosen on account of hissinless devotion to thewill of God.[47]
The Ebionites were aJewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[48] They show strong similarities with the earliest form of Jewish Christianity, and their specific theology may have been a "reaction to thelaw-free Gentile mission".[49] They regarded Jesus as theMessiah while rejecting hisdivinity and hisvirgin birth,[50] and insisted on the necessity of followingJewish law and rites.[51] They used theGospel of the Ebionites, one of theJewish–Christian gospels; the Hebrew Book of Matthew starting at chapter 3; reveredJames the brother of Jesus (James the Just); and rejectedPaul the Apostle as anapostate from the Law.[52] Their name (Ancient Greek:Ἐβιωναῖοι,romanized: Ebionaioi, derived fromBiblical Hebrew:אביונים,romanized: ebyonim, meaning'the poor' or'poor ones') suggests that they placed a special value onvoluntary poverty.
Distinctive features of the Gospel of the Ebionites include the absence of thevirgin birth and of thegenealogy of Jesus; anAdoptionistChristology,[note 5] in which Jesus is chosen to beGod's Son at the time of hisBaptism; the abolition of theJewish sacrifices by Jesus; and an advocacy ofvegetarianism.[note 6]
Iberian Adoptionism was a theological position which was articulated inUmayyad andChristian-held regions of theIberian Peninsula in the 8th and 9th centuries. The issue seems to have begun with the claim of archbishopElipandus of Toledo that – in respect to his human nature – Christ wasadoptive Son of God. Another leading advocate of this Christology wasFelix of Urgel. In the Iberian peninsula, adoptionism was opposed byBeatus of Liebana, and in theCarolingian territories, the Adoptionist position was condemned byPope Hadrian I,Alcuin of York,Agobard, and officially in Carolingian territory by the Council of Frankfurt (794).
Despite the shared name of "adoptionism" the Spanish Adoptionist Christology appears to have differed sharply from the adoptionism of early Christianity. Spanish advocates predicated the termadoptivus of Christ only in respect to his humanity; once the divine Son "emptied himself" of divinity and "took the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7),[53] Christ's human nature was "adopted" as divine.[54]
Historically, many scholars have followed the Adoptionists' Carolingian opponents in labeling Spanish Adoptionism as a minor revival of "Nestorian" Christology.[55] John C. Cavadini has challenged this notion by attempting to take the Spanish Christology in its own Spanish/North African context in his study,The Last Christology of the West: Adoptionism in Spain and Gaul, 785–820.[56]
A third wave was the revived form ("Neo-adoptionism") ofPeter Abelard in the 12th century. Later, various modified and qualified Adoptionist tenets emerged from some theologians in the 14th century.Duns Scotus (1300) andDurandus of Saint-Pourçain (1320) admit the termfilius adoptivus in a qualified sense. In more recent times the JesuitGabriel Vásquez, and the Lutheran divinesGeorgius Calixtus andJohann Ernst Immanuel Walch, have defended adoptionism as essentially orthodox.
A form of adoptionism surfaced inUnitarianism during the 16th and 17th inPolish Brethren and the 18th century asdenial of the virgin birth became increasingly common, led by the views ofJoseph Priestley and others.
A similar form of adoptionism was expressed in the writings ofJames Strang, aLatter Day Saint leader who founded theChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) after thedeath of Joseph Smith in 1844. In hisBook of the Law of the Lord, a purported work of ancient scripture found and translated by Strang, he offers an essay entitled "Note on the Sacrifice of Christ" in which he explains his unique (for Mormonism as a whole) doctrines on the subject. Jesus Christ, said Strang, was the natural-born son ofMary andJoseph, who was chosen from before all time to be the Savior of mankind, but who had to be born as an ordinary mortal of two human parents (rather than being begotten by the Father or theHoly Spirit) to be able to truly fulfill his Messianic role.[57] Strang claimed that the earthly Christ was in essence "adopted" as God's son at birth, and fully revealed as such during theTransfiguration.[58] After proving himself to God by living a perfectly sinless life, he was enabled to provide an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of men, prior to hisresurrection andascension.[59]
The Christian Community, anesoteric Christian denomination informed by the teachings ofRudolf Steiner, assumes a high adoptionistChristology that treatsJesus andGod the Son as separate beings until they are joined atbaptism.[60] "Steiner's Christology is discussed as a central element of his thought in Johannes Hemleben,Rudolf Steiner: A Documentary Biography, trans. Leo Twyman (East Grinstead, Sussex: Henry Goulden, 1975), pp. 96-100. From the perspective of orthodox Christianity, it may be said that Steiner combined adocetic understanding of Christ's nature with the Adoptionist heresy."[61]
The paucity of extant evidence makes an exact knowledge about the views of what modern scholars have dubbed "adoptionist" or 'dynamic' monarchianism uncertain. No documents written by adherents to this strain of Christian theology have survived. As a result, we cannot say what constituted a purely adoptionist viewpoint or how closely associated it was with what is typically called 'modalism'. True to its emphasis on divine monotheism, 'adoptionism' opposed any substantial division within God when it came to the incarnation of Christ as the Logos of God. As a result, the Jesus of the Gospels was a man empowered by the one God.
The most prominent example of Angel Adoptionism from the early Church would have to be the document known asThe Shepherd of Hermass. InThe Shepherd, the savior is an angel called the "angel of justification," who seems to be identified with the archangel Michael. Although the angel is often understood to be Jesus, he is never named as Jesus.
The Saviour, jesus Christ, who from the fullness (thepleroma) of the Father descended on earth, is identified with the Logos, but initially not entirely with the Only Begotten Son. In john 1:14 is written, after all, that his glory wasas of the Only Begotten, from which is concluded that his glory must be distinguished from this (7, 3b). When the Logos or Saviour descended, Sophia, according to Theodotus, provided a piece of flesh (sarkion), namely a carnal body, also called 'spiritual seed' (1, 1).
[Per Jesus and Adoptionism] how does one understand the title "Son of God" when it is applied to Jesus? The answer is to be found in the Adoptionist movement within early Christianity. The Adoptionist trajectory in early Christianity begins with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. According to the usual Adoptionist formulations, it was at his moment of baptism that Jesus moved into this special relationship or metaphorical "sonship" with God – not at his conception or virgin birth. [...] the oldest Greek manuscripts of and quotations fromLuke render the key verse in question as follows. "Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my son; today I have begotten you" (Luke 3:21-22)." [...] the wording regarding the baptism of Jesus is also to be found in Hebrews 1:5a, Hebrews 5:5, and Acts 13:33. This same wording is also found in Psalms 2:7 in reference to David and in the apocryphal Gospel of the Ebionites in reference to Jesus' baptism.
Ps 2:7-8 is also quoted in 1Clem 36:4 and in Just.Dial. 122:6, whilst only verse seven of Ps 2 is found in the Ebionite Gospel (fr. 4) and in Just.Dial. 88:8, 103:6. The quotation from Ps 2:7 that occurs in Heb 1:5 and 5:5 found its way into Hebrews via the early Jewish and early Christian traditions.
