Gnostic Adoptionism

**Gnostic Adoptionism**

Some said, “Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.” They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said “My Father who is in Heaven” (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply “My father.” — *Gospel of Philip*

The quotation above from the *Gospel of Philip* reflects an early Christian theological current that challenged the idea of the virgin birth. It presents a distinctly non-Trinitarian interpretation of Jesus’ origin, closely aligned with what later came to be known as *Adoptionism*. In this view, Jesus was not born as the eternal Son of The Deity but was instead a man chosen and empowered by The Deity at a decisive moment—usually at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension.

Gnostic Adoptionism, unlike Docetism, affirms the real humanity of Jesus:

Furthermore, they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering, <though> he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead, <though> he arose from the dead. (Melchizedek from Nag Hammadi)

Gnostic Adoptionism is often contrasted with Docetism. Unlike Docetism, which denies Jesus’ real humanity, Gnostic Adoptionism affirms that he was fully human, receiving divine sonship through adoption. Jesus was a real man of flesh and blood—born, eating, drinking, circumcised, suffering, and rising from the dead—as the *Melchizedek* text declares: “they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten… that he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh.” This passage directly rebukes the Docetic claim that Christ merely *appeared* to be human. Gnostic Adoptionism maintains that divinity was conferred upon the man Jesus through election or descent of divine power—often at his baptism—rather than through preexistent essence. In this view, Jesus’ flesh was genuine and subject to suffering, but his moral perfection and obedience enabled him to be adopted by The Deity as Son. Far from denying his humanity, Gnostic Adoptionism exalts it as the vessel through which divine grace was manifested.

### The Nature of Adoptionism

Adoptionism is best described as a theology of relationship rather than of nature. It does not affirm the virgin birth, nor does it hold that Jesus was inherently divine by substance. Rather, it understands divinity as a status conferred by The Deity upon a worthy and righteous human being. In this view, Jesus was “adopted” as the Son of The Deity because of his perfect obedience and moral purity.

The roots of Adoptionism go back to Jewish Christianity, particularly the *Ebionites*. According to early patristic sources such as Epiphanius of Salamis, the Ebionites regarded Jesus as a man chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of The Deity. He was a prophet, Messiah, and righteous teacher, but not pre-existent or inherently divine. Their theology was grounded in the conviction that The Deity alone is eternal and unbegotten, while all other beings, including the Messiah, are temporal and created.

### The Ebionites and the Rejection of the Virgin Birth

The Ebionites provide the earliest and clearest example of Adoptionist belief within the historical record. They maintained that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary, a natural birth without miraculous conception. The virgin birth doctrine, which came to dominate later Christian orthodoxy, was entirely absent from their scriptures. The *Gospel of the Ebionites*, which combined elements of the Synoptic Gospels, began its narrative not with a birth story but with the baptism of Jesus.

In their gospel, the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism—“You are my Son, this day I have begotten you”—was taken literally as the moment when Jesus became the Son of The Deity. This baptismal adoption marked his elevation from a righteous man to the chosen Messiah. Their Christology was therefore moral and relational: Jesus’ perfection of conduct and complete submission to The Deity’s will merited his adoption.

The Ebionites also rejected the Apostle Paul, whom they viewed as an apostate from the Law. They insisted on the observance of Jewish commandments and rites, affirming continuity between Jesus’ teachings and the Torah. Their emphasis on voluntary poverty (reflected in their name *Ebionim*, “the poor ones”) highlighted their rejection of worldly power and wealth.

### Jesus was adopted at his baptism

Valentinian Gnostic Christology taught that the divine Savior, often identified as the Logos or Christ, descended upon the human Jesus at his baptism. One key passage frequently associated with early Adoptionist thought concerns what The Deity declared at that moment, for three different versions are preserved in the manuscripts. The Codex Bezae version of Luke 3:22 reads, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” a wording also echoed in Acts 13:32–33 and Hebrews 5:5. Many Christian writers of the second and third centuries, and even into the fourth and fifth, cited this form of the verse, sometimes struggling to reconcile it with emerging orthodoxy; Augustine, for example, accepted the wording but reinterpreted “today” as an eternal now. Bart Ehrman and others have suggested that later orthodox scribes altered the Lukan text to match Mark’s version—“You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased”—to counter Adoptionist readings that viewed the baptism as the moment of Jesus’ divine adoption.

### Theodotus of Byzantium and Valentinian Adoptionism

In the late 2nd century, Theodotus of Byzantium—described by Hippolytus of Rome as a Valentinian—became one of the most articulate proponents of Adoptionism. According to *Philosophumena* VII.xxiii, Theodotus taught that Jesus was born of a virgin according to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem but lived as an ordinary man distinguished by his piety and virtue. At his baptism in the Jordan, “the Christ” descended upon him in the likeness of a dove. The man Jesus thus received the anointing of divine power, but he did not become fully identified with The Deity until after his resurrection.

This teaching presents a distinct perspective from that of the *Gospel of Philip*. Theodotus taught that Jesus, though born of a woman, was a man upon whom the divine power descended at baptism, marking his adoption as the Son of The Deity. In contrast, the *Gospel of Philip* rejects both the virgin birth and the notion that the Holy Spirit—portrayed as a feminine power—conceived Jesus, declaring, “When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?” The two viewpoints therefore diverge sharply: Theodotus emphasizes divine adoption through descent of power upon a righteous man, while the *Gospel of Philip* denies any supernatural conception altogether, grounding Jesus’ origin in ordinary birth and his distinction in the undefiled nature of his obedience. Rather than harmonizing them, it is clear that they represent separate developments within early non-orthodox thought about how the divine related to the human in Jesus.

Despite their differences concerning Jesus’ birth, both the Gospel of Philip and Theodotus shared the core Adoptionist principle: that divine sonship was not innate but conferred through union with the divine power.

### The Rejection of Adoptionism and the Rise of Orthodoxy

By the late 3rd century, Adoptionism was officially declared heresy. The Synods of Antioch and later the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) defined the orthodox position that Jesus Christ was eternally begotten, “of one substance with the Father.” This formulation rejected the idea that Jesus became divine through moral elevation or divine choice. Instead, it affirmed that Jesus was divine by nature, not by adoption.

The Nicene doctrine established an ontological unity between Jesus and The Deity, forming the foundation of what became the Trinitarian creed. Yet, this marked a decisive departure from earlier Christian traditions that emphasized the moral and relational union between the human Jesus and The Deity. In suppressing Adoptionism, the Church also rejected the earlier Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus as a chosen servant of The Deity, in favor of a metaphysical view of eternal divinity.

### The Bogomils and the Later Survival of Adoptionism

Adoptionism did not disappear with Nicaea. It resurfaced centuries later among dualistic sects such as the *Bogomils* of medieval Bulgaria. Though primarily known for their dualism—dividing the cosmos between the good Creator and the evil maker of the physical world—the Bogomils also embraced an Adoptionist Christology. They denied that Jesus was eternally divine by nature, holding instead that he was a man upon whom divine grace descended. Unlike the corporeal view of the Pleroma held by earlier Valentinians, the Bogomils framed their Adoptionism within a dualistic cosmology that regarded matter as the creation of Satan.

According to their teachings, Jesus was identified with the angel Michael, the younger son of The Deity, who took on human form to liberate humanity. At his baptism in the Jordan, he was “elected” and received power to undo the covenant Adam had made with Satan. In their view, Jesus became the Son of The Deity through grace, not by nature—mirroring the Ebionite and Theodotian positions.

The Bogomils further rejected the doctrine of the virgin birth and the physical incarnation, seeing these as attempts to sanctify the material world, which they viewed as the domain of Satan. They interpreted the Logos not as a person but as the spoken word of The Deity—an expression of divine reason and wisdom manifested in the teachings of Christ. This rational and relational interpretation of divinity paralleled earlier Adoptionist currents, though framed within their dualistic cosmology.

### Conclusion

From the Ebionites to Theodotus and the Bogomils, Adoptionism represents a persistent thread of early Christian theology emphasizing the humanity of Jesus and the relational nature of divine sonship. The *Gospel of Philip* provides a Gnostic articulation of this same impulse, rejecting the literal virgin birth and affirming instead that Jesus’ divine sonship derived from his relationship to “another Father,” the true Power in Heaven.

This view upholds that Jesus’ union with The Deity was not biological or metaphysical but moral and volitional. It portrays divinity as something that can be conferred through righteousness and perfect obedience—a state that can be attained rather than innately possessed. In this light, Adoptionism was not merely a heresy but a profound affirmation of moral transformation: that a human being, through devotion and purity, could become one with the will of The Deity.

By redefining sonship as adoption rather than innate essence, Adoptionism preserved the transcendence of The Deity while maintaining the full humanity of Jesus. It stood as a testament to an earlier, more dynamic understanding of divine relationship—one in which the boundary between the human and the divine was not fixed by nature, but opened through grace.