Theology Proper - Tumblr Posts
Is the Old Testament Inspired?: The Case Against Marcion
By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim
——-
Is the Old Testament Uninspired Because it Doesn’t Mention Jesus?
Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85 – 160 CE) preached that Jesus’ teachings, especially those on love, were completely at odds with the Old Testament (OT) revelations regarding the God of the Jews, whom he saw as legalistic and punitive, with no connection at all to the essential message of the New Testament (NT). One key Marcionite objection to the authority of the Jewish Bible is that the name of Jesus is never once mentioned there. However, the exclusivity of Jesus in the NT does not preclude the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible. The notion that the father cannot be known apart from Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the OT’s canonicity. For example, Acts 4.12 says:
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is
no other name under heaven given to
mankind by which we must be saved.
The fact that the name of Jesus is not found in the OT has no bearing on whether this collection of ancient Hebrew writings is inspired or not. After all, the name of Jesus (Ιησοῦς) is found in the Septuagint’s Book of Joshua, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/?tx_buhbibelmodul_bibletext%5Bscripture%5D=Joshua+4
At any rate, these are two fundamentally different questions. The former has to do with Christology (i.e. the study of Christ), whereas the latter has to do with Biblical theology (i.e. the study of the Bible)!
The former has to to do with “Theology proper,” that is to say, with the exclusivity of Jesus as the unique preexistent Word of God (the Logos) through whom “All things came into being” (John 1.1-4), or as the “only begotten Son” (1 John 4.9) who prior to his incarnation “was in the form of God” (Phil. 2.6). Marcionites will therefore argue that Christ is the *only one* who is capable of revealing the Father, given that “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1.15) “through whom he [the Father] also created the worlds” (Heb. 1.1-2). For example, John 14.6 reads:
Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth
and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.’
But this declaration is not a proof-text demonstrating that the OT is not authoritative simply because it doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity. That has to do with progressive revelation, the idea that revelation is given a little at a time.
Holding to a high Christology has little to do with whether or not the Hebrew Bible is inspired. That’s an entirely different issue involving Biblical theology, Pneumatology, and the like. So, the fact that Jesus is not mentioned by name in the Hebrew Bible is not a sufficient reason to dismiss this collection of Books as uninspired.
——-
Is the OT Uncanonical?
If the OT is not authoritative, as some Marcionites have argued, then why would the NT writers quote extensively from an “uninspired” book? And what would be the purpose of the standard *Biblical canon* if the NT authors extensively quoted from so-called “uninspired” books? In other words, if the OT is not authoritative, it would *contradict* the “canon of scripture” principle in which only Biblically-inspired books are accepted into the canon. Not to mention that the OT is widely viewed as authoritative by the NT precisely because it is included as a source of prophetic predictions in many different places, notably in Matthew 24, and especially in the Book of Revelation!
As a matter of fact, the NT authors insist that the OT is inspired! For example, at the time of the composition of the second letter to Timothy, there was no NT Scripture as yet. So, when the Biblical writers referred to Scripture, with the exception of two instances——namely, 2 Pet. 3.16, wherein Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture,” and 1 Tim. 5.18, in which Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture”——they always meant the Hebrew Bible. The proof that they considered the Hebrew Bible to be *inspired* is in Second Timothy 3.16, which reads:
All scripture is inspired [πᾶσα γραφὴ
Θεόπνευστος] by God and is useful for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness.
——-
Does Intertextuality Prove that the OT is Inspired?
All the books of the NT are constantly borrowing and quoting extensively from the OT, a “Book” without which the NT would be lacking a foundation. If we were to remove all those OT quotations, the NT would be insupportable, not to mention incomprehensible!
So, whoever thinks that the OT is uncanonical and uninspired is clearly not familiar with the heavy literary dependence of the NT on the OT (i.e. a process known as “intertextuality”). If you were to open up a critical edition of the NT, you’d be astounded by how much of the OT is actually quoted in the NT. Prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Daniel abound all over the place. The Book of Revelation, in particular, is mostly based on a reorganization of OT prophetic material from Zechariah, Joel, Amos, Daniel, and many others. A brief look at a *Chain-Reference-Bible* would quickly illustrate this fact: https://archive.org/details/ThompsonChainReferenceBible/page/n47/mode/2up
So, the proposal to remove this material——-suggested by Marcion of Sinope and, to a lesser extent, by some modern day preachers and closet Marcionites, such as Andy Stanley——is rather absurd as the NT would be without any foundation or justification concerning messianic, eschatological, or prophetic terminology. For example, various questions would inevitably arise: Where did the NT get the idea of the day of the Lord? Or the idea of the resurrection of the dead? Or that of the great tribulation? Or the concept of the Antichrist? Or the notion of the Messiah? All these concepts are deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible!
If the OT is not authoritative, then the verbal agreements between the OT and the NT would equally disqualify those same statements as inauthentic NT references. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah verbatim. Many of the Jesus sayings are from the OT. If, say, a Marcionite were to claim that the OT is not inspired, then he would have to concede that some of Paul’s and Jesus’ sayings are equally uninspired, since they are derived from the OT. In other words, unbeknownst to the Marcionites, in rejecting the OT, they would also be rejecting the NT as well!
For example, most of the Matthew-24 prophetic material is based on the OT: from the abomination of desolation (Mt. 24.15; cf. Dan. 9.27) to the time when “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light” (Mt.24.29; cf. Joel 3:15). If these OT prophecies were not inspired or authoritative, then they would certainly not have been used in the NT prophetic literature!
The explicit approval of OT passages as authoritative by the NT writers, and especially by Paul and Jesus——as well as the explicit message that “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3.16), which obviously includes the OT, given that It has been heavily employed in the NT——argues for the inspiration of the OT!
——-
As for Marcionism, it really involves a syncretism of Christianity and Gnosticism, with all the extra-biblical distortions that this fusion entails, such as the assumed existence of two deities (a lesser and a higher one), and the evil inherent in the material world. These are two diametrically opposed belief-systems between the monotheism of the NT and the polytheism of the Gnostics!
——-
Conclusion
Thus, Marcion, who was an anti-Semite, not only rejected Yahweh as a lesser, evil god, but he went on to dismiss the entire OT as if it were completely uninspired. He felt that it lacked the extravagant love story of the NT, which was ultimately derived from the Supreme God and father of Jesus Christ. He thought that these two testaments pertained to two fundamentally different gods. And so he urged Christians to steer clear of the OT because he considered it to be the product of an inferior deity. However, this is not the view of the NT authors, nor is it part of mainstream NT theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology.
What is more, Marcion obviously did not critically assess both testaments to fully explore the extent to which *intertextuality* was involved within these manuscripts (i.e. the literary dependence of one testament on the other) and how inextricably linked they really were! Therefore, a rejection of the entire OT is simultaneously a rejection of many portions of the NT, including many of Jesus’ sayings. Such a separation would render the NT completely useless both theologically and Christologically, if not also eschatologically. Marcion’s claims would therefore undermine Christianity’s overall integrity, and this is probably why Marcion was denounced as a heretic and was excommunicated by the church of Rome ca. 144 CE.
To be fair, Marcion had the right idea, but the wrong approach. It’s true that there’s a radical shift in the NT from an active obedience to the 10-commandments to a passive acceptance of God’s Grace; from an external circumcision of the flesh to an internal circumcision of the heart (and the consequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit). Contrary to the Aleph and Tav in the Hebrew Scriptures, we are suddenly introduced to the NT revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega (using the first and last letters of the Greek rather than the Hebrew alphabet). After all, the NT is written exclusively in Greek, by Greeks, and written predominantly to Greek communities within the Roman empire. Paul himself maintains that we are “justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law” (e.g. Gal. 2.16). So, there is very little here that is Jewish!
But although the NT is a uniquely Greek “Book,” in which the name of Yahweh is never once mentioned, nevertheless the Hebrew Bible is still its foundation, without which the former would lose not only its historical lineage and theological context but also its reliability, validity, and, ultimately, its credibility!
The Heresy of Modalistic Monarchianism is Alive and Well
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
What is Modalistic Monarchianism?
Modalistic Monarchianism (aka *Oneness Theology* or Modalism) is a late 2nd and 3rd century theological doctrine that maintains the deity of Christ while emphasising the *oneness* of God. In contrast to Trinitarianism, which depicts the Godhead as three distinct persons coexisting in one being, modalistic monarchianism defines God as a single person. This theological position is related to “patripassianism” and “Sabellianism,” which hold similar views. It has been considered a doctrinal heresy since the early period of the Christian Church.
The term “Modalistic Monarchianism” means that God is not three but *one* person who operates under various “manifestations” or “modes,” such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to this theological position, the complete Godhead dwells in Jesus insofar as his incarnation is concerned. This view therefore ascribes the actions of the *Father* and the *Son* to various *modes*, such as the differences that exist between God’s “transcendence” (which is completely independent of the material universe, beyond being and nonbeing) and God’s incarnation or immanence (i.e. his manifestation in the physical world). Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is not viewed as a distinct entity but rather as a mode of operation of the spirit of God.
It seems as if the Modalistic Monarchians were trying to reconcile the trinitarian concept of the New Testament (NT) with the monotheistic Shema creed in the Torah, which states that “God, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6.4). Modalistic Monarchians accept the inspiration of the Old Testament and therefore believe that Jesus is the manifestation of Yahweh on earth. But they do not worship the Father or the Holy Spirit; only Jesus Christ.
Three modern adherents of this view are Oneness Pentecostalism (aka Jesus Only movement or Apostolic, Jesus' Name Pentecostalism), the World Mission Society Church of God (the relatively new South Korean religious movement), and T. D. Jakes, the bishop of The Potter's House Church (a non-denominational American megachurch).
——-
Is Jesus really God the Father and God the Holy Spirit?
Given that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be titles of the one God, not depictions of distinct persons, *Oneness Pentecostals*, for example, maintain that they fulfil Christ’s commandment in Mt. 28.19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by doing so *only* in the name of Jesus. In their defence, they cite Acts 4.12 in which Jesus is the *only* name given in the NT “by which we must be saved.” Acts 4.11-12 reads:
This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by
you, the builders; it has become the
cornerstone. There is salvation in no one
else, for there is no other name under
heaven given among mortals by which we
must be saved.’
However, just because “there is no other name . . . by which we must be saved” does not mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit do not exist! That directly contradicts the grammatical “point of view” of the first person, second person, and third person *personal pronouns* in the NT text.
For example, Jesus is NOT the name of the Father or of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, Jesus repeatedly refers to the Holy Spirit not in the first person but in the *3rd person*. He calls the Holy Spirit ἐκεῖνος——meaning “He” (Jn. 16.13-14)——as another person that is totally DISTINCT from himself. Jesus says:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he
will guide you into all the truth” (John
16.13).
Obviously Jesus is not talking about himself but about a separate entity that is called the “Holy Spirit.”
Jesus also repeatedly speaks of the Father in the *3rd person* as a separate and distinct person from himself. Jesus says:
For I did not speak on my own, but the
Father who sent me commanded me to say
all that I have spoken (John 12.49).
Obviously Jesus is NOT the Father, otherwise this modalistic theology would have us believe that Jesus sent himself, commands himself, prays to himself, and talks to himself, while baldly lying to his disciples about an imaginary father (whom he calls “Abba” [Mark 14.36]) who doesn’t really exist. According to this view, Jesus is psychotic or worse. In other words, Jesus is either a lunatic or a liar. So, Modalistic Monarchianism directly contradicts and distorts the NT authors' original language and intended meanings. Therefore, Oneness Theology is completely bogus and misinformed!
1 Jn. 2.22 condemns modalism as an aberration:
This is the antichrist, the one who denies
the Father and the Son.
The Fullness of Time Theology: A Critique of Covenant And Dispensational Theology
By Author Eli Kittim
My Agreements and Disagreements with both Camps
One has to be au courant with Biblical Hermeneutics to evaluate various facets of Christian theology. I would like to stress at the outset that I’m not a proponent of either covenant or dispensational theology. I do accept certain aspects of both theologies while rejecting others.
I’m not a reformed theologian but I do agree that the Old Testament (OT) is essentially Christocentric (not Jewishcentric) and that the New Testament (NT) is not talking about two peoples (the church and the Jews) but rather one: the elect (cf. Eph. 2.19-20), which is to say the Biblical metanarrative of the OT is not about a race but about a person: the Messiah! Some pastors, like John Hagee, have gone so far as to say that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved by their own covenants. The dispensational view is therefore unbiblical because it creates 2 people of God: the Jews and the church. Part of the problem is their reliance on denotative meanings and a literal interpretation of Scripture. In my view, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church is Israel (cf. Rom. 9.8; Gal. 3.29; 6.16). It’s always been about the elect in Christ. If in fact there are 2 peoples with 2 sets of standards (law & grace) by which they’re saved, then that would invalidate Christ’s atonement, as would the rebuilding of the third temple, which would necessitate the reinstituting of animal sacrifices.
The Dispensation of the Fullness of Time
As a framework for biblical interpretation, dispensationalism is often described as a series of ages or different periods in history. This interpretative framework defines each distinctive time period as a dispensation or an administration of an age. But the only temporal dispensation I find in the NT is that of the fullness of time. Ephesians 1.9-10 reads:
γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος
αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν
προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ
πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,
ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν
τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ.
Translation (NRSV):
“he has made known to us the mystery of his
will, according to his good pleasure that he
set forth in Christ, as a plan [οἰκονομίαν] for
the fullness of time, to gather up all things
in him, things in heaven and things on
earth.”
In short; the designation “the fullness of time” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) refers to the period of time (οἰκονομίαν; dispensation) when all things, both in in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ. The Greek word ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι means to “sum up” (see G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 1094-95).
So, according to Eph. 1.10, it’s “a plan [dispensation] for the fullness of time,” which will culminate “at the end of the age” (cf. Gal. 4.4; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Heb. 9.26b)! Surprisingly, neither covenant theology nor dispensational theology refer to this Biblical dispensation. Similarly, in Acts 3.19-21, Peter is addressing a crowd and astoundingly refers to Christ’s coming in the context of futurist eschatology. He refers to “the Messiah appointed for you” as the προκεχειρισμένον (i.e. appointed beforehand) Christ “Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.” Peter says:
“Repent therefore, and turn to God so that
your sins may be wiped out, so that times of
refreshing may come from the presence of
the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah
appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must
remain in heaven until the time of universal
restoration that God announced long ago
through his holy prophets.”
Thus, the key Biblical dispensation or plan of God is the one pertaining to the fullness of time (i.e. at the end of the age) when all his plans will be fulfilled.
Grace Has Always Existed
Ephesians 3.1-9 explains that God’s plan was always to turn the entire world into Israel (i.e. a holy people, not a race):
“This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner
for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles
—for surely you have already heard of the
commission [οἰκονομίαν; dispensation] of
God’s grace that was given me for you, and
how the mystery was made known to me by
revelation [ἀποκάλυψιν], as I wrote above in
a few words, a reading of which will enable
you to perceive my understanding of the
mystery of Christ. In former generations this
mystery was not made known to
humankind, as it has now been revealed to
his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:
that is, the Gentiles have become fellow
heirs, members of the same body, and
sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus
through the gospel. Of this gospel I have
become a servant according to the gift of
God’s grace that was given me by the
working of his power. Although I am the very
least of all the saints, this grace was given
to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of
the boundless riches of Christ, and to make
everyone see what is the plan [οἰκονομία;
dispensation] of the mystery hidden for
ages in God who created all things.”
In other words, it was part of God’s plan from the outset to call the entire world Israel! The dispensation or plan of God was to reveal the mystery that the Gentiles also form part of the chosen people of God. However, before we can demonstrate this point, we first need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah).
I should note, parenthetically, that there’s a theological confusion pertaining to God’s dispensation of grace with regard to soteriology. Many Biblical thinkers mistakenly assume that God’s grace is not offered to humanity until the *timing* of the atonement, or the cross, if you will. The age prior to that is often viewed as a time that precedes the age of grace. But that is an incorrect position which presumes that our salvation cannot precede the timing of Christ’s sacrifice (see my article: Theology Versus Chronology https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611676639545393152/theology-versus-chronology-a-soteriological-view).
One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:
“circumcise your heart and the heart of your
descendants, so that you will love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all
your soul, in order that you may live.”
Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:
“I will give you a new heart and put a new
spirit in you; I will remove from you your
heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.”
Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:
“I will put my law within them, and I will write
it on their hearts.”
In a comparable manner, Ezekiel 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:
“Cast away from you all the transgressions
that you have committed against me, and
get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!
Why will you die, O house of Israel?”
But if this covenant with Israel is a covenant of Grace (cf. Jer. 31.33; Heb. 8.10), then who is Israel? Answer: the elect; the chosen people; those who are in Christ. If that was always God’s plan or οἰκονομίαν, to which all things in the OT pointed, then Grace was always available and did not suddenly come into play during NT times.
Therefore, there are not two people of God but only one: those who are in Christ. At the end of the age, Christ will not judge the world like a shepherd separating three types of people: the elect, the reprobates, and the Jews. Rather, he will separate “the sheep from the goats” (Mt. 25.32). In other words, there are only two categories: you are either in Christ or out of Christ!
What is more, Pastors do Christianity a disservice when erroneously stating that the Jews will be saved after the rapture. No they will not! The gates will be shut after the church leaves the earth. Matthew 25.10-12:
“and the door was shut. Later the other
bridesmaids came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord,
open to us.' But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I
do not know you.' “
That’s what the Parable of the Ten Virgins signifies. The 10 virgins represent the church that is waiting for the Bridegroom, who is Jesus (Mt. 9.15), to take her away in the rapture——“for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19.7).
That is what the parable of the 10 virgins means. To teach that Jews will be saved after the rapture is a false and dangerous teaching that is jeopardizing people’s lives.
Just because the Jews misinterpreted their Scriptures doesn’t mean that grace wasn’t available or that God didn’t refer to their regeneration-through-the-spirit in the OT. Therefore, to arbitrarily superimpose different dispensational ages and read them back into the text is as dangerous as it is reprehensible.
So, Grace was always present from the very beginning. But it was not fully understood until the NT era. But that doesn’t mean that it was not alluded to or explicitly referenced in the OT. It certainly was, as I have demonstrated.
What Does the term Israel Mean?
The term Israel can refer to many things. It can mean the promise land (Palestine); it can signify the former northern kingdom; it can refer to the purported historical person known as Jacob; it can be a reference to the 12 tribes; it can refer to God’s chosen people (of which a subset would be God’s people of the OT & NT); Israel can refer to Jews; it could mean the modern nation that’s located in the Middle East; it can also refer to anyone who is of the Abrahamic covenant; that is, the descendants of Abraham (both figuratively and literally) can be called Israel; the religion itself can be called Israel (i.e. those who worship Yahweh); the people of God in today’s generation (aka the church) can also be called Israel; and so on and so forth. Thus, to interpret this term exclusively as “the Jews” is to ignore all the nuances of meaning that the text provides. Using the analogy of Scripture, we allow Paul to give us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the NT context. Apparently, the biblical term Jew does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29, Paul writes:
“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
nor is circumcision that which is outward in
the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly; and circumcision is that which is
of the heart.”
To further explore the significance of this passage, read William Barclay, a world-renowned NT scholar, and his commentaries in the book, The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975, p. 47). What is more, 1 Pet 2.9 uses OT language, related to Israel, to describe the elect in Christ:
“But you are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his
own possession, that you may proclaim the
excellencies of him who called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light.”
Who Are the Heirs of the OT Promises of God?
In the Book of Romans, Paul does not explicitly deny the notion that the concept of grace existed in OT writings. Since this was foreshadowed but not fully explained in the OT——with the exception of some soteriological allusions in certain passages, such as Isaiah 53.3-8 and Zechariah 12.9-10, for instance——Paul takes it upon himself to expound the merits of Grace vis-à-vis the messianic atonement in his letter to the Romans.
Even Covenant theologians find this so-called new manifestation of grace rather disturbing. According to them, there is only one covenant of grace that has been operating uniformly in each and every age. Thus, when Paul discusses “the commission of God's grace that was given” to him (Eph. 3.2), he’s referring to a “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψιν) in Eph. 3.3-7:
“the mystery was made known to me by
revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,
a reading of which will enable you to
perceive my understanding of the mystery
of Christ. In former generations this mystery
was not made known to humankind, as it
has now been revealed to his holy apostles
and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the
Gentiles have become fellow heirs,
members of the same body, and sharers in
the promise in Christ Jesus through the
gospel. Of this gospel I have become a
servant according to the gift of God's grace
that was given me by the working of his
power.”
What is this secret that “in former generations” was unknown? Ephesians 3.6 asserts that “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs”:
συνκληρονόμα [joint-heirs] καὶ [and]
σύσσωμα [a joint-body] καὶ [and]
συμμέτοχα [joint-partakers] τῆς [of
the] ἐπαγγελίας [promises] ἐν [in] Χριστῷ
[Christ] Ἰησοῦ [Jesus].
This means that the Israelites are not the sole inheritors of the OT promises of God. The Gentiles are co-inheritors. That is, they are identical with or equivalent to the people of Israel. In other words, they are like Israel in every conceivable way with regard to their divine relationship and position. In short, they share equal rights and status with Israel as the chosen people of God, the elect, so that they and Israel have become one and the same! This means that the OT passages regarding Israel, or the chosen people of God, necessarily allude to them, given that they figure prominently in the economy of God’s plan. However, in the end, it is those that are in Christ that are truly chosen (whether Jew or Gentile), not simply the literal Israelites. As descendants, Jews cannot appeal to their tradition for salvation, as if to say “We have Abraham as our father” (Mt. 3.9), because race alone will not save them (cf. Rom. 2.28-29).
The Fallacies of Dispensationalism
What is more, the arbitrary dispensations that refer to the age of innocence or the age of conscience have always been uniformly present in the development of human beings. They are not ages of time but rather stages of human development. A child is innocent until he/she reaches the age of reason or conscience after which they can make moral choices and decisions. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of humankind. It is the tale of temptation during the age of innocence in the life of every human being. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a connotative representation of those dual proclivities latent within the unconscious mind. There is no literal Cherubim wielding a flaming sword, or a literal garden, nor is there a tree of life planted somewhere on the earth which can make one live forever (i.e. the so-called fountain of youth). This is metaphorical language. To turn allegory into biography and call it the age of innocence or the age of conscience is a literal misrepresentation of Scripture.
Moreover, dispensationalists hypothesize the coming of a Millennial Kingdom, which seems to be a representation of the *timing* pertaining to the end of the age rather than a literal thousand year reign on earth (See my article, The Fallacies of Millennialism: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634098142546198528/the-fallacies-of-millennialism).
Conclusion
The only Biblical dispensation that can be rigorously defended is that of *the fullness of time,* which refers to *the end of the age,* when “all things” will conclude in Christ (Eph. 1.9-10)! Moreover, as I have shown from the law and the prophets, grace has always been operative since the dawn of recorded history (cf. e.g. Gen. 3.15, 21). What is more, based on a *revelation* that was disclosed by Paul——the Christocentric content of which has always been part of God’s plan——the elect in Christ are the true heirs of the OT promises of God and, therefore, the true Israel. Finally, both covenant and dispensational theology have failed to grasp the Biblical metanarrative, whose central dispensation unfolds at the end of days (Dan. 12.13; Mt. 24.3; 1 Cor. 10.11), when all the inhabitants of the earth will witness “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; Rev. 1.1), the tribulation, the rapture, and the final consummation!
The Error of Subordinationism
By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Ontological Subordinationism
The theological literature defines Subordinationism as comprising hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, thus signifying an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The word ontological refers to “being.” Although some of the ante-Nicene fathers supported subordinationism, this doctrine was eventually condemned as heretical by the Post-Nicene fathers:
Athanasius opposed subordinationism, and
was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings
of the divine persons. It was also opposed
by Augustine. Subordinationism was
condemned in the 6th century along with
other doctrines taught by Origen.
Epiphanus writing against Origen attacked
his views of subordinationism. — wiki
Calvin also opposed subordinationism:
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion,
book 1, chapter 13 Calvin attacks those in
the Reformation family who while they
confess ‘that there are three [divine]
persons’ speak of the Father as ‘the
essence giver’ as if he were ‘truly and
properly the sole God’. This he says,
‘definitely cast[s] the Son down from his
rank.’ This is because it implies that the
Father is God in a way the Son is not.
Modern scholars are agreed that this was a
sixteenth century form of what today is
called, ‘subordinationism’. Richard Muller
says Calvin recognised that what his
opponents were teaching ‘amounted to a
radical subordination of the second and
third persons, with the result that the Father
alone is truly God.’ Ellis adds that this
teaching also implied tritheism, three
separate Gods. — wiki
The Eastern Orthodox position is yet another form of subordinationism that has asserted the Monarchy of the Father to this day:
According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the
Son is derived from the Father who alone is
without cause or origin. — wiki
The Catholic Church, however, is overtly antithetical to the subordinationism doctrine:
Catholic theologian John Hardon wrote that
subordinationism ‘denies that the second
and third persons are consubstantial with
the Father. Therefore it denies their true
divinity.’ — wiki
In theology proper, unlike ontological subordination, there is also the doctrine of “economic subordination” in which the Son and the Holy Spirit play subordinate roles in their functions, even though they may be ontologically equal to the Father. New Calvinists have been advancing this theory of late:
While contemporary Evangelicals believe
the historically agreed fundamentals of the
Christian faith, including the Trinity, among
the New Calvinist formula, the Trinity is one
God in three equal persons, among whom
there is ‘economic subordination’ (as, for
example, when the Son obeys the Father).
— wiki
According to the Oxford Encyclopedia, the doctrine of Subordinationism makes the Son inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son. It reads thusly:
Subordinationism means to consider Christ,
as Son of God, as inferior to the Father.
This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and
3rd-century theology. It is evident in
theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus,
for example, commenting on Christ's
statement, ‘the Father is greater than I’
(John 14:28), has no difficulty in
considering Christ as inferior to the Father.
… When Origen enlarged the conception of
the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he
explained the Son as inferior to the Father
and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son.
Subordination is based on statements
which Jesus made, such as (a) that ‘the
Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28); (b)
that, with respect to when the day of
Judgment will be, ‘of that day or hour no
one knows, not even the angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but the Father alone’ (Mark
13:32), and that He spoke of God as
somebody else (Mark 11:18). — wiki
However, Jesus’ statements are made from within the confines of his human condition, and thus they don’t pertain to his eternal status. As the Son of Man, namely, as a finite, limited human being, in comparison with the eternal Father, Jesus is obviously incapable of knowing all things. So Jesus’ statements must not be taken out of context and used to support the idea that he’s ontologically an inferior God. Micah 5.2 would certainly challenge that notion when it reveals that the messiah is actually uncreated: “His times of coming forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Subordinationism ultimately leads to Arianism, the notion that the Son was created by the Father, and is not thus God:
Arius, therefore, held that the Son was
divine by grace and not by nature, and that
He was created by the Father, though in a
creation outside time. In response, the
Nicene Creed, particularly as revised by the
second ecumenical council in
Constantinople I in 381, by affirming the co-
equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity,
condemned subordinationism. — wiki
According to The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, Subordinationism sees “the Son” and “the Spirit of God” as lesser deities, especially as demi-gods, or inferior gods:
Subordinationism. The term is a common
retrospective concept used to denote
theologians of the early church who
affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of
God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser
form of divinity than that of the Father.
— wiki
Subordinationism is reminiscent of Gnosticism in which there’s a supreme God as well as lesser divinities. In Subordinationism, the Son is viewed as an inferior god, or a lesser god. However, as will be shown, Jesus is not a subordinate god in relation to God the Father. Some theologians argue that although the three persons of the Godhead are coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial ontologically, the Son and the Spirit are nevertheless subordinate in terms of economy, that is, in terms of their functions and roles. This notion of ranking or subordination within the trinity is supposedly supported by scripture when it says that the Father “sent” the Son (Jn 6.57), or that the Father and the Son “send” the Spirit (Jn 15.26), or that the spirit will “speak only what he hears” (Jn 16.13).
But this still implies a greater versus a lesser god, which makes the Trinity theologically indefensible! Not to mention that these verses are taken out of context. The temporal operations of the Son and the Spirit are scripturally depicted in anthropomorphic terms, ascribing human characteristics to divine operations and energies so that they can be better understood. As, for example, when scripture says that God changed his mind, or that he repented. And as regards Jesus’ connection to the God of the Hebrew Bible, appropriate New Testament language must be used so as to preclude a theological deviation from the monotheistic God of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, scripture does tell us categorically and unequivocally who Jesus is. Revelation 1.8 tells us that the Son is the Almighty! Who, then, ranks above him? Moreover, Jesus is Yahweh (the Lord) in the New Testament. Proverbs 8.28-30, John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 all indicate that Jesus is the creator. John 1.3 declares:
All things came into being through him
[Jesus], and without him not one thing
came into being.
Acts 4.12 reminds us of Jesus’ preeminent position within the Godhead:
there is salvation in no one else; for
there is no other name under heaven that
has been given among mankind by which
we must be saved.
In my view, subordinationism leads to tritheism!
The Eternal Subordination of the Son
The doctrine that the Son is eternally created by God the Father smacks of Arianism, as if his divinity is mediated to him by God the Father, implying that the Son doesn’t legitimately possess divinity in and of himself. It suggests that the Son and the Father were not always God in the same way, and that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Accordingly, only the Father was in the beginning. In other words, the Son is not eternal. This view holds that the Son is God only because Godhood is bestowed on him as a gift from the Father. To phrase it differently, the Son is God by grace and not by nature. Today, among the theologians who hold to Subordinationism are Bruce A. Ware, Wayne A. Grudem, and John W. Kleinig. But this doctrine contradicts John 1.1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the word.
We must always remember that all of Jesus’ words must be understood within the context of the human condition. That is to say, Jesus is speaking of his human nature, as a human being, not as eternal God. He is a creature, a man, a finite being, located in time and space, and in that sense he is obviously in a subordinate relationship to the Father who remains eternal and is everywhere. So when Jesus employs the language of grace——specifying what the Father has “given” him——he is referring to what the eternal Father has done for the mortal Son of Man, namely, to give him authority, exaltation, worship, and glory (cf. Daniel 7.13-14). This apparent inequality between the Son and the Father is, strictly speaking, limited to Jesus’ humanity, a humanity which will then in turn redeem human nature and glorify his elect. It is not referring to Jesus’ ontological relationship with the Father, which is one of equality. And since he is appealing particularly to the monotheistic God of the old testament, which the Jews understood as a singular deity, Jesus is careful to use the language of grace in order to appease the Jews who would otherwise take exception to an incarnate God. But scripture is quite adamant about the fact that Jesus is both man and God! John 1.14 puts it thusly:
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt
among us.
Colossians 2.9 reveals that the Son is fully God, and that the fullness of the godhead (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) dwells in him bodily:
in him the whole fullness of the godhead
[θεότητος] dwells bodily.
Hebrews 1.3 proclaims that the Son is of the same essence as the Father:
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and
the exact imprint of his being.
Titus 2.13 calls him “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And in John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” That is to say, the Son of Man, in his *human nature*——as the mediator and savior of mankind——becomes heir of all things. Not that the Godhood is given to him as a gift or as an inheritance. How can a lesser god or a created being act as the ultimate judge of the universe? John 5.22 reads:
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment unto the Son.
It doesn’t mean that the Son is given this office as a gift because the Son is God by nature and not by grace! How can God the Father hand over his Sovereignty to God the Son as a gift if Yahweh never yields his glory to another?
I am the LORD [Yahweh]; that is my name! I
will not yield my glory to another.
— Isaiah 42.8
How can an inferior god, a lesser god, or a created god be completely sovereign over the entire universe? In Matthew 28.18, Jesus declares:
All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me.
The clincher, the verse that clearly demonstrates the Son’s divine authority is Revelation 1.8. Since we are not waiting for the Father but rather for the Son to arrive, it becomes quite obvious that this is a reference to Jesus Christ:
‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the
Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is
to come, the Almighty.’
In Daniel 7.14, why was the Son of Man “given authority, glory and sovereign power”? Why did “all nations and peoples of every language worship[ed] him”? If he’s a created being, why do the heavenly host prostrate before the Son in heaven? Partly because he is God, but also because of his deeds on earth. Revelation 5.12 exclaims:
Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to
receive power and wealth and wisdom and
might and honor and glory and blessing!
Not that the Son doesn’t have power, or wealth, or wisdom, or honor, or glory, or blessing. But it’s as if additional exaltation is offered to him because of his achievements as a human being (as the Son of Man)! First Timothy 6.15-16 calls Christ the “only Sovereign” God and that “It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light”:
he who is the blessed and only Sovereign
[μόνος δυνάστης], the King of kings and
Lord of lords. It is he alone who has
immortality [ἀθανασίαν] and dwells in
unapproachable light, whom no one has
ever seen or can see.
Hebrews 1.3 reveals that the Son (not the Father) “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Colossians 1.17 also says: “He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (cf. Philippians 3.21). What is more, if the Son is subordinate to the Father, then the Father is the source of life, not the Son. Yet John 14.6 says the exact opposite, to wit, that the Son is both “the truth” and “existence” itself:
Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the
truth, and the life.’
Jesus also alludes to himself as Yahweh, using the ontological Divine Name “I AM” from Exodus 3.14:
Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you,
before Abraham was born, I am.’
— John 8.58
In Matthew 28.18, Jesus says that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·). That means that Jesus has *ALL AUTHORITY*; not just some authority or most authority. So, if the Son possesses all authority, how is he subject to a higher authority? Consequently, there’s no one higher than him! We also know this through Special Revelation❗️
Eternal Sonship vs Incarnational Sonship
In his essay “JOHN 1:14, 18 (et al.),” Edward Andrews writes:
Literal translation philosophy versus
interpretive translation philosophy plays a
role here too. I submit that rendering
monogenēs as “only begotten” is the literal
rendering. In translating the Updated
American Standard Version (UASV), our
primary purpose is to give the Bible readers
what God said by way of his human
authors, not what a translator thinks God
meant in its place.—Truth Matters! Our
primary goal is to be accurate and faithful
to the original text. The meaning of a word
is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e.,
reader), not the translator.
Therefore, a literal reading of monogené̄s is “only begotten” or “only-born.” However, scholars commonly argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” I will discuss that in a moment. Moreover, theologians have devised the doctrine of eternal Sonship, and have viewed this process as an eternal begetting, namely, the eternal begetting of the Son. That is to say, the 2nd person of the Trinity has always been the Son of God throughout all eternity. This is primarily based on the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” However, the preposition “from” (e.g. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God) is very problematic. So is the phrase “eternally begotten of the Father.” Both suggest that the the 2nd person is not fully God in his own right but derives his divinity eternally from the Greater God, the Father. So, for example, if the Father were to suddenly cut off the supply lines, for whatever reason, the Son would no longer be God. That’s the implication. Insofar as this language gives priority to the Father as the only true God, it suggests that the Son and Spirit are inferior and that they derive their divinity and existence from the Father. Yet Isaiah 9.6 calls the Messiah “Everlasting Father”!
In his book “Systematic Theology,” Wayne Grudem identifies one particular hermeneutical problem with these types of interpretations, namely, that they try to illustrate the eternal relationships within the Godhead based on scriptural information which only address their relationships in time. Therefore, it is both feasible and conceivable that the Bible uses the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to describe the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. For instance, the numerous references pertaining to the Father “sending” the Son into the world allude to time. Furthermore, the Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit formula is an “analogy” to the human family and to human relationships, not an exact representation concerning the relationships of the persons within the Trinity. Moreover, the notion that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father is dangerously close to Arianism, which maintains that the Son of God didn’t always exist but was rather begotten by God the Father, thus implying that Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.
Those who take exception to the concept of eternal Sonship often espouse what is known as the doctrine of the Incarnational Sonship. While affirming the Son’s deity and eternality, this doctrine holds that he was not always the Son of God. Rather, his Sonship began when he was “begotten.” In other words, the Father-Son-and-Spirit formula only describes the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. This means that the second person of the Trinity became the Son of God at some point in history, namely, at His incarnation. There are several nontrinitarian offshoots of this view, which hold that the second person of the Trinity was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. This view is known as Adoptionism (also called dynamic monarchianism). Since this is a nontrinitarian formula which asserts that Christ was simply a mortal man who was later adopted as the Son of God at some point in human history, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Incarnational Sonship that I’m describing, which recognizes and affirms Christ’s deity and eternality. Advocates of this position view the Sonship of Christ as a title or a function that he historically assumed “in time,” at his incarnation. They do not view the Sonship of Christ as an essential element of “who he is” within the Trinity. The same is true of the Father. According to this view, the first person of the Trinity became the Father at the time of the incarnation.
MacArthur (who has since changed his position) originally denied that Jesus was “always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God.” He claimed that sonship is simply an “analogy.” In like manner, Ergun Caner describes Sonship as “metaphor.” Caner similarly argues that “sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity.” Other notable Christians who have taken exception to the doctrine of eternal Sonship are Albert Barnes, Walter Martin, Finis J. Dake, and Adam Clarke.
The language of Hebrews 1.5 clearly defines the relationship of the Father to the Son as beginning during Christ’s incarnation. That’s precisely why this verse is often used as proof of the Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during a specific event that takes place at a particular point in time: “ ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.’ “ Thus, there seems to be an apparent subordination in the economy of God only insofar as Christ’s human nature is concerned.
Monogenēs
Scholars often argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” Given the view of Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during Christ’s incarnation, the expression “the only begotten God” seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born on earth!” And in that sense it also means “unique,” or “one of its kind.” Otherwise, if we think of the Son begotten eternally of the Father, it implies that he is not God in and of himself but derives his divinity from the Father. Thus, he is not “true God from true God”!
Although the term monogenēs could mean the “only one of its kind,” the literal meaning is “only begotten” or “only born.” Given that the earliest papyri have μονογενης θεος in John 1.18, for example, monogenēs seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born in time,” or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). Put differently, no other God has ever been born in history. But the primary meaning is “only begotten,” or, literally, “only-born.” However, its meaning is commonly applied to mean "one of a kind,” or “one and only.” We can see the interplay between the two meanings in the book of Hebrews:
The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to
describe Isaac, the son of Abraham.
However, Isaac was not the only-begotten
son of Abraham, but was the chosen,
having special virtue. Thus Isaac was ‘the
only legitimate child’ of Abraham. That is,
Isaac was the only son of Abraham that
God acknowledged as the legitimate son of
the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac
was not literally ‘begotten’ of Abraham, for
he indeed was, but that he alone was
acknowledged as the son that God had
promised. — wiki
Nevertheless, excerpts from Classical Greek literature, as well as from Josephus, the Nicene creed, Clement of Rome, and the New Testament suggest that the meaning of monogenēs is “only-born”:
Only-born
Herodotus [Histories] 2.79.3 ‘Maneros was
the only-born (monogenes) of their first
king, who died prematurely.’ — wiki
Herodotus [Histories] 7.221.1 ‘Megistias sent
to safety his only-born (o monogenes, as
noun) who was also with the army.’ — wiki
Luke 9:38 ‘only born (o
monogenes)’ {noun}. — wiki
Josephus, Antiquities 2.263 ‘Jephtha’s
daughter, she was also an only-born
(monogenes) and a virgin.’ — wiki
John 3.16 For God so loved the world, that
he gave his only-begotten Son (o
monogenes uios). — wiki
Nicene Creed - ‘And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.’
Clement of Rome 25 [First Epistle of
Clement] – ‘the phoenix is the only one
[born] (monogenes) of its kind.” — wiki
Notice the *meaning* in the last quotation. It’s not just the only-born, but “the only one [born] of its kind”: a combination of both interpretations. And that seems to capture the meaning of *monogenes* in the New Testament. The titles of Father and Son seemingly begin when Christ is earth-begotten or earthborn:
Heb. 1:5 ‘For unto which of the angels said
he at any time, ‘Thou art my Son (uios mou
ei su), this day have I begotten thee (ego
semeron gegenneka se)’? And again, I will
be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a
Son?’ (citing Ps.2:7, also cited Acts 13:33,
Heb. 5:5) —wiki
Filioque
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Father is seen as Greater than the Son and the Spirit. To offset this imbalance, the Nicene creed was amended by the Roman Catholic Church with the addition of the filioque clause. The original creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381) states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father,” to which the Roman Catholic West added, “and the Son,” as an additional origin point of the Holy Spirit. Maximus the Confessor, who is associated more with the Orthodox East than with the Catholic West, didn’t take issue with the filioque. Similarly, I. Voronov, Paul Evdokimov and S. Bulgakov saw the Filioque as a legitimate theologoumenon (i.e. theological opinion)!
The reason we’re discussing the filioque is because this issue bears on the question of whether Jesus is God by nature or by grace. The Filioque was added to the Creed as an anti-Arian addition by the Third Council of Toledo (589). It is well-known that The Eastern Orthodox Church promotes the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) of the Son and the Spirit:
The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that
the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for
existence or being (manner of existence)
from the Father alone as ‘One God, One
Father’, Lossky insisted that any notion of a
double procession of the Holy Spirit from
both the Father and the Son was
incompatible with Eastern Orthodox
theology. — wiki
The view of the superiority of the Father actually finds expression in both east and west:
The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215):
‘The Father is from no one, the Son from the
Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from
both.’ — wiki
This view leads to Arianism, as can be seen from the seventeenth ecumenical council:
The Council of Florence, session 11 (1442),
in Cantate Domino, on union with the Copts
and Ethiopians: ‘Father, Son and holy Spirit;
one in essence, three in persons;
unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the
Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the
Father and the Son; ... the holy Spirit alone
proceeds at once from the Father and the
Son. ... Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he
has from the Father together with the Son.’
— wiki
This implies that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God by nature but by grace. Thus, they’re not fully God: they’re inferior, lesser gods, created eternally by the Father so to speak. This smacks of Arianism and contradicts scripture which states that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2.9). Conversely, Eastern Orthodoxy tends to put the Father on a pedestal:
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity theology
starts with the Father hypostasis, not the
essence of God, since the Father is the God
of the Old Testament. The Father is the
origin of all things and this is the basis and
starting point of the Orthodox trinitarian
teaching of one God in Father, one God, of
the essence of the Father (as the uncreated
comes from the Father as this is what the
Father is). — wiki
Conclusion
It doesn’t appear as if there are hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, comprising an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. To say that “the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin” is nothing short of Arianism. As Catholic theologian John Hardon put it, subordinationism denies that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. Thus, it denies their divinity. This doctrine can be construed as if Christ, the Son of God, were inferior to the Father. It would also invalidate the three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons of the Trinity. The New Testament also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is Yahweh (i.e. the Lord) and the almighty (see Revelation 1.8)!
It’s also clear that there’s no eternal Sonship in which Christ is eternally begotten. The appellations of Father and Son relate to the economy of God as it pertains to the Incarnation of Christ (cf. Hebrews 1.5). And *monogenēs* doesn’t seem to mean that the Son is eternally begotten and ontologically subordinate to the Father. Rather, it seems to denote the only God who has ever been born in time, or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). That is to say, no other God has ever been born in human history. So, as the Son of Man, Christ can be described as both “unique” and as the “only begotten.”
Finally, it should be stressed that Jesus is God by nature, not by grace which suggests Adoptionism. The Filioque was added to the creed as an anti-Arian formula to offset the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) or principle of the Son and the Spirit. However, there’s no basis for claiming an ontological inequality within the Trinity. What is more, it’s *a contradiction in terms* to speak of an inferior and a superior God. God is God. And there’s only one God. Therefore, if we don’t want to fall into heresy, we must maintain the concept of the Trinity, which affirms the existence of one God in 3 coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons who share one essence (homoousion)!