As
stated on the book jacket, “The Only True God explores the extent to
which Christianity began to move in new directions in the earliest period of
its history...James McGrath argues that even the most developed Christologies
in the New Testament fit within the context of first-century Jewish ‘monotheism.’
In doing so, he pinpoints more precisely when the parting of the ways took
place over God’s oneness.”
Parting of the Ways
At
this point, I think we should be alerted to two phrases which could signal a
great and dangerous divide: “move in new directions” and “parting of the ways.”
Unless Christianity can trace its beliefs back to the early church, its
authority is self imposed and therefore most questionable. While moving in new
directions may sound innocent enough, once the golden thread of Messiahship
being traced back to descendancy from David is broken, all connections with the
parent faith are at least suspicious and at worst bastardized.
Departure
McGrath
writes: “Monotheism has also been at the focus of numerous debates, in
particular between Christian Trinitarians on the one hand, and other
monotheists, in particular Jews and Muslims, on the other. Questions that tend
to be asked in the context of such debates include whether Christians are in
fact truly monotheists at all or whether, on closer inspection, they prove to
be ‘tritheists’ whose commitment to monotheism is at best questionable.” On
page 2 of his book McGrath states that it is not clear when and how the parting
of the ways took place, but he certainly admits that it did take place. Between
page 2 and the last page McGrath details historic data about this great divide.
He sets the stage: “Many readers less familiar with recent scholarly debates on
this subject may well take it for granted that early Jews and Christians
considered themselves to be monotheists — and may likewise take it for granted
that Jews did not consider Christians to be such because of the beliefs they
held about Jesus.” McGrath speaks of a “development on the part of early
Christian theology away from its roots in Jewish monotheism,” and he feels
that the word “departure” was an accurate one to describe Christianity leaving
the strict monotheism of its Jewish parent religion.
Serious
Bible students will already have their hackles up at several of the terms used
and will perhaps be thinking that a more Biblical word would be apostasy. Note
this: “Early Christians made innovations that moved them not away from
monotheism but toward a different sort of monotheism, one redefined
so as to incorporate the exalted status of Jesus.”
Mutation
McGrath
agrees that a mutation took place in early Christianity and states that “Thus
Christianity’s ‘worship’ of Jesus is a mutation within early Jewish and
Christian monotheism” and he actually feels that this mutation led to the “production
of a new species (Trinitarian monotheism)”!
While
McGrath defends mutations, Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary gives as one meaning: “a hypothetical
sudden fundamental change in heredity believed to result in the production of
new individuals that are basically unlike
their parents.” Good thing or bad thing?
McGrath
agrees that earliest Christianity did not depart from Jewish adherence
to the idea of one God alone. However, this statement and the reasoning
surrounding it make one wonder if he is not saying that later Christianity
did! We are reminded of John 17:3. He then explains that he feels
that the most sensible view is that “the early Christian view of Jesus
represented an adaptation within Judeo-Christian monotheism rather than
a departure from it.” (Hmm. I guess that adaptation would allow one to alter
numbers.)
McGrath
is very keen that we understand the various types of monotheism: rhetorical,
creational, liturgical, and inclusive or exclusive, but as he says, “Early
Christians do not engage in debates about whether God is one, and they often
cite the oneness of God as a presupposition.”
McGrath
is also keen to make it understood that it is just not that simple in terms of
comparing monotheists to polytheists; that monotheism occurs in varying degrees
and changes over the course of
history. I personally remain
unconvinced of this angle, remembering how stunningly clear it was to Jesus,
who was a genius and would have noted vagaries and inconsistencies. He proclaimed
loud and long that only his Father was God, a simple enough proposition to me. Please
compare it with this quotation from McGrath’s book. He quotes Paula Fredriksen:
“While not every ancient polytheist was a monotheist, all ancient monotheists
were, by our measure, polytheists.” McGrath balances this by saying: “But in
emphasizing this diversity, it would be wrong to neglect the underlying unity
evidenced throughout available sources regarding Hellenistic Judaism, namely,
the core belief that only one God is to be offered sacrificial worship, the
form of worship par excellence in the ancient world.”
Splitting the Shema
McGrath
explains that “In the view of the majority of New Testament scholars, in 1 Cor.
8:6 Paul has ‘split the Shema,’ the traditional affirmation of Israel’s
faith in one God, in order to include Jesus Christ within it.” Emphasis
mine and apologies to those who haven’t seen before how the Shema is treated
(abused?), a fact without parallel in Jewish literature. He quotes New
Testament scholar Tom Wright who affirms that this verse “functions as a
Christian redefinition of the Jewish confession of faith.”
Thankfully, our author sees through this and finds that “it does not do justice
to the nature of the Shema itself...The fact of the matter is that Paul does
not say that there is one God who is both Father and Son; he says rather that
there is one God and also one Lord. The fact that a human figure is called
‘Lord’ does not of course imply for Paul that God is thereby divested of his
lordship.” McGrath then goes on to present evidence to challenge the popular
notion that Jesus has been included inside the Shema and gives an
alternate understanding that Jesus is alongside the Shema. He notes that the word Lord “has
a range of meanings and nuances running all the way from ‘sir’ to ‘Yahweh.’”
In
a fascinating look into Paul’s theology McGrath notes that Paul had to defend
his new Christian views against his former Jewish views. How very odd that
there is no record of an enormous battle between himself and the Jews with
regard to monotheism, if indeed he had departed from belief in one God and one
God only. That there is not a heated dialogue similar to his battle in
relation to the law is indeed something to be pondered. McGrath compares it to
the dog that did not bark in the Sherlock Holmes story — a dead giveaway.
McGrath states: “We have seen much evidence indicating that the language
applied to Jesus in the Pauline letters would not have involved a departure
from the Jewish monotheism of the time.” He then goes on to say that Paul’s use
of “Lord” as applied to Jesus can easily be misunderstood and he argues that “it
was not felt to be incompatible with monotheism for God’s supreme agent to bear
God’s name as part of his empowerment to serve in this capacity.” The important
point here is that to be given a name (as angels were) is not to be confused
with the real holder of that name.
Saying Two Things at Once
McGrath
is honest in making this very telling statement: “One of the criticisms often
made of the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the Council of Nicaea, or
the doctrine of the person of Christ as formulated at Chalcedon, is that these doctrines attempt to
say two things at once that cannot be logically held together. Phrases like ‘three
persons, one substance’ and ‘one person, two natures’ stretch human language to
breaking point.”
Agency
James
McGrath’s description of agency is superb, simply that “God is regularly
depicted as sharing his sovereignty with an appointed agent.” This gives the
agent (Jesus) the right to carry out divine functions (forgiveness), be
depicted in divine language and bear the divine name. What an absolute
breakthrough in understanding this can be!
“That
Paul’s application of the divine name ‘Lord’ and of Yahweh texts from the
Hebrew Bible to Jesus is intended to present Jesus as God’s agent, who shares
in God’s rule and authority, becomes clear when one considers Romans 14:9-11,
where Paul takes up the language of Isaiah 45:23 once again, but here
emphasizes that the throne of judgment is ultimately God’s even though Christ
is the Lord through whom judgment is carried out. In 1 Cor. 15:27-28, Paul
makes clear the roles played by Jesus and God. Jesus is the ‘(son of) man’ to
whom all things are to be subjected. That is to say, Jesus is the
representative of humankind whom God has chosen to be his agent and mediator of
judgment, and through whom he intends to bring all things into subjection to
himself.”
This
is crystal clear and merits many bravos. It is also enough to get McGrath
labeled as a heretic because all through this description of Jesus, he did not
say that Jesus is God, as one is required to do in evangelical circles. The
quotation continues and is brilliant: “Thus however united and ‘at one’ with
God the agent may be, the two remain ultimately distinguishable for Paul.
Monotheism is preserved not because Jesus is absorbed into God or included in
the divine identity but because even though Jesus reigns over absolutely
everything else on God’s behalf, God himself is not subjected to Christ, but
Christ is subjected to God.” The last word on this incredibly important subject
of agency: “The authority conveyed to the agent shows both the importance of
the agent to God and the confidence God has in the agent to wield that power.”
This is not orthodox
McGrath
goes against the grain of orthodoxy when he says: “Paul’s use of Yahweh texts
in connection with Jesus, while distinctive and thought-provoking, would not
have represented an attempt to redefine monotheism, and thus should not be read
in light of the later developments in Christology to which Paul’s writings, in
their own way, contributed....Paul keeps the ultimate and incontrovertible
boundary marker of Jewish monotheism in place.”
And
shockingly, of the Apostle John, McGrath says: “In terms of Jewish monotheism
as it existed in the first century, the evidence suggests that John was
completely, undeniably, and without reservations a monotheist” (from McGrath’s
earlier work, John’s Apologetic Christology). He brings to bear the
weight of C.K. Barrett’s logic with respect to John 8:28 where Barrett points
out that “it is intolerable to suggest
that John presents Jesus as saying, ‘I am Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament,
and as such I do exactly what I am told.’” (Emphasis mine.)
Another
shock: this very popular writer and theologian actually says that John 20:28 is
the only certain reference to the human person of Jesus (rather than the
preexistent Word) as “God.” McGrath surveyed enough evidence to convince him
that it was quite possible to give allegiance to the one true God and yet use
language of the Son as God’s supreme agent. He summarizes: Jesus “is allowed to
share God’s throne, titles, and other prerogatives…Thus, against Dunn, and the
majority of New Testament scholars, I am forced to conclude that John would not
have been regarded by his Jewish contemporaries as having taken a ‘step too far’
beyond the bounds of what was acceptable within the context of Jewish
allegiance to the one true God and him alone.”
Weasel words?
Along
with the wonderful testimony as given above, McGrath weakens his case with many
cautionary words and phrases: compromise, abandoned, redefinition, expansion,
appending, additional, drift, rift, departure, adaptation, etc. James McGrath
has used these words to explain what he sees as justifiable advances in the
faith, but I fear that many are weasel words. They do not describe nor
accurately portray Jesus’ Truth. McGrath said early on that the “New Testament
sources appear to fit nicely within the bounds of Jewish monotheism.” He stated
that the Jews who reserved worship for the Most High God displayed and
constituted the most highly advanced form of monotheism in existence. In truth,
I am spectacularly disappointed with his conclusions. He puts forth two models:
one being a parting of the ways, the other a more developed Christianity. And he
speaks of monotheists who were willing to give up their lives rather than compromise their devotion to one God
alone.
Then
this shocker: “It is of course true that, within the course of the next few
centuries, Christianity’s monotheism would develop into what we today know as
trinitarianism.” This, after stating that 1 Corinthians 8:6 was a statement of faith for early Christians,
contrasted with pagan polytheism. This, after highlighting the unadulterated monotheism of both Paul
and John. This, after not being able to defend the logic of the Trinity with
its attempts to say two things at once. As he said, it stretched human language
to its breaking point. I would submit the possibility that the faith has in
fact, departed from its roots and is no longer true to its parents’ DNA .
McGrath puts this thought forward: “Neither these Jewish beliefs nor even those
found in the New Testament writings can be said to express the fully developed
doctrine of the Trinity current in most branches of Christianity.” How can we
have it both ways: it isn’t there in Scripture, but it’s a good thing and you
must believe it. McGrath: “This was not part of the thinking of either early
Judaism or earliest Christianity. However, it is a spectacularly helpful and
inspiring development which may therefore be justified, if not on biblical
grounds
.
Another Point of View
I
would recommend strongly to readers that they read at least the first chapter
of another book with exactly the same title: The Only True God, by Eric H. H. Chang. (Free online:
theonlytrueGod.org) His conclusions differ from McGrath’s. For example, Chang
says: “Where there is belief in more than one person who is God, that is
polytheism by definition.”
Chang
sums up by saying: “But the fundamental problem created by elevating Jesus to
the level of deity is that a situation is created in which there are at least
two persons who are both equally God; this brings trinitarianism into conflict
with the monotheism of the Bible.”
It does not
follow.
I
fear that McGrath has fallen into the trap of saying two things at once that
cannot be logically held together. He argues that the invention (my word) of the Trinity was a good thing. I am left
gasping. It does not follow, nor does it bear witness to the very logic the
author has otherwise urged upon us.
McGrath
defends himself: “Some may assume that because I have insisted on the
monotheistic character of early Christianity, I am in some way challenging the
legitimacy of trinitarian theology. This does not follow. It is certainly true
that the earliest Christians were not trinitarians in the modern sense.” (He
argues that neither were they monotheists in the modern sense.) McGrath
tragically, in my opinion, leaves his readers with a God Who is not the same
God as the One Jesus worshipped.
Barbara Buzzard
