200th Anniversary of The Jefferson Bible

Last updated on: October 23, 2020 at 12:01 pm By Kermit Zarley

This year is the 200th anniversary of “The Jefferson Bible” as it is popularly called. But it really is entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. It was compiled, thus not actually authored, by the third U.S. president, Thomas Jefferson, in 1820. Jefferson did something similar to what I did in compiling my first book, The Gospel (237 pp., softcover, but no longer in print). This book was published in about May of 1987. But I also made it a part of my two-part book, The Gospels Interwoven (415 pp., hardcover) published one month later and endorsed by my friend Evangelist Billy Graham.

My book, The Gospel, is a single-narrative harmony of the four New Testament (NT) gospels in the New International Version of the Bible. Thus, I joined all four gospels together in one reading, leaving nothing out while deleting repetition since two or more of these gospels often report the same acts and sayings in Jesus’ ministry. You could say that Jefferson and I did the same thing in taking a Bible, cutting up its four gospels, and pasting portions together. But there is one huge difference between our compilations.

Thomas Jefferson had a high regard for Jesus except that Jefferson–a very learned man and widely read–was a typical rationalist and Deist of his time and therefore a product of Enlightenment. So, Jefferson did not believe Jesus did any of those miracles that are said of him in all four NT gospels, nor did he believe those gospels were right in narrating that Jesus literally arose from the dead. Thus, that’s where Jefferson’s scissors and paste came in even more handy that they did for me. That is, Thomas meticulously cut out all of that material in the gospels and tossed it in his trash can, but he pasted just about everything else into his Jefferson Bible.

John Adams was Vice President to our first president, George Washington, in 1789-1797, and then became our second president in 1797-1801. Thomas Jefferson was our third president, in 1801-1809. Jefferson compiled his Jefferson Bible in his old age. In 1814, Jefferson wrote to his friend, former President John Adams, who was a Unitarian who also had high regard for Jesus but did not believe in his miracles or resurrection. Jefferson wrote to Adams, saying of those portions in the four NT gospels, “It is as easy to separate those parts as to pick out diamonds from dunghill.” Now, I have a certain respect for Thomas Jefferson, but him using the metaphor “dunghill” to refer to Jesus’ alleged miracles and resurrection in the NT gospels makes me aghast.

I have written in books, “If Jesus did not arise from the dead, there never would have been any Christianity.” Actually, I have a subhead on “Deism” in my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ (pp. 91-92, written with the pseudonym “Servetus the Evangelical”), that tells about Thomas Jefferson and his Jefferson Bible as follows:

Deism began in England in the mid-17th century. It spread throughout Europe and North America, flourishing there for about a century. Deism grew out of Enlightenment, partly in reaction to the religious intolerance of the Reformation. Deism consisted of an intellectual rationalism that was based solely on reason and natural law. Thus, Deism was anti-supernaturalistic, generally skeptical of divine revelation and therefore the Bible, and generally opposed to orthodox Christianity.

“Pure Deists believed in a personal, transcendent Supreme Being who created a “clockwork universe,” meaning that He did not afterwards intervene in human affairs. Moderate Deists, however, postulated that God was immanent in the individual human conscience, if not active in human affairs. Regarding theological dogma, all Deists were known most for rejecting the Christian doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity. Some of them were a bit hazy on whether the one God was a personal being. They frequently employed the words “Providence,” “God of Nature,” or “the Deity” rather than “God.”

Deism remained an ideological movement that never formed into a particular school of thought or cultus. Actually, classical Deists were opposed to organized, institutional religion. Yet many of those who declared themselves as Deists were not without influence in society. Several founding forefathers of the USA were Deists. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), the author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the third U.S. president, was a thorough-going Deist. (Some authorities, however, claim that it is more accurate to classify him as “a Freethinker.”) Moderate Deists included George Washington (1732-1799), the first U.S. president, and Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), the great inventor, publisher, politician, and Renaissance man.

Thomas Jefferson opposed much of organized Christian religion when he helped get “the establishment clause” into the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Jefferson was most opposed to Presbyterianism. In his writings, he frequently denounces John Calvin, calling him an “Atheist.” Jefferson later wrote the following harshly rhetorical attack on Presbyterianism, citing the Servetus episode:

The Presbyterian clergy are the loudest, the most intolerant of all sects; the most tyrannical and ambitious, ready at the word of the law-giver, if such a word could now be obtained, to put their torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere the flame in which their oracle, Calvin, consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not subscribe to the proposition of Calvin, that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to the Calvinistic creed! They pant to re-establish by law that holy inquisition which they can now only infuse into public opinion.

Later, in Germany, Deism helped stir the emergence of both biblical criticism and the History of Religions School. In the U.S., Thomas Jefferson became one of the first biblical critics among American Deists when, in the winter of 1819-1820, he produced a composite harmony of the four NT gospels. Entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, it was published posthumously, in 1904. It emphasizes the ethical teachings of Jesus. But as a purely rationalistic work, it excludes all gospel narrative that depicts Jesus as a healer and miracle-worker, and it excises his resurrection and post- resurrection appearances as well.

Was Tertullian the First to Claim the Holy Spirit Is a Person?

Last updated on: April 22, 2020 at 1:46 pm By Kermit Zarley

The traditional church teaching about God is that God is a Trinity of three co-equal and co-eternal Persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Anyone who reads my blog much knows that I was a Trinitarian for twenty-two years, and then I changed to believing that the Bible presents God as a single person, whom Jesus regularly called “Father,” and the Bible does not say Jesus is God. Yet I also believe everything else the post-apostolic church has proclaimed about Jesus, especially that he died for our sins on the cross as Savior, was resurrected from the dead, ascended to heaven, sat down at the right hand of God on God’s throne, and he will return in the future with his worldwide kingdom given to him by God.

I then wrote a 500-page book about the Bible not saying Jesus is God entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008) in which I cite the writings of over 400 scholars and interact with them. (To see a list of 130+ posts of 2-3 pages each which represent condensations of this book, go to Kermit Zarley Blog and click on “Christology” in the header bar.)

Over the past few years, I increasingly have come to suspect that the baptismal formula in Mt 28.19b is not original, so that it is an interpolation inserted from a later time.

Matthew 28.19-20 is represented as a saying of the risen Jesus to his disciples. It reads as follows in the NRSV: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” See my similar blog post on this text entitled “Is the Trinitarian Formula in Matthew 28:19 an Interpolation?”

The threefold baptismal formula of Mt 28.19 also appears in the early, non-canonical literature of The Didache (2x) and Tertullian’s On Baptism. Scholars used to believe the The Didache was written at the end of the 2^nd c. But most now believe it was written at the end of the 1^st c., though some still hold to late date.

Tertullian (c. 155-c. 240) was a Berber who is believed to have become a lawyer before his Christian conversion. I have been to the Berber mountains in North Africa. Those native Berbers are interesting and seemingly industrious people who dress colorfully.

Tertullian lived and ministered in Carthage in Tunisia, North Africa, which was located on the Mediterranean Sea. He wrote in the early 2^nd c., starting in about in 204, though perhaps some of his works were earlier.

Tertullian became a prolific, Christian, apologist author who had an enormous, later influence upon Christianity despite the fact that he was never canonized by either the Western or Eastern branches of Christendom. That is because some of his teachings were questionable. Yet he is regarded as “the father of Latin Christianity” and “the father of Western Theology.”

Tertullian is most known for being the first to apply the Latin word trinitas (trinity) to God (actually, he was not the first as I state in my book), which became the basis for the late fourth century church formulation of the official doctrine of the Trinity. In some of Tertullian’s writings, he calls the Father and the Son “two gods.” (See Dale and Zalta Tuggy, History of Trinitarian Doctrines.)

Tertullian became a Montanist. I think eventually there was a significant Montanist community in Carthage, Tunisia. This Christian sect was first established by Montanus in Phrygia, Asia Minor, and then it spread elsewhere. Montanists emphasized the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and miracles, much like Pentecostalists do today.

Since Montanists so emphasized the Holy Spirit in comparison to other Christians, I think Tertullian could have been an important person who first claimed the Holy Spirit was a person, or Tertullian could have been one of the first Christians who popularized this belief. Since I am no longer Trinitarian, I believe this teaching, that the Holy Spirit is an actual Person, is incorrect. Rather, according to the Bible, the (Holy) Spirit of God is to God what the spirit of man is to man because man was made in the image of God.

The following last paragraph in the wikipedia article on “Didache” is instructive:

“Significant similarities between the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew have been found^[5] as these writings share words, phrases, and motifs. There is also an increasing reluctance of modern scholars to support the thesis that the Didache used Matthew. This close relationship between these two writings might suggest that both documents were created in the same historical and geographical setting. One argument that suggests a common environment is that the community of both the Didache and the gospel of Matthew was probably composed of Jewish Christians from the beginning.^[5] Also, the Two Ways teaching (Did. 1–6) may have served as a pre-baptismal instruction within the community of the Didache and Matthew. Furthermore, the correspondence of the Trinitarian baptismal formula in the Didache and Matthew (Did. 7 and Matt 28:19) as well as the similar shape of the Lord’s Prayer (Did. 8 and Matt 6:5–13) appear to reflect the use of similar oral traditions. Finally, both the community of the Didache (Did. 11–13) and Matthew (Matt 7:15–23; 10:5–15, 40–42; 24:11,24) were visited by itinerant apostles and prophets, some of whom were heterodox.”

Historicity in the Gospel of John

Last updated on: April 28, 2025 at 11:46 am By Kermit Zarley

0 Comments

The Gospel of John in the New Testament has always been my favorite book or letter in the Bible ever since my late teens. And my favorite verse of scripture is in this book. Thus, when I used to compete on the PGA Tour, I often gave autographs by including under my name “John 3.16.” This verse is part of a lengthy saying of Jesus in response to an inquirer named Nicodemus. Incidentally, he was one of the two guys who took Jesus’ deceased body off of the cross right about as I am writing this post (4:00 PM in Arizona on Good Friday), wrapped with grave cloths and spices, and laid it in Joseph’s tomb near Golgotha. Jesus had said to Nicodemus, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal.” (See my comparable and recent post, “What Does It Mean to Believe in the Name of Jesus?“)

I have been a so-called “born again Christian” since my early teens. I believed Jesus is God and God is a Trinity of Persons mostly because that was what I was taught, as almost all Christians are. But twenty years later, I began to question this teaching because Jesus saying of himself and his second coming, “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matthew 24.36 NRSV; cf. Mark 13.32). I eventually looked into this matter very deeply and changed to no longer believing the Bible says Jesus is God or that God is a Trinity. I then wrote a book about it that was published 28 years later entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008) which is available at my website kermitzarley.com. In this book, I examine very carefully the primary biblical texts which are believed to say Jesus is God.

Leading New Testament scholars who assert that Jesus is God generally agree that most of the biblical support for their position is in The Gospel of John. Those scholars who have disputed that Jesus is God generally have dismissed The Gospel of John, claiming it is a church document that has little relevance to the actual Jesus. They claim that only the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are useful for determining Jesus identity, mostly because they do not say Jesus is God. These latter scholars further support their hypothesis by claiming that The Gospel of John has little historical value as well. They mean its content about historicity is without foundation.

Contemporary, leading Johannine scholars who believe the Fourth Gospel says Jesus is God include Paul Anderson, Richard Bauckham, Tom Thatcher, Felix Just, and now Jorg Frey. Older Johannine scholars who believed likewise included C. H. Dodd, J. Louis Martyn, Raymond E. Brown, and Culpepper.

In 1968, esteemed Johannine scholar J. Louis Martyn published his groundbreaking classic History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. In it, he posits, as Rudolf Bultmann did, that the Gospel of John (=Fourth Gospel) had at least five authors. Thus, the Apostle John was not the sole author as was believed throughout church history. And Martyn says this gospel likely was written in the late 80s or 90s. Martyn also proposes that these authors were members of a Johannine community, probably located in Ephesus in Asia Minor. This is a point that soon won the day with other Johannine scholars, such as Raymond E. Brown. Martyn also claims The Fourth Gospel reveals more about the beliefs of that Johannine community, and their conflicts with the synagogue, than it does about Jesus. Thus, J. Louis Martyn dismisses The Gospel of John as having little historical value about Jesus of Nazareth. However, just about all of these Johannine scholars, whether they believe Jesus is God or not, believe The Gospel of John says clearly that Jesus is God. One of their main issues for discussion is that the Fourth Gospel supposedly has a tension between actual history and Theology/Christology.

Leading, contemporary, European, Johannine scholar Jorg Frey has published an important book entitled Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and Narration (Baylor Press, 2018). He obviously plays on Martyn’s title by reversing the two subjects both books address. Frey accepts that The Gospel of John says Jesus is God, which scholars call “a high Christology.” Frey’s main hypothesis, which is contrary to that of Martyn in his comparable book, is that the theological content of The Fourth Gospel is indeed historical and therefore truly represents the person of Jesus.

I think both Martyn and Frey are wrong, as are the large majority of Johannine scholars, in assuming that The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as God and thereby is contrary to the synoptics. I set this forth in my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008). In this book of 500 pages of text, in which I cite over 400 scholars and their works, I thoroughly examine critical Johannine texts and argue that The Gospel of John is both historically reliable in presenting the real Jesus and is compatible with the synoptics because it does not say Jesus is God.

As for date of authorship of John, I agree with John A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament and The Priority of John) that The Gospel of John and all other New Testament documents were written and published prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. As for this gospel’s authorship, I lean toward the Apostle John, as does Robinson, as being the primary source for this gospel’s content. As for the actual hands that wrote the text, perhaps it was one or more associates of John (cf. John 21.24). For, we must remember that the actual titles penned to all four New Testament gospels likely were added sometime after they became public documents. And for this gospel to be titled “The Gospel According to John” only signifies that “John” was the source, or the main source, of its contents.

Thus, in MHO, Martyn and Frey go astray from the very beginning in examining the Fourth Gospel by assuming that it says Jesus is God. Yet I believe the New Testament affirms everything else the church has said about Jesus identity, such as, the unique Son of God, the Son of Man (cf. Daniel 7.13), Savior, and Lord.

For more reading about this subject, at my Kermit Zarley Blog click on Christology (in the menu bar) to see a list of over 130 (2-3 page) posts that are mostly condensations of my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ. See especially the posts about John 1.1c (“and the Word was God”) and John 20.28 (“my Lord and my God”).

When Did Jesus “Come into the World”?

Last updated on: December 4, 2019 at 12:55 am By Kermit Zarley

Christianity teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. It was gradually developed by post-apostolic church fathers over a period of about 250 years and made official at the Second Ecumenical Council, in 381. It means that God is three co-equal and co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. In nearly the next two centuries, church fathers developed this teaching further about how Jesus could be both man and God. It is called “the hypostatic union.” It means Jesus had two natures: a human nature and a divine nature. This teaching also includes the Incarnation. It means that Jesus, as the Logos-Son of God, eternally preexisted in heaven and came into the world to be born a God-man. The church ever since has asserted that the Incarnation is taught in the Bible and that it is mostly in the Gospel of John. Yet, the words Trinity, two natures, hypostatic union, and Incarnation are not in the Bible.

I was taught all of this and believed it for twenty-two years. Then one day, while I was alone in my office studying the Bible, I had a eureka moment about this subject that changed my life forever. I was reading in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse wherein he said of his yet future return, “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mt 24.36 NRSV; cf. Mk 13.32). I had been taught—in accordance with the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two natures—Jesus said that from the sole perspective of his human nature, since being God he certainly knew in his divine nature the time of his yet future return. I then exclaimed out loud to myself, “That makes Jesus look like a liar. He said he didn’t know, but he really did know.” I then decided that I must seriously look into this. I did, and I wrote a 600-page book about it entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ. In it, I show that the Bible does not identify Jesus as God. I do so by thoroughly examining all of the critical, biblical texts on this subject while referencing the writings of over 400 scholars. It is my magnum opus.

So, let’s have a brief look at the Gospel of John to see if it teaches the Incarnation. As we do, we will focus primarily on the idea of Jesus “coming into the world” or him being “sent” into the world by God. This subject about his “coming” or being “sent” into the world occurs about forty times in this gospel. We first read therein of Jesus in this way, “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it” (Jn 1.4-5). After that we soon read of him, “The true light was coming into the world” (v. 9). Does this refer to an Incarnation or Jesus’ public ministry, which he began at about age thirty (Mk 3.23). The next text suggests that it refers to his public ministry. For it says, “He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him” (Jn 1.10-11).

Two chapters later we read in this gospel, “Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God” (Jn 3.1-2). So, Nicodemus, a great Torah teacher and not yet a disciple of Jesus, recognized that Jesus had “come from God.” But what did he mean? He surely did not believe that Jesus preexisted as God and came into this world by means of an Incarnation. Rather, Nicodemus meant that Jesus spiritually had come from God.

It was the same with John the Baptist. For we read in this gospel, back in its chapter one, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light,” referring to Jesus (Jn 1.6). Just as Nicodemus did not mean that Jesus preexisted and then came from God, so the Johannine author does not mean here that John the Baptist preexisted and therefore was literally sent from heaven to earth by God. No, it means God spiritually sent him.

Not long into Jesus’ ministry, only the Gospel of John reports that Jesus healed a man who had been lame for thirty-eight years (Jn 5.5-9). Since it was on the Sabbath day, “the Jews started persecuting Jesus because he was doing such things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is still working, and I also am working.’ For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God” (vv. 16-18). Traditionalists (who believe Jesus is God) wrongly interpret this as being true, whereas the author only represents it as what those Jews believed. They were obviously mistaken because Jesus then gave a lengthy rebuttal in vv. 19-47. Therein, he says twice of himself, “the Son can do nothing on his own” and “I can do nothing on my own” (vv. 19, 30). No one who thought himself equal to God could say that. Jesus further explained in this context of his healing the lame man, “The works that the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. And the Father who has sent me has himself testified on my behalf” (vv. 36-37). So, Jesus said he was, like John the Baptist, sent by God, and that is how he could do miracles.

Now let us fast-forward to the end of Jesus’ ministry, where this concept of Jesus coming into the world becomes most prominent. Right after the Last Supper, and therefore shortly before Jesus was arrested and crucified, Jesus told his disciples that he was about to leave this world (Jn 16.16-20). He then consoled them by saying, “the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father” (v. 28 ESV). Did Jesus’ disciples believe that he meant an Incarnation, that he had preexisted and came into the world at his birth? No! For they replied, “we believe that you came from God” (v. 30b ESV). Furthermore, he concluded these remarks by predicting, “In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (v. 33b ESV).

“The world” (Gr. ton kosmon) in these above texts therefore means the cosmos system that is opposed to the things of God. Jesus came into that world, this cosmos, at the time of his public ministry to be a light unto it because it was enveloped in spiritual darkness. That is what the Gospel of John means when it repeatedly says that Jesus came into the world.

Christians Mired in Trumpgate

Last updated on: October 23, 2019 at 5:39 pm By Kermit Zarley

I use the word Trumpgate, reminiscent of Watergate, for the apparent scandal of President Trump’s tenure in office. He is now under investigation for impeachment by the congressional House of Representatives. It increasingly appears that some of his closest presidential advisors, some of whom are professing Christians, could be implicated and thereby face legal jeopardy.

First, there is the staunchly evangelical Vice-President Mike Pence. He is very vocal about his Christian commitment. His possible legal liability appears to be less than that of some others at this point. And if President Trump is impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate, Pence automatically would become president if he is not found guilty of crimes.

Second, there is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He has held this office for nearly twenty months. He has refused to provide any of the many documents under subpoena by House committees investigating impeachment. And he has been refusing to answer some important questions regarding Trumpgate. When Bill Taylor–the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine who testified ten hours yesterday before Congress–strongly objected in an email to Mike Pompeo months ago concerning the legality of President Trump withholding $391 million in U.S. military aid to Ukraine unless its president publicly declared Ukraine would undertake an investigation in Ukraine concerning past activities there of Trump’s political rivals here at home–Pompeo did not respond. That is suspicious.

Twelve days ago, Secretary Pompeo gave a keynote speech to the American Association of Christian Leaders who were gathered in Nashville. His speech was entitled “Being a Christian Leader.” Mr. Pompeo said he has a Bible on his desk at all times and that he starts his work every day by reading some of it. He also said that God’s people serve “a perfect God who constantly forgives us each and every day.” I wondered if this reflected a guilty conscience regarding his part in Trumpgate.

Third, there is Jay Sekulow. He is one of President Trump’s main lawyers, perhaps second only to Rudy Giuliani. Sekulow is a Messianic Jew. Over the years, he has appeared often on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Sekulow also hosts a weekly telecast on Trinity Broadcasting Network entitled “ACLJ This Week,” which refers to American Center for Law and Justice and is a call-in show.

If Trump gets impeached, could Sekulow prove to have legal liability as a result of working for Trump? Trump’s previous “personal lawyer,” Michael Cohen, is now serving three years in prison, partly for political campaign violations directed at the behest of his boss. But, of course, Sekulow has a history of far more integrity than Cohen had.

If Donald Trump is impeached by the House, and even if the Senate does not remove him from office, it will result in some of these people who worked as close advisors to the president having a tarnished reputation.

Charles Darwin’s Beliefs About Religion

Last updated on: July 10, 2019 at 9:41 pm By Kermit Zarley

I was just reading the last chapter of Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species. Published in 1859, it is regarded as the foundation of evolutionary biology. He teaches in it that natural selection is the cause of the development of the species. This book became a focus of many public debates between religion and science in the English-speaking world during the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. It is one of the most important books published in modernity since it has had such a profound effect on the comparison of science and religion.

It has been thought that Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was an atheist. Actually, he began with a strong Unitarian background, though he attended Anglican schools. He received a BA (bachelor of arts degree) at Cambridge University which included studying Anglican theology. In those college years, Charles Darwin was very involved in theological issues. He later admitted that the book which most affected him was William Paleys’ Natural Theology. Paley also wrote, which Darwin read, Evidences of Christianity. But Charles Lyell’s book on geology, Uniformitarianism, affected Darwin’s work the most. This and Darwins’ Origin of Species supported each other.

Charles Darwin had intended to be an Anglican clergyman. His mother and wife Emma were devout Unitarians. Emma seems to have had a genuine love for Jesus. One of her favorite Bible texts was John 13-17. During their courtship, she asked Charles to read this text and discuss with her. She worried that she and Charles were far apart about some religious matters, and she expressed this in a letter. Emma was also a Bible student. She and Charles had much discussion about theology for many years.

Charles Darwin wrote about “God,” but not much. In his early years, he identified himself as a “theist.” Many years later he said, “my belief in what is called a personal God was . . . firm.” That was contrary to many famous Deists previous to him, who were also interested in natural science. They believed that an impersonal God created the universe but that he left it on its own, called “the clockwork universe.” For a long time, Darwin believed God acted upon the universe through his natural laws.

Darwin’s background was very anti-Trinitarian. The wikipedia article, “Religious views of Charles Darwin,” says of Charles’ wife Emma, “In Downe [London suburb] Emma attended the Anglican village church, but as a Unitarian had the family turn round in silence when the Trinitarian Nicene Creed was recited.” She did that on other occasions.

Unitarians were known mostly for two beliefs: (1) advocating religious tolerance, which was most important to them, and (2) rejecting the institutional church doctrine of the Trinity. Regular readers of my blog know that I was a Trinitarian for twenty-two years, then entered into a deep study of the subject, almost entirely as it regards the Bible, and wrote a 600-page book about it entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008). In this book I cite over 400 scholars to show that the Bible does not teach that God is a trinity of persons or that Jesus is God. Yet I affirm in it every other major teaching about the identity and work of Jesus that the institutional church has taught. I don’t identify as a Unitarian because I think that could create some confusion about me. I merely refer to myself as “a one-God Christian.”

But Darwin had become intensely interested in natural history and natural theology. The latter was quite popular among some scientists of that time and before. This means there is a divine design in nature that reveals there is a God who established natural laws. Thus, Darwin believed God was a “lawgiver.” But due to his studies of nature, which reveals so much pain and suffering, Charles Darwin struggled with some religious concepts, especially those involving theodicy. He later began to wrestle with the concept of the existence of God.

Charles Darwin says he began to have serious doubts about the Bible and the existence of God in the late 1830s, which would have been in his early twenties. Some of it was caused by ridicule from classmates and colleagues when he quoted the Bible as an authority on moral issues. But he also began to distrust some of the history recorded in the Old Testament, such as the building of the Tower of Babel in the book of Genesis. (I’m writing a book that involves this record in Genesis 6-11.)

In the first ten years of their marriage, Charles accompanied his wife Emma and family to their local Anglican church (Church of England). In about 1849, Charles stopped attending church while his family continued. He developed a pattern of escorting his family to church on Sundays and then going out for a walk.

Emma–obviously an intelligent woman judging from her letters–believed passionately in an afterlife. In 1879, twenty years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s famous book, he admitted to being an agnostic. He explained, “Science has nothing to do with Christ, . . . I do not believe that there ever has been any [divine] revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”

By this time, Charles Darwin claimed that he had never attacked religion in either his writings or his public speeches. He admitted that this probably was due largely to the emotional pain it would have caused his family. In The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, published posthumously, his wife Emma and their son Francis excised quotes by Charles about Christianity because they deemed them detrimental to his reputation.

In 1958, Charles Darwin’s granddaughter Nora Barlow published a revised version of this book which included the following deleted quotes:

“The [New Testament] Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, – that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; – by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation” (p. 86).

“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine” (p. 87).

“At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. . . . This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists” (p. 91).

Charles Darwin remains one the most towering figures of the modern western world. But he was never knighted to become Sir Charles in his native land because he originally embraced Christian Faith and then fell away to become an agnostic the remainder of his life. Yet his wife held steadfastly to her Christian convictions.

The marriage of Charles and Emma Darwin seems like a microcosm of something Jesus predicted in his Olivet Discourse. He said, “many will fall away” from the faith; “but the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come” (Matthew 24.10, 13 NRSV).

What is “the end”?–Jesus comin’ back! Are you ready, like Emma was? Or has Charles Darwin and others convinced you otherwise?

The Missing Link in the Bible

Last updated on: May 15, 2019 at 10:25 pm By Kermit Zarley

When I first meet a Christian, occasionally the first thing that person will ask me is, “You believe in the Trinity don’t you?” They never ask me, “You believe that Jesus arose from the dead, don’t you?” Why is this?

The book of Acts tells us mostly about the early Christians preaching the gospel, which means “good news.” That good news is that Jesus arose from the dead. The book of Acts tells us over twenty times what their evangelistic messages were. It was mostly that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel, he died for the sins of others, and God raised him from the dead. But there isn’t anything in those messages about God being a Trinity, that is, three co-equal and co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is the Missing Link in the Bible.

Why do I say this? The Catholic Church decided at its First Ecumenical Council–held at Nicaea in present Turkey in 325 CE–that Jesus was “very God of very God.” This means that Jesus was just as much God as the Father is God. These 316 bishops, supposedly (two didn’t sign it), even drafted a creed, called the Nicene Creed, which says that. And the last third of this Creed repeatedly declares “anathema” (cursed to hell) upon all those who disagree with this axiom, that Jesus is “very God of very God.”

The Nicene Council never even discussed the constitution of the Holy Spirit. And, contrary to much teaching on this, there was no official church doctrine of the Trinity at that time or anytime before it. It was not until the 370s that the Three Cappadocians (three church fathers) began writing papers about the constitution of the Holy Spirit.

Then the Second Ecumenical Council–held at Calchedon in present Turkey in 381–made the doctrine of the Trinity official. It did so by amending the Nicene Creed and making it the Chalcedonian Creed. Yet the Church was careful not to include the word “trinity” (Gr. trias; L. trinitas) because that word was not in those documents the church generally held as sacred, which later became the New Testament. The Roman emperor thereupon declared that everyone must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or be extricated from the empire.

When the Protestant Reformation came along, in the sixteenth century, those early Reformers accepted the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity without serious scrutiny of it. Yet the mantra of Protestantism was sola scriptura, a Latin expression meaning “only scripture.” Protestants meant by it that if any serious theological teaching is not in the Bible, it ought not to be believed. They differed in this from the Roman Catholic Church, which said “scripture plus tradition,” that is, the teaching of the Catholic Church. But regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, that is exactly what the Protestant Church did–it accepted a Catholic Church tradition that was not in the Bible.

So, no matter how hard you search the Bible, you will not find the word Trinity in there or any statement that comes anywhere close to saying God is three persons or God is three in one. Even many leading evangelical scholars now admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught explicitly in the Bible. Rather, they claim it is a legitimate deduction from the Bible. Regardless, the doctrine of the Trinity is the Missing Link in the Bible because both the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church has made it so.

(Kermit Zarley was a Trinitarian Christian for twenty-two years before reading himself out of it in the Bible. See his book about this subject, which is biblically in-depth, entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ. It cites over 400 scholars. This 600-page printed book is available right now only at his website kermitzarley.com. To see a list of over 130 posts of two-three pages in length, which are mostly condensations of this book, at Kermit Zarley Blog click on Christology in the menu.)

Jeff Bezos Says Changing Your Mind Reveals High Intelligence

Last updated on: May 7, 2019 at 12:04 pm By Kermit Zarley

Tommy Mello writes about the business world on Inc., saying, “Keep Changing Your Mind? According to Jeff Bezos, That’s a Sign of High Intelligence.” In case you’ve been living like Kermit the Hermit in a cave the past few years, Jeff Bezos is now the world’s wealthiest man and the founder of the behemoth internet retailer amazon.com.

Mello says that according to Jason Fried, co-founder of Basecamp, Bezos said in a 2012 Q&A that people who tend to be right are those who change their minds “a lot.” Fried has further written concerning Bezos, “He’s observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.”

Mello says, “On the flip said, Bezos says that people who tend to be obsessed with details that only support one point of view are the ones who get it wrong.”

Mellow says Fried also says of Bezos’ approach, “If someone can’t climb out of the details, and see the bigger picture from multiple angels, they’re often wrong most of the time.”

Mello explains, “The way I see it, what we’re really talking about here is humility. If you’re humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has a different opinion might be right, then this allows you to learn and grow more quickly, while improving your decision-making skills.”

Mello continues, “If you find it difficult to consider other points of view, then you’ve probably grown too attached to your ideas. In my work, I see this all the time. People forget what the goal is, and they fight to ‘be right’ instead of fighting to do what’s best for the customers.

Now, the simplest way of training yourself to be more open to other points of view is to read widely, and interact with people from all walks of life.”

I think these words of wisdom can be applied to most if not all of life, including theology and Bible study. It is called critical thinking. Just because you were taught something, or you believe what most everybody else believes, or you came up with some idea, does not rationally mean it is right or the best way to think. As a Texan friend of mine once said, “We all need to eat a little humble pie once in a while.” We do this by listening, reading, and learning from others and trying to subject what we think to an unbiased, critical examination as much as lieth in us.

To learn of my foremost experience at thinking critically about theology and the Bible, read “At Forty Years Old I Best Saw the Light; Trinity Doctrine No Longer Seemed Right.”