Biblical Unitarianism and Adamic Christology

I had been uneasy about the doctrine of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ for many years - i.e. it's not explicitly taught in the Bible, it must be inferred, as well as the Trinitarian mantra: "It's something that's beyond human ability to understand; it's a 'mystery'". BTW - once you appeal to "beyond human understanding" the conversation is OVER.

 

In addition to, maybe because of, the fact that the doctrine is not explicit in any part of the Bible, plus the fact that no one could explain it to my satisfaction, my subjective experience and daily walk over the years tended towards deemphasizing the deity of Jesus and emphasizing his humanity. Many years ago I had arrived at the position that Jesus' preexistent deity was irrelevant to his 33 years of life on this earth. If he accessed his godhood in any way, well, that was just no fair! It disqualified him from being my High Priest. If he accessed his godhood in any way then it is not true that:

 

1) "...we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are..." You see, if Jesus accessed his godhood, then his experience and my experience of being tempted are not the same. Yet this says he was tempted just like me in every respect.
 

2) "For he that sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin". How could me and Jesus have one origin if he preexisted as God?
 

3) "Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted." Jesus was made like me in every respect. Yet if he was God, and knew it, he was not like me, who am not God, and know it. Therefore, I reasoned, if Jesus was God, he didn't know it.

 

Another example: It seemed to me (at the time) that Philippians 2:7 was telling me that Jesus "emptied himself" of any deity when he was born on earth. I now believe this is NOT what this text is saying...BUT...the net result for me was that Jesus' deity was deemphasized and his humanity was emphasized.

 

So...I was uneasy about the doctrine of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ - and - my subjective experience was leading me away from Jesus' deity (which I still believed) and towards viewing him as human, for all practical purposes. I have come to realize that, for me, simply being uneasy is not enough motivation to dig in and try to resolve the question. As I said, I can live with not knowing. However, in the context of a dialog with someone who is challenging me on an issue, I find the motivation to work at it. It seems as though I evolve doctrinally in the context of polemics - thesis/antithesis, whether friendly or antagonistic. Many times, when I engage in polemics, it's not necessarily to convince my opponent of the truth of my position, it's to help me actually come to a defensible position myself.

 

In the context of a debate over the tenants of Calvinism and Reformed Theology, I met a man (online) who helped me immensely. This man holds dual Greek/Canadian citizenship and currently lives in Athens, Greece. Among other things, he is a Greek scholar and reads the New Testament in the original Greek - the Byzantine manuscript tradition, for those who care. This man has spent many hours responding to me, answering questions and giving his opinions. The degree of our agreement on every issue we touched on was quite amazing - until we landed on the issue of the Trinity. This man is a staunch Trinitarian, as defined by the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD.  Without the prompting of the dialog with my wonderful Greek friend I was more or less content to go through life questioning the Trinity and yet never feeling the necessity of coming to some kind of resolved position. After all, I'm a busy guy, and philosophical/theological pursuits are somewhat of a luxury for me.

 

So, we began a game of Devil's Advocate. I was the Devil, attacking the Trinitarian position, even though I had not resolved the issue in my own mind. At the same time, I was erecting an anti-Trinitarian position that my friend could attack. To make a long story short, I became convinced by my own devil-advocating. Some of what you are about to read is from our correspondence.

 

I constantly appeal to the Hebraic verses the Greek modes of thought. Be assured it's not a cop-out. Time does not permit me to attempt a comprehensive presentation of what I have learned over the years. But I am convinced we've got it mostly wrong when reading the Bible. Our problems are due, mostly, to the co-opting of Hebraic categories of thought by Greek philosophy. I believe this process was already beginning during the lifetime of the apostles. I believe John's epistles are concerned with it. But it first became explicitly apparent in terms of being able to document it with Justin Martyr (circa 150AD). It evolved mainly from the Alexandrian School of theologians and eventually triumphed at the Council of Nicea (325AD) and then Chalcedon in 451. The further away from the original apostles you go the worse it gets. I originally blamed Augustine, but he's only one of the most obvious and influential, I now see it in almost all of the Greek fathers who are later than the Apostolic Fathers (disciples of the apostles) to one degree or another.

 

(Here is a link to one of the better (in my opinion) summations of this issue. I think this man's understanding of the various Greek philosophies and how they impacted early Christianity is very good - especially in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity.)

 

It's been said that all western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. I would include "orthodox Christian theology" (as defined by the Councils) in with that. With one exception, for most of my adult life, I haven't known of ANYBODY who understood just how much Plato/Aristotle and "orthodox" Christianity have in common. I have become convinced that if one happens to see Plato and Aristotle in the Biblical text - and just about everyone does, whether they know it or not - he is looking at the Bible through Greek-colored glasses. Unfortunately, we now have 1800 years of Greek speculative philosophical "exegesis" of the Bible that has become "Orthodox". It's my contention that Jesus and the apostles owe nothing to Plato and Aristotle - nothing. Within the last 6 years, as a result of the pressure of the debate (referred to above) with my beloved Calvinist opponent, I have found similar understandings to mine in many places and so I am not as much of a theological maverick as I might at first appear, and as I have felt myself to be at certain times.

 

The realization of the corrupting Greek philosophical influence in the Church has been one of the many things that have caused me to, in general, reject institutionalized Christianity. It's corrupted and has been "Greekified" to an amazingly ubiquitous degree. It has become something the apostles would not recognize, and I mean that in every sense of the word, "recognized." As to whether it's reformable from within - I suppose it's possible, but it would take a miracle of God! History doesn't give me much hope. Institutions, especially religious ones, are notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to reform. I no longer invest any time or money in the institution. I believe it's systemically corrupt. This is not to say there are not good people to be found within the institution, there are many, and I do invest various resources in the people of God wherever I may find them. But I make a distinction between the people and the institution. The "true Church" is an organism, not an organization. As far as what I consider to be the "true Church" goes, there IS an overlap, I acknowledge that the "true Church" can be found within the institution, but the overlap is coincidental, not necessary. The "true Church" is found outside the institution as well - and it's the "outside", organic, versions that I generally prefer.

 

So, my interest lies not in "historical" Christianity, but in what Jesus and the apostles actually said, and what they meant by what they said. In short, I want to know what the Bible REALLY says. Not what I might want it to say, not what this or that church thinks it says, but the meaning intended by the authors themselves. How many times have you read something, say, John 1 - the "Logos" - and think to yourself, "Man, I wish I had the apostle John right here. I would ask him, 'What the heck did you mean by that? And please tell me in plain English in a way that I can understand it!'" Unfortunately, John is dead, so I can't ask him.

 

Is it REALLY possible for us to arrive at an understanding that is the same as or at least similar to the original intent? Good question. On the negative side, we have generation upon generation of hand-made copies, thousands of them - with no known autographs (the original manuscripts written by or dictated by the original authors) in existence. These copies exhibit all the evidences of scribal errors and unconscious as well as conscious tampering. (One area that evidences much tampering is in the doctrine of the Trinity.) We have multiple translations spanning several languages. Just the difference one single language can undergo over 20 centuries is massive. We are dealing with SEVERAL languages over the course of 20 centuries. The Hebrew paradigm and categories of thought shifting into a Greek paradigm and categories of thought is especially troublesome, in my opinion. We have, at the least, 20 centuries of time between us and the Biblical writers - some of the Old Testament is way older than that. We are attempting to understand writings from a culture and a socio-political situation - several of them - that is COMPLETELY foreign to us.

 

I could go on but you get the picture. In light of all this, there are those who say that it's impossible to really understand the original intent of the Biblical texts - we're stabbing in the dark. So what we are left with is our own personal, experiential relationship with God. It may be that He would use the Bible to communicate with us, but how the Spirit uses a certain scripture in my life may not be how He uses it in yours. Context is irrelevant, what matters is what God is saying to ME, and to YOU. I have some sympathy with that position, and I understand how the problems defined above, and others, can lead one to that conclusion. I have held that conclusion myself in the past. Furthermore, I spent 15 years in a vibrant, growing, and real relationship with God even though I had given up on REALLY understanding the Bible and basically didn't read it - sometimes for months at a time. I did not stagnate, I did not slide backwards into my youthful indiscretions, I did not give up on God. I maintained - more than maintained, I moved forward - my relationship with God which was established in 1973. I continued in my marriage, my chosen profession, and in raising a large family. I continued to seek God, to grow in Him, to minister to others - all the things a "good Christian" does - all without reading the Bible. Understanding the Bible wasn't necessary in accomplishing those things. All that to say, if you don't believe the Bible is understandable, I understand. Just don't let your not-understanding stop you from pursuing God.

 

On the positive side, the Biblical manuscripts, which number in the tens of thousands, have been subjected to more scholarly scrutiny than any other group of texts anywhere, anytime, ever. The idea that we have something that's pretty close to what was originally written is generally accepted. We have nearly 25,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts, at least 5600 are copies or fragments in the original Greek. The earliest existing fragment is dated 40 to 60 years from autograph to copy. Compare that to what we have for Plato: 7 manuscripts, the earliest is dated 1300 years from autograph to copy. Plato is considered to be well attested and not questioned. No body of ancient texts even comes close to the Bible when it comes to manuscript evidence. The problems of scribal errors, interpolations, and various kinds of tampering are being compensated for. Textual criticism is an area that can be fascinating or make your eyes glaze over, depending on whether or not your personality type is one that delights in massive amounts of minutia! Bottom line, I am convinced that what we have is reasonably close to what was written - or at least we are in the process of getting there. If you're interested, just google "Biblical manuscripts" and dive in.

 

That does not mean that we understand what was written, that's a different issue. All the other issues I specified above - language, translation, culture, time, etc. - are still issues - some are enormous issues. However, I obviously have hope of understanding or I wouldn't be doing this! As I've said elsewhere:

 

"...given the presupposition that the Bible was inerrant and did not contain contradiction, then I obviously did not understand it. I had to conclude that I had some unconscious presuppositions that were coloring my Bible reading - so I quit reading. It seemed to me that continuing to read the Bible over and over from the same unconscious presuppositions was an exercise in futility. It made no sense to keep reinforcing my confusion. So I put it all away until such time as it seemed likely that I could see the Bible with new eyes as it were, and turned my attention to other ways of pursuing God and personal growth. That is another story, and to say that I quit reading the Bible entirely would be inaccurate, but as far as any kind of systematic theology goes, in the early eighties I put it all in the garbage disposal and hit the switch."

 

As it turned out, "such time as it seemed likely that I could see the Bible with new eyes as it were" turned out to be January of 2001. At that time I was maneuvered back into serious Bible study. And after 15 years of conscious benign neglect - in many ways BECAUSE OF 15 years of conscious benign neglect - the Bible has become a new book to me! During those 15 years I jettisoned many of the unconscious presuppositions that resulted in a Bible full of contradictions and language that seemed to make no sense. Issues that I had reconciled to never resolving in this life have been resolved! Because of this experience, I have hope of understanding that I have not had for at least the last 20 years.

 

There are things happening in the theological world (e.g. the new perspective on Paul) as well as in the area of textual criticism that are exciting to me - things that I don't think have happened before. For example (from the page linked to above), "scholars today have computers that they use to compare the various texts. Compared to even a hundred years ago, it is now much easier to sort the manuscripts, determine the dates they were produced, and discover where, when and how changes and errors were introduced."

 

So, the fact that I have become convinced it's a reasonable position to hold that what we have is very close to what was originally written, plus my subjective experience of being led back into this arena after many, many years of putting it on the shelf, combine to produce the hope that understanding the Biblical texts in the same way or a similar way as the original intent is possible.

 

Here's why and what I do, in relation to attempting to understand the original meaning of Biblical texts:

 

When you and I (and professional theologians) attempt to ascertain what the Bible means the best that we can do - the best that anyone can do - is come up with a theory and then test that theory against the known data. We develop theories that attempt to explain what it means. In doing this we try to incorporate all data that we know. Historical context, other writings from the same time and culture, word studies, etc...all the tools that we can come up with. It's the same thing as scientists who study the physical universe and come up with theories about how it all works and what it all means. In order for a theory to be considered legitimate, it must take into account ALL known relevant facts, i.e. ALL the known data. If a theory incorporates 99% of the data but leaves out 1% of the relevant data because it just doesn't fit, the intellectually honest seeker will take the position that the theory needs to be rejected or adjusted. Denial or manipulation of data in order to maintain a theory is indicative of someone who is married to the theory. In that case, the truth suffers. And the institutional Church, of whatever stripe, is definitely married to it's theory. Denominations are founded on such. A certain theory may be sincerely and generally accepted for a while but then somebody comes up with a fact or an observation of something or a new discovery that doesn't fit with the theory. What should happen at that point is that the theory should be adjusted or discarded and another one created in order to accommodate the previously unknown fact/observation/discovery.

 

Theory is ALL you and I have, from an intellectual standpoint. I am committed to a theory - a doctrine - as long as it adequately explains all known data. If new data is discovered, it either has to fit with the theory or the theory needs to be adjusted or discarded. By "data" I mean primarily Biblical data, but there are other sources for data as well that should be factored in. History, culture, reason and experience, as well as intuition in its various forms, and also whether or not the theory works out in real life. Can I actually live my theory or do I hold on to it in the face of contrary experience? That can be a real dilemma: do I change my theory or can I change my experience? Does believing this theory actually result in functional benefit in real life? Does it result in freedom from sin? Does it make doing the right thing easier? Does it help me to love God with ALL my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and my neighbor as myself?

 

These are some of the questions I ask myself when questioning a belief or a doctrine, or a theory of the meaning of a certain text. Frankly, what the "Church" has historically believed, what I was taught, what I received from my fathers, what I am prone to believe because of my gender, my experience, my culture, my age, and a host of other factors, matters not one whit to me. I want to know what the author meant. That's what matters to me.

 

So, to call into question something (the Trinity) that the institutional Church has made THE issue, even to the point of excommunication and murder (bad sign!), is not something for which I have the slightest trepidation, nor does it surprise me in the least that they might have got this wrong too - that would be, from a historical perspective, true to form. Fortunately for me, as far as I know, the institutional Church no longer burns heretics, and they can't excommunicate me because I picked up my marbles and went home a long time ago.

 

Next: Stating the Problem: Mutually Exclusive Coexistent Categories