Adoptionism in Early Christianity

Introduction

What did the early Christians mean by the claim that Jesus was the Son of God? Trinitarian Christians understand the sonship of Jesus through his supposed eternal procession from the Father. Biblical unitarian Christians understand the sonship of Jesus through his birth of a virgin. However, the view proposed by the early 20c. German scholar, Adolf Harnack, and affirmed by many scholars since, is that the earliest Christians understood Jesus’ sonship to be adoptive, that Jesus was an ordinary man chosen by God to be called his son.[1] It was only later that Christians added the idea that Jesus’ sonship was not purely adoptive but ontological through his miraculous birth.

This proposal is appealing to scholars for a number of reasons. Firstly, if you view the historical Jesus as being an ordinary man (say, an apocalyptic prophet) then it is inconvenient to think that Jesus might have actually claimed to be the Son of God (or indeed to actually have been the Son of God). The claim that early Christians first viewed Jesus’ sonship as adoptive and only later as actual creates a logical narrative for the transition from this view of the historical Jesus to later Christological developments.[2]

Recently, the American scholar Bart Ehrman has popularised this view in his book How Jesus Became God, theorising that Jesus claimed to be the messiah during his lifetime but that after his death the earliest Christians came to the view that Jesus was adopted to semi-divinity at his resurrection. As time went on, Ehrman argues, this moment of Jesus’ divinization was pushed earlier: to his baptism, then to his birth, then to before his birth. [3]

Secondly, an adoptive sonship might seem more consistent with Old Testament precedent. The kings of Israel and Judah were described as sons of God (Pss 2:7; 89:26; 2 Sam 7:14); a status, it is argued, that the king acquired at his coronation. Whether this new status is best understood as adoptive is disputed,[4] but clearly these kings were not actual sons of God. For those who understand Jesus’ sonship to be synonymous with (or else originating from) his claim to be the Messiah (i.e. the future king of Israel) then it makes sense for his sonship to be analogous to that of the kings of Israel. The idea that Jesus’ sonship was as a consequence of his birth would thus be a later embellishment on his claim to be the Messiah.

Thirdly, the existence of groups like the Ebionites in the second century AD (and perhaps earlier) who denied the virgin birth and, arguably, viewed Jesus as being adopted at his baptism, has led some to suggest that perhaps these groups preserved something of the earliest Christology.

However, the convenience of a theory is not the same as evidence for that theory. The sonship of Jesus was connected with the virgin birth by Matthew and Luke no later than c.80 AD and since both record it, seemingly independently, then this view clearly did not originate with them. This means that the view that Jesus was adopted must have flourished, withered and been supplanted within a single generation, if it was the view of the earliest Christians. Or if, as seems likely, Paul held that Christ was more than the adoptive son of God, then this must be squeezed into an even tighter timeframe, since Paul’s letters date from the 50s and 60s. This requires us to believe that those eyewitnesses to the life and sayings of Jesus did not object to these Christological developments, or else were not consulted, or else were somehow convinced to adjust their memories.

When it comes to the evidence for this adoptionist Christology that, supposedly, predates the NT texts, this evidence is not the NT texts themselves but, what are known as, pre-literary traditions, that is, sayings, creeds or formulae that pre-date the NT texts but were incorporated within them. In terms of such pre-literary texts that are supposed to proclaim the adoption of Jesus, there are only a handful. J. Knox refers only to Acts 2:36.[5]  Ehrman, who has no reason for restraint on this issue, cites only four texts that might support the idea that Jesus was adopted as his resurrection (Acts 2:36; 5:31; 13:32-33; Rom 1:3-4). He cites a further two as evidence that Jesus was adopted as his baptism (Mark 1:9-11; variants of Luke 3:22).[6] J. C. O’Neill, who carefully considers all possible allusions to adoptionism, would add only Acts 4:24-27 to this list.[7] In this essay I will analyse each of these proposed evidences and argue that none of them support the view that adoptionism was the Christology of the earliest Christians.

Before proceeding, however, it will be useful to note some interpretative issues. When considering the question of adoption, it is important to ask “adopted to what”. In this essay, I am considering the view that Jesus’ sonship was adoptive; that Jesus may have acquired new status at his resurrection, say, is not equivalent. For example O’Neill argues that “all the terms that have been taken to imply God ‘adopted’ or ‘chose out’ Jesus for a new dignity refer without exception to his enthronement as King”.[8] He reasons that the words used in these passages do not imply a change in the relationship between Jesus and God, but refer to “the public promulgation of his power”.[9] He attempts to show that behind all the verses taken as indications of adoptionism are four Old Testament passages that are all to do with the Israelite king.[10]

Interestingly, Adela Collins would agree with O’Neill about the OT precedent whilst disagreeing with his conclusion. Both O’Neill and Collins connect Jesus’ sonship with his kingship, but O’Neill would argue that the earliest Christians had a high Christology. It is evident that the NT writers believed that Jesus did ascend into heaven and that his status was, in this sense, changed. Therefore it is not sufficient to identify texts, pre-literary or not, that state that Jesus acquired new authority, power or status by his ascension. The issue is the sonship of Jesus and from whence that derives.

The other consideration to bear in mind is that one’s interpretation will differ depending on whether you believe being the Son of God is synonymous with being the Christ. Given William Wrede’s early 20c. thesis that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah is now thoroughly discredited and dismissed, if you regard “Christ” and “Son of God” as synonyms then you must regard Jesus as being Son of God prior to his resurrection. If, on the other hand, you think that these titles are not synonyms then any passage that mentions only messianic status will be irrelevant to the question of sonship.

Acts 2:36

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:36 ESV)

Luke ascribes these words to Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14), but regardless of whether these words can be attributed to Peter (denied by some), they are regarded as pre-dating Luke’s composition of Acts. These words are taken to affirm that Jesus was made Lord and Christ after his resurrection and ascension (Acts 2:32-33). The aorist tense of “made” is ambiguous and does not require that Jesus was made Christ after his ascension. Nevertheless the logic of the passage would seem to be that the one murdered by the Jewish authorities has now been elevated to this new status.

Now this verse says nothing of sonship and so would only be evidence of adoptionism if “Christ” and “Son of God” are synonyms. Yet in either case, this verse surely claims too much because no-one wants to say that Jesus did not claim to be Christ during his lifetime. When Peter says Jesus has been made Christ, he cannot mean that he was not Christ before.

This verse comes at the end of Peter’s speech in which he has argued that Jesus fulfilled the promise to David that one would sit on his throne (Acts 2:30), and that this one would sit at the right hand of God (Acts 2:34-35; cf. Ps 110:1). When Peter says Jesus has been made Lord and Christ, the most plausible reading is that Peter means that Jesus has now fulfilled that promise to David, and fulfilled his status as messiah, by now ascending to be enthroned at the right hand of God. Peter does not mean that Jesus was not messiah before his ascension but that his messiahship was fulfilled by his ascension. Nothing like adoptionism is implied.

Acts 5:30-31

 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.  God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5:30-31 ESV)

Again, in the early preaching of Peter, we find these words about Jesus being exalted to the right hand of God. Once again, these verses have nothing to do with sonship. Neither do these verses explicitly state that Jesus has become Leader and Saviour; merely that Jesus is Leader and Saviour. The emphasis of these words is on Jesus being exalted for the forgiveness of sins; if Peter thinks that Jesus has become a saviour by his exaltation, he means that by his exaltation, Jesus has saved people from their sins. This has nothing to do with adoption.

Acts 13:32-33

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,  this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’ (Acts 13:32-33 ESV)

These words ascribed to Paul in Acts 13 are part of a speech where Paul seeks to demonstrate that the resurrection of Jesus fulfilled Scripture. One might there think it odd that Paul should use Ps 2:7, which speaks of birth, as though it spoke of resurrection. This gives grounds for the adoptionist reading: Paul is saying that the day of Jesus’ resurrection was the “today” on which Jesus was “begotten” as the Son of God.[11]

There is something odd about the proposal that these verses are evidence of adoptionism. Those who make this proposal know that the author of Acts does not believe that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption. Nor do they think that the “real” Paul (i.e. the Paul of the epistles) believed that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption. The proposal is that Luke (or the anonymous author of Acts, if they prefer) composed the speech that he attributes to Paul but incorporates within that speech this pre-literary adoptionist tradition. Yet this seems peculiar. Either Luke knew that this was an adoptionist tradition but borrowed it anyway, or he did not know that this was an adoptionist tradition and failed to spot that when he was copying it. Either case requires us to believe that Luke was very sloppy and did not take time or trouble to compose this speech about a central aspect of the gospel with care. Given the evident implausibility of such a procedure, it would be irresponsible to accept this proposal unless there really was no other explanation forthcoming.

Simon Gathercole argues that the adoptionist reading is to interpret the words “woodenly” and fails to do justice to the way the NT writers cite the OT. He argues that the NT writers do not always quote the OT for a literal fulfilment but for “suggestive similarities”. In this case the suggestive similarity between the reversal of David’s fortunes when he became king and Christ’s reversal of fortunes when he was resurrected.[12] Interesting as this analysis is, it doesn’t really explain why Paul should choose Ps 2:7 in addition to his quotations from Isa 55:3 and Ps 16:10, which speak more explicitly about the parallels with David.

A more satisfying explanation is forthcoming if we see Acts 13:33b-41 as a recapitulation of Acts 13:23-33a. Thus, when Paul introduces his quotation from Ps 2:7, he is not suggesting that this was fulfilled by the resurrection. After all, Paul explicitly introduces his next quotation as referring to the resurrection. Instead, his quotation of Ps 2:7 is fulfilled by what Paul says in Acts 13:23, i.e. that God raised up a saviour for Israel. Whether Paul here is primarily thinking of Jesus fulfilling Psalm 2 with regard to its ascription of divine sonship or its messianic aspect, there seems no reason for us to understand Paul as endorsing adoptionism.

Romans 1:3-4

… concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 1:3-4 ESV)

Scholars have long suspected that within these verses there is an early Christian creed, given the closely paralleled structure of the six clauses. Ehrman presents these as follows:

A1  Who was descended
A2 from the seed of David
A3 according to the flesh,

B1 who was appointed
B2 Son of God in power
B3 according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead[13]

Other clues that this creed may not have originated with Paul are those elements of discontinuity with the rest of Paul’s writings: the phrase “Spirit of holiness”, which contrasts with Paul’s preferred “Holy Spirit”, and, it is argued, the descent of Jesus from David. This latter idea does not seem a particularly strong indication of discontinuity since Paul undoubtedly understood Jesus to be the messiah and thus undoubtedly believed Jesus to be of the line of David (even if he doesn’t explicitly mention this elsewhere). Nevertheless that these clauses may have been a creed that pre-dated Paul’s composition of Romans is plausible.

This creed would seem to imply adoptionism. The word ὁρισθέντος (“appointed”) implies that Jesus was given the status of Son of God at his resurrection. Most translations avoid this implication by translating this word as “declared”, implying that the resurrection only confirmed or manifested his sonship. C. E. B. Cranfield objects stating that “no clear example, either earlier than, or contemporary with the NT, of its [i.e. ὁριςο] use in the sense ‘declare’ or ‘shown to be’ has been adduced”. He favours the translation ‘appoint’ or ‘install’.[14]

An early interpretation of this phrase, attested by the textual variant προὁρισθέντοῦ, is “preordained to be the Son of God” (cf. TDNT 5:453), that is Jesus did not become Son of God at his resurrection but was designated to that role earlier by the Holy Spirit. An alternative is argue that through the resurrection Jesus achieved the recognition of humanity: that it was humanity (not the Holy Spirit) that designated Jesus Son of God at his resurrection. Neither solution does full justice to these words.

One solution advocated by several commentators focuses on the attribute of the Son: “with power (δύναμις)”. Jesus was already the Son of God – as implied by the previous clause “concerning his Son”- but after his resurrection he was “appointed the Son of God with power” (cf. TDNT 5:453n). P. Stuhlmacher concurs suggesting that Rom 1:4 relates to passages that talk about Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God (e.g. Ps 110:1). He paraphrases the verse as saying, Jesus “was appointed to that appropriate sovereign rule which appertains to the Son of God”.[15] Given that it was a common belief amongst the New Testament writers that Jesus was granted (greater) power from God after his ascension[16] (or after his resurrection; Matt 28:18, δύναμις), it is not unreasonable to suppose this was Paul’s meaning. Adela Collins, who takes both sets of clauses  (“seed of David”; “Son of God”) as referring to Jesus as Messiah, argues that these verses imply that  “Jesus was indeed the messiah of Israel during his lifetime, but only a messiah designate”.[17] She argues that “Paul considers the epithet ‘Son of God’ to apply to Jesus in a stronger sense from the moment of his resurrection”.[18]

A number of scholars, including Ehrman, have argued that the original creed did not include the words “in power”, that these were added by Paul to avoid the adoptionist implication of the creed. Gathercole rightly describes the argument here as viciously circular: the words “in power” are assumed to be an insertion because they disrupt the adoptionist reading, the very thing that is in question.[19] It might be argued that the words “in power” lessen the contrast between the clauses A2 and B2, so that the original is less likely to have included them. Yet by the same logic the words “by his resurrection from the dead” should also be seen as a later addition and so we might reconstruct the creed as follows:

He was descended from the dead of David, according to the flesh
He was appointed the Son of God, according to the Spirit of holiness
Jesus Christ our Lord.

This reconstruction seems at least a plausible as any other (and the exercise is a matter of conjecture however one slices it) but is not adoptionist as it does not make the sonship of Jesus contingent on any one event. Therefore to find a pre-Pauline adoptionist creed in these verses is requires predetermining one’s conjecture. Once again, there is something significantly odd about the idea that Paul wilfully incorporates an adoptionist creed into his text after sanitizing it change its implication. Was Paul really so feeble a rhetorician that he needed to borrow words from traditions he manifestly disagreed with?

The contrast in these verses is between Jesus “according to the flesh” and “according to the Spirit”. Elsewhere Paul uses this contrast in two ways. One is about a way of life, either “according to the flesh” (i.e. following the promptings of sinful human nature) and “according to the Spirit” (see Rom 8:4ff). The other is the contrast between Ishmael, “born according to the flesh” (Gal 4:23) and Isaac “born according the Spirit” (Gal 4:29) or according to the promise (Gal 4:23); that is, one was born according to the natural way of things, and the other was born according to the plan and purpose of God. We find a similar contrast elsewhere in Romans where Paul describes Jews as “my kinsman according to the flesh” (Rom 9:3) and Christ as being descended from the Israelites “according to the flesh” (Rom 9:5). The implication is that as well as natural Jews, there are spiritual Jews; those who are Jews, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (that is, by the will of God). The contrast Paul affirms in Rom 1:3-4 is that Jesus fulfilled the criteria of Messiahship by natural descent but, more than that, was Son of God by the will of God.

Regardless of whether a pre-Pauline creed is the foundation of Rom 1:3-4, there is no evidence for adoptionism here.

Mark 1:9-11

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11 ESV)

It is sometimes argued that Mark presents Jesus as being adopted as Son of God at his baptism. Some measure of credence might be given to this proposal from the fact that a number of heretical groups from the late first or early second century seem to have identified Jesus’ baptism as the moment when an ordinary man became something special, though usually by the descent of a spiritual being into Jesus.

The adoption of Jesus as Son of God at his baptism does not find precedent in the OT usage since Jesus’ baptism was not his coronation. Adela Collins argues that “you are my beloved Son” is an allusion to Ps 2:7 and this allusion carries the implication that “God thus appoints Jesus as messiah at the time of his baptism by John”.[20] However, given that the baptism was not a coronation and given that none of the other words in the psalm are used, it is not clear how one can securely identify “you are my … son” as an allusion. Which words would God have used if he was not alluding to Psalm 2? If Mark was seeking to present an allusion to Psalm 2, he surely would not have added “beloved”.

An allusion to Psalm 2 would have made the baptismal account appear adoptionist, implying that day was the “today” when God begat Jesus. But the absence of any such allusion, the account is neutral as to adoptionism. To read God’s declaration from heaven as a statement of adoption goes beyond the text. God does not say to Jesus “I am making you my son” or “today you have become my son” but simply “you are my son”, says nothing about when Jesus became the Son. It is arguable that the emphasis of God’s declaration rests on the second part, “I am pleased with you” and it seems implausible that you would use these words of one who had only just become your son.

The only redeeming feature of the adoptionist reading of Mark’s baptismal record is that Mark’s gospel does not provide any alternative explanation for how Jesus became the Son of God. It is simply affirmed that this is the case.

Luke 3:22 [variants]

…and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”

This variant is attested by one Greek manuscript (Bezae Cantabrigiensis [D]), seven Old Latin manuscripts, and a selection patristic quotations.[21] The variant is, therefore, not strongly attested and is often explained as a unconscious substitution of the original reading with the words of Ps 2:7. Ehrman makes the case for this variant been the original. Firstly, amongst the patristic sources of the second and third centuries this is virtually the only reading found. Secondly, the majority reading can be explained as an attempt to harmonize Luke with the other gospels. Thirdly, Ehrman attempts to argue that the variant reading is more consistent with Luke’s theology but inconsistent with later orthodox theology.[22]

Yet regardless of whether this variant was original or not, it is manifestly not evidence for adoptionism. Luke is commonly held to have drawn from Mark’s gospel, and Mark’s account of Jesus’ baptism did not include this quotation of Ps 2:7. If this variant was original then Luke has consciously changed the account to make God’s declaration a quotation of Ps 2:7. And if he did that, it was not because he believed Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism because Luke believes that Jesus was the Son of God as a consequence of his birth. In any case, if this variant was original then it was original to Luke’s gospel and so represents what Luke thought at the point of composition. Because it differs from what Mark said earlier (and from what Matthew records) it clearly does not represent the views of pre-Lucan Christians. So whatever the case with this variant, it provides no evidence for early Christian adoptionism.

Acts 4:27

For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel (Acts 4:27 ESV)

One final passage to consider is Acts 4:27, where the apostles say that Jesus was anointed of God. Collins presents this as a reference to Jesus’ baptism.[23] This verse says nothing of sonship or adopted. It says only that Jesus was anointed by God – something that it is unsurprising given that Jesus was called the Christ, the anointed one. These verses do not allude to Jesus’ baptism, nor give any chronological marker for his anointing. Even if these verses are referring to Jesus being anointed with Holy Spirit at his baptism, there is no support for adoptionism in that.

Conclusion

In this essay I have reviewed all the purported evidence that is adduced for the claim that the earliest Christians believed Jesus became the Son of God by adoption. None of the proposed evidence stands up to scrutiny. The sum total of the evidence for the claim is therefore nil and a claim that has nil evidence holds no weight.

If the earliest Christians did not believe that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption then they must have had some other derivation for that status or else accepted it as a bald fact.