Title: The Restitution of Jesus Christ

Author: Servetus the Evangelical (a.k.a. Kermit Zarley)

Bibliographic info: XXIII + 511 + 53 pgs of indices and bibliography

Published: 2008

Website: Here

With thanks to Servetus the Evangelical for the review copy.

This review is mainly a condensed version of my recent blogs (starting here) in which I have been discussing this book in more detail.

For those unaware of the controversy surrounding this author and his book I will give a brief summary. The name of the author is (obviously) a pseudonym. Why the author chose not to reveal his real identity right from the start is unclear. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pseudonym, Servetus was originally planning on revealing his true identity on September 29^th, 2011, which is the 500^th anniversary of the death of the real Servetus who was burned at the stake for certain teachings and beliefs of his, the most notable being his rejection of the Triune nature of God. However, due to some undisclosed circumstance, Servetus has recently decided to reveal his identity on November 19^th, 2009.

For those who do not know, the books title is a play on the title of the book by the original Servetus – The Restitution of Christianity. The book is meant to give a comprehensive and in-depth look at the doctrine of whether Jesus is God in the orthodox sense of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian creeds. The footnotes and quotations show that the author is familar with works by many specialists in the fields of early Christology and early Christianity, such as, Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham and James Dunn.

The author says:

The Restitution of Jesus Christ encompasses the whole range of biblical material that reputedly addresses the subject of whether Jesus is God. In doing so, it proposes an alternative, a revised Christology called “exclusive God-in-Christ Christology,” which does not identify Jesus as God. This God-in-Christ Christology is strictly a “functional” or “spirit” Christology as opposed to the traditional Christology. The latter – that Jesus is God – is called “incarnational” Christology or “ontological” or “essence” Christology. (pg. xii)

While the author denies the belief of the deity of Christ, he stresses that he does believe in the rest of what orthodox Christianity has to say about the person of Christ:

While this book diverges from Christian orthodoxy on the critical issue whether Jesus is God, this book affirms all other major doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. So, it adheres solidly to belief in Jesus as the virgin-born, sinless, miracle-working, resurrected, exalted Lord, Messiah of Israel, Son of Man, and Savior who accomplished salvation, made available to all humankind, through His sin-bearing, atoning death on the cross. (pg. xii, his emphasis)

The author also wants to make known that his Christology is the result of an orthodox look at Scripture, which sees all Scripture as the product of the inspiration of God. In other words, the author does not derive his unorthodox belief from viewing Scripture as merely the product of men who put their own false words into Jesus’ mouth.

On the final page of the preface, the author 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. So, I insist that these teachings should not be included as elements in evangelistic messages or as faith-requirements for formal church membership. Assessing people as “non-Christian” solely on the basis of being non-Trinitarian ought to forever cease. ….

In conclusion, I contend that the NT verifies that anyone who (1) truly believes Jesus is the Christ, the sinless Son of God, who died for their sins and arose bodily from the dead, and (2) confesses Him as Lord, manifesting evidence in their life to that effect, is indeed a genuine Christian believer and should be accepted as such. (pg. xix)

This is an issue that I have been pondering upon quite a bit lately. It raises all sorts of questions: Is inheriting eternal life a matter of orthopraxy or orthodoxy? Can the two be separated? If not, then what exactly defines orthodoxy? Is believing in the deity of Jesus a necessary part of orthodoxy? Can one be ontologically saved by Jesus without any epistemological knowledge of Jesus?

The Restitution of Jesus Christ is divided into three sections. The first section is titled “History of Church Christology.” This section takes a look at the formation of Christology over the two millennial since the time of Christ as seen in the writings of the church fathers as well as the creeds produced by the ecumenical councils. The second section is titled “Messianism in the Old Testament.” This section dives into the subject of how God and the Messiah are presented in the Old Testament Scriptures. The third and final section is titled “Christology in the New Testament.” This chapters in this chapter each specifically focus on the Christology present in: the synoptic gospels; the Johannine literature minus the Revelation; the Pauline epistles; the book of Hebrews; the epistles of Peter; and the Revelation. There are also three appendices: (1) The Doctrine of the Trinity; (2) The Nature of the Holy Spirit; (3) Modern Christologies.

The first chapter is the introduction, in which the author lays out some groundwork in regards to whether the New Testament identifies Jesus as God. This chapter gives a general look at issues such as who Jesus was, the modern quest for the historical Jesus, how Jesus identified Himself, how others identified Him, as well as a brief look at the theos (“God”) texts used in regards to Jesus. Also, the author presents “the three foremost irrefutable texts” (pg. 17) for his claim against the deity of Christ. They are John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:4,6 and Eph 4:4-6.

• We know that… there is no God but one… there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him (1 Cor 8:4,6)
• There is… one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph 4:4-6)
• And this is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17:3)

At the end of the chapter the author asserts the following which accurately sums up what the author tries to show in the rest of the book:

There is no NT evidence that Jesus ever claimed to be God.

There is NT evidence that Jesus denied that He ever claimed to be God.

At Jesus’ hearing before the Sanhedrin, He was not accused of claiming to be God.

The NT constantly distinguishes God and Jesus Christ as two separate individuals.

The NT repeatedly identifies God exclusively as “the Father.”

The NT contains no unambiguous statement such as “Jesus (Christ) is God.”

These major points will emerge repeatedly as we progress in this study. (pg. 24)

The second chapter is titled “Church Christology in the First Millenium.” Here, the author deals with what the church fathers and the councils and creeds of the first millennium proclaimed about Jesus and His deity. After dealing with the ante-Nicene fathers in the first half of chapter 2, the author then turns to the councils and creeds for the remainder of the chapter. I would agree with some of what the author said in this chapter, but I still think it was too short of a treatment for each church father that can not do real justice to their teachings and beliefs, for instance, the author deals with Irenaeus by only referring to 5 or 6 verses that he wrote which I thought was far too brief of a treatment.

The third chapter is titled “Church Christology in the Second Millenium.” In this chapter the author explores such issues as the inquisition of the Medieval period, a special focus on the life and execution of Michael Servetus, the quest for the Historical Jesus, and recent developments in Christology such as Kenotic Christology. The author then moves on to discuss the rise of the Socinians, European Unitarianism, British Unitarianism, John Locke, Deism, British Arianism, Samuel Clarke, William Whiston, American Unitarianism, the Anabaptists, the history of religions school, liberal theology, the quests for the historical Jesus, and more.

The fourth chapter is titled “”Messianism in the Old Testament.” In this chapter, the author deals with topics like how the Old Testament presents Yahweh, the Messiah, the meaning of the title “Son of God”, and other issues. One issue that the author gives an in-depth look at is “the angel of the LORD” in the OT. The author lays out his case for “the angel of the LORD” being Michael the Archangel.

This is then followed by a study on the much debated title “Son of Man.” He asserts that neither the exaltation nor association of the Son of Man with the clouds requires a literal pre-existence of the Son of Man figure. The final section of the chapter takes a look at problem passages in the Old Testament such as the plural references to God in Genesis and the “mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6, in which the author sees the translation of el gibbor as “mighty warrior” instead of “mighty God” as better fitting the context.

The fifth chapter is titled “Christology of the Synoptists.” It contains a look at the Christology that is presented in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A couple of issues are given a special focus: the limited knowledge of Jesus, and the charges raised against Jesus in His trial. Four problem passages are also given a more in-depth look. They are Matt 1:23; Matt 28:19; Mark 2:5; Mark 10:18.

The sixth chapter is titled “Christology of John.” It takes a look at the Christology that is present in the gospel of John and his epistles. The author spends 11 pages on John 1:1 and the following excerpt is his own summary of what he thinks of that verse:

In sum, we have seen that Jn 1:1c has been traditionally translated, “and the Word was God.”  …

Rendering the clause, “and the Word was divine,” or the like, fails to suffice. Instead, an increasing number of scholars now agree with Harner in treating the anarthrous theos therein as qualitative and therefore advocate the NEB translation (or its equivalent): “what God was, the Word was.”

Finally, as is so often the case, William Barclay explains the situation beautifully, “When John said the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in him we perfectly see what God is like.”(pg. 336)

The author then deals with other Johannine passages which seem to teach or imply the deity of Christ. They are John 1:15; 1:18; 1:51; 3:13; 5:18; 6:25-55; 8:23; 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 10:30; 17:5; 20:28; 1John 2:22; 5:7; 5:20.

This is what the author had to say about the “I AM” saying in 8:58,

Jesus may have purposely uttered His “I am” saying in v. 58 as an allusion to Yahweh’s “I am” sayings in Deutero-Isaiah. If He did, it was only to highlight the unity between Himself and Yahweh His God. (pg. 374)

The author’s interpretation of Thomas’ confession in John 20:28 is best summed up in these words of his:

So, this God-in-Christ interpretation of the latter half of Thomas’ confession accords perfectly with the overall tenor of the Fourth Gospel as the “spiritual gospel.” That is, Thomas’ words “my God” mean that he now spiritually sees and acknowledges God the Father as indwelling Jesus, which  is a spiritual interpretation. In contrast, the traditional view of Thomas’ words “my God” is a literal interpretation that repeats the common error of failing to comprehend “the spiritual gospel” and the Johannine Jesus. (pg. 394-395)

Chapter 7 is titled “The Christology of Paul.” The author asserts that to Paul, “God” is exclusively the “Father”, and that Jesus is only called “Lord” and not “God.” The author then discusses passages which are pointed to as showing that he taught the deity of Jesus. Naturally, Titus 2:13, Rom 9:5, 2 Cor 8:9, Col 2:9, and Php 2:6 are all dealt with. The author also deals with less important passages as well as other concepts, such as how Paul applies Yahweh texts of the Old Testament to Jesus.

Chapter 8 is titled “Christology of the author of Hebrews.” This chapter mainly focused on whether Hebrews 1:8-9 is calling Jesus “God.” Apart from that, there was a brief look at the opening verses of the epistle, and an even briefer look at what 1:6 means when it says, “let all the angels worship Him [Jesus].”

Chapter 9 is titled “Christology of Peter.” In this chapter the author explains what he considers to be the main focus of Peter’s Christology, that is, servant Christology. The last half of the chapter is a look at 2 Pet 1:1 which naturally was quite similar to the author’s examination of Titus 2:13.

Chapter 10 is titled “Christology of the Apocalypse.” Here is the author’s summary of what he thinks in regards to Jesus being worshipped in heaven as presented by the Apocalypse.

In sum, the idea of heaven’s citizens performing proskuneo toward Jesus Christ and showering praises on Him does not necessarily indicate that they believe He is God. Yet it is unclear in The Revelation if proskuneo is ever directed toward Jesus. Even if it is, it probably means no more than what the earthly Jesus taught – that it is the Father’s will that “all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father” (Jn 5.23; cf. Rev 5.12-13). Such honoring of the Son does not necessitate believing that He is God. Although The Revelation presents the slain Lamb – Jesus Christ – as God’s exalted associate, God the Father still remains supremely central to all worship and praise in heaven. (pg. 511)

However, I think that Revelation 5:11-14 shows that Jesus is just as central as the Father to the praise and worship in heaven.

My main criticism of this book is that a lot of Servetus’ objections to the belief in the deity of Jesus betray his lack of understanding as to what Christianity really teaches about it. Here is a perfect example of what I mean:

As stated in the previous chapter, if it is impossible for mortal human beings to literally see God, how could Jesus be God since He was certainly seen by humans? (pg. 424, his emphasis)

This objection is merely the result of a misunderstanding as to what Christians believe. Christians do not simply believe that Jesus = God. Rather, Christians believe that Jesus = God who became flesh. A proper understanding of what Christianity teaches in regards to that crucial phrase “who became flesh” would render those objections null and void.

However, I know that a lot of Christians emphasize Jesus’ deity to such an extent that they virtually exclude  His humanity. Furthermore, I think that this overemphasis on the deity of Jesus gives many Christians a seemingly docetic Christology, but this is not due to an error in the theology behind traditional Christology, rather, it is due to a skewed understanding of what the Scriptures teach concerning Jesus Christ.

Overall, I would say that this book is definitely the most comprehensive book that I have read about the doctrine of the deity of Christ from someone who denies it. Although, while the author does quote and refer to some of the leading specialists in the field of Christology and early Christianity, he does not really interact with what they say. This book did nothing in regards to convincing me that traditional Christology is in error about the deity of Christ.

I do wish, however, that the author had explored the issue of what he said was his point in writing this book, that is, whether someone needs to believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation, and the deity of Christ in order to inherit eternal life.