Is Jesus “the Lord God … the Almighty” in Revelation 1.8?

Last updated on: November 23, 2018 at 10:52 am By Kermit Zarley

The following is the beginning of my treatment of Rev 1.8 in my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ:

Despite such strong evidence in The Revelation that Jesus Christ is not God, a bare few traditionalist expositors assert otherwise concerning Rev 1.8.[1] This passage reads as follows in the NASB: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’” These traditionalists assume that Jesus Christ is the speaker in v. 8 because He is the subject of the three previous verses.

In modern times, nearly all scholarly authorities on the book of Revelation have interpreted the speaker in Rev 1.8 as God the Father, not Jesus Christ.[2] And they usually don’t even deem it necessary to substantiate this interpretation. G.R. Beasley-Murray says of Jesus therein, “Older expositors sometimes thought that He is the speaker here also, but clearly the view is mistaken; it is spoken by the ‘Lord God’ (RV) … the Almighty,” which he regards as God the Father.[3] And Hans Georg Link states, “In Rev 1:8 God is the subject of the sentence,… while in Rev 1:17f. the Son of man speaks.”[4]

The following reasons affirm that God the Father is the speaker in Rev 1.8:

There is no logical reason why the author, John the Revelator, could not have changed speakers immediately following v. 7.
The same words that describe the speaker in v. 8—“who is and who was and who is to come”—also describe God the Father in both v. 4 and Rev 4.8.
The expression, “Lord God, the Almighty” (Gr. kurios ho theos ho pantokrator), occurs six times in The Revelation,[5] and “God, the Almighty” (Gr. tou theou tou pantokratoros), occurs twice therein.[6] The Greek word pantokrator means “ruler over all,” and it only occurs one other time in the Greek NT, in 2 Cor 6.18 (cf. Amos 3.13). Aside from Rev 1.8, scholars concur that in all seven other instances in The Revelation, pantokrator refers only to God the Father. The best example is Rev 21.22 because it juxtapositions God and Christ and makes God ruler over all, including over Christ. It reads as follows: “the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb.”
Due to slight MS variance in Rev 1.8, the TR has only kurios and therefore reads only “Lord” in the AV. But ms authority heavily favors kurios ho theos, as rendered in all modern Greek NTs, so that all modern English versions have “the Lord God.”
God’s self-annunciation in v. 8 designedly follows the description of the second coming of Christ, in v. 7, because it is God the Father who will orchestrate that event.

[1] E.g., Athanasius, Orations Against the Arians, 3.4; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 40; Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1977), 11.

[2] E.g., R.H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, With Introduction, Notes and Indices, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), 1:20; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 29; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 73; G.R. Beasley-Murray, “The Revelation,” in NBC (1970), 2^nd ed., 1170; idem, The Book of Revelation, 59-60; Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation, in SPS (1993), 16:47; G.B. Caird, New Testament Theology, 193; P.R. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels, 116; R. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 25, 50; C. Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament, 183; D.E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, 58.

[3] G.R. Beasley-Murray, “The Revelation,” 1170.

[4] Hans Georg Link, “ego eimi,” in DNTT 2:282.

[5] Rev 4.8; 11.17; 15.3; 16.7; 19.6; 21.22.

[6] Rev 16.14; 19.15.

………………..

To see a list of titles of 130+ posts (2-3 pages) that are about Jesus not being God in the Bible, with a few about God not being a Trinity, at Kermit Zarley Blog click “Chistology” in the header bar. Most are condensations of my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ. See my website servetustheevangelical.com, which is all about this book, with reviews, etc. Learn about my books and purchase them at kermitzarley.com. My books are: The Gospels Interwoven (1987); Palestine Is Coming: The Revival of Ancient Philistia (1990); The Third Day Bible Code (2006); The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008); Warrior from Heaven (2009); Solving the Samaritan Riddle: Peter’s Kingdom Keys Explain Early Spirit Baptism (2015).

My Christological Journey (Part 8 of 12)

Last updated on: March 25, 2023 at 3:34 pm By Kermit Zarley

My First Christological Discussion with Dr. S. Lewis Johnson—Section D

Here are other points Dr. S. Lewis Johnson and I discussed that day, but not in this order. I do not recall what Lewis’ response was when I mentioned that God raised Christ from the dead and that days later Christ ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God on God’s throne. I then proposed that God so acting upon Christ suggests that Christ was subordinate to God. I don’t recall Lewis’ response, so I guess it didn’t make an impact on me.

I then mentioned that some Bible versions translate the last clause in Rom 9.5 as “God” being “blessed overall,” thus not calling Christ “God.” I think Lewis replied with something like this, that “only liberals, who deny the deity of Christ, translate it that way.”

When I asked Lewis what he thought about the apologists’ belief in the subordination of the Son to the Father regarding their essence, he claimed they believed in “a voluntary subordination,” thus not an essential subordination. When I responded that there have been many church leaders and theologians who have believed that Jesus was essentially subordinate to God, Lewis replied, “they were not true leaders of the church.”

We then discussed DTS’s doctrinal statement. The reason was that Lewis’s five-point Calvinism put him in conflict with the Seminary, which was four-point. The school had always overlooked this when Dr. Johnson signed his contract each year. He had told me that one day in a faculty meeting, one of the professors asked President John Walvoord if you had to adhere to every item in the school’s doctrinal statement when you sign your contract. Walvoord answered, “yes.” Lewis told me some of the faculty members then looked at him in silence. That declaration by Walvoord meant that Johnson could no longer teach at the school.

And that’s what happened—Lewis had to resign. For some time, he was without a job. But he told me he didn’t believe in trying to get a job with other schools. He believed that if was to happen, God would do so without his, viz., Lewis,’ help. Then one day TEDS near Chicago phoned Lewis and offered him a two-day per week teaching assignment in which he could commute by air if he desired. Lewis accepted. Years later, I asked Dr. Walvoord about Lewis’ resignation. He said he and Lewis met privately to discuss it, and both shed tears about it.

Near the close of our discussion that day, Lewis raised an interesting but unrelated issue. He asked me if I was still a posttribulational premillennialist. I answered, “Yes.” I had told him years earlier that I had studied this subject, even spending five whole days in DTS’s Mosher Library reading about the origins of pretribulationism, and I changed to believing in postribulationism. He then said there are certain doctrines not open for discussion in the evangelical church and that they should be. I asked him what they were. He answered: (1) the pretribulational rapture, (2) Christ’s substitutionary atonement, (3) eternal security, and (4) inerrancy of scripture. All four of these are affirmed in DTS’s doctrinal statement.

I then asked Lewis, “Don’t you mean DTS in particular and not the evangelical church?” He answered, “No.” I thought it was interesting that he listed the rapture first.

We ended this conversation amicably. Lewis kindly invited me to return and talk about it further. Even though our discussion was at times intense, Lewis still seemed to be friendly to me. That had drawn me to him originally, years ago. I drove back to my home in Houston. I had made it a one-day trip, with our discussion lasting six hours. But as soon as I drove a few blocks away from Lewis’ home, I stopped and wrote down everything I could remember about our discussion.

My Christological Journey (Part 9 of 12)

………………………..

My Christological Journey (Part 7 of 12)

Last updated on: March 25, 2023 at 3:32 pm By Kermit Zarley

My First Christological Discussion with Dr. S. Lewis Johnson—Section C

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson and I then discussed the Arian Controversy and the Nicene Council of 325. Church historian Eusebius had been a prominent figure at the council. He took a middle position between the teaching of Presbyter Arius and that of Bishop Alexander, thus being dubbed a “semi-Arian.” Athanasius, the bishop’s assistant, afterwards became the determined defender of the Nicene Creed for decades. Lewis said Athanasius was right about it, and Eusebius was “prejudiced.” He then added, “Eusebius did not accept the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse” (the book of Revelation). I thought this strange and irrelevant to the discussion. I later learned it was an ad hominem argument. Lewis was grasping for straws against Eusebius.

Dr. Johnson then asserted that the “orthodox view is correct” because it “won the controversy” to become the accepted view of the church and thereby the emperor. I thought, “Wow! Might is right.” I then asked if this was his opinion of theological controversy in church history in general. I understood his answer to be positive. I thought this reflected his view of the sovereignty of God. Dr. Johnson had become a five-point Calvinist in the late 1960s after studying in Europe. I have wondered ever since if this was John Calvin’s view of theological controversy.

Over the years, Lewis had often told me he was a “Calvinist.” I once asked him if he thought calling oneself a Calvinist conflicted with what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1—3. Therein, Paul scolded various Christians at Corinth for saying, “‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided?” (1 Cor. 1.12-13). Paul concludes this section by saying, “So, let no one boast about human leaders” (3.21). Lewis said identifying himself as a Calvinist helps save time spent in theological conversation, to which I did not disagree.

Dr. Johnson next asserted that if Arius had won the controversy, meaning the Catholic Church would have adopted his viewpoint, “there would have been no Christianity humanly speaking.”

I then countered that the Church affirmed baptismal regeneration, which Lewis opposed. He responded, “Yes, but there were people not in the Catholic Church who did not hold that view.” I added, “Yes, but was it not the same with trinitarian belief?” I don’t recall his reply to this.

One of Lewis’ repeated arguments was that if Jesus is a divine being he logically must be God. He said a human father and his son have the same nature, and so it is with the heavenly Father and His Son, that they have the same divine nature. (Critics say this idea comes from Greek metaphysics.) I responded by saying my son, Michael, would not be described exactly the same as me, so we are not the same essence. Lewis then said I was confusing the personalities of the Godhead regarding their essence. I didn’t feel sure of myself in discussing this argument.

We did not talk about the tri-personality of the Godhead and single personality of man in light of creation, that is, that man was made in the image of God. Nor did we discuss the thousands of personal pronouns in the Bible that are applied to God, as if God is a single personality.

Instead, I mentioned Matt. 26.64 in comparison with Titus 2.13, proposing that the Father will accompany Jesus at His second coming, even orchestrating it which will further demonstrate Jesus’ subordination to him. Of everything I said that day, this was the one I had the least certainty about. (Sometime later, I abandoned this idea and resorted to believing these verses and others indicate the power and glory of the Father will accompany Jesus at his return, but not that the Father personally will do so. In years since, I have vacillated between these two opinions.)

Lewis replied, “You are proposing an unheard-of doctrine. No, the Father remains in heaven when Jesus returns, yet God is everywhere and in everything.” I replied, “You don’t mean pantheism, do you, that God is that tree out there,” as I pointed to a tree outside the window, “or in this typewriter here,” pointing to it as well? Lewis answered, “No, but God is in the tree. He is in everything because there can be no place where God is not due to his omnipresence.” I was surprised with this statement. I wanted to discuss it more but felt we had talked a long time and were into a very different area. Plus, I was getting worried that I might be wearing Lewis out.

My Christological Journey (Part 8 of 12)

………………………..

My Christological Journey (Part 6 of 12)

Last updated on: March 25, 2023 at 3:31 pm By Kermit Zarley

My First Christological Discussion with Dr. S. Lewis Johnson—Section B

I then asked Dr. Johnson about 1 John 4.15. It reads in the NASB, “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” He replied, “Mormons and others say they believe that Jesus is the Son of God. But you must believe in the biblical meaning of the term Son of God to be saved, and they don’t because they don’t believe Jesus is God.” I have heard other Christians say that, including former Mormons who became evangelical Christians. I have questioned several Mormons about this and find that they don’t say that. Instead, they usually have pretty much affirmed the orthodox Trinity doctrine.

For example, years earlier, in 1977, I invited Joe Collett (now Seve Ballesteros’ manager) to have dinner with me at Colonial Country Club during the PGA Tour’s Colonial Invitational in Fort Worth, Texas. We had a long talk about Jesus, mainline Christianity, and Mormonism. Joe is still the most informed Mormon with whom I have ever discussed these subjects, though Billy Casper is a close second. Later, Joe gave me the Mormon book, Jesus the Christ. It was authored by James Talmadge, one of the Twelve Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church). Joe said Mormons regard it as the best book that sets forth Mormon beliefs about Jesus.

James Talmadge makes it clear in this book what Mormons believe. He says on p. 32, “We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One. The scriptures specify thee personages in the Godhead: (1) God the Eternal Father, (2) His Son Jesus Christ, and (3) the Holy Ghost. These constitute the Holy Trinity, comprising three physically separate and distinct individuals.” Of course, Trinitarians would object to the word “physically.” Talmadge further states that Mormons believe in the eternal preexistence of Jesus as the personal Word of God and his part in Creation. Talmadge often says Jesus Christ is God or Jehovah. In his main chapter on this subject, besides the word “physically,” only once did I detect anything that Trinitarians would object to. Talmadge (p. 32) calls the three members of the Trinity “Gods.” But this is no different from some Christian apologists of the second and third centuries who said Jesus and God the Father are “Gods/gods.” Origin had called the Logos “the second god.”

I then mentioned 1 John 5.1 to Lewis. It says in the NASB, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.” Lewis responded, “But you must believe in a divine Messiah to be saved.” I affirmed, “I do.” I don’t recall that he explained how you must believe in a divine Messiah, except to mean that Messiah is God.

Lewis then unequivocally stated that if I continued to believe what I was saying that I would be denying the deity of Christ so that I would end up believing only in the human nature of Christ, just like Unitarians do.

I asked Lewis about Jesus’ saying, “If you believe not on me, believe my works.” I was referring to John 10.38 (cf. 14.11), so I didn’t quote it exactly right. Jesus’ point seems to have been that if his opponents believed his works, it would lead them to believe in him. I then asked Lewis, “Doesn’t this mean if I believe in Jesus’ miracles and that He is a supernatural person come from heaven that I will be saved?” Lewis answered, “No, that is not enough. Angels are that, and they can do miracles.”

I thought afterwards that my question was incomplete. But I had made it clear what I believed. Lewis added, “Besides, the Antichrist will do miracles.” I then reminded him of a past conversation we had in which he said he differed with Hal Lindsey. He had claimed that the devil and the Antichrist could do supernatural acts. Lewis had said that was incorrect, that they could only deceive people into thinking they did miracles.

Lewis then backed off, saying the devil and the Antichrist could only cause people to think they performed miracles. Only seconds later, Lewis mentioned Jesus’ healing of the paralytic and forgiving of his sins, related in Mark 2.1-12 (and parallels). Lewis said this miracle proved Jesus’ deity. At this point, with all due respect, I thought Lewis sounded confused. I had never heard him say that Jesus’ miracles proved his deity. The problem with this argument is that according to the Bible, Old Testament prophets and Jesus’ apostles did miracles.

Lewis then said, “What about Titus 2.13? How can you get around this?” I knew that most Bible versions translate the one-person view, “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” which identifies Jesus as God. But some versions do not. For instance, the King James Version translates it, “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” which is a two-persons view which does not identify Jesus as God. Instead, I cited Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English NT, which renders it as the KJV, “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” thus the two-persons view which doesn’t identify Jesus as God.

Lewis replied exasperatingly, “You are as wrong as you can be!” He then explained that the Greek text has one article with two nominatives and that this grammar must be understood as identifying a single person, thus Jesus being God. At this time, I didn’t know any Greek, yet I was speaking to an outstanding Greek scholar. Since Lewis was also an ardent golfer, he added this metaphor, “Like in golf, you are taking five strokes and only counting three.” Lewis then said of Marshall and such scholars who translate the two-persons view of NT texts such as Titus 2.13, “The only reason they translate that way is because of their prejudice.” (Sometime later, I visited Lewis in his home and discussed this subject again. I mentioned the famous Greek grammarian Winer, in which he says the Greek grammar of John 1.1c does not say the Logos is God.)

My Christological Journey (Part 7 of 12)

………………..

My Christological Journey (Part 5 of 12)

Last updated on: March 25, 2023 at 3:29 pm By Kermit Zarley

My First Christological Discussion with Dr. S. Lewis Johnson—Section A

By now, in the mid-1980s, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson was still living in Dallas while commuting back and forth to Chicago to teach two days per week at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS). I phoned Lewis and requested to come and see him to discuss “something important in theology.” I didn’t tell him specifically what it was about. He welcomed me, as he had on other occasions. We met alone one day in October, 1986.

Lewis and I met together in his house and discussed Christology for six hours that first day. Sometimes, I worry that I wear people out with my questions, since I have so many. What now follows is almost verbatim from my notes that I wrote during and right after we met. It was surely the most important theological conversation I had ever had with anyone up to that time in my life. I had just turned 45 years of age, and I think Lewis was 70.

I first asked Dr. Johnson, “What is necessary to believe about Jesus Christ in order to be saved?” What I always mean by this, and often explain at length, is this: What must a person believe about Jesus, once that person learns about it, to become a genuine Christian. This was Lewis’ twofold answer: (1) Jesus is the Son of God, a divine being with both a divine nature and a human nature; (2) Lewis then spoke at length about soteriology—what we must believe about the work of Christ for salvation. (Throughout much of Lewis’ career, he was known for specializing in soteriology.) He spoke of Jesus’ substitutionary death as an atonement for our sins. I then realized that I may not have made my question clear. I wanted to know what we must believe about Jesus’ person in order to be saved. I have always believed strongly in Jesus’ substitutionary atonement. But Lewis’ may have thought you can’t separate the two concepts.

Then I shared my new thinking on Christology. It was that God, the Father, is greater in essence than Jesus, so that Jesus is fully subordinate to God. I told Lewis that the three main NT texts that I thought supported what I was saying were, first of all, (1) Jesus calling the Father “the only true God” (John 17.3), (2) what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor. 8.6 (“there is one God, the Father”), and (3) Eph. 4.6 (“one God and Father of all”). I don’t recall his response.

We then discussed some of the primary biblical texts cited by Trinitarian scholars for their position, such as John 1.1c; 10.28; Romans 9.5; 2 Thes. 1.12; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; 1 Jn 5.20; Heb. 1.8; and Phil. 2.6-11. At that time, John 1.1c and 20.28 were still problematic for me. [I learned later that Dr. Johnson was the supervisor for Dickinson’s PhD dissertation on John 1.1c—in which he sides with Philip Harner and the New English Bible in saying its anarthrous theos does not indicate Jesus as the logos is God—and Lewis graded Dickinson’s work with an A-.]

I was not shocked when Lewis replied to me, “You believe in a demigod. That’s Unitarian. You can’t believe that. Either you must believe in the Trinity, that Jesus Christ is God, or you will believe in,” and here I forgot what he said.

He again said, “You can’t believe that.” He argued strenuously that what I was saying, generally, was “illogical.” I was still saying Jesus was divine, but not to the extent that God, who is the Father, is divine. So, up to that time, I was somewhat Arian in belief. But it was mostly because I had no alternative answer for the standard translation of John 1.1c and interpretation of 20.28. Lewis said, “If Christ is a divine being, then He must be God.” I repeatedly acknowledged my belief that Jesus is a divine being.

Lewis replied, “Then you believe in two gods.” I admit it did look that way. However, I now thought Trinitarianism looked like the worship of three Gods/gods, though I didn’t say it. I then tried to explain myself again and he responded, “Then you believe in a demigod.”

Of all of Lewis’ statements to me that day, he was most adamant in saying, “You must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved.” He then revealed that he had friends who are Mormons and friends of other religions who say what I was saying. He asserted, “They think they are Christians, but they are not.”

My Christological Journey (Part 6 of 12)

………………………..

My Christological Journey (Part 4 of 12)

Last updated on: March 25, 2023 at 3:28 pm By Kermit Zarley

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson Writes the Foreword in my First Book

The situation was quite the opposite with my dear friend Professor S. Lewis Johnson. But I did not talk to him about whether or not Jesus is God until I had studied it a few more years and then I felt prepared somewhat to discuss it with him.

I met Dr. S. Lewis Johnson in 1969 when I attended Believers’ Chapel while playing in the PGA Tour’s Dallas Open. He was then 53 years old, thus 25 years older than me. He was a fairly handsome man who stood erect at just over six feet tall. At about 180-190 pounds, he was in reasonably good shape. He had a rather deep voice with a distinctly southern accent. Lewis Johnson was a gentleman if ever there was one. And he was an avid golfer with a good golf swing. I felt privileged that Dr. S. Lewis Johnson eventually became my dear friend. (This photo of him was taken from the website sljinstitute.net.)

S. Lewis Johnson died in 2008 at age 88. The eulogy read at his funeral by Fred G. Zaspel includes the following paragraphs:

“Dr. Johnson was born in Birmingham, AL, and grew up in Charleston, SC. He was always quick to assure everyone that his smooth, dignified, and pleasant southern accent was actually ‘English in its pure form.’ He graduated from the College of Charleston with a B.A. degree in 1937 and was converted [to Christ] through the teaching of Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse while in the insurance business in Birmingham. He left the insurance business in 1943 to enter Dallas Theological Seminary, from which he received the Th.M (1946) and Th.D (1949) degrees. He completed further graduate work at the University of Edinburgh, Southern Methodist University, and in the University of Basel. Remaining at Dallas Seminary Dr. Johnson was Professor of New Testament from 1950 to 1972 and Professor of Systematic Theology from 1972 to 1977. He later served as Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Divinity School in Deerfield, IL, and as Visiting Professor of Systematic Theology at Tyndale Theological Seminary, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Dr. Johnson preached and lectured in many places, large and small, taught countless home Bible studies, and was involved in starting several churches. In 1963 he and others planted Believers’ Chapel in Dallas, and it is from the Chapel that so many thousands of his tapes have gone to the benefit of countless people.

“He was in many ways a man to emulate. He was a true gentleman. He was always personable and a great delight in conversation. His humor was always good, and his wit was always quick. He was a careful student of the Scriptures with unusually superior abilities as an exegete and theologian. His abilities with the original languages were clearly superior, and when discussion began he would always lead from his Greek and Hebrew text.”

The SLJ Institute is dedicated solely to providing teachings of Dr. S. Lewis Johnson by means of its website sljinstitute.net. It now has 1,500 audio sermons delivered by Dr. Johnson between 1960 and 1990 at Believers Chapel Dallas. This website has a quote by John F. MacArthur, one of America’s most influential church pastors. He is known mostly for his radio program “Grace to You,” 150 authored books, The MacArthur Study Bible, and being president of The Masters University and The Masters Seminary, both in Southern California. MacArthur states, “Through the years I have listened to the preaching of S. Lewis Johnson far more than any other preacher.”

Lewis Johnson was Bob Thieme’s closest friend in the academy. Johnson sort of took the place of Thieme in my life. I came to regard Lewis as a mentor of mine even though I have never been theologically a Calvinist. Starting in 1970, I listened to hundreds of hours of electronic tapes of Dr. Johnson’s Bible teaching delivered at Believers Chapel. It included 120 hours of his systematic theology from a Calvinistic perspective. My views on ecclesiology have been much influenced by listening to Lewis’ messages on this subject. Due to his teaching on this, some people have thought he was a Plymouth Brethren, which is untrue. My favorite sermons I have ever heard were a series delivered by S. Lewis Johnson at Believers’ Chapel which he entitled, “Leading Figures in the Drama of Golgotha.” I still have those tapes.

Two years during the 1970s, I got Lewis to be the sole lecturer at our annual, three-day, Bible conference of the PGA Tour Bible Study. I always thought Lewis was not as known as much as he could have been. Bible scholars and theologians like S. Lewis Johnson gain notoriety by publishing. I once asked him why he had not published much. I was surprised when he said he didn’t believe much in it.

But I did. In about 1983, I mentioned to Lewis my idea about writing a book, which I had never done before. And it wasn’t going to be about golf. I was thinking of joining together all four NT gospels as a single-narrative or composite harmony. It is different from the well-known four-column harmony. Hopefully, it would be in a popular version of the Bible and I could get it published. This concept had first been tried by Christian apologist Tatian of Rome in 160 A.D. Titled The Diatessaron, it was quite popular for two centuries. Then a Catholic bishop in Syria strongly opposed it–wrongly alleging that one of Tatian’s purposes was to supplant the four gospels–by collecting and burning over 200 copies of The Diatessaron. While that largely led to its demise, translations and adaptations of it survived for many centuries.

Lewis thought it was a good idea, and he encouraged me to proceed. Yet I had very little education in writing. He even helped me by critiquing some of the drafts. Due to something about the first draft, he said, “this reads like you’re an amateur playing golf.” He got my attention. I learned some stuff from Lewis about writing. When the book was published by Scripture Press, in 1987, Lewis wrote the foreword in it. And both Evangelist Billy Graham and Pastor Dick Halverson, then chaplain to the U.S. Senate, wrote endorsements that went on the back cover. I was elated that these three men of such great stature as Christians were recommending my first book like this.

My Christological Journey (Part 5 of 12)

……………..

My Christological Journey (Part 3 of 12)

Last updated on: March 25, 2023 at 3:26 pm By Kermit Zarley

Discussing Identity Christology with Drs. Clowney, Houston, and Sproul

Days later, I expressed my thoughts about this to my close friend Jim Hiskey. Jim had discipled me for years. We also were partners in the Lord’s work—mostly the PGA Tour Bible Study. Jim’s brother and PGA Tour player, Babe Hiskey, and I had co-founded this group at Jim’s suggestion. During most of the 1960s, Jim was on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. He then hooked up with Dick Halverson and Doug Coe, leaders of The Fellowship in Washington, D.C. It is a ministry with many branches, but primarily ministering to members of the U.S. Congress.

Jim Hiskey was very concerned about my theological change. So, he asked me to talk to certain people about it. He first arranged for us to play golf with Dr. Ed Clowney, president of Westminster Seminary. Afterwards, during lunch in the clubhouse, I shared with Ed my new thinking. Dr. Clowney did not seem particularly worried about what I was saying.

After that, Jim had me talk on the phone with Dr. James Houston, president and founder of Regents College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. But we only talked about 20 minutes.

Later that summer, Jim arranged for me and my family to stay at Legonier Valley Study Center, a few miles south of Arnold Palmer’s hometown of Latrobe, Pennsylvania. (That’s were Babe and I had teamed to win the Tour’s PGA Team Championship in 1972.) The reason was that popular theologian R. C. Sproul was its director and main Bible teacher. I spent almost an entire day alone with R. C. in his home discussing this matter. R. C. insisted that we occasionally take a break to his backyard where he would swing his golf club and he’d ask me for swing tips.

None of these three conversations were particularly significant to me. All three men—Clowney, Houston, and Sproul—had not indicated alarm to what I was saying. Jim Hiskey then asked them their assessment of what I was saying. Jim relayed to me that all three men told him he need not be concerned about me. So, they gave me a clean bill of spiritual health as a Christian. Frankly, I was surprised, since all three were committed to the doctrine of the Trinity. But frankly, I was not impressed with Clowney’s and Sproul’s grasp of this subject and did not think that either of them were that capable of evaluating what I was saying. However, I must admit that I was not as articulate about my revised faith as I later became, and it developed further.

My Christological Journey (Part 4 of 12)

……………..

My Christological Journey (Part 2 of 12)

Last updated on: March 25, 2023 at 3:23 pm By Kermit Zarley

Reconsidering the Trinity and Jesus Being Fully God

About ten years later, I began to change on a more important theological subject. It was the doctrine of the Trinity and thus the deity of Christ, meaning Jesus is God. That is what nearly all Christians are taught and thus believe. Again, this change happened to me due to my interest in Bible prophecy.

One day in 1980, while I was studying in my home office, I became troubled about the deity of Christ while reading something Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse. He said concerning his yet future and literal second coming, “But of that day and/or hour no one knows, not even the angels of/in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24.36/Mark 13.32 NASB).

I also had been taught the corollary to the deity of Christ–the hypostatic union of Christ. This means that Jesus has two natures: a human nature and a divine nature. Church fathers had made this teaching official at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 to explain how Jesus could be both God and man, that is, a God-man. And I had learned further from pastor Thieme, as taught at Dallas Theological Seminary(DTS) , that when we read of the sayings and works of Jesus in the four NT gospels, in each case Jesus either spoke or acted from the perspective one of his two natures. In the case of this saying of Jesus about his return, Thieme taught that Jesus said that out of his human nature. That is, he did not know the time of his return in his human nature, but he did know it in his divine nature. All of what I’m saying here is very orthodox Christian teaching.

But for the first time in my life, as I was reading that saying of Jesus in my study room, I thought it made Jesus look like a liar. That is, he said he didn’t know, but he really did know in his divine nature, since being God he had to know everything about the future. I then decided that I had to make a concerted effort to find out the truth about this matter. So, when I had time I was checking out books at libraries and doing much more reading than normal.

In June, 1982, I decided that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical teaching. I decided this while I was playing in my favorite golf tournament, the U.S. Open, and at my favorite golf course, Pebble Beach Golf Links in Monterey Peninsula, California. I was doing something unusual that week by staying in a private home that was owned by a Christian couple. There was a theological library in the bedroom where I was staying. Even though ten years earlier, in 1972, I had led the U.S. Open here at Pebble Beach with only twelve holes to go on the final round, and finished sixth, I was now distracted. I was playing my round each day and returning to my room to read theological books and compare what I was reading with the Bible. My attention was not focused sharply on the golf tournament as it should have been. I had something on my mind that I thought was even more important, so I couldn’t lay it aside.

I shot a good round on Friday to easily make the 36-hole cut. So, I was still there to finish the tournament. That night, I asked God what difference does it make whether or not we believe Jesus is God. I told God maybe it would be better for me to forget this study and keep quiet about what I was thinking. I was well aware of the trouble it would cause me with my Christian friends and church at home if I became non-trinitarian. And I was considering becoming an author of Christian books. Being non-trinitarian would end it for me with Christian publishers.

Back at my room on Saturday night, I read the writings of two theologians in this home library. The main one for me was Lewis Sperry Chafer, the co-founder of DTS. I was reading his four-volume set entitled Systematic Theology. I read where he expressed his strong objection to the allegations by Muslims and religious Jews that Christians worship three gods. Thus, they allege that Christianity is polytheistic, not monotheistic, because of its doctrine of the Trinity. Chafer also wrote that Judaism and Islam insisted the Trinity doctrine is the greatest theological barrier that divides Christians from both Jews and Muslims. Chafer further said that some Muslims claimed that the easiest way for Christians to convert Muslims to a biblical faith in Jesus would be for Christians to abandon their trinity doctrine.

I kept reading way past the midnight hour. I should have been asleep to prepare for the final round that Sunday. But I was so obsessed. In much prayer and inner trembling, I made my decision before God that the Bible does not expressly state that Jesus is equal in deity to that of God the Father. Thus, I was changing my belief to believing that God the Father was greater in essence and sovereignty than Jesus, making Jesus subordinate in essence to God. Yet I still clung to belief that Jesus was a lesser God. It was mainly due to two Bible verses: John 1.1c (“and the Word was God,” referring to Jesus in v. 14) and John 20.28 (Thomas confesses to Jesus, “my Lord and my God”). I was forty years old when I made this change of belief in Christology.

My Christological Journey (Part 3 of 12).

…………………..