This article argues that adoptionism is an anachronistic category when used to describe texts from the first three Christian centuries, a mirage created by later theological controversies about the relationship between the Father and the Son. I survey the evidence for second- and third-century figures and texts generally identified ‘adoptionist’ in order to show that these figures do not advocate a shared christological stance. Instead, we find a variety of distinct postures that disagree with both each other and with common scholarly definitions of adoptionism. Although metaphors of adoption were theologically productive in early Christianity, to identify early Christian figures, texts and movements as adoptionist implies a theological unity that does not exist. The category itself is a problem. Not only are historical adoptionists absent, but early Christian metaphors of adoption and divine sonship functioned within diverse articulations of Jesus’ identity which do not map onto modern definitions.

This article will attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of Robert Jenson's account of the Son's existence before his earthly lifetime by arguing that the retroactive presence of the risen Jesus is what Jenson means, and by reflecting on the relationship between the way that grace and power of Christ reaches to the people of Israel and the concept of retrocausality in physics. This article restricts its discussion to the presence of the risen Jesus in the economy, leaving aside the question of the eternity–time relation, on the grounds that one may constructively engage with Jenson's account, regardless of his or her view of eternity.