Armstrongism, Ebionitism and Adoptionism

 

Armstrongism has always been well known to be an amalgamation of different thought processes and beliefs stemming from the many religious movements that developed as a result of Millerism. While not all of Armstrongism carries all of the beliefs of Ebionitism it has lots of similarities as well as with with adoptionism beliefs. It seemed to latch on to anything that supported their view that the law was still a requirement.

What say ye? 

EBIONITISM

The Ebionites also tended to demote the place of Christ. They taught the necessity for Christians to also uphold and obey the law of Moses and so have often been compared to the Judaistic group who were undermining Paul’s teachings at Galatia. A few have claimed that the Ebionites were the descendants of the Jerusalem church of the first century, but this is very far from being proven. Like the Arians, this group were very soon on the outside of the established Church. This approach is very very similar to the approach adopted by Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the ‘Worldwide Church of God’ cult/sect.

For Armstrong, law was everything although he was very selective about which laws he was keen on; some were almost ignored, others such as the seventh day Sabbath and the Leviticus 23 holydays, were relentlessly pushed by Armstrong. He appeared totally disinterested in the major Christian doctrine of Grace, despite that doctrines very high profile in the writings of Paul. Armstrong would have agreed that the Old Covenant sacrifices had now ceased but was unwilling to make further concessions which placed his theology a long way from the theology of the New Testament. The tiny WCG offshoot cults have tried to maintain, to a greater or lesser degree, Armstrong’s approach. Ancient Heresies and Discredited Theories

Other views on Ebiontism:

Dr. Schaff sharply distinguishes Ebionism from Gnosticism as follows: "Ebionism is a Judaizing, pseudo-Petrine Christianity, or a Christianizing Judaism; Gnosticism is a paganizing or pseudo-Pauline Christianity, or a pseudo-Christian heathenism. The former is a particularistic contraction of the Christian religion; the latter a vague expansion of it" (Church History, § 67). According to the same writer, "the characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its forms are, degradation of Christianity to the level of Judaism, the principle of the universal and perpetual validity of the Mosaic law, and enmity to the apostle Paul. But, as there were different sects in Judaism itself, we have also to distinguish at least two branches of Ebionism, related to each other, as Pharisaism and Essenism, or, to use a modern illustration, as the older deistic and the speculative pantheistic rationalism in Germany, or the two schools of Unitarianism in England and America. 

1. The common Ebionites, who were by far the more numerous, embodied the Pharisaic legal spirit, and were the proper successors of the Judaizers opposed in the epistle to the Galatians. Their doctrine may be reduced to the following propositions:

(a.) Jesus is, indeed, the promised Messiah, the son of David, and the supreme lawgiver, yet a mere man, like Moses and David, sprung by natural generation from Joseph and Mary. The sense of his Messianic calling first arose in him at his baptism by John, when a higher spirit joined itself to him. Hence Origen compared this sect to the blind man in the Gospel who called to the Lord without seeing him, 'Thou son of David, have mercy on me!'

(b.) Circumcision and the observance of the whole ritual law of Moses are necessary to salvation for all men.

(c.) Paul is an apostate and heretic, and all his epistles are to be discarded. The sect considered him a native heathen, who came over to Judaism in later life from impure motives.

(d.) Christ is soon to come again to introduce the glorious millennial reign of the Messiah, with the earthly Jerusalem for its seat. McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia

Note this about adoptionism:

It is frequently claimed that the earliest christology was “adoptionist,” the theological claim that ontologically (by nature) Jesus was nothing but human, nothing but “mere man.” This ancient “reductionist-humanistic” concept did, however, allow for an exalted view of Jesus as Messiah, great high priest, the “Prophet like Moses,” and other Jewish-Messianic affirmations. It also permitted Jesus to be a risen prophet, one whom God raised up from the grave as a seal of approval. Moreover, it allowed this risen Jesus to be an angelic being, glorified and exalted into heaven and standing at God’s right hand, carrying God’s name in him, and waiting fto carry out a “second coming” in which he will judge the world. This adoptionist Jesus – properly understood not as a god or God, but as God’s agent – may even be addressed in the Maranatha prayer: “Come, Lord Jesus.” 

 

But all of these glorious affirmations still pertain to the monotheistic, Jewish Jesus, a man, a prophet, a righteous Israelite rewarded by God. God’s reward, as mentioned, was to raise Jesus into heaven. This heavenly reward is necessarily an aspect of adoptionism. Clearly, a risen Messiah to whom one can pray has par excellence been adopted (as “Son”) by God. Yet Ebionites and other early Jewish Christians believed that Jesus’ adoption by God began even earlier, in his earthly life, before his death and resurrection. 

 

It was claimed that Jesus, a devout Israelite, excelled all others in piety, obedience and righteousness (as reflected in Luke 2:51-52), so that, by the time he was baptized by John in the Jordan, Jesus had reached the pinnacle of holiness, and so was “ripe for adoption.” Indeed, say Jewish Christian sources, it was at his baptism that Jesus was “officially” adopted as God’s son: the heavens opened, the holy Spirit descended on Jesus “like a dove,” and God’s voice proclaimed him “Son.” This early Jewish christological understanding extends even into the canonical Gospels and the Pauline writings. 

 

It is generally maintained among scholars that this “low” adoptionist christology characterised only the early, “Jewish” period of church formation. So-called “higher” christologies which made more explict divine claims for Jesus, are held to be much later developments in the tradition. The idea is that the “Jewishness” of low/adoptionist christology indicates its plausibility, because notions of higher christology had not yet had time to evolve. 

 

Adoptionist christology, it is claimed, is in keeping with Jewish perspectives about prophets, inspired or” holy”people, and the monotheistic/singular-unitary nature of God. Higher christology, it is claimed, is the product of later theological reflection and possible importation of pagan, Hellenistic ideas about god-men and demigods.

However, some expressions of early Jewish christology actually contain both “high” and “low” concepts about Jesus. 

 

For the Ebionites, Jesus was the adopted son of God, the Prophet like Moses, whose righteousness caused God to embrace him in a filial relationship at his baptism and then to “set the seal” on the act by raising Jesus from the dead. For the Ebionites, Jesus was the Messiah in the sense of carrying out messianic goals during his ministry. (Interestingly, they also held that messiahship is potentially everyone’s birthright, maintaining that all Ebionites, and those who enter that fold, are oiled with the same messianic chrism that anointed Jesus. Adherents can, like Jesus, perform the messianic task.) 

 

Thus far, Ebionitism qualifies as a typically “low” christology. However, Ebionites also claimed a kind of “high” christology, because they involved their Christ in the field or schema of heavenly pre-existence. Ebionites typically claimed that Jesus, the wholly human but divinely-adopted prophet also embodied God’s holy Spirit. 

 

To return to the baptism scene: Ebionites claimed that the “Spirit Like A Dove” that descended on Jesus was a type of pre-existent, heavenly “Christ” sent down to abide in Jesus. 

 

This spirit was thought to be more or less interchangeable with the Adam Kadmon, or heavenly primal Adam; Yahoel, God’s chief assisting angel; Metatron, the Angel of the Throne; and the Standing One or heavenly Son of Man. 

 

For the Ebionites, Jesus was a man adopted and risen to heaven by God. But he was also the embodiment on earth – or if the term may be used – the incarnation of a pre-existent celestial being. The Ebionite Jesus thus carries in him the dual dignity 1) of a righteous human being and 2) the numinous character who incarnates a revealing tutelary spirit, who is pre-existent and closely related to God. 

 

To reiterate: Ebionitism claims a dual christological significance to Jesus’ baptismal adoption, an adoption that simultanesously consists of: 

 

granting to Jesus a filial relationship to God

– and –

the entering into Jesus of a pre-existent celestial tutelary spirit, perceived, conceptualized and symbolized as a dovelike spirit. 

 

The Ebionite Christ thus exemplifies a synthesis of both “low” and “high” christologies, because: 

 

on the one hand he is the obedient-and-rewarded prophet,

and on the other hand he is the recipient of a pre-existent, heavenly being. 

 

It is therefore possible to think that the Ebionite Jesus speaks in two voices: one, the voice of the Jesus “the carpenter’s son,” the obedient-but-transformed/adopted human mystic, “Jesus the Galilean”; the other, the self-revealing, incarnating Spirit, or Adam Kadmon, primal Son of Man, holy angel. 

 

This christological paradigm is worked out in Islam by the separation of the the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) personal voice from the Voice of God speaking through him. The New Testament does not often or obviously separate the two voices, but a close reading will find them implicit in many texts, most pointedly in John’s Gospel. 

 

John’s Jesus, embodying the Spirit and will of the Father and being the vehicle for the Logos’ incarnation, speaks with the Voice of the Divine, such as in the “I am” statements. Many of the Johannine Jesus’ statements can be read as self-revelations of the Spirit incarnate in him (“I come from the Father and return to the Father; I know the hidden things of God; before Abraham came to be, I am,” etc.). Here – theoretically at least -is the incarnate heavenly Spirit speaking through Jesus.
At other times John’s Jesus looks more like a human mystic reflecting on and talking about what it is like to incarnate God’s spirit and to be filially united with that God and his spiritt (“the Father and I are one; when you see me, you see the Father; I am a man who hears and obeys the word of God; the Father is greater than I; I can do nothing of my own will, only by God’s will,” etc. Here – theoretically – Jesus the Galilean mystic is speaking about himself.

These considerations indicate that the dichotomy between high-late and low-early christologies is at least partially dissolved in Ebionitism’s combination of the two. For a fascinating discussion of the possible “two voices” of Jesus, the reader is referred to Stevan L. Davies’ book, Jesus the Healer (Continuum Publishing Company, NY 1995, especially pp. 151-169). Ebionitism’s Dual Christologies