Dale Tuggy and his Unitarian Errors

Recently, Dr. Michael Brown debated Unitarian Dale Tuggy on the question, Is the God of the Bible the Father alone? The debate boiled down to a discussion of the deity of Jesus. I had the pleasure of moderating this debate and although I was not permitted to take sides while in that role, I can do so now. I will keep this as brief as I can. For a longer, more detailed critique of Tuggy in this debate, go here. Here are some problems I had with Tuggy’s views.

Denial of pre-existence of Jesus

Unitarians are often compared with Arians for their denial of the deity of Jesus. But Arius believed in the pre-existence of Jesus, and while many Unitarians also do, Tuggy does not. Despite John 1:14, Tuggy believes Jesus did not exist until he was born of a virgin. He says the Logos of John 1:1 is not the same as Jesus. the Incarnation is not the pre-existing Son of God becoming flesh, which the wording of John 1:14 indicates. It is subtler than that. Likening it to the Wisdom of God, he says the Logos, whatever that is, was revealed in Jesus. God made Jesus a special, exalted man, but he is not divine.

The problem is, John does not say that. He says, “The Word became flesh.” To say Jesus was being infused with the Logos, or had something added to him while he was a fetus in the womb, does not do justice to the word, “became.” To become flesh means he had a separate existence prior to what he became. If John did not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus, he would have used different terminology in his prologue.

Discomfort with consciousness after death

Repeatedly, during the debate and the Q and A session that followed, Dr. Brown was challenged with the contradiction that God died on a cross. God cannot die, so if Jesus died, he could not be God. That sounds logical, but Jesus is both God and man. The man died, but God did not. Similarly, when our bodies die, our spirits do not. This is not a difficult concept, but none of the Unitarians present seemed unable, or perhaps unwilling, to grasp it. Patripassionism is a Trinity-denying, 3rd century Monarchian heresy that says the Father suffered on the cross. It is not what Trinitarians believe. What is ironic is that Unitarians criticize Trinitarians for merging Jesus and the Father into one, yet as soon as we distinguish between the two at the cross, they cry foul.

One issue that forces Unitarians into a corner has to do with the concept of Jesus having an eternal spirit that did not die with his body. Tuggy and other Unitarians present were uncomfortable with the idea that this is true of Jesus and of believers. It is clear that Jesus was alive in spirit after his death because he told the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (Jn 2:19). How can a dead man resurrect himself? If Jesus were merely an exalted man, this would be impossible, but Jesus is divine, and he raised himself by his divine Spirit. That is why Jesus can say he raised himself from the dead, while in other places it says God raised him (e.g., Rom 8:11). The only way both can be true is if Jesus is God.

Distortion of the Trinitarian Jesus

Tuggy wants to deny that the Trinitarian Jesus is even human, claiming a divine spirit inhabiting a human body does not make the spirit a man any more than a demon inhabiting a body makes it a man. To be a man, by Tuggy’s definition, one must either be a “first human or he exists because of at least one prior human.” (https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-235-the-case-against-preexistence/). Never mind that this definition is completely the creation of Dale Tuggy. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that he is right. Jesus was born of a virgin and existed because of her, making him human. All Trinitarians believe this, so Tuggy is off base in denying that the Trinitarian Jesus is human. His problem is a failure to understand that God’s divine Spirit is the spirit of the man Jesus. All humans have a spirit (this, by the way gets closer to an accurate definition of what it means to be human than Tuggy’s self-manufactured definition), and if a man’s spirit is God’s Spirit, why is it impossible to believe that the outcome would be a person who is both God and man?

To avoid this logical consistency, Unitarians try to deny or at least question the idea of humans having a spirit and a soul. That, at least, is what happened when I tried to discuss this with a couple of Unitarians after the debate. Interestingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses (and Seventh Day Adventists) also have a problem with this. Referring to it as soul sleep, they deny that a person is conscious between death and resurrection. JW’s also deny the deity of Jesus. This is not a coincidence. The implications of denying Jesus’ deity include a denial of the existence of an eternal spirit of Jesus, because that is where his deity would be found. But if humans have an eternal spirit, how can we deny that Jesus does? If Jesus has a Spirit, which he does (Rom 8:9; 1 Pet 1:11; Gal 4:6), then how can we deny that he can be divine while also being human. In Rom 8:9 the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of God are interchangeable terms:

“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.
But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

So Jesus has a divine Spirit, which proves he is divine, while also being human. Tuggy has a beef with the many Catholic creeds about Jesus, but it is not necessary to hold to the letter of those in order to prove Tuggy’s exalted man theory wrong.

Disproportionate reliance upon human wisdom

In talking with some Unitarians after the debate, I found, to my surprise, that some deny that God created time. Even most atheistic scientists, who know that such a belief runs counter to their view of a godless universe, have yielded on this point on the face of the overwhelming evidence that both time and the Universe had a beginning, just as Genesis 1:1 states. So why would a professing Christian want to deny this?

The answer reveals what is at the heart of Tuggy’s doctrines. A timeless God would be more mysterious, and therefore, more difficult to understand and explain. Tuggy wants a God who is like us, that we can explain fully. A Jesus who is complex and mysterious is a stench in Tuggy’s nostrils. On his web site, Tuggy emphasizes logic and common sense. He does not prefer to be called a philosopher, but an analytic theologian. Yet he thinks and speaks like a philosopher in many ways, including the desire to be able to explain everything without allowing for gaps in our knowledge. Perhaps that is as much a trait of theologians as philosophers, but a mysterious God or a mysterious Jesus requires gaps. God is unknowable unless he chooses to reveal himself (Mat 11:27). Among the things about God that we can never fully know are his greatness (Psa 145:3), his understanding (Psa 147:5), his knowledge (Psa 139:6), his power (Job 26:14), and his ways and his thoughts (Isa 55:9). That is why we worship him. Why Tuggy and his followers worship him I do not know. Why they worship a Jesus who is not God I do not know. But I find it odd that Tuggy admits Jesus should be called “god” and is worthy of worship, but he denies that Jesus is God. He denies the deity of Jesus and also denies that the Trinitarian Jesus is human. He simply cannot accept that a man can also be God. That would not be acceptable to logic and human wisdom.

Disturbing exegesis of Scripture

I classify the viability of any doctrine on the strength of the exegesis of Scripture used to support it. I was sorely disappointed at the weakness of exegesis of the full preterist position represented only weeks ago at another debate I moderated, but I was confident the exegesis of Universalist teachings would be better. I was wrong.

Tuggy’s exegetical blunders are many. Here are a few examples:
*Philippians 2:6-7, which says Jesus was “in very nature God” and that he took “the very nature of a servant. Tuggy claims this neither affirms the deity of Jesus, nor his preexistence.

*John 17:5 says: Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” According to Tuggy, this verse does not say Jesus had glory with the Father before the world began.

*Colossians 1:15-17 says that in Jesus all things were created. But Tuggy claims this is talking about the new creation, not the original one. When Paul says “all things,” Tuggy reads “new things.” There is absolutely nothing in the context of this passage to suggest a new creation is in Paul mind when he writes.

*Hebrews 1:8, says: “About the Son, he says: “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.” But Tuggy claims neither the author of Hebrews nor the psalmist believes the Son is God.

*John 13:3 says Jesus knew that “he had come from God.” Tuggy believes this does not mean Jesus descended to earth from heaven, despite that the rest of the sentence says, “and was returning to God,” which obviously refers to Jesus ascending to heaven from earth.

The list could go on, but I will spare you. Though Unitarians raise legitimate questions that all Christians should take seriously, the exegesis of Scriptures, such as the ones above, make it impossible for me to take these interpretations seriously. Exegesis must be context-driven, not theology-driven. I know of no one who interprets any of these verses the way Tuggy does, except those who share his doctrines, which require such an interpretation. This is a major red flag for any doctrine. It is far easier for me to accept a Jesus who is both God and man than to accept these far-fetched interpretations. In the end, Tuggy presents a Jesus who is entirely human, and he does so with arguments that also are entirely human, based on the wisdom of this world, not on the wisdom that comes from God.

Evangelization and the Age of the Earth

One of the innate problems in the study of the age of man, the earth, and the universe is that people who specialize in the exegesis of Scripture are forced to make informed statements about the universe, while experts in astronomy are expected to make informed statements about the interpretation of Scripture. In both cases it is an uphill climb to convince the experts in the field that your “amateur” interpretation of the evidence is correct against the obvious testimony of the data.

Young earth creationists claim the data for astronomy is not in the same class as the data from Scripture. The Bible is inspired by God and infallible. But old earth creationists will argue that God also inspired the creation of the cosmos and few would argue that the universe, at least at the time God created it, was anything less than perfect. The difference lies in the purpose of each. The purpose of Scripture is to faithfully bring the revelation of God in order that men may be saved. The revelation that comes from the universe is not able to save, and therefore, if sin corrupts the universe in some way, that does not affect our ability to know the truth and be saved. But no amount of sin will ever corrupt the Scriptures.

It would be inaccurate to equate creation with the Bible, not because God’s creation is flawed, but because Scripture assigns itself a place as God’s holy revelation that is unequaled by anything else. Creation tells us a lot about God and it is a reliable source, but it is not equal to Scripture, which alone is called “inspired.” Ross may go a little too far when he assigns creation a place right next to the Bible as God’s revelation of truth (this is one of the arguments Duncan and Hall make against Ross in The Genesis Debate), but evidence from creation should not be altogether ruled out in one’s interpretation of Scripture. Since God is the author of both, Scripture and the universe will never contradict each other. Thus Christians are left trying to reconcile science and the Bible.

A complete reconciliation is not necessary, however. If the Bible is incomplete in its revelation about any subject, so should our theology be. Scripture reveals more about the origins and makeup of the universe than most people realize, but it still reveals very little. It is not necessary for interpreters to explain everything about the universe from a Scriptural point of view. It is precisely for this reason that dogmatism about the age of the earth and of man is not appropriate. Young earth creationists should not feel compelled, at this time, to abandon their interpretation of Genesis 1-11, but neither should they ignore the discoveries being made in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and the like. Each discipline should speak to the other until a consensus is reached. And this is taking place in some circles, as is the case with this article.

There are times when science can inform, and even change, our understanding of Scripture. In the 16th century, Copernicus postulated the theory that the sun was the center of the solar system, and that the planets revolve around it. Both the Catholic church and the Reformers initially rejected Copernicus’ new idea. Four years before Copernicus published his heliocentric theory, Martin Luther was asked what he thought about it. Referring to Joshua 10:12, he said, “This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

Luther should not be criticized for this remark. We should expect this type of response from one hears about a theory that contradicts his established beliefs. No one wants to be a wave turned and tossed by every new teaching that comes around the corner. We should not alter our interpretation of Scripture every time science suggests something we believe is wrong. But at some point scientific evidence becomes so overwhelming that the church has to go back and reinterpret Scripture. Today virtually no one interprets Josh 10:12 the way the Catholic church and the Reformers did in the 16th century, and the sole reason for the change is scientific discovery.

If the earth really is billions of years old, how convincing will the scientific proof have to be before the church accepts it and changes its interpretation of Genesis? We do not want to be as stubborn as the Catholic church, who did not apologize for its persecution of Galileo, who furthered Copernicus’ ideas, until the middle of the 20th century. But we also do not want to change our interpretation and then find out we were right in the first place. The evidence for an old earth will have to be so one-sided that it is in the same category as the heliocentric theory. Interestingly, if you ask astrophysicists today, they will likely tell you the evidence is in the same category of the heliocentric theory. Are they right? are we blind to the evidence because the church has always believed in a young earth? Perhaps they are overstating their confidence. There was nothing comparable to the theory of a mature universe to offer a competing interpretation to the heliocentric theory. But the confidence of the scientific community on this matter should not be ignored.

I am not suggesting we check the latest scientific theories before we interpret the Bible. But we should be prepared for what is coming in the future. If it is proven that the earth is billions of years old, young earth creationists should be ready for it. They can start by being more accepting of old earth creationists, especially since their interpretation can be useful to us. Why? Because there are a great many unbelievers who regard belief in a young earth to be as plausible as belief in a flat earth, and these people will regard young earth creationism as a stumblingblock to their acceptance of the gospel.

If informed unbelievers think Christians ignore the scientific data to cling to belief in a young earth, then why should they believe us when we say Jesus rose from the dead? But if they understand that young earth and old earth are both acceptable positions within the church, the stumblingblock is removed. Without adopting the old earth view, Christians who believe in a young earth can become more effective in evangelizing just by accepting the viability of the old earth view as a valid interpretation of Scripture.

This concludes my series on the age of the earth. Next, I plan to address issues related to John MacArthur’s book, Strange Fire, and Michael Brown’s response to it, Authentic Fire.

How Old Is Adam? Telescoping in the Genesis Genealogies

In my last article I presented the old earth creationist (OEC) interpretation of the days of Genesis 1. In this article I will present their interpretation of the Genesis genealogies.

The genealogies of Genesis, if read with strict, literal precision, suggest that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago. But scientific data suggest mankind began much longer ago than that, perhaps 60,000 years ago or more. To believe the inerrancy of the Bible, is it necessary to reject the scientific claim that man is more than 6,000-10,000 years old? Old earth creationists say, no. They point to a technique used in ancient genealogical reckoning called telescoping. Telescoping is when names are omitted from a genealogy.

That telescoping occurs in the Bible is not disputed. There are numerous examples of it in Scripture, but here is one from 2 Chronicles 22-26. Jehoram was the father of Ahaziah (22:1), Ahaziah is the father of Joash (22:11), Joash is the father of Amaziah (24:27), and Amaziah is the father of Uzziah (26:1). But Matthew 1:8 simply reads, “Jehoram the father of Uzziah.” The omission of three generations of kings in Matthew 1:8 is an example of telescoping. When you read Matthew’s genealogy, it is worthy of notice that there is no hint in the text to indicate such an omission is taking place. In fact, when Matthew emphasizes that there are exactly 14 generations from Abraham to David, from David to the exile, and from the exile to the Messiah, it suggests to modern readers that there can be no omissions or Matthew’s use of the number 14 is disingenuous. Evangelical scholars struggle mightily to vindicate Matthew and preserve biblical inerrancy.

No such scrambling is necessary. Matthew simply did not operate by the same rules we use today. Our requirement of technical precision was not shared by the biblical authors. Matthew is not alerting the reader to the precision of inclusion of every generation and using that as proof that Jesus is Messiah. He is simply structuring his genealogy in a way that permits the use of the number 14 throughout. That telescoping was used to produce this number is something an ancient reader would have assumed.

When we approach the Genesis text, we find that the number of names in the lists is also important. As John Millam notes, “the genealogy of Genesis 4:17-18 contains 7 names. The genealogies in Genesis 5:3-32; 11:10-26; and Ruth 4:18-22 all have 10 names each. The genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:2-29; 1 Chronicles 1:5-23) contains 70 names” (Genesis Genealogies). The symmetry of these numbers strongly suggests telescoping.

But there is a significant difference between the Genesis genealogies and others where telescoping is obvious. The Genesis genealogies include the age of the patriarch when he became a father. This seems to exclude the possibility of telescoping. If Genesis 5:6 says “when Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh,” it seems there is no option but to believe Enosh was born when Seth was 105 years old.

This is where it is important to remember that the purpose of genealogies is not to give precise and complete lineages, but to establish ancestry. The goal of the genealogy here would be to establish that Enosh is a direct descendant of Seth. The Hebrew word for “father” can also mean grandfather or ancestor. Similarly, the word for “son” can mean grandson or descendant.

So how can Enosh be born later than Seth’s 105th year of life without the Bible being incorrect? The concept of telescoping focuses on the most important parts of a genealogy. If the complete record said, for example, John was 30 years old when he became the father of Bill, who was the father of James who was the father of Henry, telescoping would permit a recorder to shorten the record by eliminating some of the generations without altering the rest of the text. If the only names the recorder wants to focus on are John and Henry, then all the other names would simply be deleted, leaving us with, “John was 30 years old when he became the father of Henry.” The recorder would not feel free to alter the age of John; in fact, he might have no idea how old John was when Henry was born, if he was even alive at that time.

It also would not be necessary to omit the age of John because one’s age when he becomes a father was significant to ancient peoples. Old age was a sign of blessedness, and it is possible that becoming a father at an old age also signified blessedness, especially since it suggests long life. Millam notes that, “both the age at fatherhood and the age at death are certainly exceptional for all the individuals included in the Genesis genealogies” (Genesis Genealogies).

If telescoping is taking place between Seth and Enosh, then the text is saying that Seth is the ancestor of Enosh and Seth was 105 when he became a father. Moses is not trying to deceive anyone. He just is not trying to say what we assume he is saying. That is how OEC can read the Genesis genealogies and still argue for Adam being much older than 6,000 years.

Are they right? How old is Adam? We do not really know. But the point is, if scientific discoveries suggest man is 30,000-60,000 years old, there is no reason for that to cause stress in the biblical community. The Bible does not rule this out as a possibility. The lack of precision in the biblical accounts means science can get more specific without denying Scripture’s inerrancy, and conservative Christians have no reason to oppose science as if it were the enemy of the truth.

Sources
David G. Hagopian, ed. The Genesis Debate. Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001.

John Millam, The Genesis Genealogies, online article, Reasons to Believe, Jan 1, 2003. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-genesis-genealogies, last accessed November 4, 2013.