The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews 083084886X, 9780830848867

Citation preview

AND

The Paradox of Sonship Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews

R. B. Jamieson Foreword by

Simon J. Gathercole

InterVarsity Press P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515-1426 ivpress.com [email protected] ©2021 by R. B. Jamieson All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from InterVarsity Press. InterVarsity Press ® is the book-publishing division of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA®, a movement of students and faculty active on campus at hundreds of universities, colleges, and schools of nursing in the United States of America, and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. For information about local and regional activities, visit intervarsity.org. Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The publisher cannot verify the accuracy or functionality of website URLs used in this book beyond the date of publication. Cover design: Cindy Kiple Image: White marble sculpture © manx_in_the_world / iStock / Getty Images Plus ISBN 978-0-8308-4887-4 (digital) ISBN 978-0-8308-4886-7 (print)

Contents Foreword by Simon J. Gathercole

vii

Acknowledgments

ix

Series Introduction: Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture xi

Abbreviations xvi Author’s Note on Sources xix Introduction: The Son Who Became Son

1

1 A Classical Christological Toolkit 23

2 “Son” as Divine Designation 49

3 The Son’s Incarnate Mission 76 4 “Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement 99

5 Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah 122

Conclusion: The One Word Needed 143

Bibliography 171 Name Index 185 Subject Index 187 Scripture Index 189 Ancient Writings Index 193 The Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture series 196 Praise For The Paradox of Sonship 197 About the Author 201 More Titles from InterVarsity Press 202

Foreword Simon J. Gathercole

T

he Epistle to the Hebrews exhorts its readers to leave behind elementary christological teaching and move on to richer fare. This is certainly a step I had to take while supervising Bobby Jamieson’s thesis, published in 2018 as the Cambridge University Press monograph Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews. I was rather embarrassingly ill equipped to supervise a thesis on Hebrews, the sum total of my research on the epistle amounting to four pages in a book on preexistence. It was Bobby who introduced me to the complex debates on how Jesus’ death related to his activity in the heavenly sanctuary, in what sense Jesus could be “perfected,” and how Hebrews’ cosmology can best be understood so that we can account for all the evidence of the epistle. Bobby is undoubtedly one of the best exegetes I have known, and our meetings consisted of collegial scholarly conversations rather than a teacher spouting forth wisdom to an ignorant student. His astonishing intellectual energy is evident from the fact that he wrote a first draft of this book moonlighting during the final months of finishing his doctoral thesis. There are several points I could make about this book. Bobby’s argumentation both in the PhD monograph and this present book is characterized by logical rigor. There is no legerdemain that glides over the steps in the argument or replaces them with rhetorical bluster. The opponents, of which there are quite a few in this book, are invariably treated accurately and courteously. The marvelous footnotes demonstrate mastery of a massive body of

v iii

Foreword

secondary literature. The expansive range of the book also extends to The Lord of the Rings, and for those who have ears to hear the allusion, Yes, Minister—demonstrating that Bobby’s time in Britain was not entirely wasted. The most impressive feature of the range of material covered is its venturing into patristic territory. Most New Testament scholars (myself included) do not feel confident enough to make constructive use of Gregory of Nyssa or Cyril of Alexandria. As I would have expected, however, Bobby’s venture here is conducted intelligently and carefully, demonstrating that patristic theology provides a “grammar” that can shed light on the theological substructure of Hebrews. In discussing the analogous case of Paul, Frances Young and David Ford remark that “it is possible for someone to speak perfectly grammatically without ever consciously knowing any grammar.”1 Along similar lines, Bobby elucidates the way in which Hebrews makes apparently paradoxical statements best understood as expressions arising out of a particular theological grammar. This substructure is only later theorized in the theology of the church fathers and councils, but it can legitimately be regarded as already proper to Hebrews’ own theology. Such a claim that Hebrews has a sophisticated doctrinal substratum is not an anachronism: as Bobby shows, it is not merely that the epistle provides raw material out of which theology can be constructed; the author of Hebrews is also himself a theologian engaged with the question posed by Leontius of Jerusalem: “What is Christ?” (Τί ἐστὶ Χριστός;). I have already detained the reader too long with this mere shadow of the good things to come. What follows is a brilliant study that grapples seriously with the central subject matter of Scripture, and for that we can rejoice.

1

Frances Young and David F. Ford, Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1987), 256.

Acknowledgments

A

wise man once said that writing a second academic book is in some ways more daunting than doing a PhD, since you no longer have a more experienced scholar steering you away from danger. So I am deeply thankful to that wise man, Simon Gathercole, for not only supervising my PhD but also generously reading, and even commending, this book too. Surely no doctoral supervisor should have to digest and dissect as many half-baked arguments as I have inflicted on him! Matthew Crawford deserves special thanks not only for reading the whole manuscript but also for answering a years-long volley of questions about all things patristic, especially all things Cyril. No one who knows Matt would be surprised to learn that I am indebted to him not only for academic insight but for many cheerful kindnesses over several years. I am also very grateful to Jonathan Linebaugh for reading the entire manuscript and offering feedback that was as encouraging as it was penetrating. Far beyond how they enriched this book, our conversations were a highlight of my time in Cambridge, now sorely missed. Other friends and colleagues who read and commented on all or part also deserve thanks: Peter Gurry, Mike Kibbe, Arthur Keefer, Tyler Wittman, and Tim Bertolet. Special thanks are due to Madison Pierce for kindly obtaining a couple sources on short notice late in the publication process. I am also grateful to the Cambridge Graduate New Testament seminar for probing feedback on an early version of chapter five, and to the members of the Hebrews group at the September 2016 meeting of the

x

Acknowledgments

British New Testament Society, especially Justin Duff, Owen Edwards, and (again!) Madison Pierce, for shaking down a paper that previewed the whole book. I am especially thankful to the chair of that session, David Moffitt, whose writings and conversation have greatly enriched my understanding of Hebrews over the past several years. I am also grateful to the students in Simon Gathercole’s third-year Christology course at Cambridge, who in the Michaelmas terms of 2015 and 2016 heard and interacted with my take on Hebrews’ Christology. Scott Swain, Fred Sanders, and Grant Macaskill all offered constructive advice, either before or as I began writing, for which I am very grateful. Fred deserves an extra round of thanks for reading the full manuscript and for advocating for the project at many times and in many ways. I am also thankful to Rowan Williams, Ian McFarland, and Mark Smith, all of whom kindly offered reading suggestions early on. Thanks are also due to Michael Bird for providing me with a pre-publication manuscript of his Jesus the Eternal Son. I am grateful to the editors of this series, Daniel Treier and Kevin Vanhoozer, for including this book, and to my academic editor, David McNutt, for his prompt and cheerful help in the publication process. I wrote the first draft of this book while happily ensconced at Tyndale House in Cambridge. I am deeply grateful to its principal, Peter Williams, and to its librarians, staff, and fellow readers for sustaining such a richly encouraging and edifying environment in which to research and write. I am deeply grateful to the members of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, whom I have the joy to serve as a pastor, for their generous, regular provision of a sabbatical, which made my final revisions to the book a far more relaxed affair than they would have been otherwise. I am thankful to my children for their enthusiastic support of my writing and their eager monitoring of its progress. Thanks most of all to my wife, Kristin, for her selfless, unfailing love.

Series Introduction Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (SCDS) Daniel J. Treier and Kevin J. Vanhoozer

T

he Studies in Christian Do ctrine and Scripture (SCDS) series attempts to reconcile two disciplines that should never have been divided: the study of Christian Scripture and the study of Christian doctrine. Old walls of disciplinary hostility are beginning to come down, a development that we hope will better serve the church. To that end, books in this series affirm the supreme authority of Scripture, seeking to read it faithfully and creatively as they develop fresh articulations of Christian doctrine. This agenda can be spelled out further in five claims. 1. We aim to publish constructive contributions to systematic theology rather than merely descriptive rehearsals of biblical theology, historical ­retrievals of classic or contemporary theologians, or hermeneutical reflections on theological method—volumes that are plentifully and expertly ­published elsewhere. The initial impetus for the SCDS series came from supervising evangelical graduate students and seeking to encourage their pursuit of ­constructive theological projects shaped by the supremacy of Scripture. ­Existing publication venues demonstrate how rarely biblical scholars and systematic theologians trespass into each other’s fields. Synthetic treatments of biblical theology garner publication in monograph series for biblical studies or evangelical biblical theology. A notable example is a companion

x ii

Series Introduction

series from IVP Academic, New Studies in Biblical Theology. Many of its volumes have theological significance, yet most are written by biblical scholars. Meanwhile, historical retrievals of theological figures garner publication in monograph series for historical and systematic theology. For instance, there have been entire series devoted to figures such as Karl Barth or the patristic era, and even series named for systematic theology tend to contain figure-oriented monographs. The reason for providing an alternative publication venue is not to denigrate these valuable enterprises. Instead, the rationale for encouraging ­constructively evangelical projects is twofold and practical: The church needs such projects, and they form the theologians undertaking them. The church needs such projects, both addressing new challenges for her life in the world (such as contemporary political theology) and retrieving neglected concepts (such as the classic doctrine of God) in fresh ways. The church also needs her theologians not merely to develop detailed intellectual skills but also ultimately to wrestle with the whole counsel of God in the Scriptures. 2. We aim to promote evangelical contributions, neither retreating from broader dialogue into a narrow version of this identity on the one hand, nor running away from the biblical preoccupation of our heritage on the other hand. In our initial volume, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture, we articulate this pursuit of evangelical renewal. We take up the well-known metaphor of mere Christianity as a hallway, with particular church traditions as the rooms in a house. Many people believe that the evangelical hallway is crumbling, an impression that current events only exacerbate. Our inspection highlights a few fragmenting factors such as more robust academic engagement, increased awareness of the Great Christian Tradition and the variety of evangelical subtraditions, interest in global Christianity, and inter­ faces with emergent Christianity and culture. Looking more deeply, we find historical-theological debates about the very definition of evangelical and whether it reflects—still, or ever—a shared gospel, a shared doctrine of God, and a theological method that can operationalize our shared commitment to Scripture’s authority. In response, prompted by James 1:22‑25, our proposal develops the meta­phor of a mirror for clarifying evangelical theology’s relation to Scripture.

Series Introduction

x iii

The reality behind the mirror is the gospel of God and the God of the gospel: what is revealed in Christ. In disputes about whether to focus on a center or boundaries, it may seem as if evangelicalism has no doctrinal core. But we propose treating what is revealed in Christ—the triune God and the cross of Christ, viewed in the mirror of Scripture—as an evangelical anchor, a center with a certain range of motion. Still, it may seem as if evangelicalism has no hermeneutical coherence, as if interpretive anarchy nullifies biblical authority. But we propose treating Scripture as canonical ­testimony, a God-given mirror of truth that enables the church to reflect the wisdom that is in Christ. The holistic and contextual character of such wisdom gives theology a dialogic character, which requires an evangelical account of the church’s catholicity. We need the wisdom to know the difference between church-destroying heresy, church-dividing disagreements that still permit evangelical fellowship, and intrachurch differences that require mutual admonition as well as forbearance. Volumes in the SCDS series will not necessarily reflect the views of any particular editor, advisory board member, or the publisher—not even ­concerning “evangelical” boundaries. Volumes may approach perceived boundaries if their excellent engagement with Scripture deserves a hearing. But we are not seeking reform for reform’s sake; we are more likely to publish volumes containing new explorations or presentations of traditional positions than radically revisionist proposals. Valuing the historic evangelical ­commitment to a deeply scriptural theology, we often find that perceived boundaries are appropriate—reflecting positions’ biblical plausibility or lack thereof. 3. We seek fresh understanding of Christian doctrine through ­creatively faithful engagement with Scripture. To some fellow evangelicals and interested others today, we commend the classic evangelical commit­ment of engaging Scripture. To other fellow evangelicals today, we commend a ­contemporary aim to engage Scripture with creative fidelity. The church is to be always reforming—but always reforming according to the Word of God. It is possible to acknowledge sola Scriptura in principle—Scripture as the final authority, the norming norm—without treating Scripture as t­ heology’s primary source. It is also possible to approach Scripture as t­heology’s primary source in practice without doing that well.

x iv

Series Introduction

The classic evangelical aspiration has been to mirror the form, not just the content, of Scripture as closely as possible in our theology. That aspiration has potential drawbacks: it can foster naive prooftexting, flatten biblical diversity, and stifle creative cultural engagement with a biblicist idiom. But we should not overreact to these drawbacks, falling prey to the temptation of paying mere lip service to sola Scriptura and replacing the Bible’s primacy with the secondary idiom of the theologians’ guild. Thus in Theology and the Mirror of Scripture we propose a rubric for applying biblical theology to doctrinal judgments in a way that preserves evangelical freedom yet promotes the primacy of Scripture. At the ends of the spectrum, biblical theology can (1) rule out theological proposals that ­contradict scriptural judgments or cohere poorly with other concepts, and it can (5) require proposals that appeal to what is clear and central in Scripture. In between, it can (2) permit proposals that do not contradict Scripture, (3) support proposals that appeal creatively although indirectly or implicitly to Scripture, and (4) relate theological teaching to church life by using familiar scriptural language as much as possible. This spectrum offers considerable freedom for evangelical theology to mirror the biblical wisdom found in Christ with contextual creativity. Yet it simultaneously encourages evangelical theologians to reflect biblical wisdom not just in their judgments but also in the very idioms of their teaching. 4. We seek fresh understanding of Christian doctrine. We do not promote a singular method; we welcome proposals appealing to biblical theology, the history of interpretation, theological interpretation of Scripture, or still other approaches. We welcome projects that engage in detailed ­exegesis as well as those that appropriate broader biblical themes and patterns. Ultimately, we hope to promote relating Scripture to doctrinal understanding in material, not just formal, ways. As noted above, the fresh understanding we seek may not involve a­ ltogether novel claims—which might well land in heresy! Again, in Theology and the Mirror of Scripture we offer an illustrative, nonexhaustive rubric for encouraging various forms of evangelical theological scholarship: projects shaped primarily by (1) hermeneutics, (2) integrative biblical theology, (3) stewardship of the Great Tradition, (4) church dogmatics, (5) intellectual history, (6) analytic theism, (7) living witness, and (8) healing resistance. While some of these

Series Introduction

xv

scholarly shapes probably fit the present series better than others, all of them reflect practices that can help evangelical theologians to make more faithfully biblical judgments and to generate more creatively constructive scholarship. The volumes in the SCDS series will therefore reflect quite varied approaches. They will be similar in engaging one or more biblical texts as a key aspect of their contributions while going beyond exegetical recital or descriptive biblical theology, yet those biblical contributions themselves will be manifold. 5. We promote scriptural engagement in dialogue with catholic tradition(s). A periodic evangelical weakness is relative lack of interest in the church’s shared creedal heritage, in churches’ particular confessions, and more generally in the history of dogmatic reflection. Beyond existing efforts to enhance understanding of themes and corpora in biblical theology, then, we hope to foster engagement with Scripture that bears on and learns from loci, themes, or crucial questions in classic dogmatics and contemporary systematic theology. Series authors and editors will reflect several church affiliations and doctrinal backgrounds. Our goal is that such commitments would play a productive but not decisive hermeneutical role. Series volumes may focus on more generically evangelical approaches, or they may operate from within a particular tradition while engaging internal challenges or external objections. We hope that both the diversity of our contributor list and the catholic engagement of our projects will continually expand. As important as those contextual factors are, though, these are most fundamentally studies in Christian doctrine and Scripture. Our goal is to promote and to publish constructive evangelical projects that study Scripture with creative fidelity and thereby offer fresh understanding of Christian doctrine. Various ­contexts and perspectives can help us to study Scripture in that lively way, but they must remain secondary to theology’s primary source and soul. We do not study the mirror of Scripture for its own sake. Finding all the treasures of wisdom in Christ to be reflected there with the help of Christian doctrine, we come to know God and ourselves more truly. Thus encountering God’s perfect instruction, we find the true freedom that is ours in the gospel, and we joyfully commend it to others through our own ministry of Scripture’s teaching.

Abbreviations AB

Anchor Bible

ACCS

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture

ACT

Ancient Christian Texts

Against Bishops of Oriens

Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against the Bishops of the Diocese of Oriens

AGJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

ANF

Ante-Nicene Fathers

BCOTWP

Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms

BDAG

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BECNT

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BIS

Biblical Interpretation Series

BMSEC

Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity

BT

The Bible Translator

BTCP

Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

C. Ar.

Athanasius, Orations Against the Arians

CBET

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBR

Currents in Biblical Research

ConBOT

Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series

CTC

Christian Theology in Context

CTHP

Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy

Decr.

Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition

Diogn.

The Epistle to Diognetus

EBib

Etudes bibliques

ECF

The Early Church Fathers

x v ii

Abbreviations

EKKNT

Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

Ep. Serap.

Athanasius, Letter to Serapion Concerning the Holy Spirit

ESV

English Standard Version

EUS

European University Studies

FC

The Fathers of the Church

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GNO

Gregorii Nysseni Opera. Edited by Werner Jaeger. Leiden: Brill, 1960

HNT

Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUTh

Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie

Ign. Eph.

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians

Ign. Magn.

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians

Ign. Pol.

Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp

Ign. Rom.

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Romans

IJST

International Journal of Systematic Theology

JCTCRS

Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies Series

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JSJSup

Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

KEKNT

Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar)

LCC

Library of Christian Classics

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LNTS

Library of New Testament Studies

Neot

Neotestamentica

NETS

A New English Translation of the Septuagint

NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIGTC

New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV

New International Version

x v iii

Abbreviations

NovTSup

Supplements to Novum Testamentum

1

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1

2

NPNF

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2

NSD

New Studies in Dogmatics

NTL

New Testament Library

NTS

New Testament Studies

OECS

Oxford Early Christian Studies

OECT

Oxford Early Christian Texts

OSHT

Oxford Studies in Historical Theology

Perseus

Perseus Digital Library (www.perseus.tufts.edu/)

PG

Patrologia Cursus Completus: Series Graeca. Edited by J. P. Migne. (Paris: 1857–1866)

PHSC

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts

PTS

Patristische Texte und Studien

RNT

Regensburger Neues Testament

RTR

Reformed Theological Review

SC

Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1942–)

SCDS

Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture

Scholia

Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia de incarnatione unigeniti

SJT

Scottish Journal of Theology

NPNF

SNTSMS

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

ST

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

STDJ

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

Testimonies

Leontius of Jerusalem, Testimonies of the Saints

Thesaurus

Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate

TTH

Translated Texts for Historians

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WTJ

Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZNW

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Author’s Note on Sources

S

tyle and abbreviations generally follow the guidelines of The SBL Handbook of Style (2nd ed.). Unless otherwise noted, English Bible citations are from the ESV, which I occasionally alter (with notice). The Greek text I am using is the NA28. For convenience, I will refer to Old Testament passages by their English chapter and verse numbers. Translations of Old Testament pseudepigrapha are from James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983). I give English titles and abbreviations of patristic works not dictated by The SBL Handbook of Style. For patristic sources throughout, I have tried to consult the most recent critical editions, as well as the most recent English translations. In addition, I frequently supply references to the ANF and NPNF series to provide convenient access for non-specialist readers. For each initial reference to a volume in the Fathers of the Church series, I provide full bibliographic information; thereafter, I refer to FC with volume and page numbers. When citing older English translations (such as ANF and NPNF), I modernize capitalization and usage. Translations of the commentaries on Hebrews by Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus are my own, as are translations of modern secondary sources.

Introduction The Son Who Became Son

O

ne of my daughters recently wrote down the first name and middle and last initials of herself, her siblings, and her mother and me, then taped the sheet to our living room wall. The entries for herself and her siblings followed the script exactly. Her mother she listed as “Mom,” me as “Dad,” and our middle initials encountered some difficulty. Do “Mom” and “Dad” belong in a list of names? Of course. That is what she calls us; to her, that is who we are. She knows our proper names, but from where she stands, those matter less. The historical priority of my proper name over the more recently acquired “Dad” is not her concern. Nor does it matter to her that my full proper name is relatively rare, while “Dad,” properly a title, belongs also to millions. When she names her parents, “Mom” and “Dad” are nearest to hand, and for good reason. This book is about a name—or rather, a title, “Son,” that at one crucial juncture the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls a “name.” The fundamental question this book asks is, What does the author of Hebrews mean by calling Jesus the “Son”? Is “Son” a title given Jesus at his enthronement as Messiah, his session at God’s right hand? Or does “Son” denote his eternal inclusion in the identity of the one true God? In this book I will argue that we should answer “yes” to both questions and that the second is crucial for, not in tension with, the first. More specifically, I will advance three theses about Jesus’ sonship in Hebrews. First, “Son” designates Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence. The Son eternally

2

The Paradox of Sonship

exists as God and as distinct from the Father and the Spirit. Second, “Son” also designates the office of messianic rule to which Jesus is appointed at his enthronement. Jesus is appointed Son when he sits down at God’s right hand in heaven. Third, Jesus can become the messianic Son only because he is the divine Son incarnate. According to Hebrews, “Messiah” is a theandric office: only one who is both divine and human can do all that Hebrews says the Messiah does. As often when beginning a book like this, before we begin the argument, there are a few preliminary matters to put in place. These are, first, a sketch of Hebrews’ Christology. In this sketch I will outline Hebrews’ portrait of Jesus’ identity and work—who he is and what he does. This sketch will furnish a backdrop for detailed exegesis to follow. Second, I will summarize three scholarly approaches to Hebrews’ Christology, focusing on the title “Son,” and will allege problems with each. And these are not only different problems; all three approaches presuppose that “Son” in Hebrews basically means only one thing. Either Jesus is Son or he becomes Son; it cannot be both. Third, I will preview the book’s argument. In contrast to the prevailing views, in this book I aim to demonstrate that in Hebrews “Son” names both who Jesus is and what he becomes. He is the Son who became Son. A Sketch of Hebrews’ Christology Hebrews’ story of Jesus’ person and work starts at the climax: Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God in heaven.1 In one elegant, sweeping sentence, after reminding us how God spoke to his people in time past (Heb 1:1), Hebrews asserts that now, at the hinge of history, God has spoken to us in a Son (1:2). This Son is the one whom God appointed heir of all things, through whom God created all things (1:2). This Son is the radiance of God’s glory and impress of his being, and he sustains the universe by his powerful word (1:3). Without pausing for breath, Hebrews proclaims that this Son made purification for sins and then “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to the angels as the name he has 1

In this sketch I necessarily presuppose many disputed exegetical decisions. These will be justified in the course of the book. Hence I cite here only literature that is particularly useful for introductory purposes. For a similar, compact yet comprehensive summary of Hebrews’ narration of all that Jesus has done and undergone, see Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BIS 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 204-5.

Introduction

3

inherited is more excellent than theirs” (1:3-4). And so Hebrews’ first sentence peaks at the peak of the Son’s saving mission. It lands us at the pinnacle of the Son’s unique achievement. Thus Hebrews’ first sentence, often called its “exordium” or prologue, opens the letter with a striking statement of the Son’s exaltation to God’s throne in heaven. But its scope is not restricted to this exaltation. Instead, Hebrews’ exordium celebrates the Son’s work in creation and providence (1:2-3) and glimpses the radiant depths of the Son’s divine being (1:3). Further, the compact phrase “after making purification for sins” (1:3) presupposes the Son’s entire saving mission, specifically his offering of his body in heaven before he sat down at God’s right hand (cf. 9:24-25; 10:12). The one who sustains all things entered human life in order to set aside sin (cf. 9:26). The one who is the radiance of God sat down next to God after offering himself to God (cf. 9:14).2 This focus on the Son’s enthronement intensifies in the catena of scriptural citations in Hebrews 1:5-14.3 At the Son’s exaltation, when he sat down at God’s right hand on high (1:3-4), God said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” (Heb 1:5; Ps 2:7), fulfilling his ancient promise to be father to David’s heir (Heb 1:5; 2 Sam 7:14). When God led his firstborn into the heavenly world, he said, “Let all God’s angels worship him” (Heb 1:6; cf. Deut 32:43). While the angels are fiery, ethereal servants, the Son is king forever. God himself addresses the Son as God, exclaiming, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Heb 1:8-9; Ps 45:6-7). And God himself addresses this Son as the Lord who created everything and will outlive everything: “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain” (Heb 1:10-12; 2

Hence the aptness of Richard Bauckham’s heading for Heb 1:2b-4, “The Narrative Identity of the Son.” In Richard Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North, JSNTSup 263 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 173; cf. Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 19. 3 As Kenneth Schenck remarks, “In highly charged, hymnic language, he captures the audience’s attention by placing them in medias res, at the climax of the story, where Christ, the great high priest, has just completed his earthly mission and has been seated as Lord and king at God’s right hand.” In Kenneth L. Schenck, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1,” JBL 120 (2001): 479. Cf. Joshua W. Jipp, “The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena of Hebrews 1.5-14,” NTS 56 (2010): 574, “The argument of Hebrews begins, one might say, with the end in that it depicts the final aspect of the Son’s narrative—the Son’s entrance into the heavenly realm.”

4

The Paradox of Sonship

cf. Ps 102:25-27). What God never said to any angel he said to this Son: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (Heb 1:13; cf. Ps 110:1). In God’s presence, angels, like priests, stand to serve; only the Son sits (Heb 1:13-14; cf. 10:11-13). This meticulously arranged selection of scriptural texts offers us something like a sandwich. The Son’s exaltation to God’s right hand is the bread (1:5, 13). In the middle are biblical elaborations of what it means for the Son to reign on God’s own throne and why he is qualified so to reign (1:6-12). Some things in this sandwich are hard to digest. For instance, if the “today” of “today I have begotten you” (1:5) is the time when the Son takes his seat at God’s right hand, is he not Son before this event? Is Son something he becomes only at his exaltation? To feel the full force of this question we need to read Hebrews 1:5 in context. In 1:3 the Son sits down at God’s right hand, and in 1:4 he is said to have thereby become “as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” From these verses two more questions immediately press in on us. First, if the Son is somehow identified with God’s very being (1:3) and is the sovereign Creator and sustainer of all things (1:2, 3, 10), how can he become superior to the angels? Isn’t he always already superior to every created being? Second, what is the name the Son inherits in 1:4? Many scholars argue that this name is in fact “Son.”4 After all, the name is introduced in 1:4—it is actually the last word in the Greek sentence. Then the author immediately asks in 1:5, “For (γάρ, gar) to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?” When we ask, “What is the name the Son inherits?” the author seems immediately to answer, “Son.” But how can the one who is Son become Son? If he becomes Son, surely that means he was not Son already? By contrast, if he already is Son, doesn’t that mean his becoming Son only restates or reveals something that was already true of him? This paradox at the heart of Hebrews’ Christology is the heart of the book you are reading. These are the questions my three theses answer. For now, we let the tension stand, and we can tour the rest of Hebrews’ Christology more briskly. 4

See p. 102, n5.

Introduction

5

As 1:3 hints, this Son who existed before the ages came to exist as a human. At his incarnation, this Son “for a little while was made lower than the angels,” and in his death he tasted death for everyone (2:9). He came to share in fleshand-blood humanity, so he could disarm by his own death the one who had the power of death (2:14-15). In his death Jesus not only defeated the devil but redeemed his people from their sins against God’s first covenant (9:15). Christ came into the world to do God’s will (10:5-9), ultimately offering the body God had prepared for him in order to sanctify and perfect his people (10:10, 14). To become a merciful and faithful high priest, Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every respect” (2:17), which involved not only becoming human but also sinlessly enduring temptation (2:18; 4:15). This Son lived an unmistakably human life. In anguished suffering he cried out to God and was answered (5:7). “Although he is the Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (5:8, my translation). As the “founder” of his people’s salvation, he had to be made “perfect through suffering” (2:10). After suffering faithfully, Jesus was indeed made perfect, and “he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek” (5:9-10). The incarnate Son, like the Levitical priests, was mortal (7:8, 23). He lived, suffered, died. But he rose again with life indestructible and so arose as a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (7:15-16). When he thus arose, the same one who said to Jesus “You are my Son” also said to him “You are a priest forever” (Heb 5:5-6; Ps 2:7; 110:4), and so he now “holds his priesthood permanently” (Heb 7:24) and “always lives” to intercede for his people (7:25). When this Son arose, he kept rising, passing through the heavens (4:14), being exalted above the heavens (7:26), and finally entering God’s dwelling itself, the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle in heaven (6:19-20; 8:1-5; 9:11-12, 23-26). Like the Levitical high priests who yearly entered the earthly Holy of Holies with blood, in order to offer it there (9:7), Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in heaven through his own blood, in order to offer to God his own blood, body, and self (7:27; 9:11-14, 24-25; 10:10, 12, 14). After offering to God this singular, sufficient sacrifice, Christ sat down at God’s right hand (1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2), where he reigns over all, and from where he will return to save his people (9:28).

6

The Paradox of Sonship

Like most good stories, this one has flashbacks and flash-forwards.5 It hints at what’s to come, and what comes after transfigures what came before. This story also holds together as a whole. It begins before creation’s beginning and continues after creation’s end and new beginning (2:5; 12:25-29). This narrative encompasses the Son existing before all things, creating all things, sustaining all things, entering the world as a man, living, dying, rising again, ascending to heaven, offering himself there as high priest and victim, and sitting down at God’s right hand as messianic king. Therefore, David Moffitt precisely describes Hebrews’ narrative Christology as a “protocredal sequence.”6 This narrative also contains carefully placed points of tension and resolution, prerequisites for its progress and conclusion. The Son had to enter human life to transform it from within. He had to be made like his brothers in every respect in order to become a merciful and faithful high priest. He had to be perfected through suffering. He had to die to destroy death. He had to obtain indestructible life to be appointed high priest. He had to offer himself to God before he could sit down at God’s right hand. When Hebrews’ first sentence lands us at its narrative climax, all this is bundled up, waiting to unfurl. The goal of this book is to follow this unfurling as closely as 5

Here and throughout, I use story and narrative to name the plot of Hebrews’ Christology. In terms of genre, unlike the Gospels, Hebrews is clearly not a narrative. Instead, elements of its christological story are woven into its exposition and exhortation such that, even within expository sections such as 2:5-18, the textual (or poetic) order often differs from the narrative (or chronological) order. To trace a single story or narrative of Christ in Hebrews does require synthesis, but it is a synthesis of the text that is invited by the text. There is therefore a sense in which the narrative of Christ’s life and acts, from preexistence to enthronement and beyond, undergirds Hebrews’ entire argument, and “shapes and constrains” Hebrews’ theological reflection. The quoted phrase is from Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 28; for further reflections along lines broadly similar to mine here, see Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 21-29. 6 David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, NovTSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 43. Moffitt’s full statement is worth citing, since it affords a jumping-off point for my whole project (43): Instead, the robust narrative substructure of the singular Christology and soteriology developed in this early Christian masterpiece should be identified as encompassing, in a proto-credal sequence, the full sweep of the significance of the Son’s incarnation. For the author of this homily, the heavenly Son came into the world, suffered and died, rose again, ascended into heaven, made his offering for eternal atonement, and sat down at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there, the author avers, he will come to judge the living and the dead. This is the outline of the author’s Christology and the context in which he works out his understanding of how Jesus effected atonement.

Introduction

7

possible and so to offer a satisfying account of who the Son is and how he became Son.7 Three Scholarly Approaches, Their Problems, and an Alternative The preceding sketch lingered over the apparent tension between Jesus being Son and becoming Son. Many scholars have noted this tension and have struggled to resolve it. We can identify three predominant approaches to the question of Jesus’ sonship in Hebrews, which both follow from and lead to divergent construals of Hebrews’ Christology as a whole. In Hebrews, “Son” is not just a prominent but a programmatic title for Jesus. What one does with it is an apt litmus test of—and in some cases, a basis for—how one handles Hebrews’ entire testimony to who Jesus is. In what follows I will describe three scholarly answers to the question of whether “Son” in Hebrews designates Jesus’ divine identity or his appointment to messianic office at his exaltation. As is the way of such surveys, I will suggest problems with each perspective. Not only that, I will suggest a problem they have in common: each approach treats sonship in Hebrews as a zero-sum game. Each approach treats “Son” as either something Jesus is or something he becomes. All exclude the possibility that the Son became Son. After surveying these three approaches I will discuss modern scholars who affirm that “Son” relates both to Jesus’ identity as God and to his reign as Davidic Messiah. Such scholars, I suggest, point in the right direction, and I intend to extend their insights further. Admittedly, the claim that the Son became Son is counterintuitive, but my whole argument seeks to demonstrate not only that Hebrews propounds to us this paradoxical claim but also that Hebrews offers reasoned scriptural support for it. Less-than-divine Christology: Son is what Jesus became. The first approach is what we might call, for comparative purposes, a less-than-divine 7

Therefore, while I will criticize a number of his conclusions, I agree entirely with one of Kenneth Schenck’s key methodological intuitions. In “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews,” JSNT 66 (1997): 91-117, Schenck investigates two subjects: (1) what is the nature of Christ’s sonship and when does it begin? and (2) “the matter of Christ’s pre-existence.” Describing how he will conclude his essay, Schenck writes, “Finally, I will attempt to integrate these two lines of inquiry in terms of the narrative substructure of Hebrews” (92). I agree with Schenck that a key test for any reading of Hebrews’ Christology is how well it accounts for Hebrews’ entire implicit narrative.

8

The Paradox of Sonship

Christology. This approach starts from the given that Jesus was appointed Son at his exaltation and consequently finds his sonship to entail something less than eternal, divine, personal self-existence. On this view, Son is what Jesus became; it is not what he was already. Consequently, though details vary, this view can fairly be called “adoptionist.” In recent study of Hebrews, this position’s trajectory begins with G. B. Caird’s 1984 essay “Son by Appointment.”8 Caird argues, Here, as in the Fourth Gospel, “the Son” is always a title for the man Jesus. He it is whom God appointed heir to the universe and who has now by his heavenly exaltation entered upon that inheritance. Moreover, in one passage after another where the title is used, the idea of appointment is present in the context.9

In Caird’s view, there is not “a single one of his dignities which he is said to hold in virtue of his heavenly origin. He had to become superior to the angels and to inherit the loftier name (1:4).”10 Thus, “The author of Hebrews has no place in his thinking for preexistence as an ontological concept. His essentially human Jesus attains to perfection, to preeminence, and even to eternity. Yet it is a high Christology.”11 Whatever Caird means by “high Christology,” what he does not mean is clear: the Son does not personally, eternally exist before becoming human.12 Caird denies that even Hebrews 1:10-12 can be taken to imply that Christ is “divine (and preexistent).”13 Instead, Christ “is the man in whom the divine Wisdom has been appointed to dwell, so as to make him the bearer of the whole purpose of creation.”14 In a Festschrift posthumously honoring Caird, his doctoral mentee L. D. Hurst carries forward this interpretive trajectory.15 For Hurst, “The question needs to be asked, if only to consider whether—and to what extent—chapter 8

G. B. Caird, “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. William C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), 1:73-81. 9 Caird, “Son by Appointment,” 1:74. 10 Caird, “Son by Appointment,” 1:76-77, emphasis original. 11 Caird, “Son by Appointment,” 1:81. 12 One can attain to life that is everlasting, but not, as Caird has it, to eternity. In even the thinnest conception, eternity is endless in both directions. 13 Caird, “Son by Appointment,” 1:76. 14 Caird, “Son by Appointment,” 1:76. 15 L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 151-64.

Introduction

9

one may originally have been read from the point of view of the humanity of Jesus.”16 Indeed Hurst goes on to assert that “the figure in view” throughout Hebrews 1 is “essentially a human one.”17 Given Hurst’s earlier charge that it would be difficult to see how Hebrews 1–2 coheres if “chapter one describes the unique prerogatives of a heavenly being who becomes man,”18 his labeling the Jesus of Hebrews 1 “essentially human” seems at least to weigh against, if not outright exclude, the idea of Jesus’ personal preexistence. Regarding Hebrews 1:8-9, Hurst feels no need to “enter into elaborate arguments as to whether or not the Son is addressed here as ‘God.’”19 Further, Hurst takes Hebrews 1:10-12 to indicate not that God addresses Jesus as the active agent of creation but that he is “addressing his own wisdom in its earthly receptacle.”20 For Hurst, “To what extent notions of a pre-cosmic figure are also present may have to remain a delicate matter of judgment.”21 Yet even if such notions may be present, Hurst avers that they can hold little importance for Hebrews: “It looks, in other words, as though the author’s main interest was not in a uniquely privileged, divine being who becomes man; it is in a human figure who attains to an exalted status.”22 In acknowledged dependence on and critical engagement with Caird, Kenneth Schenck has written an article that investigates the nature of Christ’s sonship, the time of its beginning, and the manner of his preexistence.23 One of the primary concerns of Schenck’s essay is the tension between Christ being Son and becoming Son. On the one hand, Schenck distinguishes between “Son” as identity and “Son” as role: The uniqueness of Christ’s Sonship seems to reflect something particular about his identity, something that makes him alone suitable for enthronement. 16

Hurst, “Christology,” 155. Hurst, “Christology,” 156. 18 Hurst, “Christology,” 155. 19 Hurst, “Christology,” 159. 20 Hurst, “Christology,” 162. 21 Hurst, “Christology,” 162, emphasis original. 22 Hurst, “Christology,” 163, emphasis original. 23 Schenck, “Appointment.” See pp. 92-93 for Schenck’s initial summary of Caird; from p. 106 on, he assesses Caird’s thesis that Hebrews’ speaking of Christ as Creator is a way of saying that “he is the wisdom of God par excellence, the final goal and purpose of God for creation” (106). Further, in “Celebration,” 471, Schenck argues that the studies of both Caird and Hurst “are moving in the right direction, although neither exhausts the full significance of the contrast” (between Christ and the angels in Heb 1:5-14). 17

10

The Paradox of Sonship

Here a distinction between identity and role can be made. At his enthronement, Christ truly becomes Son in the sense that he assumes his royal office and takes his divine ‘appointment,’ but in his identity he has always been the Son, the one whom God had destined to be enthroned from the foundation of the world (cf. 9.26), who bears God’s purpose for humanity (cf. 2.9).24

For Schenck Christ’s identity as Son is strictly proleptic; it marks him out as destined to become, at his enthronement, God’s appointed ruler.25 That Christ “is always the Son” means that he is “destined for his throne.”26 Further, Schenck urges “caution when approaching protological language in the epistle,” and concludes that “the pre-existent Christ only exists as a function of God.”27 Thus, When God finally speaks through a Son in the consummation of his creative purpose, he brings about and fulfils the destiny he had planned for creation and humanity, making Christ the bearer of this purpose, the very reflection of God’s glory, the representation of his substance, the embodiment of the creative logos which sustains all things.28

For Schenck, all these are what the Son becomes; none names what he is before and apart from his earthly career. Thus, while Schenck formally distinguishes between “Son” as identity and “Son” as role, he reduces the content of the former to the latter. For Schenck, Jesus being Son eternally and becoming Son at his exaltation are on some level incompatible, and he substantially resolves the tension in favor of the latter.29 24

Schenck, “Appointment,” 99, emphasis original. This despite Schenck’s explicit critique of those who “only deem Christ as ‘Son’ proleptically” (“Appointment,” 95-96). Schenck argues in light of 5:8 that “Christ is already a son in some real sense” during his earthly life (“Appointment,” 96). Yet as far as I am able to discern, for Schenck this sense is ultimately that of being designated in advance as the one who will be exalted. In other words, Jesus is already Son only in the sense of being pre-determined for rule. 26 Schenck, “Appointment,” 104. 27 Schenck, “Appointment,” 104. 28 Schenck, “Appointment,” 116. 29 For confirmation of the zero-sum shape of Schenck’s treatment of sonship, consider the way he frames the question at the outset: It is also at this point that we more acutely feel the charge of tension between christological motifs, for it is here that the protological and eschatological come into contact. If Christ is enthroned as Son at the point of his exaltation, then what is the nature of the exalted status he had before the creation of the worlds? For those who see the enthronement as the point when Christ becomes Son, this tension is all the more severe. Schenck, “Appointment,” 105. 25

Introduction

11

Caird, Hurst, and Schenck all address the apparent tension between Jesus being Son and becoming Son, especially when the former is understood to entail divinity, or at least personal preexistence. All three decide the contest between Jesus being Son and becoming Son in favor of becoming.30 Positively, they all rightly perceive the importance of Christ’s enthronement for Hebrews’ argument, and they argue, in my view rightly, that in some sense Christ is appointed Son at that enthronement. Yet I would suggest two problems with this “less-than-divine Christology.”31 First—and this is equally the case for the next two views—the presupposition that Jesus’ being Son and becoming Son are mutually exclusive is by no means self-evident, though interpreters in this category seem to treat it as such. Second, as I will argue in chapter two, in Hebrews Jesus is in fact divine in the fullest sense of the word. By contrast, all three interpreters surveyed here offer an account of the Son’s agency in creation and providence that fails to do justice to the assertions of Hebrews 1:2, 1:3, and 1:10-12. All three fail to account for passages that either directly (1:8-9, 10-12) or indirectly (1:3) identify the Son as God. All three rightly identify the Son’s exaltation as the focus of Hebrews’ first chapter, yet all three wrongly treat that focus as somehow antithetical to the Son’s personal preexistence.32 Being Son and becoming Son as irreconcilable. A second approach treats Jesus’ being Son and becoming Son as fundamentally irreconcilable and refrains from reconciling them. Scholars who take this approach see Hebrews asserting both and treat the resulting Christology as deeply fissured 30

The position of Käsemann has affinities with the trajectory traced here, though it is difficult to systematize because of his use of Gnostic themes. Käsemann argues, for instance, that “Son” is a title inherited by Christ at his exaltation and applies only proleptically before that. See Ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Irving L. Sandberg (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 97-99; more broadly 97-121. 31 In defense of this label I would point out that Caird, Hurst, and Schenck all take pains to distance their exegesis from the conclusions of conciliar Christology. For instance, Caird calls Chalcedon an “uneasy truce” and urges New Testament scholars “to ask themselves whether they have yet done enough to ensure that Scripture is allowed to speak with its own voice” (“Son by Appointment,” 73). Hurst argues that Hebrews 1 “has too often been read in the light of Nicea and Chalcedon,” then asks, “Has the author been allowed to speak for himself?” (“Christology,” 155). And Schenck warns concerning 1:8-12 that “we should not be misled by the later controversies of the church into thinking that referring to Christ as ‘God’ here is anything like a trinitarian statement” (Schenck, “Celebration,” 474). 32 For a more extreme version of “less-than-divine” Christology in Hebrews, see J. A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (London: SCM, 1973), 155-61.

12

The Paradox of Sonship

or even incoherent. As we will see, this stance is related to, though not identical with, the question of whether Hebrews’ Jesus is both human and divine, and whether that, too, would constitute a contradiction. Harold Attridge exemplifies the irreconcilable approach when he writes, Hebrews’s reflections on the significance of Jesus are obviously not a carefully considered systematic statement. There are, in fact, several barely or nonresolved antinomies among the affirmations of the text. The exordium (1:1-3), for example, contains a festive celebration of a “high” christological perspective, and affirms clearly the divine character of the Son and his role in the creation. The following catena (1:5-13) focuses on the exaltation of the Son, and even seems to suggest that his status as Son is dependent on that exaltation.33

Further, in an excursus on sonship in Hebrews that takes its cue from the citation of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5, Attridge argues, It may be that he took seriously the language of the psalm about Christ “becoming” Son and set this decisive moment either at the creation or some primordial event, or at his incarnation, his baptism, or his exaltation. While the last understanding accords well with what was probably the original function of the catena and with the focus on the exaltation in Hebrews, it is undermined by later passages that speak of Christ as the Son during his earthly life.

Attridge then explores several scholarly solutions to this tension between Jesus being Son already and becoming Son at, likely, his exaltation. Some hold that “the term ‘Son’ is properly applied at the point of exaltation, but proleptically in other contexts.” Some attempt to “reconcile the two christological perspectives” by seeing the Son’s exaltation as not “the creation of a new status” but “the definitive recognition or revelation of what Christ is and has been.” Some, affirming the Son’s preexistence, take the citation of Psalm 2:7 to refer to the Son’s eternal generation. And, finally, some maintain that the text does not reconcile the tension, which derives from the use of conceptually divergent traditions.34 But we should notice what possible solution Attridge does not entertain: that the Son became Son. Attridge takes for granted a zero-sum equation 33

Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 25. 34 Attridge, Hebrews, 54.

Introduction

13

between these two apparently competitive uses of “Son,” as do, on some level, all the interpreters he surveys. His entire discussion presupposes that “Son” has a single meaning for Hebrews; it speaks of only one reality; it sings only one part. Neither Attridge nor anyone he surveys raises the possibility that the author of Hebrews deliberately uses “Son” to designate both Jesus’ divine identity and the messianic rule to which he accedes at his exaltation. Attridge himself argues that the author of Hebrews has fused basically incompatible traditions and is “not interested in providing a systematic Christology” that would reconcile these two perspectives.35 If priority must go to one, Attridge opts for divine Christology: “There are, in fact, several indications later in the text that the high Christology of the exordium is not merely a rhetorical flourish, but a basic constituent of Hebrews’s portrait of Christ.”36 Another scholar who argues that Jesus’ being Son and becoming Son stand in irreconcilable tension is James Dunn, who offers an interpretation of Hebrews’ apparent divine Christology that is not totally unlike that of Caird and company. On the one hand, Dunn asserts, “There is no doubt about the importance of Jesus’ divine sonship for the author of the letter to the Hebrews.”37 And Dunn sees Hebrews as the first New Testament writing “to have embraced the specific thought of a pre-existent divine sonship.”38 On the other hand, however, Dunn sets this preexistence within the context of Hebrews’ “indebtedness to Platonic idealism”; he perceives an “impersonal tone” in the references to Jesus as Son in 1:2 and 1:5; and he explicitly denies that Hebrews “has attained to the understanding of God’s Son as having had a real personal pre-existence.”39 However, like Attridge, Dunn feels an acute tension between Jesus being Son and becoming Son: “How can the writer speak of Jesus both as a ‘Son . . . through whom God created the world’ and as a son appointed by virtue of his passion and begotten by means of his exaltation?” The solution toward which Dunn leans is similar to that of Attridge: Hebrews juxtaposes 35

Attridge, Hebrews, 54-55. Attridge, Hebrews, 55. 37 James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1989), 51-52. 38 Dunn, Christology, 55, emphasis original. Dunn seems to mean not that Jesus is divine but that his sonship is. 39 Dunn, Christology, 54, 55, 56, emphasis original. 36

14

The Paradox of Sonship

incommensurable conceptual frameworks, in Dunn’s case “Platonic cosmology and Judaeo-Christian eschatology.”40 Related though not identical to the perceived tension between Jesus being Son and becoming Son is the perceived tension between Jesus being divine and being human. For instance, C. F. D. Moule comments, “But we are still left asking how the individual of the ministry and the post-resurrection glory is related to the pre-existent being.”41 Moule’s assumption that these different “states” constitute some fundamental rupture in the identity of the “individual” and “being” in question seems to presuppose logical tension in affirming that Jesus is both divine and human. And, from a rather different perspective, Bart Ehrman points to passages in Hebrews that could be taken to indicate both that Jesus is divine and that he is human, then asks, “How would the author of Hebrews himself have . . . reconciled the divergent views that he appears to have written? Regrettably, we will never know.”42 Again, this presupposes tension, perhaps contradiction, in saying both that Jesus is divine and that he is human. We will return to this issue in chapter one. The problem I find in Attridge and Dunn’s position is one I can only demonstrate to be a problem by making the argument that constitutes this book. That is, this stance seems to assume in advance that Hebrews must use “Son” in only one sense. Therefore, when Hebrews speaks in bracingly high terms of the Son’s being and acts, this necessarily stands in tension with “Son” being something this same figure becomes upon exaltation. This seems to me an a priori assumption rather than a conclusion compelled by Hebrews’ argument.43 40

Dunn, Christology, 52. Cf. Dunn makes an equally pointed statement of the issue in Christology, 208: “While we pursue this line of thought we find ourselves once again in the puzzle of Hebrews’ understanding of Jesus’ sonship—as a status which in some sense is pre-existent, but which in another is one to which he was appointed as one who suffered and was exalted.” See also James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1990), 261: “How the author of Hebrews managed to maintain the tension between these two sides of his Christology—the adoptionist language, together with his anti-Ebionite stance—is not at all clear.” 41 C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 101. 42 Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 6th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 479. 43 For perspectives similar to that of Attridge see Herbert Braun, An die Hebräer, HNT 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 32-33; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 186-87. For somewhat softer renderings of this perceived tension, see John P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 185-87; William L. Lane, Hebrews, WBC 47A–B (Dallas: Word, 1991), 1:25-26.

Introduction

15

Divine Christology: Son already. A third prominent position is one that resolves the tension between Jesus being Son and becoming Son in favor of the former. If Jesus is already the divine Son, then there can be no strong sense in which he becomes Son. Either the begetting of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5 is eternal, or his becoming Son at his exaltation is actually a restatement or revelation or reaffirmation of a status he already had. Richard Bauckham opts for the former solution. In a pair of essays44 Bauckham argues that “Hebrews portrays Jesus as both truly God and truly human, like his Father in every respect and like humans in every respect.”45 Regarding Jesus’ sonship, Bauckham argues, “The most fundamental category is that of the Son of God who shares eternally the unique identity of the Father, the unique identity of the God of Israel and the God of all reality. But sonship to God also characterizes Jesus’ human solidarity with his fellow-humans.”46 So for Bauckham there is some kind of duality to Hebrews’ Son language, and this duality attaches to Jesus’ existence as both divine and human. Nevertheless, while Bauckham recognizes the importance of Jesus’ exaltation for Hebrews’ exordium and opening catena,47 he argues that Jesus did not in any sense become Son at his exaltation. Bauckham treats “Son” as a zero-sum game: “The divine Son in Hebrews is Son of God from all eternity as well as to all eternity: sonship is the eternal truth of his very being, not simply a role or status given him by God at some point.”48 However, “not simply” is not the only way we might link Jesus being eternal Son and being appointed Son “at some point.” In keeping with this zero-sum assumption, Bauckham takes Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5 to be spoken not at the exaltation but in the eternal depths of the divine being: “The ‘today’ of ‘Today I have begotten you’ would be the eternal today of the divine eternity.”49 44

Richard Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North, JSNTSup 263 (London: T&T Clark, 2004): 167-85; Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 15-36. 45 Bauckham, “Divinity,” 18. 46 Bauckham, “Divinity,” 18-19. 47 Bauckham, “Divinity,” 20, 25. 48 Bauckham, “Divinity,” 21. 49 Bauckham, “Divinity,” 34; similarly Knut Backhaus, Der Hebräerbrief, RNT (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009), 96; Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer, vol. 1, Hebr 1–6, EKKNT 17 (Zurich: Benziger, 1990), 1:75. Matthew Bates takes 1:5 to be spoken “at or prior to the incarnation,” and to

16

The Paradox of Sonship

However, there are other scholars who affirm Jesus’ fully divine identity in Hebrews and yet see 1:5 as spoken at his exaltation. For instance, Aquila Lee understands “today” in 1:5 as “the day when Jesus was vested with his royal dignity as Son of God, the occasion of his exaltation and enthronement.”50 Yet he also writes, “Assigning the moment of becoming Son to Christ’s exaltation seems to fit in well with the original function of the scriptural catena and the emphasis on the exaltation motif of the letter, but this view has also difficulty with later passages which speak of Jesus as the Son during his earthly life.”51 For Lee, “today I have begotten you” is spoken to Jesus at his enthronement, but this does not mean that Jesus became Son at that point, since he was Son already. After Lee affirms that Jesus is acclaimed as God’s Son at his exaltation, he immediately qualifies this: “However, it needs to be emphasized that this solution does not undermine Jesus’ eternal sonship at all. On the contrary, it indicates that the precise relationship of Jesus’ exaltation and his divine sonship is that of a confirmation of his existing position and status, rather than a conferral of a new status.”52 For Lee, since Jesus is Son, he cannot become Son. Lee defines his position over against those who “have maintained that, while the term ‘Son’ is applied to Jesus at the point of his exaltation, it is used proleptically in other contexts.”53 If Jesus became Son at his exaltation, before that the title must necessarily have only applied in a proleptic fashion. This displays the zerosum logic of Lee’s reading.54 Like Lee, Amy Peeler regards the affirmation that Jesus “became Son upon his exaltation” as necessarily entailing that he “was only proleptically designate the begottenness that distinguishes the Son from all creatures. In Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 69, 174, emphasis original. 50 Aquila H. I. Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms, WUNT II, 192 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 275. 51 Lee, From Messiah, 274. 52 Lee, From Messiah, 275-76; followed by Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT II, 223 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 213. 53 Lee, From Messiah, 275. 54 Given that Lee’s understanding of status or position is roughly synonymous with Schenck’s concept of role, the two authors’ arguments are precisely opposite. Yet both presuppose that “Son” must designate only one reality.

Introduction

17

so before this point.”55 Like her diagnosis, Peeler’s prescription also aligns with that of Lee: Granting that God proclaims this name (Heb. 1.5)—the name which makes the Son better than the angels—at Jesus’ exaltation, it remains plausible to interpret this announcement not as the establishment of Jesus’ status as God’s Son but as a restatement of that fact. In this way, these words are a fitting proclamation when one who is already a son inhabits his throne.56

For Peeler, to say that Jesus “inhabits” his throne is to say something new of him, but “Son” is not a status newly conferred. Despite its many virtues, Peeler’s reading leaves no room for a substantive distinction between Son as identity and Son as office.57 Despite their substantial differences, the scholarly approaches surveyed above all treat the title “Son” in Hebrews as finally capable of only one meaning. Given this constraint, the three positions exhaust the range of logical possibilities. Either Jesus became Son at his exaltation, and so his bearing the title or identity of Son before that point is strictly proleptic; or Jesus is eternally the divine Son, and so his becoming Son is simply a restatement or manifestation of what he is already; or Hebrews is fundamentally inconsistent at this point. An alternative: the Son who became Son. However, not all modern scholars share this zero-sum perspective on Jesus’ sonship. For instance, Frank Matera writes, There is an implicit distinction between identity and role in the Son of God Christology in Hebrews. From the point of view of identity, Christ was Son 55

Amy L. B. Peeler, You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, LNTS 486 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 42-43. 56 Peeler, You Are My Son, 44. 57 For other articulations of a Son-already position, see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 54; Sam Janse, “You Are My Son”: The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism and the Early Church, CBET (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 124; John Webster, “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 79, 82, 91-93; C. Kavin Rowe, “The Trinity in the Letters of St Paul and Hebrews,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 47; Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 98, 104. The recent essay of Madison N. Pierce, “Hebrews 1 and the Son Begotten ‘Today,’” in Retrieving Eternal Generation, ed. Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 117-31 offers a particularly nuanced and sophisticated defense of the Son-already position.

18

The Paradox of Sonship

of God. But from the point of view of his role in God’s plan for salvation, he becomes the enthroned Son of God, an eternal high priest, at his exaltation. Moreover, it is as the enthroned Son of God and eternal high priest that he brings his brothers and sisters to perfection.58

Further, Matera endorses the apparent paradox of the Son becoming Son, the Son inheriting the name “Son”: “In other words, although the author will not speak of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God until chapter 2, he is already speaking of Jesus as the exalted Son of God in chapter 1. There is a paradoxical sense, then, in which the preexistent Son inherits the name ‘Son.’”59 D. A. Carson argues the same basic stance, though a touch less explicitly. For Carson, because of the way Hebrews’ prologue ascribes divine acts to the Son, its sonship language cannot be restricted to a strictly Davidic-messianic horizon. The writer to the Hebrews, in other words, is prepared to link, within his first chapter, Jesus’ sonship in the Davidic, messianic sense, with his sonship in the sense of his thoroughly divine status, embracing his preexistence and his oneness with God in creation.60

For Carson, “Son” in Hebrews explicitly designates both Jesus’ “thoroughly divine status” and the messianic rule to which he attains. That Carson has no problem with the Son becoming Son seems evident when he writes that Psalm 2:7 “finds its ‘today’ in the resurrection of Jesus and the dawning of his kingdom.”61 Finally, among modern scholars I have read, Moises Silva most pointedly expresses Hebrews’ apparently paradoxical, too infrequently noted use of “Son” to describe both who Jesus is and what he becomes. In an article that addresses the problem of Hebrews’ language of perfection, Silva writes, The solution proposed in this article finds its theological basis in the statement at Hebrews 1:4, where we are told that God’s Son has inherited a name superior to that of the angels. But when we ask what is the name that this Son has inherited, the answer is, oddly enough, Son again (verses 5ff.). It is, I think, 58

Frank J. Matera, New Testament Christology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 199. Frank J. Matera, New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 339. 60 D. A. Carson, Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed (Nottingham: IVP, 2012), 59, emphasis original. 61 Carson, Jesus, 62. 59

Introduction

19

surprising that very little has been made in the past of the apparent fact that the author uses the word Son in two different senses in these verses. In verse 2 it indicates what Jesus is, and always has been, by divine nature; in verses 4ff. it is the Messianic title He receives in connection with some type of change in his human nature. Surely this temporal distinction—that after completing his work Jesus became something he was not before—accords naturally with the context: the participle γενόμενος (rather than ὤν) is used in verse 4 and the Father is quoted as addressing to Him the words, ‘Today I have begotten you’ (verse 5). Some commentators in the past have ignored the problem altogether; others have simply asserted that verse four does not affect the truth of Jesus’ eternal sonship, but they fail to explain adequately in what sense the name was inherited at the resurrection; still others have resorted to the questionable expedient that verse 4 refers merely to a divine declaration of what in fact has always been true.62

I cite Silva at length because, first, he articulates precisely the solution to this puzzle that I will elaborate throughout the book. Second, it is noteworthy that incarnational concepts enable Silva to judge Hebrews’ twofold use of “Son” coherent. Silva can only make sense of Jesus both being Son and becoming Son by reading Hebrews as an incarnational narrative in which the divine Son lives a human life, achieves his people’s salvation, and as a consequence of all this becomes something he was not before. Many modern scholars balk at ascribing a divine nature to Jesus; many also balk at Hebrews’ apparently incoherent twofold use of “Son.” This is no coincidence. In order to read Hebrews’ narrative Christology coherently it is essential to recognize its fully incarnational logic. We can say coherently that the Son became Son only by saying that God became a man.63 62

Moises Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” WTJ 39 (1976): 62-63. Silva’s solution is also noted by Small, Characterization, 180. 63 Cf. Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 181, comments on the “becoming” (γενόμενος, genomenos) of 1:4 in light of the divine acclamations in 1:3, Why should a figure of such ontological glory as this require to be spoken of in terms of process? The answer lies in the incarnational narrative that will be developed in subsequent chapters and that, as Moffitt rightly notes, represents the climactic resolution of the angelic contrast developed in chapters 1 and 2. The Son was “made a little lower than the angels,” a designation that locates him in the place of humanity. It is this second element of his ontological narrative—the addition of humanity to his being—that is the explanation for the occurrence of γενόμενος in 1:4. It reflects an incarnational narrative of humiliation and exaltation, similar to that found in Philippians 2.

20

The Paradox of Sonship

As far as I am aware, no modern author has offered a full-dress defense of the thesis that in Hebrews Jesus is the Son who became Son. Yet these three, and a few others like them, articulate in brief what I will develop at length.64 They have perceived something essential to Hebrews’ entire argument, and that essential something merits patient attention. Preview Our final preliminary to put in place is a preview of the book’s argument. In chapter one I will introduce six classical christological concepts and strategies of reading and predication that I will employ throughout the book. In the whole book I attempt to demonstrate that this classical christological toolkit enables us to read with the grain of Hebrews’ narrative Christology, to say about the Son all that Hebrews says about the Son and, ultimately, to perceive something of why Hebrews asserts that the Son became Son. In chapter two I will argue that Hebrews uses “Son” as a divine designation, more specifically, to designate Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence. “Son” indicates that Jesus both is God and is distinct from the Father and, implicitly, the Spirit. In chapter three I will narrate (most of) the Son’s incarnate mission according to Hebrews, from his entrance into human life to his death, resurrection, and 64

See also Andrew T. Lincoln, Hebrews: A Guide (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 89 (though without using messianic categories); Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 381, 393; Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, BTCP (Nashville: B&H, 2015), 61, 450, 454, 473. George Guthrie’s position is close to mine, since he affirms Jesus’ divine sonship and sees 1:5 as expressing “Jesus’ induction into his royal position as king of the universe at the resurrection and exaltation.” Yet he continues, somewhat in the vein of Peeler, “God becoming the Son’s father, then, refers to God’s open expression of their relationship upon Christ’s enthronement.” See George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 927-28. William Loader’s monograph Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, WMANT 53 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), which is valuable in many respects, might also be said to anticipate my view in that he takes “Son” in Hebrews to indicate both Jesus’ eternal divine existence and the messianic rule to which he attains at his exaltation (12-13, 117n26). For instance: “While in 1:2 the Son is appointed heir, in 1:4 sonship is precisely what Jesus inherits! This latter idea of sonship has arisen from another conceptual realm” (67-68). Nevertheless, Loader argues that some of the tension between these two categories is resolved when we recognize that the author’s primary concern is the present status and role of Christ, not the past event of his appointment (118). He also argues that some of the difficulties arise from the incarnation itself (141). In the end, Loader argues for a “tradition-historical” solution to the problem of Hebrews’ seemingly dual conception of Jesus’ sonship (252), but it is not entirely clear to me how Loader’s proposed tradition-historical reconstruction solves the apparent problem.

Introduction

21

entrance to heaven. I will argue that Hebrews not only characterizes Jesus as fully divine and fully human, but that it manifests a narrative incarnational logic, in two senses. First, incarnation names the Son’s entrance into human life. Second, what some scholars take to be fissures in Hebrews’ Christology are in fact deliberately plotted points of development, of tension and resolution. The Son not only had to become human, he had to be perfected through sufferings, pass through death into indestructible life, and thereby become his people’s source of salvation. In chapter four I will argue that Jesus was appointed messianic Son at his enthronement in heaven. Hence my second thesis is this: “Son” designates the office of messianic rule to which Jesus is appointed at his exaltation. Hence also chapter four follows chapter three because Jesus can only be appointed Son once he has achieved his people’s salvation. Priestly sacrifice precedes kingly session; Jesus accomplishes salvation before he rests on the throne. It is not simply within his incarnate mission but at the telos of this mission that the Son became Son. In chapter five I will argue the third thesis, that Jesus can only become the messianic Son because he is the divine Son incarnate. Jesus’ divinity is a necessary though not sufficient condition for his exercise of messianic rule. For Hebrews, “Messiah” is a theandric office; only the God-man can fill it. Finally, the conclusion will synthesize, extend, and apply the book’s findings. Specifically, I will briefly compare Hebrews’ Christology to that of Chalcedon, suggest that Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4 also use one title in both a divine and a messianic sense, and reflect on the role of Christ’s person in Hebrews’ pastoral program.



one

A Classical Christological Toolkit

I

recently installed a protective, retractable gate in the doorway in front of the stairs to our basement. To bore holes for the gate’s wall mounts, I needed to use a two-millimeter drill bit. By chance, I happened to have a bit that size stashed with a few pieces of hardware on a storage shelf. If it were not for that spare bit, I would have had to dig out a full kit of drill bits from underneath half a dozen heavy bins. Sometimes the right tools are near to hand but out of sight. It can take extra work to get at them. Given the narrative, incarnational shape of Hebrews’ Christology and the state of scholarly disagreement over its use of “Son,” in this chapter I propose a new yet old set of tools for the task, a cluster of theological possibilities and exegetical strategies borrowed from classical christological writings of the church fathers. My use of these tools does not presuppose that these writers got everything right. Nor will my argument proceed on the assumption that their conclusions are essentially correct. Instead, this chapter will provisionally show how each classical concept and reading strategy fits the text of Hebrews. And I will argue that each helps us to read with the grain of the text and to say coherently all that Hebrews says about who Jesus is. As we saw in the introduction, scholarly conversation on Jesus’ sonship in Hebrews is not at a total impasse; some find ways to affirm that Jesus both is Son and becomes Son. Nevertheless, the three zero-sum approaches surveyed in the introduction can fairly be described as dominant. Given the relative precedence of these approaches and the prevalence of the presupposed zerosum perspective, it may prove helpful to bring a more theologically calibrated

24

The Paradox of Sonship

set of tools to the exegetical task. I draw these tools from writers who shaped, refined, and reflect the church’s orthodox conciliar tradition—in brief, classical patristic Christology and its later tradents such as John of Damascus and Thomas Aquinas. Six Classical Christological Concepts and Reading Strategies This chapter will introduce six distinctions, concepts, and reading strategies that I will use as heuristic tools with which to engage Hebrews and its modern interpreters. The first three are christologically unique answers to basic questions: who, what, and when? The second three are strategies of reading and predication that seek to account for the paradoxical fullness of what a text like Hebrews says about Jesus. For each tool, I will show how it responds to some kind of pressure from Hebrews itself, whether from a particular assertion or from its portrait of Jesus as a whole.1 Much of what this chapter asserts will necessarily precede its full exegetical justification in chapters to follow. At this stage I am simply attempting to show enough of a fit between the tools and the text to warrant bringing them into the operating room. Further, this chapter will show how each tool is employed by classical interpreters, often in their exegesis of Hebrews itself. After discussing these six tools, the following section will clarify how I understand the relationship between Hebrews’ Christology and that of the church’s ecumenical creeds, a topic to which we return in the conclusion.2 Finally, I will both answer modern critics and critique what I am calling classics. That is, I will provisionally answer objections to my use of these tools as resources for reading Hebrews, and I will discuss the two primary respects in which I hope to improve upon these classical readings. 1

For pressure in this sense, see C. Kavin Rowe, “Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics,” Pro Ecclesia 11 (2002): 295-312. 2 Here and throughout, I use the term conciliar Christology to refer to the sum total of the teachings of the first seven ecumenical councils of the church regarding the person of Christ, as does, for instance, Timothy Pawl, In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay, Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 1. I should note, however, that I nowhere draw on distinctive judgments of the Second Council of Nicaea, 787. By classical Christology I mean teaching about Christ that stands in substantial continuity or harmony with conciliar Christology, though it may lack later terminological consistency and conceptual clarifications, or, in the case of Aquinas in particular, may develop conceptual or linguistic refinements beyond those of the conciliar documents.

A Classical Christological Toolkit

25

1. Who? A single divine subject. As when we meet anyone, the first question we tend to ask on encountering Jesus naturally is, Who is he? And the answer that conciliar Christology gives, and that I will argue the text of Hebrews gives, is God the Son. Whether we are talking about the Son’s divine activity of creating and sustaining all things (Heb 1:2-3, 10) or his human acts of speaking (2:3), suffering (2:18), dying (2:14), and so on, we are speaking of a single divine subject. The divine Son is Son eternally, and he remains Son when he takes on flesh and blood (2:14-15); else it would not be he—that is, the Son—who becomes incarnate. The leading, though by no means only, witness in Hebrews to this identification of a single divine subject is the prologue. In 1:2-4, the author of Hebrews describes the Son with a series of seven relative and participial clauses (ὅν . . . διʼ οὗ . . . ὅς [hon . . . di hou . . . hos], and so on) that range from the distinctively divine to the necessarily human.3 In these clauses the Son’s agency varies from passive recipient (“whom he [God] appointed,” 1:2), to instrumental co-agent (“through whom also he created,” 1:2), to activevoice agent (“he upholds . . . he sat down,” 1:3), to middle-voice “undergoer” (γενόμενος [genomenos], “becoming,” 1:4). Yet it is the same Son who acts and undergoes and is acted upon. It is one and the same Son who made all things, sustains all things, made purification for sins, and sat down at God’s right hand. The unfathomably different types of activity entailed in creating all things and placing one’s body on a throne are performed by the selfsame subject: the Son.4 We have now briefly measured the pressure Hebrews puts on its readers to speak of Jesus as not just a single acting subject but as a single divine subject. Classical Christology responds to this pressure by confessing, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 381, often simply called the “Nicene Creed”), that there is “one Lord Jesus Christ” who is not only “begotten from 3

For a synopsis of the seven clauses see chapter two. Richard Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North, JSNTSup 263 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 184; “The text clearly speaks of the same person, the Son, as both the agent of creation and the Jesus Christ who took his seat at the right hand of God.” As Small puts it, “Jesus’ actions extend from his pre-earthly existence to his post-earthly existence.” Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BIS 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 205.

4

26

The Paradox of Sonship

the Father before all the ages” and the one “through whom all things came to be,” but also “for us humans and for our salvation . . . came down . . . and became incarnate.” This same one “suffered and was buried and rose up on the third day . . . and he went up into the heavens and is seated at the Father’s right hand.”5 In avowed continuity with this Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon confesses “one and the same [ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν, hena kai ton auton] Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same [τὸν αὐτόν, ton auton] perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man.”6 The single subjectivity of Jesus Christ is one of the prime factors in the entire classical tradition of Christology.7 Cyril of Alexandria in particular made the unity of Christ a keynote of his entire theology and, endorsing Cyril’s point, the Chalcedonian Definition confesses “one and the same Son.”8 This insistence on Christ as a single divine subject has deep roots and wide branches in classical Christology. Irenaeus, for instance, counsels that “we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same,” and asserts that the prophets announced “one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ.”9 Gregory of Nazianzus insists that “we affirm and teach one and the same God and Son, at first not man . . . but finally human being too, assumed for our salvation.”10 5

Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Nicaea I to Lateran V (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990), 24. 6 Tanner, Decrees, 86. 7 For a historical and dogmatic account of conciliar Christology that treats the divine unity of Christ as fundamental, see Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), esp. part one. My understanding of Christology owes much to Riches’s account, though I demur from many of the conclusions of his final chapters. 8 See especially Cyril’s second and third letters to Nestorius, and his first and second letters to Succensus in, e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, trans. Lionel R. Wickham, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 2-33, 70-93; also On the Unity of Christ, trans. John Anthony McGuckin, Popular Patristics 13 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995). On the dogmatic dependence of Chalcedon on Cyril see, e.g., Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, trans., The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, TTH 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 6575; Riches, Ecce Homo, 56. For instructive studies of Cyril’s Christology see John Anthony McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), esp. 175-226; and Thomas G. Weinandy, “Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation,” in The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria, ed. Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 23-54. 9 Against Heresies 3.16.2-3 (ANF 1:441). 10 Ep. 101.4, translation from Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Frederick Williams and Lionel R. Wickham, Popular Patristics 23 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 156. See also Or. 29.19; 37.2; 38.13; Ep. 102.4.

A Classical Christological Toolkit

27

And John of Damascus summarizes the conciliar consensus: “And so, we confess that even after the incarnation he is the one Son of God, and we confess that the same is the Son of Man, one Christ, one Lord, the onlybegotten Son and Word of God, Jesus our Lord.”11 This conviction that Christ is a single divine subject frequently proves crucial in patristic readings of Hebrews. For instance, Athanasius argues that “he did not become other than himself on taking the flesh.” This same one who created all things “afterwards was made high priest, by putting on a body which was originate and made.” These observations serve Athanasius’s exegesis of Hebrews 3:1-2 in the context of 2:14-18: And this meaning, and time, and character, the apostle himself, the writer of the words, “Who is faithful to him that made him,” will best make plain to us, if we attend to what goes before them. For there is one train of thought, and the passage is all about one and the same [μία γὰρ ἀκολουθία ἐστί, καὶ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀνάγνωμα τυγχάνει, mia gar akolouthia esti, kai peri tou autou to anagnōma tunchanei].12

The linchpin of Athanasius’s incarnational reading of the time when and means by which Jesus became priest is the fact that the phrase “he was faithful to him who made him” (Heb 3:2, my translation) is spoken of the same one who was just said to have taken on human nature. For Athanasius, classical Christology more broadly, and the reading I will pursue in this work, that Jesus is a single subject who is none other than God the Son is crucial to perceiving the narrative continuity of Hebrews’ Christology. What Chesterton said of tragedy is equally true of the protagonist of Hebrews’ drama: “The basis of all tragedy is that man lives a coherent and continuous life. It is only a worm that you can cut in two and leave the severed parts still alive.”13 2. What? One person with two natures. It is also natural to ask of Hebrews’ Jesus, What is he? 11

The Orthodox Faith 3.7; see also 3.8. Translation from John of Damascus, Writings, trans. Frederick H. Chase, Jr., FC 37 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958), 282-83. 12 C. Ar. 2.8.4. English translation from NPNF2 4:352, lightly altered. Greek text from Athanasius Werke: Die Dogmatischen Schriften, ed. Martin Tetz, I.1., Lfg. 2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 185. 13 G. K. Chesterton, Brave New Family: G. K. Chesterton on Men & Women, Children, Sex, Divorce, Marriage & The Family, ed. Alvaro de Silva (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 124.

28

The Paradox of Sonship

As our narrative sketch above makes clear, Jesus is certainly human, and he is also more than human. As I have suggested above and will argue in chapter two, what he possesses that is more than human is divine in the fullest sense of the word. Richard Bauckham, for instance, concludes that Hebrews affirms “both the divinity and the humanity of Jesus.” He continues, “That phrase, patristic-sounding though it is, seems fully justified by the systematic way in which the first two chapters of Hebrews depict the divine identity of Jesus in distinction from the angels and his identification with humanity in distinction from the angels.”14 And again, “Hebrews portrays Jesus as both truly God and truly human, like his Father in every respect and like humans in every respect.”15 This use of nature to describe Jesus as divine and human does not necessarily carry heavy metaphysical baggage. In fact, as David Yeago argues, even those who in the sixth century refined the Chalcedonian legacy did not use terms equivalent to person and nature as tools of metaphysical speculation. Instead, The christological problem . . . is rightly understood not as a metaphysical puzzle about how the divine and the human might be one, but as the more modest problem of explicating coherently what the Bible and the liturgy say about Jesus. It is said of this single subject that he created the world and died on a cross, that he healed by a word of command and hungered, thirsted, and grew weary. What’s going on here? What shall we make of this? How shall we explicate this language?16 14

Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology,” 172-73. Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 18. Cf. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), “Chalcedon cannot simply be read off the pages of Hebrews, but the Chalcedonian understanding of the two natures in Christ can certainly be found in Hebrews.” Also Knut Backhaus, “Per Christum in Deum: Zur theozentrischen Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbrief,” in Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief, WUNT I, 240 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 62; “It is beyond question that this polar Christology is heading down the road to the vere Deus/vere homo Christology of the Chalcedonian Definition.” Similarly David M. Moffitt, “The Role of Jesus’ Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Once Again: A Brief Response to Jean-René Moret,” NTS 62 (2016): 310; “Thus, while the author knows that Jesus was a mortal human being who really suffered and really died, he also assumes that the divine Son of God is eternal and that the human being Jesus is that Son. He does not move beyond these assumptions into a systematic explanation of how they relate to each other.” Finally, Pamela Eisenbaum, “Hebrews,” in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 409, states, “For Hebrews, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine.” 16 David S. Yeago, “Jesus of Nazareth and Cosmic Redemption: The Relevance of St. Maximus the Confessor,” Modern Theology 12 (1996): 167. 15

A Classical Christological Toolkit

29

Therefore, I would suggest that the distinction between ousia/physis and hupostasis/ prosopon, which is central to the Neo-Chalcedonian Christology, is at bottom a simple, commonsensical distinction, grounded in observation of the way we talk in ordinary language. We talk about things in two different registers, the register of ousia and the register of hupostasis, which might be described roughly as providing answers to the questions, ‘What?’ and ‘Who?’ or ‘Which one?’ respectively. The distinction of these two registers provides the NeoChalcedonians with a heuristic axis along which to order and explicate and coordinate the Church’s scriptural-liturgical discourse about Jesus Christ: some kinds of things are appropriately said when we are talking about who Jesus Christ is, when we are speaking kath’ hupostasin, other kinds of things are appropriately said when we are talking about what Jesus Christ is, when we are speaking kat’ ousian. The fact that extremely complex analyses can be developed from this simple starting point does not tell against its basic formal-grammatical character.17

Hence, when I use terms such as person or nature, I intend them in the metaphysically modest sense described by Yeago. When I argue in chapter two that Jesus is a single divine person, God the Son incarnate, I refer to “the single ascriptive subject”18 whose career Hebrews narrates, answering the question, “Who is Jesus?” When I argue in chapter three that the pressure of Hebrews requires us, ultimately, to say that Jesus possesses both a divine and a human nature, I answer the question “What is he?”19 3. When? Eternal divine existence and incarnation in time, in the last times. A third simple question to which Hebrews offers christologically 17

Yeago, “Jesus of Nazareth,” 167-68. What Yeago says of so-called Neo-Chalcedonianism also holds, a fortiori, for earlier, less technical uses of these and related terms. See Yeago, “Jesus of Nazareth,” 170-72 for an illustration of Yeago’s point in the way Maximus the Confessor deploys “this grammar of sameness and otherness in the interplay of the registers of ousia and hupostasis” (171). 18 Yeago, “Jesus of Nazareth,” 166. 19 Cf. Thomas Aquinas, ST IIIa.2.1corp, “Here, therefore, we are discussing nature as meaning essence, or that ‘what-it-is’ or ‘whatness’ of a species.” In Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ: The Incarnate Word (3a. 1–6), ed. R. J. Hennessey, vol. 48 (London: Blackfriars, in conjunction with Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1976), 37. See also the section heading Leontius of Jerusalem offers for a discussion of Christ’s two natures: “What is Christ, whom we are to adore?” (Τί ἐστὶ Χριστὸς ὁ προσκυνητὸς ἡμῖν, Ti esti Christos ho poskynētos hēmin). In Against the Monophysites; Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae, trans. and ed. Patrick T. R. Gray, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 62-63.

30

The Paradox of Sonship

unique answers is, When? When we refer to the Son’s being and actions announced by Hebrews, when are we talking about? If Hebrews acclaims the Son as Creator of the cosmos, then he exists independently of all created reality. In response to pressure from passages such as 1:2, 1:3, and 1:10-12, as the exegesis of chapter two will demonstrate, we are warranted in ascribing to the Son an existence that is eternal in the proper sense of the term. Yet this same agent lived and died on earth at a particular time, in recent enough memory that the author and his audience heard Jesus’ message from those who heard it from him (2:3). Thus a coherent exegesis of Hebrews requires us to distinguish, without dividing, the Son’s existence in eternity from his incarnation in time. Hebrews says that the Son became incarnate not just in time but specifically “in these last times” (ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων [ep’ eschatou tōn hēmerōn toutōn], 1:2; cf. 9:26). In virtually the same terms the Chalcedonian Definition affirms that “in the last days” (ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν, ep’ eschatou de tōn hēmerōn), the Son was begotten of Mary for our salvation.20 The echo of Hebrews 1:2 is unmistakable. Further, this distinction between the Son’s eternal existence and his eschatological appearance on earth does much interpretive work within classical Christology, as we will see in this section and the next. For instance, Ignatius of Antioch heralds “Jesus Christ, who before the ages was with the Father and appeared at the end of time.”21 Similarly, Athanasius affirms that Jesus’ being “highly exalted” in Philippians 2:9 “is not said before the Word became flesh,” since he is exalted as a man. Then, commenting on Hebrews 9:24, Athanasius underscores the verse’s soteriological rationale and temporal setting in Christ’s incarnate life: “But if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though he was even before and always Lord and framer of the heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation written.”22 Finally, he comments on Hebrews’ prologue, It appears then that the Apostle’s words make mention of that time, when God spoke unto us by his Son, and when a purging of sins took place. Now when did 20

Tanner, Decrees, 86. ʼΙησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ πατρὶ ἦν καὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη (Iēsou Christou, hos pro aiōnōn para patri ēn kai en telei ephanē, Ign. Magn. 6.1). In Michael W. Holmes, trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 206-7. 22 C. Ar. 1.41.4 (NPNF2 4:330). 21

A Classical Christological Toolkit

31

he speak unto us by his Son, and when did purging of sins take place? and when did he become man? when, but subsequently to the prophets in the last days?23

Further, Cyril of Alexandria’s exegesis of Hebrews’ prologue also evidences this eschatologically specific “when.” For instance, on 1:2, “For the Word from God the Father, who has been begotten before every age and time, is said to have been born of woman in a physical manner ‘in these last days.’”24 And again, on 1:3-4 he says, Therefore we have been cleansed by the holy blood of Christ, the savior of us all, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the majesty on high. But when? When he made purification through his blood, then he is said to sit, to have become superior to angels, to inherit the name that is more excellent than theirs.25

In the course of this book I will sometimes argue for a different “when” than that offered by classical commentators—for instance, regarding the timing of Christ’s appointment to high priesthood. Nevertheless, I will gratefully employ the distinction they make—often more clearly than modern scholars—between the Son’s eternal existence and pre-incarnate divine activity on the one hand, and his incarnate life in time on the other.26 4. Theology and economy, or “partitive exegesis.” We now set on the workbench a tool that synthesizes the previous three topics, especially the third, and draws out their implications: the distinction between theology and economy. The distinction this shorthand encapsulates is widespread in classical Christology and programmatic for its biblical exegesis. 23

C. Ar. 1.55.3. Cf. also 2.8.4, discussed above; Ep. Serap. 2.7.3-4. All translations of Cyril’s fragmentary commentary on Hebrews are my own. See Cyril of Alexandria, “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Commentariorum in Epistolam Ad Hebraeos Fragmenta Quot Reperiri Protuerunt,” in Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 3:366-67. For convenience I will refer to this edition of Cyril’s commentary simply as “Hebrews.” 25 Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:369. 26 For other representative discussions see, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 4.3, contrasting the Son’s activity in creation with his incarnation (GNO 2:70; NPNF2 5:158); Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29.19; 38.3; Ep. 101.4; 102.4; John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith 3.7; 4.5; 4.18; Thomas Aquinas, ST IIIa.2.6.ad2; IIIa.2.7.sc. For instance, John of Damascus offers one useful schema when he writes, “The things that are said about Christ fall into four general classes, for, while some apply to him before the Incarnation, others do in the union, others after the union, and still others after the resurrection” (The Orthodox Faith 4.18; FC 37:376). Further, “Now the things said of him before the union may also be said of him after the union, but those after the union may by no means be said of him before the union, unless, indeed, it be by way of prophecy” (The Orthodox Faith 4.18; FC 37:378). 24

32

The Paradox of Sonship

Prompted in part by Eph 1:10, in early Christianity the term economy (οἰκονομία, oikonomia) quickly came to designate God’s plan of salvation.27 As Michel Barnes writes, “Since the specific means used by God for human salvation was the incarnation of his Son, oeconomia often came to mean in certain contexts ‘the incarnation.’”28 Accordingly, exponents of classical Christology frequently use economy to denote the incarnation itself.29 This habit gave rise to a distinction between theology and economy, according to which certain biblical passages ascribe divinity to Christ—they “theologize” him30—while other passages designate Christ as incarnate and describe what pertains to his incarnate state. Consider the following passage from Gregory of Nazianzus: In sum: you must predicate the more sublime expressions of the Godhead, of the nature which transcends bodily experiences, and the lowlier ones of the 27

For a useful overview of early Christian uses of οἰκονομία and its Latin equivalents, not all of which are discussed here, see Michel R. Barnes, “Oeconomia,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson, Michael P. McHugh, and Frederick W. Norris (New York: Garland, 1997), 2:825-27. 28 For the earliest post-New Testament use of the term in this sense, including a focus on the incarnation, see Ignatius of Antioch, Ign. Eph. 18.2, “For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan [κατʼ οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ, kat’ oikonomian theou]”; also Ign. Eph. 20.1, “I will further explain to you . . . the divine plan with respect to the new man Jesus Christ [οἰκονομίας εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, oikonomias eis ton kainon anthrōpon Iēsoun Christon].” In Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 196-97, 198-99. For similar early uses of the term, see Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10.1-3 (ANF 1:330-32); Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 120.1 (ANF 1:259-60); Tertullian, Against Praxeas 2 (ANF 3:598). 29 They therefore use the term interchangeably with ἐνσάρκωσις (ensarkōsis), ἐνανθρώπησις (enanthrōpēsis), and the like. For economy in this sense, see, e.g., Athanasius, Decr. 1.5; 25.3; C. Ar. 1.55.4, 1.64.1; 2.9.2, 2.11.1; Ep. Serap. 2.7.3-4; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 5; 10; 16 (in, e.g., Edward Rochie Hardy and Cyril C. Richardson, eds., Christology of the Later Fathers, LCC 3 (London: SCM, 1954), 275, 288, 294 in all of which οἰκονομία [oikonomia] is rendered “plan”); Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29.18; Basil of Caesarea, Letter 8 (LCL 190:77); and the Chalcedonian Definition (Tanner, Decrees, 84). 30 For this use of the term θεολογεῖν (theologein) in early Christian discourse, see Christoph Markschies, Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology, trans. Wayne Coppins, BMSEC (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 14-15. On page 16, Markschies states that in Ecclesiastical History I.1.7-8 (n.b., Markschies says simply 1.7), Eusebius of Caesarea is the first to programmatically distinguish between theology and economy. Eusebius writes, “My work will begin, as I have said, with the dispensation of the Saviour Christ—which is loftier and greater than human conception—and with a discussion of his divinity [ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὸν Χριστὸν . . . οἰκονομίας τε καὶ θεολογίας, apo tēs kata ton Christon . . . oikonomias te kai theologias]” (NPNF2 1:82; Greek from Perseus). Contra Markschies, however, Eusebius does not distinguish between “ecclesial speech about God” and “speech about the incarnation, life, and salvific death of Jesus,” but rather between Jesus’ divine nature and his incarnation.

A Classical Christological Toolkit

33

compound, of him who because of you was emptied, became incarnate and (to use equally valid language) was “made man.” Then next he was exalted, in order that you might have done with the earthbound carnality of your opinions and might learn to be nobler, to ascend with the Godhead and not linger on in things visible but rise up to spiritual realities, and that you might know what belongs to his nature and what to God’s plan of salvation [τίς μὲν φύσεως λόγος, τίς δὲ λόγος οἰκονομίας, tis men physeōs logos, tis de logos oikonomias].31

Though the opposite term in Gregory’s contrast with economy is not theology but rather “his nature” (that is, Christ’s divine nature), the meaning is the same.32 This distinction observed by Gregory is repeatedly drawn by Athanasius also, though again without contrasting the terms theology and economy. For instance, he writes, Now the scope and character of the Scripture, as we have often said, is this— that there is in it a double account concerning the Savior: that he was ever God, and is the Son, being the Word and Radiance and Wisdom of the Father; and that afterwards [ὕστερον, hysteron], taking flesh from the Virgin, Mary the God-bearer, he became man.33

Athanasius’s manner of identifying certain scriptural assertions as referring to the Son’s eternal divine existence and others as describing what he became in the incarnation, common to pro-Nicene exegesis of the fourth century

31

Oration 29.18 (cf. 30.1), in On God and Christ, 86. Greek text from SC 250:216. Citing this passage, Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 332, comments, “His clear articulation of the principle that scriptural material may be attributed either to the pre-incarnate Word or to the incarnate Word is frequently noted.” Cf. Christopher A. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God: In Your Light We Shall See Light, OSHT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 133, “Gregory’s rule of interpretation is as much a definition of the unity and unchanging identity of the Son of God in his eternal and incarnate states as it is a distinction between those states, in keeping with his narrative statements of the divine economy.” See further Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus, 194-201 on theology and economy in Gregory Nazianzen. 33 C. Ar. 3.29.1-2. English translation in John Behr, The Nicene Faith: Part One; True God of True God, The Formation of Christian Theology 2 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 211. For the Greek see Athanasius Werke: Die Dogmatischen Schriften, ed. Martin Tetz and Dietmar Wyrwa, I.1., Lfg. 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 340. Thomas Graumann comments on this passage, “There is now a wide consensus that the passage . . . marks the linchpin around which Athanasius’ scriptural interpretation revolves.” Thomas Graumann, “The Bible in Doctrinal Development and Christian Councils,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to 600, ed. James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 807n20. 32

34

The Paradox of Sonship

and after, is given the useful tag “partitive exegesis” by John Behr.34 Following Athanasius, Cyril programmatically distinguishes between passages that pertain to theology and to the economy: Therefore at each time and for each subject matter let that which is fitting be maintained. On the one hand, let the discourse of theology [τῆς θεολογίας ὁ λόγος, tēs theologias ho logos] be meditated upon, not at all as having to do with those [passages] in which he appears speaking as a man, but as having to do with the fact that he is from the Father, as Son and as God. On the other hand, it is to be ascribed to the economy with the flesh [τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τῇ μετὰ σαρκός, tē oikonomia tē meta sarkos] when he now and then says something that is not fitting to the bare divinity considered in itself. Therefore when he, as a man, says that he is not good in the way that the Father is good (cf. Matt 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19), this should be referred rather to the economy with the flesh, and should have nothing to do with the substance of God the Son.35

As Matthew Crawford observes, in this passage the theology-economy distinction “functions primarily as a sort of exegetical rule, providing a way of distinguishing between those passages which speak of Christ as God and those that refer to him only by virtue of his assumption of flesh.”36 Further, as we will see in more detail in chapter two, Cyril points out that passages 34

Behr, Nicene Faith: Part One, 210, 213. Behr’s entire study of “Exegesis, Economy, and Theology” in Athanasius’s anti-“Arian” writings repays careful reading (208-15). For instance, “The two ‘aspects’ of Christ presented in the double account of Scripture, as discerned by a partitive exegesis, correspond to who Christ is and what he has done, theology and economy, rather than to an unqualified ‘two nature Christology’ (i.e., one which does not, as Chalcedon was later to do, apply both natures to one and the same subject)” (213, emphasis original). And again, “Athanasius, on the other hand, by distinguishing what is spoken of Christ as he is from what belongs to what he has done, the economy, can maintain that the abiding, timeless, subject of theological reflection is Jesus Christ, who has himself acted in time for us” (213-14). See also Behr’s initial discussion of pro-Nicene partitive exegesis (14), as well as Athanasius’s other statements of the hermeneutical principle in Ep. Serap. 2.8.1, 3 and C. Ar. 1.41.1-4. 35 Thesaurus 10 (PG 75:121). Translation and Greek text from Matthew R. Crawford, Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 13. 36 Crawford, Cyril, 14. For discussion of Cyril’s other explicit theology/economy pairing, and his broader use of the distinction it describes, see Crawford, Cyril, 13-17. For instances in other writers where this pairing performs the same function, see Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius 2.3. Translation in Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, trans. Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, FC 122 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 134; Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 38.8; translation in Brian E. Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus, ECF (London: Routledge, 2006), 120, 226n376.

A Classical Christological Toolkit

35

of both types are predicated of the single incarnate Christ. That is, some passages predicate divinity and divine prerogatives of the human Jesus.37 Armed with this distinction embedded in the term economy, Athanasius argues that in asserting the Son’s superiority to angels in Hebrews 1:4, the author does not compare “the essence of the Word to things originate,” but speaks instead of “the Word’s visitation in the flesh, and the economy which he then sustained.”38 And again, concerning Christ’s faithfulness to the one who “made” him in Hebrews 3:2, Athanasius writes, “Wherefore Paul was writing concerning the Word’s human economy . . . and not concerning his essence,” that is, his divine nature.39 Cyril, commenting on “whom he appointed the heir of all things” in Hebrews 1:2, argues, “Therefore, if he should be said to receive, and to have been appointed heir because of his humanity, we will not be ignorant of the economy. For how did he ever become poor, except in becoming like us, that is, a man, while remaining God?”40 As God, the Son lacks nothing and so receives nothing. The Son being given all things as heir is fitting because, and only because, he became a man in the economy. Further, commenting on Hebrews 1:3, Cyril writes, For the Word has become flesh, and yet he is the Word and the radiance of the glory of the Father and the exact representation of his being. He does not enact the economy with the flesh by means of his own nature, in order that I can speak thus with reference to his afflictions; for he endured “the cross, despising the shame” (Heb 12:2) and dishonor and insults and being spat on.41

Cyril can speak, as Hebrews speaks, of the one who is the radiance of God enduring afflictions and insults only by virtue of his incarnate economy. 37

See, e.g., Against Bishops of Oriens, anathema 4: Some seem appropriate to divinity; others match more closely to the incarnate state. It is, however, because he is one and the same individual, at the same time both God and man, that he quite rightly says things that may be divine or may be human. But the real point is that both types must be predicated of the single Jesus Christ. Translation from Cyril of Alexandria, Three Christological Treatises, trans. Daniel King, FC 129 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 148. 38 C. Ar. 1.59 (NPNF2 4:340); cf. 1.61. For similar reasoning, though without the term economy, see Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews 1.3 (hereafter Hebrews); NPNF1 14:368. 39 C. Ar. 2.9 (NPNF2 4:353). 40 Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:366. 41 Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:369. For Cyril’s other uses of economy in this sense in Hebrews, see 3:366, 368-69, 373, 374, 379, 380, 382, 386, 388, 393, 402, 403, 414.

36

The Paradox of Sonship

From the preceding it should be clear that the theology-economy distinction is not exactly that between reflecting on God’s being and reflecting on his activity in the world. Nor does the distinction map precisely onto the contemporary theological distinction between the “immanent” and “economic” Trinity.42 Instead, the distinction between theology and economy allows readers to account both for passages that acclaim Christ as divine and for those that predicate human qualities of him without one clashing with or ruling out the other. Given that the shorthand of theology or economy distinguishes between various textual assertions by what they refer to, its relation to Hebrews’ pressure is somewhat different from that of the other tools. Since it synthesizes the first three, it is warranted to the extent that they are. And it proves its usefulness by allowing one to explicitly make distinctions that are implicit in the text. Sometimes Hebrews speaks of the Son as he is God; sometimes Hebrews speaks of the Son as he has become human. The theology-economy distinction recognizes this difference and invites us to read accordingly. 5. Twofold or reduplicative predication. The distinction between theology and economy clarifies that some biblical passages speak of the Son simply as divine, while others presuppose his incarnate state. A closely complementary reading strategy, which I will call twofold or reduplicative predication, presupposes the Son’s incarnate state and distinguishes between what is true of Christ in virtue of his human nature and what is true of Christ in virtue of his divine nature. While theology and economy distinguish between the scope of different biblical passages or assertions (simply divine or incarnate), twofold predication distinguishes between the incarnate Christ’s divine and human natures as the basis of, or warrant for, particular assertions. Partitive exegesis maintains a conceptual partition between theology and economy, clarifying the target and amplitude of statements that refer to each. Twofold or reduplicative predication treats the 42

Both points made by Crawford, Cyril, 15-16, the former against Frances M. Young, “The ‘Mind’ of Scripture: Theological Readings of the Bible in the Fathers,” IJST 7 (2005): 132. As we saw above, Christoph Markschies describes the theology-economy distinction the same way Young does. Elsewhere, however, Young captures the precise sense of the distinction when she writes, “Cyril’s appeal to Athanasius reflects his mind better: the Alexandrian way was to distinguish the Being or Essence of the Word from what the Word accepted in the ‘Economy,’ that is, the providential saving plan of God worked out in the incarnation.” In Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 44.

A Classical Christological Toolkit

37

same material, sets it, as it were, in two parallel columns, and names the ontological ground for each. Within the text of Hebrews, warrant for this might be drawn from a number of passages. For instance, if “Son” is a divine designation (1:2-3, 8-12), and the Son remains Son in that sense in his incarnate state (5:8), then it stands to reason that what is true of him as divine Son remains true after the incarnation. To support this conclusion, we might point to the present participle (ὤν, ōn) in 1:3: “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” As John P. Meier comments, “Amid this string of discrete past actions, the present stative participle ōn stands out like a metaphysical diamond against the black crepe of narrative.”43 This participial phrase asserts something that is true of the Son both apart from and within his incarnate state. On the other hand, the Son’s “flesh and blood” (2:14), his being “like his brothers in every respect” (2:17), his “loud cries and tears” (5:7), and so on are all truly predicated of him by virtue of his humanity. This twofold predication is a mainstay of classical Christology. For instance, Athanasius comments, When therefore the theologians [i.e., the evangelists] who speak of him say that he ate and drank and was born, know that the body, as body, was born, and was nourished on suitable food; but that he, God the Word united with the body, orders the universe, and through his actions in the body made known that he himself was not a man but God the Word. But these things are said of him, because the body which ate and was born and suffered was no one else’s but the Lord’s; and since he became man, it was right for these things to be said [of him] as concerning man, that he might be shown to have a true, not an unreal, body.44

Athanasius does not assert that Jesus’ body is a separate acting subject alongside the divine Son. Instead, while the Son remains God in his incarnation, 43

John P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 180. Meier writes on the same page, It is high time that we recognize that in a few startling passages in the NT like Heb 1,2-3 and John 1,1-3, the thought of some first-century Christians began, ever so tentatively, to move beyond purely historical modes of conception and narration and to probe the speculative, philosophical implications of their tremendous affirmations about God, Christ, and humanity. 44 On the Incarnation 18. Translation, with parenthetical clarifications, from Behr, Nicene Faith: Part One, 217-18.

38

The Paradox of Sonship

truly human acts and experiences can be predicated of him since he made human nature his own.45 Similarly, Gregory of Nazianzus notes that, in view of biblical assertions about Jesus being perfected (Heb 5:9), learning obedience through suffering (5:8), being high priest (e.g., 8:1), praying for deliverance from death (5:7), and much else, there might well be questions as to his divinity. His response is, “Yes there would, were it not clear to everybody that expressions like these refer to the passible element not to the immutable nature transcending suffering.”46 Like Athanasius, Gregory does not treat Jesus’ humanity as an acting subject distinct from his divinity. Instead, as Christopher Beeley explains, Gregory’s statements that Christ is “twofold” (διπλοῦς, [Oration] 30.8; 38.15) need not mean anything other than what he argues in Oration 29: that in the economy the Son is now “composite” (σύνθετος), and thus can be said to be and do human things on account of the human form that he has assumed (29.18).47

Finally, as one might expect, Thomas Aquinas articulates this principle with notable precision: While, accordingly, no distinction is to be made between the various Predicates attributed to Christ, it is necessary to distinguish the two aspects of the subject which justify the predication. For attributes of the divine nature are predicated of Christ in virtue of his divine nature, while attributes of the human nature are predicated of him in virtue of his human nature.48 45

Rightly Behr, Nicene Faith: Part One, 218 writes, The primary concern for Athanasius is the unity of the one subject, about whom, nevertheless, various things are said in two distinct categories. His point is that, the Word having become man, what happens to the body is properly “said of him”; these things are said of no other, for the body belonged to no one else but the Word. 46 Or. 30.16, in On God and Christ, 107. Chrysostom similarly argues, in view of Hebrews’ prologue, “So also, in the case of Christ, sometimes Paul speaks from the less and sometimes from the better; wishing both to establish the economy, and also to teach about the incorruptible nature.” Hebrews 1.3; NPNF1 14:368. 47 Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus, 143. Beeley’s entire discussion of Gregory’s twofold, single-subject predication is illuminating (140-43). For instance: “If one has a full economic understanding of Christ’s unity, as Gregory does, then there is no trouble in saying that certain things belong to Christ’s humanity as distinct from his divinity, so long as one assumes that the ultimate subject of Christ’s human actions is the eternal Son of God” (143). 48 ST IIIa.16.4corp; for elaboration of this principle see ST IIIa.16.10-12. For a similar discussion see Augustine, The Trinity 1.14. E.g., “The one is to be understood in virtue of the form of God, the other in virtue of the form of a servant, without any confusion.” In Augustine, The Trinity, trans. Edmund Hill, ed. John E. Rotelle (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1991), 77.

A Classical Christological Toolkit

39

As formulated by Thomas this principle is sometimes called a “reduplicative strategy.” When one speaks of Christ as human or as God, the “reduplicative ‘as’ phrase” indicates “the nature by virtue of which the statement is true of the subject.”49 6. Paradoxical predication: the communication of idioms. Our final tool is a linguistic strategy warranted by the preceding five tools combined. If Christ is the divine Son who assumed a human nature, then the seemingly incompatible predicates of divinity and humanity not only can but must be ascribed to him, to the single person of the Son. Hence emerges a strategy of paradoxical predication, often called the communication of idioms (or communicatio idiomatum).50 This strategy takes most striking shape in the practice of naming Christ according to his divine nature and predicating of him what is true only by virtue of his human nature.51 One of the most frequently appealed-to biblical warrants for the practice is 1 Corinthians 2:8, “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (cf. Acts 3:15). While Hebrews does not feature such bracingly paradoxical sentences, I will argue that its whole witness to Jesus warrants them. To get a feel for this final tool it is worth sampling a number of classical examples. Writing early in the second century, Ignatius of Antioch revels in “the blood of God” and “the suffering of my God.”52 Further, “There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering 49

Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt, Thomas Aquinas: Faith, Reason, and Following Christ, CTC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 194-95. See also Sarah Coakley, “Person of Christ,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Summa Theologiae, ed. Philip McCosker and Denys Turner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 233-34. For additional worked examples see Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia 33-34 (in McGuckin, Cyril, 327-31). 50 I use paradoxical in a non-technical sense, as equivalent to “seemingly incompatible.” See, e.g., the discussion of the communicatio idiomatum in Pawl, Defense, 25: It seems as if contradictory predicates will be apt of the same person. Surprisingly, Conciliar Christology owns this entailment. It allows—in fact, requires—that one affirm apparently incompatible predicates of the one Christ. Cf. Coakley, “Person of Christ,” 238, “Paradox is essential to the project, and this too has often seemed impossible (mere ‘incoherence’) from a modern philosophical perspective.” 51 Cf. Khaled Anatolios, “The Soteriological Grammar of Conciliar Christology,” The Thomist 78 (2014): 169, “For Cyril, the proclamation of the gospel happens with all its proper force and fullness when Christians compose sentences that make God the subject of human experiences and attributes.” 52 Ign. Eph. 1.1; Ign. Rom. 6.3; in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 183, 233.

40

The Paradox of Sonship

and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.”53 Also in the second century, Melito of Sardis writes in Peri Pascha, “He who hung the earth is hanging; he who fixed the heavens has been fixed; he who fastened the universe has been fastened to a tree. . . . God has been murdered.”54 Similarly Gregory of Nazianzus says in a sermon on Christ’s birth, “I shall cry out the meaning of this day: the fleshless one is made flesh, the Word becomes material, the invisible is seen, the intangible is touched, the timeless has a beginning, the Son of God becomes Son of Man—‘Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also for all ages!’”55 Examples such as these could be multiplied; this mode of speaking began early and was widely used.56 These examples, especially the earliest ones, make clear that such bracing statements were not an endpoint of centuries of christological development but rather a beginning.57 Such embrace of paradox was not the awkward, logically constrained conclusion of ever more systematic doctrinal refinement. Instead, the authors of these statements perceived such paradoxes to lie at the heart of the faith they confessed. So Thomas Weinandy concludes, “Thus, the whole of orthodox patristic christology, including the conciliar affirmations, can be seen as an attempt to defend the practice and to clarify the use of the communication of idioms.”58 As Aaron Riches puts it, “Communicatio idiomatum is nothing other than the traditional safeguard and expression of the apostolic declaration that the Crucified truly is the one Lord.”59 53

Ign. Eph. 7.2; in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 189. Cf. also Ign. Pol. 3.2. For a discussion of the communicatio idiomatum in the context of Ignatius’s entire Christology, see Thomas G. Weinandy, “The Apostolic Christology of Ignatius of Antioch: The Road to Chalcedon,” in Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 71-84. 54 Peri Pascha 96.711-15; in Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments, trans. Stuart George Hall, OECT (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 55. Cf. Fragment 13 in On Pascha, 80-81. 55 Or. 38.2; in Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus, 118. 56 E.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.16.6; 3.19.1-3; Hippolytus of Rome, Against Noetus 18; Gregory Thaumaturgus, To Theopompus 6, 8; Athanasius, Letter 49.10; Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 22.13; 29.18-20; 30.1, 5; 37.2; 38.13; 45.28-29; Letter 101.4, 5; Apostolic Constitutions 8.12.33; Augustine, Sermon 191.1; Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter to Nestorius, anathema 12; Second Council of Constantinople, anathema 10 (in Tanner, Decrees, 118); John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith 3.3-4. I was alerted to some of these discussions by Paul L. Gavrilyuk, “God’s Impassible Suffering in the Flesh: The Promise of Paradoxical Christology,” in Divine Impassibility and the Mystery of Human Suffering, ed. James F. Keating and Thomas Joseph White (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 128-29. 57 Thomas G. Weinandy, Does God Suffer? (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 175. 58 Weinandy, Does God Suffer, 175. 59 Riches, Ecce Homo, 6.

A Classical Christological Toolkit

41

The Relationship Between Hebrews and Conciliar Christology In this section and the next I briefly clarify what I do and do not intend to imply or achieve by bringing such tools to the task of New Testament exegesis. First, I need to clarify how I understand the relationship between the Christology of Hebrews and that of the ecumenical creeds, a topic we will revisit in the conclusion. There are a number of carts I have put before their horses in this chapter. Below is yet one more assertion whose plausibility will only be borne out by the whole argument. That is, I understand the Epistle to the Hebrews to render a judgment about the identity and constitution of Jesus of Nazareth that is substantially identical to that of conciliar Christology.60 The Jesus of Hebrews is God the Son who has become a man for us and for our salvation. Of course, Hebrews does not use the precise terms and concepts found in the creeds. Nor does Hebrews narrate the being and acts of Jesus in the compact schematic form that constitutes the backbone of the creeds. Hebrews does not say all that the creeds say about Jesus, nor the creeds all that Hebrews says.61 Nevertheless, 60

My discussion in this paragraph, and throughout the book, is indebted to the distinction between judgments and concepts offered by David S. Yeago, “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis,” Sewanee Theological Review 45 (2002): 371-84. For instance (378), we cannot concretely perform an act of judgment without employing some particular, contingent verbal and conceptual resources; judgment-making is an operation performed with words and concepts. At the same time, however, the same judgment can be rendered in a variety of conceptual terms, all of which may be informative about a particular judgment’s force and implications. And, on the relation between the New Testament and later church teaching, “unity in teaching must be sought at the level of judgment and not at the level of concepts because discourse only teaches, makes claims that can be accepted or rejected, insofar as it passes and urges judgment” (379-80, emphasis original). Fred Sanders makes a similar point: The first presupposition is that in this case, content is sovereign over form so that biblical content in post-biblical or church-traditional form remains biblical. This is a wideranging principle, permitting not only biblical translation (biblical content in a new receptor language) but also doctrinal paraphrase (biblical content in different terminology, idiom, and conceptualities). In Fred Sanders, “Biblical Grounding for the Christology of the Councils,” Criswell Theological Review 13 (2015): 93. 61 Hence Yeago’s careful qualification is particularly important: In an earlier essay, I argued that Philippians 2:5-11 and the Nicene Creed make substantially the same claim about Jesus’ relationship to the God of Israel. I would not retract anything in that argument, but the next point to be made is that “substantially the same”

42

The Paradox of Sonship

I will argue that Hebrews and the early trinitarian and christological creeds say substantially the same thing in different ways. I understand the ecumenical creeds to progressively clarify, specify, and defend certain ontological and grammatical implications of precisely the soteriological narrative that forms the substructure of Hebrews’ theological exposition.62 The difference in register between Hebrews and the creeds is analogous to the difference between fluent, grammatically correct speech and grammatical analysis of that speech. As Frances Young and David Ford argue, “It is possible for someone to speak perfectly grammatically without ever consciously knowing any grammar.”63 To adapt a point that they make about Paul, Hebrews speaks of Christ in trinitarian and incarnational language; the creeds both speak the language and analyze it.64 is not “exactly the same.” Paul and Nicaea do say “the same thing” in crucial respects, but there are also respects in which they are not exactly the same. To that extent, Nicaea cannot replace Paul, however faithfully it may follow him; and when the church turns from its achieved understandings to wrestle again with the canonical texts, expecting to be instructed thereby, it sacramentally acknowledges the Spirit’s transcendence of its own mind and experience. In David S. Yeago, “The Spirit, the Church, and the Scriptures: Biblical Inspiration and Interpretation Revisited,” in Knowing the Triune God: The Work of the Spirit in the Practices of the Church, ed. James J. Buckley and David S. Yeago (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 64, 65n22, emphasis original. 62 I therefore take Hebrews to confirm the judgment of Kavin Rowe: “We may go one step further yet and assert that the ontological judgments of the early ecumenical Creeds were the only satisfying and indeed logical outcome of the claims of the New Testament read together with the Old” (“Biblical Pressure,” 308). And again he states, Later doctrinal language—Trinitarian reasoning, to be precise—developed the interconnection between the relation of the terms that Hebrews presupposes for its particular theological grammar. Hebrews’ grammar, that is, becomes intelligible in light of a larger linguistic range that allows one to say God and Jesus and Spirit together. In this way, Trinitarian doctrine explicates the intelligibility of the particular theological language of Hebrews no less than it creates an exegetical perception of “God” in the text itself. C. Kavin Rowe, “The Trinity in the Letters of St Paul and Hebrews,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 48-49. The present project therefore answers Rowe’s challenge that “this entire area” of trinitarian biblical interpretation “needs more and deeper reflection, especially from the biblical and exegetical wing of the church” (“Biblical Pressure,” 310). In a similar vein, I take Hebrews to exemplify David Yeago’s thesis that “the Nicene homoousion is neither imposed on the New Testament texts nor distantly deduced from the texts, but rather describes a pattern of judgment present in the texts, in the texture of scriptural discourse concerning Jesus and the God of Israel” (“Nicene Dogma,” 372, emphasis original). 63 Frances Young and David F. Ford, Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1987), 256. 64 Young and Ford, Meaning and Truth, 256. Young and Ford themselves recognize the limits of the analogy, since grammar is only “secondary discourse,” that is, “language about language” (258). While Young and Ford adduce recent theologians such as George Lindbeck for precedent,

A Classical Christological Toolkit

43

In other words, I contend that Hebrews and the creeds tell essentially the same story about the same Jesus. The soteriological narrative that Hebrews both presupposes and elaborates is expressed in compact, schematic form in the ecumenical creeds. And in both Hebrews and the creeds, the identity of the Son and the story of salvation are mutually illuminating. Response to Critics and Criticizing the Classics In the world of modern New Testament scholarship, the six strategies discussed above admittedly constitute a far from customary toolkit for the task of exegesis. Can such theologically freighted tools untie exegetical knots in a historically and contextually satisfying manner? The reader will have to judge whether, after the case is made, the knots have indeed been loosed. Yet here I offer provisional responses to some of the most likely criticisms of my proposed use of these tools. Following that, I will briefly indicate two areas in which I hope to improve upon how some of the patristic authors engaged above read Hebrews. The first anticipated criticism is that of allowing the classical christological consensus to determine in advance what the text actually says. My response is that I expect these tools not to decide the issue but to keep options open. We have already seen that many scholars appear to simply assume a zero-sum relation between Hebrews’ two apparently divergent uses of “Son.” This seems to me a classic case of prematurely ruling out a viable option. We have also seen that some scholars seem to regard divinity the notion of theology as grammar is not a new one. For instance, Johann Albrecht Bengel attributed to Martin Luther the aphorism, “Theology is something like the grammar of Sacred Scripture.” The exact words may not be Luther’s, but the substance is. See discussion in Joachim Ringleben, Gott im Wort: Luthers Theologie von der Sprache her, HUTh 57 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 357n491; also the citation of this maxim in Johann Georg Hamann, “Miscellaneous Notes on Word Order in the French Language,” in Writings on Philosophy and Language, ed. Kenneth Haynes, CTHP (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 22; and discussion in Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, trans. Jeffrey G. Silcock and Mark C. Mattes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 81, 94-96, 125-26, 170. See also the application of Young and Ford’s discussion to Paul’s doctrine of God in Romans and Galatians in Richard B. Hays, “The God of Mercy Who Rescues Us from the Present Evil Age: Romans and Galatians,” in The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology, ed. A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 141; and to the Bible and the Trinity more broadly in Scott R. Swain, “The Bible and the Trinity in Recent Thought: Review, Analysis, and Constructive Proposal,” JETS 60 (2017): 38-40. Swain concludes, “What we have in the Bible is well-formed Trinitarian discourse: primary, normative, fluent. . . . The Trinitarian theology of the church’s creeds, proclamation, and liturgy is not a refinement of or an improvement on God’s self-naming in Scripture” (40).

44

The Paradox of Sonship

and humanity as standing in a competitive or contrastive relationship, such that the more Christ is one the less he must be the other. Against such presuppositions, I will use the reading strategies sketched above not to decide in advance what the text must say but to consider the possibility that Hebrews says more things than are dreamt of in our historical-critical philosophies. I have honed these tools not to replace exegesis but to improve exegesis. In this respect I intend to follow in the methodological footsteps of Wesley Hill’s Paul and the Trinity.65 Anticipating a similar charge of vicious hermeneutical circularity, Hill writes, To avoid this pitfall, I will adopt a twofold approach: First, the readings of Paul I will offer in the chapters that follow will be self-consciously historical readings, guided by the canons of “critical” modes of exegesis. . . . Second, Trinitarian theologies will be employed as hermeneutical resources and, thus, mined for conceptualities which may better enable a genuinely historical exegesis to articulate what other equally “historical” approaches may have (unwittingly or not) obscured.66

And I will use my classical christological toolkit in the same spirit in which Hill deploys his trinitarian one: In other words, if it can be shown that certain critical approaches and constructions leave crucial texts unsatisfactorily accounted for, or that they construct a version of Paul’s theology with significant unresolved tensions and internal difficulties, and if trinitarian categories and conceptualities may offer help in achieving solutions to those tensions and difficulties, then my use of those trinitarian conceptualities may carry its own justification.67

I have suggested that the perceived tension between Jesus being Son and becoming Son is just such a shortfall of contemporary critical scholarship on Hebrews. And I will employ these classical christological strategies not to circumvent so-called historical-critical exegesis but to contribute to it. My use of these tools is strictly heuristic; they are hearing aids, not an answer key. As Scott Swain puts it, “Doctrinal preunderstanding enables reading. Nevertheless, doctrinal preunderstanding does not wholly determine 65

Wesley Hill, Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). 66 Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 45, emphasis original. 67 Hill, Paul and the Trinity, 45.

A Classical Christological Toolkit

45

the reading of a text before it is read. Such a scenario would actually foreclose the act of reading itself.”68 Instead, as Heidelberg reformer Zacharias Ursinus commented, the purpose of studying doctrine is “that we may be well prepared for the reading, understanding, and exposition of the holy Scriptures. For as the doctrine of the catechism and Common Places are taken out of the Scriptures, and are directed by them as their rule, so they again lead us, as it were, by the hand to the Scriptures.”69 While lenses may distort vision, the right lenses restore it. The right kind of theology does not lead us away from the text but deeper into the text. It sends us back to the text better equipped to hear what the text actually says.70 My ultimate goal in this book is to read Hebrews. What the text says is my chief concern; I will employ these tools in search of a firmer grip on the text in all its peculiar, paradoxical detail. A second potential critique is that what classical, conciliar Christology asserts about Jesus is contradictory or incoherent. If so, strategies drawn from it can only darken, not illumine, a text such as Hebrews. If someone is already convinced that classical Christology is incoherent, I see little reason why they will not find Hebrews incoherent as well. Perhaps my argument can demonstrate to such readers that Hebrews is incoherent in a manner uncannily similar to classical Christology. In any case, the judgment of incoherence is not present in the subject matter itself; it resides in the mind of the reader. The claim that a set of propositions is contradictory is a judgment that invites either demonstration or falsification. And not everyone finds the Christian confession of God incarnate incoherent.71 But why do many modern readers of the New Testament have logical 68

Scott R. Swain, Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and Its Interpretation (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 112. Swain’s entire discussion of “the rule of faith” and exegesis is balanced and lucid (106-14). 69 Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 10. 70 For a statement of this principle of legitimate two-way traffic between text and theology as it pertains to the Trinity and Luke–Acts, see C. Kavin Rowe, “Luke and the Trinity: An Essay in Ecclesial Biblical Theology,” SJT 56 (2003): 6: However, the necessity of speaking of the one God in a threefold way is the response to the pressure exerted upon the reader by the biblical narrative itself. Correspondingly, the trinitarian nature of the one Lord enables us to read the text and interpret its pressure with understanding. That is, the question of the identity of God enables us to see the exegetical necessity of trinitarian doctrine, and trinitarian doctrine, in turn, makes sense of and illumines its exegetical necessity. 71 For one painstaking recent philosophical defense of the coherence of conciliar Christology, see Pawl, Defense.

46

The Paradox of Sonship

scruples about classical Christology? I would submit that a major contributing factor is a competitive or contrastive conception of the relation between God and humanity. If, however inchoately or implicitly, one thinks of divinity and humanity as kinds of being that can be classed together, one will necessarily conclude that the more space one takes up, the less room is left for the other. By contrast, the coherence of classical Christology depends utterly on a noncompetitive account of the relationship between God and creatures, specifically between God and humanity. For instance, Gregory of Nazianzus responds to the charge that Christ “does not have room for two complete things” with the retort that this is “looking at them from a bodily point of view.”72 Similarly, Frederick Bauerschmidt comments on Aquinas, “Indeed, the coherence of almost everything that Thomas, and the Christian faith in general, would want to say about the incarnate Word hangs upon the noncompetitive relationship between God and creatures.” 73 Bauerschmidt then draws an apt parallel between controversies in Thomas’s day and in contemporary New Testament studies: Modern debates over “low” and “high” Christologies fall into the same error of thinking about divinity and humanity in competitive terms. Thomas understood that it is only if we can eliminate the idolatrous notion that God is a kind of thing that we will be able to think in a coherent manner, not only about creation, but about the incarnation.74

This book will argue just as much against a zero-sum equation for God and humanity as it will against a zero-sum equation for Jesus being Son and becoming Son.75 72

Ep. 101.6; in On God and Christ, 159. Beeley comments on this passage, “Because God is infinitely greater than all creatures, he is able to assume human existence into his own nature without contradiction and without threat to himself ” (Gregory of Nazianzus, 145). 73 Bauerschmidt, Thomas Aquinas, 200. 74 Bauerschmidt, Thomas Aquinas, 200-201. 75 Cf. Denys Turner, Thomas Aquinas: A Portrait (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 224: “The complete humanity of Jesus would be a cause of doubt that he was also verus Deus only for those who fall into the error of supposing that the terms ‘truly human’ and ‘truly divine’ must stand in relations of opposition to each other, as zero to sum.” And again, “It is precisely because of, not in spite of, the absoluteness of the difference between Creator and creature that the possibility of that immanence which is the incarnation, an indwelling of the divine and the human in the one person of Christ, is conceivable.” Turner, Thomas Aquinas, 226, emphasis original. See also Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 31-40; Kathryn Tanner, Jesus,

A Classical Christological Toolkit

47

There are two areas in which I hope to improve upon readings of Hebrews offered by exponents of classical Christology. First, while the theologyeconomy distinction allows such interpreters to read with the grain of Hebrews’ narrative Christology and therefore to argue that Jesus is the divine Son and also becomes something new in the economy, some of these interpreters nevertheless downplay or deny that Jesus became Son. Such readers therefore align with the third scholarly approach surveyed above. For instance, on the name Jesus inherits in 1:4, Chrysostom writes, “For this name God the Word ever had; he did not afterwards ‘obtain it by inheritance.’”76 Even though Chrysostom recognizes that “having become as much superior” refers to the economy, for him, “Son” is only what Jesus always is, not what he then became. And Aquinas argues that, in the citation of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5, “today I have begotten you” describes a generation that “is not temporal but eternal.”77 Second, while I also agree with these interpreters that the Son becomes high priest only in and by virtue of his incarnate state,78 I will argue that he is not appointed high priest until after his resurrection. I endorse the overall narrative they plot but put this pin in a slightly different place on the timeline. Nevertheless, I contend that insights these interpreters offer can materially advance the current state of scholarly study of Hebrews. This is especially true of Cyril. For instance, on Hebrews 1:3-4, in a passage cited above, Cyril’s comments continue, “Then he is said to sit, to become superior to

Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 2-3, 7; Riches, Ecce Homo, 6-7. For a demanding, illuminating historical overview of Christology that takes this noncompetitive relation between God and creation as its organizing theme, see now Rowan Williams, Christ the Heart of Creation (London: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2018). Finally, for an example of this issue’s impact on exegesis of Hebrews, consider John Webster’s critique of Caird’s “(unexamined) assumption that pre-existence imperils full humanity,” “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 80. 76 Hebrews 1.3; NPNF1 14:368. 77 Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Chrysostom Baer (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006), 27. Though it should be noted that Aquinas interprets the subsequent citation of 2 Sam 7:14, “I will be to him a father,” in light of the economy: “He shows the proposition according to which he treats His name as befits His humanity.” 78 E.g., Cyril of Alexandria, Fragment 10; in “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Homiliarum Fragmenta,” in Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 3:466-68.

48

The Paradox of Sonship

angels, to inherit a more excellent name than theirs. For he is called Son.”79 Referring to scriptural passages that speak of the Son being appointed king, Cyril writes, “And he endured such things, in order that, as a man, he would be adopted as Son, although by nature he exists as God, and that he would make a way, through himself, for human nature to participate in adoption, and would call into the kingdom of heaven those tyrannized by sin.”80 For Cyril, Jesus is the divine Son who is also “adopted” as Son as a man, in the economy. While modern scholars such as Dunn treat seemingly adoptionist language as intrinsically in tension with divine Christology, Cyril’s incarnational framework allows him unashamedly to embrace both. On Cyril’s reading of Hebrews, Jesus is the divine Son who became messianic Son, as a man, for us and for our salvation. In the next chapter I begin to put these tools to work in an effort to show not only that Hebrews’ Jesus is God the Son incarnate, but also that this explicitly incarnational Christology is essential to Hebrews’ surprising assertion that the Son became Son.

79

See Cyril of Alexandria, “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Commentariorum in Epistolam Ad Hebraeos Fragmenta Quot Reperiri Protuerunt,” in Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 3:369. 80 Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:365.

two

“Son” as Divine Designation

T

he title “S on” can be derogatory, as when an older man wields age to buttress hierarchy. Think of a coach rebuking a player: “Son, watch your mouth or it will land you on the bench.” The title “Son” can be tender, as when a father affectionately consoles his son after some bitter loss. In contrast to both, the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the title “Son” to say of Jesus something that never has been and never could be said to one who is merely a man. In this chapter I argue the book’s first thesis: “Son” designates Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence. This thesis entails two assertions regarding Hebrews’ use of “Son.” First, the way Hebrews uses and elaborates the title “Son” identifies the Son as God. Everything that makes God God belongs to the Son. Second, the way Hebrews uses and elaborates the title “Son” distinguishes him from the Father and the Spirit. My exposition of this thesis will confirm that Brian Daley’s observation of patristic theology holds for Hebrews as well: Christology is by no means neatly separable from trinitarian theology.1 Hebrews both identifies the “Son” as God and also distinguishes him from, and relates him to, the Father and the Spirit. Hebrews’ grammar of divinity is implicitly trinitarian.2 1

Brian E. Daley, “‘One Thing and Another’: The Persons in God and the Person of Christ in Patristic Theology,” Pro Ecclesia 15 (2006): 17-46, esp. 42. Cf. Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 3:20-21, “There is no Christology in Hebrews without trinitarian doctrine.” 2 See further C. Kavin Rowe, “The Trinity in the Letters of St Paul and Hebrews,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 41-49.

50

The Paradox of Sonship

This chapter therefore argues the two parts of this thesis in two sections. First, Hebrews uses “Son” as a divine designation. By calling Jesus “Son,” Hebrews identifies him as God. All that it means for God to be God is true of the Son.3 I will present evidence for this conclusion from four sections of Hebrews: the exordium (Heb 1:2b-4); the opening catena (1:5-14); the assertion that “although he is the Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (5:8, my translation); and the assertion that Melchizedek is like the Son in that he has “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (7:3). Second, “Son” designates Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence—that is, his personal distinction from the Father and the Spirit. To argue this I will examine the relational aspect of the essential predicates of Hebrews 1:3a and will briefly revisit Hebrews’ implicit trinitarian grammar, examining in particular the manner in which Father, Son, and Spirit each speak the words of Scripture. This chapter aims to challenge those who, with the first group of modern scholars surveyed in the introduction and some of the second, are skeptical or downright deny that Hebrews has a divine Christology. Regarding the classical christological tools introduced in chapter one, this chapter will offer exegetical support for the first, that Jesus is a single, divine subject. Supporting this point is crucial to all the rest, since if Jesus is not truly divine, none of the others follow. Further, in order to gain purchase on passages that predicate divine characteristics of the human Jesus, the first section will draw on a version of the theology-economy distinction developed by Cyril in order to distinguish between (1) passages that speak of Christ as God, (2) those that speak of him as a man, and (3) those that speak of him as a man yet attribute to him divine characteristics. This chapter will argue not only that Jesus is a single divine subject but that Hebrews offers an implicitly trinitarian answer to the question, “Who is Jesus?” That is, answering this question requires us to identify the one true God of Israel in a way that includes the distinct persons of the Son and the Spirit. My point is not that one can impose a trinitarian framework onto Hebrews with only minimal damage to the details of the text. Instead, I 3

Cf. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 50-51, “When Hebrews calls Jesus ‘Son,’ then, it means this in the fullest possible sense: Jesus is and does what God is and does.”

“Son” as Divine Designation

51

argue that Hebrews’ grammar of divinity and its answer to the question “Who is Jesus?” are both implicitly trinitarian.4 “Son” as Divine Designation: Four Pieces of Evidence This section will marshal evidence for “Son” as designating divinity from four sections of Hebrews. The case is cumulative, though I will argue that the exordium and catena suffice to settle the issue. The Son’s divinity in the exordium (Heb 1:2-4). As noted in the introduction, Jesus is introduced in 1:2 as the Son. To this Son the exordium ascribes all of the seven following qualities, acts, and events.5 As we have seen, the climax of this elegant periodic sentence is the Son’s exaltation to God’s right hand. However, its focus is not restricted to the exaltation. Instead, the towering peak of the Son’s exaltation becomes a vantage point from which the author surveys not only the Son’s prior work of purification but also his initial work of creation, his ongoing work of cosmic preservation, and his timeless possession of God’s own being.6 As John P. Meier has noted, the seven christological designations in Hebrews’ exordium (1:2b-4) are structured like a ring.7 The ring begins with an oblique reference to the Son’s exaltation: “whom he appointed the heir of all things” (1:2b). From there it tracks back to the Son’s co-agency in creation (1:2c), back farther still to his “eternal, timeless relationship to God”8 (1:3a), then forward to the Son’s preservation of creation (1:3b), forward again to his saving work of purification (1:3c), and forward to his exaltation and its consequence: he sat down at God’s right hand and thereby became superior to the angels (1:3d-4).9 To tweak a different ring-shaped story, we might say that from the Son’s exaltation the exordium travels “back and there again.” 4

Cf. Rowe, “Trinity in the Letters,” 48, “Later doctrinal language—Trinitarian reasoning, to be precise—developed the interconnection between the relation of the terms that Hebrews presupposes for its particular theological grammar. Hebrews’ grammar, that is, becomes intelligible in light of a larger linguistic range that allows one to say God and Jesus and Spirit together.” 5 Cf. John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 531, “I do not think it irrelevant that all seven Christological designations depend directly or indirectly on huiō in 1,2a.” For a synopsis of the seven designations, see the table below. 6 So, e.g., John P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 179, “Our author characteristically views the various moments in the Christological drama from the vantage point of exaltation.” 7 Meier, “Structure,” esp. 189. 8 Meier, “Structure,” 188. 9 For convenient reference, in this section I will follow Meier in designating the two relative clauses of 1:2 as 1:2b and 1:2c, and the four participial phrases of 1:3 as 1:3a-d.

52

The Paradox of Sonship

Given this sweeping movement from exaltation to eternal existence and back, we must ask which of these predicates designate Jesus as divine and which speak of him with reference to his human nature and incarnate mission. Here I think Cyril of Alexandria can offer substantial exegetical help. In his comments on Hebrews 13:8 he writes, “Some sayings [about Jesus] are fitting for God, such as ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in me’ (John 14:10); some are fitting for humanity, such as ‘but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40). And some are in the middle [μέσαι, mesai], such as this one.”10 Here Cyril draws out a crucial nuance of the distinction between theology and economy. It is not merely that some passages ascribe divinity to Jesus while others speak of him with reference to his humanity. Instead, Cyril also perceives a third category, passages that explicitly refer to Jesus as a human being but predicate of him what is divine. In other words, Cyril’s third category opens up the possibility—which I will argue is realized in Hebrews—that certain things predicated of the man Jesus are nevertheless things that can only be true of God.11 Cyril’s threefold taxonomy offers a resource that is crucial for perceiving the subtlety not only of Hebrews’ exordium, but of its entire portrait of Jesus as Son. What light can Cyril’s three categories shed on Hebrews’ exordium, with its seven-piece narrative identity of the Son? I would suggest what follows in table 2.1. My analysis differs slightly from that of Bauckham, who writes, “With the only possible exception of that fifth statement, the statements are designed precisely to include the Son in the unique divine identity of Jewish

10

Cyril of Alexandria, “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Commentariorum in Epistolam Ad Hebraeos Fragmenta Quot Reperiri Protuerunt,” in Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 3:417. See also Cyril of Alexandria, To Acacius of Melitene, in Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, trans. Lionel R. Wickham, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 52-53, “The point is that some of the terms are specially appropriate to God, some are specially appropriate to man and some occupy an intermediate position [αἱ δὲ μέσην τινὰ τάξιν ἐπέχουσιν, hai de mesēn tina taxin epechousin], indicating the Son who is at one and the same time God and man.” To illustrate this principle Cyril cites the same passages as in his Hebrews commentary, including Heb 13:8 (Letters, 53-55). For an example of Cyril employing this middle category, though without calling it such, see the discussion of his exegesis of Is 9:6 in Matthew R. Crawford, Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 20-21. 11 This “middle” category of Cyril’s, it is worth noting, implies the final two tools of chapter one, twofold and paradoxical predication.

53

“Son” as Divine Designation Table 2.1. Seven predicates of Hebrews’ exordium (Heb 1:2b-4) Seven Predicates of Hebrews’ Exordium

Divine, Human, or Both?

(1) Appointed heir of all things (1:2b)

Both: inherits as a man; divine prerogativea

(2) Co-agent in creation (1:2c)

Divine

(3) Radiance of God’s glory and impress of his being (1:3a)

Divine

(4) Upholds the universe by his word (1:3b)

Divine

(5) Made purification for sins (1:3c)

Human

(6) Sat down at God’s right hand (1:3d)

Both: sat on throne as a man; divine prerogative

(7) Became superior to angels (1:4)

Human, though ultimately both

By divine prerogative I mean something God does that is not delegable to one who is not God.

a

monotheistic belief.”12 First, I think the fifth predicate, that the Son made purification for sins (1:3c), is not just a possible exception to Bauckham’s point but an actual one. However one might ultimately root the effectiveness of the Son’s saving work in his unique divine existence, making purification for sins is something human priests do, not an exclusively divine prerogative, and in the unfolding of Hebrews’ argument the Son clearly accomplishes this as a man. Second, more substantively, I think Bauckham’s persistent focus on divine identity somewhat obscures the human, economic elements of the first and seventh predicates in particular. Regarding the first, I agree with Bauckham that Jesus’ inheriting the universe is ultimately a divine prerogative, since it asserts his all-encompassing rule. Yet Jesus obtains his inheritance as a man. It is important not to neglect the incarnational context of this predicate.13 Regarding the seventh predicate, we must give full weight to “became.” What 1:4 explains is the change of status for the man Jesus that resulted from his exaltation to God’s right hand. Further, in chapter four I will argue that, contra Bauckham, the name the Son inherits is not YHWH 12

Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 20-21. 13 Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:366, “Therefore if he should be said to receive, and to have been appointed heir because of his humanity, we will not be ignorant of the economy. For how did he ever become poor, except in becoming like us, that is, a man, while remaining God?” See further chapter five.

54

The Paradox of Sonship

but “Son.” Hence Jesus’ superiority to the angels is not in itself an index of divinity. However, as I will argue in chapter five, the rule to which the Son is appointed at his exaltation does indeed enact the unique divine sovereignty. The full unfolding of the seventh predicate in Hebrews’ argument entails Jesus’ divinity, but in the predicate itself this remains a seed waiting to sprout. To return to the business of this chapter, in what follows I argue that the second, third, fourth, and sixth predicates all ascribe divinity to the Son. Taken together, these four acclamations attest that the Son is God: all that God is, the Son is. First, the Son is co-agent in creation: “through whom also he created the world” (1:2c). Scholars debate the precise nuance of the object whose creation the Son is said to mediate (τοὺς αἰῶνας, tous aiōnas).14 Some argue that this phrase highlights the temporal aspect of what the Son has co-created, the plural perhaps gesturing toward the Son’s creation of both the present age and the age to come.15 However, the exact repetition of this phrase in 11:3, which is concerned simply with the creation of all that is, suggests that the referent in 1:2c is the entire cosmos with no particular temporal accent.16 In all the other predicates of the exordium, the Son is a personal agent, patient, and “undergoer”: he was appointed heir, he sustains all things, he accomplished purification, he sat down. So while the Son’s creative agency in 1:2c is certainly instrumental, it is no less personal and active for that.17 Hence Simon Gathercole’s phrasing is apt: in Hebrews 1:2c, as in John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Colossians 1:16, “Christ is an agent with the

14

For an exploration of how the conceptual category of Christ as mediator fits with Hebrews’ witness to Christ’s deity and humanity, and connects both to its soteriology, see Daniel J. Treier, “‘Mediator of a New Covenant’: Atonement and Christology in Hebrews,” in So Great a Salvation: A Dialogue on the Atonement in Hebrews, ed. Jon C. Laansma, George H. Guthrie, and Cynthia Long Westfall, LNTS 516 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2019), 105-19. 15 For a defense of this position and an overview of recent scholarship and translations, see David M. Allen, “‘Forgotten Ages’: Times and Space in Heb 1.2,” BT 61 (2010): 144-51. 16 So Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 41; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 96. 17 As John Webster puts it, “But, even if the Son is the instrumental rather than the efficient cause of creation, he acts here as ‘God of God.’ His instrumentality is not an indicator of inferiority but of the perfect accord of will and activity between Father and Son. As creator of all things, the Son is God doing God’s will.” “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 84.

“Son” as Divine Designation

55

Father in creation.”18 As such, to borrow Richard Bauckham’s phrase, Hebrews 1:2c places Jesus “on the divine side of the line which monotheism must draw between God and creatures.”19 Second, in 1:3a, the Son “is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” The sense of the word translated “radiance” (ἀπαύγασμα, apaugasma) might be either active (“radiance” or “effulgence”), passive (“reflection”), or deliberately ambiguous or polyvalent.20 I think an active sense is more likely, though deciding between these options is difficult and ultimately of little consequence. Since the two predicates are governed by a single relative pronoun and linked by “and” (καί, kai), we should see them as mutually illuminating. If the first clause portrays Christ as merely the reflection of God’s glory rather than its active outflow, that reflection should be construed not in finite, creaturely terms, but as a perfect representation of God’s intrinsic, essential glory. In the second phrase, the word translated “exact imprint” (χαρακτήρ, charaktēr) is derived from a verb for engraving, and “commonly denotes the impression made upon a coin or seal.”21 That Jesus is the impress of God’s “nature” (ὑποστάσεως, hypostaseōs) indicates that his being derives from and reproduces that of the Father.22 As 18

Simon J. Gathercole, “The Trinity in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 61. 19 Richard Bauckham, “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity,” NTS 27 (1981): 335. Bauckham is speaking about the entailment of the worship that Revelation and other early Christian apocalyptic texts (such as The Ascension of Isaiah) ascribe to Christ. Modern scholars who draw this conclusion from 1:2c include Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux: II. Commentaire, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1953), 6; Meier, “Structure,” 178-79; Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer, vol. 1, Hebr 1–6, EKKNT 17 (Zurich: Benziger, 1990), 59; Knut Backhaus, “‘Licht vom Licht’: Die Präexistenz Christi im Hebräerbrief,” in Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief, WUNT I, 240 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 86; Bauckham, “Divinity,” 21; Amy L. B. Peeler, You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, LNTS 486 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 16; Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BIS 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 206. For classical readings that take 1:2c to indicate the Son’s divinity, see, e.g., Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 2.2.2, 2.4.2; C. Ar. 1.12; Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:366; John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith 1.8. Cf. more broadly Diogn. 7.1-2. 20 For discussion see, e.g., Scott D. Mackie, “Confession of the Son of God in the Exordium of Hebrews,” JSNT 30 (2008): 441-45. 21 Mackie, “Exordium,” 442. 22 As Ulrich Wilckens, “Χαρακτήρ,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 9:421, comments, “As δόξα and ὑπόστασις are synonymous to the degree that God’s glory is his nature, so the same function of the Son is expressed by ἀπαύγασμα and χαρακτήρ.” See also Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 180. For ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) here as “nature” or “being” (not the later trinitarian sense of “person”) see, e.g., Attridge, Hebrews, 44.

56

The Paradox of Sonship

Amy Peeler puts it, the Son “is a picture of his Father’s identity in relief.23 While the first phrase may well borrow language traditionally associated with God’s Wisdom (e.g., Wis 7:25-26), what the author ascribes to Jesus is not reducible to what his contemporaries ascribed to Wisdom.24 The Son instantiates God’s utterly unique essence. Such ontological precision might seem implausible for a first-century Jewish-Christian author. Yet these assertions nestle between the Son’s cocreation of all things and his sovereign preservation of all things. That the Son instantiates the Father’s essence is a fitting inference from the Son’s agency in creating and sustaining all things.25 Further, the Son’s unparalleled ontological relation to the Father undergirds the exordium’s opening assertion that “in these last days” God “has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1:2). The Son can constitute the Father’s full and final revelation because he fully shares the Father’s being. As Meier puts it, “He who is eternally the effulgence of God’s glory and the image of his substance is alone the adequate revealer and content of revelation.”26 The Son is the peerless eschatological revealer of God because he is God. In classical Christology, the conceptual contribution of Hebrews 1:3a is enshrined and elaborated in Nicaea’s language of “light from light” and “true God from true God.”27 23

Peeler, You Are My Son, 17. Cf. William Lane’s comment, “The writer does not declare that Jesus was divine Wisdom. . . . He simply clothes the Son in the garb of Wisdom.” William L. Lane, Hebrews, WBC 47A–B (Dallas: Word, 1991), 1:cxxxix. 25 Meier’s defense of the “metaphysical weight and thrust” of Heb 1:3a is worth pondering: The fact of the matter is that a certain first-century Christian author, steeped in AlexandrianJewish theology, was able to integrate speculation about eternal existence and relationship with God into more traditional and historical NT affirmations about Jesus Christ. In this he went beyond most of NT thought, but by that very fact he pointed the way into the patristic period. Meier, “Structure,” 181-82. 26 Meier, “Symmetry,” 522; cf. William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, WMANT 53 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 70; Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 3:23; Webster, “One Who Is Son,” 88; Macaskill, Union with Christ, 180-81. 27 See Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Nicaea I to Lateran V (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990), 4-5. For representative pro-Nicene readings of Heb 1:3a, see Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 1.16.5, 1.19.2-3; 2.11.1; Decr. 12.2; 23.1-4; C. Ar. 1.12; 1.24; 1.49; 2.32; 3.59, 65; Chrysostom, Homilies on John 7.2; Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29.17; 30.20; Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter to Nestorius 8 (in Letters, 23–25); On the Creed 13 (in Letters, 107); Commentary on John 1.4, 1.5, in Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, trans. David R. Maxwell, ACT (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013–15), 1:23, 25, 27, 31; “Hebrews,” 3:368-69; John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith 1.8; 4.18. 24

“Son” as Divine Designation

57

Third, 1:3b declares that the Son “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” At minimum, this phrase asserts that the Son sustains all things in being. Just as with the Son’s inheriting all things and co-creation of all things, here too the scope of the Son’s providential upholding is cosmic, all-embracing: his power holds the universe together. Since the Son is the one doing the upholding (φέρων, pherōn), it makes best sense to see “the word of his power” as the Son’s own word. But even if the word is taken to be God the Father’s, the Son is the one who upholds all things by means of it. The consequences for Jesus’ divine identity are clear. As Bauckham concludes, “It belongs to the unique identity of God that he upholds all things and is not himself upheld.”28 Fourth, 1:3d asserts that the Son “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Similarly, 8:1 and 12:2 say that Christ took his seat at the right hand of the throne (ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου, en dexia tou thronou). This confirms that the Son sat down on God’s own throne.29 Richard Bauckham has recently argued, to my mind convincingly, that in the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature, the divine throne in heaven frequently symbolizes “the sole sovereignty of God over all things.”30 Bauckham highlights three frequently recurring features of this divine throne. First, it is most often depicted as the only throne in heaven.31 Second, “in heaven, God alone sits, while the angels who attend him are regularly described as standing.”32 Third, the symbolism of God’s throne as designating his absolute sovereignty is often underscored with imagery of height: Enoch is granted a vision of 28

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 174. Similarly Cyril, “For this is a property of that essence which is highest above all; he himself bears all things by his powerful word” (“Hebrews,” 3:368). 29 See, e.g., Meier, “Symmetry,” 514; Hermut Löhr, “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel. Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult: im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT I, 55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 197; Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 148-49, 216; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 176; Bauckham, “Divinity,” 32n41. 30 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 161. For Old Testament examples see Ps 2:4; 9:7; 11:4; 29:20; 47:8; 89:14; 93:2; 102:13; 103:19; Is 6:1. 31 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 161-63, citing, among others, 1 Kgs 22:19; Sir 1:8; Pr Azar 32–33; 1 En 9:4; 14:18; 71:7; 2 En 20:3; 25:4; 2 Bar 21:6. 32 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel,163-64, citing, among others, Dan 7:10; 4Q530 2.18; 1 En 14:22; 39:12; 40:1; 2 En 21:1; 2 Bar 21:6; 4 Ezra 8:21.

58

The Paradox of Sonship

God’s “lofty throne” (1 En 14:18); in another text Enoch could see the Lord only “from a distance, sitting on his exceedingly high throne” (2 En 20:3).33 God’s throne being high above not only the earth but also the heavens indicates that God rules not only over the earth and its inhabitants but over the whole cosmos, including heaven and all its angelic ranks. These three features of God’s throne are relevant to Hebrews 1:3d (and 1:13, 8:1, 10:12-13, and 12:2) because Hebrews invokes each of them to characterize Jesus’ session. First, in Hebrews’ depiction of heaven, there is clearly only one throne in the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle in heaven.34 The throne Jesus sits on is the “throne of grace” believers draw near to (4:16). Second, Hebrews repeatedly asserts that Jesus sat down on God’s throne. This session Hebrews contrasts explicitly with the standing posture of priests. The Levitical priests stand as they minister (λειτουργῶν [leitourgōn], 10:11), repeatedly offering the same sacrifices, whereas Jesus offered a single sacrifice and then sat down (10:12). Hebrews also implicitly contrasts Jesus’ seated position with the posture of angels. In 1:7 the angels are designated “ministers” (λειτουργούς, leitourgous), and 1:14 calls them “ministering spirits” (λειτρουγικὰ πνεύματα, leitourgika pneumata). Both verses use a form of the word that Hebrews uses for priests’ ministry in 10:11. Further, in 1:14, angels are “sent out to serve” those who will inherit salvation. This adds up to a picture of angels as priestly servants, standing at attention in God’s presence, ready to do his will. While even angels must stand in God’s presence, attesting their subservience, the Son sits as sovereign. Third, 4:14 asserts that Jesus “passed through the heavens,” and 7:26 that he is “exalted above the heavens.” Together these two passages locate Jesus’ throne in the highest heaven.35 These three features of Hebrews’ session discourse confirm that Jesus sat down on God’s throne to enact the unique divine sovereignty. The Son’s session is a definitively divine prerogative.36 33

Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 164. Löhr, “Thronversammlung,” 197. 35 See Benjamin J. Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews, BZNW 222 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 100, 102. 36 One potential counterexample is Rev 3:21, “The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” Clearly this passage portrays believers as participating in Christ’s reign. However, since this promise is made to all (in the church of Laodicea) who persevere, believers’ session on Christ’s throne cannot be precisely identical to Christ’s session on God’s throne. If pressed to identity, the promise courts 34

“Son” as Divine Designation

59

We have by no means exhausted the relevance of Hebrews’ exordium for its divine Christology, and for its Christology more broadly. Instead, we will return to the first, sixth, and seventh predicates in chapters three through five. Nevertheless the four predicates we have explored demonstrate that in its opening verses, Hebrews acclaims the Son as divine in the fullest sense of the word. This Son is co-Creator with the Father, instantiates the Father’s being, holds the cosmos in being, and rules on God’s throne. The Son as God in the Catena (Heb 1:5-14). The catena of scriptural citations in Hebrews 1:5-14 supports and develops the claim that the Son reigns as God on God’s throne. Each of its three contrasts between the Son and the angels substantiates this central claim. We can display the catena’s structure as follows.37 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8-12 1:13 1:14

To the Son: Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 (Address: “Son”) About the angels: Deuteronomy 32:43 About the angels: Psalm 104:4 To the Son: Psalm 45:6-7 (Address: “God”) and Psalm 102:25-27 (Address: “Lord”) To the Son: Psalm 110:1 (Implied address: “Lord”) About the angels: rhetorical question about their status

This threefold structure derives from the three times the author asks whether, or asserts that, God has said something about the angels, each contrasting with what he has said to the Son (1:5, 7, 13). Since “Son” is how Hebrews absurdity. (How will they all fit? At once or in turn?) Further, Revelation has its own ways of signaling Christ’s unique, non-transferable divine sovereignty. Christ is worshiped (Rev 5:8-14); no creature may be (19:10; 22:8-9). Christ may open the sealed scroll of God’s purposes (Rev 5:5); “no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it” (5:3). Hence, while in Rev 3:21 Christ’s throne is something he shares with believers, this does not entail that the full scope of his sovereignty belongs to believers. Further, following Bauckham, my argument is not that the divine throne apart from any further context is always an index of divinity, but that Hebrews sets Christ’s session on the divine throne within a conceptual context (sole throne, exalted height, contrast between God sitting and angels standing) that renders such session an exclusively divine prerogative. 37 Adapted almost verbatim from Madison N. Pierce, Divine Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Recontextualization of Spoken Quotations of Scripture, SNTSMS 178 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 40. (I should note that the published version of Pierce’s work, which is a revision of her PhD thesis, only became available when this present work was deep into the publication process.) Pierce’s structure, in turn, generally follows James Swetnam, “Hebrews 1,5-14: A New Look,” Melita Theologica 51 (2000): 51-68. The catena’s three-part structure is also observed by Albert Vanhoye, La structure littéraire de L’Épitre aux Hébreux (Paris: Desclée de Brower, 1963), 69-74.

60

The Paradox of Sonship

designates the recipient of each of God’s scriptural speeches, the entire catena elaborates Jesus’ sonship. The first two sections each consist of one citation spoken about the angels and two spoken to the Son. In both cases the juxtaposition should inform how we read all three citations. The third section concludes the contrast, though with the author’s own question instead of God speaking Scripture. Further, as noted in the introduction, the catena is framed by references to the Son’s enthronement. That the Son’s installation on the divine throne both opens and closes the catena confirms that each citation somehow supports the claim that the Son now sits where only God may. In this section I will read all three contrasts, asking how they support and expound the Son’s enthronement.38 In the three citations in 1:5-6 God speaks twice to the Son then once about the angels. The author has just asserted in 1:4 that Jesus became “as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” In 1:5 he asks, “For to which of the angels did God ever say . . . ?” As many have observed, this logical link renders the two subsequent citations—and the whole catena—the exposition of the thesis stated in 1:4.39 Verse 4 prompts the question, On what basis is the Son now superior to the angels? Verse 5 answers. Now, seated on God’s throne, he is installed as Messiah, the Son of God. Hence 1:5 presents these two texts as spoken by God to the Son when the Son was enthroned in heaven, a point I will argue in detail in chapter four. The first, Psalm 2:7, announces God’s appointment of his “anointed” (Ps 2:2), the “king” he has set on Zion (Ps 2:6). In the second, 2 Samuel 7:14, God pledges loyalty to the heir of David who will reign on David’s throne. These two passages were read together messianically by at least some Jews before the time of Jesus.40 By offering these 38

In this section, as in the previous, we traverse territory to which we will return in chapters three through five. Some things that could be said here I leave unsaid, or barely said, because they are best said there. My analysis assumes, of course, that when God speaks Scripture to the Son at the latter’s enthronement, he speaks to the Son incarnate, the man Christ Jesus. But in keeping with the focus of this chapter, I will highlight what the catena says or implies about the Son’s divinity, leaving the conceptual contribution of Christ’s humanity to be developed in chapters four and five. 39 E.g., Spicq, Hébreux, 14; Meier, “Symmetry,” 530; Attridge, Hebrews, 50; Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 15th ed., KEKNT 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 155; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 111. 40 See, e.g., 4Q174. For a detailed comparison of 4Q174 with Hebrews, not all of whose details I would endorse, see Philip Church, “4Q174 and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Keter Shem Tov:

“Son” as Divine Designation

61

passages as confirmation of the Son’s enthronement at his exaltation to heaven, the author of Hebrews indicates that when the Son sat down on God’s throne, he began his reign as Messiah. This is a dignity God never conferred on any angel. While 1:5 reports God’s speech to the Son at the latter’s enthronement, 1:6 supplies what he said to the angels on this occasion.41 In the words of Deuteronomy 32:43, God commands the angels to worship his Son, whom he now ushers into the inhabited heavenly realm.42 What kind of worship is this and why is it fitting on this occasion? It is crucial to read with the grain of the argument from 1:3d forward: Jesus sat down on God’s throne, becoming thereby the angels’ exalted superior (1:3d-4). The first two citations, in 1:5, confirm that this session is messianic enthronement; the citation in 1:6 reveals the angels’ mandated adoration of the one so enthroned. What kind of superiority does the Son possess over the angels? The kind of superiority that the supreme sovereign has over his subjects, which calls for the worship due to God alone.43 The angelic worship due the Son is not merely the obeisance of recognizing the now-restored human vicegerency over Collected Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown, ed. Ian Hunter and Shani Tzoref, PHSC (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013), 333-60. For an overview of the interpretation of Psalm 2 in Second Temple Judaism which concludes that the juxtaposition of Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 in Q4174 reflects a messianic interpretation, see John J. Collins, “The Interpretation of Psalm 2,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino García Martínez, STDJ 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 49-66. For another text from before the time of Jesus that combines messianic themes from 2 Sam 7 and Ps 2 see Pss Sol 17, esp vv. 21-34. 41 For 1:6 as spoken at Christ’s exaltation rather than his incarnation or second coming, see, e.g., Attridge, Hebrews, 55-56; Lane, Hebrews, 1:27-28; Weiss, Hebräer, 162-64; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 117-18; Kenneth L. Schenck, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1,” JBL 120 (2001): 477-79; Ardel B. Caneday, “The Eschatological World Already Subjected to the Son: The Οἰκουμένη of Hebrews 1.6 and the Son’s Enthronement,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, ed. Richard Bauckham et al., LNTS 387 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 28-39; Joshua W. Jipp, “The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena of Hebrews 1.5-14,” NTS 56 (2010): 569-70; David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, NovTSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 53-69. 42 On the form of Deut 32:43 used in 1:6 see, e.g., Lane, Hebrews, 1:28; David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-Presentation, WUNT II, 238 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 44-58. 43 See, e.g., Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT II, 142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 204, “These must worship Christ as they previously worshiped only God.” Also Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 178, “That this is the worship due to God alone is clear from the context of Jesus’ enthronement on God’s own heavenly throne.”

62

The Paradox of Sonship

creation.44 Instead, God commands the angels to offer the Son what may only be given to God because the Son reigns as only God does. In order to understand 1:6 we must read it in light of 1:5 (which elaborates 1:3d-4) and vice versa. And the consequence for 1:5 is that the rule of the Son it announces is not delegated but properly divine. The next contrast stretches from 1:7 to 1:12. It opens with a clear quotation of Psalm 104:4 regarding what God says about angels, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire” (Heb 1:7). With the aid of the Septuagint translation’s syntax, Hebrews asserts that God changes the constitution of his heavenly servants: he makes them air and fire. This assertion sets up two contrasts between the angels and the Son that the next two citations complete. First, their status or office; second, their being. Regarding status, the angels are servants but the Son rules as God. And regarding being, the angels are changeable creatures but the Son is the unchangeable Creator.45 That God “makes” (ποιῶν, poiōn) his angels winds indicates their changeability under his sovereignty. As the angels’ maker, God can remake them as he pleases.46 And the angels’ subordinate status as servants of God is underscored both by their plasticity in his hands and also by their title “ministers” (λειτουργούς, leitourgous), which we noted above. Angels are God’s ministers; they serve at the pleasure of the almighty. 44

Appealing to “the author’s Adamic anthropology,” which he perceives as drawing on the same basic narrative found in The Life of Adam and Eve and The Cave of Treasures, Moffitt argues that “the thoroughgoing emphasis on the Son’s humanity serves as the explanation for how the Son became eligible to be exalted to the divine throne and receive the worship of the angels.” Atonement, 142, emphasis original. However, while the Son’s humanity is necessary for his enthronement as Messiah, it is not sufficient to warrant the worship of angels. 45 For 1:7 as introducing a contrast in status or office see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 120-21; Michael W. Martin and Jason A. Whitlark, “The Encomiastic Topics of Syncrisis as the Key to the Structure and Argument of Hebrews,” NTS 57 (2011): 428. For the ontological contrast see Meier, “Symmetry,” 512, 517; Lane, Hebrews, 1:28-29. Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 216-17; and Pierce, Divine Discourse, 52-54 affirm both. 46 Eric F. Mason has recently argued of 1:7 that “nothing here actually demands that the author of Hebrews thinks of angels as created beings.” “Hebrews and Second Temple Jewish Traditions on the Origins of Angels,” in Hebrews in Contexts, ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge, AGJU 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 65; cf. 85-88. However, Mason conflates two questions: whether Hebrews regards angels as created beings, and whether 1:7 depicts their creation. Undermining the latter proves nothing about the former. Further, if Hebrews does not think of angels as created beings, does that mean Hebrews thinks of angels as uncreated beings? It is difficult for me to see how Mason’s reading does not entail the untenable conclusion that Hebrews regards angels as eternally self-subsistent.

“Son” as Divine Designation

63

The two citations God speaks to the Son in 1:8-12 contrast him with the angels on both counts: status and substance, office and ontology. The first citation foregrounds the Son’s divine rule and explicitly identifies him as God. In Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6, God says to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.” Whatever the possible complications of the Hebrew or Greek syntax of Psalm 45:6, Hebrews has made its reading perfectly clear by making God the speaker and the Son the addressee of the entire citation.47 God calls the Son “God” and praises his permanent reign as God on God’s throne. As Kavin Rowe comments on this passage, “God does not, that is, declare the superiority of something other than God but speaks of himself as theos in the figure of Jesus the Son. As the text of Hebrews would have it, ‘Son’ is thus internal to the meaning of ‘God.’”48 Even though God speaks Psalm 45:6-7 to the human Jesus, this is intra-divine speech. Hebrews reports a conversation within God, not between God and one who is not God. While the direct designation of Jesus as God is relatively rare in the New Testament, the author of Hebrews has prepared us well for its occurrence in 1:8, with the divine acclamations of the exordium, the Son’s session on the divine throne, and the enjoined angelic worship.49 If Hebrews 1:8 calling the Son “God” surprises, that is because we have failed to follow the author’s clearly marked path to this point. Yet God the Father not only names the Son “God” but also reports his interaction with God: the Son has “loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions” (Heb 1:9; Ps 45:7). Rowe explains, In the theology of Hebrews “God” is not collapsed into “Son” or “Jesus” any more than it excludes them. That is to say, “God” is sufficiently relational in its meaning to require of the reader nimbleness in thought, a movement 47

In other words, since God speaks the citation “to” (πρός, pros) the Son, and the second verse (“You have loved righteousness”) explicitly addresses the Son, the first verse should also be taken as direct address to the Son, with ὁ θέος (ho theos) as a vocative. For the point about the citation’s second half, see Attridge, Hebrews, 58n95. For detailed arguments in favor of ὁ θέος (ho theos) as a vocative of direct address, see Harris, Jesus as God, 212-18 (more broadly 187-227); also Gert J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews, FRLANT 235 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 89-91. 48 Rowe, “Trinity in the Letters,” 47. 49 Similarly, Meier, “Symmetry,” 514.

64

The Paradox of Sonship

between selfsameness and difference. To put it in terms of Hebrews, the Son can both be called theos and “have” a theos.50

The second citation of God speaking to the Son, Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12, foregrounds the Son’s eternal, unchangeable divine being, which implies his divine rule. The simple “and” linking the two citations indicates that here too God speaks Scripture to the Son. After calling the Son “God” he now names him “Lord” (κύριε, kyrie), the Lord who created all: “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Heb 1:10; cf. Ps 102:25). Unlike the cosmos that “will perish,” the Son remains. The whole creation will roll up and be changed like a garment, “But you are the same, and your years will have no end” (Heb 1:11-12; cf. Ps 102:26-27). Unlike the angels whose being God can change, the Son is the God who gives being to all that is—and is himself not subject to change. As Bauckham observes, the citation in Hebrews 1:10-12 ascribes to the Son the eternal being of God: “Only as one who eternally pre-existed all things could he be the Creator of all things. Thus the sixth quotation begins with the Son’s eternity before all things and ends with his eternity beyond all things.”51 The Son precedes, creates, and outlives the universe. Transcending the transience and change endemic to creatures, even angels, the Son is the eternal, immutable God.52 50

Rowe, “Trinity in the Letters,” 47. Richard Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North, JSNTSup 263 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 181. 52 Bauckham, “Monotheism,” 184, He is eternal in the full sense of the Jewish monotheistic assertion that God alone is the eternal One, preceding and therefore also transcending all creaturely existence, not subject to the transience, change and decay of creaturely life, in which the angels, despite their superiority to earthly creatures, do participate. The readings of Caird, Hurst, Dunn, and Schenck all restrict the impact of 1:10-12 to the affirmation that Christ somehow embodies the wisdom or power of God. G. B. Caird, “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. William C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), 1:76; L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 163; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1989), 289n216; Kenneth L. Schenck, “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews,” JSNT 66 (1997): 112-13; Schenck, “Celebration,” 475-76; cf. the pointed critique of Schenck in Bauckham, “Divinity,” 13n22). All four fail to do justice to the direct address that names Christ “Lord” and acclaims him as the active, personal agent of creation. For classical readings of 1:10-12 that make the same case argued 51

“Son” as Divine Designation

65

The third contrast, in 1:13-14, returns us to the event of the Son’s enthronement. In 1:13 God extends an invitation to the Son that he never gave to any angel: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (cf. Ps 110:1). We have already seen that this scriptural address invites the Son, the incarnate Jesus, to sit on God’s own throne, to enact the unique divine sovereignty over all things. In citing this passage here, the author concludes the catena’s running contrast between the status of the Son and that of the angels. The author signals this contrast in both the introductory formula in Hebrews 1:13 (“And to which of the angels has he ever said”) and the rhetorical question of 1:14, “Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?” Since Psalm 110:1 opens with “The Lord says to my Lord,” and in Hebrews 1:10 God has already addressed the Son as “Lord,” we should understand God’s address to the Son in 1:13 to assume and confirm his title “Lord.”53 In contrast to the Son’s sovereignty, the angels are sent to serve those who are being saved. Thus 1:13-14 closes the catena on the note it opened with, the Son’s enthronement in heaven. In 1:5-6 God addresses the Son as the newly appointed universal Lord, and he orders the angels not merely to honor him but to worship him. In 1:7-12 God attests the mutability and servitude of the angels, and he acclaims the permanence and sovereignty of the Son who is God and Lord. In 1:13-14 God invites the Son’s kingly repose on the divine throne, a repose that sets the angels’ status as servants in stark relief. Whatever else we might say about the role of angels in Hebrews 1:5-14, their status as servants offers a foil to the installation of the Son as supreme sovereign. Hence the “bread” of the catena asserts the Son’s enthronement, and the “meat” both identifies this throne as God’s own and identifies the Son as God himself. The first and last citations announce enthronement, and the middle comparison expounds the throne, as well as the being and acts of the one who alone may reign on it.54 above, see Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 2.3.3; 2.4.2; C. Ar. 1.36-37; 1.57; Chrysostom, Hebrews 3.3; Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:381. 53 So also Pierce, Divine Discourse, 60. 54 Bauckham writes, “First, all the texts are related to the messianic rule of Jesus, understood as an exercise of the properly divine sovereignty, though in some cases this is obvious only in the contexts from which the quotations have been taken” (“Divinity,” 25). While I would not go so

66

The Paradox of Sonship

It is also worth reiterating that the Son is repeatedly addressed as Son in this selection of scriptural speeches. In 1:5, Jesus’ title “Son” receives twofold scriptural support. Then, in 1:7-8, the author contrasts God’s speech about the angels with his speech to the Son. The progression of titles charted in the structure above does not seem haphazard. Just as the Son was already introduced as Son in 1:2-4, so he is twice designated Son at the beginning of the catena (1:5), and then God speaks to him as Son (1:8). In the two citations that follow, God designates the Son first “God,” then “Lord” (1:8, 10). As James Swetnam observes, “This is of crucial significance. The two principal Old Testament designations for the divinity are here applied to the Son without qualification.”55 Further, we should conclude not merely that these scriptural addresses identify Jesus as divine, but that they do so as and because he is Son.56 In the catena of 1:5-14, “Son” is a divine designation. By what right may the Son sit on the unique divine throne? By right of his being the one God and Lord, the one who made all things and endures beyond them, who rules forever, whom angels praise. The Son’s exaltation is indeed the vantage point of the catena, just as of the exordium. But from this vantage point the author surveys the Son’s act of creation, transcendence of creation, rule over creation, and endless divine existence past this creation’s end.57 Jesus does indeed become superior to the angels, but this becoming depends on who and what he already is. The Son takes the divine throne as a man, but he may take it only because it belongs to him by—literally—divine right. The divine Son’s surprising discipline (Heb 5:8). In Hebrews 5:8 we read, “Although he is the Son [καίπερ ὤν υἱός, kaiper ōn huios], he learned far as to say that every citation relates to the messianic rule of Jesus, I would argue that all three contrasts characterize Jesus’ messianic reign as exercising God’s unique rule. Cf. also the broadly helpful, though somewhat imprecise, comments of Jipp, “Son’s Entrance,” 565: Second, the catena of Septuagintal quotations focuses upon celebrating Jesus’ inheritance of the name Son as he is enthroned upon his Father’s throne and enters into the heavenly realm. The author systematically applies royal-messianic texts to the Son and does so in a way that emphasizes this rule as, not the earthly kingdom of the Son of David, but the cosmic reign of the one who has entered into God’s own life. 55 Swetnam, “Hebrews 1,5-14,” 61. 56 As Swetnam writes in “Hebrews 1,5-14,” 61-62, “Jesus is fully ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ in the scriptural (i.e., Old Testament) sense of these words because he is Son. Such is the force of the quotations in the context of the structure of 1,5-14.” 57 Cf. John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 530-31.

“Son” as Divine Designation

67

obedience through what he suffered” (my translation). We should first note that Jesus is here designated “Son” during his earthly career. In this sense, Son is something Jesus is already, before his enthronement.58 Further, this opening concessive clause indicates it is surprising that this Son should learn obedience through suffering. The plot thickens when we consider the close thematic parallels in Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 12:5-11. In the former, we read that “it was fitting” for God to “make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.” In other words, Jesus’ earthly sufferings were God’s means of qualifying Jesus for saving office. In the latter, the author reminds us of “the exhortation that addresses you as sons” (12:5). In 12:5-6 he cites God’s encouragement in Proverbs not to “regard lightly the discipline of the Lord” or “be weary when reproved by him,” because “the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (cf. Prov 3:11-12). The following comment explains that in the discipline they are undergoing, God is treating the readers as sons: “For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?” (Heb 12:7). Further, those who do not experience discipline “are illegitimate children and not sons” (12:8). The background to this whole discussion is the persecution and other trials the readers have endured, and apparently are enduring (cf. 10:32-36). The author interprets these trials as God’s fatherly training. Through their suffering and struggles they are learning to resist sin (12:4) and to persevere in faith and faithfulness (10:39). By analogy with human fatherhood, the author asserts that this discipline is not only necessary for their lasting good (12:9-11) but is intrinsic to what it means for them to be sons. All sons endure their fathers’ discipline: no discipline, no sonship. Why then would it be contrary to expectation in 5:8 for this Son, Jesus, to learn obedience through what he suffered? I submit that the parallel with 12:5-11 reveals a deeper divergence: the presuppositions of human sonship and Jesus’ sonship are precisely opposite. What is definitive for them is 58

Scholars who note that the use of “Son” in 5:8 indicates that “Son” is something Jesus is already during his earthly career include Harris Lachlan MacNeill, The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Including Its Relation to the Developing Christology of the Primitive Church (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1914), 92; J. W. Pryor, “Hebrews and Incarnational Christology,” RTR 40 (1981): 49; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 105; Frank J. Matera, New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 340.

68

The Paradox of Sonship

unexpected for him. As such, 5:8 reasons from Jesus’ divine sonship to the conditions and progression of the human life he assumed in the incarnation. The best explanation of why it is surprising that the Son learns obedience through divine discipline is that “Son” is a divine designation.59 The Son’s eternality, which Melchizedek is made to resemble (Heb 7:3). In 7:1, after a pointed delay, the author launches his exposition of Melchizedek’s priesthood. In 7:1-2 he summarizes some of the account of Melchizedek and Abraham’s meeting in Gen 14:17-24 and reflects on Melchizedek’s royal name and role. Then in 7:3 we read, “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” This verse and its neighborhood provoke an ever-flowing stream of scholarly questions. My interest is chiefly in one: by saying that Melchizedek resembles the Son in that he has “neither beginning of days nor end of life,” what does the author imply about the being of the Son?60 My answer begins with the word translated “resembling.” We might more fully render this perfect middle-passive participle (ἀφωμοιωμένος, aphōmoiōmenos) as “made like” the Son or “having been made to resemble” the Son. Hebrews’ point is not that Melchizedek just happens to resemble the Son of God, but that this commented-on feature of his existence has been patterned in advance, as it were, on the lately appearing Son. What is this feature? Properly eternal life, endless in both directions. I take this to refer to Melchizedek’s literary profile rather than his personal ontology.61 The author apparently reasons from Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy, as well as from Scripture’s silence regarding his birth and death, to the scriptural appearance of beginning-less and endless existence, and hence abiding priesthood. But why does the author go so far out of his way to ascribe to 59

For this conclusion see, e.g., MacNeill, Christology, 92; Loader, Sohn, 79 (including 79n36); Attridge, Hebrews, 152; Weiss, Hebräer, 317. Kenneth Schenck notes the parallel to Heb 12:5-11 but fails to discern the opposite presuppositions in the two passages (“Appointment,” 97-98). 60 I will also assert, though not fully defend, an answer to the question of what the author is saying about Melchizedek. But my argument that “Son of God” in 7:3 is a divine designation does not depend on how one resolves the question of Melchizedek’s ontology. 61 For a recent defense of this position that I find broadly persuasive, see Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Melchizedek without Speculation: Hebrews 7.1-25 and Genesis 14.17-24,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, ed. Richard Bauckham et al., LNTS 387 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 128-44.

“Son” as Divine Designation

69

Melchizedek a properly eternal existence, especially if this is true on a literary rather than an ontological plane? Because Melchizedek has been “made to resemble” the Son of God, and the Son possesses in fact what Melchizedek possesses only on paper. The Son is the model from which Melchizedek, the scriptural anticipation, derives.62 Here in 7:3 it is not that the Son became like Melchizedek but that Melchizedek was made like the Son.63 If the author had intended merely to assert that Melchizedek, like Jesus, lacked Levitical descent, or even that Melchizedek’s priesthood, like the Son’s, is permanent, he could have saved himself much ink and papyrus. Instead, he hammers the point that Melchizedek’s existence is like the Son’s precisely in being properly eternal, a kind of life that only God has.64 Here in 7:3, therefore, “Son of God” is a divine designation. The Son as One of the Trinity My thesis in this chapter is not merely that Hebrews uses “Son” to designate Jesus as God, but that the term designates his distinct mode of divine existence. “Son” not only identifies Jesus as divine but, as we will see below, distinguishes him from the Father and the Spirit. In other words, “Son” both identifies Jesus as God and implies something unique about his life as God. The evidence for this is twofold, arising both from how Hebrews elaborates Jesus’ identity as Son and how it identifies the Father and Spirit as God. First, regarding the Son, we briefly return to the two “essential predicates” of Hebrews 1:3a: “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” In the previous section I accented the element of identification in these two assertions. The one who subsists as the outflow of 62

For a related instance in Hebrews of a biblical precursor being patterned in advance on Christ— namely its account of the Levitical cult and Christ’s self-offering—see R. B. Jamieson, “Hebrews 9.23: Cult Inauguration, Yom Kippur, and the Cleansing of the Heavenly Tabernacle,” NTS 62 (2016): 582-83. 63 So, e.g., Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 343, “Melchizedek was ‘made to resemble’ . . . the Son of God in order to foreshadow the traits of the exalted Christ. The direction of thought is important: the Son of God is not like Melchizedek; rather, Melchizedek is like the son of God, who is the principal reality (Bengel).” In chapter four we will see that, in a complementary sense, Jesus did indeed become like Melchizedek at his resurrection, when he obtained a permanent priesthood (Heb 7:15-16). So Melchizedek is like the Son in one sense, and the Son became like Melchizedek in another. Cf. Moffitt, Atonement, 207, “Melchizedek is like the Son of God (7:3), while Jesus, who is the Son of God (4:14), arises in the likeness of Melchizedek (7:15)” (emphasis original). 64 Cf. Bauckham, “Divinity,” 27-32, esp. 31.

70

The Paradox of Sonship

God’s glory and impress of his essence is himself God by nature. However, both predicates also imply derivation, “from-ness”: light shines from a source; an impress derives from its mold. Hence these predicates assert both identity with God and relation to God, both sameness and distinction.65 As many have argued, this is precisely the dialectic that, read with the Old Testament insistence on the oneness of God, gave rise to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.66 It is not merely that trinitarian doctrine happens to coincide with such expressions as these. Instead, trinitarian doctrine is the consistent elaboration of the identity and relation, the sameness and distinction, that a passage like Hebrews 1:3a inscribes in the being of God. The relation, distinction, and derivation side of this dialectic is reflected in the way the Son relates to the Father throughout Hebrews. While the Son is the self-revelation of God, it is “God” who has spoken “by his Son” (1:1-2). It is God who invites the incarnate Son to share his rule (1:3, 5, 13). It is God who prepares a body for the Son; God’s is the will the Son came to do (10:510). In view of the way Hebrews identifies the Son as God, the primacy or ultimacy of the Father implied both in the essential predicates of 1:3 and in the Son’s filial obedience in the economy should not be taken as distinguishing Jesus from God, but rather as reflecting a distinction within God: the personal differentiation of Father and Son.67 The essential predicates of 1:3 require a relative or relational elaboration; the Son shares the essence of the Father as one distinct from the Father because he exists from the Father. Hebrews does not itself elaborate the grammatical and theological implications of how it speaks of the Son as God and in relation to God. However, if we are to allow both elements in its theological discourse their full say, we must find a place for both unity and distinction, essence and relation, in our 65

Cf. Rowe, “Trinity in the Letters,” 45, who speaks of the “interrelatedness” of God and the Son in 1:3. E.g., David S. Yeago, “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis,” Sewanee Theological Review 45 (2002): 372-78; C. Kavin Rowe, “Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics,” Pro Ecclesia 11 (2002): 295-312, esp. 306-7; C. Kavin Rowe, “Luke and the Trinity: An Essay in Ecclesial Biblical Theology,” SJT 56 (2003): 1-26. 67 Cf. Scott Mackie’s comment on passages about the Son that evidence “an oscillating pattern of initiative and passivity”: Rather than reflecting inconsistency or unexamined ambivalence, these counterbalancing testimonies illustrate the author’s nuanced understanding of the mutuality and reciprocative relationship shared between the Father and Son in this salvific and regnal drama, a pattern of relatedness that can quite possibly be traced to the heart of the exordium. “Exordium,” 445. 66

“Son” as Divine Designation

71

exegetical description.68 In Hebrews, the Son’s existence as God also includes relation to the Father. Second, Hebrews also identifies the Father and Spirit as God. The most striking evidence for this is the way Father, Son, and Spirit all speak Scripture.69 In its opening sentence, Hebrews identifies the writings we call the Old Testament as the speech of God: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets” (1:1). Yet in Hebrews, Father, Son, and Spirit all speak the words of Scripture, and that in a repeated triadic pattern. Many scholars recognize in Hebrews a large-scale tripartite structure with overlapping transitions, roughly 1:1–4:16, 4:14–10:25, and 10:19–13:25.70 In the first two of these sections, “one finds a repeated rhythm in which God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are said to speak portions of Scripture in turn.”71 In the first section, God speaks to the Son the addresses cited in the catena: “You are my Son”; “I will be to him a Father”; “Your throne, O God”; and so on (1:5-13). The next specified speaker of Scripture is Jesus, who addresses God, his Father: “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise”; “I will put my trust in him”; and finally, perhaps broadening his audience, “Behold, I and the children God has given me” (Heb 2:12-13, citing Ps 22:22; Is 8:17, 18). Following this, the Holy Spirit speaks Psalm 95 to God’s people: “Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts’” (Heb 3:7-11; Ps 95:7-11). In the second section, God declares to Jesus not just Psalm 2:7 but also Psalm 110:4, “You are a priest forever” (see Heb 5:5-6).72 Toward the climax 68

Cf. Rowe, “Trinity in the Letters,” 48-49. The reflections on this theme of Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 3:19-34, though not always convincing in detail, are rich and suggestive, and amply demonstrate his claim that one can speak of the “trinitarian revelation of God” in Hebrews (3:19). 70 For one detailed, influential treatment see George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A TextLinguistic Analysis, NovTSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). On the inclusio at 4:14-16 and 10:19-23 see Guthrie, Structure of Hebrews, 79-82. 71 Matthew R. Malcolm, “God Has Spoken: The Renegotiation of Scripture in Hebrews,” in The Appropriation of Scripture in the Emergence of Christianity, ed. Matthew R. Malcolm (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2015), 179. The following discussion is indebted to Malcolm, “God Has Spoken,” 179-81. 72 Following this, in Heb 6–9, all Scripture citations but one are spoken by God: to Abraham (Heb 6:14; Gen 22:17), to Jesus (Heb 7:17, 21; Ps 110:4), to Moses (Heb 8:5; Exod 25:40), and indirectly to the people of Israel (Heb 8:8-12; Jer 31:31-34). The only exception is the narration of Moses’ speech from Exod 24:8 in Heb 9:20. 69

72

The Paradox of Sonship

of Hebrews’ exposition of the Son’s high-priestly sacrifice, the Son speaks Scripture to the Father: “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me” (Heb 10:5-10; cf. Ps 40:6-8). Shortly afterward, the author reintroduces Jeremiah’s new covenant promise as the speech of the Spirit, “and the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us,” after which portions of Jeremiah 31:31-34 are cited (Heb 10:15-18). Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each speak Scripture as God. Even the words the Son speaks at his incarnation in 10:5-10 belong to that deposit of God’s manifold, varied speech to his people. What God then spoke to his people through the psalmist is fulfilled, in the Son’s incarnate economy, as the Son’s speech to the Father. Further, it is theologically significant not only that the Father, Son, and Spirit each speak the words of Scripture, but that they do so in a certain order, with a certain pattern of address. In each section, the Father speaks to the Son (1:5-13; 5:5-6), then the Son to the Father (2:12-13; 10:5-9), then the Spirit to God’s people (3:7-11; 10:15-18). First are expounded the intra-divine, paternal and filial addresses of the Father and Son and the saving work that follows, then the Spirit propounds to God’s people the pressing practical import of both.73 From this pattern emerges not only the divine identity of Father, Son, and Spirit alike, but also the differentiated unity of the divine agency that accomplishes and applies salvation.74 Another confirmation of Hebrews’ proto-trinitarian theology is found in its treatment of who believers fall away from. Just as apostates scorn the word of God (6:5) and re-crucify the Son (6:6), so they repudiate the gift of the Spirit in which they shared (6:4). Just as apostates face vengeance from the living God for trampling his Son underfoot, so also they outrage the Spirit of grace (10:29-31). Therefore it is neither arbitrary nor unwarranted to identify either the God of Hebrews as the Trinity or this Son as one of the Trinity. Nor does either judgment presuppose that the author of Hebrews had an elaborate, conceptually developed doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, as Kavin Rowe 73

This insight structures, and is elaborated in the whole of, Pierce, Divine Discourse, who discerned this pattern independently of Malcolm. 74 For discussion of the acts of the Holy Spirit in Hebrews beyond that of speaking Scripture, which are often neglected by scholars, see David M. Allen, “‘The Forgotten Spirit’: A Pentecostal Reading of the Letter to the Hebrews,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 51-66.

“Son” as Divine Designation

73

points out, to speak of the Trinity here is “to reason inside the theological patterns required to understand the language used to speak about God” in Hebrews.75 One point I have presupposed in this section may profit from brief support before we conclude: naming God the Father in Hebrews. God is only explicitly referred to as Father twice in Hebrews, in 1:5 and 12:9. In 1:5, God declares that he will be Father to the Son in the words of 2 Samuel 7:14. I have asserted above—and will argue more fully in chapter four—that in Hebrews’ account, God speaks these words to the Son at the Son’s heavenly enthronement, and that they primarily function as the effectual speech-act that enthrones the Son. That is, when God speaks Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 to the Son, he instates the Son as Messiah, conferring on him the exercise of that office. But is that all that these statements entail for the relation between Father and Son? A firm answer awaits the conclusion of our argument. Here I simply suggest in advance that as the office of Messiah entails the exercise of divine prerogatives and presupposes Jesus’ divine identity, so the Father-Son relationship enacted in the Son’s enthronement reveals something intrinsic to the divine identity. In other words, “Father” and “Son” are not only roles adopted in time, but identities lived in eternity. Further, it is arguable that “Father” is the name of God that Jesus confesses when he says, “I will tell of your name to my brothers” (Heb 2:12; Ps 22:22). An implicit reference to God as Father makes good sense in light of the programmatic familial language throughout 2: 10-18. The one who is Son enacts solidarity with his human siblings by becoming incarnate to save them. He becomes their “brother” (2:11, 17), gains them as his “children” (2:13), and welcomes them into his filial relationship with the Father (2:10, 12). In other words, the unique Son’s conferral of sonship on the “many sons” (2:10) presupposes that the Son’s Father becomes their Father.76 Moreover, the reference to God as “the Father of spirits” in 12:9 corroborates that “Father” designates one of the Trinity; the one who is Father of the Son is also, by creation, the Father not only of believers but of heavenly beings. Finally, it is arguable that Hebrews’ use of “Son” as a divine 75

Rowe, “Trinity in the Letters,” 44. For further argument that the name the Son confesses in 2:12 is “Father,” see Scott D. Mackie, “Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews,” NTS 53 (2007): 117-19.

76

74

The Paradox of Sonship

designation virtually requires that “Father” be more than merely a relationship or role adopted in the economy. As Scott Mackie suggests concerning the essential predicates of 1:3a, “The Father’s impress of his being upon the Son is also determinative for his own identity, as Jesus’ Father.”77 Identity and Distinction In the first section of this chapter we saw that, at many times and in many ways, Hebrews uses “Son” to identify Jesus as the God confessed in Israel’s Scriptures: what God does, Jesus does; what God is, Jesus is. Hebrews introduces Jesus as Son in Hebrews 1:2 and immediately explicates his identity as Son in terms of his possessing God’s unique divine being and unique divine rule (1:2b-4). In the following catena (1:5-14), Hebrews grounds this latter claim by calling on scriptural testimony to his receiving the worship due to God alone (1:6); his reign as God on God’s throne (1:8-9); his divinely creative agency and eternal, unchanging life (1:10-12); and his invitation to rule on God’s throne (1:13). All this God speaks in Scripture to the Son, calling the Son “God” and “Lord.” The other two passages confirm this use of “Son” as a divine designation. As the divine Son, he surprisingly learned obedience through the educative discipline he endured (5:8). And, as the properly eternal one, the Son of God is the archetype on which Melchizedek’s apparently unoriginate, unending existence is patterned (7:3). “Son” not only designates Jesus as divine, it also distinguishes him from the Father and the Spirit, whom Hebrews also identifies as divine persons within the unity of the one God. The chief means by which Hebrews identifies Father, Son, and Spirit as three distinct divine subjects is by assigning to each a role as speaker of Scripture, as Scripture’s promises and foreshadowings find embodied fulfillment in the incarnate economy of the Son. The Father addresses the Son, the Son responds to the Father, and the Spirit calls the believing community to hold fast the saving effects of the Son’s incarnate acts. That “Son” designates a mode of divine existence distinct from that of the Father and Spirit is also implicit in the two essential predicates of 1:3a. Both not only identify the Son as possessor of the divine essence but also suggest that the Son exists from the Father as radiance from light and 77

Mackie, “Exordium,” 444.

“Son” as Divine Designation

75

impress from original. Such conceptualities deposit us on trinitarian territory. While Hebrews does not articulate an explicit, conceptually ordered doctrine of the Trinity, its theological grammar is implicitly trinitarian: Hebrews both identifies the Son as God and distinguishes the Son from the Father and the Spirit.

three

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

A

mission involves an objective, a sender, and someone sent. Each of the three reveals something about the other two. Say my wife sends me to the corner market to buy ice cream. Among other mundane revelations, this mission discloses that we find Ben & Jerry’s sufficiently delicious to compensate for the price markup. To leap from the mundane to the marvelous, what does Hebrews’ narration of the Son’s incarnate mission reveal not just about the goal of our salvation, but about who the Son is apart from that mission and what he became for the sake of the mission? This chapter bridges a gap both narrative and conceptual, from Jesus’ existence as divine Son to his appointment as messianic Son. If Jesus is the Son who became Son, this chapter begins to show how the Son became Son, by first becoming incarnate. The chapter’s goal is to demonstrate that Hebrews’ Christology is irreducibly incarnational. That is, Hebrews’ Jesus is God the Son incarnate. The gap this chapter bridges is narrative because, picking up where the previous chapter’s focus on the Son’s divine existence left off, it traces how Hebrews narrates the event of the Son’s incarnation and his whole incarnate mission. This chapter takes us to the threshold of the Son’s enthronement in heaven and of our second thesis: Jesus is appointed messianic Son when he takes his seat at God’s right hand. The gap this chapter bridges is conceptual because our second and third theses presuppose not only the Son’s incarnation but also the completed course of his saving incarnate mission. What the second and third theses presuppose, this chapter aims to demonstrate.

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

77

This chapter will employ, and ultimately legitimate, each of the classical christological tools in our toolkit. By expounding Hebrews’ narration of the Son’s incarnate life, I intend to confirm that Hebrews warrants the classical christological answers regarding who and what Jesus is (tools 1–2). By proving the pudding in the eating, I further aim to show that, though not in so many words, Hebrews itself works with something like a theologyeconomy distinction and the temporal distinctions it implies (tools 3–4). Finally, by tracing the shape of the Son’s incarnate life and mission, I intend to confirm that Hebrews’ material assertions about the Son’s life and experience warrant the interpretive strategies of twofold and paradoxical predication (tools 5–6). While Hebrews does not reflect on the grammatical entailments of its assertions about Christ, the material content of its Christology warrants both of these modes of speech. In other words, this chapter supports the conclusion I asserted in chapter one: though Hebrews and the ecumenical creeds employ different conceptualities, they render the same judgment about Jesus—that he is God incarnate. The argument has three stages. First, I will canvass passages that assert the fact of the incarnation, the divine Son’s entrance into human life. Second, I will synthesize Hebrews’ narration of the Son’s incarnate mission, weaving into an ordered fabric its diffuse threads: Jesus’ life, suffering, and death; his resurrection, perfection, and appointment to high priesthood; and his ascent to heaven and self-offering in the heavenly sanctuary. The final act in this drama, the Son’s session at God’s right hand, will occupy us in chapter four. Third, the chapter will conclude with four thematic and theological reflections on Hebrews’ narration of the Son’s incarnate mission. The Incarnation of the Son To say “incarnation” is to say “became”: the Word became flesh, the divine Son became a man. Remaining what he was, he became what he was not.1 1

By at least the late fourth century this assertion was a patristic commonplace. See, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29.19, “He remained what he was; what he was not, he assumed.” Translation from Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Frederick Williams and Lionel R. Wickham, Popular Patristics 23 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 86; cf. Or. 39.13. See also Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity 3.16 (FC 25:78); Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 24; Cyril of Alexandria, Second Letter to Nestorius 7. For exegetical use of this assertion with incarnational passages such as Heb 2:9 and 14 see, e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, Answers to Tiberius 5; and “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alex-

78

The Paradox of Sonship

Several passages in Hebrews explicitly attest the human becoming of God the Son. Several others imply or presuppose it. I will examine both sorts of passages in order to argue that Hebrews’ Christology is irreducibly incarnational. The first passage in Hebrews that I regard as explicitly incarnational is Hebrews 2:9, “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” By saying that Jesus “for a little while was made lower than the angels,” Hebrews makes at least two points. First, this phrase scripturally designates Jesus as a human being. The phrase is repeated from the citation of Psalm 8:4-6 in Hebrews 2:6-8a. This citation is followed by the comment, “Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him” (2:8b-c). I take it that in both the citation and the comment, Hebrews designates humanity (“man”) as a whole as those whom God made “for a little while lower than the angels” when he “crowned” them “with glory and honor” and put “everything in subjection under his feet” (Heb 2:7-8a; cf. Ps 8:5-6). By virtue of the dominion God granted in the beginning, and in accordance with the measure of their original created dignity, humanity for a time ranked below the angels.2 By saying that Jesus was made lower than the angels, Hebrews unambiguously identifies him as a member of the human race. Second, however, by saying that Jesus “for a little while was made lower than the angels” (2:9), Hebrews states not merely that Jesus is human but that he became human. Applied to humanity as a whole, “you made him” (2:7) refers to the original charter of creation. Applied to Jesus, “was made” narrates his transition from outranking the angels as God the Son to being andrini Commentariorum in Epistolam Ad Hebraeos Fragmenta Quot Reperiri Protuerunt,” (hereafter “Hebrews”) in Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 3:386. 2 For detailed support of taking “him” in 2:8b-c to refer to humanity as a whole, see, e.g., Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie, WUNT II, 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 134-48; Craig L. Blomberg, “‘But We See Jesus’: The Relationship between the Son of Man in Hebrews 2.6 and 2.9 and the Implications for English Translations,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, ed. Richard Bauckham et al., LNTS 387 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 88-99; Matthew C. Easter, Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews, SNTSMS 160 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 35-45; Jared Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, LNTS 537 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 38-51.

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

79

beneath their dignity as a man. Hebrews’ first chapter has already acclaimed Jesus as the God who created all and sustains all. Before his incarnation, God the Son outranked the angels; at his incarnation, he embraced humanity’s low estate. This does not imply that the Son ceased to be divine; if he were not divine, how could the incarnate Jesus be one who became, rather than being by definition, lower than the angels? Instead, like the more explicit “emptied himself ” in Philippians 2:7, the Son’s being “made lower” implies his voluntary self-abasement, his willing embrace of a status beneath his divine dignity.3 Even more incarnationally explicit is 2:14-15, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” As Udo Schnelle comments, “In Heb. 2:14a . . . we find, along with John 1:14, the clearest affirmation of the incarnation in the New Testament.”4 The crucial claim of Hebrews 2:14 is that what human beings are by nature is what Jesus became. What they “share in” by definition, he came to share. F. F. Bruce explains, Such significant distinction as there is between the two forms lies in the tenses: “the children are sharers in (κεκοινώνηκεν, perfect) flesh and blood” in the sense that that is their original and natural state; human beings are per se creatures of flesh and blood. Our Lord, however, existed before his incarnation; “flesh and blood” form no essential part of his eternal being; but at a fixed point in time, by his own choice, “he also himself in like manner partook (μετέσχεν, aorist) of the same” and so began to share fully the nature of those whom he chose thus to redeem.5 3

For recent readings that see the Son’s incarnation in 2:9 see, e.g., William L. Lane, Hebrews, WBC 47A–B (Dallas: Word, 1991), 1:48; Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 15th ed., KEKNT 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 198-99; George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, NovTSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 121-22; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 109-10; Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BIS 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 210-11. 4 Udo Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 639. 5 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 78n55; followed by Small, Characterization, 211. Pryor also notes the importance of the aorist. J. W. Pryor, “Hebrews and Incarnational Christology,” RTR 40 (1981): 45.

80

The Paradox of Sonship

As in 2:9, 2:14 both identifies Jesus unequivocally as a human being and also distinguishes his manner of entry into human life from that of the rest of the human race. Other humans are simply born; Jesus, by contrast, “was made” lower than the angels and “partook” in flesh and blood. What human beings are, the divine Son took to himself. In 2:16 the author reiterates that Jesus did not savingly lay hold of angels but humans. From this intent to save arises the need for a very specific solidarity. As 2:17 infers, “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Jesus’ identity with his human siblings is complete. He is not mostly human or nearly human but fully human. And again, Jesus did not start off human but became human. It is no coincidence that these incarnational assertions of 2:9 and 2:14 bracket striking assertions of the Son’s solidarity with his human siblings. The Son’s perfection through suffering is the means by which God leads “many sons” to glory (2:10). The Son who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all “of one” (KJV); in my view, this phrase designates their common humanity.6 This shared humanity is why the Son is unashamed to call his people “brothers” (2:11). The Son’s freely enacted solidarity with his human siblings is the ontological root of their inclusion in the Father’s family. The theme of the Son’s freely chosen entrance into human existence is amplified in 10:5-10, which begins, “Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me’” (10:5). Citing Psalm 40:6-8, Hebrews reports Christ’s entrance into his human life as a choice, as the willing enaction of the Father’s will. As 10:7 elaborates, “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” The Son became incarnate in order to become obedient. Even if “coming into the world” is a 6

For a variety of readings that all take “of one” (ἐξ ἑνός, ex henos) in 2:11 to designate Jesus and his siblings’ common humanity, see Jean Héring, L’Épître aux Hébreux, Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 12 (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1954), 34; Weiss, Hebräer, 212-13; David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, NovTSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 130-32; Amy L. B. Peeler, You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, LNTS 486 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 86-87; Michael Kibbe, Godly Fear or Ungodly Failure? Hebrews 12 and the Sinai Theophanies, BZNW 216 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 150.

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

81

Hebrew idiom for being born, as some suggest, other humans do not speak their way into the world. Only one who exists as a personal agent prior to assuming human life can declare his intentions at the threshold of his human existence. With good reason Harold Attridge regards 10:5-7 as the most decisive evidence for the incarnation in Hebrews.7 And, as we have seen, Hebrews 10:5-7 sharpens a point implied in Hebrews 2: the Son did not merely become human but chose to become human.8 Incarnation is a word not only fitting but necessary for describing a movement Hebrews repeatedly reports, the Son’s entrance into life in this world as a flesh-and-blood human. In the light shed by these explicit attestations of the Son’s incarnation, we can profitably examine some passages that imply it. First, 5:7 designates Jesus’ earthly life as “the days of his flesh.” As David Moffitt observes, this phrase implies that there was a time when the Son did not yet have flesh.9 In 9:11 we read, “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come.” In view of this passage’s focus on Christ’s entry into the Holy of Holies in heaven (9:12), Christ’s appearance here may well refer to his arrival at the heavenly sanctuary, that is, the conclusion of his ascent to heaven.10 Nevertheless, the assertion that he appeared as “high priest of the good things that have come” implies a redemptive-historical contrast. The Mosaic law and its cult had only a shadow of the good things that were to come (10:1). As such, Christ’s appearance as high priest has epochal significance. He ushers in a new covenant and a new age, the substance that was previously shadowed. Hence, even if “appeared” specifically designates his entrance to heaven, its broader conceptual resonances include his endtime appearance on the world stage. In this light, Christ’s appearance presupposes, even if it does not explicitly name, his incarnation—his saving step into solidarity with humanity. 7

Harold W. Attridge, “Jesus the Incarnate High Priest: Intracanonical Readings of Hebrews and John,” in Hebrews in Contexts, ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge, AGJU 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 292-93. 8 William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, WMANT 53 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 125, aptly comments on the picture that emerges from not only 10:5-10 but also 5:7 and 12:2, “In summary we can say: Jesus knew that he had come, why he had come, and where he would go.” 9 Moffitt, Atonement, 208-10. Moffitt is also correct to deny that this phrase implies that Jesus is no longer embodied. 10 So, e.g., Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 284.

82

The Paradox of Sonship

This broader perspective, I would suggest, is confirmed and made explicit in 9:26, “But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by his sacrifice” (my translation).11 In 2:9-10 Christ was made lower than the angels in order to taste death for everyone and thereby lead many sons to glory. In 2:14 he shared in flesh and blood in order by his death to destroy the devil’s power of death. In 2:17 he was made like his brothers in every respect in order to become a merciful and faithful high priest, so that he might atone for the people’s sins. In 10:5-14 the Son took up the body God prepared for him in order to offer that body back to God and so perfect his people. Finally, here in 9:26, Christ made his eschatological appearance in order to deal decisively with sin by his sacrifice. The same salvific teleology of the incarnation apparent in all four other passages is present in 9:26. The Son became incarnate in order to save. The verb translated “has appeared” (πεφανέρωται, pephanerōtai) likely has a middle sense: the Son showed up. You or I might appear in a room; the Son appeared on earth. Other humans do not exactly appear on earth; we are earthly by default. But when the Son showed up and turned history on its hinge, he came, as it were, from elsewhere. All of these passages, particularly the more explicit set, warrant the conclusion drawn by many modern scholars that Hebrews attests the incarnation of the divine Son. For instance, glossing 2:14-18, Stefan Alkier writes, “The Son of God assumed a human existence.”12 Richard Bauckham observes, “The lowliness of incarnation was necessary on the way to the exaltation described in Ps. 110.”13 And Knut Backhaus concludes, “The gap between the heavenly likeness of the ‘Son’ to God and his likeness to the ‘earthly brothers’ (cf. 2:11ff) is bridged by the section 2:14-18, which materially develops the initial Christology with the theme of the incarnation of the preexistent one (cf. 2:7, 9).”14 Several scholars argue that Hebrews implies or presupposes the 11

On 9:26 as a reference to the incarnation, and its similarities to 1 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 1:20, and 1 John 3:5, see Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 295-96. 12 Stefan Alkier, The Reality of the Resurrection: The New Testament Witness, trans. Leroy A. Huizenga (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013), 76. 13 Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009),” 23. 14 Knut Backhaus, “‘Licht vom Licht’: Die Präexistenz Christi im Hebräerbrief,” in Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief, WUNT I, 240 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 87-88.

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

83

Son’s incarnation.15 This is true, but it does not quite say enough. Hebrews explicitly marks the motion of the Son’s entrance into human life. “Incarnation” is simply shorthand for the divine Son’s becoming human, an event Hebrews repeatedly recalls. Given Hebrews’ explicit assertions of the divine Son’s incarnation, I now show how all but one of the christological tools of chapter one, conceptual distinctions and strategies of predication alike, are warranted by the text of Hebrews. In other words, I argue that in each of these ways, Hebrews and classical, conciliar Christology say the same thing. Often classical Christology makes explicit what is implicit in Hebrews. Even in such a case the later conceptual elaboration responds to pressure from the text itself and draws an inference that is not merely possible but necessary. First, then, Who is Jesus? Hebrews answers: The divine Son incarnate. The human Jesus is God the Son.16 As Ian McFarland said in his inaugural lecture as Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, “What we see in Jesus is human, but the one whom we see is divine.”17 Specifically, Hebrews indicates that the one of whom exclusively divine predicates are apt is the very one who became human. That is, the divine Son is the single ascriptive, acting subject of the incarnation. As Michael Allen observes of the emphatic “he himself ” (καὶ αὐτός, kai autos) in 2:14, “This one is ‘very God’ or ‘fully God,’ the repetition of the subject’s identification (‘he himself ’) attests to the specificity of the claim. This humanity is the Word or the Son’s personal humanity.”18 15

E.g., Andrew T. Lincoln, Hebrews: A Guide (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 86-87; Frank J. Matera, New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 340. 16 What Thomas Weinandy says of conciliar Christology is equally apt of Hebrews: Thus, in the incarnation, the Son actively interrelated and was personally engaged, on an equal human level, with other human beings and with his environment. The singular difference was, for example, that when Jesus touched someone or when someone touched him, who was doing the human touching and who was being humanly touched was none other than the eternal divine Son equal to the Father. In Thomas G. Weinandy, “Trinitarian Christology: The Eternal Son,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 395. Further, Knut Backhaus concludes that in Hebrews the Son’s preexistence “is not about the divinity of a man, but the humanity of God” (“‘Licht vom Licht’,” 99). 17 Ian McFarland, “Inaugural lecture,” December 3, 2015, University of Cambridge, http://sms. cam.ac.uk/media/2127210. 18 Michael Allen, “Christ,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Doctrine of Sin, ed. Keith L. Johnson and David Lauber (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 455. Cf. Cyril on 2:14-17, “Therefore there is one Son and Lord by the hypostatic union, since the Word was joined to human flesh and shares in blood, having been made like his brothers in every way” (Hebrews, 3:395).

84

The Paradox of Sonship

Second, what is Jesus? He is God the Son become human; he is both human and divine. As Richard Bauckham concludes, As divine, this high priest had no father or mother or genealogy, but as human he shares the same kind of origin as his fellow-humans (2:11) and partakes of the same flesh-and-blood mortal nature as they (2:14). These are straight contradictions that cannot be understood other than by a notion of two natures at least embryonically related to that of later patristic Christology.19

We can treat our third and fourth tools together—the question of when and the theology-economy distinction or partitive exegesis—since the latter develops the former. The Son exists eternally as God and becomes incarnate in time, in these last times. Hence we can distinguish those passages that speak of the Son as God from those that presuppose the humanity he assumed at his incarnation. My point is not that Hebrews overtly employs such a distinction but that the distinction cuts Hebrews’ Christology at its joints. Hebrews does indeed acclaim the Son as divine, confess his entrance into human life, and say things of him that can only be true of a human being. And, as we saw with Cyril’s help in chapter two, sometimes what Hebrews ascribes to the human Jesus presupposes or entails his divinity. In light of all this, the theology-economy distinction grants classically christological interpreters the ability to gesture summarily to the Son’s divinity, his incarnation, and the incarnation’s consequences for both the person of Christ and the salvation of his people. For instance, Cyril comments on Hebrews 2:9, “Although he is God by nature, he endured the limits of humanity on account of the economy”—that is, in his incarnate state, in order to save his people.20 Or again on 2:14 in its context, Therefore, although he is God and Lord by nature and enthroned with God the Father, since the Only-begotten Word of God descended to the limits of humanity, for this reason he is ranked even as a brother with those who are called through faith to be adopted by God. Then, having preserved well the ingenuity of the economy, only then did he ever say concerning us, “I will declare your name to my brothers” (2:12), and at another time, “Behold, I and the children God has given me” (2:13).21 19

Bauckham, “Divinity,” 32. Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 386. 21 Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 393. 20

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

85

For Cyril, the economy is what enables the divine Son to call humans his brothers. As we have seen, this reading precisely recapitulates the logic not only of Hebrews 2:14 but of its entire context. Our fifth tool, twofold predication, distinguishes what is true of Jesus by virtue of his divinity from what is true of him by virtue of his humanity. Though Hebrews does not explicitly engage in such analysis, its acclamations of Christ presuppose its validity. As we have seen repeatedly in Hebrews 1:2-4, for instance, Hebrews predicates of the Son what is exclusively divine and what is necessarily human, side by side, without a hint of embarrassment over such juxtaposition. The same Son who created all and sustains all made purification for sins and then sat down on God’s throne. From one perspective, twofold or reduplicative predication simply affirms that what is true of the Son as God remains true when he becomes a man. Hence Cyril says regarding 2:9, “He did by God’s grace . . . ‘taste’ death for every man in flesh able to experience it, without ceasing personally to be life.”22 And again, “Therefore the one who is said to have been made a little lower than the angels, he himself is the Word of God, and did not suffer this humiliation in his own [divine] nature; for he always is, and exists in the same way, unchangeable and immutable, and he endured all this as a human for our sake.”23 Cyril is not saying that God the Son did not die, but rather that he died as a human, in his only nature that could die. While our sixth tool, paradoxical predication or the communicatio idiomatum, is already implied in what we have so far shown, I will save explicit discussion of it for the next section, where I will ground it in Hebrews’ own recognition of one paradoxical aspect of the Son’s incarnate life.

22

On the Creed 25, in Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, trans. Lionel R. Wickham, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 125; cf. Third Letter to Nestorius 6, “By nature life and personally the Resurrection though he exists and is, ‘by God’s grace he tasted death for every man’ in surrendering his body to it” (in Letters, 21). Augustine’s comment on Heb 2:9 reflects the same basic grammar: “When, then, in order to be mediator, he willed to take ‘the form of a servant’ below the angels, he remained in the form of God above the angels, being simultaneously the way of life on earth and life itself in heaven.” In The City of God 9.15; translation here follows Erik M. Heen and Philip D. W. Krey, eds., Hebrews, ACCS 10 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 37. 23 Hebrews, 386. Cf. Second Letter to Nestorius 5 (in Letters, 7–9).

86

The Paradox of Sonship

The Son’s Incarnate Mission This section will retell Hebrews’ telling of the Son’s incarnate mission. At various points Hebrews refers to the Son’s life of faithful obedience amid suffering, his saving death, resurrection, perfection, ascent to heaven, appointment to high priesthood, self-offering in the heavenly tabernacle, and finally his appointment as Messiah-in-power when he sat down at God’s right hand. Of these events Hebrews offers a glimpse here, a brief sequence there. To facilitate reading Hebrews’ account of Christ’s mission as a unified whole, I will proceed chronologically, structuring my narration under three headings: (1) the Son’s life, suffering, and saving death; (2) his resurrection and perfection; and (3) his ascent to heaven, appointment to high priesthood, and self-offering there. The appointment to sonship and the session on God’s throne that follow this third heading are, of course, crucial for Hebrews’ Christology and our entire argument, but they will be the focus of chapter four. Life, suffering, death. Hebrews’ narration of Jesus’ earthly life focuses almost entirely on his faithful endurance of temptation, suffering, and the agony of the cross. Perhaps the sole exception to this is Hebrews 2:3, which informs us that the good news of salvation “was declared at first by the Lord.” Otherwise, Hebrews underscores, first, Jesus’ faithfulness in temptation: “For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (2:18). And we have a high priest “who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (4:15). Second, Hebrews especially highlights the suffering that led to and culminated in the cross. Jesus “offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death” (5:7).24 For the joy that was set before him, Jesus “endured the cross, despising the shame” (12:2; cf. 12:3). On that cross Jesus suffered an agonizing death (2:9; 9:26; 13:12). Twice Hebrews asserts that Jesus was perfected through or after suffering. First, 2:10 says, “For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.” And in 5:7-10 we read, 24

Whether 5:7 refers to Gethsemane, Jesus’ crucifixion, or his passion more broadly is immaterial for present purposes.

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

87

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he is the Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (my translation)

I leave for the next section the question of what Hebrews means by saying that Jesus was made perfect. Here I simply note, first, that his suffering was both prerequisite to his perfection (5:8-9) and instrumental in his perfection (2:10). Second, we should again underscore that Hebrews presents the Son’s suffering as surprising—or we might even say paradoxical. How can the one who is Son learn obedience through suffering? Here my point is not so much the Son’s divinity as the implicit paradox that it is this divine Son who truly suffers as a human. Cyril exhibits the paradox well in his comments on Hebrews 5:7-8: Thus, the Word of God became an example for us in the days of his flesh, but not nakedly or outside the limits of the self-emptying. This was why he was quite properly able to employ the limitations of the manhood. This was why he extended his prayer, and shed a tear, at times even seemed to need a saviour himself, and learned obedience, while all the while he was the Son.25

Here in 5:7-10, I suggest, is warrant for paradoxical predication, the communicatio idiomatum, in the text of Hebrews itself. Hebrews 5:7-8 is not stated as bracingly as many patristic formulations, or even as explicitly as, for instance, 1 Corinthians 2:8. Nevertheless, Hebrews itself confesses as counterintuitive the formative suffering of the Son of God. In what sense this suffering formed the Son we will consider in the next section. Finally, Hebrews announces that Christ’s horrific death obtained for his people essential soteriological goods. By God’s grace he tasted death for everyone (2:9). Through his death he disarmed “the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,” and he delivered “all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (2:14-15). In his death he obtained 25

Cyril of Alexandria, That the Christ Is One (PG 75:1324); translation in John Anthony McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 221-22. McGuckin explains Cyril’s term “nakedly” (γυμνὸς ὤν, gymnos ōn): “that is in the nature of his deity per se” (221n85).

88

The Paradox of Sonship

redemption “from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (9:15). As the suffering servant, by dying for others he bore the sins of many (Heb 9:28; cf. Is 53:12). Christ’s death was not a mistake but God’s gift, not defeat but victory, not an embarrassment but redemption.26 Resurrection and perfection. Important as Jesus’ death is for Hebrews, the turning point of its salvific narrative is that Jesus did not stay dead. Instead, Hebrews confesses Christ’s bodily resurrection.27 In Hebrews 13:20 the author designates God as the one “who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,” explicitly affirming Jesus’ bodily resurrection. In 6:2 the author treats “the resurrection of the dead” as an element of “the elementary doctrine of Christ,” and 11:35 distinguishes temporary revivification from the eschatological resurrection that martyrs died to gain.28 Combined with Hebrews’ explicit assertion of Jesus’ resurrection in 13:20, this conviction of an eschatological general resurrection implies that Hebrews sees Christ as experiencing in advance what believers will then obtain. Further, the author calls Jesus “the pioneer and perfecter of faith” (12:2, NIV) who endured the agony of the cross in order to obtain his joyful reward. On the heels of references to resurrection (11:19, 35), the assertion that Jesus obtained “the joy that was set before him” (12:2) as pioneer and perfecter confirms that he obtained resurrection ahead of his people, guaranteeing theirs.29 In addition, in 5:7 Jesus cried out “to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.” That God is designated as the one able to deliver Jesus out of death (ἐκ θανάτου, ek thanatou) suggests that Jesus was praying for deliverance from death. But how was this prayer heard? Since Jesus did indeed suffer death, his prayer being answered presupposes resurrection. To propose that Jesus’ spirit was translated to heaven at the moment of his death is simply to re-describe death: only one physically restored to life is brought out of it.30 Finally, as we will discuss 26

For further discussion of the objective saving efficacy of Christ’s death in Hebrews see R. B. Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews, SNTSMS 172 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 97-126. 27 For a survey of scholarship on the question of Christ’s resurrection in Hebrews, see Moffitt, Atonement, 1-43. 28 For the latter point see Moffitt, Atonement, 186-88; Alkier, Reality, 78-79. 29 See further Easter, Faith, 107-31. 30 See further Moffitt, Atonement, 188-93.

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

89

below, I take “the power of an indestructible life” on the basis of which Jesus became priest to indicate his bodily resurrection (7:16). Hebrews expounds not merely the fact of Jesus’ resurrection but its significance. What does Jesus’ resurrection mean for him and for believers? To answer, we need to return to Hebrews’ language of perfection. In addition to 2:10 and 5:9, 7:28 also affirms that Jesus was “made perfect”: “For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.” This assertion raises at least two questions: What does Jesus’ perfection mean? And, when was he “made perfect”? In order to understand what Hebrews means by saying that Jesus was “perfected,”31 we must briefly survey Hebrews’ other uses of perfection language. Four times Hebrews denies that the law could accomplish perfection: perfection was not “attainable through the Levitical priesthood” (7:11); “the law made nothing perfect” (7:19); its sacrifices could not “perfect the conscience of the worshiper” (9:9), that is, “those who draw near” to God (10:1). By contrast, after passing through the “greater and more perfect” tent in heaven (9:11), Christ offered a single sacrifice that has forever perfected his people (10:14). Jesus is the “founder and perfecter” of faith (12:2), the one through whom the faithful of old, who were not yet perfected (11:40), now have been (12:23).32 Finally, standing between the law’s inability to perfect and the perfection Christ provides is his being perfected himself (2:10; 5:9; 7:28). What understanding of perfection can account for all three of these uses? I would argue that the common thread uniting all three is the notion of eschatological, unsurpassable fulfillment.33 For God’s people, this fulfillment includes a cleansing that is not merely external but wipes clean the conscience, and it entails the unrestricted access to God’s presence that was impossible under the old covenant (7:19; 9:8, 9, 13-14; 10:1-4, 19, 22). This sense of perfection accounts for what the law could not do and what Christ’s 31

τελειῶσαι (teleiōsai, 2:10); τελειωθείς (teleiōtheis, 5:9); τετελειωμένον (teteleiōmenon, 7:28). The terms Hebrews uses are the verb τελειόω (teleioō, “to perfect”), the noun τελείωσις (teleiōsis, “perfection”), and the noun τελειωτής (teleiōtēs, “perfecter”). I leave aside the adjectival form in 5:14 and the noun form τελειότης (teleiotēs, “perfection”) in 6:1, since both refer to moral progress, and so are not likely used with the same specialized overtones as their relatives elsewhere in Hebrews. Though it is possible that these uses partake of the theological nuances of the others, as Moises Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” WTJ 39 (1976): 68-69, suggests. 33 So Silva, “Perfection”; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 133, 170. 32

90

The Paradox of Sonship

sacrifice did. But what of Christ himself being “made perfect”? With many scholars, I take Christ’s being perfected to designate his process of qualification to become the one who can confer perfection. That is, the process of Christ’s perfection consists in the whole course of prerequisites to Christ becoming the all-sufficient, preeminent high priest.34 Christ’s entrance into perfection is his acquisition of all he needed to become this high priest. But just what was necessary, and when did Christ obtain it? First, Christ had to suffer in order to be perfected (2:10; 5:8). His faithful endurance of suffering was an essential element in his becoming “a merciful and faithful high priest” who could “help those who are being tempted” (2:17-18). Christ had to suffer in order to become a high priest who could “sympathize with our weaknesses” (4:15). Prerequisite to Christ becoming high priest was not only his physical solidarity with his human siblings, but his perfect perseverance through the whole desperate course of human life.35 In 5:7-8, Jesus cried out to God for deliverance, learned obedience through what he suffered, and then, “being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation” (5:9). Since Jesus’ learning obedience is coordinate with his suffering, his being made perfect necessarily follows his whole course of earthly obedience. Only after his sufferings were completed was Jesus perfected; only when perfected did Jesus become the source of eternal salvation. If Jesus’ perfection is his qualification for high priesthood, the contrast between Christ and the Levitical priests in Hebrews 7 sheds further light on what his perfection consists in. The Levitical priests needed constantly to be replaced because death removed each from office (7:23). By contrast, Christ “holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever” (7:24). So Christ’s immortality is key to his superiority to the Levitical priests. But 34

So, with varying nuances, David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews,” SNTSMS 47 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); James Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, EUS 693 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2000), 227-32; Kevin DeYoung, “Divine Impassibility and the Passion of Christ in the Book of Hebrews,” WTJ 68 (2006): 47; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 163-70; Kenneth L. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice, SNTSMS 143 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 66; Moffitt, Atonement, 194-98; Small, Characterization, 177, 222-23. 35 Cf. Nikolaus Walter, “Christologie und irdischer Jesus im Hebräerbrief,” in Praeparatio Evangelica: Studien zur Umwelt, Exegese und Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, by Nikolaus Walter, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Florian Wilk, WUNT I, 98 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 156.

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

91

when did he obtain this immortality? The Levitical priests died, and so did he. Hence when Hebrews says that Jesus “has become a priest . . . by the power of an indestructible life” (7:16), I take this “life” to be the glorified eschatological life he obtained at his resurrection. Hebrews’ discussion of Jesus’ perfecting maps consistently onto a grid of humiliation-then-exaltation.36 Jesus suffered death and then was crowned with glory and honor (2:9); so also he suffered in order to be perfected (2:10). Jesus learned obedience through what he suffered, which culminated in his death (5:7-8); when delivered from death he was made perfect (5:9). “For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath . . . appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever” (7:28). Having been perfected, Jesus was no longer subject to the weakness of mortality. Jesus’ perfection includes not just his completed course of faithfulness and his painfully purchased sympathy with human weakness, but also his transcendence of that weakness and mortality, which he overcame in his triumph over death. Since Jesus’ perfection includes his transcendence of mortality, he was, and could only have been, perfected at his resurrection. Understanding perfection as the eschatological fulfillment of God’s saving purposes informs what it means for Jesus to be perfected. Jesus’ perfection is his fitness to become the mediator, the conduit, the source of this eschatological fullness. Only the perfected Christ can perfect others. Ascent to heaven, appointment as high priest, self-offering in the heavenly Holy of Holies. What did Jesus do after rising from death? He ascended to heaven (Heb 4:14; 7:26). What did he ascend in order to do? Offer himself to God in the heavenly Holy of Holies (9:24-26). But before offering himself to God, he was appointed high priest after the order of Melchizedek, thereby becoming qualified to offer himself as the final sacrifice. The first point to see here is that Jesus did not occupy the office of high priest—and therefore did not serve as high priest—during his earthly career. Instead, as our discussion of perfection indicates, he was only qualified to become priest once resurrected.37 This is at least implicit in 5:9-10: 36

For a visual depiction, see Silva, “Perfection,” 66. See, e.g., Kurianal, Jesus, 219-33; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 172-81, 236-54 (though he speaks of exaltation rather than resurrection); Moffitt, Atonement, 194-208; Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering, 23-34.

37

92

The Paradox of Sonship

“And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” In other words, Jesus’ being perfected was prerequisite to his becoming the source of salvation, and, once perfected, he was appointed high priest by God.38 Further, the assertion of 7:16 is not merely that Jesus was a priest who had indestructible life but that, in contrast to the Levitical requirement concerning bodily descent, Jesus’ indestructible life was the basis of his appointment to high priesthood. Levitical descent was their qualification; resurrection was his. Jesus was qualified for high priesthood by his resurrection. Further, we will see in chapter four that God speaks the words of Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” to Christ, in person, in the heavenly throne room. In Hebrews 5:6, the author connects this divine declaration of Psalm 2:7 with God’s speaking to the Son the words of Psalm 110:4, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” Jesus was only qualified for high priesthood on the basis of the perfection he obtained at his resurrection. And it seems that, following Christ’s resurrection, God installed the Son in office by an in-person scriptural address, establishing the Son in office as high priest upon his entrance to heaven. That Jesus died on the cross “to bear the sins of many” (9:28) gave him something to offer (cf. 8:3). That Jesus was appointed high priest at his entrance to heaven qualified him to present his offering (cf. 5:1; 8:3). So what did he do next? He passed through “the greater and more perfect tent” (9:11) in order to enter the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle in heaven (9:12, 24; cf. 6:19-20; 8:2). At his arrival to this inner room of God’s heavenly residence, he offered himself to God (7:27; 9:14, 25), presenting to God his own fleshand-blood body (10:10). Just as the earthly high priest entered the Holy of Holies with blood to offer it there (9:7), so also Christ entered heaven with and by means of his blood to, in some sense, offer it to God there (9:12, 25). Better priest, better sacrifice, better sanctuary—the glorified, indestructibly 38

Cf. Moffitt’s comments on the relation of the participles “being made perfect” (τελειωθείς, teleiōtheis) and “being designated” (προσαγορευθείς, prosagoreutheis) to the main verb “became” (ἐγένετο, egeneto): “It was after Jesus was perfected that he became the source of everlasting salvation for all those who obey him, being at that time appointed by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Atonement, 198, emphasis original).

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

93

alive Jesus offered his own self to God in the tabernacle of which the earthly one was a copy.39 This sacrifice obtained not temporary reprieve but everlasting redemption (9:12). This sacrifice was not a stopgap but swept sin away for good (9:26). This sacrifice cleansed not the flesh but the conscience, freeing believers for wholehearted service to God (9:9, 13-14; cf. 10:1-2). This sacrifice disinfected not an earthly sacred space but the heavenly tabernacle itself (9:23).40 This sacrifice secured full forgiveness, plenary pardon (10:15-18). This sacrifice sanctifies (10:10; 13:12), grants access to God’s innermost dwelling (10:19), and perfects God’s people forever (10:14). After offering this sacrifice to God in heaven, Christ sat down at God’s right hand in royal repose, his single sacrifice sufficient to save (10:12-13).41 This brings us to the point in the story that is the point of the next chapter. Beyond our immediate focus, though nevertheless crucial to Hebrews’ proclamation of Christ, are his present intercession for believers (7:25; cf. 4:16; 9:24) and his future return to save (9:28). Four Conclusions I now offer four conclusions to close the chapter. First, this chapter has shown that, while Hebrews does not narrate the Son’s incarnate mission sequentially, it nevertheless attests a sequential narrative. The Son’s saving mission, from incarnation to exaltation, is a single seamless story.42 39

For a fuller defense of locating Jesus’ self-offering in heaven, as well as an argument for taking the role of “blood” in Jesus’ heavenly offering to indicate that the saving achievement of his death is what he offers to God in heaven, see Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering, esp. 23-94, 127-79. 40 On which see R. B. Jamieson, “Hebrews 9.23: Cult Inauguration, Yom Kippur, and the Cleansing of the Heavenly Tabernacle,” NTS 62 (2016): 582-83. 41 As John of Damascus comments on Heb 1:3d, “Again, after fulfilling the mystery of the economy he was taken up in glory, and sat down at the right hand of the Father.” In “Ad Hebraeos,” in Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos: Commentarii in epistulas Pauli, ed. Robert Volk, PTS 68 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 7:474; cf. 7:475 on Heb 1:6. 42 Hence when Caird says that the author of Hebrews “has no place in his thinking for preexistence as an ontological concept,” he excises the first step of the Son’s mission. G. B. Caird, “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. William C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), 1:81. As emphatically human as Hebrews’ Jesus is, he just as emphatically did not start off human but became human. In a similar vein Hurst writes, “The theme of Ps. 8 in chapter two is God’s plan for mankind; if, however, chapter one describes the unique prerogatives of a heavenly being who becomes man, it is difficult to see how the two chapters could be talking about the same thing” L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford

94

The Paradox of Sonship

Hebrews explicitly and repeatedly marks the moment when the Son became human. The author reports the Son’s incarnation, snatches of his earthly life, and then the decisive events of his death, resurrection, and ascension. Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and ultimately his session remain events in the story of the Son’s incarnate mission because in these events the Son remains the incarnate Jesus. Jesus does not shuck off his humanity at death.43 Instead, who is it that we see crowned with glory and honor? Jesus, the man in whom humanity’s destined, squandered glory is now regained (2:9). How can Jesus now appear before God “on our behalf ” (9:24)? Because he remains one of us, clothed in flesh— though flesh no longer frail but imperishable. Second, Hebrews asserts that the Son’s incarnation was both necessary for salvation and oriented to salvation. Salvation has an incarnational basis, and the incarnation has salvation as its motive and goal. “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (2:14-15). Christ came to lay saving hold of humanity (2:16); “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (2:17).44 Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 155. But Hurst fails to follow the full, unbroken sweep of Hebrews’ soteriological story: the one who is divine by nature became human by choice precisely so as to gain and gift the glory humanity lacked. Also falling afoul of the narrative continuity of the Son’s mission in Hebrews is the comment of C. F. D. Moule, “But we are still left asking how the individual of the ministry and the postresurrection glory is related to the pre-existent being.” The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 101. Moule’s query presupposes two individuals, two answers to “Who?” Yet Hebrews knows only one, the divine Son who became a man. 43 Hence the following comments of Cyril, which presuppose the permanence of the incarnation, elaborate the implicit logic of Hebrews: “You see, if he did not become a man, then he has also not ascended in the flesh to his God and Father in heaven, nor will he return to us from heaven, namely, physically, as man” (On Orthodoxy to Theodosius 9; FC 129:44). Also Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. 101.5, “Whoever says his flesh has now been discarded and his Godhead denuded of body, but denies that he exists along with what he assumed and will come with it, will not see the glory of the Parousia. Where is his body now, if not with the one who assumed it?” (On God and Christ, 157). 44 Commenting on these passages, Knut Backhaus writes, “The incarnation is the subject of brief and plainly significant main clauses, to which exhaustive soteriological final clauses are assigned” (Backhaus, “‘Licht vom Licht’,” 87-88). See also Athanasius, C. Ar. 2.55.1-4; Decr. 14.2.

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

95

Human salvation is the overarching rationale for and telos of the Son’s incarnate mission. The Son’s incarnation is oriented toward, and is a presupposition of, each of his saving acts. The Son assumed human nature so that, through his own death, he would defeat death. The Son took up the body God prepared for him so that, ultimately, he might offer that body to God in heaven. The Son entered and endured the human condition in order to transform it from within.45 As Cyril of Alexandria put it, “If he conquered as God, that would be of no use to us, but if he conquered as a human being, we too have conquered in him.”46 For Hebrews, as for the creeds, Christology and soteriology are mutually determining. What George Hunsinger says of Chalcedon is equally true of Hebrews: “The work presupposes the person just as the person conditions the work.”47 The same for Thomas Weinandy on Ignatius: For Ignatius, the authenticity, the genuineness, the efficaciousness, and the reality of humankind’s salvation is predicated, intrinsically and necessarily, upon the authenticity, the genuineness, the efficaciousness, and the historical reality of Jesus’ incarnation, life, death, and resurrection.48

This mutually conditioning relationship between salvation and incarnation is a key feature of the entire classical christological tradition. For instance, Irenaeus writes, For unless it was a human being who had vanquished the enemy of humanity, the enemy would not have been justly vanquished. Conversely, unless it was God who had granted salvation, we would not have possessed it securely. And 45

Otfried Hofius perceptively comments that the Son’s “sharing in flesh and blood” in 2:14 is “the path that Jesus had to take in order to enter the devil’s prison himself and, as it were, blow it open from within.” In Otfried Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19f und 10,19f, WUNT I, 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972), 62. 46 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, trans. David R. Maxwell, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, ACT (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013–15), 2:269. 47 George Hunsinger, “Karl Barth’s Christology: Its Basic Chalcedonian Character,” in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 127. 48 Weinandy, “Apostolic Christology,” 80. On the same page Weinandy adds, “While this causal connection is embedded within the apostolic tradition of the New Testament—for example, in Rom. 5–8 and the Letter to the Hebrews—it was Ignatius who unearthed it for all to see.” I agree, of course, that this “causal connection” is present in Hebrews (e.g., ἐπεί [epei], 2:14; ὅθεν [hothen], 2:17). However, given this causal connection in Hebrews, the apparently decisive role Weinandy ascribes to Ignatius is exaggerated.

96

The Paradox of Sonship

unless humanity had been conjoined to God, the human being would not have become a participant in incorruption. For it was fitting for the mediator between God and humanity, by his kinship with both, to bring them to friendship and concord so that God may receive humanity and humanity may give itself to God.49

Hebrews does not reason about the soteriological rationale for Jesus’ divinity and humanity with the precise symmetry with which Irenaeus does. Instead, its incarnational assertions tend to presuppose Jesus’ divine identity and argue for the necessity of his full identification with humanity. Nevertheless, Irenaeus’ reflections can be seen to elaborate and develop the soteriological logic present in a text like Hebrews. In Jesus, God himself comes to save his people by becoming one of his people. In Jesus, God grants his people a share in the Son’s own relationship to the Father (2:11-12). In Jesus, what belongs to God the Son by nature is granted his people by grace.50 Third, we have seen that not only the Son’s incarnation but the entire earthly stage of his incarnate mission, including his death and resurrection, is prerequisite to his appointment to high priesthood.51 The incarnation 49

Against Heresies 3.18.7; translation from Khaled Anatolios, “The Soteriological Grammar of Conciliar Christology,” The Thomist 78 (2014): 167. Along similar lines is Against Heresies 3.19.1 (ANF 1:448-49): For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and he who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons? Irenaeus’s idiom here is Pauline, but the parallels to Hebrews’ narrative Christology run deep. 50 For other classical statements that underscore the salvific teleology of the incarnation and the mutually conditioning character of what we moderns call “Christology” and “soteriology” see, e.g., Athanasius, C. Ar. 1.41, 48; Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 1.5; 38.3; Ep. 101.4; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 32 (in, e.g., Edward Rochie Hardy and Cyril C. Richardson, eds., Christology of the Later Fathers, LCC 3 [London: SCM, 1954], 310). 51 In this vein the comments of Walter, “Christologie,” 158-59, though dense, are worth reproducing in full: Here lies the real, deepest significance of the earthly path of Jesus—and not only of an abstractly taken “humanity,” an earthly “that” of Jesus. His path is the prerequisite by which God now, according to his will and plan, can appoint him as “high priest after the order of Melchizedek” (5:5-10). For only in this way has he shown and proven himself as the “Son,” which he is from the beginning (cf. 1:6; 5:5b). His endurance of the “days of his flesh,” up to the bitterest death, in inviolable—indeed, only so truly “learned”

The Son’s Incarnate Mission

97

was a becoming that was necessary for salvation, but it was not the only becoming the divine Son underwent. The becomings that followed—his faithful endurance, suffering, saving death, and being perfected at his resurrection—were all equally necessary to his becoming the “source of eternal salvation” (5:9). To obtain a degree from a university, one must first obtain admission to a course of study. But once this foundational prerequisite is secured, a string of further requirements follows. The Son’s incarnation is the foundational prerequisite for his becoming his people’s Savior, but it is not a sufficient prerequisite. Only as a man could the Son become Melchizedekian high priest. But the only man who could become such a high priest was one who had sinlessly suffered, besting humanity’s moral weakness, and had then been raised from death, transforming humanity’s ontological weakness. The incarnation was the initial becoming that rendered possible each subsequent becoming.52 Hence predicates that might seem hopelessly paradoxical for one who is truly divine—learning, suffering, being perfected—are in fact soteriologically conditioned prerequisites for the incarnate Son’s assumption of the saving office of high priest. Hebrews places all these predicates as checkpoints along the way to the Son’s priestly appointment. Finally, the completion of the Son’s saving act—his singular, sufficient sacrifice—is, in turn, the presupposition for the genuine novum of the Son’s incarnate enthronement. Only as the one who had achieved salvation by a single sacrifice could the Son enter into his restful reign at God’s right hand (10:11-14).53 It is only within the incarnate economy that the Son becomes (5:8)—obedience, thus still “without sin” despite all the temptations that came to him (4:15), is the presupposition of his exaltation (5:7, 9), and the prerequisite for his qualification to become heavenly high priest. 52 A number of premodern authors affirm that the Son only became priest in his incarnate state. So Cyril, “The rank of priesthood, though inferior to God the Word’s nature and glory, is rightly to be seen as appropriate to the limitations of manhood and consonant with the incarnate economy; for what is human has become his own” (On the Creed 19; in Letters, 115, translation alt.). See also his Third Letter to Nestorius 10; Fragment 10, in “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Homiliarum Fragmenta,” in Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 3:466-68; and Athanasius, C. Ar. 2.7-9. I agree that the Son’s priesthood is a feature of his incarnate economy, yet I have also argued that not only the Son’s incarnation but his entire earthly course of perfecting, culminating in resurrection, is prerequisite to his appointment as high priest. 53 My wording here presupposes that in Heb 4:10, Jesus is the one who “entered God’s rest” and so “rested from his works.” For a substantial defense of this reading see Nicholas J. Moore, “Jesus

98

The Paradox of Sonship

high priest and offers himself as a saving sacrifice. And it is only at the completion of this saving mission—the telos of the economy—that the Son is enthroned at God’s right hand. Having surveyed the broad sweep of the incarnate Son’s saving mission, in the next chapter we freeze the frame at the moment when he sat down on heaven’s throne.

as ‘The One Who Entered His Rest’: The Christological Reading of Hebrews 4.10,” JSNT 36 (2014): 383-400. However, even without such support from 4:10, that Christ’s post-sacrifice session is a posture of rest is evident in the contrast with the Levitical priest, who “stands daily” at their service (10:11).

four

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

A

lecturer is promoted; a man and woman vow “I do”; a prime minister is sworn in. Each of these moments confers new privileges and responsibilities, each a new title. The professor or husband or wife or prime minister all remain the same people they were before this moment. But afterward, they are authorized to act in new ways, and can—or should, or must—be addressed in new ways. “Minister, do you really want me to answer that question?” In this chapter I argue that the Son’s enthronement in heaven is just such a moment. When God invites the Son to sit at his right hand, he confers on him all the prerogatives of the office of Messiah, and with that office its title, “Son.” That is, in this chapter I argue the second of this book’s three theses: in addition to naming Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence, “Son” also designates the office of messianic rule to which Jesus is appointed at his enthronement. In addition to being the divine Son by nature, Jesus is appointed the messianic Son when he is enthroned at God’s right hand in heaven, at the telos of his incarnate mission. In terms of our classical christological toolkit, the theology-economy distinction is a key presupposition of, and tool employed in, the argument of the entire chapter. In terms of the survey of scholarship in the introduction, that Christ is appointed Son at his enthronement is a point articulated with particular force by Caird, Schenck, and Hurst. While I disagree with some of the inferences they draw about Christ’s person, I agree that his enthronement in heaven is his appointment as (messianic) Son.

100

The Paradox of Sonship

Most of this chapter will be spent arguing that the name God confers on the Son at his enthronement is, strange as it sounds, “Son.” The enthronement is when the Son became Son. Following this I will address a question that naturally arises in the wake of this assertion: Was Jesus not Messiah before his enthronement? When the Son Became Son The focus of this chapter is Hebrews 1:4. To understand this verse we need to understand how it relates to the verses immediately before and after: After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, becoming1 as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?

Two questions will structure our discussion. First, when did the Son inherit the “more excellent” name? Second, what is this name? When did the Son inherit the more excellent name? First, I argue that the Son inherits this more excellent name at his enthronement in heaven. The point of departure is the Son’s session in Hebrews 1:3, “he sat down.” This completes the story of the Son’s saving incarnate mission that we told in the last chapter. After making purification for sins, which he accomplished in his singular, sufficient sacrifice (10:12), the Son sat down at God’s right hand, his saving work complete. So 1:3 sets us at not only a specific point in time, but a point in time relative to the whole of Christ’s incarnate mission: its goal. The Son’s act of sitting down on heaven’s throne is the event that the following verse interprets. So we read in 1:4 that when the Son took his throne he became “as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” In 1:3 the Son is first described by present participles: he is (ὤν, ōn) the radiance of God’s glory and imprint of his nature; he upholds (φέρων, pherōn) all things by his powerful word. Prepared for by the aorist participial 1

In 1:4 I have altered the ESV’s “having become” to “becoming” for reasons explained below.

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

101

phrase “after making purification for sins,” the aorist indicative verb “sat down” (ἐκάθισεν, ekathisen) breaks the descriptive mold and reports an event. “Becoming” (γενόμενος, genomenos), the aorist participle that follows, announces an instantaneous consequence of this event.2 The choice of an aorist participle as opposed to a present indicates that the becoming in view is an effective change in status, not a process. Something like, “Theresa May was sworn in on July 13, 2016, becoming Britain’s second female prime minister.” For the Son, the becoming happened at the sitting. When the Son was enthroned, he was exalted above the angels. How could the divine Creator and sustainer of angels become their superior? Was he not always that already? Not as the Son incarnate, says Hebrews 2:9. “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus.” At his incarnation, Jesus embraced the low estate of humanity and was ranked beneath the angels—for a time.3 The Son’s humiliation lasted only “a little while.” After faithfully enduring the full course of this humiliation, he was rewarded, exalted, “crowned with glory and honor.” The Son’s enthronement enacts a change not in essence but in status. The one who was shamed and scorned is now given universal dominion, a rule no angel could ever claim. Hebrews 1:4 does not merely assert that at his enthronement the Son became superior to the angels; it also names the measure of his superiority: “becoming as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” But when did he inherit this name? The logic of the comparison requires that the time when he inherited the name is the same time as his sitting and becoming superior. The Son’s name marks the extent of his superiority to the angels. If he possessed that name before his enthronement, he would have been superior to the angels before his enthronement rather than becoming superior then, as 1:4 asserts. Hence the 2

We can recall the apt comments of Moises Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” WTJ 39 (1976): 63, “Surely this temporal distinction—that after completing his work Jesus became something he was not before—accords naturally with the context: the participle γενόμενος (rather than ὤν) is used in verse 4 and the Father is quoted as addressing to Him the words, ‘Today I have begotten you’ (verse 5)” (emphasis original). 3 Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, On Orthodoxy to Theodosius 27 (FC 129:62-63), “How could it be that he who is the ‘Father’s reflection’ and the ‘representation of his being,’ he who ‘bears all things by his powerful word’ is said to have become greater than the angels? It is because, I would argue, when he became a man he accepted a status below theirs.”

102

The Paradox of Sonship

vast majority of scholars affirm, as I have argued here, that the Son inherited the name at his enthronement.4 What is the name? Second, what is this name by which the enthroned Son now outranks the angels? Here, scholarly answers are more diffuse. The vast majority of scholars argue, as will I, that the name the Son inherits is “Son.”5 A few take the name’s primary sense to be “Son,” but include other resonances such as “high priest.”6 George Guthrie argues that the name is 4

E.g., Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886), 1:58-59; Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1903), 17; Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux: II. Commentaire, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1953), 12; William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, WMANT 53 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 8-9; John P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 187-88; Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer, vol. 1, Hebr 1–6, EKKNT 17 (Zurich: Benziger, 1990), 66-67; William L. Lane, Hebrews, WBC 47A–B (Dallas: Word, 1991), 1:16-17; Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 15th ed., KEKNT 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 152; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 105-6; Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 97-98; Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BIS 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 244; Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, BTCP (Nashville: B&H, 2015), 61. 5 So, e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Commentariorum in Epistolam Ad Hebraeos Fragmenta Quot Reperiri Protuerunt,” in Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 3:369; Silva, “Perfection,” 63; Loader, Sohn, 8, 22, 67; Meier, “Structure,” 187-88; John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 519; Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 47-48; Samuel Bénétreau, L’Épître aux Hébreux, vol. 1, Commentaire Évangélique de la Bible (Vaux-surSeine: Édifac, 1989), 25-26; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 50; Lane, Hebrews, 1:17, 25; Kenneth L. Schenck, “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews,” JSNT 66 (1997): 93; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 91-92; James Swetnam, “Hebrews 1,5-14: A New Look,” Melita Theologica 51 (2000): 66-67; Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT II, 142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 206; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 181-82; Aquila H. I. Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms, WUNT II, 192 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 271; Georg Gäbel, “Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Development and Reception, ed. Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 360; Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT II, 223 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 217-18; Frank J. Matera, New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 339; James W. Thompson, Hebrews, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 41; Joshua W. Jipp, “The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena of Hebrews 1.5-14,” NTS 56 (2010): 559-61. 6 E.g., Ellingworth, Hebrews, 105-6.

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

103

not the title “Son,” but is “an honor conferred by God on the Messiah as the Davidic heir at the establishment of his throne and in association with God himself.”7 A number of scholars argue that the name the Son inherits is the divine name itself, sometimes understood as the Tetragrammaton (‫יהוה‬, YHWH), or κύριος (kyrios, often rendered “Lord”), its Greek surrogate.8 Finally, some take the name to encapsulate the whole range of Christ’s incomparable dignities, both human and divine.9 In this section and the next three, I first mount a positive case for identifying the name as “Son” and explain what I take the name “Son” to mean, then answer the strongest objections and alternate interpretations. Finally, I will revisit both modern and ancient use of the Son-already solution and will show how, despite retaining elements of this solution, Cyril of Alexandria substantially anticipates the position argued here. We have seen that the Son inherited this name when he was enthroned in heaven and that the name is the measure of how much superior to the angels he then became. There is no warrant in 1:4 or its context for arguing that this name is something the Son possessed prior to his exaltation.10 That he inherited this name at his enthronement indicates that this was the time when he came to possess it, just as this was the time when he began his allencompassing rule. Christ inherits the name when he is enthroned in 7

George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 925; cf. George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CBR 1 (2003): 273-74. 8 Delitzsch, Hebrews, 1:59-61; Jarl Henning Ulrichsen, “Διαφορώτερον ὄνομα in Hebr. 1,4: Christus als Träger des Gottesnames,” Studia Theologica 38 (1984): 65-67; Weiss, Hebräer, 15354; Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009),” 21-22; John Webster, “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 93; Amy L. B. Peeler, You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, LNTS 486 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 59-61. On κύριος (kyrios) as a surrogate—a placeholder rather than a translational equivalent—see R. Kendall Soulen, The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, vol. 1, Distinguishing the Voices (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 10, 32-34, 170-71, and frequently throughout. 9 Westcott, Hebrews, 17; Spicq, Hébreux, 12-13. 10 Contra, e.g., Lee, From Messiah, 274, who follows the implication of Attridge, Hebrews, 47. Against Lee, the perfect tense of “has inherited” (κεκληρονόμηκεν, keklēronomēken) does not indicate that “he is already in possession” of the name. Instead the perfect indicates that, having obtained this superior name at his enthronement, by it the Son presently remains superior.

104

The Paradox of Sonship

heaven. So we should expect the content of the name to somehow support or spell out Christ’s newly inaugurated rule. We must keep “has inherited” embedded in the grammatical and conceptual context that immediately precedes it. The immediately following context is just as crucial for understanding the implied content of the name: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?” (1:5). Since 1:5 begins with “for” (γάρ, gar), it grounds or explains (or both) the immediately preceding assertion that Christ inherited a name more excellent than the angels.’ In this case I think 1:5 both grounds and explains 1:4. It grounds 1:4 by offering God speaking Psalm 2:7 to the Son as scriptural proof that the Son has inherited a name superior to that of any angel. And 1:5 explains 1:4 by specifying that the name the Son inherits is “Son.” What does the author mean by calling “Son” a name, specifically a name he inherits at his enthronement? The citation of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5 is crucial not only for specifying that the name is “Son,” but also for clarifying what the author means by calling “Son” a name. In 1:4 the primary sense of “name” (ὄνομα, onoma) is “title.”11 A title is a name for an honor or office. In 1:4-5, the honored office that “Son” names is Messiah.12 In Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” is the decree by which God “set” his king on Zion, his holy hill (Ps 2:6). This begetting is not biological but official: by being installed as on Zion, the king becomes God’s “Son,” God’s representative ruler over his people.13 This enthroned Son is the one called God’s “anointed” or “Messiah” (Ps 2:2); the one whom God appoints as heir of the nations, even of the ends of the earth (Ps 2:8); the one whom all kings must reverence or else incur wrath (Ps 2:12). Our phrase in Psalm 2:7 effectively means “you are my Messiah, today I have enthroned 11

As I will discuss below, “title” is among the attested meanings of ὄνομα (onoma) in Hellenistic Greek. See, e.g., BDAG, 714 §5. 12 On Hebrews’ messianic use of Ps 2:7 in 1:5 see, e.g., Gert J. Steyn, “Psalm 2 in Hebrews,” Neot 37 (2003): 276; Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 926-28; Susan E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation, WUNT II, 260 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 150; Jipp, “The Son’s Entrance,” 560-61. Cf. Jared Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, LNTS 537 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 19-23 on the messianic logic of the whole catena. 13 See, e.g., John Goldingay, Psalms, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 1:100-101.

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

105

you.”14 Hence, in Psalm 2:7, “Son” is either already a title or well on its way to being one. This titular sense of “Son” is rooted in God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:14, which Psalm 2:7 echoes and which Hebrews 1:5 cites immediately after it. Speaking of David’s offspring who will reign after him, God promises, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” By these mutually implicating covenantal roles, God promises David’s heir his committed fidelity (“father”), which guarantees the Davidic son honor and favor (“son”). Though not strictly a title, in 2 Samuel 7:14, “son” is already honorific, naming the utterly unique status this king will enjoy before God and because of God. From Hebrews’ vantage point at the time of fulfillment (Heb 1:2; 9:26), what 2 Samuel 7:14 promises, Psalm 2:7 announces in advance as accomplished. What 2 Samuel 7:14 puts in the future, Psalm 2:7 puts in a present of anticipated fulfillment, and Hebrews announces as achieved. Other early Christians also found the fulfillment of this whole messianic trajectory in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Luke reports that in Pisidian Antioch, just before citing Psalm 2:7, Paul announced, “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm” (Acts 13:32-33). Here Paul, like Hebrews, sees Jesus’ “begetting” as his appointment to messianic rule at his resurrection.15 This is precisely the sense in which we should understand “Son” to be the name Jesus acquired at his enthronement in heaven. After rising from death, Jesus rose to God’s throne in heaven, on which God invited him to sit. As an explanation of Hebrews 1:4, the citation of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5 interprets this enthronement as God’s conferral on the Son of the office of Messiah. The grant of the name “Son” is the grant to this man, the Son incarnate, of the eschatological fulfillment of God’s promise to David. With the Son’s resurrection, ascent, and enthronement, God’s promises to David found their “Yes” in him. God gives the Son the title “Son” when he gives him the title to David’s throne, which in the event is God’s own throne. 14

Steyn comments similarly that in both Ps 2:7 itself and its use in Heb 1:5, the phrase in question “means to institute someone in his office.” Gert J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews, FRLANT 235 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) 47. 15 See further the discussion of Acts 2:36 and Rom 1:3-4 in the conclusion.

106

The Paradox of Sonship

When the man Jesus was exalted to God’s throne, he was given a new title befitting his new reign. God the divine Son by nature, he began to reign as the Messiah-Son at the completion of his incarnate mission. In view of the importance of Christ’s high priesthood for Hebrews, scholars will occasionally argue that, insofar as Hebrews expounds the messiahship of Jesus, priestly categories outweigh or even displace royal, Davidic ones.16 Our exposition of the two citations in 1:5 already proves that Hebrews in no way downplays or diminishes Jesus’ Davidic messiahship.17 But for confirmation of the importance of Davidic messianism in Hebrews, and hence of our reading of the “name” in 1:4, it is worth briefly surveying the imprint of Davidic messianism elsewhere in the letter. In 1:2, the Son being appointed heir of all things is likely an allusion to and expansion of Psalm 2:8. In the application of Psalm 110:1 to Jesus in Hebrews 1:3 (as well as in 1:13, 8:1, 10:12-13, and 12:2), it is not incidental that this is a psalm of David that vividly forecasts the promised reign of his heir.18 In 1:6, the title “firstborn” echoes the messianic designation of Psalm 89:27. In Hebrews 1:8-9, the author likely took God’s anointing of the Son in a messianic sense.19 In Hebrews 2:12, the author cites Psalm 22:22, from a psalm of David that narrates his trials and trust in God and proclaims his final deliverance. In Hebrews 3:6 Jesus is “over God’s house as a Son,” which likely recalls the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-14 that David’s son would build God a house. In the author’s commentary on Melchizedek, he draws attention to the fact that, like Jesus, Melchizedek is both priest and king (Heb 7:2). It is not that Hebrews is interested in Melchizedek’s priesthood as an alternative to 16

E.g., Herbert Braun, An die Hebräer, HNT 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 31, 209; Attridge, Hebrews, 201; Cockerill, Hebrews, 104 n. 20. 17 As Susan Docherty observes, “If the wider context of this first direct Old Testament citation in Hebrews is taken seriously, it might suggest that the author is more indebted to the hopes and expectations of ‘traditional’ Davidic messianism than some commentators allow” (Use of the Old Testament, 150). See also Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTSup 73 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 167, “From these two opening citations it is evident that our author’s principal model for Jesus’ sonship is the Davidic king, as taken up in current Jewish eschatological expectations.” 18 As Eskola observes of the way Hebrews integrates Ps 110:1 and other messianic passages, “In this kind of Christology the sonship of the historical Davidide is used as an essential element in christological development. Enthroned Christ is not called Son by accident, but on the basis of particular Old Testament passages that speak of a Davidic king” (Messiah, 206; cf. 343). 19 I will offer support for, and draw out implications of, the messianic resonances of 1:2, 1:6, and 1:8-9 in chapter five.

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

107

construing Jesus as a royal, Davidic Messiah, but rather that in Melchizedek a king is also priest.20 Finally, in Hebrews 7:14 Jesus’ descent from Judah is mentioned, recalling his Davidic descent. That Jesus is the Davidic Messiah is foundational to Hebrews’ Christology and is pervasive, though often implicit, in its exposition. That Jesus is installed in this office—enthroned as this king—at his exaltation to heaven is the implication of 1:4 and the assertion of 1:5. That is when he inherited the name “Son.” Answering objections. Some object that “Son” is not a name you can inherit; you either are a son or you are not.21 However, in Psalm 2:7 the status and title of “Son” are conferred on the Messiah at his enthronement. If God promised to be the “Father” of the heir of David (2 Sam 7:14), then it stands to reason, and the author of Psalm 2 reasoned, that when this heir attained David’s throne he would become God’s “Son.” Further, one could object that, even if “Son” in a messianic sense can be a title, Hebrews 1:4 says that the Son inherited not a title but a “name” (ὄνομα, onoma). In other words, what the Son inherits must be a personal name, not an impersonal title.22 However, the sense of “title” or even “office” is within the noun’s attested range of meanings. For instance, within a few decades of Hebrews, Clement of Rome wrote that the tribes of Israel quarreled over which would be adorned with the “glorious title” (ἐνδόξῳ ὀνόματι, endoxō onomati) of the priesthood (1 Clem 43:2) and said that the apostles anticipated the strife that would arise in the church over “the office of oversight” (τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς [tou onomatos tēs episkopēs], 1 Clem 44:1).23 Another, more frequently voiced objection is that “Son” is something Jesus is already, so it cannot be a title or status he inherits at his enthronement. For instance, Amy Peeler argues that before his enthronement Jesus is already the Son, so he does not in any sense become God’s Son. As such, “The proclamation in Heb 1.5 does not necessitate that he is inheriting the name ‘Son’ at this moment.”24 However, the entire burden of this chapter, and book, 20

See the important essay: Deborah W. Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,” Biblica 81 (2000): 81-94. 21 E.g., Ulrichsen, “Christus als Träger des Gottesnames,” 66-67. 22 The first objection challenges whether the name is “Son,” the second whether “Son” is a name. For this latter objection see Ulrichsen, “Christus als Träger des Gottesnames,” 65. 23 Translations mine. Again, see BDAG, 714 §5. 24 Peeler, You Are My Son, 44-46; cf., e.g., Weiss, Hebräer, 153.

108

The Paradox of Sonship

has been to demonstrate that there is no opposition in Hebrews between Jesus being Son and becoming Son. Instead, the author strategically uses the term in two senses. The Son who is divine by nature became human to save humanity; having accomplished salvation, he was enthroned as Son, the heir of David. Hebrews sometimes fills “Son” with divine meaning and sometimes with messianic meaning. Hebrews employs the same term in two different registers, with two senses. As such, the word invites what linguists call “disambiguation.”25 When we see “Son” in Hebrews, we should ask, Son in what sense? Given the story Hebrews tells of the Son’s incarnate mission, there is nothing contradictory or competitive in these two uses of “Son.” Instead, one of the purposes of Hebrews reporting the Son’s mission is, at least implicitly, to answer the question, “How did the Son become Son?” The Son became Son by becoming a man and—through his life, death, and resurrection—becoming “perfect,” qualified to perfect his people as their high priest. Hebrews does not simply place “Son” in two spheres; it bridges the gap between them. And the crucial point this chapter contributes is that in Hebrews 1:4-5, the name “Son” is a title equivalent to “enthroned Messiah.” As a president-elect is only called “president” once inaugurated, the Son incarnate only obtained the messianic title “Son” when he began to reign. In light of this, we can evaluate Richard Bauckham’s objection, “In our passage of Hebrews, the Son is the one who inherits the name from his Father, not what he inherits. What he inherits must be something that belongs to his Father, whereas ‘Son’ is uniquely the Son’s title.”26 We have already addressed Bauckham’s first point. As to the second, the messianic title “Son” is clearly the Father’s to give. God promises David an heir and promises to be his father (2 Sam 7:14); God sets his king on Zion (Ps 2:6); God enthrones the one he names “Son” (Ps 2:7); God awards him the nations as an inheritance (Ps 2:8). As Hebrews’ prosoponic exegesis unveils, in the event of Jesus’ enthronement God does not confer the title “Son” on one who is merely human but on God the Son become human.27 Yes, the Son is always 25

I thank David Moffitt for drawing my attention to this term in personal conversation. Bauckham, “Divinity,” 22. 27 On “prosoponic exegesis” see Fred Sanders, The Triune God, NSD (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 226-31. See also Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University 26

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

109

intrinsically Son; but “Son” in the messianic sense is an office to which the Father appoints the Son. Engaging two alternate interpretations. Having made a case and answered objections, I now critically engage the evidence offered for two other interpretations of the “name” in Hebrews 1:4. First, Jarl Ulrichsen, followed by Hans-Friedrich Weiss, has made a sophisticated case for seeing the “name” of 1:4 as the divine name.28 Ulrichsen objects that the “Son” interpretation lays all the weight on 1:5, and that it fails to perceive how the entire catena of 1:5-14 specifies the sense of the “name” in 1:4. He points out that the Son is first called “Son” (1:5), then “God” (1:8-9), then “Lord” (1:10). As such, Ulrichsen sees the designation of the Son as “Lord” in 1:10 as the summit of the catena; naming the Son “Lord” is the conclusion of a sequence that reveals the “name” of 1:4. In response, I first admit that it is possible that the “name” of 1:4 is the divine name, κύριος (kyrios) as surrogate for YHWH, since that is apparently the name God gives Jesus at his exaltation in Philippians 2:9-11.29 In other words, we should have no a priori objection to treating the divine name as something God can give the Son at a specific point in time. But I remain unpersuaded that the divine name is in view in Hebrews 1:4. Ulrichsen’s reading requires something of a straight logical line from the inheriting of the name in 1:4 through the entire catena of 1:5-14. While I affirm that 1:4 is the thesis that 1:5-14 develops, I think the development takes a slightly different shape. As I argued in chapter two, I take the catena’s conceptual point of departure to be the fact that when the Son was enthroned as Messiah, he began to reign as a man on God’s throne. The claim 1:3d stakes is that Jesus, the human Messiah, reigns as God: he “sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high,” claiming the right to rule as God. The way we understand 1:5-14 to develop the name Christ inherited in 1:4 must account for how 1:4 itself develops 1:3d. By sitting down at God’s right hand, Christ “has Press, 2015), 27-34, who uses the phrase “prosopological exegesis,” and the detailed, insightful discussion of Madison N. Pierce, Divine Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Recontextualization of Spoken Quotations of Scripture, SNTSMS 178 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 3-28. 28 Ulrichsen, “Christus als Träger des Gottesnames,” 65-67; Weiss, Hebräer, 153-54. 29 See, e.g., Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 199-200.

110

The Paradox of Sonship

inherited” a name that is “more excellent” than that of the angels (1:4). How much greater is Christ’s name than that of the angels? The following verses tell us. Hence I take each of the catena’s three comparisons of the Son with angels (1:5-6, 7-12, 13-14) to somehow substantiate or underscore the Son’s rightful claim to the divine throne. In other words, 1:5-14 does not develop 1:4 in linear fashion toward a conceptual destination in 1:10, but rather scripturally supports its stunning claim of the Son’s total sovereignty with a series of three topically structured contrasts. Further, Ulrichsen’s implicitly structural claim that 1:10 is the highpoint or summit of the catena fails to fit the catena’s threefold comparative arrangement. We can recall from chapter two that each of the catena’s three sections contrasts what God says to the Son with what he says to or about the angels. Hence 1:5-6, 1:7-12, and 1:13-14 are its constituent parts. In the middle section, God makes two scriptural speeches to the Son. The first, Psalm 45:6-7 cited in Hebrews 1:8-9, addresses him as “God.” The second, Psalm 102:25-27 cited in Hebrews 1:10-12, addresses him as the “Lord” who created all. Both citations underscore the Son’s difference from the angels in being and status. As does this middle comparison, the whole catena develops the assertion of 1:4 not by progressively revealing that the name is the divine name, but instead by showing from Scripture why this Son is entitled to inherit a “name” that sets him on the very throne of heaven. The relation of the catena to its thesis is more proof than explanation. Regarding the Son’s inheritance of the name in 1:4 the catena as a whole answers not What is the name? but Who can claim this name that entitles its bearer to heaven’s throne? A second alternate interpretation of the name we should consider is that of George Guthrie.30 Guthrie explores how name is used in the context of 2 Samuel 7:14, the second passage Hebrews 1:5 cites. God has made for David a great name (2 Sam 7:9 LXX) and promises that David’s son will build a house for God’s name (2 Sam 7:13). God made for himself a name in the exodus (2 Sam 7:23), and David avers that God’s name will be magnified forever (2 Sam 7:26). Further, Guthrie points out that “majesty” or “greatness” (μεγαλωσύνη, megalōsunē), which is rare in the New Testament and Greek Old Testament, appears in both Hebrews 1:3 and the Greek of 2 Samuel 30

Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 273-74; Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 924-25.

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

111

7:21-23: God has brought about “all this greatness” for David (2 Sam 7:21); God redeemed Israel “to do greatness” (2 Sam 7:23, NETS31). Based on this and on related lexical evidence, Guthrie concludes, Thus, the use of onoma in 1.4, in association with God’s right hand as tēs megalosynēs, could be understood as an anticipatory echo of that broader messianic context of 2 Sam 7 to which our author immediately will point in 1:5. The inherited “name,” then, mentioned in 1:4, is, on this reading, not to be understood as an allusion to the title “Son,” but rather as an honor conferred by God on the Messiah as the Davidic heir at the establishment of his throne and in association with God himself.32

It seems to me that Guthrie is basically right in what he affirms and wrong in what he denies. The “name” in Hebrews 1:4 is precisely an honor conferred on the Messiah at his enthronement. What is that honor? The office of Messiah itself, which the title “Son” names. I do not find all of Guthrie’s lexical and contextual points compelling, nor his suggestion that the name somehow associates the Messiah “with God himself.” Nevertheless, if we take Guthrie’s case to strengthen the messianic associations of the “name” in 1:4, then his argument should serve rather to confirm than to undermine that “Son” is the “name” of 1:4. “Son” is what God promises the Messiah will be to him; “Son” is what God makes the Messiah when he enthrones him. Given the quasi-titular sense of “Son” in 2 Samuel 7:14 and especially Psalm 2:7, we should understand Hebrews 1:5 to answer the question raised by 1:4. Through the passages it cites, Hebrews indicates that by “name” in 1:4 it means “title,” and that the title is “Son,” designating the messianic office. Insofar as 2 Samuel 7 associates “name” in the sense of “honor” with the fulfillment of God’s messianic promises, in Hebrews 1:4 the one who is appointed Messiah receives the honor God promises the one who receives that title. There is a name or renown that attends the messianic title “Son”; Jesus obtains this glory when he obtains the office. It is not that “name” in 1:4 means “honor” instead of “title,” but that honor comes with the title. 31

See Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 281. 32 Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 925.

112

The Paradox of Sonship

Revisiting the Son-already solution, then and now. In our positive case and response to objections we have already addressed the Son-already solution to the question of whether Jesus is Son, becomes Son, or both.33 However, the position is worth revisiting. The logic of this solution is that since “Son” is something Jesus is intrinsically, “Son” cannot also name what he becomes at his enthronement. Hence, insofar as his enthronement relates to his identity as Son, it somehow reveals or confirms what he is already, rather than conferring a new status. To state the position as a syllogism, I agree with its major premise: Hebrews’ Jesus is indeed God the Son, hence Son eternally. But its necessary though implicit minor premise is that Hebrews only uses the term “Son” in one sense. I have argued instead that Hebrews requires us to take its uses of “Son” in two senses: some divine, some messianic. Because of this pointed lexical pressure, we must develop ways of speaking about what the Son becomes at his enthronement that complement rather than compete with what he is by nature. This double account is lacking, for instance, in Peeler’s comment on Hebrews 1:5 that “it remains plausible to interpret this announcement not as the establishment of Jesus’ status as God’s Son but as a restatement of that fact.”34 But a new status as God’s Son is precisely what the declaration “You are my Son” confers. This new status implies no deficiency in the Son’s divinity. Instead, this new status is rooted in and is the fruit of the incarnate Son’s saving mission. That Jesus became Son is the crowning becoming in the series of becomings that began when the Son became a man. The Son’s new status as enthroned messianic Son is the goal of Hebrews’ entire narrative Christology. This new status does not compete with but complements the Son’s divinity. This new status is something the divine Son could only obtain as a man, and only at the conclusion of his 33

For the Son-already solution, see Bruce, Hebrews, 54; Grässer, Hebräer, 1:75; Lee, From Messiah, 274-76; Mackie, Eschatology, 213; Knut Backhaus, Der Hebräerbrief, RNT (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009), 96; Bauckham, “Divinity,” 21-22, 34; Sam Janse, “You Are My Son”: The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism and the Early Church, CBET (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 124; Webster, “One Who Is Son,” 93; C. Kavin Rowe, “The Trinity in the Letters of St Paul and Hebrews,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 47; Peeler, You Are My Son, 42-44; Madison N. Pierce, “Hebrews 1 and the Son Begotten ‘Today,’” in Retrieving Eternal Generation, ed. Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 117-31. 34 Peeler, You Are My Son, 44.

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

113

saving incarnate mission. The new status conferred on the Son at his enthronement applies in a different register and works on a different plane from his divine identity.35 “Son” in the messianic sense speaks in the register of economy, not theology. Equally, therefore, Hebrews 1:4-5 gives us no adoptionist Christology in the sense that Jesus only becomes divine at his enthronement.36 The kind of Son Jesus becomes at his exaltation is the Messiah. In this light, to read any of Hebrews’ Christology as adoptionist is to fall into an error equal and opposite to that of Son already. Hebrews’ assertion that Jesus became Son at his enthronement neither blunts its ascription of divinity to him nor contradicts that ascription. I would suggest that any tension between Hebrews’ high Christology and its assertion that Jesus became Son is a product of pre-set limits of scholarly imagination rather than of the text itself.37 To return to the Son-already solution, it is worth noting that some but not all classical readings of Hebrews fall short at just this point. For instance, Athanasius takes “better” in 1:4 to indicate “the difference of the Son’s nature from things originated”; that is, as marking his divine distinction from all created reality.38 In explicit polemic against his Arian opponents, Athanasius again comments, “Because it is written, ‘become better,’ they refuse to understand ‘become,’ as used of the Son, as ‘has been and is;’ or again as referring to the better covenant having come to be.”39 On the one hand, Athanasius 35

Contra, e.g., Pierce, “Hebrews 1,” 126, who assumes that “the type of sonship in view” in Heb 1:5 and “the type of Father-Son relationship depicted elsewhere in Hebrews” must refer to Christ in the same register. 36 We can recall, for instance, the way Dunn sets in tension with Christ’s preexistence the adoptionist language he sees in 1:4-5 and 5:5-10. James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1989), 52. Also, “How the author of Hebrews managed to maintain the tension between these two sides of his Christology—the adoptionist language, together with his anti-Ebionite stance—is not at all clear.” James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1990), 261. 37 In other words, it is not only unnecessary but unwarranted to posit fundamental tension between Jesus being Son and becoming Son in Hebrews, as does our second group of modern readers from the introduction. See Braun, Hebräer, 32-33; Attridge, Hebrews, 25, 54-55; Dunn, Christology, 51-56, 208-9; Koester, Hebrews, 186-87. 38 C. Ar. 1.55 (NPNF2 4:338). See also Chrysostom, Hebrews 1.3 (NPNF1 14:368); Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Chrysostom Baer (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006), 27. 39 C. Ar. 1.61 (NPNF2 4:342).

114

The Paradox of Sonship

here confirms his original solution: since “better” indicates the Son’s incomparable divinity, “became” must actually mean “always is.” To this extent, he advocates the Son-already solution and fails to account for the incarnational frame, enthronement timing, messianic content, and eventive force of “became.” However, Athanasius also opens the door to another solution: that “became” refers to God’s plan of salvation coming into effect through the “better covenant.” As he subsequently explains, For as, being the “Word,” he “became flesh,” so when become man, he became by so much better in his ministry than the ministry which came by the angels, as Son excels servants and Framer things framed. Let them cease therefore to take the word “become” of the substance of the Son, for he is not one of the originated things; and let them acknowledge that it is indicative of his ministry and the economy which came to pass.40

Here Athanasius grounds the “became” of 1:4 in the becoming of the incarnation and hence correctly identifies its economic frame and scope. His reading is still somewhat wide of the messianic mark, but he makes the crucial move of keeping “became” out of the register of ontology. Hence my argument in this chapter can be seen as a refinement of Athanasius’s second, more contextually sensitive reading. He locates the “became” within the incarnate economy; I specify that it happened at the enthronement, and what happened is that the incarnate Son began to rule as Messiah. In contrast with Athanasius’s former reading, Cyril of Alexandria’s comments on Hebrews 1:3-4 anticipate this chapter’s thesis and hence the solution to the scholarly problem this whole book aims to solve: Therefore we have been cleansed by the holy blood of Christ, the savior of us all, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the majesty on high. But when? When he made purification through his blood, then he is said to sit, to have become superior to angels, to inherit the name that is more excellent than theirs. For he is called Son [κέκληται γὰρ Υἱός, keklētai gar Huios].41

While Cyril does not here assign “Son” specifically messianic content, with that exception his overall exegesis is identical to mine. Cyril explicitly identifies Christ’s enthronement, following his salvific self-sacrifice, as the 40

C. Ar. 1.62 (NPNF2 4:342). Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:369.

41

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

115

moment when he became superior to the angels. Further, Cyril even adds an article (τό, to) to his citation of the phrase “more excellent name” from Hebrews 1:4, indicating that he sees a specific name in view. What is that name? His final sentence answers, “Son.” While Cyril does not explicitly coordinate or harmonize Hebrews’ two uses of “Son,” his added specificity and subsequent explanatory mention of the name “Son” indicate that, in addition to being the divine Son by nature, Christ is given the name “Son” at his enthronement. Cyril confirms this pattern elsewhere in his commentary. For instance, on 1:2, he asserts that the one who is “Son by nature and coeternal with the Father” submitted to physical birth. Cyril then introduces Psalm 2:7, “As though restoring sonship to its beginnings, he said through David, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’” According to Cyril, the Son spoke of this begetting in advance, through David, with a view to salvifically imparting sonship to people. Cyril then explains, “For indeed, ‘today’ is explained as belonging to the present time, just as he has become flesh.” Commenting on the events of the economy, Cyril continues, “And, although he exists as God by nature, he endured such things in order that, as a man, he would be adopted as Son, that he might make a way through himself for human nature to participate in adoption, and call into the kingdom of heaven those tyrannized by sin.”42 Here Cyril takes significant steps beyond Athanasius. Athanasius grounds the Son’s becoming superior in Hebrews 1:4 in the Son’s becoming a man; Cyril grounds the Son’s becoming Son in the Son’s becoming a man. Further, Cyril even says that the Son became human in order to be “adopted as Son”—that is, as a man, in a sense specified by Psalm 2:7. This adoption argues no defect in his divine sonship. Instead, the double move of incarnation for adoption is conditioned entirely by its salvific telos: to grant those tyrannized by sin to be savingly adopted by God. Perhaps drawing directly on Athanasius’s anti-Arian arguments, Cyril also argues that “better” in 1:4 marks the Son’s divine difference from all 42

Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:365. See further On Orthodoxy to Theodosius 25 (FC 129:60), “So, then, tell me how it is that one who comes from David’s seed can be God? How could the Son, who is before all ages and co-eternal, insofar as he issued from God, be ‘established’ as the Son of God, as if there were some beginning to his existing?” To answer this question, Cyril cites Ps 2:7, again indicating an answer within the incarnate economy to the question of what it means for the eternal Son to become Son. We will revisit this passage in the conclusion.

116

The Paradox of Sonship

created being.43 And, like Athanasius, Cyril argues that “better” also applies to the salvation Christ enacted in his incarnate economy: He desired to demonstrate that this one was not like those who came before, in order that, as much as he differs in nature from those sent from him in advance, so much and more the grace that came from him and through him would be better than the ministry that came through angels.44

For Cyril, the Son’s divine preeminence underwrites the superiority of the salvation he supplies. Despite the theological attractions of such a position, I demur from it as an exegesis of “became” in Hebrews 1:4. That becoming I take to have a strictly economic scope, naming the office Christ entered at his exaltation. Hence the relation of my position to that of Cyril is complex. Since I argue that in 1:4 we should allow “became” (γενόμενος, genomenos) its full eventive force, I do not see 1:4 as a statement about the Son’s ontology. Instead, I see it as evidence that we should consistently distinguish between ontology and office—and 1:4 speaks explicitly only to the latter. Yet Cyril substantially anticipates the central argument of this book and does so on the basis of not only Hebrews 1:3-4 but also Psalm 2:7. Cyril perceives something most modern scholars miss: Jesus is the divine Son who became a man in order to become the enthroned messianic Son. Is Jesus Not Messiah Before His Enthronement? The argument of this chapter invites an obvious question: Is Jesus not Messiah before his enthronement? I do not think this is a necessary inference from the case argued here. Instead, I think the author of Hebrews would say that the enthronement is when Jesus the Messiah was formally installed in office. Messiah is an office, but it is an office unlike any other. When Christians confess that Jesus is the Messiah, we affirm that he is the one whom God appointed “to redeem Israel” (Lk 24:21). While the trunk of the messianic office is God’s promise of an heir to David (2 Sam 7:12-16), its branches reach out to the glorious, eschatological restoration of God’s people and all 43

Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:370-72. Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:373.

44

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

117

creation. Insofar as the Messiah was someone God had promised would come and rescue his people, those waiting for rescue naturally ask a potential Messiah, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3). When John the Baptist asked Jesus this, Jesus answered him with the evidence of his ministry to date: healing, raising the dead, preaching good news to the poor (Mt 11:4-6). What Jesus did showed that he is the Messiah. The four Gospels all narrate the earthly mission and ministry of the Messiah. Luke 2:11 identifies Jesus as Messiah at birth. Those with eyes to see saw the Messiah in a manger. And, in his earthly ministry, Jesus inaugurates God’s kingdom (Mt 12:28; Mk 1:15; Lk 11:20). The Son of Man teaches with authority (Mk 1:27) and forgives sins by the authority God gave him (Mt 9:6, 8; Mk 2:10). When Jesus asks the disciples who he is, he affirms Peter’s confession that he is the Messiah (Mt 16:16-17). Jesus’ entire earthly ministry— death and resurrection included—reveal his messianic identity and challenge any concept of the Messiah that has no room for the cross. It really was the king of Israel whom Roman soldiers nailed to the tree (Mk 15:32). Yet Jesus’ earthly ministry does not say everything there is to say about his rule as Messiah. It was only after his resurrection that Jesus was given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:19). And other passages in the New Testament confess that Jesus was formally installed in office, enthroned as David’s heir, when he ascended to heaven after his resurrection. For instance, just after proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection and citing Psalm 110:1, in Acts 2:36 Peter says, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” As we saw above, in Acts 13:32-33, again after declaring Jesus’ resurrection, Paul announces that this event brings to fulfillment all of God’s promises to “the fathers,” which are promises Paul epitomizes in his citation of Psalm 2:7. Resurrection is fulfillment because it is enthronement. This distinction also appears active in Romans 1:4, which says Jesus “through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead” (NIV).45 These passages all arguably attest an understanding of Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation as his enthronement as Messiah, his induction into that office of rule. 45

I will address Acts 2:36 and Rom 1:3-4 in detail in the conclusion.

118

The Paradox of Sonship

During his earthly ministry, Jesus acts with the authority of the Messiah, reveals his identity as Messiah, and supports his claim to be Messiah. Yet what if a skeptic asked, How can you be Messiah when you do not reign on David’s throne? The answer is Christ’s enthronement in heaven. So in order to make sense not only of Hebrews but of the entire New Testament’s witness to Christ’s messiahship, I think it is useful to distinguish the question, Who is the Messiah? from the question, When does the Messiah formally enter office and officially begin his rule? Provided we keep in mind that the Gospels present Jesus’ earthly ministry as the demonstration of his messianic identity and authority, I think it is helpful to use the term Messiah-designate for Jesus’ messianic status before his enthronement.46 Prior to his enthronement, Jesus is Messiah in a manner at least somewhat analogous to that of presidents-elect prior to inauguration. “Messiah” is more but not less than a political office. And one can be marked out for office before one begins its exercise. Hence the heir to the British throne—Charles, Prince of Wales—is termed “crown prince.” “Crown” is his title before the crown is his. An even closer parallel is Aragorn in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. By birth, Aragorn is heir to Gondor’s throne. Before he takes the throne, those who know what to look for perceive his identity. He wields the sword that was broken, now re-forged. He does what none but Gondor’s rightful king may do, passing “the paths of the dead” and summoning oath-breakers to fulfill their vows. Like “the deeds of the Messiah” that Jesus performs during his earthly ministry (Mt 11:2), all these acts demonstrate Aragorn’s kingly identity and legitimate claim to the throne in 46

So Matthew Bates writes, “My own assessment is that the historical Jesus and his followers most likely regarded Jesus as the Davidic messias designatus—the individual selected and anointed by God as Davidic messiah but as of yet lacking a throne from which to rule.” Birth of the Trinity, 48. Bates also points out that “David was remembered as a messias designatus, having been selected by God and anointed as a youth (1 Sam 16:13) but not installed as king until around age 30, after Saul’s suicide (2 Sam. 2:4; 5:3-5).” Birth of the Trinity, 48n13. From a complementary angle, Dale Allison comments on how the future tense of Mk 14:62 became the present tense of Acts 2:33 (“Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God”): “To refer Ps 110 to the risen Jesus presupposes already well-developed beliefs about him. One would hardly have inferred from Scripture that Jesus now sits on a heavenly throne unless one antecedently believed him to be a king in waiting.” In Dale C. Allison Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 250. Like Bates, though much more tentatively, Allison also thinks Jesus saw himself as Messiah-designate. Constructing Jesus, 290-91.

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

119

advance of his enthronement. And yet Aragorn’s enthronement itself is fraught and charged, the dawn of an age. He will only enter the city at the behest of its steward. He will only be crowned after the decisive victory is won. Until then, he is not king but only “captain of the Rangers.” It seems to me that Hebrews’ own use of Messiah language presents Jesus as Messiah prior to his enthronement while proclaiming that enthronement as his installation in office.47 The word “anoint” (ἔχρισέν [echrisen]) is used once in Hebrews (Heb 1:9) and “Christ” (Χριστός, Christos), twelve times.48 Several uses of “Christ” refer, implicitly or explicitly, to the present (3:6, 14; 6:1; 13:8, 21). Others, however, name Jesus “Messiah” in the context of his pre-enthronement activity. For instance, 9:11 begins, “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come” (cf. 5:5; 9:24, 28; 10:10). In my reckoning, Hebrews here calls Jesus “Messiah” before he is enthroned. If this passage reports Jesus’ appearance in the heavenly sanctuary, as I think likely, it describes the events that immediately preceded his installation in office. Who is the Messiah? Jesus. He is the one whom God has promised will redeem his people. And, as in the Gospels, Jesus’ whole career clarifies what sort of Messiah he is. Jesus was faithful to him who appointed him (3:2) and obedient in suffering (5:8). Jesus endured rejection, shame, and death before being vindicated and honored by God (12:2). But when was he formally installed in office? When did he claim David’s throne? When God the Father said, “Sit at my right hand” (Ps 110:1). That is when the Son began to execute the rule that only he could claim. A Scriptural Cornerstone The argument this chapter has made is that, in addition to being a divine designation, “Son” is also used in Hebrews to mean “enthroned Messiah.” The only times the word has this meaning are in citations of scriptural 47

My analysis here presupposes that Χριστός (Christos) has a titular sense, “Messiah,” in Hebrews’ usage. The most direct evidence for this is Hebrews’ ascription to Jesus of passages that were held, by Jesus-believing and non-Jesus-believing Jews alike, to speak of a coming Messiah (e.g., 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). For a learned treatment of Messiah language in ancient Judaism (including the Old Testament) and Paul, much of which, mutatis mutandis, is relevant to Hebrews, see Matthew V. Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 48 For “Christ” see Heb 3:6, 14; 5:5; 6:1; 9:11, 14, 24, 28; 10:10; 11:26; 13:8, 21.

120

The Paradox of Sonship

messianic promises. The definitive citation is Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5, where “today I have begotten you” announces enthronement. Hebrews 1:5 takes “Son” to mean just what it means in Psalm 2:7 and declares the Psalm’s fulfillment in Jesus’ session at God’s right hand. The second passage cited in Hebrews 1:5, 2 Samuel 7:14, again calls the Messiah “Son,” the term pledging God’s fatherly commitment. While Hebrews never uses “Son” in this sense outside of such citations (cf. also Heb 5:5), this pair, especially the first, answers a question the author invites in Hebrews 1:4. What name? Answer: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you?’” (1:5). No angel was ever granted such dominion. And when the Son was installed in this office, he obtained its title. When enthroned as Messiah, he became “Son,” a title prepared for this purpose by God’s promise. The coherence of Hebrews’ opening chapter rests on “Messiah” being an office of rule that, in the fullness of time, Jesus assumed. Whatever else Jesus may be as Messiah, he is heir to David’s throne. This Jesus wandered Galilee teaching and healing. He was mocked, opposed, and finally executed. While the Gospels figure Jesus’ crucifixion as his ironic elevation to kingship, Hebrews reasons from the moment when Jesus’ rule began in earnest.49 As David deSilva observes, no human eyewitness was there to see Jesus take his seat in heaven. Yet the most-cited text in the New Testament, Psalm 110:1, testifies to it.50 This witness is a cornerstone of Hebrews’ entire christological cathedral. Hebrews proclaims “Son” the title Jesus inherited when he did what Psalm 110:1 said he would. In Hebrews Jesus both is Son and becomes Son. He is the divine Son who, after becoming a man and accomplishing his people’s salvation, is enthroned in heaven as the messianic Son. But are these two senses of “Son” simply 49

For such an account of the Gospels’ crucifixion narratives see, e.g., Joel Marcus, “Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation,” JBL 125 (2006): 73-87. As Marcus puts it, the Gospels mock the mockery of the cross. 50 deSilva, Perseverance, 91. The discussion of Jesus’ exaltation—his taking a seat at the right hand of God—represents an important instance of the early Church’s use of the OT as authoritative witness to provide information on events in Jesus’ career otherwise without any witnesses. The author of Hebrews so intensely believes the OT to be a witness about Christ that it can be used to speak about his activity before his birth as well as his ministry after his ascension through the heavens (the last event for which the NT texts claim human witnesses).

“Son” as an Office Christ Enters at His Enthronement

121

independent and unrelated? Informed by early Christian theologizing and Old Testament witness, does Hebrews just happen to use the same word in two ways, or is there some link between them, some fit, some rationale for why both senses are apt of one person? We have glimpsed a link already; the next chapter grasps it.

five

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

O

ne of the best things one can say about an employee is that they exceed expectations. Meeting expectations tends to keep you from getting fired. But exceeding expectations can yield a raise or promotion, not to mention a gratified supervisor. In one sense, this chapter is about how Jesus not only meets but exceeds expectations for the Messiah. When the Messiah came, he proved to be more than many were looking for. In his rule as Messiah, the man Jesus receives what only God may and does what only God can. This chapter’s thesis is the book’s third: Jesus can only become the messianic Son because he is the divine Son incarnate. According to Hebrews, Messiah is a theandric office; only one who is both divine and human can do all that the job requires. This third thesis connects the first to the second. I have argued that Hebrews uses “Son” both to designate Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence and to name the office of rule he enters at his enthronement as Messiah. The third thesis asserts that these two uses of “Son” are not unrelated; instead, the first is prerequisite to the second. One reason Hebrews uses “Son” in two senses is that only one who is Son in the first sense could become Son in the second. This chapter’s opening move is an illustration from elsewhere in the New Testament of how Jesus redefines the office of Messiah by exceeding it—or at least exceeding common expectations of it. Next, I will identify two divine prerogatives of Hebrews’ human Messiah: he reigns on God’s throne and he

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

123

inherits the universe. Finally, I will ask both how to make sense of Hebrews’ theandric Messiah and what sense we can make with him. A Still Higher Dignity I begin with an illustration of how Jesus the Messiah exceeds expectations. In Mark 12:35-37 Jesus poses a riddle: And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.

Here Jesus himself engages in some cryptic messianic exegesis of Psalm 110:1, a crucial passage for Hebrews and this book. Jesus asks whether it is appropriate to call the Messiah David’s son. Scholars who think Jesus here repudiates the title of Davidic Messiah have, I would suggest, grabbed the scepter by the wrong end.1 Instead, Jesus’ riddle challenges his hearers to consider whether the Messiah is more than David’s son and therefore more than they have taken him to be. In light of Jesus’ previous acclamations in Mark as both Messiah and Son of David (Mk 8:27-30; 10:47), Richard Hays argues that here “the meaning of Christos is transposed to a new key.” More than a military leader, the Messiah is “the Son of God who is to be enthroned in the heavens and recognized as David’s Lord.”2 As Hays summarizes, “By alluding obliquely to Jesus’ eschatological enthronement alongside God, Mark 12:35-37 suggests that Jesus is not just the anointed king awaited by Israel; he enjoys a still higher dignity.”3 This chapter considers that still higher dignity. But higher than what? While I gratefully receive Hays’s basic insight, the wording of his last 1

See, e.g., the works by Wrede, Dodd, Bultmann, and Burger cited in Benjamin Sargent, David Being a Prophet: The Contingency of Scripture upon History in the New Testament, BZNW 207 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 104n279. 2 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 55. 3 Hays, Echoes, 57. Cf. Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 144-45, 149-51.

124

The Paradox of Sonship

statement must be handled with care. What I take Hays to mean—more importantly, what I take Mark 12:35-37 to mean—is not that Jesus inherits a dignity higher than the office of Messiah, but that as Messiah he inherits a dignity higher than the throne of Israel. It is not that Jesus inherits something other than a throne, but that the throne he inherits is higher than what the scribes were expecting.4 It is precisely as Messiah that Jesus obtains this still higher dignity. After all, Jesus’ question presupposes that the one David calls “Lord” is the Messiah. Jesus uses Psalm 110:1 to enlarge his hearers’ concept of who the Messiah is. His point is not so much that the scribes’ expectations of the Messiah were wrong as that they were not enough. In Jesus’ riddle, Psalm 110:1 becomes almost a hermeneutical rule: expectations of the Messiah as “Son of David” may be central, but they must not draw a circumference. Such hopes may focus but not limit. Jesus’ challenge is this: if you leave Psalm 110:1 out of the equation, your Messiah will be too small. Divine Prerogatives of the Human Messiah This exegesis of Psalm 110:1 previews how Hebrews limns Jesus’ reign as Messiah. What Jesus does as Messiah is more than any human could; to do what Jesus does, he must be not only David’s son but also his Lord. This rule as Lord presupposes Jesus’ ontology as Lord, that is, as divine Son. To support this claim, in this section I discuss two divine prerogatives that the 4

This is not to deny that some Jews around the time of Jesus had very exalted expectations of who the Messiah would be and what he would do. For instance, 1 En. 48:2-3 and 6 ascribe preexistence to the “son of man,” whom 1 En. 48:10 names the “Messiah” or “Anointed One,” and many passages in 1 Enoch either ascribe universal judgment to this son of man or say that he occupied God’s own throne of glory (1 En. 45:3; 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:5; 69:29). 4 Ezra 7:28 and 13:26 also ascribe preexistence to the son of man who is the Messiah (similarly 2 Bar. 29:3), and 4 Ezra 13:1-10 and 37-38 indicate that this Messiah executes God’s own universal judgment. For a brief discussion of many of these passages, see Daniel Boyarin, “Enoch, Ezra, and the Jewishness of ‘High Christology,’” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccacini, JSJSup 164 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 341-44, 349-51. For discussion of the 4 Ezra passages see also John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 208-9, 211. For a suggestive discussion of the rabbinic stance, which may date to the time of the composition of Hebrews, that the Messiah “shall be exalted above Abraham, and lifted up above Moses, and shall be very high above the ministering angels,” see David Flusser, “Messianology and Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 246-79, here 256. Finally, for a competent survey of messianic expectations in second temple Judaism that gives due place to diversity, see Michael F. Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 31-62.

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

125

incarnate Jesus exercises in his rule as Messiah: the man Jesus reigns on God’s throne and inherits the universe. I have argued in chapters two and three that Hebrews proclaims Jesus God the Son incarnate. My point in this section is that specifically messianic tasks that the human Jesus performs are things only God can do. As Messiah, Jesus obtains privileges that belong exclusively to God. Yet he does and receives all this as a man. Hence the passages this section treats fit within the third, middle category of Cyril’s that we employed in chapter two. The theology-economy distinction observes that some scriptural passages declare Christ to be God, while others describe him in terms that are true only by virtue of his incarnation. Cyril’s middle category adds that some passages do both. One aspect of this middle category is that such passages ascribe uniquely divine qualities and prerogatives to the man Jesus. We now explore two such prerogatives, each a feature of Jesus’ office of Messiah. The Messiah reigns on God’s throne. First, as Messiah, the man Jesus reigns on God’s throne. In 1:3 and its parallels, Hebrews asserts that the throne on which Jesus sat down belongs to God himself: “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (cf. Heb 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). Though not cited until 1:13, Psalm 110:1 stamps the language of Hebrews 1:3. From the first, Jesus’ session at God’s right hand is a deliverance of Scripture’s witness to the Messiah’s reign. I argued in chapter two that Jesus’ repose on this throne is an index of divinity, the exercise of a prerogative that belongs to God alone. I argued in chapters three and four that Jesus began to exercise this prerogative only at the conclusion of his saving incarnate mission. At his enthronement the human Messiah began to enact a uniquely divine reign. This Messiah is more than human but not less, and Hebrews’ enthronement discourse begins with the very human act of taking a seat. When Jesus sat down, a man began to reign as God. Martin Hengel pinpoints the paradox: “Now it is striking, indeed paradoxical, that the Son who is exalted to God’s right hand, separated from the angels and completely bound to God, is portrayed at the same time in his full humanity.”5 Further, as I argued in chapters two and 5

Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 378. Contrast Bauckham, who suggests that “Hebrews makes little of the humanity of Jesus in this role of lordship,” and that in Hebrews’ exordium “the humanity of Jesus is no more than implicit.” Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 19, 21.

126

The Paradox of Sonship

four, the three comparisons with angels in the catena (1:5-14) all uphold Jesus the Messiah’s right to reign as God. As Bauckham puts it, The combination of all seven of these quotations makes it clear that the Son’s rule is not merely the earthly rule of the Davidic Messiah established on Mt Zion, but the cosmic rule of one who shares the divine throne above all creation. Hence his rule is not merely over the nations, but even over the angels.6

And again, Bauckham argues that the passages in the catena relate “to the messianic rule of Jesus, understood as an exercise of the properly divine sovereignty.”7 Finally, in his comments on Hebrews 12:2, Cyril specifies that Jesus reigns as a man on God’s throne: Yet, although the Lord is equal in glory and sharing the same throne, as Son to Father and God to God, he also seems, as it were, to ascend to such eminent and transcendent powers because of the flesh and the incarnate economy when we hear, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Cyril repeats emphatically that it is “precisely in his incarnate state” that Jesus “established himself on the divine throne and is Lord over all.”8 Cyril rightly discerns that the dignities to which Jesus ascends are properly divine, and yet he does indeed ascend to them.9 The incarnate Jesus does not always rule; instead, at the telos of the economy, he begins to rule. 6

Richard Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North, JSNTSup 263 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 178. 7 Bauckham, “Divinity,” 25. Cf. Joshua W. Jipp, “The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena of Hebrews 1.5-14,” NTS 56 (2010): 565, “The author systematically applies royal-messianic texts to the Son and does so in a way that emphasizes this rule as, not the earthly kingdom of the Son of David, but the cosmic reign of the one who has entered into God’s own life.” 8 Cyril of Alexandria, “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Commentariorum in Epistolam Ad Hebraeos Fragmenta Quot Reperiri Protuerunt,” in Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1872), 3:414. 9 Elsewhere Cyril explains how this beginning to rule is consonant with the Son’s unchangeable divinity, since “beginning” and “becoming” are possible only by virtue of the incarnate economy: And so, even though he is himself the Lord of Glory, he is said to receive glory. And even though he himself is Life, he is shown to be brought back to life. And even though he is the King of all, he receives dominion over all. Even though he is equal to God the Father, he obediently endured his sufferings and the cross. Because all these things were part and parcel of the human condition he adopted them as being implied along with the flesh, and so he fulfilled the economy, though always remaining what he was. Scholia 5, in John Anthony McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 298.

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

127

As we have seen, 1:5 cites Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 to figure Jesus’ session in heaven as his messianic enthronement. The author continues in Hebrews 1:6, “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’” This citation presents Christ’s enthronement from another perspective. Instead of what God said to the Son, we hear what God said to the angels when he introduced the resurrected Son to the heavenly world and its residents. Hence, in 1:6, the Son’s heavenly installation as Messiah is still in view. Also keeping the lens trained on Jesus’ messianic role is the title “firstborn,” which alludes to Psalm 89:27, “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”10 The entire section in which this verse is found (Ps 89:19-37) rehearses God’s promise to David, the covenant God swore to him (Ps 89:3). The angels’ worship of the Son is their fitting, scripturally mandated response to Jesus’ enthronement as Messiah. Yet their worship is only fitting because this enthroned Messiah reigns as God. Just as angelic worship is reserved for the Son, so also the throne that warrants it. The Son sits on the throne; believers do not. That the Son sits on the throne as high priest renders it a throne of grace, from which we receive mercy and grace to help in need (Heb 4:16; 8:1).11 In Hebrews, believers receive the benefits of the Son’s reign, not the reign itself. 10

Scholars who recognize the allusion include Albert Vanhoye, Situation du Christ: Hébreux 1–2, Lectio divina 58 (Paris: Cerf, 1969), 158; John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 510 (tentatively); Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 15th ed., KEKNT 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 163; George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 930; Sean M. McDonough, Christ as Creator: Origins of a New Testament Doctrine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 193; Amy L. B. Peeler, You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, LNTS 486 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 52; Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BIS 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 181-82. Contra Victor (Sung Yul) Rhee, “The Role of Chiasm for Understanding Christology in Hebrews 1:1-14,” JBL 131 (2012): 357, who suggests, “The designation of Christ as the ‘firstborn’ may refer to the eternal divine sonship of Christ.” 11 See, e.g., Hengel, Early Christology, 146, “The effectiveness of Jesus as the priestly intercessor and advocate is not only a consequence of his atoning death, but also the expression of his participation in the dominion of God, which he gained through ‘sitting at the right hand.’” Also Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie, WUNT II, 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 478, on the pro nobis of Christ’s rule on God’s throne: “The high-priestly work of Christ is the mode in which at present he savingly exercises his eschatological rule for his own.”

128

The Paradox of Sonship

Not everything Jesus obtains is something he can share; the worship of the angels belongs to him alone.12 I take Hebrews 2:5-9 to indicate that humanity itself was made “for a little while” lower than the angels, which means that in the age to come, the “glory” (2:10) that humanity obtains in Christ will exalt them over the angels. This exaltation will be the fulfillment of Adamic, properly human dominion. Being a glorified human is enough to set one above the angels; one need not be divine (cf. 1 Cor 6:3). As Michael Kibbe concludes, “But to place humanity above the angels is not to require angels to worship them—this is clear enough from the fact that humanity’s position below the angels did not require humanity to worship them.”13 What warrants the angels’ worship is not Jesus’ resurrected humanity but the fact that this resurrected human reigns as God. Hence appears what we might call a “messianic reserve”: some prerogatives that belong to Jesus as Messiah are his alone. Not everything the Messiah has is shared with his people. As firstborn, Jesus does not merely fulfill but exceeds this scriptural title for the Messiah. God promised to make this firstborn “the highest of the kings of the earth,” but Jesus assumed a throne that outranks not only powers on earth but those in heaven. The enthroned Jesus is indeed highest of human kings, by virtue of a reign that infinitely transcends theirs. Jesus the Messiah not only fulfills this Davidic expectation, he overflows it. It is worth underlining yet again that Jesus receives the angels’ worship as a man, though not because he is a man. Cyril, for instance, observes, Therefore the holy throng of the angels worships him. Even though he is the firstborn and a man among many brothers and sisters, they do not refrain from worship, since they are instructed concerning the economy and they recognize the Son who is from God by nature even when he has become flesh.14 12

Michael Kibbe, Godly Fear or Ungodly Failure? Hebrews 12 and the Sinai Theophanies, BZNW 216 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 154, “It is important to keep in mind that Hebrews does not say that angelic worship of the Son is transferable to his siblings” (emphasis original). 13 Kibbe, Godly Fear, 155. Kibbe continues, “The superiority of the ‘firstborn’ (1:6) to the angels, therefore, requires more than physical—even resurrected—humanity, which might explain why the command to worship the Son is followed by a comparison of transient angels to the God whose throne is ‘forever and ever’ (1:7-8)” (emphasis original). 14 Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:374. Athanasius also discusses the economic scope and sense of the title “firstborn” in C. Ar. 2.64 (NPNF2 4:383).

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

129

While Cyril apparently assigns Hebrews 1:6 to Christ’s incarnation rather than his enthronement, he puts his finger on the problematic paradox of the angels worshiping a man.15 Further, Cyril’s solution to this problem grasps the logic of Hebrews 1:6 as a whole: though human, Jesus receives angels’ worship because he is God. In being instructed about the economy, Cyril’s angels are simply catching up with readers of Hebrews. Another passage that attests the Son’s reign as a man on God’s throne is the citation of Psalm 45:6-7 in Hebrews 1:8-9: But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Our reading of this passage in chapter two sought solely to establish that God addresses the Son as God and so identifies him as God. Here we consider how these verses also reason from the Son’s humanity. While implicit, Jesus’ humanity is integral to the logic of 1:9. Here Hebrews cites the psalmist recalling the Messiah’s spotless record of uprightness: “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.” This righteous record is the reason why God “has anointed” Jesus “with the oil of gladness.” Messianic anointing is a response to and ratification of the Son’s obedient life. I suggest, therefore, that this citation epitomizes the sequence of faithful humiliation rewarded by exaltation that later proves integral to how Jesus came to be enthroned as Messiah. In 2:9, Jesus is made lower than the angels, then crowned with glory and honor; in 2:10 he is perfected through suffering; in 5:7-10 he learns obedience through suffering, then becomes the source of salvation; in 12:2 he endured the cross for the joy set before him then took his seat at God’s right hand. The assertion that God anointed the Son because of the Son’s demonstrated commitment to what is right prefigures this prominent pattern. Further, this reading entails that the Son’s 15

Cf. Jody A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT II, 331 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 251-52, who considers “angelic consent to a potentially objectionable new heavenly reality” to be a parallel between Heb 1:6 and 2 En 22:7.

130

The Paradox of Sonship

anointing is coincident with, and another perspective on, his enthronement in heaven. This analysis challenges those who argue that the citation refers to the Son simply as divine. For instance, Victor Rhee argues that “Christ’s preexistence is in view.” He argues that “forever and ever” in 1:8 describes a properly eternal, not merely endless, reign. He finds in “you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness” (1:9) a reference to “the eternal aspect of Christ,” and regards the verb “anointed” (1:9) as “a symbol of joyfulness in timeless eternity rather than anointing at the exaltation.”16 However, in view of Hebrews’ recent allusion to Psalm 110:1 (Heb 1:13) and citation of Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 (1:5) to announce Jesus’ enthronement as Messiah, we should understand the author to take the royal overtones of Psalm 45 to find their fulfillment in Jesus’ messianic reign. There is no warrant from the context of Hebrews to treat this citation as any less messianic than those in 1:5. And, if messianic, then on Hebrews’ own principles this psalm becomes true of Jesus at his enthronement.17 Hence, instead of being only a “theology” passage, it is best to see Hebrews 1:8-9 as belonging to Cyril’s middle category.18 This passage designates 16

Rhee, “Chiasm,” 351-52. Some of these arguments appear in Meier, “Symmetry,” 514-15. So Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 939, “Yet, the author also understands Ps. 45:6-7 as a direct verbal prophecy concerning the perpetual nature of the Son’s reign, having been explicitly fulfilled (indeed, which could only be fulfilled) in the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God (Heb. 1:3, 13; Ps. 110:1).” Others who take Heb 1:8-9 to refer to Christ’s enthronement include Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux: II. Commentaire, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1953), 19-20; Vanhoye, Situation, 184-95; Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 60; Weiss, Hebräer, 165-67; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 99; Kenneth L. Schenck, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1,” JBL 120 (2001): 474; Small, Characterization, 245-46. 18 E.g., Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 392, “The citation does not only focus on the Son’s divinity; it is also apparent that the Son is a human being.” Similarly, see Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity 11.19 (FC 25:475–77); John of Damascus, “Ad Hebraeos,” in Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos: Commentarii in epistulas Pauli, ed. Robert Volk, PTS 68 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 7:475. Cyril himself locates Heb 1:8-9 within the incarnate economy, since he sees the Son’s anointing as his reception of the Holy Spirit: “And since, as I was saying, he became flesh, he himself by his own Spirit anoints his own temple. . . . Therefore he is said to receive the spirit economically, as a man.” “Hebrews,” 3:379-80. Similarly, see Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Chrysostom Baer (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006), 34-35. In his reading of Jn 1:32-33, Cyril takes Jesus’ reception of the Spirit announced by Ps 45:7 to take place at his baptism. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 2.1, trans. David R. Maxwell, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, ACT (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013–15), 1:78, so this is likely assumed here. Similar to 17

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

131

the man Jesus as the God who reigns forever.19 When Jesus was anointed Messiah, he began to reign on God’s own throne, on which he will never cease to reign.20 In Hebrews 1:8-9, Psalm 45:6-7 says this man Jesus began to do what only God can do, what only God has always done and will always do. The Messiah inherits the universe. Another divine prerogative pertaining to the office of Messiah is evident in Hebrews 1:2b: “whom he appointed the heir of all things.” In a sense, this prerogative restates the previous from a new angle. To reign on God’s throne is to exercise dominion over all created reality, hence to possess all. That 1:2b says Jesus inherits all things as a royal possession indicates his limitless reign as Messiah. But is this a specifically messianic prerogative? Indeed it is. Especially in light of the citation of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5, it is highly probable that Hebrews 1:2b alludes to Psalm 2:8, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.”21 As with “firstborn” in Hebrews 1:6, “heir of all things” in 1:2b both fulfills and expands a messianic promise. As enthroned Messiah, Jesus inherits not just all nations but all things, not only the ends of the earth but the ends of the universe. Since this Messiah sits on God’s throne, his sovereignty is not merely national, or even global, but universal. As Ceslas Spicq acutely observes, Christ’s appointment to high priesthood, I agree with Cyril in locating this event within the economy but disagree with Cyril’s assigning the anointing to Jesus’ baptism rather than his enthronement. 19 Contrast L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 159-60, for whom the fact of the Son’s “elevation above his comrades” (160n33) indicates that the title “God” applied to the Son entails only that, “as ideal king, he represents God to the people” (160). 20 Bauckham writes, “The quotation from Ps. 45[LXX 44].6-7 shows that the position on the divine throne to which the Son has been exalted as God’s Messiah . . . is a matter of eternal participation in the eternal divine sovereignty.” “Monotheism and Christology,” 181. I agree that as Messiah Jesus attains to the properly divine sovereignty, but Bauckham’s first “eternal” does not leave enough room for the point, implicit here and explicit in Heb 1:3-5, that the man Jesus only began to exercise this reign at his heavenly enthronement. 21 The Greek of “the nations your heritage” is ἔθνη τὴν κληρονομίαν σου (ethnē tēn klēronomian sou); the noun for “heritage” (or “inheritance”) is cognate with “heir” (κληρονόμον, klēronomon) in Heb 1:2b. Scholars who detect an allusion to Ps 2:8 in Heb 1:2b include Spicq, Hébreux, 5; William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, WMANT 53 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 68; Attridge, Hebrews, 40; Weiss, Hebräer, 141; William L. Lane, Hebrews, WBC 47A–B (Dallas: Word, 1991), 1:12; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 95-95; Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 923-24; Bauckham, “Divinity,” 20.

132

The Paradox of Sonship

It is remarkable that Jesus, as a man, having belonged to one of the smallest nations of the world, which rejected and crucified him, is appointed heir not only of Palestine or the Orient, but of the universe, of all the riches of earth and of heaven. He is the Lord and master of all that exists.22

Who can claim the universe as an inheritance? The next few phrases answer: its maker and sustainer. Immediately after 1:2b we read, “through whom also [καί, kai] he created the world.” A number of commentators have observed that the “also” suggests a fit between the Son’s creative agency and his receipt of the cosmos as his inheritance.23 He who created all now claims all. The exordium continues, “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe [τὰ πάντα, ta panta] by the word of his power” (1:3a-b). Here what the Son upholds is literally “all things”: what he holds in being is identical to what he inherits (πάντων [pantōn], 1:2b). Who may possess the universe? He who made it and sustains it. As with God’s throne and the angels’ worship, here also we can detect a messianic reserve. Certainly the Son obtains an inheritance in order to confer an inheritance on those whom he saves. For instance, Hebrews 9:15 says that Jesus mediates the new covenant “so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance” (cf. 1:14; 6:12). But what is this inheritance? How vast is its scope? In Hebrews 2:5 we read, “For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.” Again, the following verses indicate that God has indeed subjected the world to come to humanity in Christ, and that this dominion fulfills God’s original purposes for both creation and humanity. For instance, Hebrews 2:8 cites the declaration of Psalm 8:6 that God has put “all things” (πάντα, panta) under humanity’s feet. But are Hebrews 1:2 and 2:8 talking about the same “all things”? Not likely. In the latter, the scriptural context the psalm evokes is God’s grant of dominion to humanity at creation. Over what were they granted dominion? The earth. God gave Adam and Eve dominion over all creatures of earth, sea, and sky (Gen 1:26), and told them to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). Hence, when God subjects the “world to come”

22

Spicq, Hébreux, 5. Cf. Peeler, You Are My Son, 16, “Consequently, God’s appointing his Son as heir of all things implies that God is sharing his ownership of everything with his Son forever.” 23 E.g., Spicq, Hébreux, 142; John P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14,” Biblica 66 (1985): 178; Weiss, Hebräer, 142.

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

133

to humanity-in-Christ (Heb 2:5), the referent is arguably the new earth.24 Humanity inherits the new earth; Christ inherits all things. Christ’s rule reinstates human rule, but his remains the greater.25 We have seen that inheriting the universe is a divine prerogative, and that the Messiah Jesus inherits it as a man. When Jesus was enthroned he came into his cosmic inheritance.26 As often, Cyril guards the paradox: Therefore he is appointed heir of all things as a man, in the economy, in order to rescue those on earth as belonging to him, as his own portion. . . . If he should be said to receive, and to have been appointed heir because of his humanity, we will not be ignorant of the economy. For how did he ever become poor, except in becoming a man like us, while remaining God?27

Cyril asks a reasonable question. If the Son inherited the universe, prior to inheriting it he did not possess it. But how can the Creator of all things ever be said to have not possessed what he created? Cyril offers not only a reasonable but, I would argue, an exegetically mandated answer: the Son who created all things can have become the heir of all things only by becoming incarnate. It was by becoming incarnate that the Son embraced a human existence in which he, as a man, did not possess the universe. Borrowing the language of 2 Corinthians 8:9, Cyril discerns that it is only by becoming incarnate that the Son “became poor.” Yet the Son incarnate, the man Jesus, did indeed come to own the universe. 24

Hence, while I agree with the overall thesis of Ole Jakob Filtvedt, “Creation and Salvation in Hebrews,” ZNW 106 (2015): 280-303, that in Hebrews the eschatological goal of humanity is a material new creation, I disagree with his assertion that, in light of the thematic links between 1:2 and 2:8, both Jesus and his people inherit “all things” in a cosmic sense (283). 25 Schenck rightly perceives that both Christ and his people receive an inheritance, but fails to perceive the discontinuity, the messianic reserve: “In a sense, therefore, the inheritance of Christ and that of the other sons is similar. They are all destined for glory and salvation out of this age (1.14), as well as to be the rulers of the coming world (2.5). One of the greatest commonalities shared between all sons, therefore, is their common inheritance.” “Appointment,” 102. By contrast, with regard to 1:2b, Peeler rightly discerns that “the honor bestowed upon Jesus as God’s Son is shared with no other. . . . As God’s Son and heir, Jesus is in a position of honor and authority unequaled by anyone save God.” You Are My Son, 15. 26 Meier, “Structure,” 179, “At his exaltation, the Son, in his perfected humanity, is constituted heir of what the preexistent Son created kat’ archas (Heb 1,10).” 27 Cyril of Alexandria, “Hebrews,” 3:366. Similarly, John of Damascus comments on 1:2b, “Speaking of the Son, he immediately sets forth the mystery, showing that the same one is God and human.” Noting the allusion to Ps 2:8, the Damascene argues that God spoke these words to the Son when he also spoke Ps 2:7, “in the time of the economy.” Then he articulates the theandric logic of the phrase: “Those things which he owned insofar as he is God the Word, these he is said to receive as an inheritance insofar as he has become a man.” “Ad Hebraeos,” 7:473. See also Aquinas, Hebrews, 14-15.

134

The Paradox of Sonship

Like the other passages we have considered so far, the prerogative of inheriting all things requires us to deploy a twofold predication, our fifth tool. It is only by virtue of being God that the Son is authorized to reign on God’s throne; it is only by virtue of being man that he begins to reign, sits at God’s right hand, becomes superior to the angels. None of this need imply that, as divine, the Son ever ceased to reign. Instead, all these eventive verbs report what the Son newly enacted as a man.28 Regarding Hebrews 1:2b, Jesus can claim the universe as his inheritance only because this man is also God the Son, the universe’s maker and sustainer. But he can receive the universe as an inheritance, being given it by God, because as the incarnate God-man he acquired it at the conclusion of his saving mission.29 Three threads. This discussion has uncovered three thematic threads in Hebrews’ messianic exegesis that are worth bringing to light and lingering over. These are messianic reserve, hyperfulfillment, and the programmatic role of Psalm 110:1. Regarding messianic reserve, my point is not simply that the Messiah is authorized to do some things that all others are not. All offices involve some such prerogatives. Instead, my point is that Jesus the Messiah exercises uniquely divine prerogatives. To reign on heaven’s throne and to inherit the universe are acts that Scripture restricts to God. As Hebrews renders them, these activities are reserved for God, not delegable to one who is not God. 28

Hence John Webster’s account of Heb 1:2b is undermined by his failure to read the verse in and through the Son’s incarnate economy. Webster writes, In light of the exalted status of “Son” in the first half of v. 2, however, the appointment refers us back to an eternal, inner-divine relation of θεός and υἱός. The Son’s appointment is not an event in time between God and a creature. . . . Appointment, therefore, refers to the pre-temporal decision in which God the Father purposes that the Son should be the one in whom he creatures, upholds and redeems the creation, and so expresses his rule over all things. John Webster, “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 82. Webster seems to take “appointed” in 1:2b in a strictly proleptic sense, whereas Hebrews’ use includes not just the designation of this role but its realization. The Son’s appointment, as shorthand for coming into his inheritance, is indeed an event in time. Yet, contra what amounts to an excluded middle in Webster’s presentation, this is not an event between God and a creature, but between the Father and the Son, the latter under the conditions of creaturely, human life he assumed at the incarnation. 29 Ceslas Spicq aptly observes of Heb 1:2b-c that, since the same Christ both created and inherits the universe, here the text of Hebrews itself employs a “communication of idioms.” That is, Christ can only be said to have created the universe by ascribing to the human person what he had accomplished by virtue of his divine nature. Hébreux, 6.

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

135

Second is hyperfulfillment: Jesus not only fulfills scriptural messianic expectations but exceeds them. I borrow this term from Fred Sanders’s phrase “convergent hyperfulfillment”: Thus, in the Father’s sending of the Son and the Spirit, all God’s ways are fulfilled, but they are more than fulfilled—or hyperfulfilled—because they all converge on the events at the trinitarian hinge of the canon. This convergent hyperfulfillment is most manifest in Jesus, who is both David’s son and David’s Lord, the root and the branch of Jesse.30

Sanders calls this hyperfulfillment “convergent” because in it many lines of expectation meet. “Taught to look for a messianic son, a suffering servant, a prophet greater than Moses, and the Lord himself, the apostles met them all in one person.”31 While Hebrews also invokes Isaiah’s suffering servant in Hebrews 9:28, my focus is less on convergence and more on hyperfulfillment. Jesus does all that the Messiah was supposed to do and more. As Robert Sokolowski puts it, “The divinity of Christ surpasses the anticipations which it completes, but it presents itself only within the setting they provide.”32 Further, it is fitting that Sanders invokes Jesus’ embodiment of Psalm 110:1 as a signal instance of this hyperfulfillment. Psalm 110:1 plants a seed that sprouts and flowers in Hebrews’ exposition of Jesus as the theandric Messiah, the divine Son incarnate who does as a man what only God may.33 30

Fred Sanders, The Triune God, NSD (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 222. Sanders, The Triune God, 222. Similarly, Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 3:25, observes that in Hebrews the Old Testament’s messianic promises are not merely fulfilled but amplified. 32 Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 127. 33 Especially when read in concert, psalms such as Pss 2, 45, 72, 89, and 110 (all but one cited or alluded to in Hebrews) present a strikingly exalted picture of David’s promised heir. Scholars debate precisely how exalted this figure is, and exactly what is his relationship to YHWH. For worthwhile engagement with these Psalms with such matters in view, see, e.g., Gerald Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW 73 (1961): 202-25; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, ConBOT 8 (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 254-75, 291-92; Richard J. Clifford, “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure,” HTR 73 (1980): 35-47; James L. Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 95-116; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms,” CBQ 64 (2002): 675-86; Mark W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetic of Kingship in Ancient Israel, BIS 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 32-82, 88-94; Joshua W. Jipp, Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 32-37, 93-99, 150-60. Precise resolution of such questions is not essential to my case. Nevertheless, taken together, these Psalms might seem at least partially to anticipate, and to provide some warrant for, the conclusions Hebrews draws 31

136

The Paradox of Sonship

Hence my third point emerges: in Hebrews’ exposition of Jesus’ rule as Messiah, Psalm 110:1 plays a programmatic role. We might even say that Hebrews employs Psalm 110:1 as a messianic master key. From Psalm 110:1 the author of Hebrews knows that Jesus the Messiah enacts God’s own reign. Equipped with this knowledge, the author discerns that Jesus not only fulfills but surpasses what Scripture elsewhere says the Messiah would be and do. God gives his Messiah the nations as his portion and surpassingly more besides. God exalts the Messiah above any earthly king—even above any heavenly being. Just as Psalm 110:4 plays a programmatic role in Hebrews’ conception of Jesus as high priest, so in our author’s hands Psalm 110:1 becomes a skeleton key that can unlock fuller meaning in any messianic promise, as his expansions of Psalms 2:8 and 89:27 testify (Heb 1:2, 6).34 Psalm 110:1 says something more about the Messiah—specifically, his divine rule—than does any other Old Testament passage, which allows our author to see more in Jesus’ rule than what the letter of other passages states. To change metaphors, for our author Psalm 110:1 is the tallest peak in Scripture’s messianic range. From its height he can see summits that, viewed from the base of each promise, would have remained cloaked in cloud.35 For Hebrews, Jesus does not just happen to be both God incarnate and Messiah. Instead, the former is necessary, though not sufficient, for the latter. As fulfilled by Jesus, Messiah is a theandric office. It is filled by a human being, but the job includes tasks only God can perform. Hence, to return from Ps 110:1 in particular. (See, e.g., the summary statements of Roberts, “Enthronement,” 684; Jipp, Christ Is King, 98). Within the horizon of these Psalms themselves, “deputization” seems to me a particularly fruitful term for describing the relationship between the king and YHWH. That is, the king acts on behalf of YHWH; his reign representatively enacts YHWH’s reign. See, e.g., Jonathan Leeman, Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule, SCDS (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 226-27, who argues that the “special covenants” of the Old Testament deputize God’s people to bear his name, and, “This deputization culminates and is most centrally embodied in the Davidic son” (227). Leeman’s discussion of deputization draws on that of Nicholas Wolterstorff, The Mighty and the Almighty: An Essay in Political Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 50. 34 Knut M. Heim, “The (God-)Forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Inquiry,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 321, suggests that a similar expansion is evident in the allusion to Ps 89:27 in Rev 1:5. In that verse Christ is named “the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth,” implying not merely international political sovereignty, but cosmic dominion. 35 This is very similar to Hays’s point that passages such as Is 40 and Dan 7:13-14 “can provide privileged ‘viewpoints’ from which the Evangelists survey the whole of Scripture.” Echoes, 363.

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

137

briefly to a point from chapter four, I have argued that the referent of the Psalm 2:7 citation in Hebrews 1:5 is Jesus’ enthronement in heaven, and its sense is Jesus’ instatement in messianic office. This is an effectual speech-act that confers an office. Nevertheless, when the full dimensions of Jesus’ messianic office are taken into account, I would suggest that the Father-Son relationship announced and enacted at the enthronement can rightly be said to imply, and thereby disclose, a relationship that precedes it. In other words, Jesus’ economic attainment of messianic sonship reveals his eternal divine sonship. His temporal mission reveals his eternal procession. Making Sense of, and with, Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah Does all this actually make sense? In this section I reflect on this chapter’s argument as a whole, which unites the argument of the whole book. I will argue that Hebrews’ theandric Messiah does indeed make sense, in at least two complementary senses. First, we can make sense with Hebrews’ theandric Messiah. Specifically, the theandric shape of the Messiah’s office in Hebrews helps us make sense of its twofold use of “Son” to name both Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence and the office to which he is appointed at his enthronement. This book’s first two theses come together in the third. Hebrews names Jesus “Son” as both a divine designation and a messianic one because the former is integral to the latter. If Jesus as Messiah does what only God can do, then only God can do the job. There is an airtight fit between who Jesus is and what he becomes, between his eternal rule as God and his attained, saving rule as God-man. The first sense of “Son” is not unrelated to or in tension with the second but is necessary for it, picked up and carried within it. The contention that Jesus fulfills the theandric office of Messiah is perhaps the most important factor that renders plausible the paradoxical assertion that the Son became Son. In chapters three and four we saw that not only Jesus’ incarnation but the execution of his entire saving mission was prerequisite to his appointment as Messiah. Hence, as Cyril might say, God the Son nakedly, in his divine nature alone, was not yet qualified for saving office.36 To become 36

So Paul Gavrilyuk, summarizing Cyril, “At the same time, something new happened in the incarnation, so new and unparalleled that it became possible to predicate human experiences of

138

The Paradox of Sonship

the source of salvation he had to become incarnate and obedient; he had to become qualified for priestly office through suffering, death, and resurrection; and he had to offer a sacrifice sufficient to save his people before sitting down at God’s right hand. The whole aim of Hebrews’ Christology is to explain how the Son became what he needed to be in order to become the Savior we needed. Hebrews’ subtle use of the term Son both plots this story and reveals something of its inner logic. This Son has been Son since before the beginning. But to become the Son we needed, he became a man, was perfected, and perfected his people through his self-offering. Once appointed Son, he began to do what no merely human king could, reigning as God for his people’s unshakable good. In other words, “Son” tells us not only who Jesus is and what he became, but why he alone could become what he became. Perceiving the theandric structure of Jesus’ messianic office in Hebrews enables us to make sense of Hebrews’ use of “Son” in registers both divine and official, since only one who is divine could execute the office. From one point of view, this conclusion precisely reverses the verdict of Caird, Hurst, and Schenck on Hebrews’ Christology. Those scholars rightly perceive the crucial role of Jesus’ heavenly enthronement. “Son” really is something Jesus became. Yet, instead of their conclusion that this enthronement as Son precludes Jesus’ divine sonship, it actually requires and confirms his divine sonship. The very factor that these scholars use to rule out Jesus’ divine sonship depends on Jesus’ divine sonship. In this chapter, and the entire book, I have attempted to paint a portrait of Christ’s person drawn exclusively from materials provided by Hebrews. But what about the classical christological toolkit? Does that not constitute an added store of material, snuck in to supplement the text? Emphatically not. And the answer to the next question shows why. How do we make sense of Hebrews’ theandric Messiah? What set of judgments and distinctions enables one to speak coherently of a human being, who is also God, executing a human office that only God can? God the Word, not considered ‘nakedly,’ but within the framework of the incarnation.” In Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 156. Cf. McGuckin, Cyril, 186, “Cyril constantly reminds his readers that in christology one must not speak of the Logos as ‘Gymnos’ (ie. naked, in his divine characteristics) but as ‘Sesarkomene’ (enfleshed).”

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

139

First, we need to ensure that we are speaking about a single acting subject. As we traverse the whole narrative substructure that Hebrews’ enthronement discourse presupposes, we must speak of one agent, the Son, who existed as God before creating the world and then, at the turning of the times, entered that world as a man. This single Son is he who came to share flesh and blood. Second, we must affirm that this single individual is both human and divine. In order to call people his brothers and sisters he became what they are; yet only if he truly is and remains God can he do what only God does. The “whats” of both God and humanity are his. Third, we must follow events that unfold in time while recognizing that their agent and undergoer existed before and beyond them, with an existence not constrained by any created reality. Otherwise how could the Son remain what he always is after becoming human? Fourth, we need to discern that some of what Hebrews says of the Son describes his divine existence, while other ascriptions presuppose and refer to his human life that began at a point in time. If we do not draw such a distinction, we will confuse either the registers in which Hebrews speaks of the Son or the bases on which it speaks. Hence, fifth, in conceptually paraphrasing the text it is fitting to specify that some things are true of the Son by virtue of his divinity and others by virtue of his humanity. It is true that the same Son both upholds the universe and dies on a cross, but what makes these statements predicable of the same Son is his twofold manner of existence. Sixth, given all this, we should not shrink from but should expect and embrace paradoxical predications of the Son. Indeed, the point of departure for this chapter is the claim, for which Hebrews calls Psalm 110:1 as witness, that the human Jesus reigns as God on God’s throne. Is this not a staggering paradox? Yet this is the starting point, not the endpoint, of Hebrews’ entire christological program. Hebrews’ Christology begins, literally and figuratively, with the assertion that a man sat down on God’s throne. Some version of the entire classical christological toolkit that I have just rehearsed is necessary for coherently making such a claim. Exegesis is exposition, explanation. If we are not simply to repeat the words of the text we must strive to give their sense. Who is this seated Messiah? On what basis may he claim such ascendant dignity?

140

The Paradox of Sonship

Hebrews does not answer these questions in analytic or apologetic fashion, but its incarnational narrative does indeed answer them. To expound its answers, we must employ concepts and distinctions that, while internal to Hebrews’ account, are sometimes implicit. In other words, one need not explicitly make all six of these moves in order to re-present the substance of Hebrews’ Christology. But if you deny, reject, or preemptively rule out any of them, you hinder your ability to perceive the fullness of Hebrews’ Christ. Reject any one of these tools and you reject something Hebrews says about Jesus. If you rule out Jesus’ full divinity, how is he the radiance of God’s glory and impress of his being? How is he co-agent of creation and sustainer of all? If you rule out Jesus’ intact possession of what makes God God and what makes man man, how can you affirm that this Son is God’s radiance and impress, and that he came to share flesh and blood? If you fail to perceive that the same Son exists eternally and becomes incarnate in time, how can he both be Son and become Son? If you fail to distinguish what Hebrews says of the Son as God from what it says of him as having become a man, how will you avoid shearing off its ascriptions of divinity? If you fail to speak both registers of the same Son at the same time, how can Jesus be the theandric Messiah, David’s son and Lord? If you call contradiction what Hebrews proclaims as paradox, how can you be sure you have not preshrunk the concepts in which Hebrews clothes Christ? It is not classical convictions but modern conventions that make the procrustean bed. Lexically, in order to discern and understand Hebrews’ twofold use of “Son,” we must conceive of Christ as God become a man. Conceptually, in order to perceive the shape and coherence of the story Hebrews tells about the Son who became Son, we must identify its protagonist as God incarnate. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of the theology is in the reading. Hebrews not only warrants classical christological convictions; classical christological convictions enable a coherent reading of Hebrews. A central contention of this book is that classical Christology is the right tool for the job of reading Hebrews.37 Proper traffic between text 37

Cf. Daniel Keating, “Thomas Aquinas and the Epistle to the Hebrews: ‘The Excellence of Christ,’” in Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews: Profiles from the History of Interpretation, ed. Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier, LNTS 423 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 99,

Hebrews’ Theandric Messiah

141

and theology is not one-way but two-way. Not only does the text warrant theological reflection and confession, but the right theology, which speaks the substance of the text, leads us deeper into the text. The dominant conception in modern biblical studies is that classical theological convictions only lead away from the text.38 I have argued that, in the case of Hebrews’ theandric Messiah, they lead further up and further in. Divine Things Humanly Lurking behind this chapter’s language is an observation of so-called Dionysius the Areopagite, a pseudonymous, likely Syrian, fifth- or sixthcentury theologian: He has truly become a man in a way that surpasses humanity. And for the rest, he neither does divine things divinely nor human things humanly, but as God made man, he manifested a certain new theandric energy [καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν, kainēn tina tēn theandrikēn energeian], as he lived among us.39 All these predicates are posited of one and the same agent, the “Son.” The one who is the radiance of God’s glory is the same one who cried to the Father for deliverance from death. When seen in this light, Aquinas’s application of a two-nature, one-person Chalcedonian framework is not an unwarranted imposition, but a penetrating light that helps to account for the various claims made about Christ in Hebrews itself. By employing the Chalcedonian framework Aquinas is able to maintain the eternal Son as the single subject of all that is said, showing how his true divinity and his true humanity can exist in one and the same figure, and how they can account for the strikingly divergent claims Hebrews makes about the “Son.” 38 Francis Watson challenges “the dominance of a basically evolutionary scheme of christological development,” which he summarizes as follows: “Crudely expressed, the further we move from the origin the higher christology becomes, a process which reaches its logical conclusion in the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon.” In Francis Watson, Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 257. Cf. Watson’s earlier shot across the bow: “Perhaps Jesus has been riveted for centuries to the stony rocks of historical-critical scholarship, and perhaps ecclesial doctrine is needed to restore him to life and movement?” (256). 39 Epistula 4. Translation from Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 104; Greek in PG 3:1072b-c. Cf. Maximus the Confessor’s comments on this passage: For he lives out this energy not for himself but for our sake and renews nature so that we can transcend nature. . . . For since the Lord is double in nature, it is appropriate that he is manifest having a life corresponding both to divine and human laws, welded together without confusion to become the same. This life is also new, not simply as strange and astounding to those on earth, and so distinguished from the nature of the things that exist, but also characteristic of the new energy of the life newly lived. In Difficulty 5; in Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor, ECF (London: Routledge, 1996), 176 (cf. also 174). On these themes in Maximus see further David S. Yeago, “Jesus of Nazareth and

142

The Paradox of Sonship

While the author of Hebrews was no eyewitness to Christ, he received the gospel from those who were (Heb 2:3). And in his scripturally stamped proclamation of this one who lately lived among us, our author confesses that the Messiah does divine things humanly.40 Psalm 110:1 says this man was enthroned at God’s right hand. This tool in hand, our author mines new riches from Scripture’s witness to the Messiah. In his citations of and allusions to a rich vein of messianic passages, the author of Hebrews acclaims a Messiah who does what only God can. This divine Son became messianic Son. And, in the light shed by his enthronement and its chief scriptural witness, our author discovers that only this Son could become that Son. Only the divine Son become human could become the Messiah, the king who alone could deliver God’s people.

Cosmic Redemption: The Relevance of St. Maximus the Confessor,” Modern Theology 12 (1996): 175-76. 40 For theological reflection along these lines see, e.g., Leontius of Jerusalem, “That’s why this person is one entity living theandrically, for the same one Christ, our Lord, lived and grew like us, eating and drinking, yet he was both self-sufficient and, in divine terms, complete.” Testimonies 1856D; in Against the Monophysites; Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae, trans. and ed. Patrick T. R. Gray, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 111, italics original. Also John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith 3.19, “Thus, the theandric operation shows this: when God became man, that is to say, was incarnate, his human operation was divine, that is to say, deified. And it was not excluded from his divine operation, nor was his divine operation excluded from his human operation. On the contrary, each is found in the other” (FC 37:323). Finally, McGuckin’s summary of this theme in Cyril is helpful: There is no instance of a purely divine act in the incarnation (no sole Logos-act), nor is there any instance of a purely human deed (a man’s act), just as any ordinary human being cannot chose to do anything that is either purely psychic or merely physical. Each and every single act of the incarnate Lord was, for Cyril, an act of God enfleshed within history; and thus an act where deity and humanity were synchronised as one theandric reality. Cyril, 200.

Conclusion The One Word Needed

S

ometimes, one word is enough. “First of all, do you accept the nomination?” “Yes!” Sometimes, one word is everything. The framers of the Barmen Declaration thought so. In 1934, these German Christians who opposed Nazi ideology and banded together as the Confessing Church declared, “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear, and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.”1 As we will see, the confession Hebrews urges its hearers to hold fast can similarly be summed up in a single word. This conclusion sews things up in four stitches. First, I reflect on the shape of Hebrews’ Christology as a whole and a challenge it poses to common scholarly readings of New Testament Christology. Second, I will compare Hebrews’ Christology to conciliar Christology in an effort to render more explicit some of the book’s conclusions and implications. Third, I will suggest that the lexical move we have discerned in Hebrews—using the same term in both a divine and a messianic sense—may well be present in two other crucial christological passages, Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4. Fourth, since Hebrews is an intensely pastoral writing, I end by reflecting on the role the person of Christ plays in Hebrews’ pastoral program.

Glimpses of an Achieved Synthesis: Hebrews’ Teaching on Christ’s Person Much study of the New Testament’s Christology posits a basically evolutionary scheme of development.2 On this account, the earliest Christians did 1

Book of Confessions: Study Edition (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 1996), 309. Francis Watson, Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 257. Cf. p. 141, n. 38.

2

144

The Paradox of Sonship

not believe that Jesus was divine; that gap was crossed later, perhaps much later. If one works from such an assumption, it must be the case that some New Testament writings, or hypothetically reconstructed sources of New Testament writings, attest not only a Christology that does not attest Jesus as divine but one that is incompatible with his divinity. Since Christians later came insistently to confess Jesus’ full divinity, we can, as it were, measure the distance between the earliest Christian beliefs expressed in writing and full-fledged Nicene orthodoxy. Then, with the distance between points (A) and (B) cataloged, we can ask which, if any, New Testament documents confess Christ’s divinity in a way that anticipates or coheres with this later confession. Such documents, like John’s Gospel, may not attain the conceptual rigor of Nicaea (Point B). But, on this scheme, like referees of a theological high-jump, we can erect a marker called “Divine Christology” somewhere between points (A) and (B) and see which New Testament writings leap high enough to clear the bar.3 I sketch this scheme not to belabor the point that Hebrews “clears the bar,” though I have argued it does. Instead, I suggest that Hebrews poses a considerable challenge to the scheme itself. This challenge arises from the role Christ’s divinity plays in the letter, the way this conviction achieves expression and relates to other key assertions. However the author of Hebrews came to the conviction that Jesus is himself God, that conviction is not a mere inference he draws as the last link of a logical chain but a premise for much of his reasoning. Two examples suffice to illustrate the point. First, this book’s central contention is that Hebrews uses the term Son to denote both Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence and the messianic office in which he was installed when enthroned. One reason for this dual use of the term is that, as Messiah, Jesus does what only God can. The office of Messiah, with its title “Son,” is something added, like Jesus’ human nature itself, to the Son who is already and always divine. Whatever role Jesus’ messiahship and the scriptural testimony to it played in forming the author’s conviction of Jesus’ divinity, he is able to distinguish Jesus’ messiahship from his divinity. Further, he treats Jesus’ divinity as not only antecedent to, but also an implicit qualification for, 3

For more nuanced criticism of the categories of “low” and “high” Christology, see Wesley Hill, Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 3-25.

Conclusion

145

his messianic office. Such careful coordination of divine and human realities suggests not the rough edges of a new breakthrough but the orderly exposition of an achieved synthesis. Second, a passage such as Hebrews 1:10-12 is telling. On what basis does Hebrews declare that Jesus is the Lord, the κύριος (kyrios), YHWH whom the psalmist praises? If we questioned the author, what warrant might he offer for such a daring, indeed potentially blasphemous, bit of exegesis? In Psalm 102:25-27 and its context, messianic resonances, if present at all, are exceedingly faint.4 How dare the author claim the psalmist speaks to Jesus? The only sufficient warrant for making Jesus the psalm’s addressee is the conviction that Jesus is YHWH himself, the one true God. The reading only works if the conviction is true. We should note, then, how the conviction of Jesus’ divinity is expressed in this passage. It is not an inference from theological reasoning but the premise for biblical exegesis. So far is the divinity of Jesus from being something the author feels compelled to prove that he assumes it as the basis for a breathtaking rereading of Israel’s Scripture and a redescription of the identity of Israel’s God. Jesus’ divinity is not a theological bar the author leaps to clear, but the ground he plants his feet on to read Scripture. My point here is not that these two examples dismantle the entire scholarly edifice in question, but that the critical construct of development from lower to higher is a singularly inapt, even distorting, lens through which to read Hebrews. It is at best misleading, at worst blinding, to place Hebrews on a continuum between “earliest Christian belief ” and “Nicene orthodoxy” with open space on either side. The stunning assertion of simple identity between Jesus and YHWH —along with the tantalizing hints of an immanent relation between Father and Son in, for instance, Hebrews 1:3—is more than raw material for later doctrinal development. Instead, as I have 4

Though see Stephen Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?,” TynBul 50 (1999): 19-21, for a reading that sets these verses of Ps 102 within a “Davidic/Zion theology, in which Yahweh’s kingdom is cognate with and implicit in the Davidic rule in Zion.” Similarly Gert J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews, FRLANT 235 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 111; Jared Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, LNTS 537 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 31-33. Even if, for the sake of argument, messianic resonances present in the text (perhaps especially in the LXX version) contributed to the author’s choice of this passage, the author’s reading only bears scrutiny on the basis of the Son’s identity as the Creator God.

146

The Paradox of Sonship

argued throughout with the help of Kavin Rowe and especially David Yeago, while Hebrews and Nicaea use different terms and speak in different registers, they render identical judgments about the identity of Jesus.5 Hebrews is not merely a significant step along the way to Nicaea but is, in a crucial sense, already there. But perhaps our more pressing concern is the relation of Hebrews not to Nicaea but to Chalcedon. Here at last, do we encounter a gap uncrossed by any first-century author? Not so fast. A comment by Cornelius Plantinga on John’s Gospel offers an analogy we can use to move toward this question, which we address directly in the next section. Among all New Testament documents the Fourth Gospel provides not only the most raw material for the church doctrine of the Trinity, but also the most highly developed patterns of reflection on this material—particularly, patterns that show evidence of pressure to account somehow for the distinct personhood and divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit without compromising the unity of God.6

First, note the necessary changes: Hebrews, not John; and Christ’s incarnation, not the Trinity per se. Further, I do not claim for Hebrews on the incarnation the privileged place Plantinga ascribes to John on the Trinity. I am content for Hebrews to offer, along with John and Paul, some of   “the most highly developed patterns of reflection” on Christ’s divinity and humanity. As Fred Sanders points out, Plantinga notes three elements present in John: (1) raw material, (2) patterns of reflection on it, and (3) pressure to account for the theological challenges the material poses.7 Here, in the six following points that sum up the Christology this book has discerned in Hebrews, I argue that all three elements are present in Hebrews’ teaching on Jesus’ identity as God the Son incarnate. First, Hebrews tells an orderly, internally coherent story of who the Son is, what he became, what he accomplished, and why it was necessary for him 5

Again, see C. Kavin Rowe, “Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics,” Pro Ecclesia 11 (2002): 295-312; David S. Yeago, “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis,” Sewanee Theological Review 45 (2002): 371-84. 6 Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., “The Fourth Gospel as Trinitarian Source Then and Now,” in Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 305. My use of this passage owes much to the insightful reflections of Fred Sanders, The Triune God, NSD (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 187-89. 7 Sanders, The Triune God, 188.

Conclusion

147

to become what he became in order to accomplish what he did. Here Plantinga’s first two elements are present in abundance. Jesus is the one who created and sustains all things, and exists as the very being and glory of God (1:2-3, 8-12). He became human, took on flesh and blood, was made like his brothers in every respect (2:9, 14-15, 17). He accomplished a salvation singular and perfect, sufficient for all his people for all time (1:3; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10). To accomplish this salvation he had be perfected through suffering (2:10), learning obedience thereby (5:8); he needed to gain immortality in order to serve as priest permanently (7:16, 25); he had to be installed as Messiah at God’s right hand after offering his sacrifice in order to exercise God’s own omnipotence for his people’s deliverance (10:12-13). Here is not only raw material on Jesus’ divinity and humanity but rich theological reflection on how and why he who is divine became human, lived as a man, and attained to a new, perfected humanity in order to perfect his people. Second, Jesus’ divine identity is reinforced from a number of complementary angles. We have the essential predicates of 1:3; the divine prerogatives of creation, universal lordship, and receiving worship (1:2-3, 6); and the direct ascription of the titles “God” and “Lord” (1:8, 1:10). Hebrews’ confession of Jesus’ divinity rests not on a single prooftext or inference but is upheld by many load-bearing pillars. Third, Jesus’ humanity is not simply taken for granted but is something he entered into, something he assumed (2:9, 14-15, 17; 9:26; 10:5). The event of the incarnation, the time when God became a man, is repeatedly reiterated. Fourth, the Son’s divine being persists in his incarnate state. There is no hint in Hebrews that anything divine ceases to be the Son’s when he becomes human. Hence the present tense of “upholds” (φέρων, pherōn) is used in 1:3. The human being Jesus of Nazareth, presently seated on God’s throne, sustains the totality of created being. We can also recall the way that 5:8 registers the surprise of the divine Son’s learning obedience. Here is not merely raw material and reflection on it but also the recognition of apparent incongruity and, as throughout Hebrews, some account for the tension. When the author of Hebrews says that the divine Son learned obedience through suffering, he knows that he is uttering a paradox.8 8

This comment is adapted from one made by Arthur Wainwright on John and the Trinity: “The man who wrote ‘The Word was with God, and the Word was God’ knew that his statement contained a paradox.” In Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1962), 8.

148

The Paradox of Sonship

Fifth, the whole sweep of the Son’s incarnate economy is ordered toward and conditioned by its salvific telos. Why did the divine Son learn obedience through suffering? Not because he ever disobeyed the Father (cf. 4:15); nor did the Father simply decide to teach the Son a lesson. Why then? Because it was only by enacting faithfulness as a finite man in a fallen world that the Son could learn the lesson we failed to learn, pass the test for us, and enable us to pass it with him.9 The Son learned by experience what it is to refuse sin while suffering. He did this not for his own sake but for ours.10 Sixth, Hebrews’ deliberate twofold use of “Son” not only reflects the Son’s divinity and his human messianic vocation but exhibits the fit between the two. Hebrews uses one word for two realities not only because they are both apt of one person, but because they share a common premise, the Son’s full divinity. Rather than clumsy contradiction or incomplete editing, Hebrews’ twofold use of “Son” displays the simplicity found on the far side of complexity. Hence, when comparing Hebrews’ Christology to conciliar Christology we need to treat the former not merely as raw material that underwent doctrinal development, but as a glimpse of “fullness and coherence” written from “an achieved synthesis.”11 Only when we appreciate how fully Hebrews 9

Cf. Fred Sanders, “What Trinitarian Theology Is For: Placing the Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology and Life,” in Advancing Trinitarian Theology: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics, ed. Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 31, First, incarnation means that God is present under conditions of createdness, since the eternal Son of God took to himself a true human nature, which, considered in itself, is creaturely. This means that in the incarnation God appears under the sign of his opposite, or at least by taking a stand on the other side of the creator-creature distinction. . . . This being the case, what we see in Christ is God being himself under conditions that are not his native sphere, so to speak. 10 We might usefully compare the way Gregory of Nyssa probes the soteriological rationale of the incarnation: Man had fallen and needed someone to raise him up. He who had lost life needed someone to restore it. He who had ceased to participate in the good needed someone to bring him back to it. He who was shut up in darkness needed the presence of light. The prisoner was looking for someone to ransom him, the captive for someone to take his part. He who was under the yoke of slavery was looking for someone to set him free. Were these trifling and unworthy reasons to impel God to come down and visit human nature, seeing humanity was in such a pitiful and wretched state? In Catechetical Oration 15; translated and titled “An Address on Religious Instruction” in Edward Rochie Hardy and Cyril C. Richardson, eds., Christology of the Later Fathers, LCC 3 (London: SCM, 1954), 290-91. 11 Again, the following discusses the Trinity, but the analogy with the incarnation holds: “In this doctrine especially, it is better to suppose that Scripture speaks from an achieved synthesis and gives partial expression, here and there, to glimpses of that fullness and coherence” (Sanders, The Triune God, 242).

Conclusion

149

has integrated Jesus’ divinity and humanity, how deftly Hebrews has fitted who the Son is to what he became, can we profitably compare it with conciliar Christology, especially that of Chalcedon. What Has Chalcedon to Do with Hebrews? Here I attempt nothing like a comprehensive comparison of Hebrews’ Christology with that of Chalcedon.12 Instead, I first point out some obvious differences, then clarify what Chalcedon is not, then finally argue that, despite the differences, Chalcedon and Hebrews render an identical judgment about the divine and human identity of Jesus the Messiah. As to differences, first—though this is arguably implicit in Hebrews— Chalcedon makes explicit the perfection of each nature: “the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity.”13 Second, it employs technical terms for “nature” (φύσις, physis) and “person” (πρόσωπον, ὑπόσατις; prosōpon, hypostasis), and articulates Jesus’ identity with God and humanity in a similarly technical register: “consubstantial [ὁμοούσιον, homoousion] with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity.”14 Third, whereas Hebrews hints at the immanent relation of Son to Father with its imagery of radiance of glory and impress from original, Chalcedon describes the Son as “begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity” (πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, pro aiōnōn men ek tou patros gennēthenta).15 Fourth, the four “Chalcedonian adverbs” rule out errors that the assembly undertook to correct. One and the same Son is acknowledged in two natures, which undergo “no confusion, no change, no division, no separation [ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως; asunchutōs, atreptōs, adiairetōs, achōristōs].”16 In sum, the entire Definition of Chalcedon operates on a more technical, abstract plane than does Hebrews. Hebrews is a sermon that 12

For full Greek and English texts of the relevant christological material at Chalcedon see Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Nicaea I to Lateran V (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990), 75-86. It is important to consider the Chalcedonian “Definition of the Faith” as a whole, and not to abstract the final, confessional paragraph from the broader conciliar discourse in which it is embedded. 13 Tanner, Decrees, 86. 14 Tanner, Decrees, 86. 15 Tanner, Decrees, 86. 16 Cf. Tanner, Decrees, 84-85.

150

The Paradox of Sonship

instructs and exhorts by biblical exegesis and application; Chalcedon is a doctrinal confession with a polemical purpose. The documents exemplify different genres. Chalcedon both makes certain claims more explicitly than does Hebrews and also criticizes errors that Hebrews does not overtly address. However, it is important to be clear about what Chalcedon is not. This is all the more necessary in light of comments regularly made by New Testament scholars about Chalcedon that expand the gap between it and Hebrews beyond warrant. For instance, Paul Ellingworth remarks, The christology of Hebrews has often in the past been analyzed in generally Chalcedonian categories. It is true that Hebrews strikingly combines, on the one hand, a reverential affection for the name of Jesus and a general interest in what happened “in the days of his flesh” (5:7), and on the other hand, a strong emphasis on his present status at the right hand of God. Yet there is virtually no basis in Hebrews for the more technical statements of Chalcedon regarding the interrelation of the divine and human natures of Christ.17

For present purposes, the most pressing problem with this quote is that, strictly speaking, there are no statements in Chalcedon “regarding the interrelation of the divine and human natures of Christ.” That is simply a topic the Chalcedonian Definition does not address. Instead, documents that the council endorsed as authoritative describe the union of divinity and humanity in the single person of Christ as ineffable—which means, at minimum, that a complete description of it is beyond human ability.18 For instance, in a letter endorsed by the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) and again by Chalcedon, Cyril confesses that “the Word, in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner [ἀφράστως τε καὶ ἀπερινοήτως, aphrastōs te kai aperinoētōs], ineffably united to himself human flesh animated with a rational soul.”19 It is not 17

Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 67. 18 So Timothy Pawl, In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay, Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 21n12. For discussion of the conciliar confession of the ineffability of the hypostatic union see Pawl, Defense, 20-22. 19 Second Letter to Nestorius 3. English from John Anthony McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 263; Greek from Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, trans. Lionel R. Wickham, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 6. Cf. also Cyril’s Second Letter to Succensus 3 (in, e.g., McGuckin, Cyril, 361). For Chalcedon’s endorsement of the proceedings of Ephesus see Tanner, Decrees, 84.

Conclusion

151

surprising, then, that Chalcedon forbears to analyze something its framers confess is beyond comprehension. Chalcedon does not probe the mystery of the hypostatic union but rather safeguards the integrity of each nature and the reality of the union of the two natures in one person. To anticipate discussion to follow, the technical language is there to preserve a point Hebrews itself asserts: Jesus is both divine and human. Further, counterintuitive though it may seem to many New Testament scholars, historians and theologians frequently remark on what we might call the “dogmatic minimalism” of Chalcedon.20 George Hunsinger, for instance, observes, “The restraint in these predications, astonishing as they are, is significant.”21 He later adds, Neither his deity nor his humanity surrendered their defining characteristics, and yet they converged to form an indissoluble unity. Again the Chalcedonian formulations are notable for their open-textured reticence. Note that they are negatively rather than positively phrased. Neither separation nor confusion is tolerable. No more is said about how Christ’s natures are related than to rule out these unacceptable extremes. Each nature retained its integrity while engaging the other in the closest of communions. The relation of Christ’s two natures, as stated by Chalcedon, suggests an abiding mystery of their unityin-distinction and distinction-in-unity.22

What then is the technical language of Chalcedon doing? What are its four negative adverbs meant to accomplish? Here it is worth citing at length the conclusion of Sarah Coakley: It does not, that is, intend to provide a full systematic account of Christology, and even less a complete and precise metaphysics of Christ’s makeup. Rather, 20

So, e.g., Oliver D. Crisp, The Word Enfleshed (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 80 (emphasis original): What we have in the Chalcedonian Definition is, I suggest, a group of theological statements that constitute a sort of dogmatic minimalism, which we see elsewhere in the historic affirmations of the Christian faith. It is minimalistic because the definition says as little as doctrinally possible about the hypostatic union while making clear that certain ways of thinking about the person of Christ are off-limits or unorthodox. We might say that the Chalcedonian Definition draws a veil over the hypostatic union, so that what we know about substantive questions regarding the union of Christ’s human to his divine nature is severely limited. 21 George Hunsinger, “Karl Barth’s Christology: Its Basic Chalcedonian Character,” in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 127. 22 Hunsinger, “Karl Barth’s Christology,” 128-29. Hunsinger’s entire discussion in these pages amply rewards careful reading.

152

The Paradox of Sonship

it sets a “boundary” on what can, and cannot, be said, by first ruling out three aberrant interpretations of Christ (Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and extreme Nestorianism), second, providing an abstract rule of language (physis and hypostasis) for distinguishing duality and unity in Christ, and, third, presenting a “riddle” of negatives by means of which a greater (though undefined) reality may be intimated. At the same time, it recapitulates and assumes (a point often forgotten in considering the horos in abstraction from the rest of the Acta) the acts of salvation detailed in Nicaea and Constantinople; and then it leaves us at that “boundary,” understood as the place now to which those salvific acts must be brought to avoid doctrinal error, but without any supposition that this linguistic regulation thereby explains or grasps the reality towards which it points. In this, rather particular sense, it is an “apophatic” document.23

Chalcedon did not set out to solve riddles or clear up mysteries but to preserve intact the saving mystery of the incarnation. The four adverbs do not explain how the two natures unite in one person but safeguard the confession that this Jesus is the incarnate God-man. As Robert Sokolowski argues, “The councils do not merely set down verbal conventions. They allow the mystery to remain a mystery.”24 The creeds do not solve riddles; 23

Sarah Coakley, “What Chalcedon Solved and Didn’t Solve: Some Reflections on the Status and Meaning of the Chalcedonian ‘Definition,’” in The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 161. 24 Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 38. Similarly on-point is Matthew Levering’s critique of Luke Timothy Johnson’s construal of the relationship between the Nicene Creed and Scripture: Johnson’s perspective needs deepening here: the Creed strengthens the “rich ambiguity of the person of Jesus” in that through the Creed we come face-to-face with the extraordinary mystery of the reality of Jesus’ Godmanhood and are instructed to read the gospels (to learn Christ the Teacher) in this light—a light that adds mystery, or ‘rich ambiguity,’ just as much as clarity. In Matthew Levering, Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 79; citing Luke Timothy Johnson and William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 252. See also D. Stephen Long, Hebrews, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 29: These conciliar judgments were not abstract metaphysical speculations. What was at stake was how to read the biblical stories such that Jesus represents only one acting subject so that the Christian practice of reconciliation in all its dimensions would be affirmed. If divinity and humanity are unified as the biblical narrative of Jesus’ agency expresses, then the uncreated Creator and creation are not two entities set over against each other in strife.

Conclusion

153

they preserve mysteries. On Chalcedon specifically, John Anthony McGuckin argues that the assembled bishops did not understand themselves to be solving theological problems but instead providing “a restatement of the soteriological mystery in doxological form that would provide the correct lens for approaching such problems.”25 Hence McGuckin regards the primary intent of Chalcedon to be the reaffirmation of the faith confessed at Nicaea, with the added technical terms as a kind of second-order marginalia guarding and guiding the central confession.26 What the framers of the Chalcedonian Definition thought they were doing was not solving the mystery of how Christ can be one person in two natures, but precisely confessing it as a mystery and protecting that mystery against teachings that would drain off its paradoxical fullness.27 The question before us then is this: Does Hebrews confess the same mystery? Here I note five elements common to the teaching of Hebrews and Chalcedon on the person and work of Christ, then suggest one way of articulating the identity of judgment these entail. First, in glossing its technical 25

John Anthony McGuckin, “Mystery or Conundrum? The Apprehension of Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” in In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley, S.J., ed. Peter W. Martens (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 251. Cf. the broader comments of Price and Gaddis: The close connection that the council asserted between its own work and the Nicene Creed relates to its own conception of its task, which was not to achieve progress in theological understanding but to define the limits of Nicene orthodoxy; this stress on tradition did not represent intellectual sclerosis but rather an awareness that the task of a council in defining orthodoxy and the task of a theologian in developing doctrine are two quite different things. . . . It was the unity of the rites of initiation into the church and the foundations of Christian community that Chalcedon was concerned to maintain, not some academic ideal of precise definition and intellectual progress. Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, trans., The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, TTH 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 58. 26 McGuckin, “Mystery,” 255. 27 Therefore, while I owe a great debt to his works, I suggest the following formulations of Richard Hays, expressing a view that is common among New Testament scholars, are not entirely helpful: “Indeed, Mark’s story already poses the riddles that the church’s theologians later sought to solve in the christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.” And, “The Council of Chalcedon lies far in the future, and its conceptual categories lie outside Matthew’s horizon. Nonetheless, the narrative typologies woven into Matthew’s story help to create the theological puzzles that Chalcedon and its successors sought to solve.” In Hays, Echoes, 78, 189. Far better is his later summary of the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels: “Thereby, they create the stunning paradoxes that the church’s later dogmatic controversies sought to address in order to formulate a theological grammar adequate to represent the narrative tensions inescapably posed by the Gospels” (364). (Also more helpful is Hays’s discussion of the proto-trinitarian “grammar” of Paul’s theology, cited in p. 43, n. 64.)

154

The Paradox of Sonship

phrase “consubstantial with us as regards his humanity,” the Definition says, “like us in all respects except for sin” (κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, kata panta homoion hēmin chōris hamartias).28 It is striking that this phrase combines wording from Hebrews 2:17 and 4:15—Jesus had to be “made like his brothers in every respect,” and was tempted in every way as we are, “yet without sin.”29 What does this technical term “consubstantial” mean? Chalcedon’s framers would reply that it means what Hebrews says: Jesus is completely, authentically human. In other words, Chalcedon uses this technical term precisely to summarize the biblical text and to draw out its ontological implications. Second, Chalcedon’s Christology, just like that of Hebrews, emphatically insists that the divine Son is the single subject who becomes incarnate and accomplishes salvation by living a human life and dying a human death. The man Jesus is God the Son. Hence Chalcedon’s Definition repeatedly, emphatically confesses “one and the same” Son (ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὔτον, hena kai ton auton).30 It is “the same” Son who is “perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity.”31 It is “the same” Son who is “truly God” and “truly man.”32 Just as Hebrews ascribes to the same Son both the divine acts of creation and cosmic conservation and the human acts of incarnation, death, resurrection, and session, so Chalcedon insists that it is God the Son himself who “in the last days” was born of Mary for our salvation.33 Third, I have argued that, just as Chalcedon does, though in less technical language, Hebrews ascribes to Jesus two “whats”: that belonging to God and that belonging to humanity. Further, we have seen that Chalcedon itself appropriates language in Hebrews that emphatically asserts the fullness, the genuine completeness, of Christ’s human nature (2:17). It was not something 28

Tanner, Decrees, 86. Tanner, Decrees, 86. The relevant Greek phrases are κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι (kata panta tois adelphois homoiōthēnai, 2:17) and χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (chōris hamartias, 4:15). 30 Tanner, Decrees, 86. 31 Tanner, Decrees, 86. 32 Tanner, Decrees, 86. 33 Tanner, Decrees, 86. On the crucial importance of this single-subject affirmation for rightly understanding Chalcedon see, e.g., Thomas G. Weinandy, Does God Suffer? (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 198; Thomas G. Weinandy, “Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation,” in The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria, ed. Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 43-44; Price and Gaddis, Chalcedon, 70-71; Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 56. 29

Conclusion

155

like humanity or nearly human that the Son assumed: what we are by nature is what he became (2:14). Fourth, both Chalcedon and Hebrews report the event of the incarnation. We saw in chapter three that Hebrews repeatedly announces the act by which the Son became a man (e.g., 2:9, 14, 17; 10:5). So does Chalcedon when it confesses that Christ was “begotten . . . for us and for our salvation from Mary.” Further, in its endorsement of the Nicene Creed the council affirms “the Lord’s becoming human” (τοῦ κυρίου τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν, tou kyriou tēn enanthrōpēsin).34 Fifth, as we have seen, both Hebrews and Chalcedon order Christ’s incarnation to a soteriological goal. The whole point of the Son’s incarnate mission in Hebrews is to achieve “such a great salvation” (2:3). And again, Chalcedon confesses that Christ became incarnate “for us and for our salvation.”35 As the so-called Tome of Leo, endorsed by Chalcedon, puts it with language borrowed from Hebrews: “His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death.”36 Hence I conclude that Hebrews and Chalcedon tell essentially the same story of salvation, starring the same protagonist, God the Son incarnate. Especially when read in its entire conciliar context, informed by the writings (including the Nicene Creed) that it explicitly endorses as authoritative, it becomes clear that Chalcedon’s purpose was not to tie up conceptual loose ends left by the biblical text and subsequent theologizing, but rather to preserve intact a confession whose essential substance is already present in Hebrews. My point here is not to downplay the differences between the technical clarifications of Chalcedon and the urgent proclamation of Hebrews.37 Instead, I am trying to help us—particularly those of us trained as 34

Tanner, Decrees, 84. Tanner, Decrees, 86. 36 Tanner, Decrees, 77. The antecedent of “it” after “so that” seems to be Christ’s “human birth in time.” By metonymy Leo puts Christ’s incarnation for his death, underscoring his point that Christ became incarnate to save. 37 Again, I affirm Yeago’s qualification: In an earlier essay, I argued that Philippians 2:5-11 and the Nicene Creed make substantially the same claim about Jesus’ relationship to the God of Israel. I would not retract anything in that argument, but the next point to be made is that “substantially the same” 35

156

The Paradox of Sonship

biblical scholars—to see something we have been trained not to see. Virtually any time a New Testament scholar compares one of its texts to a conciliar Creed, the similarities are merely conceded, while the differences are emphatically asserted. “Yes, Hebrews does seem to ascribe both divine and human characteristics to Jesus, but there is nothing like the later technical language of Chalcedon.” In one sense I am simply trying to shift the emphasis, to put the concessive shoe on the other foot. Yes, Hebrews and Chalcedon plainly speak in different registers, on different planes of discourse. However, in certain utterly crucial respects they say the same thing. A Sideways Glance: Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4 I now explore not so much a conclusion of the book’s argument itself as a potential payoff for New Testament studies more broadly. That is, I here suggest that the basic move we have discerned in Hebrews—using one term in both a divine and a messianic sense—may well be present in two other pivotal christological passages, Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4. In this section I seek not to prove definitively that this is the case in each passage, but to show that such a solution is plausible, that it allows these passages to speak with their own voice, and that such a reading fits the work and corpus to which each belongs. We begin with Acts 2:36. Here, near the conclusion of his speech at Pentecost, Peter elaborates the significance of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. It will help to read the verse in its context, beginning with verse 32: This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” is not “exactly the same.” Paul and Nicaea do say “the same thing” in crucial respects, but there are also respects in which they are not exactly the same. In David S. Yeago, “The Spirit, the Church, and the Scriptures: Biblical Inspiration and Interpretation Revisited,” in Knowing the Triune God: The Work of the Spirit in the Practices of the Church, ed. James J. Buckley and David S. Yeago (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 64, 65n22, emphasis original.

Conclusion

157

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:32-36)

The parallels with Hebrews are striking. Peter confesses Christ’s resurrection (Acts 2:32) and his exaltation to God’s right hand (Acts 2:33), and calls Psalm 110:1 as witness to the latter (Acts 2:34-35). On this basis (οὖν [oun], “therefore”), in Acts 2:36 Peter assures “all the house of Israel” that this Jesus, whom they crucified, God has now “made . . . both Lord and Christ” (κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ χριστὸν ἐποίησεν, kyrion auton kai christon epoiēsen). On Acts 2:36, the same spectrum of scholarly opinion we perceived regarding Hebrews’ use of “Son” is evident. Some see this verse as evidence of an adoptionist Christology, understanding “Lord” to be something Jesus only now became.38 Others see a contradiction between Luke’s authorial perspective and that of the source he draws on, since for Luke Jesus was “Lord” already, whereas in this verse “Lord” is, again, something Jesus just now became.39 And some argue that in the phrase “God made him both Lord and Christ,” the verb “made” (ἐποίησεν, epoiēsen) must mean something like “confirmed” or “declared” or “revealed (him to be)” or “manifested (him as),” since, according to Luke, “Lord and Christ” name what Jesus is already.40 How might we untie this scholarly knot? Again, I here sketch a plausible solution, not demonstrate it definitively. Against the second option, that Luke here incorporates a source whose Christology contradicts his own, we can note, following Robert Tannehill, that Acts 2:36 is “clearly the conclusion and climax of the preceding argument and must be interpreted in light of 38

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 338-39; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1989), 35-36; Richard I. Pervo, Acts, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 84n87. 39 John H. Hayes, “The Resurrection as Enthronement and the Earliest Church Christology,” Interpretation 22 (1968): 338 (cf. 340 on Acts 13:33); Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. Bernard Noble, Gerald Shinn, and R. McL. Wilson (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 187-88. 40 Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 21; A. W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, NovTSup 87 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 157 (though he overlaps with the previous view); I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 543; C. Kavin Rowe, “Acts 2.36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology,” NTS 53 (2007): 37-56, esp. 37, 51, 54-55; Hays, Echoes, 421n131.

158

The Paradox of Sonship

it.”41 The address in Acts 2:36 recalls the one at the speech’s beginning in Acts 2:14. The crowd’s complicity in Jesus’ crucifixion recalls Acts 2:23. Jesus’ being resurrected as Messiah recalls Acts 2:31, and his being raised as Lord recalls Acts 2:33-34. That God made Jesus “Lord” is crucial to the whole speech, since it identifies Jesus as the Lord mentioned by Joel in the citation in Acts 2:21, whose name brings salvation.42 Hence, “The connections indicated show that Acts 2:36 should not be separated from the rest of the speech as a fragment of an early adoptionist Christology that conflicts with the narrator’s views.”43 But what about the first view, that both Luke and the source represented in Acts 2:36 present an adoptionist Christology? Here it is crucial to note, following Kavin Rowe, that in Luke Jesus “is already named κύριος [kyrios, “Lord”] while still in the womb”: “And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43). Hence, “Luke presses the christologically indispensable point that Jesus’ very life and his identity as Lord are the same thing.”44 Thus the angels declare that the newborn baby is “Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:11), and characters in Luke address as “Lord” the one whom Luke calls “the Lord” (e.g., Lk 5:8, 12; 7:6, 13; 12:41-42). In sum, “Luke creates a narrative christology in which Jesus’ identity as κύριος stands at the center,” and this Christology continues into Acts (Acts 1:21; cf. Lk 24:3, 34).45 For Luke, “Lord” is something intrinsic to Jesus’ very being and identity. Does this then leave us with the third view? That, as Rowe puts it, “Acts 2.36 confirms the already-established identity of Jesus as κύριος in the face of his rejection and death,” and that the “making” is not “an ontological transformation in the identity of Jesus or his status,” but an “epistemological shift in the perception of the human community”?46 Or as Richard Hays puts it, following Rowe, that according to Acts 2:36 the resurrection effects neither “an ontological transformation” nor “a change of status for 41

Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 2, The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 37. 42 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 37-38. 43 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 38. 44 Rowe, “Acts 2.36,” 51. On the same page: “The central point is that, for Luke, there was no moment at which Jesus was not κύριος.” 45 Rowe, “Acts 2.36,” 52-53, here 53. For full discussion see C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009). 46 Rowe, “Acts 2.36,” 55.

Conclusion

159

Jesus himself ”?47 Not necessarily. I would suggest that, as in Hebrews’ use of “Son,” the key is the enthronement that follows Jesus’ resurrection. As Robert Tannehill puts it, This enthronement theme may help to explain why the narrator can permit the proclamation of Jesus as Savior, Messiah, and Lord at his birth (Luke 2:11) and yet can have Peter say that God exalted Jesus as Savior at God’s right hand (Acts 5:31) and made him Lord and Messiah through resurrection and exaltation. Just as there are stages in the life of a king, from birth as heir to the throne, to anointing (which is separated from enthronement by some time in both the story of David and in the Lukan story of Jesus), to actual assumption of the throne, so in the life of Jesus according to Luke-Acts. Although Jesus was called Lord and Messiah previously, the full authority of these titles is granted only through death, resurrection, and exaltation. Peter’s concluding statement in [Acts] 2:36 makes clear that something new and important has happened through these events.48

What is this “something new and important”? It is Jesus’ installation as Messiah, his coronation as Lord. In other words, “God made him Lord” effectively means “God installed him as Messiah, king of all.” As Mark Strauss concludes, “The whole tenor of the passage suggests a messianic sense for κύριος.”49 Hence my proposal allows both that Luke names Jesus “Lord” in a divine sense from before his birth, and that “made” (ἐποίησεν, epoiēsen) in Acts 2:36 reports an actual change, not in Jesus’ ontology, but in the exercise of his office of Messiah.50 Previously proclaimed and anointed as Messiah 47

Hays, Echoes, 421n131. Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 39. Cf. the similar, helpful discussion in Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, JSNTSup 110 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 142-45. 49 Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 143. 50 So, e.g., Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1, Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 964, “The language of ‘appointing’ refers to status, not ontology, and hence is appropriate for Jesus beginning only at his exaltation. This sort of ‘Messiah-designateuntil-enthroned’ Christology seems to have been an early one in the church.” Keener also argues that in Peter’s speech “Lord” is a divine title (Acts, 1:963). Hence Keener sees “Lord” as describing both Jesus’ divine identity and his messianic enthronement. Similarly Michael F. Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 26, In the Lucan scheme, Jesus becomes messias designatus at his baptism (Luke 3:21), Jesus outs himself as a messias petens upon Peter’s confession (Luke 9:20) and again at his trial (Luke 22:66-71), and Jesus becomes messianicum regem at his exaltation (Acts 2:36). What is paramount, at least in Luke’s opinion, is that Jesus has always been “the Messiah, the Lord” (Luke 2:11). 48

160

The Paradox of Sonship

(Lk 2:11; 3:21-22; 4:18), at his enthronement in heaven Jesus begins to reign and is now named “Lord” in the precise sense in which Psalm 110:1 uses the term. In Luke and Acts, the exalted Jesus is the Lord of all who became incarnate; died and rose again; and then at last claimed his throne as Messiah, the Lord who became Lord. As we have seen, a number of scholars have proposed this interpretation.51 All that this book’s proposal adds is a parallel that confirms its plausibility. Since Hebrews uses “Son” in both a divine and a messianic sense, it is far less surprising to find Luke doing the same with “Lord” in a passage that pivots on Christ’s heavenly enthronement as Messiah. One last note remains: I suggest that there is more precedent for this reading among patristic interpreters than Rowe’s history of interpretation allows.52 For instance, in Against Eunomius 5.5 Gregory of Nyssa affirms that, as far as his humanity is concerned, the Son “became Lord and Christ” at his exaltation, “after the passion.” Hence “made” in Acts 2:36 proves “the transformation of the humble to the exalted by ‘the right hand of God.’”53 Yet Rowe cautions, If in this latter passage Gregory somewhat prefigured modern discussion of Luke’s exaltation christology, it was far from his intention. His larger point, rather, was that since the Son was Lord and Christ from all eternity according to his divine nature, Acts 2.36 can apply only to the human nature.54

While Gregory certainly did not anticipate full-blown adoptionist readings, he seems to assign a stronger sense to “made” than does Rowe, a sense that, precisely by employing partitive exegesis, gives proper weight to Jesus’ becoming Lord at his enthronement. This understanding of Gregory’s reading is confirmed by the virtually identical exegesis of his elder brother Basil of Caesarea, in his own Against Eunomius, at 2.3: 51

In addition to Tannehill, Strauss, and Keener, for readings that affirm both Jesus’ divine identity and that “made him Lord” in Acts 2:36 asserts his enthronement as Messiah, see, e.g., Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 11; Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 161-63; Joshua W. Jipp, “‘For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven . . .’ (Acts 2:34a): Reprogramming Royal Psalms to Proclaim the Enthroned-in-Heaven King,” in Ascent into Heaven in Luke–Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, ed. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 46-50. 52 See Rowe, “Acts 2.36,” 38-41. 53 Translation from Rowe, “Acts 2.36,” 40-41. 54 Rowe, “Acts 2.36,” 41.

Conclusion

161

In addition, it causes him [i.e., Peter] no shame that the term ‘Lord’ does not name a substance but rather is a name of authority. Hence, he who said: God made him Lord and Christ [Acts 2.36] is speaking of his rule and power over all, which the Father entrusted to him. He is not describing his arrival at being.55

We should note well the explicit contrast between ontology and office in the first sentence. It seems that on both Gregory and Basil’s readings, Acts 2:36 reports the Father’s act of entrusting universal authority to the incarnate, now-exalted Son. We turn now to Romans 1:3-4. In these verses Paul briefly rehearses the “gospel of God” for which he is set apart and which God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). This gospel concerns “his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 1:3-4 NIV). Here again the range of opinion about what Paul means by “Son” is comparable to that on “Lord” in Acts 2:36 and “Son” in Hebrews. Some see in these verses (or at least in their putative pre-Pauline source) an adoptionist Christology; some argue that Paul himself corrects his alleged source’s adoptionist Christology by asserting the Son’s divine preexistence; and some, chiefly premodern readers, argue that because Jesus is “Son” already, the participle does not mean “appoint” but “declare” or “reveal.”56 All three of these options present a zero-sum game in which Jesus can only either be Son or become Son. Yet, as we will see, there are also scholars who argue that in Romans 1:3-4 Jesus is the divine Son who became messianic Son. 55

In Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, trans. Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, FC 122 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 134. Cf. discussion of this passage in John Behr, The Nicene Faith: Part Two; One of the Holy Trinity, The Formation of Christian Theology 2 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 291-92. 56 For the first see, e.g., Dunn, Christology, 33-36. Though he rejects the term adoptionist in James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 14. For the second, Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 103-8. For the third, see Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 1 (NPNF1 11:340); Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia, Luther’s Works 25, trans. Walter G. Tillmanns and Jacob A.O. Preus, ed. Hilton C. Oswald (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972), 148; John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. Ross Mackenzie, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960), 16.

162

The Paradox of Sonship

For our purposes the most crucial question is, what does the participle ὁρισθέντος (horisthentos) in verse 4 mean, which the NIV renders “appointed,” while several other translations have “declared to be”? And, if the word does indeed mean “appointed,” does that imply that Jesus was not God’s “Son” before his resurrection? I will sketch a solution to this problem in four steps.57 First, nowhere in the historical neighborhood of the New Testament does ὁρίζω (horizō) mean “declare.”58 Instead, its basic meanings are “determine, fix, set, appoint.” Second, “appointed Son of God” in Romans 1:4 is best understood as an allusion to Psalm 2:7 and perhaps also to 2 Samuel 7:14.59 This one who descended from David took the throne promised to David’s heir. Seen in this light, ὁρισθέντος (horisthentos) in Romans 1:4 has the perfectly intelligible sense of “appointed” or “installed in office.” On the basis of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, God installed him in office as Messiah-in-power.60 That the verb has this sense in Romans 1:4 is further confirmed by two passages in Acts. First, in Acts 10:42, Peter announces, “And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed [ὡρισμένος, hōrismenos] by God to be judge of the living and the dead.” This one Peter preaches is the one whom God raised from the dead (Acts 10:4041), the one to whom all the prophets testify (Acts 10:43). Similarly, in Acts 17:30-31 Paul preaches, 57

I adapt this solution from Matthew W. Bates, “A Christology of Incarnation and Enthronement: Romans 1:3-4 as Unified, Nonadoptionist, and Nonconciliatory,” CBQ 77 (2015): 107-27, which is the most thorough, satisfying treatment of these issues in Rom 1:3-4 that I have read. 58 So, e.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 61. BDAG 723 §2b lists the following as an example of “declare (someone to be something)”: Meleag. In Anth. Pal. 12, 158, 7, σὲ γὰρ θεὸν ὥρισε δαίμων (se gar theon hōrise daimōn). However, this clearly describes not the announcement of a prior reality but the constitution of a new one. Cf. the German translation “Dich machte das Schicksal zum Gotte” (“Fate has made you a god”) in Hermann Beckby, Anthologia Graeca, vol. 4, Buch XII–XVI, Mit Namen- Und Sachverzeichnis Und Anderen Vollständigen Registern, Sammlung Tusculum (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965), 97. 59 See esp. Leslie C. Allen, “The Old Testament Background of (προ)‘οριζειν in the New Testament,” NTS 17, no. 1 (1970): 104-8; Christopher G. Whitsett, “Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in Romans 1:3-4,” JBL 119 (2000): 674-78; Jipp, Christ Is King, 174-75. 60 For good reason, most commentators take ἐν δυνάμει (en dunamei, “in power”) to modify υἱοῦ θεοῦ (huiou theou, “Son of God”), rather than ὁρισθέντος (horisthentos, “appointed”). For discussion see, e.g., Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 68-69.

Conclusion

163

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed [ὥρισεν, hōrisen]; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.61

Both passages herald Christ’s resurrection. Both proclaim Christ as judge of all. And both at least closely associate appointment and resurrection. Just as in these two passages, for Paul in Romans, David’s son is “he who arises to rule the Gentiles” (Rom 15:12; citing Is 11:10 LXX)—that is, Jesus the Messiah is appointed king and judge of all by resurrection. 62 Judging all nations is the prerogative of the Messiah (cf. Ps 2:8-9; 72:8-11; Is 11:4; Zech 9:10). Just like the Christ whom Peter and Paul preach in Acts, in Romans 1:4 the resurrected Jesus is enthroned as Messiah-in-power, the Lord of all nations (cf. Rom 1:5).63 Third, this shift from (implicitly) Messiah-in-waiting to Messiah-inpower is not the only transition in the life of the Son that Paul’s compact confession recounts. That is, the first phrase describing “his Son” in Romans 1:3 does not describe the mere fact of Jesus’ Davidic descent but instead reports his coming-into-existence.64 This gospel concerns God’s Son, “who as it pertains to the flesh came into existence by means of the seed of David [τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ κατὰ σάρκα, tou genomenou ek 61

For brief discussion of both passages, see Allen, “Old Testament Background,” 105. Ulrich Wilckens notes the parallel to Acts 10:42 and 17:31 and comments that both, like Rom 1:4, refer to the “appointment of the exalted one in eschatological authoritative office.” In Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, vol. 1, Röm 1–5, EKKNT 6 (Zurich: Benziger, 1978), 57. 62 For a reference to Christ’s resurrection in Rom 15:12, see, e.g., Whitsett, “Son of God,” 673, 676-78; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 3 (London: SPCK, 2003), 266; Jewett, Romans, 896; J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 49-53; Jipp, Christ Is King, 193-94. 63 So, e.g., Kirk, Unlocking Romans, 42, “The establishment of Jesus in the position of son in Rom 1:4 corresponds to the ascension of a king who is the rightful heir: though born of David’s seed, he is not enthroned, that is, designated son of God, until his resurrection.” It should be noted, though, that Kirk leaves no room for a different sense of “Son” in Rom 1:3 (39-44). 64 For the argument of this whole paragraph see Bates, “Incarnation and Enthronement,” 115-17; for the same basic point see also Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 46; Jipp, Christ Is King, 169-70. For another detailed reading from a scholar who, like Bates, sees Rom 1:3-4 as describing two transitions in the life of the Son, see Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications, WUNT II, 218 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 245-61, esp. 248-49, 258-59. In Fatehi the incarnation is implicit but nevertheless present.

164

The Paradox of Sonship

spermatos Dauid kata sarka].”65 As Matthew Bates points out, “in Paul— and in the rest of the NT for that matter—it is extremely rare for γίνομαι [ginomai, ‘become’] to refer to natural reproduction alone; rather the emphasis is normally on change in status or mode of existence.”66 Further, Paul’s language in Romans 1:3 finds close parallels in both Galatians 4:4 and Philippians 2:6-7. In the former, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, who came into being by means of a woman [γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, genomenon ek gynaikos] who came into being under the law” (my translation). In Galatians 4:4 the Son who existed with God was sent forth by God, coming into human existence by means of the mother who gave him birth.67 Similarly, in Philippians 2:6-7, Jesus “was in the form of God,” yet he “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, coming into being in the likeness of humankind [ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, en homoiōmati anthrōpōn genomenos]” (my translation). Here the Son not only existed before his taking on human life, but he did so “in the form of God,” and γίνομαι (ginomai) denotes the act by which he assumed human nature.68 Hence both Galatians 4:4 and Philippians 2:7 use this verb to report the preexistent Son’s incarnation. Birth from a woman is explicit in the former and implicit in the latter. Both passages support the conclusion that the use of this same verb in Romans 1:3 likely denotes not mere human birth but “change in status” from preexistence to incarnate existence. Further, similar to “came into being by means of a woman” in Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3 says Jesus came into existence “by means of the seed of David” (ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ, ek spermatos Dauid).69 As Bates has recently argued, the prepositional phrase likely alludes to Mary’s role in Jesus’ birth and to her Davidic lineage. In other words, Romans 1:3 does not 65

Translation from Bates, “Incarnation and Enthronement,” 126. Bates, “Incarnation and Enthronement,” 115, emphasis original. 67 In support of the Son’s preexistence in Gal 4:4, see further Simon J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 29. 68 On Phil 2:6-8 as portraying the incarnation as the Son’s voluntary act, and his preexistence as active and personal, see Gathercole, Preexistent Son, 24-26; cf. also the conclusion of N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 97. 69 See Bates, “Incarnation and Enthronement,” 117-21, which includes a sophisticated and substantive appeal to the early history of the interpretation of this phrase. Similarly, Ulrich Wilckens comments on Rom 1:3 that Jesus’ Davidic sonship is “connected to his birth from Mary” (Römer, 60). 66

Conclusion

165

simply assert that Jesus is the offspring of David, but that he became incarnate by one who herself descends from David and who conferred that lineage on her Son.70 Hence the fourth piece of my proposed solution enters in: Romans 1:3 explicitly portrays the Son as personally preexistent, and “Son” is, at least implicitly, a divine title. Several scholars have remarked that the one who is called “Son” in Romans 1:3 is Son before his earthly life.71 The close parallels to some of Paul’s other uses of “Son” are telling. In Galatians 4:4, God “sent forth” (ἐξαπέστειλεν, exapesteilen) his Son, implying not only the Son’s preexistence but also that, prior to his sending, the Son was with God. Similarly, in Romans 8:3, God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” That the Son is God’s “own” implies a relationship that precedes the sending and grounds its saving significance. Christ is also called God’s “own Son” in Romans 8:32, which celebrates God’s astounding generosity in handing him over to death: “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” Each of these passages uses “Son” to say something about who Jesus has been from eternity; each describes a relation to the Father that precedes his incarnation. Further, very good cases have recently been made that Paul regards Jesus as divine in the fullest sense of the word.72 Prior to his incarnation Jesus “was in the form of God” and possessed “equality with God” (Phil 2:6). Hence “Son” in Romans 1:3 arguably puts Jesus on the divine side of the line between God and all created reality.73 70

As Lidija Novakovic points out, There is, however, no evidence that σπέρμα Δαυίδ [“seed of David”] was ever used as a messianic title in Second Temple Judaism. This expression merely functions as a genealogical marker specifying the condition that any claimant to the Davidic throne must fulfil.” Hence, “For this reason, it is the second, not the first, line of Rom 1:3-4 that establishes Jesus’ messianic identity. For the earliest Christian interpreters, Jesus’ resurrection was the moment at which he was installed to the position of the Son of God and thereby became the Messiah. In Lidija Novakovic, Raised from the Dead According to Scripture: The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection, JCTCRS (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012), 141. N. T. Wright makes the same point in Resurrection, 242. 71 So, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 1:58; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 42-43; Jipp, Christ Is King, 169-70. 72 See esp. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 181-232; Chris Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology, WUNT II, 323 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). 73 N. T. Wright not only makes this point about other uses of “Son” in Romans, but suggests their relevance to Rom 1:3 as well: “But by Romans 5.10 and 8.3 it is clear that Paul is able to use this messianic title as a way of (so to speak) placing Jesus on the divine side of the equation as well

166

The Paradox of Sonship

Therefore it is at the very least plausible that, in Romans 1:3-4, Jesus is the Son who became Son. That is, the preexistent divine Son, whom God sent into the world via birth from Mary, was appointed the messianic Son-inpower on the basis of his resurrection. While it would take more to establish the point conclusively, I would argue that this solution makes sense of the text at it stands and meshes both with Paul’s use of “Son” in a divine register later in the letter and with the crucial role Jesus’ messianic office plays in the argument of Romans.74 While it is a minority position, the idea that in Romans 1:3-4 “Son” names both who Jesus is by divine nature and what he becomes by messianic enthronement is articulated by a handful of scholars. For instance, Douglas Moo writes, “It is the Son who is ‘appointed’ Son. The tautologous nature of this statement reveals that being appointed Son has to do not with a change in essence—as if a person or human messiah becomes Son of God for the first time—but with a change in status or function.”75 And Thomas Schreiner states, “The one who existed eternally as the Son was appointed the Son of God in power as the Son of David.”76 What does Hebrews’ use of “Son” bring to the table? Simply this: In Hebrews we have another author, not long (if at all) after Paul, using “Son” to name both who Jesus is by divine nature and what he became at the conclusion of his incarnate mission. If a twofold use of “Son” in both divine and messianic registers in Romans 1:3-4 is regarded as overly subtle or linguistically implausible, Hebrews provides a precise parallel in close historical and conceptual proximity. Here again, in closing, it is worth noting how at least one church father perceived this dual sense of “Son” in Romans 1:3-4. Questioning those who divide the Son into two personal agents, Cyril writes, “So, then, tell me how is it that one who comes from David’s seed can be God? How could the Son, who is before all ages and co-eternal, insofar as he issued from God, be as the human one. Precisely because Romans 1.3-4 is so programmatic this cannot be ruled out here as well.” In Wright, Resurrection, 572. 74 On Jesus as Messiah in Romans, see esp. Whitsett, “Son of God”; Jipp, Christ Is King, 166-97. For brief comments on a number of passages in Paul where the titular, messianic sense of “Christ” is significant, see Matthew V. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 137-73. 75 Moo, Romans, 48. 76 Schreiner, Romans, 43. And again, in addition to Bates, see also the reading of Rom 1:3-4 in Jipp, Christ Is King, 167-79.

Conclusion

167

‘established’ as the Son of God, as if there were some beginning to his existing?”77 Here Cyril cites the key participle from Romans 1:4 and—unlike, say, Chrysostom—takes it in a sense much stronger than merely “declare.” In the next sentence, Cyril cites Psalm 2:7 and says that “the word ‘today’ indicates, as always, not the past but the present.” Hence it seems that, in addition to explicitly affirming Jesus’ identity as the divine Son, Cyril understands Romans 1:4 to announce the messianic appointment foretold in Psalm 2:7. He continues, “This mystery is surely profound, but those who separate out the parts and divide them up cannot manage it at all, whereas for those who bind Emmanuel together into a unity, the pure knowledge of the holy doctrines is readily comprehensible.”78 As in his exegesis of Hebrews, Cyril here holds together who the Son is by nature with what he becomes in the incarnate economy by using the strategies we have employed throughout the book. He emphatically insists that the divine Son is the single ascriptive subject of the incarnation and of all the “becomings” that followed. Cyril also employs an implicit theologyeconomy distinction when he next asserts that the coeternal Son was “taking up humanity to himself rather than slipping away from being God, and hence he may legitimately be thought of as being born of David’s seed and of experiencing a wholly new human birth.”79 As he says more explicitly elsewhere, citing Romans 1:4 among other passages, Even if he is called an “apostle” or is said to have been anointed, or is designated the Son of God, still we are not ashamed of the economy. . . . For the sake of the economy he accepted, along with the limitations of the manhood, all those things which pertain to the human condition . . . for yet, and even so, he is God and Lord of all.80

In deference to Christ’s divine sonship, some church fathers reduced Christ’s appointment to sonship in Romans 1:4 to a declaration of this prior, eternal sonship. By contrast, Cyril’s reading illustrates how partitive exegesis allows us to escape such a zero-sum setup and give full weight, in Romans 1:3-4 as in Hebrews, to both who the Son always is and what he became for us and for our salvation. 77

Cyril of Alexandria, On Orthodoxy to Theodosius 26; in FC 129:60. Cyril of Alexandria, On Orthodoxy to Theodosius 26 (FC 129:60-61). 79 Cyril of Alexandria, On Orthodoxy to Theodosius 26 (FC 129:61). 80 Explanation of the Twelve Chapters 9; in McGuckin, Cyril, 285. 78

168

The Paradox of Sonship

So What? A One-Word Answer We return one last time to this book’s proper subject, the Christ whom Hebrews proclaims. The question with which we conclude is, So what? What difference did the author of Hebrews intend his portrait of Christ’s person to make in the lives of those who heard his message? What role does Christ’s person play in Hebrews’ hortatory program? Adolf Schlatter put his finger on the problem Hebrews’ recipients were facing. He said that they were asking, “Is it worth it to be a Christian?”81 Hebrews answers with a single word: Christ. The refrain of urgent reassurance that resounds through the letter is, “We have Christ.” What do we have? A great high priest who is not only exalted but compassionate, a hope that anchors our soul in the inner sanctum in heaven, a high priest seated on God’s throne, confidence to enter the Holy of Holies, an altar from which none but Christ’s people may eat (Heb 4:14-16; 6:19-20; 8:1-2; 10:19, 22; 13:10). In Hebrews, Christ’s work cannot be divided from his person, nor his person from his work. Who he is and what he gives are inseparable. And the greatest gift he gives is himself. “We share in Christ” (3:6). In 8:1-2, summing up the message of the whole letter, Hebrews appeals not only to Christ’s status and present ministry as high priest, but to the fact that this priest reigns on God’s throne.82 What matters for Hebrews’ hearers is that our high priest is not only a man like us but also the God who rules over us. Jesus’ present priestly intercession is a salvific exercise of divine omnipotence.83 If this high priest grants you access to God, none can take it away. As Nikolaus Walter has put it, Hebrews’ portrayal of Jesus as both high priest and sacrifice is in its way an unsurpassable rendering of solus Christus: salvation is in Christ alone.84 And Hebrews constantly appeals to who Christ is in order to announce why he alone can save. The Son extends sonship to 81

Adolf Schlatter, Die Briefe des Petrus, Judas, Jakobus, der Brief an die Hebräer (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1950), 221. 82 Compare Bauckham, “Divinity,” 3, “That Jesus sits on the throne, not only as king but also as high priest (which Hebrews clearly indicates), indicates surely that his completed work of atonement is now permanently part of the divine rule over the world. In this way, this high priesthood, unlike the levitical, does belong to the unique identity of God” (emphasis original). 83 Cf. Hengel, Early Christology, 146; and Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie, WUNT II, 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 478. 84 Nikolaus Walter, “Christologie und irdischer Jesus im Hebräerbrief,” in Praeparatio Evangelica: Studien zur Umwelt, Exegese und Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, by Nikolaus Walter, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Florian Wilk, WUNT I, 98 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 160.

Conclusion

169

“many sons” (2:10) by becoming human like us (2:11). The Son became incarnate in order by his own death to deal death a deathblow (2:14-15). The Son was made like his brothers in every way to become the priest we needed, and he can help the tempted because he was tempted (2:17-18). The Son abounds in compassion because he sinlessly endured every temptation (4:15). The Son was perfected with indestructible life at his resurrection (7:16) so that he is now able to intercede unceasingly for his own (7:25). The Son assumed a body in order to offer that body back to God in heaven (10:514). The Son began a universal rule after accomplishing salvation and was entitled to that universal rule by his unique claim to both divine and Davidic sonship (1:3-4, 5-14). Christ’s divine and human constitution and his faithful execution of his whole incarnate mission are integral to his ability to save. Only this Christ can save. Only one who is divine; who became human; who endured temptation and gave his life in death; who was raised incorruptible; and who now reigns in heaven can deal decisively with sin, give us access to God, and make the new creation our permanent possession. The heartbeat of Hebrews’ pastoral program is present possession of Christ. What makes being a Christian worth it is who Christ is, what Christ alone has done for us, and what Christ alone can give us. Everything Christ gives is founded on and follows from not only what he has done, but who he is. Christ gives what no one else can, and Christ himself is the greatest of his gifts. No one else will do. But if you have Christ, you have all you need.

Bibliography Alkier, Stefan. The Reality of the Resurrection: The New Testament Witness. Translated by Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013. Allen, David M. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative RePresentation. WUNT II, 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ———. “‘Forgotten Ages’: Times and Space in Heb 1.2.” BT 61 (2010): 144-51. ———. “‘The Forgotten Spirit’: A Pentecostal Reading of the Letter to the Hebrews.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 51-66. Allen, Leslie C. “The Old Testament Background of (προ)ὁριζειν in the New Testament.” NTS 17, no. 1 (1970): 104-8. Allen, Michael. “Christ.” In T&T Clark Companion to the Doctrine of Sin, edited by Keith L. Johnson and David Lauber, 451-66. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Allison, Dale C., Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Anatolios, Khaled. “The Soteriological Grammar of Conciliar Christology.” The Thomist 78 (2014): 165-88. Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by Chrysostom Baer. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006. ———. Summa Theologiæ: The Incarnate Word (3a. 1–6). Edited by R. J. Hennessey. Vol. 48. London: Blackfriars, in conjunction with Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1976. Athanasius. Athanasius Werke: Die Dogmatischen Schriften. Edited by Martin Tetz. I.1., Lfg. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. ———. Athanasius Werke: Die Dogmatischen Schriften. Edited by Martin Tetz and Dietmar Wyrwa. I.1., Lfg. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. ———. “Jesus the Incarnate High Priest: Intracanonical Readings of Hebrews and John.” In Hebrews in Contexts, edited by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge, 283-98. AGJU 91. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Augustine. The Trinity. Translated by Edmund Hill. Edited by John E. Rotelle. Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1991. Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Backhaus, Knut. Der Hebräerbrief. RNT. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009. ———. “‘Licht vom Licht’: Die Präexistenz Christi im Hebräerbrief.” In Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief, 77-99. WUNT I, 240. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

172

Bibliography

———. “Per Christum in Deum: Zur theozentrischen Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbrief.” In Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief, 48-75. WUNT I, 240. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Barnard, Jody A. The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT II, 331. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Barnes, Michel R. “Oeconomia.” In Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by Everett Ferguson, Michael P. McHugh, and Frederick W. Norris, 2:825-27. New York: Garland, 1997. Basil of Caesarea. Against Eunomius. Translated by Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz. FC 122. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Bates, Matthew W. “A Christology of Incarnation and Enthronement: Romans 1:3-4 as Unified, Nonadoptionist, and Nonconciliatory.” CBQ 77 (2015): 107-27. ———. The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ———. “Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1.” In Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North, 167-85. JSNTSup 263. London: T&T Clark, 2004. ———. “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald, 15-36. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity.” NTS 27 (1981): 322-41. Bauerschmidt, Frederick Christian. Thomas Aquinas: Faith, Reason, and Following Christ. CTC. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Bayer, Oswald. Theology the Lutheran Way. Translated by Jeffrey G. Silcock and Mark C. Mattes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Beckby, Hermann. Anthologia Graeca. Vol. 4. Buch XII–XVI, Mit Namen- Und Sachverzeichnis Und Anderen Vollständigen Registern. Sammlung Tusculum. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965. Beeley, Christopher A. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God: In Your Light We Shall See Light. OSHT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Behr, John. The Nicene Faith: Part One; True God of True God. The Formation of Christian Theology 2. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004. ———. The Nicene Faith: Part Two; One of the Holy Trinity. The Formation of Christian Theology 2. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004. Bénétreau, Samuel. L’Épître aux Hébreux. Vol. 1. Commentaire Évangélique de la Bible. Vaux-sur-Seine: Édifac, 1989. Bird, Michael F. Are You the One Who Is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. ———. Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology. Grand Rapids: Eerd­mans, 2017. Blomberg, Craig L. “‘But We See Jesus’: The Relationship between the Son of Man in Hebrews 2.6 and 2.9 and the Implications for English Translations.” In A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, edited by Richard

Bibliography

173

Bauckham, Daniel Driver, Trevor Hart, and Nathan MacDonald, 88-99. LNTS 387. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. Boyarin, Daniel. “Enoch, Ezra, and the Jewishness of ‘High Christology.’” In Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, edited by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccacini, 337-61. JSJSup 164. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Braun, Herbert. An die Hebräer. HNT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Caird, G. B. “Son by Appointment.” In The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, edited by William C. Weinrich, 1:73-81. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984. Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by Ross Mackenzie and edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960. Caneday, Ardel B. “The Eschatological World Already Subjected to the Son: The Οἰκουμένη of Hebrews 1.6 and the Son’s Enthronement.” In A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel Driver, Trevor Hart, and Nathan MacDonald, 28-39. LNTS 387. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Carson, D. A. Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2012. Chesterton, G. K. Brave New Family: G. K. Chesterton on Men & Women, Children, Sex, Divorce, Marriage & The Family. Edited by Alvaro de Silva. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990. Church, Philip. “4Q174 and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In Keter Shem Tov: Collected Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown, edited by Ian Hunter and Shani Tzoref, 333-60. PHSC. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. Clifford, Richard J. “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure.” HTR 73 (1980): 35-47. Coakley, Sarah. “Person of Christ.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Summa Theologiae, edited by Philip McCosker and Denys Turner, 222-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. ———. “What Chalcedon Solved and Didn’t Solve: Some Reflections on the Status and Meaning of the Chalcedonian ‘Definition.’” In The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, 143-63. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Cockerill, Gareth Lee. “Melchizedek without Speculation: Hebrews 7.1-25 and Genesis 14.17-24.” In A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel Driver, Trevor Hart, and Nathan MacDonald, 128-44. LNTS 387. London: T&T Clark, 2008. ———. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Collins, John J. “The Interpretation of Psalm 2.” In Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, edited by Florentino García Martínez, 49-66. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. ———. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

174

Bibliography

Compton, Jared. Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews. LNTS 537. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Translated by James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987. Cooke, Gerald. “The Israelite King as Son of God.” ZAW 73 (1961): 202-25. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975. Crawford, Matthew R. Cyril of Alexandria’s Trinitarian Theology of Scripture. OECS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Crisp, Oliver D. The Word Enfleshed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on John. Translated with an introduction and notes by David R. Maxwell. Edited by Joel C. Elowsky. 2 vols. ACT. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013–15. ———. “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Commentariorum in Epistolam Ad Hebraeos Fragmenta Quot Reperiri Protuerunt.” In Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, Vol. 3, edited by P. E. Pusey, 362-425. Oxford: Clarendon, 1872. ———. “Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Homiliarum Fragmenta.” In Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera, Vol. 3, edited by P. E. Pusey, 452-75. Oxford: Clarendon, 1872. ———. On the Unity of Christ. Translated by John Anthony McGuckin. Popular Patristics 13. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995. ———. Select Letters. Translated by Lionel R. Wickham. OECT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. ———. Three Christological Treatises. Translated by Daniel King. FC 129. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2014. Daley, Brian E. Gregory of Nazianzus. ECF. London: Routledge, 2006. ———. “‘One Thing and Another’: The Persons in God and the Person of Christ in Patristic Theology.” Pro Ecclesia 15 (2006): 17-46. Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol I. Translated by Thomas L. Kingsbury. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886. deSilva, David A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. DeYoung, Kevin. “Divine Impassibility and the Passion of Christ in the Book of Hebrews.” WTJ 68 (2006): 41-50. Docherty, Susan E. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation. WUNT II, 260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1989. ———. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. ———. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1990. Easter, Matthew C. Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews. SNTSMS 160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Bibliography

175

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Eisenbaum, Pamela. “Hebrews.” In The Jewish Annotated New Testament, edited by AmyJill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, 406-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Eskola, Timo. Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse. WUNT II, 142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Fatehi, Mehrdad. The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications. WUNT II, 218. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Filtvedt, Ole Jakob. “Creation and Salvation in Hebrews.” ZNW 106 (2015): 280-303. Flusser, David. “Messianology and Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 246-79. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Gäbel, Georg. Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie. WUNT II, 212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ———. “Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Development and Reception, edited by Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin, 357-76. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Gathercole, Simon J. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. ———. “The Trinity in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering, 55-67. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Gavrilyuk, Paul L. “God’s Impassible Suffering in the Flesh: The Promise of Paradoxical Christology.” In Divine Impassibility and the Mystery of Human Suffering, edited by James F. Keating and Thomas Joseph White, 127-49. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought. OECS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Goldingay, John. Psalms. Vol. 1. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Grässer, Erich. An die Hebräer. Vol. 1. Hebr 1–6. EKKNT 17. Zurich: Benziger, 1990. Graumann, Thomas. “The Bible in Doctrinal Development and Christian Councils.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 1, From the Beginnings to 600, edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper, 798-821. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Gregory of Nazianzus. On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius. Translated by Frederick Williams and Lionel R. Wickham. Popular Patristics 23. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002. Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 919-95. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. ———. “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” CBR 1 (2003): 271-94. ———. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. NovTSup 73. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

176

Bibliography

Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by Bernard Noble, Gerald Shinn, and R. McL. Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971. Hamann, Johann Georg. “Miscellaneous Notes on Word Order in the French Language.” In Writings on Philosophy and Language, edited by Kenneth Haynes, 20-32. CTHP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Hamilton, Mark W. The Body Royal: The Social Poetic of Kingship in Ancient Israel. BIS 78. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hardy, Edward Rochie, and Cyril C. Richardson, eds. Christology of the Later Fathers. LCC 3. London: SCM, 1954. Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Hayes, John H. “The Resurrection as Enthronement and the Earliest Church Christology.” Interpretation 22 (1968): 333-45. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016. ———. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. “The God of Mercy Who Rescues Us from the Present Evil Age: Romans and Galatians.” In The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology, edited by A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera, 125-43. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Heen, Erik M., and Philip D. W. Krey, eds. Hebrews. ACCS 10. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Heim, Knut M. “The (God-)Forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Inquiry.” In King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, edited by John Day, 296-322. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Hengel, Martin. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Héring, Jean. L’Épître aux Hébreux. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 12. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1954. Hill, Wesley. Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Hofius, Otfried. Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19f und 10,19f. WUNT I, 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972. Holmes, Michael W., trans. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Hübner, Hans. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Hunsinger, George. “Karl Barth’s Christology: Its Basic Chalcedonian Character.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, edited by John Webster, 127-42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hurst, L. D. “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2.” In The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, edited by L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright, 151-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Isaacs, Marie E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 73. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

Bibliography

177

Jamieson, R. B. “Hebrews 9.23: Cult Inauguration, Yom Kippur, and the Cleansing of the Heavenly Tabernacle.” NTS 62 (2016): 569-87. ———. Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews. SNTSMS 172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Janse, Sam. “You Are My Son”: The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism and the Early Church. CBET. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jipp, Joshua W. Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. ———. “‘For David Did Not Ascend into Heaven . . .’ (Acts 2:34a): Reprogramming Royal Psalms to Proclaim the Enthroned-in-Heaven King.” In Ascent into Heaven in Luke– Acts: New Explorations of Luke’s Narrative Hinge, edited by David K. Bryan and David W. Pao, 41-59. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. ———. “The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena of Hebrews 1.5-14.” NTS 56 (2010): 557-75. John of Damascus. Writings. Translated by Frederick H. Chase, Jr. FC 37. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Johnson, Luke Timothy, and William S. Kurz. The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Käsemann, Ernst. The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville and Irving L. Sandberg. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Keating, Daniel. “Thomas Aquinas and the Epistle to the Hebrews: ‘The Excellence of Christ.’” In Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews: Profiles from the History of Interpretation, edited by Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier, 84-99. LNTS 423. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Vol. 1, Introduction and 1:1–2:47. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Kibbe, Michael. Godly Fear or Ungodly Failure? Hebrews 12 and the Sinai Theophanies. BZNW 216. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Kurianal, James. Jesus Our High Priest. EUS 693. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2000. Lane, William L. Hebrews. 2 vols. WBC 47A–B. Dallas: Word, 1991. Lee, Aquila H. I. From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms. WUNT II, 192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Leeman, Jonathan. Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule. SCDS. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016. Leontius of Jerusalem. Against the Monophysites; Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae. Translated and edited by Patrick T. R. Gray. OECT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

178

Bibliography

Levering, Matthew. Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Lincoln, Andrew T. Hebrews: A Guide. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Loader, William R. G. Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes. WMANT 53. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981. Löhr, Hermut. “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel. Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran.” In Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult: im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, 185-205. WUNT I, 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Long, D. Stephen. Hebrews. Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Louth, Andrew. Maximus the Confessor. ECF. London: Routledge, 1996. Luther, Martin. Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia. Luther’s Works 25, translated by Walter G. Tillmanns and Jacob A. O. Preus, edited by Hilton C. Oswald. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972. Macaskill, Grant. Union with Christ in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Mackie, Scott D. “Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews.” NTS 53 (2007): 114-29. ———. “Confession of the Son of God in the Exordium of Hebrews.” JSNT 30 (2008): 437-53. ———. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT II, 223. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. MacNeill, Harris Lachlan. The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Including Its Relation to the Developing Christology of the Primitive Church. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1914. Malcolm, Matthew R. “God Has Spoken: The Renegotiation of Scripture in Hebrews.” In The Appropriation of Scripture in the Emergence of Christianity, edited by Matthew R. Malcolm, 172-81. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2015. Marcus, Joel. “Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation.” JBL 125 (2006): 73-87. ———. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. Markschies, Christoph. Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology. Translated by Wayne Coppins. BMSEC. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015. Marshall, I. Howard. “Acts.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 513-606. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Martin, Michael W., and Jason A. Whitlark. “The Encomiastic Topics of Syncrisis as the Key to the Structure and Argument of Hebrews.” NTS 57 (2011): 415-39. Mason, Eric F. “Hebrews and Second Temple Jewish Traditions on the Origins of Angels.” In Hebrews in Contexts, edited by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge, 63-93. AGJU 91. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Bibliography

179

Matera, Frank J. New Testament Christology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999. ———. New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Mays, James L. The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994. McDonough, Sean M. Christ as Creator: Origins of a New Testament Doctrine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. McFarland, Ian. “Inaugural Lecture.” University of Cambridge, December 3, 2015. http:// sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2127210. McGuckin, John Anthony. “Mystery or Conundrum? The Apprehension of Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition.” In In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley, S.J., edited by Peter W. Martens, 246-59. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. ———. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004. Meier, John P. “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14.” Biblica 66 (1985): 168-89. ———. “Symmetry and Theology the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5-14.” Biblica 66 (1985): 504-33. Melito of Sardis. On Pascha and Fragments. Translated by Stuart George Hall. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. ConBOT 8. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Moffitt, David M. Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. NovTSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ———. “The Role of Jesus’ Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Once Again: A Brief Response to Jean-René Moret.” NTS 62 (2016): 308-14. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Moore, Nicholas J. “Jesus as ‘The One Who Entered His Rest’: The Christological Reading of Hebrews 4.10.” JSNT 36 (2014): 383-400. Motyer, Stephen. “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” TynBul 50 (1999): 3-22. Moule, C. F. D. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Novakovic, Lidija. Raised from the Dead According to Scripture: The Role of Israel’s Scripture in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection. JCTCRS. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Pawl, Timothy. In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay. Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Peeler, Amy L. B. You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews. LNTS 486. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Pervo, Richard I. Acts. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews.” SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

180

Bibliography

Pierce, Madison N. Divine Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Recontextualization of Spoken Quotations of Scripture. SNTSMS 178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. ———. “Hebrews 1 and the Son Begotten ‘Today.’” In Retrieving Eternal Generation, edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain, 117-31. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr. “The Fourth Gospel as Trinitarian Source Then and Now.” In Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem, 303-21. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis, trans. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 3 vols. TTH 45. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005. Pryor, J. W. “Hebrews and Incarnational Christology.” RTR 40 (1981): 44-50. Rhee, Victor (Sung Yul). “The Role of Chiasm for Understanding Christology in Hebrews 1:1-14.” JBL 131 (2012): 341-62. Ribbens, Benjamin J. Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews. BZNW 222. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Riches, Aaron. Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Ringleben, Joachim. Gott im Wort: Luthers Theologie von der Sprache her. HUTh 57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms.” CBQ 64 (2002): 675-86. Robinson, J. A. T. The Human Face of God. London: SCM, 1973. Rooke, Deborah W. “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7.” Biblica 81 (2000): 81-94. Rowe, C. Kavin. “Acts 2.36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology.” NTS 53 (2007): 37-56. ———. “Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics.” Pro Ecclesia 11 (2002): 295-312. ———. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. ———. “Luke and the Trinity: An Essay in Ecclesial Biblical Theology.” SJT 56 (2003): 1-26. ———. “The Trinity in the Letters of St Paul and Hebrews.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering, 41-54. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Sanders, Fred. “Biblical Grounding for the Christology of the Councils.” Criswell Theological Review 13 (2015): 93-104. ———. The Triune God. NSD. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. ———. “What Trinitarian Theology Is For: Placing the Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology and Life.” In Advancing Trinitarian Theology: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics, edited by Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders, 21-41. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Sargent, Benjamin. David Being a Prophet: The Contingency of Scripture upon History in the New Testament. BZNW 207. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.

Bibliography

181

Schenck, Kenneth L. “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1.” JBL 120 (2001): 469-85. ———. Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice. SNTSMS 143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ———. “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews.” JSNT 66 (1997): 91-117. Schlatter, Adolf. Die Briefe des Petrus, Judas, Jakobus, der Brief an die Hebräer. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1950. Schnelle, Udo. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Schreiner, Thomas R. Commentary on Hebrews. BTCP. Nashville: B&H, 2015. ———. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Nottingham: Apollos, 2008. ———. Romans. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018. Silva, Moises. “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews.” WTJ 39 (1976): 60-71. Small, Brian C. The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews. BIS 128. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Sokolowski, Robert. The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995. Soulen, R. Kendall. The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity. Vol. 1. Distinguishing the Voices. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Spicq, Ceslas. L’Épître aux Hébreux: II. Commentaire. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1953. Steyn, Gert J. A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews. FRLANT 235. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. ———. “Psalm 2 in Hebrews.” Neot 37 (2003): 262-82. Strauss, Mark L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology. JSNTSup 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Swain, Scott R. “The Bible and the Trinity in Recent Thought: Review, Analysis, and Constructive Proposal.” JETS 60 (2017): 35-48. ———. Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and Its Interpretation. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Swetnam, James. “Hebrews 1,5-14: A New Look.” Melita Theologica 51 (2000): 51-68. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 2, The Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Tanner, Kathryn. Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001. Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, Nicaea I to Lateran V. London: Sheed & Ward, 1990. Thompson, James W. Hebrews. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Tilling, Chris. Paul’s Divine Christology. WUNT II, 323. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Treier, Daniel J. “‘Mediator of a New Covenant’: Atonement and Christology in Hebrews.” In So Great a Salvation: A Dialogue on the Atonement in Hebrews, edited by Jon C. Laansma, George H. Guthrie, and Cynthia Long Westfall, 105-19. LNTS 516. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2019.

182

Bibliography

Turner, Denys. Thomas Aquinas: A Portrait. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Ulrichsen, Jarl Henning. “Διαφορώτερον ὄνομα in Hebr. 1,4: Christus als Träger des Gottesnames.” Studia Theologica 38 (1984): 65-75. Ursinus, Zacharias. Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Translated by G. W. Williard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. Vanhoye, Albert. La structure littéraire de L’Épitre aux Hébreux. Paris: Desclée de Brower, 1963. ———. Situation du Christ: Hébreux 1–2. Lectio divina 58. Paris: Cerf, 1969. Volk, Robert, ed. “Ad Hebraeos.” In Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos: Commentarii in epistulas Pauli, 7:473-538. PTS 68. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Wainwright, Arthur W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1962. Walter, Nikolaus. “Christologie und irdischer Jesus im Hebräerbrief.” In Praeparatio Evangelica: Studien zur Umwelt, Exegese und Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, by Nikolaus Walter, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Florian Wilk, 151-68. WUNT I, 98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Watson, Francis. Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Webster, John. “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald, 69-94. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Weinandy, Thomas G. “Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation.” In The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria, edited by Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating, 23-54. London: T&T Clark, 2003. ———. Does God Suffer? Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. ———. “The Apostolic Christology of Ignatius of Antioch: The Road to Chalcedon.” In Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, edited by Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, 71-84. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ———. “Trinitarian Christology: The Eternal Son.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering, 387-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Weiss, Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 15th ed. KEKNT 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1903. Whitsett, Christopher G. “Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in Romans 1:3-4.” JBL 119 (2000): 661-81. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. Vol. 1. Röm 1–5. EKKNT 6. Zurich: Benziger, 1978. ———. “Χαρακτήρ.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 9:418-23. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Williams, Rowan. Christ the Heart of Creation. London: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2018. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. The Mighty and the Almighty: An Essay in Political Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Bibliography

183

Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. ———. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. London: SPCK, 2003. Yeago, David S. “Jesus of Nazareth and Cosmic Redemption: The Relevance of St. Maximus the Confessor.” Modern Theology 12 (1996): 163-93. ———. “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis.” Sewanee Theological Review 45 (2002): 371-84. ———. “The Spirit, the Church, and the Scriptures: Biblical Inspiration and Interpretation Revisited.” In Knowing the Triune God: The Work of the Spirit in the Practices of the Church, edited by James J. Buckley and David S. Yeago, 49-93. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Young, Frances, and David F. Ford. Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians. London: SPCK, 1987. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ———. “The ‘Mind’ of Scripture: Theological Readings of the Bible in the Fathers.” IJST 7 (2005): 126-41. Zwiep, A. W. The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology. NovTSup 87. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Name Index

Alkier, Stefan, 82, 88 Allen, David M., 54, 61, 72 Allen, Leslie C., 162, 163 Allen, Michael, 83 Allison, Dale C., 118 Anatolios, Khaled, 39, 96 Athanasius, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33-34, 35, 36, 37-38, 40, 55, 56, 65, 94, 96, 97, 113-14, 115, 128 Attridge, Harold W., 12-13, 54, 55, 60, 61, 63, 81, 102, 103, 106, 113, 130, 131 Augustine, 38 Ayres, Lewis, 33 Backhaus, Knut, 15, 55, 82, 94, 112 Barnard, Jody A., 129 Barnes, Michel R., 32 Basil of Caesarea, 32, 34, 160-61 Bates, Matthew W., 15-16, 108-9, 118, 160, 162, 163-65 Bauckham, Richard, 3, 15, 25, 28, 52-53, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 69, 82, 103, 108, 109, 112, 125, 126, 131, 165, 168 Bauerschmidt, Frederick Christian, 39, 46 Bayer, Oswald, 43 Beckby, Hermann, 162 Beeley, Christopher A., 33, 38 Behr, John, 33, 34, 37, 38, 161 Bénétreau, Samuel, 102 Bengel, Johann Albrecht, 43 Bird, Michael F., 124, 159 Blomberg, Craig L., 78 Bousset, Wilhelm, 157 Boyarin, Daniel, 124 Braun, Herbert, 14, 106, 113 Bruce, F. F., 17, 79, 102, 112 Caird, G. B., 8, 11, 64, 93, 99, 138 Calvin, John, 161 Caneday, Ardel B., 61 Carson, D. A., 18 Chesterton, G. K., 27

Church, Philip, 60-61 Clifford, Richard J., 135 Coakley, Sarah, 39, 151-52 Cockerill, Gareth Lee, 17, 68, 102, 106 Collins, John J., 61, 124 Compton, Jared, 78, 104, 145 Conzelmann, Hans, 157 Cooke, Gerald, 135 Cranfield, C. E. B., 162, 165 Crawford, Matthew R., 34, 36, 52 Crisp, Oliver D., 151 Cyril of Alexandria, 26, 31, 34-35, 36, 39, 47-48, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 65, 77-78, 83, 84-85, 87, 94, 95, 97, 101, 102, 103, 114-16, 125, 126, 128-31, 133, 137, 150, 166-67 Daley, Brian E., 34, 40, 49 Delitzsch, Franz, 102, 103 deSilva, David A., 79, 102, 120, 130 DeYoung, Kevin, 90 Docherty, Susan, 104, 106 Dunn, James D. G., 13-14, 48, 64, 113, 157, 161 Easter, Matthew C., 78, 89 Ehrman, Bart, 14 Ellingworth, Paul, 54, 60, 61, 67, 102, 131, 150 Elowsky, Joel C., 130 Eskola, Timo, 61, 102, 106 Eusebius of Caesarea, 32 Fatehi, Mehrdad, 163 Filtvedt, Ole Jakob, 133 Flusser, David, 124 Ford, David F., 42 Gäbel, Georg, 78, 81, 89, 90, 91, 102, 127, 168 Gaddis, Michael, 26, 153, 154 Gathercole, Simon J., 54-55, 164 Gavrilyuk, Paul, 40, 137-38 Goldingay, John, 104 Grässer, Erich, 15, 55, 102, 112 Graumann, Thomas, 33

Gregory of Nazianzus, 26, 31, 32-33, 34, 38, 40, 56, 77, 96 Gregory of Nyssa, 31, 32, 77, 96, 160 Gregory Thaumaturgus, 40 Guthrie, George H., 20, 71, 79, 102-3, 104, 110-11, 127, 130, 131 Haenchen, Ernst, 157 Hamann, Johann Georg, 43 Hamilton, Mark W., 135 Harris, Murray J., 62, 63 Hayes, John H., 157 Hays, Richard B., 6, 43, 123-24, 136, 153, 158-59 Heen, Erik M., 85 Heim, Knut M., 136 Hengel, Martin, 57, 125, 127, 160, 168 Héring, Jean, 80 Hilary of Poitiers, 77, 130 Hill, Wesley, 44, 148 Hippolytus of Rome, 40 Hofius, Otfried, 95 Holmes, Michael W., 30, 32, 39, 40 Hübner, Hans, 49, 56, 71, 135 Hunsinger, George, 95, 151 Hurst, L. D., 8-9, 11, 64, 93-94, 99, 131, 138 Ignatius of Antioch, 30, 32, 39-40, 95 Irenaeus of Lyons, 26, 95-96 Isaacs, Marie E., 106 Jamieson, R. B., 69, 88, 91, 93 Janse, Sam, 17, 112 Jewett, Robert, 161, 163 Jipp, Joshua W., 3, 61, 66, 102, 104, 126, 135-36, 160, 162, 163, 165, 166 John Chrysostom, 35, 38, 47, 65, 161, 167 John of Damascus, 24, 27, 31, 40, 55, 56, 93, 113, 130, 133, 142 Johnson, Luke Timothy, 50, 152 Justin, 32

186 Käsemann, Ernst, 11 Keating, Daniel, 140-41 Keener, Craig S., 159, 160 Kibbe, Michael, 80, 128 Kirk, J. R. Daniel, 163 Koester, Craig, 14, 69, 102, 113 Krey, Philip D. W., 85 Kurianal, James, 90, 91 Kurz, William S., 152 Lane, William L., 14, 56, 61, 79, 102, 131 Lee, Aquila H. I., 16, 102, 103, 112 Leeman, Jonathan, 136 Leontius of Jerusalem, 29, 142 Levering, Matthew, 152 Lincoln, Andrew T., 20, 83 Loader, William R. G., 20, 56, 102, 131 Löhr, Hermut, 57, 58 Long, D. Stephen, 152 Longenecker, Richard N., 162 Louth, Andrew, 141 Luther, Martin, 43, 161 Macaskill, Grant, 19, 55 Mackie, Scott D., 55, 70, 73, 74, 102, 112 MacNeill, Harris Lachlan, 67 Malcolm, Matthew R., 71, 72 Marcus, Joel, 120, 123 Markschies, Christoph, 32, 36 Marshall, I. Howard, 157 Martin, Michael W., 62 Mason, Eric F., 62 Matera, Frank J., 17-18, 67, 83, 102 Maximus the Confessor, 141-42 Maxwell, David R., 130 Mays, James L., 135 McDonough, Sean M., 127 McFarland, Ian, 83 McGuckin, John Anthony, 26, 39, 87, 126, 138, 142, 150, 153, 167 Meier, John P., 14, 37, 51, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 66, 102, 127, 130, 132 Melito of Sardis, 40 Mettinger, Tryggve N. D., 135 Moffitt, David M., 6, 61, 62, 69, 80, 81, 88, 90, 91, 92, 108

Name Index Moo, Douglas J., 163, 166 Motyer, Stephen, 145 Moule, C. F. D., 14, 94 Novakovic, Lidija, 165 Novenson, Matthew V., 119, 166 Pawl, Timothy, 24, 39, 45-46, 150 Peeler, Amy L. B., 16-17, 20, 55-56, 80, 103, 107, 112, 127, 132, 133 Pervo, Richard I., 157 Peterson, David, 90 Pierce, Madison N., 17, 59, 62, 65, 72, 109, 112, 113 Pietersma, Albert, 111 Plantinga, Cornelius, 146 Price, Richard, 26, 153, 154 Pryor, J. W., 67, 79 Pseudo-Dionysius, 141 Rhee, Victor (Sung Yul), 127, 130 Ribbens, Benjamin J., 58 Riches, Aaron, 26, 40, 47, 141, 154 Ringleben, Joachim, 43 Roberts, J. J. M., 135-36 Robertson, J. A. T., 11 Rooke, Deborah W., 107 Rowe, C. Kavin, 17, 24, 42, 45, 49, 51, 63-64, 70, 71, 72-73, 112, 146, 157, 158, 160 Sanders, Fred, 41, 108, 135, 146, 148 Sargent, Benjamin, 123 Schenck, Kenneth, 3, 7, 9-11, 16, 61, 64, 90, 99, 102, 130, 133, 138 Schlatter, Adolf, 168 Schnelle, Udo, 79 Schreiner, Thomas R., 20, 102, 130, 165, 166 Silva, Moises, 18-19, 89, 91, 101, 102 Small, Brian C., 2, 19, 25, 55, 79, 90, 102, 127, 130 Sokolowski, Robert, 47, 135, 152 Soulen, R. Kendall, 103 Spicq, Ceslas, 55, 60, 102, 103, 130, 131-32, 134 Steyn, Gert J., 63, 104, 105, 145

Strauss, Mark L., 159, 160 Swain, Scott R., 43, 44-45 Swetnam, James, 59, 66, 102 Tannehill, Robert C., 157-58, 159, 160 Tanner, Kathryn, 47 Tanner, Norman P., 26, 30, 32, 40, 56, 149, 150, 154, 155 Tertullian, 32 Thomas Aquinas, 24, 29, 31, 38-39, 46, 47, 113, 130, 133, 141 Thompson, James W., 102 Tilling, Chris, 165 Tolkien, J. R. R., 118 Treier, Daniel J., 54 Turner, Denys, 46 Ulrichsen, Jarl Henning, 103, 107, 109 Vanhoye, Albert, 59, 127, 130 Wainwright, Arthur W., 147 Walter, Nikolaus, 90, 96-97, 168 Watson, Francis, 141, 142 Webster, John, 17, 47, 54, 56, 103, 112, 134 Weinandy, Thomas G., 26, 40, 95, 154 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich, 60, 61, 79, 80, 102, 103, 107, 109, 127, 130, 131, 132 Westcott, Brooke Foss, 102, 103 Whitlark, Jason A., 62 Whitsett, Christopher G., 162, 163, 166 Wickham, Lionel R., 26, 52, 77, 85, 150 Wilckens, Ulrich, 55, 163, 164 Williams, Rowan, 47 Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 136 Wright, Benjamin G., 111 Wright, N. T., 163, 164, 165-66 Yeago, David S., 28-29, 41-42, 70, 142, 146, 155-56 Young, Frances M., 36, 42 Zacharias Ursinus, 45 Zwiep, A. W., 157

Subject Index

angels, 58-66, 78, 100-102, 127-28 Christology adoptionist, 7-11, 113, 157-58, 161 coherence, 45-46 communication of idioms, 39-40, 87, 134, 139 conciliar, 24n2, 25-26, 41-43, 45-46, 83-85, 95-96 distinction between theology and economy. See theology and economy divine identity, 15-17, 63-64, 74, 147 ineffability of the hypostatic union, 150-51 neo-Chalcedonian, 28-29 perceived tensions in that of Hebrews, 11-14 person-nature distinction, 27-29, 84, 139, 141, 149, 154-55 problems with the “low/ high” paradigm, 46, 144 single divine subject, 25-27, 31-36, 39, 49-75, 83, 94, 139, 141, 154, 167 twofold or “reduplicative” predication, 36-39, 85, 134, 139 creator-creature relation and distinction, 46, 55, 113, 115-16, 139, 148, 152, 165 creeds, 41-43 Chalcedonian Definition, 26, 30, 32n29, 149-56 Nicene, 25-26, 42n62, 56, 144, 146, 155, 156 eternity, 8n12, 29-31, 68-69, 73, 74, 130, 131 exegesis biblical text as pressure for theological formulation, 24, 25, 29,

30, 36, 45n70, 83, 112-13 defense of using theological tools in, 43-46, 138-41 distinction between judgments and concepts, 41-43, 77, 138-41, 145-46, 149-56 partitive. See theology and economy prosoponic, 108 God disciplining believers, 67 as Father in Hebrews, 73-74 speaking scriptural passages to the Son, 59-66, 92, 104, 110 heaven God’s throne in, 57-58 tabernacle in, 58, 92-93 Hebrews its Christology as expressing an achieved synthesis, 143-45 eschatology, 29-31, 81 importance of royal, Davidic messianism in, 106-7 incarnational logic, 19, 21 Jesus’s messianic “hyperfulfillment” of Old Testament expectations, 135 messianic exegesis of the Old Testament, 134-37 narrative Christology, 6-7, 19, 27, 52, 93-94, 96, 112, 138, 139, 146-47 pastoral, hortatory program, 168-69 programmatic role of Ps 110:1, 136-37 prologue, 2-3, 30-31, 51-59, 63, 66 relationship to conciliar Christology, 41-43,

83-85, 95-96, 138-41, 143-56 sketch of its Christology, 3-7 Jesus agency in creation, 54-55, 64, 66, 74, 132, 134 appointment as high priest, 91-92, 96-97 ascension, 91, 105, 117, 120, 156-57 conferring salvific sonship, 73 directly identified as God, 63-64, 66, 145 divine rule over all things, 64-66, 74, 101, 103-4, 109-10, 125-34 divinity of, 49-75 enthronement and session in heaven, 2-4, 57-66, 73, 93, 97-98, 99-121, 125-31, 156-67 eternal derivation from the Father, 55-56, 69-71, 73-75, 137, 149 eternal existence as God, 64, 66, 68-69, 74, 84 exaltation to heaven, 2-3, 51, 54 full and final revelation of the Father, 56 humiliation-thenexaltation, 91, 101, 129-30 incarnate mission of, 86-98, 100, 112-13, 137 incarnation, 19, 29-36, 68, 76, 77-85, 93-98, 101, 155, 163-65 inheriting the universe, 131-34 instantiation of the Father’s essence, 55-56 learning obedience through suffering, 66-68, 74

188 Messiah, 60-61, 73, 99-121, 122-42, 156-67 Messiah-designate during his earthly ministry, 116-19 messianic reserve, 134-35 obedience to God within his incarnate economy, 70 perfection, 86-87, 89-91 providential upholding of the universe, 57, 132 resurrection, 88-91, 117, 156-57, 162-63, 166 salvific efficacy of his death, 87-88 salvific efficacy of his heavenly offering, 93 salvific teleology of his

Subject Index incarnation, 82, 94-96, 115, 148, 155 self-offering in heaven, 92-93, 97-98 speaking Scripture to the Father, 71-72 worship of, 55n19, 61-62, 63, 65, 74, 127-28 Melchizedek, 68-69, 74, 106-7 paradox, 4, 7, 18, 24, 39-40, 45, 87, 97, 125, 128-29, 133, 137, 139-40, 147, 153 Son designating Jesus in his earthly career, 66-67 designating Jesus’ distinct mode of divine existence, 69-75 divine designation, 49-75

title Jesus obtains at his enthronement, 97-121 theology and economy, 31-36, 47-48, 50, 52, 53, 70, 84-85, 99-121, 122-42, 160-61, 167 economy as shorthand for incarnation, 32 theology as grammar, 29n17, 42-43, 49-51, 70-75 Trinity, 36, 42-45, 49-51, 69-75, 146, 148 essential and relative predication, 70-71 Father, Son, and Spirit each speaking Scripture as evidence for, 71-73, 74

Scripture Index Old Testament Genesis 1:26, 132 1:28, 132 14:17-24, 68 22:17, 71 Exodus 24:8, 71 25:40, 71 Deuteronomy 32:43, 3, 59, 61 1 Samuel 16:13, 118 2 Samuel 2:4, 118 5:3-5, 118 7, 61, 111 7:9, 110 7:12-14, 106 7:12-16, 116 7:13, 110 7:14, 3, 47, 59, 60, 61, 73, 105, 107, 108, 111, 119, 120, 127, 130, 162 7:21, 111 7:21-23, 110-11 7:23, 110, 11 7:26, 110 1 Kings 22:19, 57 Psalms 2, 61, 107, 135 2:2, 60, 104 2:4, 57 2:6, 60, 104, 108 2:7, 3, 5, 12, 15, 18, 47, 59, 60, 61, 71, 73, 92, 104-5, 107-8, 111, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 127, 130, 131, 133, 137, 162, 167 2:8, 104, 106, 108, 131,

133, 136 2:8-9, 163 2:12, 104 8:4-6, 78 8:5-6, 78 8:6, 132 9:7, 57 11:4, 57 22:22, 71, 73, 106 29:20, 57 40:6-8, 72, 80 45, 130, 135 45:6, 63 45:6-7, 3, 59, 110, 129-31 45:7, 63, 130 47:8, 57 72, 135 72:8-11, 163 89, 135 89:3, 127 89:14, 57 89:19-37, 127 89:27, 106, 127-28, 136 93:2, 57 95:7-11, 71 102, 145 102:13, 57 102:25, 64 102:25-27, 3-4, 59, 64, 110, 145 102:26-27, 64 103:19, 57 104:4, 59, 62 110, 82, 118, 135 110:1, 4, 59, 65, 106, 117, 119, 120, 123-24, 125, 126, 130, 135-37, 139, 142, 157, 160 110:4, 5, 71, 92, 136 Proverbs 3:11-12, 67 Isaiah 6:1, 57 8:17, 71

8:18, 71 9:6, 52 11:4, 163 11:10, 163 40, 136 53:12, 88 Jeremiah 31:31-34, 71, 72 Daniel 7:10, 57 7:13-14, 136 Zechariah 9:10, 163 New Testament Matthew 9:6, 117 11:2, 118 11:3, 117 12:28, 117 11:4-6, 117 16:16-17, 117 19:17, 34 28:19, 117 Mark 1:15, 117 1:27, 117 2:10, 117 8:27-30, 123 10:18, 34 10:47, 123 12:35-37, 123-24 14:62, 118 15:32, 117 Luke 1:43, 158 2:11, 117, 158, 159, 160 3:21, 159 3:21-22, 160 4:18, 160 5:8, 158

5:12, 158 7:6, 158 7:13, 158 9:20, 159 11:20, 117 12:41-42, 158 18:19, 34 22:66-71, 159 24:21, 116 24:3, 158 24:34, 158 John 1:3, 54 1:14, 79 1:32-33, 130 8:40, 52 14:10, 52 Acts 1:21, 158 2:14, 158 2:21, 158 2:23, 158 2:31, 158 2:32, 157 2:33, 157 2:32-36, 156-57 2:33, 118 2:33-34, 158 2:34-35, 157 2:36, 21, 105, 117, 156-61 3:15, 39 5:31, 159 1:40-41, 162 10:42, 162, 163 10:43, 162 13:32-33, 105, 117 17:30-31, 162-63 17:31, 163 Romans 1:1-2, 161 1:2-4, 21 1:3, 163-66 1:3-4, 105, 117, 156, 161-67

190 1:4, 117, 162-63, 167 1:5, 163 5-8, 95 5:10, 165-66 8:3, 165-66 8:32, 165 15:12, 163 1 Corinthians 2:8, 39, 87 6:3, 128 8:6, 54 2 Corinthians 8:9, 133 Galatians 4:4, 164, 165 Ephesians 1:10, 32 Philippians 2:5-11, 41-42, 155 2:6, 165 2:6-7, 164 2:6-8, 164 2:7, 79, 164 2:9, 30 2:9-11, 109 Colossians 1:16, 54 Hebrews 1, 9, 11, 79 1–2, 9 1:1, 2, 71 1:1-2, 70 1:1-3, 12 1:1–4:16, 71 1:2, 2, 4, 13, 19, 20, 25, 30, 31, 35, 51, 53-55, 56, 74, 105, 106, 115, 131-34, 136 1:2-3, 3, 25, 37, 147 1:2-4, 3, 25, 50, 51-59, 74, 85 1:3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 25, 30, 35, 37, 50, 51, 53, 55-59, 61, 69-71, 74, 100-101, 106, 109,

Scripture Index 110, 125, 130, 132, 147 1:3-4, 2-3, 31, 47-48, 61, 114-16, 169 1:3-5, 100, 131 1:4, 4, 8, 18, 19, 20, 25, 35, 47, 53, 60, 99-121 1:4-5, 108, 113 1:5, 3, 4, 12, 13, 15-16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 47, 59-62, 66, 70, 73, 101, 103-7, 109-11, 120, 127, 130, 131, 137 1:5-6, 60, 65, 110 1:5-13, 12, 71, 72 1:5-14, 3, 9, 50, 59-66, 74, 109-10, 126, 169 1:6, 3, 59, 61-62, 74, 93, 96, 106, 127-29, 131, 136, 147 1:6-12, 4 1:7, 58, 59, 62 1:7-8, 66, 128 1:7-12, 62-64, 65, 110 1:8, 63, 66, 147 1:8-9, 3, 9, 74, 106, 109, 110, 129-31 1:8-12, 11, 37, 59, 63-66, 147 1:9, 63, 129-30 1:10, 4, 25, 64, 65, 66, 109-10, 133, 147 1:10-12, 3, 8, 9, 30, 64, 74, 110, 145 1:11-12, 64 1:13, 4, 58, 59, 65, 70, 74, 106, 125, 130 1:13-14, 4, 65, 110 1:14, 58, 59, 65, 132, 133 2, 81 2:3, 25, 30, 86, 142, 155 2:5, 6, 132-33 2:5-9, 128 2:5-18, 6 2:6-8, 78 2:7, 78, 82 2:7-8, 78 2:8, 78, 132-33

2:9, 5, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 94, 101, 129, 147, 155 2:9-10, 82 2:10, 5, 67, 73, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 128, 129, 147, 168-69 2:10-18, 73, 80 2:11, 73, 80, 82, 84, 169 2:11-12, 96 2:12, 73, 84, 106 2:12-13, 71, 72 2:13, 73, 84 2:14, 25, 37, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 95, 155 2:14-15, 5, 25, 79, 87, 94, 147, 169 2:14-18, 27, 82 2:16, 80, 94 2:17, 5, 37, 73, 80, 82, 94, 95, 147, 154, 155 2:17-18, 90, 169 2:18, 5, 23, 86 3:1-2, 27 3:2, 27, 35, 119 3:6, 106, 119, 168 3:14, 119 3:7-11, 71, 72 4:14, 5, 58, 69, 91 4:14-16, 71, 168 4:14–10:25, 71 4:15, 5, 86, 90, 97, 148, 154, 169 4:16, 58, 93, 127 5:1, 92 5:5, 96, 119, 120 5:5-6, 5, 71, 72 5:5-10, 96, 113 5:6, 92 5:7, 5, 37, 38, 81, 86, 88, 97, 150 5:7-8, 90, 91 5:7-10, 86-87, 129 5:8, 5, 10, 37, 38, 50, 66-68, 74, 90, 96, 119, 147 5:8-9, 87 5:9, 38, 89, 90, 91, 97 5:9-10, 5, 91-92 5:14, 89 6–9, 71

6:1, 89, 119 6:2, 88 6:4, 72 6:5, 72 6:6, 72 6:12, 132 6:14, 71 6:19-20, 5, 92, 168 7, 90-91 7:1, 68 7:1-2, 68 7:2, 106 7:3, 50, 68-69, 74 7:8, 5 7:11, 89 7:14, 107 7:15, 69 7:15-16, 5, 69 7:16, 88-89, 91, 92, 147, 169 7:17, 71 7:19, 89 7:21, 71 7:23, 5, 90 7:24, 5, 90 7:25, 5, 93, 147, 169 7:26, 5, 58, 91 7:27, 5, 92 7:28, 89, 91 8:1, 5, 38, 57, 58, 106, 127 8:1-2, 168 8:2, 92 8:1-5, 5 8:3, 92 8:5, 71 8:8-12, 71 9:7, 5, 92 9:8, 89 9:9, 89, 93 9:11, 81, 89, 92, 119 9:11-12, 5 9:11-14, 5 9:12, 81, 92, 93, 147 9:13-14, 89, 93 9:14, 3, 92, 119 9:15, 5, 87-88, 132 9:20, 71 9:23, 93 9:23-26, 5 9:24, 30, 92, 93, 94, 119

191

Scripture Index 9:24-25, 3, 5 9:24-26, 91 9:25, 92 9:26, 3, 30, 82, 86, 93, 105, 147 9:28, 5, 88, 92, 93, 119, 135, 147 10:1, 81, 89 10:1-2, 93 10:1-14, 89 10:5, 80, 147, 155 10:5-7, 81 10:5-9, 5, 72 10:5-10, 70, 72, 80-81 10:5-14, 82, 169 10:7, 80

10:10, 5, 92, 93, 119, 147 10:11, 58, 97 10:11-13, 4 10:12, 3, 5, 58, 100 10:12-13, 58, 93, 106, 147 10:14, 5, 89, 93, 97 10:15-18, 72, 93 10:19, 89, 93, 168 10:19-23, 71 10:19–13:25, 71 10:22, 89, 163 10:29-31, 72 10:32-36, 67 10:39, 67

11:3, 54 11:19, 88 11:26, 119 11:35, 88 11:40, 89 12:2, 5, 35, 57, 58, 81, 86, 89, 106, 119, 129 12:3, 86 12:4, 67 12:5, 67 12:5-6, 67 12:5-11, 67 12:7, 67 12:8, 67 12:9, 73 12:9-11, 67

12:23, 89 12:25-29, 6 13:8, 52, 119 13:10, 168 13:12, 86, 93 13:20, 88 13:21, 119 Revelation 1:5, 136 3:21, 58-59 5:3, 59 5:5, 59 5:8-14, 59 19:10, 59 22:8-9, 59

Ancient Writings Index

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch 21:6, 57 29:3, 124 1 Enoch 9:4, 57 14:18, 57, 58 14:22, 57 39:12, 57 40:1, 57 45:3, 124 48:2-3, 124 48:10, 124 51:3, 124 55:4, 124 61:8, 124 62:5, 124 69:29, 124 71:7, 57 2 Enoch 20:3, 57, 58 21:1, 57 22:7, 129 25:4, 57 4 Ezra 7:28, 124 8:21, 57 13:10, 124 13:26, 124 13:37-38, 124 Prayer of Azariah 32-33, 57 Psalms of Solomon 17:22–34, 61 Sirach 1:8, 57 Wisdom of Solomon 7:25-26, 56 Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q174 60

4Q530 2.18, 57 Classical Sources MELEAGER

Anthology 12.158.7, 162 Early Christian Writings Apostolic Constitutions 8.12.33, 40 Diog. 7.1-2, 55 CLEMENT OF ROME

1 Clem. 43:2, 107 44:1, 107 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

Eph. 1.1, 39 7.2, 39-40 18.2, 32 20.1, 32 Magn. 6.1, 30 Pol. 3.2, 40 Rom. 6.3, 39 IRENAEUS OF LYONS

Against Heresies 1.10.1-3, 32 3.16.2-3, 26 3.16.6, 40 3.18.7, 95-96 3.19.1, 96 3.19.1-3, 40

JUSTIN

Dialogue with Trypho 120.1, 32 MELITO OF SARDIS

Peri Pascha 96.711-15, 40 Fragment 13, 40 TERTULLIAN

Against Praxeas 2, 32 HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

Against Noetus 18, 40 GREGORY THAUMATURGUS

To Theopompus 6, 40 8, 40 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

Ecclesiastical History I.1.7-8, 32 ATHANASIUS

C. Ar. 1.12, 55, 56 1.24, 56 1.36-37, 64-65 1.41, 96 1.41.1-4, 34 1.41.4, 30 1.49, 56 1.55, 113 1.55.3, 30-31 1.55.4, 32 1.57, 64-65 1.59, 35 1.61, 35, 113 1.62, 114 1.64.1, 32

194 2.7-9, 97 2.8.4, 27, 31 2.9, 35 2.9.2, 32 2.11.1, 32 2.32, 56 2.55.1-4, 94 2.64, 128 3.29.1-2, 33 3.59, 56 3.65, 56 Decr. 1.5, 32 12.2, 56 14.2, 94 23.1-4, 56 25.3, 32 Ep. Serap. 1.16.5, 56 1.19.2-3, 56 2.2.2, 55 2.3.3, 64-65 2.4.2, 55, 64-65 2.7.3-4, 31, 32 2.8.1, 34 2.8.3, 34 2.11.1, 56 Letter 49 10, 40 On the Incarnation 18, 37 HILARY OF POITIERS

The Trinity 3.16, 77 11.19, 130 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS

Ep. 101 4, 26, 31, 40, 96 5, 40, 94 Ep. 102 4, 26, 31 Oration 1 5, 96 Oration 22 13, 40 Oration 29 18, 32-33, 38

Ancient Writings Index 18-20, 40 19, 26, 31, 77 Oration 30 1, 33, 40 5, 40 8, 38 16, 38 Oration 37 2, 26, 40 Oration 38 2, 40 3, 31, 96 8, 34 13, 26, 40 15, 38 Oration 39 13, 73 BASIL OF CAESAREA

Sermon 191 1, 40 The Trinity 1.14, 38 CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

Ad Hebraeos 31, 47-48, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 64-65, 77-78, 83, 84, 102, 114-16, 126, 128, 130, 133 Against Bishops of Oriens anathema 4, 35 Answers to Tiberius 5, 77 Commentary on John 1.4, 56 1.5, 56 130

Against Eunomius 2.3, 34, 160-61

Explanation of the Twelve Chapters 9, 167

Letter 8 32

Fragment 10, 47, 97

GREGORY OF NYSSA

Against Eunomius 4.3, 31 5.5, 160 Catechetical Oration 5, 32 10, 32 15, 148 16, 32 24, 77 32, 96

On Orthodoxy to Theodosius 9, 94 25, 115 26, 166-67 27, 101 On the Creed 13, 56 19, 97 25, 85 Scholia 5, 126 33-34, 39

Homilies on John 7.2, 56

Second Letter to Nestorius 3, 150 5, 85 7, 77

Homilies on Hebrews 1.3, 35, 38, 47, 64-65, 113

Second Letter to Succensus 3, 150

Homilies on Romans 1, 161

That the Christ Is One 87

AUGUSTINE

Thesaurus 10, 34

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

City of God 9.15, 85

Third Letter to Nestorius 6, 85

195

Ancient Writings Index 8, 56 10, 97 anathema 12, 40 To Acacius of Melitene 52 POPE LEO I

Tome 155

LEONTIUS OF JERUSALEM

Testimonies of the Saints 29, 142 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS

Epistula 4 141

Creedal Statements and Conciliar Documents: Nicene Creed 155 Chalcedonian Definition 32, 153-55 Second Council of Constantinople anathema 10, 40

The Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture series

S

tudies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture promotes evangelical contributions to systematic theology, seeking fresh understanding of Christian doctrine through creatively faithful engagement with Scripture in dialogue with catholic tradition(s). Thus: We aim to publish contributions to systematic theology rather than merely descriptive rehearsals of biblical theology, historical retrievals of classic or contemporary theologians, or hermeneutical reflections on theological method—volumes that are plentifully and expertly published elsewhere. We aim to promote evangelical contributions, neither retreating from broader dialogue into a narrow version of this identity on the one hand, nor running away from the biblical preoccupation of our heritage on the other hand. We seek fresh understanding of Christian doctrine through creatively faithful engagement with Scripture. To some fellow evangelicals and interested others today, we commend the classic evangelical commitment of engaging Scripture. To other fellow evangelicals today, we commend a contemporary aim to engage Scripture with creative fidelity. The church is to be always reforming—but always reforming according to the Word of God. We seek fresh understanding of Christian doctrine. We do not promote a singular method; we welcome proposals appealing to biblical theology, the history of interpretation, theological interpretation of Scripture, or still other approaches. We welcome projects that engage in detailed exegesis as well as those that appropriate broader biblical themes and patterns. Ultimately, we hope to promote relating Scripture to doctrinal understanding in material, not just formal, ways. We promote scriptural engagement in dialogue with catholic tradition(s). A periodic evangelical weakness is relative disinterest in the church’s shared creedal heritage, in churches’ particular confessions and more generally in the history of dogmatic reflection. Beyond existing efforts to enhance understanding of themes and corpora in biblical theology, then, we hope to foster engagement with Scripture that bears upon and learns from loci, themes, or crucial questions in classic dogmatics and contemporary systematic theology.

Praise for The Paradox of Sonship “Many have spoken of the need for and shape of theological exegesis. Rare is the work that actually employs theological wisdom for the sake of better exegetical practice. Now R. B. Jamieson’s The Paradox of Sonship serves as a marvelous example. The work employs early christological concepts to keep alert to the breadth of teaching in Hebrews regarding the sonship of the Messiah. I highly commend it.” Michael Allen, John Dyer Trimble Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary “The Paradox of Sonship illuminates the central christological conundrum of Hebrews by reading the book in dialogue with classical theological categories. Conventional academic practice has long warned against allowing doctrine and exegesis to make such close contact, but here Jamieson demonstrates the sweeping benefits of reuniting them. The drama, the tension, and even the sheer literary suspense of Hebrews come to life in dialogue with Nicene and Chalcedonian categories. I hope to see many more books that follow the path opened up here.” Fred Sanders, Torrey Honors College, Biola University “The Christology of Hebrews, particularly what the author means in identifying Jesus as the Son, has long been debated. Jamieson argues that the earliest interpreters in church history had a simple and yet elegant explanation, which clarifies sonship language in Hebrews. Jamieson doesn’t stop with the earliest interpreters or even begin with them. He maintains that these ancient readings accord with the historical meaning of Hebrews, that they match the intention of the author. Jamieson reminds us that our ancestors in the faith are indispensable sources for understanding New Testament authors. I found Jamieson’s argument to be refreshing and convincing. Even those who disagree in some respects will find much here to stimulate their thinking.” Thomas R. Schreiner, author of Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ and James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

198

Praise for The Paradox of Sonship

“R. B. Jamieson has written a readable introduction and elegant explanation of the Christology of Hebrews. Jamieson explains all the things that seem strange to us. Whether it’s the citation of Psalms or mention of a mysterious figure called Melchizedek, he shows what these mean and how they all fit with the author’s purpose: to convince readers that Christ is truly worthy of their worship.” Michael F. Bird, academic dean and lecturer in theology at Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia “It is only fitting that the one who is the Father’s Son by nature should fill the role of Son in the Father’s household, from his incarnation and atonement to his resurrection and enthronement. This simple claim, according to Bobby Jamieson, is the key to the Christology of Hebrews. Grasping this claim, however, has not been a simple matter for modern interpreters. In a work of great hermeneutical and theological sophistication, Jamieson draws on six classical christological reading strategies forgotten or ignored by many modern interpreters to help us better see the glory of the Son of God in the epistle to the Hebrews.” Scott R. Swain, president and James Woodrow Hassell Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando “Jamieson has achieved that rare goal of a truly fresh and illuminative reading of a long-studied issue in a biblical text. I was happy for my own interpretation of Hebrews to be deepened and expanded, and I look forward to sharing with my students his thesis that Jesus is the Son who became Son. The Paradox of Sonship is a deeply engaging example of artful employment of the tools of theology and history to create a deeper insight into the God who became man.” Amy Peeler, associate professor of New Testament, Wheaton College and Graduate School “This is a highly important study both methodologically and exegetically. The Christology of the epistle to the Hebrews has long been seen as a set of difficult exegetical conundrums. Bobby Jamieson argues, however, that the main problem is not with the text of Hebrews itself but with the conceptual resources modern interpreters have typically brought with them to read the letter. Jamieson shows that if we attend more fully to the church’s doctrinal tradition, we gain conceptual configurations that can actually resolve exegetical puzzles and help to arrange

Praise for The Paradox of Sonship

199

Hebrews’ Christology into a coherent picture. His argument demonstrates that Christian doctrine is not an illegitimate imposition on the text but an otherwise unavailable form of fruitful interpretative perception.” C. Kavin Rowe, George Washington Ivey Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Duke University “Jamieson’s argument—that Jesus is a Son who became ‘Son’—is sophisticated yet accessible. In utilizing modern theology, retrieval, and careful exegesis of the text of Hebrews, he offers something distinctive that is a true gift to the field.” Madison N. Pierce, assistant professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

About the Author R. B. Jamieson (PhD, University of Cambridge) is associate pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. He is the author of several books, including Sound Doctrine: How a Church Grows in the Love and Holiness of God, Understanding Baptism, Understanding the Lord's Supper, and Jesus' Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews.

Please visit us at ivpress.com for more information about this author and a list of other titles they’ve published with InterVarsity Press.

Discover more titles from

InterVarsity Press

Click to view the newest and trending titles in Academic Texts & Reference IVP Academic covers disciplines such as theology, philosophy, history, science, psychology, and biblical studies with books ranging from introductory texts to advanced scholarship and authoritative reference works. Culture, Mission, and Christian Life Our books are deeply biblical and profoundly practical, discussing topics like Christian spirituality, prayer, evangelism, apologetics, justice, mission, and cultural engagement. Bible Studies & Group Resources IVP provides Bible studies and small group resources for you and your church, helping individuals and groups discover God’s Word and grow in discipleship. Spiritual Formation Formatio books follow the rich tradition of the church in the journey of spiritual formation. These books are not merely about being informed, but about being transformed by Christ and conformed to his image. Church Leadership IVP Praxis brings together theory and practice for the advancement of your ministry using sound biblical and theological principles to address the daily challenges of contemporary ministry.

Click below to view more books in these categories Apologetics

Discipleship

Philosophy

Biblical Studies

Family, Children & Youth

Psychology

Career & Vocation

Fiction

Race & Ethnicity

Church & Culture

Justice/Peace

Science

Church History

Spiritual Formation

Theology

Commentaries

Missions & Missiology

Youth Ministry

For a list of IVP email newsletters please visit  ivpress.com/newsletters.

Sign up for Books & Deals