What Makes Christianity Christian?

September 22, 2018 By Kermit Zarley

Christian pastor and author Kevin DeYoung, senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church (I don’t know where), says of the doctrine of the Trinity, “If any doctrine makes Christianity Christian, then surely it is the doctrine of the Trinity. The three great ecumenical creeds–the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed–are all structured around our three-in-one God, underlying the essential importance of Trinitarian theology.”

No way! I was a Trinitarian for 22 years. Then I saw the light in the Holy Bible about this subject and wrote a 600-page book about it, The Restitution of Jesus Christ (available at kermitzarley.com), citing 400+ scholars. What “makes Christianity Christian” is, first of all, the New Testament of the Bible. It says nothing about God being three or a trinity. That is a false doctrine. God is “one,” not three. And no wrangling about words can twist like a pretzel that “one” into a “three.” God is a single person, whom Jesus called “Father.”

The NT gospel sayings of Jesus and the letters of the Apostle Paul certainly do not say God is three or use the word “trinity” to describe God. In fact, Paul writes, “If anyone teaches false doctrines and and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Timothy 6.3 NIV). Paul also writes, “What you have heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you–guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us” (2 Timothy 1.13-14). And Jude, Jesus’ brother, writes, “I … urge you to contend for the faith that God has once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). So, Christians are commanded to guard the original gospel, not change it into something else. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a departure from the biblical teaching that God is “one.”

And the Nicene Creed is not “structured around our three-in-one God,” as pastor De Young says. He needs to become better informed. See my post, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Was Not Established at Nicea, in 325.”

Trinitarian scholar R.P.C. Hanson established himself as the preeminent authority on the development of Christian doctrine during the 4th century with his book, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (1988, Baker). He writes in it (pp. 741, 748), “When we examine the creeds and confessions of faith which were so plentifully produced between the years 325 and 350, we gain the overwhelming impression that no school of thought during that period was particularly interested in the Holy Spirit…. It was Athanasius of Alexandria who first faced squarely the subject of the Holy Spirit.”

Hanson correctly informs that it was Athanasius’ letter in 360, which posed a question about the constitution of the Holy Spirit, that prompted the three Cappadocians to write their three treatises on the Holy Spirit in the 370s. That in turn caused the next ecumenical council, in 381. There, the doctrine of the Trinity was first officially established, yet without using that word Trinity because it was still controversial among Christians.

Hanson, a Trinitarian, admits (p. 872), “There is no doubt, however, that the pro-Nicene theologians throughout the controversy were engaged in a process of developing doctrine and consequently introducing what must be called a change in doctrine.” It was clearly wrong for church fathers to have made this very significant change in doctrine. For Moses wrote on behalf of God, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you” (Deuteronomy 4.2). The main command Moses gave them was this: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, LORD is one” (6.4). The doctrine of the Trinity is a clear departure from this teaching.

………………

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.

Michael Servetus

September 21, 2018 By Kermit Zarley

As author of The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008), I used the pseudonym Servetus the Evangelical. I created it based on Michael Servetus. (This book is available at kermitzarley.com.) The following is an excerpt about him from my book:

Michael Servetus

That man was Michael Servetus (Sp. Miguel Serveto Conesa, 1511-1553).[1] Born in Villeneu[f]ve, Spain, to a devoted Catholic family of nobility, his father was a notary and his mother was a Jew. A child prodigy, he grew up in the early stages of the Spanish Inquisition, when the government forced adherence to Catholic Christianity and thus its doctrine of the Trinity. This religious persecution by the RCC aroused serious questions in Servetus’ youthful mind. While studying law at the French University of Toulouse at the age of seventeen, he became shocked at his first reading of the Bible, which he did in its original languages. He concluded that the Bible did not support the doctrine of the Trinity. He also asserted that Christians should not demand adherence to doctrines that are unessential to their faith, as was this doctrine, especially if unsupported by the Bible.

Consequently, at the youthful age of twenty, Servetus naively set himself to the daunting task of correcting this supposed theological error. As an assistant to Quintana, confessor of Emperor Charles V, Servetus became familiar with some of the inner workings of the RCC, and he was dismayed by it. Spurned of a requested hearing with his church and then denied interviews with Protestant leaders (except Oecolampadius), especially in France and Switzerland, he quickly wrote and published his first theological book. Entitled On the Errors of the Trinity (1531), it consisted of only 119 pages.[2] Early Protestant leader Wolfgang Capito wrote that “the book became remarkably popular.”[3] Even at that early age, Servetus was fluent in Spanish, Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, the last two being the original languages of the Bible. Servetus’ father apparently had trained him in these languages during his youth, and he later learned Arabic as well.

In his book, Servetus affirms the sole authority of the Bible in doctrinal matters and denies that it contains either the doctrine of the Trinity or its terminology. He lodges a scathing rebuke against the Church, asserting that its inclusion of the doctrine of the Trinity in Church creeds reveals that they are mere inventions of men. He contends that the Bible designates the Holy Spirit only as God’s “activity,” i.e., the power of God, and thus not a person. He alleges that the Trinity doctrine, as proclaimed in the Athanasian Creed, is an insuperable and unnecessary obstacle in the conversion of Jews and Muslims to Christianity. And he rightly insists that he believes in the Trinity as generally taught by the apologists. Finally, Servetus contends that the Protestant Reformation had not gone far enough and that he is attempting to reestablish pre-Nicene, biblical Christianity.

As for Servetus’ Christology, he denies the eternal generation of the Son. This free-thinking Spaniard affirms the virgin birth and claims that Jesus’ Sonship began at His incarnation, in accordance with Lk 1.32-35. So, Servetus denies that Jesus preexisted. He argues that Scripture only verifies that the Logos preexisted as a manifestation of God the Father, not as a separate Person from Him, and it united with Jesus at His conception. Servetus even admits that Jesus is God by agreeing with the apologists in explaining that His divinity is derived solely from the Father. Yet Servetus affirms the following major elements of Church orthodoxy: Jesus was the Christ who performed miracles, died for our sins, arose alive from the tomb, appeared to His disciples, and ascended into heaven where He was exalted by sitting at God’s right hand, and now awaits His second coming.

As with the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers, whom Servetus cites liberally for support, On the Errors of the Trinity suffers from much Logos speculation and not a little incongruity. But it reveals that Servetus had a considerable knowledge of the Bible as well as patristic and Scholastic literature. Andrew M.T. Dibb gives an unbiased critique of Servetus’ book, saying, “The Trinitatus is not an easy book to master. Although liberally annotated with Biblical and Patristic references, Servetus makes it difficult for a reader to follow his argument. It seems to have little cohesion and the outline of his argument is difficult to follow. However, although it is often obscure, there is a progression of ideas in the Trinitatus that can be roughly illustrated under the paradigm that Christ is a man, Christ is the Son of God, Christ is God,”[4] but not fully God as determined at Nicaea.

One year after Servetus published this first of his theological works, he published a booklet entitled Dialogues on the Trinity to further clarify his previous views. In it, he even describes his previous book as a “barbarous, confused and incorrect book” that is “incomplete and written as though by a child for children.”[5] That same year Servetus published another book entitled On the Justice of Christ’s Reign.

The danger of being anti-Trinitarian in the early Protestant Reformation cannot be over-exaggerated. Both the Roman and Protestant churches agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity, treating it as foundational to Christianity. As Servetus’ book about the Trinity circulated in Europe, governmental authorities usually banned it and confiscated copies to burn them. Servetus, fearing for his safety, abandoned his passion for theology, returned to France, and disguised his identity, changing his name to Michel de Villeneuve. In this the doctor provided a clue to his identity, since his birthplace was Villaneuva de Sijena.

While in France, this brilliant and multi-talented Spaniard attained several notable achievements as a consummate multi-professional. He became an editor and a translator of classics, temporarily a university mathematics professor, then an inventor, and briefly a pioneer in geography. But most of all, Servetus attended medical school in Paris and became a distinguished physician. His twelve-year medical practice in Vienna included his being the personal physician for the archbishop. His keen intellect was manifested when he discovered and wrote about the pulmonary circulation of the blood more than a century before the medical community discovered it. Servetus also translated and edited the famous Santes Pagnini Bible. He added a preface to it, in which he recommends the study of the history of the Hebrew people in order to achieve a better understanding of the Bible. Servetus was an indefatigable researcher. He read much Judaica, the writings of Greek philosophers, and church fathers. Because of his many skills and a critical mind, modern scholars recognize Michael Servetus as a forerunner of biblical criticism. Some historians even regard him as “the father of the freedom of conscience.”

Because of Servetus’ knowledge of Hebrew, he correctly argued that the common Hebrew word for “God,” the plural elohim, does not provide for a trinity of Persons in a supposed Godhead. For this and other reasons, Jewish scholar Louis Israel Newman concludes, “it is apparent that Servetus was equipped for Biblical exegesis far better than his contemporaries.”[6] Indeed, in many ways Servetus was a man ahead of his time.

But this alias Dr. Michel de Villeneuve could no longer restrain his penchant for expounding with the pen God’s truth, as he perceived it. After twenty years of public silence on theology, and despite a successful medical practice and peaceful life at Vienna, he was discontented. So he resumed his theological career by writing and publishing another provocative book, in 1552, this one under his real name. It was his magnum opus, being 734 pages in length, and it contained his treatise on the circulation of the blood. Entitled Christianismi restitutio (ET The Restitution of Christianity), he meant its restoration. Catholics and Protestants alike detested it just as vehemently as they did his first book. To make matters much worse, back in 1546 Servetus had started a lengthy correspondence with the astute John Calvin that lasted for over a year, with Servetus writing thirty letters to Calvin. (The two simultaneously had been students in Paris.) The tenor of these letters soon deteriorated dramatically, with Servetus hurling a cascade of invectives at Calvin. Indeed, the excitable Spaniard could be very obstinate and caustic in controversy. But then, Calvin was a well-known master of rhetoric himself.

John Calvin had been made master of Geneva, Switzerland. The city offered him the post, and his friend, Guillaume Farel, a fanatical Reformer, had threatened Calvin with God’s judgment if he refused to accept it. Geneva afterwards became the capital of the Reformed churches and a sort of model theocracy. Calvin instituted much restrictive legislation there. Citizens were reprimanded and even punished for not greeting him with the title “Master.” Many of them declared him a tyrant. Although John Calvin was small in stature, even frail and often rather sickly, he admitted to having a violent temper and absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for criticism of himself.

Marian Hillar is a contemporary authority on Servetus as well as Calvin’s role in the execution of Servetus. Hillar alleges:

“Calvin in fact established a dictatorship, becoming a civil and religious dictator. Geneva was nicknamed Protestant Rome and Calvin himself—the Pope of the Reformation…. Calvin introduced an absolute control of the private life of every citizen. In his doctrine every man was a wretched being not worthy of existence, a sinner and evil doer, ‘trash’ (une ordure). He instituted a ‘spiritual police’ to supervise constantly all Genevese and they were subjected to periodical inspections in their households by the ‘police des moeurs.’ Anything that smacked of pleasure—music, song, laughter, theater, amusement, dancing, playing cards, even skating—was declared ‘paillardise’ and severely punished. Calvin managed to destroy the normal bonds between people and simple decency inducing them to spy upon each other. His method of intimidation and terror was so refined that it involved control of every petty activity.”[1]

The Arrest, Trial, and Execution of Servetus

Because of Servetus’ last book, Calvin summoned the Catholic Inquisitors to arrest him in Vienne, France. They promptly did so on April 4, 1553. But the doctor outwitted his captors and escaped. Later, he headed for northern Italy where he planned to practice medicine among new groups of anti-Trinitarians, many of them Anabaptists.

Unfortunately for Servetus, it seems that he could not avoid traveling through Geneva. And mostly on account of Master Jean Calvin, Geneva had strict Sabbatical laws. One of them was the mandatory requirement of church attendance on Sunday.

Servetus apparently feared arrest if discovered breaking the “Christian Sabbath.” So he took a calculated, but foolish, risk. On August 13^th, 1553, he attended the large church where Calvin pastored and preached every Sunday. A parishioner uncannily recognized the doctor and quickly informed the Master. Calvin hailed the heresy-hunting Inquisitors to arrest Servetus again, this time charging him as an escaped prisoner.

During the next seventy-five days, Calvin led Geneva’s other thirteen Protestant pastors—called “the Venerable Company of Pastors” and members of the Little Council of Geneva—in an intense doctrinal interrogation of Servetus and his two main books. Due to Calvin’s frail health and civil governing duties, it was orchestrated by him but conducted by his student secretary living at Calvin’s home—Nicholas de la Fontaine. These judges were incensed at Servetus’ denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and thus Jesus’ eternal-divine Sonship. Servetus had asserted in his first book that the post-Nicene Trinity was “a Cerberus” (a pagan, three-headed, monster god.) But these pastors were further repulsed at Servetus’ denial of infant baptism and the immortality of the soul. Calvin was especially irritated with Servetus labeling his opponents as “Trinitarians.”

The civil court directed Calvin to write a draft of the interrogation, with Servetus’ annotations appended. It consisted of thirty-eight extracts from Servetus’ two books. Calvin pronounced these extracts “partly impious blasphemies, partly profane and insane errors, and all wholly foreign to the Word of God and the orthodox faith.” This document was submitted to four major cities in Switzerland for the judgment of their city councils and church pastors. They ruled Servetus guilty and seemed to approve of his execution.

Switzerland was like most European states in that it was a church-state. Geneva’s court condemned Servetus in accordance with the Codex of Justinian. Established by the Roman Empire during the 6^th century, it prescribed the death penalty for those denying the church doctrine of the Trinity or infant baptism, thus advocating rebaptism as adults. Servetus had committed both infractions. These were the only two legal charges brought against him. The Geneva Reformers, however, had earlier abolished all (Catholic) canon laws, so that this was not the legal basis for their condemnation of Servetus.

Purposeful judicial irregularities were made in the trial of Michael Servetus.[2] Although he was entitled by law to counsel, which he requested, it was refused on the illegitimate grounds that he was intelligent enough to defend himself. When Calvin and the others completed their lengthy interrogation of Servetus, they pronounced him guilty of grave heresy and blasphemy against “the Lord God Jehovah” for publishing his two main books and that such infractions were deserving of death. The court had authority to try defendants accused of crimes committed within Geneva’s jurisdiction, yet this was never mentioned in the trial. Nor was an attempt made to prove that Servetus committed such crimes in Geneva or that any of his books had ever been sold there, much less been there. And the court never stated the legal basis for its condemnation of Servetus. It only was inferred in its judgment that the accused was guilty of breaking the Mosaic law of blasphemy as stated in Lev 24.16 and perhaps Deut 13.

Ironically, seven years earlier Calvin had vowed in a letter to his friend Farel about Servetus, that “if he come here [to Geneva] … I will never permit him to depart alive.” Calvin only stated his opposition to burning Servetus at the stake; but the other pastors surprisingly overruled him. As a consolation, they offered Servetus hanging rather than tortuous burning on the condition that he confess to them the words, “Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God.” The accused remained steadfast in his convictions and refused.

Servetus was presented with his condemnation and death sentence only a few hours before his execution. He apparently did not expect it, since he was shocked when so informed. He quickly requested a meeting with Calvin, pleading for his forgiveness. But the Reformer stayed true to his convictions as well, refusing to grant a pardon.

Servetus was executed on the Plateau of Champel just outside Geneva during midday on October 27, 1553. M. Hillar relates the scene as follows: “No cruelty was spared on Servetus as his stake was made of bundles of the fresh wood of live oak still green, mixed with the branches still bearing leaves. On his head a straw crown was placed sprayed with sulfur. He was seated on a log, with his body chained to a post with an iron chain, his neck was bound with four or five turns of a thick rope. This way Servetus was being fried at a slow fire for about a half hour before he died. To his side were attached copies of his [last] book” by a chain.[3] With a large crowd witnessing the proceeding, and in a moment of hushed solemnity, the executioner reached forth with his fiery torch and ignited the mass of kindling surrounding its victim. Flames quickly arose and engulfed his emaciated body. For a while, the accused heretic uttered painful shrieks and groans. Just before he expired, and recalling the consolation that had been offered to him only hours prior, he cried out with a loud, penetrating voice, “Oh Jesus Christ, Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me.” Even in his last dying breath, Michael Servetus passionately held to his convictions, proclaiming what he had perceived to be original, biblical Christology. Church historian and strong Trinitarian P. Schaff admits concerning Servetus, “it is evident that he worshipped Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.”[4]

So, Protestant leaders afflicted Michael Servetus with martyrdom in his forty-second year. Yet this alias Dr. Michel de Villeneuve—physician, physiologist, humanist, and scholar—was a devout follower of Jesus Christ. Throughout that final day of his life, Servetus portrayed a most exemplary spirit. This proud and illustrious Spaniard refrained from his usual vitriolic attacks on his accusers. Instead, chained to the stake, he humbly and graciously prayed out loud, asking God to pardon all his accusers, even John Calvin.

What a contrast was the indomitable Jean Calvin, Master of Geneva! The famous Reformer afterwards never recanted of his participation in this dastardly deed. Despite an angry uproar against Servetus’ execution, which news spread like wildfire in much of Europe, the arguably dictatorial Calvin remained stubbornly impenitent the rest of his life about this Servetus affair. The next year he published a book defending his action, saying, “Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man’s authority; it is God who speaks,… Wherefore does he demand of us … to combat for His glory.”[5] Calvin implores the two Mosaic laws against blasphemy even though they apply to those guilty of idolatry or blasphemy against Yahweh.[6]

On the contrary, Servetus was a devout worshipper of Yahweh as the one and only true God. And he exalted Jesus as the Christ, God’s special Son, and the only Savior from sin for all humankind. Thus, this application of the two Mosaic laws of blasphemy against Servetus is absolutely baseless. Actually, Servetus’ faith corresponded much more closely to the Jewish concept of Yahweh as the one God than did the traditional, Trinitarian view of God held by Calvin and all other leading Reformers and Catholics.

[1] M. Hillar, Michael Servetus, 153-54.

[2] M. Hillar (Michael Servetus, 187-88) lists the following legal irregularities: (1) Servetus was refused counsel without reason, despite requesting it twice and being guaranteed such by law; (2) he was tried for his book on the Trinity despite it being published twenty-three years prior and in another state; (3) he never published or dogmatized in Geneva; (4) the accusation that The Restitution of Christianity corrupted Christians was baseless since it had just been published and not one copy had been sold.

[3] M. Hillar, Michael Servetus, 185. Historians are divided on which book it was and if one or two.

[4] P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8:789,

[5] John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge: University, 2006), 325.

[6] Calvin also argued against interpreting Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares as implying religious toleration of heretics (Mt 13.29 par.), and he did the same concerning Gamaliel’s wise counsel (Ac 5.34).

[1] I have allotted an inordinate amount of space to Servetus, not only because I have drawn my pseudonym from him. He knew six languages and practiced six intellectual professions. P. Schaff (History of the Christian Church, 8:786) says Servetus “was one of the most remarkable men in the history of heresy.”

[2] The full title (but in Latin) is On the Errors of the Trinity. In seven books, by Michael Servetus, Spaniard from Aragonia, also known as Reves.

[3] Indebted to Marian Hillar with Claire S. Allen, Michael Servetus: Intellectual Giant, Humanist, and Martyr (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002), 26.

[4] Andrew M.T. Dibbs, Servetus, Swendenborg and the Nature of God (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005), 67.

[5] Dialogues on the Trinity, Greeting.

[6] Louis Israel Newman, Jewish Influences on Christian Reform Movements (New York: Columbia University, 1925), 534.

………………

More About Jesus’ “I Am He” Sayings in John 8

September 11, 2018 By Kermit Zarley

A major theme of the Gospel of John in the Bible’s New Testament is that it relates incidents in which Jesus was asked who he was. For example, Jesus was asked, “Who are you?” “Who do you claim to be?” “If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly” (Jn 8.25; 8.53; 10.24). Sometimes, he answered (Jn 10.24-30; 18.33-38; cf. Matt. 26.63-64).

One such incident is recorded in John 8. (Bible quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted). We read that Jews asked Jesus, “‘Who are you, anyway,’ they asked. ‘Just what I have been claiming all along,’ Jesus replied” (Jn 8.23 NIV). He here refers to early in his ministry when Nicodemus—a Torah teacher and Sanhedrin member—came to Jesus with a humble attitude of inquiry, even saying to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs you do apart from the presence of God” (John 3.2).

Jesus then told Nicodemus he needed to “born again” (Jn 3.3 NIV). He explained, “just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (v. 13). He referred to the incident recorded in Num 21.9 as a symbol of his imminent crucifixion. Jesus herein combined two Old Testament motifs that refer to himself—the Son of Man in Dan 7.13-14 and Yahweh’s suffering Servant in Isa 52.13. So, in John 8 Jesus says of his crucifixion, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he” (John 8.28), that is, the Son of Man. (The “he” is supplied and therefore is not in the Greek text. And Jesus meant that a person will be born again by truly believing in Jesus dying for his or her sins.)

Many traditionalists–Christians who believe Jesus was and is God–claim Jesus saying “I am he” in John 8 alludes to God’s declaration “I am” in Exodus 3. This text is about Moses seeing a burning bush at Mount Horeb that miraculously did not burn up, and God spoke to him from it. Moses then asked God his name. God replied, “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex 3.14). This is the meaning of God’s name, which is given in the next verse as “YHWH” (v. 15). This name for God appears in the Hebrew Bible nearly 7,000 times. English Bible versions usually substitute the word “LORD” for it in full caps. The pronunciation of YHWH is uncertain, but it likely is “Yahweh” or “Yehvah.” So, traditionalists insist that Jesus saying“I am” (Gr. ego eimi) without a predicate, in John 8, alludes to Ex 3.14 and thereby indirectly identifies himself as Yahweh.

This interpretation is skewed because it divorces these “I am” sayings in John 8 from their immediate context, which is that Jesus claimed to be “the light of the world” (Jn 8.12; 9.5) and “the Son of Man.” So, Jesus’ answer to their question, “Who are you?” was what he had been telling them, starting with Nicodemus from the beginning, that he was the Son of Man of Dan 7.13, who, as the suffering Servant, would be lifted up by crucifixion. Thus, Jesus means in John 8.28, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he”—the Son of Man.

Jesus said more to them which included, “whoever keeps my word will never see death” (John 8.51). He meant they would not remain dead forever but would receive eternal life at the resurrection (e.g., Jn 3.16, 36; 5.21; 17.2). These Jews did not understand this and retorted, “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?” (v. 53). Jesus concluded his answer by saying, “Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad” (v. 56). We read next, “Then the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am’” (vv. 57-58).

Traditionalists believe this last declaration of Jesus indicates he preexisted Abraham. But it more likely means Abraham experienced something about Jesus. It could have been the very important incident in which Abraham obeyed God by going to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar (Gen 22.1-10). As Abraham lifted the knife to slay Isaac, demonstrating his faith in God, “the angel of the LORD” stopped him (vv. 11-12). Then we read, “Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son” (v. 13).

The New Testament book of Hebrews has a chapter that recounts brief histories about heroes of faith in God mentioned in the Old Testament. One is Enoch. The author of Hebrews states, “By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and ‘he was not found, because God had taken him.’ For it was attested before he was taken away that ‘he had pleased God’” (Heb 11.5).

The author obviously refers to Gen 5.24. He then recounts other heroes of faith in God, including Noah, Abraham, Sarah, and then concludes, “All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them” (v. 13). This statement requires that Enoch being “taken” does not mean he did not die, as is commonly thought. Thus, the fact that “he did not experience death,” probably means he did not experience the pain of death. For this author of Hebrews had written earlier, “man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb 9.27 NIV).

Accordingly, neither Enoch nor Elijah (2 Kgs 2.1, 11) escaped death. And they certainly did not experience resurrection, for Paul says Jesus is the “first fruits” of the resurrection (1 Cor 15.23). And they must have been taken up into the atmosphere, not the heaven where God dwells. For Jesus said, “No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man,” referring to himself (John 3.13)

The author of Hebrews continues, “By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom he had been told, ‘It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.’ He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Heb 11.17-19). This author means that Abraham’s offering of Isaac, and the ram caught in the thicket, are a type referring to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Plus, I explain in my book, The Third Day Bible Code (pp. 123-32), that this Abraham-Isaac incident occurring on the third day of their journey is also a type of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day. So, Jesus saying, “Before Abraham was, I am” (Jn 8.58), may refer to Abraham’s experiencing this incident in which his son Isaac was a type of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which further indicates that Jesus outranks Abraham in the kingdom of God.

In conclusion, Jesus’ “I am” sayings in John 8 must be interpreted according to their context, which provides no evidence that Jesus therein identified himself as Yahweh. See similar “I am” sayings of Jesus and their contexts in the Gospel of John. E.g., Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, “I am he,” which refers to her remark about the “Messiah” (Jn 4.25-26). (Cf. Jn 9.35-37). Also, Jesus predicted in his Olivet Discourse, “Many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he'” (Mk 13.6), which will not be a claim to the “I am” of Ex 3.14 but a claim to be Jesus. And Jesus’ thrice saying “I am he” in John 18.5-8 refers to his previous self-identification “Jesus of Nazareth” in v. 5.

………………

What Leading Evangelical Scholars Now Say About Jesus’ Identity

August 24, 2018 By Kermit Zarley

I know the following three, Evangelical, Trinitarian scholars who I am about to cite: N.T. Wright, James D. G. Dunn, and Larry Hurtado. I have had christological discussions with all three. It’s because I’ve been a member of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) for 20 years and Dunn and Hurtado were keynote speakers at the Kermit Zarley Lectures at North Park University in Chicago in years 2000 and 2008.

Britisher N. T. (Tom) Wright is generally regarded by his peers and leading publishers of theological books as the top Jesus researcher and New Testament scholar in the world. He used to be a spiritual chaplain to Queen Elizabeth and a bishop in the Anglican Church. Just being a scholar and churchman is a rare combination.

Tom is also a charming and witty public speaker and a very prolific author of theological books. He wrote a trilogy (three volumes) on “Christian Origins and the Question of God” which is nearly 2,500 pages in length. Published by Fortress Press, it is almost all about Jesus, including especially his identity. In the first book of this trilogy, Jesus and the Victory of God, Tom Wright says (p. 653), “Jesus, . . . did not know that he was God. . . . Forget the ‘titles’ of Jesus, at least for a moment; forget the pseudo-orthodox attempts to make Jesus of Nazareth conscious of being the second person of the Trinity.” Tom explains in this book that Jesus was “a first-century Jewish monotheist” (p. 652) who sought to reform Judaism and accomplish God’s plan to die for our sins.

The liberal scholar Marcus Borg is also a prominent Jesus researcher who used to be a member of the Jesus Seminar. He and Tom Wright became friends due to the two-centuries-old scholarly endeavor called “the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” (Actually, they were on the seven-member panel of SBL’s prestigious Historical Jesus Section when I joined SBL.) Borg and Wright co-authored the book entitled The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (Harper, 1999). Wright also states therein (p. 166), “I do not think Jesus ‘knew he was God.'”

In Tom Wright’s book, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (IVP, 1999), he states, “I do not think Jesus ‘knew he was God’” (p. 121).

Britisher, Jesus researcher, and New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn is generally regarded as the preeminent authority on christology in the world. It is mostly due to his book Christology in the Making (w/ long subtitle; Westminister, orig. 1980, now 3rd ed.). Like Tom Wright, Dunn has authored a magisterial trilogy entitled “Christianity in the Making,” published by Eerdmans which consists of 3,350 pages. Dunn is also a world-leading authority on the Apostle Paul. Dunn also used to be on SBL’s Historical Jesus Section panel with Wright and Borg.

In Dunn’s more recent book, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus: The New Testament Evidence (WJK, 2010), he states the following: “Was Jesus as monotheist? . . . Yes. Jesus was a monotheist; he confessed God as one; . . . He worshipped God alone”(p. 101); “Jesus was God in that he made God known, . . . But he was not God in himself” (p. 135); “Jesus is not the God of Israel. He is not the Father. He is not Yahweh” (p. 142); “Jesus . . . was not to be worshipped as wholly God, or fully identified with God, far less as a god. If he was worshipped it was worship offered to God in and through him, worship of Jesus-in-God and God-in-Jesus. . . . only God, only the one God, is to be worshipped” (p. 146); “Christian worship can deteriorate into what may be called Jesus-olatry. . . . The danger of Jesus-olatry is . . . that Jesus has been substituted for God, has taken the place of the one creator God; Jesus is absorbing the worship due to God alone. . . . the worship due to God is stopping at Jesus, and the revelation of God through Jesus and the worship of God through Jesus is being stifled and short-circuited” (p.147).

Larry Hurtado is also a leading NT scholar, a professor at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and a Jesus researcher who writes numerous books about Christian origins and the early Christians worshipping Jesus. At an Annual Meeting of SBL about three years ago, I heard Hurtado give a presentation about Jesus and then take Q&A. Nearly all people who attend these lectures are biblical scholars, professors, and SBL members. Larry was asked, “Did Jesus think he was God?” The man of God answered startlingly, firmly, and briefly, “hell no!”

………………

Did Early Worship of Jesus Indicate He Was God?

November 29, 2017 By Kermit Zarley

That depends on how the word “worship” is defined. Since Christians generally base their faith on the Bible, it depends especially on the meaning of the word proskuneo in the Greek New Testament.

Dr. Larry Hurtado is a New Testament scholar and a historian of Christian Origins. He also is the preeminent leader of a group of scholars who claim that the early Christians mentioned in the New Testament worshipped Jesus and that this indicates that they believed Jesus was God. Since these first Christians were Jews, and Jesus was a Jew, scholars debate about how these early Jewish Christians could have gone from adhering to the distinctive Jewish belief that God is numerically one to believing that God is more than one, that is, a multi-personality consisting of Father, Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. In recent centuries, the Jewish belief that God is one has been called monotheism. Thus, to restate the question, how could strictly monotheistic Jews switch to believing that God was a multi-personal being? And how long would that take?

Larry Hurtado has written several books about this. One time I discussed it with him when he was the speaker at the Kermit Zarley Lectures at North Park University. Larry answers the above question by claiming that prior to Jesus, Jews also believed that angels and some men were divine conduits to God and that this paved the way for the early Christians to believe Jesus also was God. The wikipedia article on him puts it this way, “Hurtado has argued that this Jesus-devotion comprises a novel ‘mutation’ in ancient Jewish monotheistic practice.”

In Hurtado’s first book on this subject, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (1988), he states (p. 3), “I propose that early Christianity drew upon important resources in ancient Judaism and also developed a somewhat distinctive ‘mutation’ or innovation in this monotheistic tradition.” Then Larry says on p. 5, “the veneration of Jesus is not at all late but extremely early, easily within the first decade of the Christian movement.” For the next three decades, Larry did not depart from these assertions and wrote several books trying to prove them.

But in Larry Hurtado’s first book, he didn’t define “worship” or “monotheism” and was later criticized for this by other scholars.

Here is how these scholars, such as Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham reason:

The first Christians believed that only God should be worshipped.
The first Christians worshipped Jesus.
Therefore, the first Christians believe Jesus was God.

I believe the fallacy in this reasoning is in its fundamental avoidance in defining the word “worship” and perhaps addressing sufficiently the two words that appear in the Greek New Testament that are sometimes translated “worship” in English Bibles. They are foremost proskuneo, which is sometimes is accompanied with pipto, meaning “to fall” or “fall down,” and secondarily latreuo.

Proskuneo means to honor or respect someone by an act of bowing down to the ground before that person. It could also indicate lying prostrate. The etymology of proskuneo is that pros means “toward” and kuneo means “to kiss.” Thus, ancients often bent the knee or laid prostrate before someone, such as a king, and kissed that person’s sandals.

Sometimes in the New Testament, people did proskuneo before Jesus, and they meant no more by it than that they were honoring and/or respecting Jesus. For instance, when Jesus walked on water, he got into the boat, and “those in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God'” (Matthew 14.33). The word translated “worshipped” is prosekunesan. But surely they merely bowed before Jesus and didn’t think of him as God. This is further suggested from the other two synoptic accounts, in Mark 6.51 and Luke 6.21, since they don’t even mention the disciples’ bowing or identifying Jesus as “the Son of God.”

Other incidents occurred when people did proskuneo before Jesus, and English Bibles render it “bowed down,” “knelt,” or the like, such as Matthew 8.2, 9.18, and Mark 5.6. These Bibles translate it this way since it is obvious these people were not worshipping Jesus as God.

Since there are numerous episodes recorded in the New Testament when people performed proskuneo before Jesus and it did not indicate they believed he was God, it should be understood that in other cases when Jesus’ disciples performed proskuneo before him it did not necessarily indicate that they believed he was God, either.

James (Jimmy) D. G. Dunn wrote a book entitled Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? He mentions Hurtado and Bauckman in the Introduction and indicates that he seeks to make a correction about what they say about this subject. For, Dunn’s answer to his question-title of this book is pretty much “no.”

But Dunn is sometimes misunderstood by answering “no,” meaning the first Christians did not worship Jesus as God. Jimmy Dunn also believes in the developmental theory of Christology for which his binitarian PhD instructor Charley (C.F.D.) Moule was well known. It means that although the first Christians did not believe Jesus was God or that God was Trinity of persons, the church did right in later centuries by determining these identifications because they appear in embryonic form in the New Testament.

………………

The Ascending/Descending Motif in the Fourth Gospel

October 30, 2017 By Kermit Zarley

The Gospel of John contains a motif about Jesus that nearly all scholars claim is a descending/ascending motif regarding heaven. That is partly because most scholars believe in the church teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity. Accordingly, as one of the three co-equal and co-eternal members of the Triune God, Jesus preexisted as God and came down to earth to become a man in what the church calls The Incarnation. By laying out this Johannine motif as Jesus first descending from heaven and thereafter ascending to heaven forty days after his resurrection, these scholars affirm an important element of their Trinitarian belief and, more particularly, The Incarnation, that Jesus preexisted in heaven which indicates that he was God.

Especially in modern times, many New Testament (NT) scholars have written books about this supposed descent/ascent narrative in the Gospel of John. A new one is Susan Elizabeth Humble’s A Divine Round Trip: The Literary and Christological Function of the Descent/Ascent Leitmotif in the Gospel of John (Peeters Publishers, 2016, 238 pp.). William Loader of Murdoch University–who has also published on this subject–has recently reviewed Humble’s book in Review of Biblical Literature, an organ of the Society of Biblical Literature. Both writers approach this subject without even discussing the possibility that this important motif in determining the identity of the Johannine Jesus should be understood as first ascent and later descent, therefore ascending/descending, which does not affirm that Jesus preexisted. I think this is quite surprising and that it reveals how entrenched a person can become in their theology so that it influences their exegesis of scripture. But this is common in scholarship regarding this particular subject. Furthermore, both Humble and Loader repeatedly assume that Jesus’ post-resurrection ascension was a “return” to heaven even though the NT never says this. (I read Loader’s review but have not read Humble’s book.)

I hesitate to be critical of NT scholars about this since I am only a lay NT scholar, thus with no PhD. But I have written a well-researched, biblically in-depth book on Jesus’ identity entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ (now available only at my website at kermitzarley.com). I have a portion in it in which I address this subject. The following is a part of it (Bible quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise stated):

Jesus Ascending and Descending in John 3.13

This ascending/descending motif in Jn 1.51 surfaces again in John’s gospel in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, recorded in Jn 3.13. But this time Jesus expressly applies the ascending/descending motif to Himself. This verse reads as follows in the AV (=KJV): “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Traditionalists cite this verse in support of two of their christological precepts, the preexistence and omnipresence of Jesus, and they insist that both of these precepts indicate that Jesus is God. We will first consider preexistence.

Rudolf Bultmann acknowledged the difficulty in interpreting the identity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, and he called this problem the “Johannine puzzle.” He insisted that, in order for this puzzle to be solved, the attempt must begin with the ascending and descending of Jesus as the Son of Man.[1] Indeed, this theme is an important key to discovering the identity of the Johannine Jesus.[2] But Bultmann, like most scholars, reversed the ascending/descending order of Jn 3.13 and thereby affirmed the traditional incarnation/ascension scenario.[3] He also interpreted that the Evangelist was influenced by Gnosticism, having used the Gnostic Redeemer myth as his source. But this myth was later discovered to be anachronistic and abandoned by scholars as an interpretation here.

Nevertheless, most scholars, including traditionalists and non-traditionalists, have thought that Jesus’ words in Jn 3.13 require that the descent precedes the ascent and that emphasis is on the descent. So, they have interpreted that the first clause refers implicitly to Jesus’ upcoming ascension into heaven and the second clause refers to His already past descent from heaven to earth at His incarnation. But there are several problems with this interpretation: (1) it does not fit the prior context, (2) it reverses the chronological order of the ascending and descending in Jn 1.51 and 3.13, (3) the use of the Greek verb anabebeken (“has ascended”) is inexplicable if its perfect tense is taken as a completed action in the past, since Jesus’ ascension had not yet occurred,[4] (4) it is without parallel in the NT,[5] and (5) it does not correlate with the overall biblical pattern, in which the righteous Servant-Son of Man must first suffer before He is not only exalted and glorified but even experiences any such thing. Traditionalist R.N. Longenecker cites a textual “ambivalence that defies precise designation of the nature of the descent involved.”[6]

Much more compelling is the interpretation that accepts the ascending/descending order as it stands in the text because it fits the context. The context of Jn 3.13 is that Jesus is in the midst of giving a discourse to Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin and a distinguished Torah teacher in Israel (Jn 3.1, 10). Jesus informs Nicodemus that he must be born “from above” (Gr. anothen), i.e., anew in spirit, in order to enter the kingdom of God (vv. 3, 7). Perplexed, Nicodemus responds crassly, as most people usually did to the Johannine Jesus: he interprets Jesus literally and thus misunderstands Him (vv. 3-9).

Jesus now speaks to Nicodemus about seeing spiritual things. He says, “we speak that which we know and bear witness of that which we have seen, and you [plural] do not receive our witness” (Jn 3.11). “We” may refer to Jesus and John the Baptist, but perhaps His genuine apostles also. The Fourth Evangelist later relates that John the Baptist spoke similarly of Jesus, “What He has seen and heard, of that He bears witness; and no man receives His witness” (v. 32; cf. 1.11-12). The Evangelist later amplifies this theme by quoting Jesus as saying, “the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing;… For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing” (Jn 5.19-20). Jesus adds, “No man has seen God at any time,” i.e., “except the One who is from God, He has seen the Father” (Jn 1.18; 6.46).

Therefore, Jesus sees, hears, and bears witness to heavenly things, even to God’s activities. What Jesus sees is not literal but spiritual. He further explained to Nicodemus, “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (v. 12). In this first clause, Jesus refers to what He has just told Nicodemus about the new birth. Although the nature of the new birth is spiritual, being accomplished “from above” by “the Spirit” (vv. 3, 5), Jesus nevertheless categorizes it as an earthly phenomenon. Nicodemus, like all other men except the Son of Man, is both physically and spiritually confined to the earth with all of his life experiences.[7] John the Baptist testified the same concerning himself by saying, “he who is of the earth is from the earth” (v. 31). He added that only Jesus is “from above,” meaning that only Jesus has spiritual access into heaven and thereby spiritually sees, hears, and knows things there.

When Jesus says in the first clause of Jn 3.13, “no man has ascended up to heaven,”[8] He alludes to certain pre-Christian legends prevalent in Jewish apocalyptic literature. These legends characterized past heroic saints as having “ascended into heaven,”[9] some having received divine revelation (heavenly things) there and having brought it back to earth to expound it to others. Jesus also may have had in mind Jewish Merkabah mysticism, which advocated meditating on the chariot-throne vision of Eze 1 in order to conjure up a similar visionary ascent into heaven. But Jesus implicitly rejects all of these legends as well as their import. Instead, He makes the astounding claim that only He spiritually ascends into heaven to obtain heavenly secrets, and it happens on account of His being the Son of Man. Such a rich experience of acquiring this esoteric knowledge, consisting of secret things in heaven, was probably like literally being there.

All such legends—about holy men going to heaven to obtain some portion of wisdom and/or knowledge there and bringing it back to earth—are exactly what the sage surmises in Prov 30.3-4. He states therein, “Neither have I learned wisdom, nor do I have the knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists?” etc. (Notice the ascent/descent order.) The writer means that no man so far had attained anywhere near the fullness of the wisdom and knowledge of God, let alone gone up to heaven to get any of it and brought it back to earth. This proverb, written in about 1,000 bce, unwittingly anticipates these later, Jewish legends as well as Daniel’s account of the ascending/descending Son of Man and thus Jesus. The Johannine Jesus is the personified Wisdom/Logos of God of pre-Christian Judaism.[10] R.E. Brown states regarding Jewish Wisdom Literature, “Wisdom is described as having descended from heaven to dwell with men … The function of Wisdom among men is to teach them of the things that are above (Job 11.6-7; Wis 9.16-18), to utter truth (Prov 8.7; Wis 6.22),… This is precisely the function of Jesus as revealer, as portrayed in numerous passages in John.”[11] The Apostle Paul writes likewise of Jesus, “in whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2.3; cf. 1 Cor 1.24, 30).

Jesus identifies Himself as “the Son of Man” twelve times in the Fourth Gospel. The first two are recorded in Jn 1.51 and 3.13. In Jn 3.13, He clearly presents Himself as the ascending/descending Son of Man. Recall from Chapter Four that Daniel’s Son of Man first ascends on heavenly clouds to God in heaven to receive a kingdom; then He implicitly descends to earth to establish that kingdom with the saints. So, Daniel presents the Son of Man as first ascending and later descending, the same order as Jesus states in Jn 3.13 regarding Himself. This chronological order, of course, is the opposite of the incarnation/ascension scenario. And it seems that when the Johannine Jesus designates Himself as the Son of Man, He usually intends to be understood according to Dan 7.[12]

Just as Jesus’ saying in Jn 1.51 has both a literal and a spiritual connotation, so it seems to be the case with His saying in Jn 3.13. A one-time literal ascending of the Son of Man in Jn 3.13 is implied in the next verse, in which Jesus says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (v. 14). Here, Jesus speaks of His future crucifixion by being lifted up on the cross. This lifting up of the Son of Man is another Johannine theme (Jn 8.28; 12.32, 34; cf. Isa 52.13). For the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus’ crucifixion signifies His glory by becoming a prelude to His glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven. Later, Jesus will even describe both this scandalous lifting up on the cross and subsequent heavenly ascension as “the Son of Man ascending [Gr. anabainonta] where He was before” (Jn 6.62).[13]

Now let us examine this ascending and descending of the Son of Man from a grammatical perspective. The English words in Jn 3.13, “came down” from heaven, are past tense and therefore also give the impression that the descent must precede the ascent, thus favoring the traditional view. But these words translate the aorist participle katabas in the Greek text, which derives from the verb katabaino (“I go/come down”). The Greek aorist tense only indicates kind of action, not time of action. However, grammarians used to think that one of the rules of Greek grammar was that the action of an aorist participle precedes in time the action of the main verb. Accordingly, Jn 3.13 would have to be understood as descent/ascent, favoring the incarnation/ascension scenario. But it has recently been discovered that this is incorrect and that the tense of a Greek aorist participle is determined just as with an English participle: according to its context.

So, what is the context of Jn 3.13? Jesus’ identification of Himself as the Son of Man in this verse indicates that He intends to be understood in accordance with Daniel’s prophecy of the Son of Man in Dan 7. Daniel’s Son of Man presumably is literally going to come down from heaven on the eschatological Day with His kingdom. Daniel 7 thus requires that katabas in Jn 3.13 be translated “coming down” or “(the one who) comes down” or the like, which is compatible with a future tense, but not “came down” or “descended,” which is past tense. Thus, Jesus means in Jn 3.13 that the One who will descend from heaven on the eschatological Day is the One who now ascends spiritually into heaven and descends spiritually as well, so that this ascent precedes the descent, just as Dan 7 suggests.[14] Furthermore, R.E. Brown insists concerning the tense of these verb forms for ascent and descent, “In the Johannine references to Jesus there is a strange timelessness or indifference to normal time sequence that must be reckoned with.”[15]

In conclusion, Jn 3.13 ought to be understood according to the background of the Son of Man in Dan 7 and that that figure’s descent is therein implied, so that His literal ascent precedes His literal descent. It also needs to be recognized that whenever this ascent-descent motif is expressly stated in Scripture,[16] it is always in this order and never in the reverse. Accordingly, Jesus’ ascent/descent in Jn 3.13 refers to His spiritual access to heavenly secrets and bringing them down to earth as well as His later, literal ascension into heaven and subsequent literal descent from heaven to earth at His second coming.

Now we will consider the supposed omnipresence of Jesus in the last clause of Jn 3.13 in the AV. Many traditionalists have endorsed these words as authentic, interpreting them to mean that at the moment Jesus uttered them He also existed in His human nature simultaneously in heaven and presumably throughout the entire universe.[17] But this idea is unprecedented in the NT, let alone the sayings of Jesus. Most contemporary scholars therefore dismiss this AV clause as nonsensical and inauthentic.

Indeed, manuscript attestation for retaining the last phrase in Jn 3.13—“which is in heaven”—is weak.[18] English versions are about evenly divided on including it or not. The committee for the United Bible Societies’ Greek NT, though divided, dismissed it as spurious.[19] A majority of the members were impressed with its omission in the external evidence. Thus, they deemed it “an interpretative gloss, reflecting later christological development.”[20] Accordingly, some textual critics have suggested that it is a later scribal assimilation to the questionable reading of theos in Jn 1.18>. However, the clause could be authentic if it means no more than that Jesus had constant spiritual access to heaven.

[1] Rudolf Bultmann, “Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandaischen und manichaischen Quellen fur das Verstandnis des Johannesevangeliums,” ZNW 24 (1925), 102 (repr. Exegetica [Tubingen: Mohr, 1967], 57). Taken from W.A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannnine Sectarianism,” 47n12.

[2] W.A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” 60-61.

[3] R. Bultmann, John, 147-51.

[4] H.A.W. Meyer, MCNT, 3:128. R.E. Brown [John (i-xii), 132] admits concerning this incarnation and ascension interpretation, “The use of the perfect tense is a difficulty, for it seems to imply that the Son of Man has already ascended into heaven.”

[5] Ephesians 4.10 is not a parallel because v. 9 shows that Paul refers to Jesus’ descent into Sheol at death.

[6] R.N. Lonenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 62.

[7] Cf. R.E. Brown, John (i-xii), 132.

[8] Second Kings 2.11 states, “Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven” (cf. v. 1). If this means Elijah went to the heaven where God dwells, as commonly understood, it conflicts with Jesus’ remark here in Jn 3.13. But it might mean that Elijah was only taken up into the earth’s atmosphere, not heaven where God dwells.

[9] J.D.G. Dunn (“Let John Be John,” 306) lists some of these legends contained in ancient Jewish sources that postulate a heavenly ascension for the following figures: Adam (Life of Adam and Eve 25-29), Enoch (1 En. 14.8ff.; 39.3ff.; 70-71; 2 En. 3ff.), Abraham (Test. Abr. 10ff.; Apoc. Abr. 15ff.; cf. 4 Ezra 3.14; 2 Bar. 4.4), Levi (Test. Levi 2.5ff.), Baruch (2 Bar. 76; 3 Bar.), Isaiah (Ascen. Isa. 7ff.; cf. Sir. 48.24-25). Add to this list Moses on Mt. Sinai (Philo, Vita Mosis, I.158). Although some of this literature is not pre-Christian, it contains legends that no doubt were pre-Christian in origin.

[10] J.D.G. Dunn, “Let John Be John,” 314.

[11] R.E. Brown, John (i-xii), cxxiii.

[12] W.A. Meeks (“The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” 52) states, “There is a curiously close connection throughout the gospel [of John] between this title and the descent/ascent language.” Indeed, although Meeks writes constantly of a descent/ascent order instead of the ascent/descent order in the text.

[13] E.g., R. Bultmann, John, 445; G.R. Beasley-Murray, John, 96.

[14] J.D.G. Dunn (“Let John Be John,” 313n76) cites J.A. Buhner (Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium, 1977, 353-62), who insists the language in Jn 3.13 implies that ascent precedes descent.

[15] R.E. Brown, John (i-xii), 132.

[16] E.g., Gen 28.12; Prov 30.4; cf. Deut 30.12; Ps 68.18; Eph 4.8.

[17] E.g., C.K. Barrett, John, 73; M. Harris, 3 Crucial Questions, 67.

[18] It is only included in a few late Greek mss and Syriac versions.

[19] See B.M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 203-04. Both UBS¹ and UBS² render it “virtually certain” as being spurious; but UBS³ admits to “a considerable degree of doubt” in rejecting it.

[20] B.M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 204.

………………

Some Evangelicals Are Abandoning the Term

October 8, 2017 By Kermit Zarley

Right after the presidential election last November, Pew Research reported that Edison Research’s exit polls showed that among those white Evangelicals who voted, 81% of them voted for Donald Trump. The Gospel Coalition demonstrates in an article that this figure is considerably skewed due to some poorly-stated questions asked in the poll. Yet experts would argue against the notion that a considerable majority of white Evangelicals who voted did vote for Trump. Is that because Donald Trump is an Evangelical Christian? So far, The Donald has produced no evidence of that! The National Association of Evangelicals tells us what an Evangelical is, and Trump hasn’t yet made himself look like one.

Rather, it is because Trump courted Evangelicals during his political campaign and included social elements in his political platform that were strongly favored by white Evangelicals. These features included especially pro-life (anti-abortion), freedom of religious beliefs, and the president nominating socially conservative judges to fill open seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Furthermore, well before Donald Trump announced he would run for president, white Evangelicals had been increasingly becoming outwardly political and Republican. I think Donald Trump merely realized this and tapped into this substantial voting bloc by creating his political platform more favorable to this voting segment. (I don’t mean to judge all of his motives on this, because he has been positively influenced by some Evangelical and Pentecostal leaders.) One proof of this is that Trump had been on record for years as favoring pro-choice (legal abortion); yet he seemed to changed to a pro-life position (make abortion illegal) soon after he announced his candidacy. Moreover, evidence shows that Donald Trump was a flip flopper on this issue even several months into his presidential campaign.

The business world talks about the so-called Trump Effect, meaning that it expects Trump to have a positive impact on the U.S. economy. That hasn’t quite proved itself out yet. However, the U.S. stock markets are humming pretty well this year. But they are just continuing the almost unprecedented eight-year bull market. Trump cringes when people say that is a result of the Federal Reserve policies that former President Obama’s administration enacted. (It is such a disgrace that Trump hates everything Obama.) But if Trump gets a tax revision passed in Congress as he intends, the Trump Effect could take off.

But we can now talk about the Trump Effect on religion, yet in a negative way. One of the results of Donald Trump becoming U.S. president is that many Evangelicals are now reconsidering using this label. For example, at the prestigious Christian school Princeton University, its student organization Princeton Evangelical Fellowship just changed its name at the beginning of this school year to Princeton Christian Fellowship. Bill Boyce, it’s director since 1985, says, “There’s a growing recognition that the term evangelical is increasingly either confusing, or unknown, or misunderstood to students.” Boyce said of his organization, “We’re interested in being people who are defined by our faith and by our faith commitments and not by any sort of political agenda.”

I’ve been thinking the same way for some time, and this election has made me more concerned about it. I’ve been an Evangelical since the 1960s. And ever since then to the present, I have attended evangelical churches regularly. However, I have posted a few times about my dilemma in using this identification in view of my christological change decades ago from Trinitarian belief (for 22 years) to a non-Trinitarian belief. (See “Trinity or Unity: Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place.) That is, most Evangelicals no longer consider me Evangelical because I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical. But now, because of this political election, I’m not so sure I want to continue identifying as Evangelical. And it’s not just politics. I’ve been more concerned for a longer time about some of Evangelicalism resorting to an “easy believe-ism” that abandon’s somewhat the lordship of Jesus in a persons’ life. I think Evangelicalism needs to do some soul searching, including commitment to a certain political agenda. That can hinder a person’s ministry in evangelizing and making disciples for Jesus.

How to Fact-Check Flaky Theology with the Bible?

October 6, 2017 By Kermit Zarley

In just a few days, on October 29th, many millions of non-Catholic Christians will celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. On that day, in 1517, priestly monk Martin Luther posted his “Ninety-Five Theses” that came thundering down upon his church, the Roman Catholic Church. This document consisted of 95 sentences that mostly condemned the Church’s practice of indulgences and declared that salvation is a gift of God based on believing in Jesus as Savior. It occurred in Wittenberg, a college town where Dr. Luther taught. Legend has it that Martin nailed his blistering indictment to the front door of the Wittenberg Church. But that is now largely refuted. It appears that he presented it to church leaders. In this document, he challenges any qualified person to debate him or at least discuss it. This event changed the world, at least the western world, like few others.

In commemoration of this historic event, the October issue of Christianity Today has some articles dedicated to it. One is entitled “Catholic but not Roman.” It includes a statement of faith called The Reforming Catholic Confession. It was engineered by a Steering Committee of ten men and a Drafting Committee of eighteen. The Confession is a two-page doctrinal statement that begins with this introduction, “WHAT WE, PROTESTANTS OF DIVERSE CHURCHES AND THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS, SAY TOGETHER.” As many church denominational doctrinal statements or creeds, it has categories as follows: Triune God, Holy Scripture, Humans Beings, Fallenness, Jesus Christ, The Atoning Work of Christ, The Gospel, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, The Church, Baptism and Lord’s Supper, Holy Living, Last Things.

This CT issue also has an article by Jen Wilson entitled “Fact-Checking for Flaky Theology.” In it she advocates checking our theology with the Bible. I’m all for that! But do people really do it? And can they be objective in doing so? Martin Luther did that when he wrote his theses. Wilson says, “Think fake news is scary? You should try false teaching.” She calls for “the scriptural accuracy of the message.” She declares rightly, “We learn to spot a lie by studying the truth…. Churches must return to teaching the Bible…. We must teach them [parishioners] to think critically about the text, employ time-honored interpretations, and reference reliable measures of orthodoxy.”

Wilson’s last statement above can be a contradiction with the preceding. How about critically examining time-honored interpretations of the Bible made by fallible human beings, such as the doctrine of the Trinity which occurs as the first category in The Reforming Catholic Confession. It says, actually begins, as most such confessions by churches do, “We believe … That there is one God.” Then it says this one God “has life in himself.” The word “himself” is a pronoun referring to a single entity or person. Then the same sentence says this “one God” exists “in three persons–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit … co-equal in nature, majesty, and glory.”

This confessional statement does not explain how the “one God” is a “himself” and exists “in” three persons. And they don’t really mean “in” but “is,” which is quite typical. Jesus taught clearly that God, whom he called Father, indwells himself–Jesus. For he said, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me” (John 14.10-11; cf. 10.38 NRSV). He said the result was, “Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father” (14.9; cf. 12.45). None of these statements can be construed to mean that Jesus claimed to be God or Father. Yet many Christians make this error in their uncritical thinking. Jesus taught he and the Father indwell us Christians (John 14.20, 23). Paul’s favorite expression for this indwelling is that believers are “in Christ.” Conversely, he says the same of Jesus, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1.27).

In fact-checking the Bible, where does it say God is “in” three persons, much less “is” three persons? Nowhere! But this Confession gets worse as we fact-check it with the Bible. For, the third category in this Confession is entitled Human Beings. It says, “God communicates his goodness … to human beings, whom he has made in his one image.” A human being is a single person. How does that coincide with God being three persons? That is, if God is three persons, and this “Triune God,” as the first category is titled, made humans in its/his own image, then wouldn’t each human have to be triune as well, that is, a tri-personal being? To say humans are made in the image of the triune God because humans consist of body, soul, and spirit, is making an unjust comparison. We are talking about persons, here. Besides, most Christians say God doesn’t have a body. So, if God is three persons then each human being would have to be three persons. Since they are not, these statements in the Confession must be false teaching.

In this Confession, the category entitled “Jesus Christ” says he is “the eternal Son of God.” In fact-checking the Bible, it doesn’t say anything of the sort. It says Jesus is “the Son of God,” but never “the eternal Son of God.” Again, as the “in” in the Triune God statement, this expression is not very clear. It’s drafters intended to say Jesus eternally preexisted as the Son of God before his birth. But the Bible never explicitly says that.

In doing some Bible fact-checking, Luke records that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and said to her, “Mary, you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High,… The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God” (Luke 1.30-35).

There is nothing in this Lukan text that would cause us to think Jesus preexisted his birth as a human being. And the angel’s twice mention that Jesus would be called “(the) Son of God” (actually, no article in Greek text in either case) would be understood by an unbiased reader to mean he exists as Son of God only from the time he is born. And the expression “son(s) of God” appears multiple times in the Old Testament, being applied to men, angels, and Israel’s king; yet it never says they preexisted a birth.

The category “Jesus Christ” in this Reforming Catholic Confession also says, “the only Mediator (solus Christus) between God and humanity.” How can Jesus be such a mediator if he himself is also that God? That is not sensible. Furthermore, this statement says Jesus is “one person with two natures, truly God and truly man.” Both of these clauses originate with the Chalcedonian confession and the Nicene Creed, which were determined at the fifth and first Catholic ecumenical councils, respectively. But there is nothing at all in the Bible that says Jesus has two natures, not even close! That is a human deduction, an interpretation, of the Bible. So, it is not a Bible fact.

To conclude, remember that we’re talking about fact-checking the Bible. Jen Wilson in her article says, “we must point our people back to the Bible, to what God really said” (emphasis hers). Really! Then where does God say in the Bible he is three persons. Where does Jesus say he is God. It’s not in John 10.30, which some Christians cite, wherein Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” That interpretation ignores Jesus’ context, in which he had just said that he and the Father work together in protecting the sheep–us believers. That refers to a unity in purpose, not the two being the same essence, as some have claimed. (Cf. “one” [Gr. hen] in John 17.21.) And where does Jesus or anyone say in the Bible that Jesus has two natures? All of these things are deductions made by church fathers. Church fathers were fallible men. They could have gotten some things wrong. That’s why Jen Wilkin is right, that we should fact-check our theological beliefs by comparing them with the Bible. We might discover that we had some things wrong.

That’s what happened to me. I believed in the doctrine of the Trinity for twenty-two years and then fact-checked it with the Bible. I then discovered to my surprise that this doctrine is false teaching. The Reformation needs to continue because the Reformers bypassed this doctrine handed down by Catholic church fathers. We need to fact-check it with the Bible. See my book The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2009), available right now only at my website kermitzarley.com.

………………