To my knowledge, there are roughly two kinds of unitarians: Arians and humanitarian unitarians.
(In this post I'm excluding Muslim and Jewish unitarians.)
1. Arian unitarianism
Arians regard the Son as the first creature. God made the Son, and the Son made everything else. Arianism is dualistic.
A tactical advantage of this position is that Arians can more easily accommodate many NT passages that describe the Son as preexistent.
A serious disadvantage is that by making a creature God's all-purpose agent, they blur the difference between God and creatures. Everything the OT says about Yahweh is transferrable to the Son, even though the Son is merely a creature. A creature co-opting all the classic monotheistic texts.
2. Humanitarian unitarianism
Humanitarian unitarians regard Jesus as merely human. He didn't exist at all priori his conception. Some humanitarian unitarians are physicalists.
A tactical advantage of this position is that humanitarian Arians can more easily maintain a distinction between God and Jesus.
A serious disadvantage is that humanitarian unitarians must someone reinterpret all the NT passages pointing to the preexistence of Christ (e.g. John 1:1-5; 8:58; 12:41; 17:5; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2,10-12;
So unitarians face a conundrum regardless of which option they select.
Interesting post, Steve. Yes, the subordinationists ("Arians" is a silly, polemical term) do have that advantage. The popular Bible translations and conservative commentaries lean hard to vindicate the traditional "preexistence" proof texts. And so they seem obvious to many people. These subordinationists are not "dualists" in any interesting sense, i.e. having two equal gods. Although the ancient ones c. 150-370 sure did like to call this lesser (but second greatest) being "God." That gives a superficial appearance of dualism, two equal gods, yes. But then you look at the rest of the things they say.
ReplyDeleteThis idea that there must be a razor sharp distinction between God and all creatures is a 4th c. polemical invention. You don't see it before that. Some famous early writers merrily accept the Platonic idea that to create God (aka the Father) had to have an intermediary who is neither created nor uncreated. There's your blurry line right there. About "Everything the OT says about Yahweh is transferrable to the Son, even though the Son is merely a creature." - that is only required if you accept the interpretation, like the main Logos theorists did, that the Son actually did all that was attributed in the OT to God - because God, strictly, can never be seen or heard, but the Son (the second, lesser "god") could. That's not really required by the christology though. A subordination can just accept the reality of theophanies, and think that the Logos made few OT cameos, or even none.
Humanitarian unitarians's big advantage is avoiding the morass about how the Logos relates to the man Jesus. This is quite a powerful motivation, once you see how firmly and consistently the NT emphasizes that Jesus was (and is) a real man.
About their "serious disadvantage" - I completely understand why you say that. So long as you think it is a slam dunk that Jesus (or the Logos at any rate) created the cosmos, that seems to rule out the humanitarian view. I only accepted this last view after being satisfied that there are plausible, completely non ad hoc, well motivated readings of all those texts, ones which trinitarians or unitarians or anyone could accept just because they wanted to understand those passages in their first c. context, which don't imply "preexistence." I think one should set the bar this high, given the dominance of the preexistence interpretations. I took something like five or six years weighing these matters.
It is true that many humanitarians are physicalists about humans. But the interesting thing is, there are neutral reasons, reasons presupposing neither physicalism nor dualism, for thinking that the Logos could not be, and could not become a real human being. But those another time.
"These subordinationists are not 'dualists' in any interesting sense, i.e. having two equal gods. Although the ancient ones c. 150-370 sure did like to call this lesser (but second greatest) being "God." That gives a superficial appearance of dualism, two equal gods, yes. But then you look at the rest of the things they say."
DeleteNot the kind of dualism I was referencing. Rather, to quote you: "Clarke held that Christ pre-existed in the form of divine spirit, which spirit at the incarnation then indwelled the body of Jesus, taking the place of a normal human soul."
"This idea that there must be a razor sharp distinction between God and all creatures is a 4th c. polemical invention."
And the consistent alternative is Clarke's position that the Son God has all the divine attributes except aseity. But that robs Yahweh of nearly all the classic monotheistic prooftexts in the OT. So that's a high price to pay for unitarianism!
I see. Yes, in many hands, the subordinationist view assumes dualism about human persons, as they think the Logos takes the place of a human soul in Jesus. This is what Athanasius thought, and yes, Clarke. Of course, they can also have the Logos as a divine self which mystically unifies somehow with a (wholly physical) human self.
DeleteSorry, don't see what that's the only consistent view. Ancient subordinationists often thought the Logos was inferior to God in power, knowledge, or goodness. Also, Clarke's scheme does preserve biblical monotheism. God is the only one who has all those wonderful attributes underived. It's not just a difference of one attribute, but a difference in the way he has all the attributes. And he notes how NT language too picks him out as unique by various means. It's quite an impressive case.
Actually, I'd say Clarke's scheme is a modification of Nicene theology, viz. the Father as the fons deitas, eternal generation of the Son, eternal procession of the Spirit. Clarke is tweaking that framework.
DeleteIt's like the interpretation of Nicea (325) that was pushed by people like Eusebius of Caesarea. You could call it Origenist. He gets off the boat with Constantinople (381), I think.
DeleteThere are plenty of Things said about the son that cannot be said about the Yahweh, the son is the agent of creation (Things are created THROUGH him), that cannot be said about Yahweh, the son is the image of God, that cannot be said about Yahweh, the son is sent by God, that cannot be said about Yahweh. The spirit of God Works through the son, that cannot be said about Yahweh ... I can go on.
DeleteBTW, the "monotheistic" prooftexts in the OT, are not proofs that Yahweh is the only being that can be called god, they are saying that Yahweh is unique.
The Things that can be said about Yahweh, are often also said about human beings or angels (the savior, the one who spoke to moses in the burning bush, and so on); being Gods agent does not require, or really ever etail or allow for, ontological sameness With God.
Btw, STILL waiting for an exegesis of John 10:34-36.
i) Your first paragraph recycles objections I already refuted.
Deleteii) Your second/third paragraph is a non sequitur. I didn't cite monotheist prooftexts to show that Yahweh is the only being who can be called "god". Rather, I cited monotheistic prooftexts that delineate what makes Yahweh the one true Deity, yet the same passages are applied to Jesus.
Regarding your final sentence, detailed exegesis was provided. It's not my problem that you lack the competence to recognize exegesis when it's staring you in the face.
Regarding Preexistence, apologist Tony Costa has said that Mark 1:1ff (esp. v. 2) alludes to Exodus 23:20 which refers to "the angel". Specifically, Costa says Mark 1:1ff is likely a cluster of three (3) quotations/allusion, not merely the two (2) well known ones of Isa. 40:3 and Mal. 3:1. That's because Mark 1:2 in the Greek most closely resembles Exodus 23:20 (in the Septuagint) which refers to an angel/Angel whom God promised He would SEND. "Send" like in Mal. 3:1. If 1. Mark really is alluding to this passage in Exodus, and 2. if that angel is The Angel of YHVH, then Mark is likely connecting Jesus with the Angel of YHVH. If so, then that kills at least two birds with one stone. It undermines versions of Unitarianism that 1. deny Christ's Preexistence and 2. versions of Unitarianism which affirm Jesus is only/merely a human savior.
ReplyDeleteTony Costa made the above claim in the following debate at 1:18:05 into the debate.
https://youtu.be/9km_KBw81DQ?t=1h18m5s
There are many verses in gJohn that strongly suggest Christ's Preexistence. For example, John 6:62.
"Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" -John 6:62 ESV
Given Humanitarian Unitarianism this doesn't make much sense. It would have a personal Jesus ascending to where he was before when "he" was merely an impersonal plan of God within God's mind (cf. John 17:5). The most natural reading of the verses would be that Jesus is returning to God the Father as personal in the same way He was personal prior to His "tabernacling"/dwelling (cf. John 1:14). Even the Greek term "dwelt" in John 1:14 implies preexistence since it's PERSONS that dwell within a tent. Additionally, if the author meant to make a parallel between YHVH's dwelling in the Temple or Tent under the Mosaic Covenant, then He's implying Jesus is YHVH. Given Humanitarian Unitarianism, Jesus JUST IS the tent. He's not "in" the tent. Jesus dwells in the tent of His body as Daniel referred to his spirit within his body like a sheath. The Hebrew word for body is literally sheath in Dan. 7:15. Compare with 2 Cor. 5:1ff.
CONT.
Simon Gathercole has written a book on Christ's Preexistence and he has summarized some of his material on the topic of Christ's "I have come.." Saying in three lectures which can be downloaded HERE or listened to as one long video HERE. I've further summarized his lectures in my blogpost HERE. Gathercole points out that Jesus' "I have come..." Sayings best parallel those passages in the OT and intertestamental literature where angels would come down from heaven and deliver messages to humans. By making this connection, Gathercole makes a strongly suggestive case for the personal/conscious Preexistence of the person of Jesus.
DeleteAs most know, there are many passages in Paul that suggest (if not outright teach) preexistence. Some are not as obvious, but they make sense if seen in the light of preexistence. For example:
"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich." - 2 Cor. 8:9 ESV
"The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."- 1 Cor. 15:47 ESV
Notice how the first man was from below and MADE OF DUST. The second man Christ is from Above. Implying BY CONTRAST not merely made of dust, yet personal.
Phil. 2:6 doesn't make sense unless Jesus was a deliberating conscious person prior to taking on the "form" (morphen) of a servant (v. 7). Prior to being made in the likeness of of men, He was already in the "form" (morphe) of God (v. 6).
CONT.
Compare the manifestation of Christ in the flesh in 1 Tim. 3:16 with Christ's appearing in Heb. 9:26b. Both suggest personal preexistence. Couple that with Heb. 10:5c where the text puts into the mouth of Christ the saying, "but a body have you prepared for me" when talking about Christ having "c[o]me into the world" [Heb. 10:5a].
DeletePaul talks about "the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ" in 1 Cor. 10:4. He's alluding to the extra-Scriptural Jewish tradition about a rock that followed the Israelites. Clearly, Paul is saying Jesus is preexistent in this verse. Likely also in verse 9 where Paul says, "We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,". There's a textual variant that has "Lord" instead of "Christ", however a good case can be made that "Christ" is the original, not "Lord" (see for example the NET Bible's note on this verse).
IMO, the preexistence of Christ in gJohn is so strong that any non-preexistence position must be ad hoc and is driven by strong theological bias. Here are just some of the verses in John that suggest or teach personal preexistence.
For example, John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14].
They should also be coupled with the many times Jesus claims to be sent from God. For example, John 3:17, 34; 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 36, 37, 38; 6:29, 38, 39, 44, 57; 7:16, 18, 28, 29, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21.
"2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power...."- Heb. 1:2-3b. ESV
Are we really to believe the original recipients of this letter didn't interpret the words "through whom also he created the world" to mean that Jesus was personally preexistent? That's hard to swallow. Especially since in the next verse the author says that Jesus "upholds the universe by the word of his power." Did Jesus only begin to do this when he was created the son of God at his conception or sometime after (e.g. at his resurrection)? Was the Father upholding it prior, and then passed on the task to the Son at the resurrection? That's an ad hoc and unnecessary interpretation, since it's likely that the author is connecting Jesus as the agent of God's creation and Jesus' use of His powerful words with the opening verses of Genesis where it says God created the world by "speaking".
Or think of Heb. 7:3 which says of Melchizedek, "He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever." The author implies that what was only apparently the case with Melchizedek is literally true of Christ. That Christ has "neither beginning of days nor end of life". This makes most sense if the author conceived of Christ as having an eternal personal preexistence.
More could be said about preexistence, but I think the point has been made that the NT uniformly teaches or implies or assumes [i.e. takes for granted without the need for argumentation] Christ's personal preexistence.
Annoyed, you almost elevate cutting and pasting to an art form. :-)
DeleteSeriously, I appreciate your thoroughness. But you only present one side of the case, and you let in as significant some very weak arguments. When I read Gathercole's book, I was amazed. I'd never seen a scholar labor so hard to get blood from a stone. It is wholly unconvincing. Read the Dunn book review. https://www.dropbox.com/s/j6retxr3yapmsv5/Dunn%20critique%20on%20Gathercole.pdf?dl=0
Costa? Wow. That kind of interpretive voodoo is bad news. The NT is not a secret code book, for which we're to break out the secret decoder ring, and somehow draw connections to discern what it is *really* saying. That's a rather gnostic procedure! The authors present their message clearly and straight up. They beat us over the head with it. And it is that the man Jesus really is God's Messiah.
The views of John need to be argued at length. I will grant that prima facie, given many Christians' background assumptions, he seems to assume preexistence. I think this melts away when one sees what he's actually doing, but I won't try to argue that in a combox. Same with the truckload of other passages you just dumped out.
In any case, we must keep in mind the clarity, consistency, and centrality of the NT claim that the one God just is the Father himself. In light of this, your arguments, were they to be strong, would support being a subordinationist unitarian over being a humanitarian unitarian. I seem to remember from some previous conversation, actually, that you were granting that in the NT Yahweh is the Father (alone). Is that right?
In light of this, your arguments, were they to be strong, would support being a subordinationist unitarian over being a humanitarian unitarian.
DeleteAgreed. I was addressing the topic of preexistence. I often cite subordinationist Unitarian literature when it comes to preexistence [e.g. Greg Stafford's, which I'm still waiting for you to interview ;-) ].
I seem to remember from some previous conversation, actually, that you were granting that in the NT Yahweh is the Father (alone). Is that right?
I believed Jesus is also YHVH. What's controversial in my views is that I'm open to something like the Nicene Monarchism of David Waltz, though I don't currently subscribe to it because it compromises the true unity of God.
The NT is not a secret code book, for which we're to break out the secret decoder ring, and somehow draw connections to discern what it is *really* saying. That's a rather gnostic procedure! The authors present their message clearly and straight up. They beat us over the head with it. And it is that the man Jesus really is God's Messiah.
That doesn't take into full account the implications of 1. Progressive Revelation, 2. with the fact that for the most of Jesus' ministry He hid his Messiahship (and by extension, if true, His full Deity), 3. intentionally spoke and acted enigmatically (via parables, dissimulation, prevarication, dissembling), 4. the fact that the NT church itself grew in its understanding of who Jesus was and the implications of the Gospel [which is recorded in the NT itself]. Rather than explicitly and directly telling us His identity, He mostly allowed His actions and miracles speak for themselves as to *Who* He is.
CONT.
In another comment Roman Montero wrote concerning my interpretation of John 10:30, "Basically in that interpretation Jesus was missleading the audience, his statement would not only be missleading if he actually was Yahweh incarnate, but it would be completely confused ..."
DeleteBut Jesus often spoke enigmatically and ambiguously according to all 4 Gospels. Just in the Gospel of John Jesus says He won't go to the feast but does. Jesus says that if people would destroy "this temple" He would raise it in 3 days, even though He knew some people would infer He's referring to Herod's Temple. He says to Pilate His Kingdom is not of this world, as if to imply it's merely spiritual. Despite the fact that Jesus knew full well His kingdom would eventually be a literal earthly occupying Kingdom in the future. Jesus talks about the necessity of being "born again/above" knowing Nicodemus could/did literally interpret it as re-entering one's mother's womb. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman about spiritual water and she interpreted it as literal water. Jesus said that His listeners would seek Him and not find Him (John 7:34), and He didn't correct the misinterpretation that He would go out to the Diaspora to teach. Jesus says salvation depended on eating His flesh and drinking His blood (John 6), and He didn't correct disciples who took Him literally even though they eventually stopped following Him. Jesus didn't correct people when they thought He might kill himself when He said "Where I am going, you cannot come" (John 8:22). I could go on with examples in gJohn. Interestingly, gJohn records the Jews as being ready to execute Jesus at least 3 times on account of Jesus' claims to be equal with God the Father. In both John 5:18 and John 8:58-59 Jesus doesn't correct their alleged misunderstanding. The third time, John 10:30ff., Jesus responds enigmatically in a way that could still be interpreted to teach His equality with the Father (as I've argued by quoting Daniel Waterland).
I see. OK, you're still sort of figuring out your theology. I don't know how Jesus can be "also Yahweh" if he's a different being - which would be required, if he exists in dependence on the Father.
DeleteLet's not confuse together Jesus's temporary secrecy and even obscurity in his teachings, with the status of the NT books, which again, I claim, wear their meaning on their face. After the coming of the spirit, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. The "mystery" in the NT is something which we now know - it is God's new covenant through the Messiah, for all nations.
If you take a Protestant view of revelation, there is no "progressive revelation" beyond the NT era. And those arguments I called "voodoo" are just not from that time, or I think from any ancient writer. They're just the latest case of coming up with new justifications for catholic doctrines that were adopted for other reasons.
I've not ever had any contact with Greg Stafford, but have expressed to others interest in interviewing him, and I think they've passed that on. So far, no reply.
OK, you're still sort of figuring out your theology.
DeleteI'm Trinitarian by default. I haven't found an alternative that does as good or better at making sense of all the Biblical data.
I don't know how Jesus can be "also Yahweh" if he's a different being - which would be required, if he exists in dependence on the Father.
That depends on what kind of dependence. Some Trinitarians see Christ dependent on the Father only as to His incarnation. While other Trinitarians find that dependence ontological/metaphysical intra-Trinitarianly (e.g. eternal generation/filiation). I'm not dogmatic on eternal generation either way. Being convinced Biblically of Jesus's full deity and being predicated as YHVH (e.g. from the "I am/AM" of John 8:58), I cannot see the dependence as being one of a creature to his Creator. Though, I saw 20 years ago how eternal generation could be construed as undermining Christ's full deity [which Steve has often pointed out].
After the coming of the spirit, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. The "mystery" in the NT is something which we now know - it is God's new covenant through the Messiah, for all nations.
And Christ's full deity as YHVH along with the Father is attested (often amply) in the post-resurrection epistles; even beyond the Pauline corpus. Not to mention the Gospels. Except for Luke, all the other Gospels have (IMO) an extremely high Christology hidden in plain sight. Hidden in one sense, in that it's usually not explicit, yet in plain sight if one understands the Jewish, cultural and OT contexts (as I've argued on my Blog).
If you take a Protestant view of revelation, there is no "progressive revelation" beyond the NT era.
Agreed. But as a Protestant, I believe there are Protestant versions of "Doctrinal Development" (in distinction from the Catholic conception of it). Doctrinal Development is distinct from Progressive Revelation. As I've said before, I take (for example) 1 Cor. 11:19 and Eph. 4:13-14 as having eschatological and ecclesiological implications that mean that the post-Biblical church [i.e. after the production of revelation on par with Scripture has ended] will continue to grow in its understanding of theology till the return of Christ. Questions will be answered and issues will be hammered out through debate, dialogue, divisions and the encounter of new situations/challenges. By God's providence, Trinitarianism [broadly speaking in its variations], has been settled in the Church, and has also been blessed/prospered/approved of by that same providence. Unitarianism, in its various & numerous revivals, has often self-destructed or fizzled out. Apparently, on account of lacking God's prospering approval.
CONT.
They're just the latest case of coming up with new justifications for catholic doctrines that were adopted for other reasons.
DeleteLike others, I came to Trinitarian conclusions reluctantly because of the Catholic association. But the Biblical data pointed toward something like Trinitarianism. Conversely, some people reject Trinitarianism because they have a rebellious streak or maverick spirit. The novelty of their position, and the sense of heroism they get from fighting the establishment and established orthodoxy [like young David agains8t the experienced giant Goliath] gives them (often subconsciously) a thrill. Sometimes on account of the sense of gnostic specialness they feel when they think they have the Secret minority truth which they have the privilege and unique ability to champion.
We can't just use the word "Catholic" as a way to poison the well. The Catholic or Catholic-like positions were come to through examining the Biblical data. In some senses the fathers succeeded and in other senses they failed. What they did get right (IMO) was 1. the full deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, 2. the real distinctions between the persons of the Triad and 3. the true unity and indivisibility of God.
Mr Annoyed, Let me respond to your claim against me.
DeleteIt is true that Jesus spoke ambigously, but he didn't contradict himself.
Also when it comes to these ambiguities; the text will usually tell us what the actual meaning is, and why.
When it comes to John 10:34-36, (for which we have yet to see an exegesis from Steve ... or really any trinitarian, actually we had one from someone else that really ended up being extremely confused). Jesus makes a response; the response says what it says, if you want to say he is being ambigous that's fine, but tell me what the meaning of the text is ... and then explaing how the meaning actually makes sense of the text. If he's being ambigous that's fine, you still need an exegesis.
But the fact is in this passage Jesus quotes an old testament text and makes an Application, there is no reason to not take him at his Word here.