Most books on the nature and identity of Jesus Christ fall into one of two categories: polemic or apologetic. Kermit Zarley’s The Restitution of Jesus Christ (hereafter “TRJC”) is a rare exception, challenging mainstream Christian readers without insisting that they accept his views.
In his preface, Zarley says,
My primary purpose in writing this book has not been to convince readers of my christological convictions. That is secondary. Rather, my primary purpose is to persuade readers that the Bible does not require that people believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation, and thus the deity of Christ, in order to become a true believer in Jesus.[1]
TRJC is a culmination of Zarley’s personal quest for the Biblical Jesus, which led him to reject Trinitarian Christology in favour of Biblical Unitarianism (hereafter “Unitarianism”). It reflects a combination of high quality research, systematic theology, and scrupulous intellectual honesty.
The book is divided into three sections:
- Part One: History of Church Christology
- Part Two: Messianism in the Old Testament
- Part Three: Christology in the New Testament
My review follows this pattern.
Part One summarises the evolution of Christology from the first millennium to the second. Key figures include Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Arius, Athanasius and the three Hierarchs. Early creeds and teaching documents (e.g. Didache; Apostles’ Creed) are noted approvingly, albeit briefly. Zarley provides a fair review of pre- and post-Nicene Christology, highlighting differences between the various Christological models.
His accounts of the ecumenical councils are accurate and succinct, demonstrating a sound grasp of their theological consequences.
Moving on to the second millennium, Zarley covers prominent figures of the Unitarian movement from the medieval period to Reformation, Enlightenment, and beyond. These include Michael Servetus, Faustus Socinus, John Locke, and Isaac Newton. A large section is devoted to the higher criticism of the Tübingen School and its role in the “quest for the historical Jesus”.
In the final section Zarley provides examples of 20th Century theologians who have rejected the deity of Christ on various grounds, and a brief foray into Christian/Jewish/Islamic Christological dialogue. The following points from his closing summary merit serious consideration:
Traditional two-nature Christology is incompatible with the modern
disciplines of anthropology and psychology, and is employed as a forced grid in NT gospel exegesis. Traditional Christology has always tended towards
Docetism; recent Jesus Research increasingly resists this tendency and insists
on a more human Jesus.[2]
Critique of Part One
Zarley’s account of the Ebionites requires additional detail and greater clarity.
While correctly noting that Ebionism was not a homogeneous movement, he misidentifies its primary subgroups as ‘Judaistic and Gnostic.’[3] This is impossible for two reasons: (a) Gnosticism was a 2nd Century heresy, and (b) the Ebionites betray no Gnostic tendencies.
The two main Ebionite groups are more accurately defined as Judaistic and Christian, being essentially divided by their respective views of the Law. Within the Christian group, some accepted the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension of Christ; others only accepted the resurrection and ascension; still others appear to have accepted even less. Zarley refers to some degree of variation, but not enough to demonstrate the full range of Ebionite theology. A few citations from early church fathers would have been useful here.[4]
Regrettably, Zarley paints Ignatius of Antioch as a heretical, authoritarian church leader with an unhealthy passion for martyrdom. But the case he presents is subjective, and ultimately unconvincing. It appears his opposition to Ignatius is motivated entirely by the objectionable Christology he finds in the Ignatian epistles.
Unable to tolerate the idea of a proto-Trinitarian Christian at such an early date, Zarley contrives to dismiss Ignatius as an unreliable witness to normative Christian belief. Yet there is no need to do this. My own brief study of the Ignatian epistles[5] argues that we have good reason for accepting Ignatius as a bona fide Unitarian in the apostolic tradition.
A closer examination of the seven genuine epistles reveals only nine clauses which might give Unitarians cause for concern. None of these are distinctly Trinitarian, all are compatible with Arianism or Binitarianism, and seven can be dispatched by reference to (a) an alternative recension, (b) the common standard of NT language about God and Christ, and/or (c) mainstream commentators, leaving only two problematic references. It is therefore entirely possible to read the epistles as the work of an early Unitarian Christian. At the very least, we cannot reject Ignatius as heretical; there is simply not enough evidence against him.
Zarley makes no reference to Clement of Alexandria, which is unfortunate because Clement’s work sheds light on the Christological dilemmas confronting 3rd Century theologians. Clement’s own Christology is dangerously Docetic, reflecting an early attempt to emphasise the deity of Christ at the expense of his humanity. This was a recurring problem throughout subsequent centuries, and some theologians have suggested it was never adequately resolved.[6]
Zarley’s discussion of the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds is adequate, but would benefit from a discussion of the filioque,[7] its perceived theological necessity, and its role in the eventual breach between East and West. Much more should have been said about the three Cappadocians (who were not as united in their theology as Trinitarians would have us believe[8]) and the Pneumatomachi,[9] who played a significant part in the disputes of this era.
My final criticism is that Zarley’s review of early Christianity omits many Unitarians for whom we have reliable attestation. They include:
- Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
- Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
- Beryllus of Bostra (2nd-3rd Century)
- Theodotus of Byzantium (2nd Century)
- Theodotus the Banker (2nd Century)
- Artemon (3rd Century)
- Heraclides (3rd Century)
These men were not mere fringe-dwelling heretics: all enjoyed widespread esteem and a prominent role in public life.
Papias, Polycarp, Beryllus and Heraclides were highly regarded bishops in good standing,[10] and each presided over a considerable population. Theodotus of Byzantium[11] was the leader of a popular Unitarian movement which persisted until at least the 4th Century. Artemon led his own Unitarian sect, and is still regarded as one of Rome’s finest 3rd Century Christian teachers. According to Eusebius, he had claimed Unitarianism was the normative belief until Zephyrinus succeeded Victor as the Bishop of Rome at the end of the 2nd Century.[12] Eusebius denies this, listing four theologians whom he says predated Victor and professed the deity of Christ: Justin Martyr, Tatian, Miltiades, and Clement of Alexandria.
However, none of the names on Eusebius’ list are true Trinitarians,[13] one of them (Miltiades) lived long after the death of Victor (d. 199), one was an eastern bishop who had never been to Rome (Clement of Alexandria) and the remaining two only lived in Rome for a brief period (Justin and Tatian), during which time they taught their own idiosyncratic theology, which was distinctly non-Trinitarian. Moreover, Tatian lapsed into heresy, joining the Encratite sect, a radical Gnostic group, while Julian had admitted knowing Unitarian Christians, and conceded theirs was the older Christology. Eusebius also mentions Irenaeus of Lyons (2-3c.) and Melito of Sardis (2c.). Yet these men were not Trinitarians[14] and did not live in Rome, so their Christology is irrelevant to Victor’s and it is unlikely he was familiar with them.
Irenaeus’ Christology was loosely Binatarian, teaching that Jesus’ existence had a literal starting point in time[15] and drawing on Prov 8:22 for his subordinationist Christology. Melito’s Christology is confusing: very little remains of his writings, making it difficult to contextualise what is left. His Homily on the Passover implies Jesus only received deity upon his resurrection (consistent with some forms of Adoptionism).[16] Another section conflates Father and Son in classic Sabellian (Modalist) style.[17] Melito never describes the Spirit as God (or even a divine person) and even if he believes the Son is God in some way, he also appears to believe the Father is the Son.
My few criticisms notwithstanding, the first section of Zarley’s book is extremely well written. It offers a concise overview of historic Christology, the theological developments which have shaped it over the years, and the modern interpretations which have arisen in recent decades. There can be no doubt that Zarley has an excellent grasp of the subject and knows how to present his material in a highly readable format.
[1] K. Zarley, The Restitution of Jesus Christ, xix.
[2] Zarley, The Restitution of Jesus Christ, 124.
[3] Zarley, The Restitution of Jesus Christ, 33.
[4] Justin Martyr is a case in point; he was familiar with Ebionite teaching, and accepted at least one branch of the sect as legitimately Christian.
[5] Available online: http://bit.ly/fWshP7.
[6] “It is deeply paradoxical that true Christianity should be saved by a theologian for whom the historical humanity of Jesus is of no interest at all; Athanasius salvages the gospel at a very high price – ultimately, as Harnack evidently believed, an unacceptably high price”—R. Williams, Arius: Heresy & Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 2002), 7-8.
[7] A term added to the Latin version of the Nicene Creed, denoting that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds’ from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox Church rejects this, insisting that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.
[8] Basil refused to accept that the Holy Spirit was of the same essence as the Father and Son; his writings also reflect a deep reluctance to describe the Holy Spirit as ‘God.’ Basil’s Cappadocian colleagues downplayed these idiosyncrasies, privately making allowance for his reticence while publicly condemning others with equal or similar views. Despite this, Basil was reproached as early as AD 371 by conservative elements within the Eastern Church, who had begun to recognise his heterodox theology.
[9] A semi-Arian faction which strongly resisted the deity of the Holy Spirit; they enjoyed the patronage of Constantius II.
[10] Sadly, Beryllus and Heraclides were eventually reconverted by Origen.
[11] Sometimes known as Theodotus the Cobbler, after his trade. Theodotus the Banker was one of his chief followers.
[12] The implication is that Zephyrinus himself was partly responsible for corrupting true Christianity.
[13] They all profess some form of Binitarianism or Logos Christology.
[14] Very little of Melito’s writings have come down to us, and none shed any light on his Christology. The closest we get is a footnote from Origen, who claims Melito believed the Father was corporeal and had preserved His image in the human body (a possible reference to Gen 1:26).
[15] “As he was born of Mary in the last days, so did he also proceed from God as the first-begotten of every creature” ANF 1.576.
[16] “For the one who was born as Son, and led to slaughter as a lamb, sacrificed as a sheep, and buried as a man, rose up from the dead as God, since he is by nature both God and man” (On the Passover, 8).
[17] “He is everything: in that he judges he is law, in that he teaches he is gospel, in that he saves he is grace, in that he begets he is Father, in that he is begotten he is Son, in that he suffers he is sheep, in that he is buried he is man, in that he comes to life again he is God” (On the Passover, 9).
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)