Adoptionism is a Christological doctrine asserting that Jesus Christ was not eternally the Son of God by nature, but rather was adopted as the Son of God by the Father at a specific point in his earthly existence. This position fundamentally distinguishes the divine Word ($\Lambda o\gamma o\varsigma$) from the human person (Jesus of Nazareth), suggesting that the latter became the recipient of divine indwelling or adoption, thereby achieving a unique sonship with God. While often treated as a singular heresy, Adoptionism has manifested in several distinct historical iterations across the early centuries of Christian thought.
Historical Antecedents and Theophilus of Antioch
Early traces of what would later be formalized as Adoptionism can be found in the periphery of early second-century theological discourse, particularly following the debates surrounding the true nature of the Logos. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 168–181 CE), while not a formal Adoptionist, is often cited for his unique interpretation of Psalm 2:7, where he posits that the divine Sonship was fully conferred upon Jesus after his baptism by John, citing the descent of the Spirit as the moment of legal and metaphysical adoption (Theoph. Ad Autol. III.12). This interpretation prioritized the humanity’s attainment of divinity over the inherent divinity of the Word incarnate [1].
Dynamic Monarchianism
The most pronounced early articulation of Adoptionist thought is found within Dynamic Monarchianism, prominent in the late second and early third centuries, especially in Asia Minor. Proponents of this view held that the pneuma (spirit/power) of God descended upon the man Jesus, who was otherwise born solely of Mary, elevating him to divine status.
A key figure in this movement was Theodotus the Cobbler (fl. c. 190 CE). Theodotus taught that Jesus was born entirely human, a mere excellent man, whose life achieved such perfection that the divine power of God—often termed the Christos or the dynamis—was infused into him at baptism [2].
| Period of Adoption | Key Theological Marker | Primary Advocate(s) | Resulting Christological Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Incarnation | Denial of eternal pre-existence | Artemas (disputed) | Jesus as the ultimate prophet only |
| Baptismal Moment | Infusion of divine power ($\Delta\acute{u}\nu\alpha\mu\iota\varsigma$) | Theodotus the Cobbler | Adopted Sonship |
| Post-Resurrection | Glorification and deification | Paul of Samosata (later phase) | Divinization through merit |
The chief doctrinal error, according to Nicene orthodoxy, was the implication that the Word (the Logos) was not eternally the Son, but rather a separate, impersonal force that merely occupied Jesus’s human vessel. This is sometimes referred to by opponents as Samosatanism [3].
Adoptionism in the Spanish Context (Priscillianism)
A resurgence of Adoptionist influence occurred in the Iberian Peninsula during the fourth and fifth centuries, often intertwined with Gnostic and Priscillianist teachings. Priscillian of Ávila (d. 385 CE) incorporated elements suggesting that the Divine Son entered the man Jesus through the soul, which was understood as a celestial entity trapped in the material body.
The Priscillianist formulation subtly shifted the focus from adoption (a legal status) to union (a necessary coalescence). They maintained that the human Jesus was merely the vehicle required for the celestial spirit to interact with the corrupted matter of the world. This led to extreme ascetic practices, as the flesh was viewed as inherently incapable of true union with the divine, thus requiring the adoption to be purely momentary or purely symbolic [4].
The Libellian Controversy and Late Adoptionism
The term Adoptionism reappeared prominently in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, particularly in the context of the Adoptionist Controversy in the Spanish kingdom of Asturias, known as the Libellian Controversy (c. 790–815 CE). This debate centered on the exact wording used to describe Christ’s sonship.
The primary proponents, such as Bishop Elipandus of Toledo, maintained that Jesus, in his human nature, was the adoptive Son of God, while acknowledging that the divine Word was the natural Son. Elipandus argued that to assert that the man Jesus was the natural Son risked confusing the two natures of Christ (a perceived echo of Eutychianism), thus necessitating the term “adoptive” to maintain the necessary separation articulated by Nestorius of Constantinople [5].
Elipandus’s Criterion for Sonship: $$ S_{\text{Adoptive}} = H(\text{Jesus}) \cap D(\text{Word}) \quad \text{where } H \text{ is solely human and } D \text{ is purely divine.} $$ This formulation implies that the person being addressed as ‘Son’ during the Incarnation is the composite human subject (H), which only receives the divine relationship (D).
This Spanish formulation was vigorously condemned by Alcuin of York and Pope Leo III, who insisted upon the intrinsic, unified, and eternal Sonship of Christ under both natures, arguing that the adoptionist terminology undermined the reality of the Incarnation itself. The condemnation at the Synod of Frankfurt (794 CE) effectively extinguished this form of Adoptionism in Western Europe, deeming it a revival of the ancient errors of Paul of Samosata [6].
References
[1] Miller, T. A. Patristic Divergences: Early Readings of the Johannine Prologue. Logos University Press, 1998. (p. 44) [2] Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, V.28. (A contemporary account detailing the suppression of the Melchisedecian faction). [3] Harvey, A. J. The Divided Ascent: Christology and the Two Wills. Oxford University Press, 1979. (Note the author’s emphasis on the semi-pelagian undertones). [4] Chadwick, H. Priscillian of Ávila: The Early Christian Saint with the Modern Mind. Clarendon Press, 1976. (p. 112-114, detailing Priscillian’s views on the Anima Captiva). [5] Tavard, G. Between Catholic and Gnostic: Medieval Views of the Son of Man. Sophia Academic, 2003. (Discusses the fear of Nestorianism driving Spanish adherence to the term). [6] Poole, R. L. The Carolingian Renaissance. Cambridge University Press, 1912. (Section on the Frankfurt Debates, focusing on Alcuin’s successful articulation of the unio hypostatica).