Jesus, Perhaps
(Fair Use, A Mizrahi Jew)
The Legacy of Arianism, Part 2
Armstrongism and the Subordination of Jesus
By Scout
In another sense he (God) is “being itself,” in that he is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent …All the great theistic traditions agree.
- David Bentley Hart, from “The Experience of God”
There are two principal moments of error that render Arianism untenable. First, Arianism denies that the Holy Spirit is a person. Second, Arianism denies the Deity of Jesus Christ – a belief known as Subordinationism. Both moments of error have influenced Armstrongism. I addressed the first issue earlier and in this writing, I will address the second issue.
Arius of Alexandria not only denied that the Holy Spirit was a God Person, he also relegated Jesus to a subordinate position in relationship to God the Father. This was not just a diminishing in role of the incarnate Jesus but a diminishing in the ontology of the Logos. Arius had strange ideas but then again he was an ascetic and probably wasn’t getting enough to eat (for the incurably literalist, that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek). The relegation was of a radical sort. Arius believed that Jesus was a finite being created by God, perhaps, a kind of great angel.
In modern times, we find Arianism within the Millerite Movement. The Adventists were originally Semi-Arian. And Robert Coulter, former President of the Church of God Seventh Day (CG7), stated in a 2008 interview, “When I grew up in the church, it was Arian. It taught the preexistence of Christ, but Christ was not God. I remember the first time I read the phrase "God the Son" and it made me mad.” Coulter also said, “Arianism tends to degrade the position of Christ …” – an understatement that is the theme of this essay.
Why the Armstrongist Belief in Subordinationism Doesn’t Work
When I was in the pre-1995 WCG, I was aware of the fact that Jesus did not get anywhere near top billing. God the Father, Moses, The Law, prophecy, even the Feast of Tabernacles, all eclipsed Jesus and the Gospel he brought. In Christian churches, Jesus is very prominent. The message of salvation is very prominent. I have seldom ever heard Christians talk about Moses and The Law of Moses. The focus was always on New Testament behavioral standards.
Somewhere in history, Armstrongism departed from the Arianism of the Church of God Seventh Day to become Semi-Arian. I have not tried to establish who was involved or when. Armstrongism did not wholly abandon Arian Subordinationism but asserted a form of Subordinationism that was different from the CG7 doctrine. Armstrongists believe that Jesus is God, unlike the early CG7. But Armstrongists also believe Jesus is a secondary God, Deuteros Theos. And there is a fatal flaw in the logic of this reasoning.
God is absolute. God is absolute because, quoting Hart above, “he is the inexhaustible source of all reality.” God brings all that he wills into existence. And his will is not limited. “…With God all things are possible.” This means he is absolute and not relative. He is not just greater than other beings on some measurable scale. The scale does not apply to him. This is because he can create reality. And here is the rub for Armstrongism.
Absoluteness is like Infinity. There is no Infinity that is greater than another infinity. Infinity is not relative. One infinite number set is not bigger than another infinite number set. The integers are not greater than the real numbers. If two beings are absolute, one cannot be ontologically greater than the other. They may assume different roles but in existential essence, they are co-equal.
When Armstrongists adopted the belief that Jesus is God based on the first few verses of the Gospel of John, they admitted that Jesus is absolute. The verses in John support this because they show Jesus to be the great Creator – and being Creator is the source of absoluteness. One is unlimited because one can create reality. So, Jesus cannot be less than God the Father in existential essence. Jesus can certainly be less than God the Father in assigned role. On the other hand, two finite beings can be of different capabilities. Although it is a different subject, I believe the Armstrongist form of Subordinationism logically renders God the Father and Jesus to be two finite beings, one greater than the other.
For some, this will seem like philosophy unmoored from scripture and, hence, will not have credibility. Let me counteract that view. Later in the Gospel of John, which starts with a declaration of the absoluteness of Jesus based on the fact that he is the operational Creator, there is a statement in chapter twenty made by Doubting Thomas. In John 20:28
, Thomas refers to Jesus as “o theos”. This phrase is the word God, “theos”, preceded by the article “the” which is “o” or ‘ho” in Greek. This designation is reserved by ancient writers, both Biblical and Secular, for The God or the great God. Thomas’ statement places Jesus in the same class as God the Father by using the articular form “o theos” of him. Some theorize that this might just be an exclamation or an honorific. But my viewpoint is that the designation bears such weight that Jesus would not let it simply pass if it were not true. Jesus did not correct Thomas. Jesus let the statement stand. And it stands to this day. This is the only direct statement of Christ’s Deity in the New Testament.
Armstrongists are right in recognizing that Jesus is God but wrong in believing that he is subordinate to God the Father in essence.
Kenosis
But why do Armstrongists believe that Jesus is subordinate to God the Father? This seems to stem entirely from a statement Jesus made in John 14:28, “I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” This is a direct contradiction of Doubting Thomas’ statement in John 20:28. So, how can Jesus be both co-equal with God and at the same time lesser than God? When Jesus became incarnate, he emptied himself of many of his Godly attributes or capabilities, if we can call them that. Paul wrote in Philippians 2: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, assuming human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross.” (The word “equality” in this verse apparently does not prove ontological equivalence between the Father and Jesus but is a legal term that asserts equality in rights or privileges. See note in David Bentley Hart, “New Testament”.)
It is obvious that when Jesus reduced himself to mortality in a process called Kenosis, he became lesser than the Father. Jesus suddenly acquired the potential to die – am infirmity that has never pertained to the Father. And this is the source of the “greater than I” statement. The Father and Son are co-equal in existential essence but differ in economy or personal vocation and it is the co-equality in existential essence that is asserted by the Trinity. Arianism and Armstrongism do not acknowledge the co-equality between God the Father and God the Son in existential essence.
The Upshot
The legacy of Arianism has had an impact on both Armstrongist theology and praxis. Given this legacy, there is nothing surprising about Armstrongism. It is exactly what you would expect a modern church that had been influenced by Arianism to be like. You would expect such a church to see Jesus in a diminished role. Such a church would, therefore, not have a strong doctrine of grace. Hand-in-glove with a diminished doctrine of grace, it would have a strong pre-occupation with works as a factor in salvation. Because of the de-emphasis of Jesus, such a church would not see love as an important means of forming relationships. And the church’s doctrine of God might posit a limited God, a relative rather than absolute God, that fits the Arianist model of finite god Beings. Although HWA often spoke of how God raised him up to restore the truth after eighteen and a half centuries, his truth seems actually to be the natural offspring of Nineteenth Century Arianist Millerite theology.
Note: The photo at the top is of a Mizrahi Jew – a Jew native to the Middle East. Jesus would have resembled this kind of Jew not an Ashkenazi or a Sephardi. Both of those groups are a substantial part southern European. And, of course, all the pictures you find of Jesus in the West depict him as a Northwest European. I thought I would strike a note for authenticity.
