[For the introductory post in this series, see ‘Nature of God’ – Introduction.]
Many groups deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Under the Christian umbrella, one of the larger and more popular groups hold to a theologian known as Arian theology. The most well-known group includes the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but there are some independent groups who hold to Arian theology also. Arians fall under the unitarian category and are sometimes referred to as such.1 Here, ‘unitarian’ will be synonymous with ‘Arian.’
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Arian theology takes its name from its theological father Arius, an presbyter of Alexandria, Egypt in the 4th century. Arius believed that Jesus Christ was not God but was instead a created being—albeit “the first and highest.”2 In turn, Christ in His preexistence created everything else. Arius’s reasoning for the created status of Christ was based on the term begotten. In explaining this aspect of the Alexandrian presbyter’s argument, Olson phrases it this way:
Thus if the Son of God who became Jesus Christ was ‘begotten,’ he must have had a beginning in time, and since it is of the essence of God to be eternal—without beginning or end—then the Son of God must be a great creature and not God himself.
Some aspects of philosophy, like immutability, were also part of Arius’s theological formulations. These, however, are out of the scope of this discussion.
STRENGTHS
Often unspoken of in the whole of Christendom are the strengths of the Arian movements. For one, the casual and plain reading of virtually the whole of Scripture agrees with their theology. The term Son of God in its plainest sense means God the Father has a son, and that is what Arians believe. Also, the Arian position place a great stress monotheism, the belief in only one God. In this case, there is only one God: the Father alone.
Colossians 1:15 is a verse that would demonstrate Arian theology:
Colossians 1:15 – He [the Son {v. 13}] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.3
In this verse, a plain reading sees a distinction between the Son and God. It could also see the Son being the firstborn means the Son is the first-created. If theology was restricted to using only biblical language, unitarian theology could survive.
WEAKNESSES
Despite a seemingly strong agreement between Arian theology and the Scripture, there are critical places of disagreement. We will sample a few verses here.4
John 1:1
John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Arians will argue that John 1:1c is improperly translated and that the correct translation should be “and the Word was a god.” The reason is that the word traditionally translated “God” does not have a Greek definite article and should therefore be translated indefinite in the English (that is, with the indefinite article “a”).
The problem with this that the unitarian translation does not fully convey the idea behind Greek; those who translate John 1:1 with an indefinite misunderstand the Greek. Simply because a Greek word does not appear without a definite article does not automatically mean it is indefinite—it can be either definite or indefinite.
There are, however, even more nuances of the appearance or nonappearance of the article. When a definite article is used in the Greek text, the purpose is often to identify; when an article does not appear, it often stresses essence.5 John 1:18 is an example of the latter where, in the phrase “No one has seen God,” “God” appears without the article. The stress in 1:18 is on God in His essence (that is, He is essentially invisible).
Another aspect is the position of words. With regard to the word order of John 1:1c, the word translated “God” comes before “the Word,” placing emphasis on what the Word was.6
The meaning John 1:1c conveys is that whatever can be said about the God that the Word was with (John 1:1b), the same can be said about the Word. The traditional translation “and the Word was God” is the fullest expression in the English of what John meant.
2 Peter 1:1
2 Peter 1:1 – Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Arians will interpret this verse to say that Jesus Christ is not God–the verse can certainly be read this way. However, Granville Sharp examined every construction like this in the Greek text and found that
When the copulative [kai] connects two nouns of the same case, [vis. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properteries, or qualities, good or ill], if the article [ho], or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle.7
In other words, two nouns joined together with the conjunction “and,” with a definite article (in the Greek text) attached to the first noun, both nouns refer to the same person. Two verses with the exact same grammatical structure reveal this:
2 Peter 1:11 – for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 2:20 – For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
It is evident here that both “Lord” and “Savior” refer to Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 1:1 has two nouns (“God,” “Savior”) joined by the conjunctive kai with the definite article attached to the first noun. This indicates that “God” and “Savior” refer to one person: Jesus Christ.
Revelation 21 & 22
Revelation 21:22; 22:3 – But I saw no temple in it [the city], for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. . . . And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.
Unitarians have also argued that Jesus is never given latreuo. Because latreuo is divine service that, when used of God, is given only to the Lord God Almighty, Jesus cannot be God. Revelation 22:3 uses latreuo, and the object of latreuo is the pronoun “Him” (“His servant shall serve Him”). In language, the antecedent of a pronoun is generally the closest noun that agree with the pronoun in gender and number. In this case, the closest antecedent is “the Lamb.” Some would consider “God” to be the antecedent.
But John takes pains to show the unity the Almighty and the Lamb. Just a few verses earlier, John writes that “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its [the city’s] temple.” I would like to note that the word translated “are” is not the plural form of the “to be” verb here. Instead, it is the singular form of the verb. In a literal translation, Revelation 21:22 would say:
Revelation 21:22b – for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb is its temple. (literal)
Grammatically, John indicates the most intimate unity of the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb with a singular verb.
So whether one would argue that the antecedent of “serve Him” in Revelation 22:3 is God or the Lamb, John has already indicated their unity. Even if one were to say that God is the one who receives latreuo, it follows that service would also be done to the Lamb by virtue of their unity expressed just a few verses earlier.
CONCLUSION
Arian theology has the right intent: it seeks to establish monotheism and it seeks to stick to the language of Scripture. But where there are explicit passages that affirm the deity of Christ, Arian theology disagrees with the witness of Scripture. Unitarian theology must therefore be rejected in favor of the consistent witness of Scripture that Jesus Christ is God.
______
1Other unitarian groups would be the Untarian Universalists, the Christadelphians, and the Philippine-based Iglesia ni Cristo. These groups do not necessarily hold to the same theology as Arian do, but like the Arians believe in only one God and deny the divinity of Christ.[Back]
2Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic,1998), 712.[Back]
3Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations from The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982).[Back]
4Other verses are John 8:58; Titus 2:13; Revelation 1:8 (cf. 1:11, 17; 2:8).[Back]
5Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, rev. Thomas Sawyer, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995), 153.[Back]
6William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 27.[Back]
7Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, quoted in Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 271.[Back]
the archives near Emmaus 
Amen and Amen. It would be great to see a post further explaining Jn. 1:1 in the near future!
I think that it is a mistake to simply identify the “Arian” and “Unitarian” positions. (A friend of mine says that the Unitarian view is that “there is at most one God”). I have never encountered a Unitarian who would translate John 1:1 with “a god” (that’s the classic New World Translation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, of course). I’d expect a Unitarian to adopt more of a monarchian view, perhaps denying that the Word/Logos is a genuinely distinct person.
James, I’ve been under the impression that Arians and Unitarians were practically the same. I have met a few Unitarians who I understood to say that John 1:1c should be “a god.” But I think you’re right–I’ll have to revise this as I more examine Unitarian beliefs outside of Arianism. Thanks for the comment and clarification.
Brian, thanks. I will be working on that post.
James,
Do you understand Unitarians to be more or less like Sabellians, Modalist?
I think some are. Some are more strictly “adoptionists”, and some probably don’t fit any particular ancient category. But the view that Jesus is the incarnation of a pre-existent created being is one that I don’t think many Unitarians hold to. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression!
JohnDave and James,
Are Oneness Pentecostals unitarians?
Yes, that’s precisely the sort of group I’d think of as unitarian (with a small “u”).
On a related note, did you ever see the episode of the Simpsons where Bart is playing the “Convert The Heathen” video game at the Flanders’ kids’ house? At one point Bart says “I got him!” and one of the Flanders kids replies, “No, you just winged him and made him a unitarian”. 🙂
I have not but now I have something to look for on YouTube!
James, how do you distinguish between “Unitarian” and “unitarian”?
I would not consider Oneness Pentecostals (as a whole) unitarian because of their affirmation that Jesus is God in a sense that is not adoptionistic.
JohnDave, I’m not sure how you are defining “unitarian”, so I’m not sure why you wouldn’t use the term for Oneness Pentecostals. But my point about “Unitarian” with a capital “U” had in mind the fact that there is a religious body, the Unitarian Universalists, who are often referred to simply as “Unitarian”.
Yes, but OP understand Jesus to be the Father and to be the Holy Spirit. Therefore there is not one God in three persons but simply one God in three forms, manifestations, expressions, roles, et cetera. Are Orthodox Jews “unitarian” in any sense? In other words, to be “unitarian” do you simply affirm one, absolute, undivided deity?
James, thanks for clarifying the difference between the two terms. The reason I don’t put Oneness Pentecostals into the unitarian category is because they affirm that Jesus is genuinely God. The way I’m thinking of unitarians in light of the comments so far is that unitarians seem to generally hold some sort of adoptionistic view, but I don’t see OPs as doing so (as a whole–granted, there are some within Oneness Pentecostalism who see the Incarnation that way, but I think a large portion of Oneness people hold to a Nestorian view, which seems to me to be much different than adoptionism. I’ve seen Oneness scholars who are trying to move away from that into a more orthodox [Chalcedonian] view).
By the way, do you think it would be more proper to say that Arians are unitarian than Unitarian?
I would say that there is a difference between Oneness Pentecostals and Arians, namely that Jesus is the one God in every sense–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Arians understood the Father to be the one God and Jesus to be the first-born of created beings. But if we are defining unitarian theology a single personality of God we must consider Oneness Pentecostals, Sabellians, Modalist, Monarchians, and so forth to be unitarian. Therefore, Oneness Pentecostals are non-Arian unitarians! In fact, Unitarians are non-Arian unitarians, except they believe Jesus isn’t divine in any sense, correct?
So the difference between a unitarian and oneness theologies is that the former make the one God separate from Jesus while the latter make the one God limited to Jesus.
Brian, you said:
“But if we are defining unitarian theology a single personality of God we must consider Oneness Pentecostals, Sabellians, Modalist, Monarchians, and so forth to be unitarian.”
I would agree using that definition that OP’s would be in that category. However, I was understanding unitarians to consist of those who hold to a single personality of God and are for whom Jesus Christ is not God. In this definition, Oneness Pentecostals would be excluded. Maybe this is an unusual definition of “unitarian.” I haven’t had a chance to get to any resources on dig further on untiarianism at this point.
I’m grateful for your and James’s input on this.
@ Brian
Am I correct in assuming that you feel that the texts canonized into your bible are in theological agreement.
My assumption is that people with differing theologies wrote those texts (and some texts are compilations of several authors and then further edited by folks trying to unify).
Discovering the true “Nature of God” under your position would mean fishing around and comparing passages. In my position, I would try to find the “Nature of God” held by any particular author — as best as we could deduce after inspecting layers of editing.
So then, I am curious if anyone holding my view on scripture (I am guessing that James may be close), would say the some sort of “Unitarian” position was held by some of the bible’s authors?
I appreciate you not (in error) grouping the Oneness folks in with Arians. That uninformed argument drives me batty!
I am an OP, and I agree with JohnDavid’s assessment – we recognize the diety of Jesus and his role in creation, not as creation, but as the Word of God by which creation came forth.
Thanks for being honest.
That’s a great question, but a difficult one to answer. I recently asked on my blog whether Jesus claimed to be God, and several commenters were of the view that Jesus implied he was God without saying it directly. Different views about what readers of the Gospels may or may not have already assumed often leads to very different conclusions. And even the Gospel of John can be interpreted in a unitarian way – the history of its interpretation in the church by Christians with different views on this subject demonstrates as much. And so, while I’d be interested in discussing which authors may or may not have held a view that might be accurately labelled “unitarian”, I’m even more interested in the methodological question about how we interpret the relevant texts, which are often susceptible to more than one interpretation depending on the assumptions of the reader and the assumptions that the author is believed to have had.
JohnDave,
I understand the definition that you are providing, but I do not see how Oneness Pentecostals are not ‘unitarian’ by the most basic definition of the word. One undivided personality of God is unitarian. Unless OPs suggest that the incarnation prevents this?
Anyone out there from within the OP camp that would argue that the incarnation prevents oneness theology from being unitarian (not Arian, not big “U” unitarian).
JohnDave,
I understand the definition that you are providing, but I do not see how Oneness Pentecostals are not ‘unitarian’ by the most basic definition of the word. One undivided personality of God is unitarian. Unless OPs suggest that the incarnation prevents this?
Anyone out there from within the OP camp that would argue that the incarnation prevents oneness theology from being unitarian (not Arian, not big “U” unitarian)?
Sabio,
Yes, that would be a sort of a priori confessional assumption. There is another question involved here as well. It is one that digs at the very heart of biblical literature and hermeneutics. Is it possible that the author’s initial intention does not finally determine the “meaning” of a given text, but rather what some scholars call a “canonical compositional” hermeneutic.
In other words such a hermeneutic would say that those books that became canonical become interdependent and intra-interpretive by the very fact that the Holy Spirit guided the church to canonize these books. So the view of Jesus in author of the first gospel may have differed a bit from the author of the third gospel, but the Holy Spirit uses a sort of Hegelian thesis, antithesis, synthesis to create a more uniform, “Catholic” Christianity?
I do not hold this view, but it is a view and it is a possible starting point for Christian systematic dogmatics. I am more in line with those who see a fairly uniform Jesus-Tradition that those who wrote canonical books reflected and this is why the church recognized those books by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Brad,
Did Jesus create as the “Word” or as the “Father” in oneness theology? If you say the Word then I find it very confusing that the oneness camp tries so hard to push for Jesus = the Father. If you say the Father I find it very hard to understand how the oneness theology understands Jesus as the Word.
@ James: Thank you. Yes, I see clarity on the methodology as of primary interest also, as all else seems to depend on it when seeking any comprehensive understanding.
@ Brian: Thank you for explaining the other “heurmeneutical” view. BTW, is the word “hermeneutics” the correct word for what I called “Theology of Scriptures” that we are talking about here. Anyway, in theology has there developed a short-hand way to describe these various hermeneutics with quick names, or do you still have to name them after a particular theologian — “Barthian”, “Wrightian”, “McGrathian”, etc ?? Serious question (with a little humor thrown in to keep it light !)
I appreciate the help.
I would love terms to name, for example, the two view you names and the one that apparently Dr. McGrath & I share (I am pretty sure his response implied agreement — if not close).
Sabio,
I am not sure if there is a particular categorical name for one’s ‘theology of Scripture’. Anyone out there know what that may be called? Like a theology of Christ is ‘Christology’. A theology of the end of all thing is “Eschatology”. But I do not know what the name is that has been given to a ‘theology of Scripture” .
“Hermeneutics” on the other hand is the “science of interpretation”. Your theology of Scripture can effect your hermeneutic, but it is not the same thing. You can be a law student, or a student of the US Constitution, and learn “hermeneutics”. When applied to Scripture it is the science of interpreting Scripture.
James would have to answer for himself what “hermeneutical” paradigm he feels he uses to approach reading Scripture. I would say I come from a critical-realist position with Protestant-Evangelical influences.
Yes, there are particular hermeneutical paradigms. There may be those named after particular theologians. You noted “Barthian” after Karl Barth. Or “Wrightian” after N.T. Wright (not sure if that is established as of yet but I am sure that it soon will be a valid hermeneutical paradigm). There are also those hermeneutical paradigms connected with epistemology. For instance, you can have a “postmodern” hermeneutic. You can have what I hold: a critical-realist hermeneutic (or Scripture can be understood as the author intended but that does not mean that we always do understand or that we are guaranteed to understand, only that it can be understood).
There may even be broader more denominationally associated hermeneutical paradigms such as a “Catholic” reading, an “Protestant” reading, an “Evangelical” reading, or a “Pentecostal” reading. It is messy.
I agree with you on OPs being unitarian under the most basic definition. But the theologian/philosopher in me calls for a more precise definition. Given that it seems characteristic for unitarians to deny the divinity of Christ, I think that pertaining to theology, the more specific definition should be used.
Regarding the incarnation from an OP perspective, I think it could be argued that it does prevent OPs from being unitarian–in that, namely, in the incarnation, the one God came to exist in a new way, with a new consciousness, while continuing to exist beyond the incarnation. While a OP wouldn’t say this creates two persons, the interaction between God incarnate and God uncarnate seems to require two personalities, thereby marginally avoiding unitarianism (under the basic definition).
I’m not well-versed lately in the specific semantics of the logos being the word, mind, creative force, whatever of God.
John 1:1 either says that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning and is divine, or that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning and is the same as the Father. I hold to the latter.
As I understand it, and I’m still studying and learning, the logos is the spoken word of God. Unless God was typing, this isn’t a creation – it’s the force of His will. Does that make sense at all?
Yes, I understand what you are saying. To make this even more about semantics let me ask when you say Jesus is the “same” as the Father are you saying what people like D.K. Bernard say, “Jesus = the Father” or what the rest of us Trinitarians say, “What the Father is Jesus is as well”?
Brad, thanks for your input here. I’m glad you and I could agree that Oneness Pentecostals shouldn’t be labelled ‘unitarian.’ Regarding John 1:1, I don’t think the grammar explicitly allows for “Jesus . . . is the same as the Father” (as in “Jesus = the Father”). As with Brian, I’d like to know what you mean by that statement.