A Continuing Look at Hebrews

A Bit About the Creator

In this post, I am continuing on from a previous one where I began discussing the prologue of the book of Hebrews. 

In Acts 4, Peter and John were presenting their case. They were speaking about this “Jesus” and what they had “seen and heard.” In 4.24 “they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, ‘O Lord, it is You who made the Heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them.”
The creation of the world was unquestioningly accredited to Israel’s ancestral deity, Yahweh, as their Scriptures attested: Exod 20, Deut 4.32; Psalm 146; 148.1–6; Isa 42.5; 44.24; 45.11–12; Neh 9, Job 38.1–41; Matt 19.4. In this story, they quote “David” (who they call their father) from Psalm 2, who they credit as being the servant of Yahweh (the context of Psalm 2 shows Yahweh and the anointed, messiah): “Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your [the same God, Yahweh they attribute with the creation of the world] servant [someone different, who did not create the world], said, 'why did the gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? 'The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD [Yahweh, the creator] and against his [Yahweh, creator] Christ [not Yahweh or creator]’” Acts 4.25-26.

They continue praying to God, the Father (Jesus himself taught them to pray in this manner, Matt 6.9) as verse 24 presents and the contexts of Exodus, Nehemiah, and Psalms bear out, “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your [God, Yahweh, the creator] holy servant Jesus [someone different, not God, Yahweh the creator], whom You [Yahweh] anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel” Acts 4.27.

Jesus is clearly portrayed (Matt 27.46; Mark 15.34 from Psalm 22; John 20.17; Rev 3.12;) as having called Yahweh his Father and God. If I am processing this correctly, the disciples pray to God, called the Father (who is Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible– Deut 32.6; Jer 31.9, Isa 63.16, 64.8, Mal 2.10) and to whom they credit the creation of the world. They call David his servant, and then Jesus, as the one anointed by Yahweh.

A similar episode is found in Acts 17 where Paul spoke to the Stoic Philosophers in Athens. Paul declared to them that “the God who made the world [kosmos] and all things in it” (vs. 24) desires all to repent, because this God “has fixed a day in which he [the God] will judge the world in righteousness through a man [someone other than the God] whom he [the God] has appointed” and provided “proof to all men by raising him [someone other than the God] from the dead” (vs. 31). 

Paul did not say that the one raised was the creator of all (as John 1 and Hebrews 1 are often interpreted to say), or that Jesus was this “God.” Quite the opposite, he said that this man has been appointed to judge in righteousness and was raised from the dead by this “God,” as a testimony of that choice.

If Jesus was being communicated as the second member of the Trinity, then why wasn’t he given proper credit for the creation of the world (according to traditional John 1; Col 1; Heb 1 interpretation) in this text? It was the God, called Father who was instead credited with the material creative role. They were not praying to Jesus and certainly not to the spirit as a separate entity. What should a proper Trinitarian response be to these apparently confused disciples?

 Back to Hebrews 1, here is another thought that grabbed my attention. As a member of the human race, I am prone to reflect upon my own mortality. When reaching the phrase regarding those “who are about to inherit salvation” (v. 14), it reminded me of the larger NT theme of God’s restorative eschatology. It drew my attention back to how the writer began the chapter, “in these last days.” In the use of the word eschaton, the writer refers to the time but emphasizes the means by which God is communicating. Perhaps the author believes that these “last days” may continue for any length of time. The point is that God has now spoken through a son, in a way similar to what had been done through the prophets.

The whole point I saw being communicated was that as Christians, we have hope. This chapter seems set to that tune. The old saying goes, “hope is hearing the music of the future, and faith is dancing to it today.” The world is a mess and things are bad, but through this son, God has revealed more of the cosmic plan of remediation and justice than had been revealed before. 

The author of Hebrews continues to develop these themes throughout the book, and as we immerse ourselves in the message, it places our hope on the one for whom we wait. While today and tomorrow may not signify the end, that is not ultimately what matters. What matters is that he has been seated at the right hand of God and at the proper moment, the tide will turn and justice will be the order of the day. I like N. T. Wright’s exclamation in his book Surprised by Scripture, “Jesus is coming – plant a tree.”

Let’s Be On Our Way – John 14:25-31

“For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by another worshipper of God.”

–Lactantius[1]

            Historically, it is no secret that diverse Christianities have had difficulties dwelling together peacefully. Strife among God’s people can be traced almost anywhere, anytime to anything imaginable under heaven.

C. S. Lewis famously remarked that the quickest way to a desired destination – if a wrong turn has been taken – is to get back to the right road. The individual making an about-turn first, though seemingly counter-productive, is the most progressive.[2]

Doctrinal dissension has arguably proven to be divisive and destructive throughout the history of the Church.[3] This text is a prime example of such a battleground. It is a theological lithosphere of christological, pneumatological and ultimately Trinitarian layers which shifted[4] early and shook Christianity to its core for centuries.[5] Not only is there what some see as a proto-Trinitarian formation,[6] there is also an unavoidable subordinationist Christology present.[7]

As it happened, to argue that Jesus was equal in divine majesty to God the Father required “considerable literary ingenuity”[8] to explain these texts. The result was a widened rift between the subordinationists and those in favor of the Nicene Creed. Gregory of Nyssa described, 

“If in this city you ask anyone for change, he will discuss with you whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you ask about the quality of bread, you will receive the answer that, ‘the Father is greater, the Son is less.’ If you suggest that a bath is desirable, you will be told that ‘there was nothing before the Son was created.’”[9]

Having personally been involved in unavoidable, chaotic feuds merely for being open-minded theologically, I am more convinced than ever that relating to our brothers and sisters in Christ with peaceful and humane dialogue is the only way forward. One’s conviction on any given text is never grounds to degrade or deride a perceived theological opponent or, in consideration of Church history, use violence. “Loving one another,”[10] as so frequently and plainly taught within the Johannine corpus, should never be annexed for that which is speculative, and the subject of constant debate.

Regardless of one’s Christology, Jesus – as God’s executive agent and revealer[11] – has given a supreme example of perfect peace.[12]  Though conflict came to him, 

“Christ did not become what men were; he became what they were meant to be, and what they too, through accepting him, actually became.”[13]

Before actually leaving, Jesus prayed: “[that] they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:22 NRS). Believers in Jesus have the hope that he will indeed return, 

“He is the promise, but the Father is the fulfillment. What Jesus says here about his own death applies also to the death of individual Christians.”[14] 

Until that time, we have the responsibility of emulating his example to love each other, even if our theological, doctrinal or political views don’t always mesh. By grasping onto the theme of the Prince of Peace we can bring the shalom[15] of the age to come into our present, one selfless action at a time. Let’s make an about-turn and get-on. “Let us go from here.” Let’s keep conversing, but be of the same mind and in the same love through humility while we do.[16]

---

[1] A Treatise on the Anger of God, 13.99 (ANF 7.271).

[2] C. S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity,” The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York, NY.: Harper One, 1952, 2002) 33.

[3] Swartley seems to imply that some are not as prone toward provocations of this nature: “Even among Mennonites, historically considered sectarian, one finds both high christology adhered to be some and a considerably lower christology adhered to by others.” Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 296 (fn. 48).

[4] Hans Küng, Christianity : Essence, History, and Future (New York, NY.: Continuum Publishing Co, 1996), 170-71.

[5] See Professor of Conflict Resolution Richard Rubenstein’s excellent book, When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity in the Last Days of Rome (Orlando, FL.: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1999), 7-8.

[6] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: John, vol. 36 (Dallas, TX.: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 261; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2003), 2:976.

[7] C. K. Barrett, “The Father is Great Than I,” Essays on John (London, SPCK, 1982), 19-36; Karl-Josef Kuschel, Born Before All Time? : The Dispute Over Christ’s Origin, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY.: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992), 388.

[8] Charles Freeman, A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, of the Monotheistic State (New York, NY.: Overlook Press, 2009), 60.

[9] Joseph H. Lynch, Early Christianity: A Brief History (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 166.

[10] John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; 17:26; 21:15-17. Even the Johannine Epistles carry this theme: cf. 1 Joh 3:10-11, 14, 16, 18, 23; 4:7-8, 11-12, 16-21; 5:2; 2 Jo 1:5.

[11] Barrett 1982, 23.

[12] F. F. Bruce points out, “the world can only wish peace; Jesus gives it.” F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1983), 307 (Fn. 14).

[13] John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John, ed. J. F. Coakley (Oak Park, IL.: Meyer-Stone Books, 1985), 378.

[14] Ernst  Haenchen, Robert W. Funk, and Ulrich Busse, John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7-21 (Philadelphia, PA.: Fortress Press, 1984), 128. See (Keener 2003, 982).

[15]  “Peace was believed to be a feature of righteous royal rule and of the messianic age.” Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary (Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 316

[16] Phil 2:1-3.

Hans Küng on John's Christology and the Shema

In a little reading of Hans Küng's Judaism; Between Yesterday and Tomorrow, I came across these statements:

“In this Gospel [John] ... there cannot yet be any question of a ‘metahistorical drama of Christ’, the objection often put forward by the Jewish side. Precisely in this late, fourth Gospel, we still have statements like: ‘And this is eternal life, that they may know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.’ Or, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Here there is a clear distinction between God and Jesus Christ.

No, this Gospel too does not contain any speculative metaphysical Christology – torn from its Jewish roots – but rather a christology of sending and revelation associated with the world of Jewish Christianity. However, its statement about pre-existence, understood in an unmythological way, takes on heightened significance: ‘John does not investigate the metaphysical nature and being of the pre-existent Christ; he is not concerned about the insight that before the incarnation there were two pre-existent divine persons who were bound together in the one divine nature. This way of conceiving of things is alien to John. So too is the conception of a 'begetting within the Godhead.' 'I and the Father are one.' This statement has nothing to do with any dogmatic-speculative statements about the relationship of the natures within the Godhead.' So what was John's positive concern? What stands in the foreground is the confession that the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos of God in person. And he is the Logos as a mortal man; but he is the Logos only for those who are prepared to believe, trusting God's word in his word, God's actions in his praxis, God's history in his career, and God's compassion in his cross’ …

If the Jewish tradition has always held unshakeably to a basic truth of Jewish faith, then it is the ‘Shema Israel’, Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone! … This confession of the unity and uniqueness of God meant the strict repudiation not only of any dualism but also of any trinitarianism.”

Hans Küng, Judaism; Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (Continuum, 1991), 382-3.

Servetus

Today marks the 463rd anniversary of the martyrdom of Michael Servetus (October 27th, 1553). I continue to have a hard time comprehending how an individual can feel that they do the work of God when brutal execution is carried out upon individuals possessing "other opinions" regarding doctrinal confessions. In the case of Servetus and Calvin, it was the doctrine of the Trinity.

How are people comfortable with a god who will torture someone eternally for merely having wrong opinions or beliefs about his "nature" or relationship to his son? Those who claim to be people of the Scriptures must bend, twist, copy, paste, contort and distort that to which they pay verbal obeisance in order to come to that perverted conclusion.

Unfortunately, those who wield the metaphorical (and other times literal) sword and spear for the sake of persecuting those having heterodox opinions are convinced they do so with the authority of God and their reading of the Sacred Writings. They feel they stand with the Almighty in the destruction of the "ungodly," i.e. those who don't believe as they do.

Does God disdain all those we do? 

If so, what period of Christianity, and what particular vein? 

Was Christianity (used here anachronistically) in its early form (meaning Jesus and Apostles) a set of creeds and beliefs to which one must subscribe? ("Believing" in the "Lord Jesus Christ" was a recapitulation of Moses' salvation upon his people as well, howbeit with differences -  Ex 14:31).

If so, why is there no record of such? 

Why does the book of Acts depict something quite different as having set their world on fire?

Why is it that the concerns of so many labeled "Christian" today reflect little of Jesus' actual teaching and purpose? 

Why aren't more Christians asking these questions?

A New Old Orthodoxy

"When the Jew said something was ‘predestined,’ he thought of it as already ‘existing’ in a higher sphere of life. The world’s history is thus predestined because it is already, in a sense, preexisting and consequently fixed. This typically Jewish conception of predestination may be distinguished from the Greek idea of preexistence by the predominance of the thought of ‘preexistence’ in the Divine purpose."

E.C. Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, The Hulsean Prize Essay for 1908 (Cambridge University Press, 1912), 253f.

God is not a Hebrew, but has chosen to communicate to the world via the Jewish people (e.g. prophets and his son). Merely because something or other is Jewish does not mean it is inherently better or closer in proximity to God's heart. They were the conduit through whom God chose to tell his saving story. But to understand the story as it was originally intended, simply reading the Jewish message that was placed into their world and cultural context with any paradigm has often severely distorted that message. When the writers used words and definition, it cannot be supposed that what they meant means the same thing in a twenty-first century context. Language changes, cultures shift and what Paul really meant can get glossed by later explanations that would not have been indigenous to his historical context and theological edifice. With the rise of historical analysis, the new perspectives on Paul were inevitable and much needed. 

Being or thinking like a Greek (westerner) is not wrong. But to take the Greek worldview, definition or ways of thinking and impose it on what radically different Jewish writers were communicating is to do violence to the original message. For example, we cannot read Paul and assume that he was a Trinitarian. To go into the text with that anachronistic presumption and interpret his words through a fourth and fifth century filter is to miss what he actually was saying. We don't have to assume that Paul's idea of kenosis matches that of many modern interpreter's opinions regarding the Carmen Christi.

The Second Temple Jewish view of preexistence is virtually absent in our world of Christian congregants. When a post-modern interpreter thinks of preexistence, it is generally not with the opinion that God's foreknown purpose was thought to have preexisted the reality. Greeks (westerners) tend toward thinking in terms of abstract metaphysics and ontological categories. If Jesus preexisted (whatever that actually means), he must therefore of necessity have existed in some other form (i.e. logos theology) before entering the womb of Mary. 

When biblical titles like Son of God are redefined by using later definition, it is not difficult to see how the shift in this thinking occurred. With neo-Platonism governing the overall approach to biblical hermeneutics, and the spark of creativity in the air, the Patristics - and eventually the councils - replaced the NT (based on OT use) Son of God with a philosophically contrived God the Son. Thus, a new "orthodoxy" was born. It threatened - under the pain of excommunication and eternal damnation - that its definitions and dogmas must be unquestioningly accepted for salvation (Athanasian Creed). Jesus was subsequently torn out of his Hebraic world and placed into another. Geza Vermes put it well in The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, 

“Compared to the dynamic religion of Jesus, fully evolved Christianity seems to belong to another world.”

The use of Jewish foreknowledge and pre-ordination was ripped from its own context and sculpted around a twisted philosophical template of John's Gospel. 

"This man [Jesus], delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" Acts 2:23 (c.f. 1 Peter 1:2).

 God already had it predetermined; the plan was there, but did not make its appearance upon the stage of humanity until it literally came into existence. It did, or was said to exist in a different way before its revelation.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, “Revelation” says it well,

"God avails Himself of human thought and speech to make Himself known and His speech intelligible." 

He does not reveal himself in illogical or intangible ways. However, it must be qualified that just because traditional Christianity has based much of its belief on tradition and has muddied the waters, does not mean it was difficult and challenging to the original hearers. The NT and OT are thoroughly Jewish collections of writing. Its writers were Jewish, and most of its audience was Jewish (obviously there are intended Gentile recipients within the Pauline corpus). Post-modern readership has approached their interpretive reading with a Greek (western) perspective, this cannot be helped. It has been handed down from the church and early post-biblical creeds which neglected the context and cultural significance of utmost importance, that Jesus was a Jew who thought and taught in Rabbinical Jewish ways with Jewish interpretations, hermeneutics and categories. It is a person of ignorance who claims that they can close their eyes and ears to this reality. Our savior was a Jew and came into existence by birth, not, as Irenaeus has it: 

"This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube." 

This is something radically different from Matthew and Luke’s description that Jesus was brought into existence inside Mary, by the power of God. Greg Deuble in his book, They Never Told Me This in Church noted that 

"Protestants who deplore tradition-bound Roman Catholics because they revere Church tradition above the Scriptures fail to see that in some areas they are just as bound to tradition, i.e. to long held interpretations of Scriptures."

J. R. D. Kirk I believe summarized it well, 

“We sometimes see divinity where the text doesn’t require it because that is the theology we bring with us to the text.”

Book Review: The One: In Defense of God

I am honored to say that I am a friend of J. Dan Gill. In the past few months, my family and I enjoyed the fantastic southern hospitality of Dan and his wonderful wife Sharron. Together, with their wide spectrum of combined talents, they run the 21st Century Reformation web site. 

Dan magnanimously provided me with a copy of his new book "The One: In Defense of God," and so I offer this short review.

This apologetic work is a skillfully woven case not only for theism, but something he refers to as monotarianism (p. 98), the existence of one God as one person. He begins his defense in the introduction as though his audience has little to no understanding of who God is or even possesses doubt regarding his existence. Quite naturally then, he begins with atheism and agnosticism, systematically working his way into examining the ways various people groups throughout the ages have thought about the divine and worshipped the “gods.” He investigates and calls into question the traditional ways Christendom has been conditioned to think about God throughout the past two millennia. Not surprisingly, the testimonies of such voices are often found confusing, contradictory and unnecessarily complicated.

The foundation of Hebrew Scriptures and the witness of the New Testament take precedent for Dan over the years of bishop and emperor governed councils and subsequent theological tradition: 

“Multi-personal orthodoxy ultimately triumphed not because it was a good idea or because it was biblical – it was neither. Rather, it prevailed because of persecution. With the coming of Emperor Constantine the Great and his embracing of Christianity, Christians were allowed to exist freely in the Roman world. However, that freedom applied only to people who adhered to the version of Christianity approved by Constantine and his successors” p. 255.

Dan constructs his arguments layer by layer in a clear, direct and understandable way that any layman would be able to fully appreciate. He calls relevant scholarship to the figurative witness stand for the sake of providing testimony, often revealing dubious characters, sinister plots and heinous acts.

Dan writes with a warm, friendly and gentle tone. Great heart and genuineness bleed through the pages as he discusses a plethora of issues that have captivated some Christians and addled others. He provides sufficient detail without becoming too technical or academic for the average reader. Technical details on topics that require greater explanation are put in chapter end-notes.

As I worked my way through the book, I found a number of short, quotable gems: 

“If it were not for the abuses of some religious people, there would be far fewer agnostics and atheists” p. 14. 

At the conclusion of this case, I resoundingly concurred with the verdict. The statements made in his closing remarks offer an appropriate challenge on which Christians should ruminate:  

“Will we forever allow ourselves to be mesmerized by proof-texting, faulty syllogisms and non-scriptural examples . . . will we cling to the notion that we are invincible? We need to quit believing our own Christian propaganda that Christianity could never be wrong in the matter of defining God” p. 263.

Messianics, Scripture and the Trinity

Here is a great article by Paul Sumner from Hebrew Streams on the inner workings of the doctrine of the Trinity. He makes some crucial observations:

"...the lack of resonance with the Trinity Model among many Western Christians is because they can't "find" it when they read the Bible. It isn't native to the Jewish, Semitic, Hebrew Scriptures — or to the Judaic New Testament. It breathes another mind, from outside."

"Theologians tell us the Doctrine is unfathomable. But their oft-used expression "the mystery of the Trinity" wasn't coined by slow-witted Galilean fishermen or earth-bound shepherds in the hills above Bethlehem or bemused shopkeepers in ancient Jerusalem. It was coined by theologians themselves who speculated about the Godhead and literally didn't understand what they and their colleagues had concocted. Yet they were very sure everyone had to say they believe in the unfathomable doctrine."

"Eventually, you will hear an intimidating — but faux — argument: 'Dear brother, so you think 2,000 years of Christian history have been wrong? And you know better than all the great spiritual leaders of the Church?' That's a piercing but irrelevant and inquisitorial taunt. In response, it's fair to ask whether theologically pristine leaders of the Church were doing God's will when they dethroned Jesus as "the one Mediator between God and men" (1 Tim 2:5) and enthroned Mary in his place, and repeatedly preached Jew-hate and incited violence and mass murder against the Jewish people. Did their orthodox doctrine of the Godhead prevent them from descending into apostasy and blasphemy?"

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part XI - Conclusion

Smith addressed numerous phrases often used in an attempt to buttress Jesus as having been an incarnated deity, such as “the word [logos] became flesh” and “come into the world” p. 39, 136, 137-9, 168-9.

He also analyzed the Synoptic emphasis on begetting, “the moment he came into existence” p. 139. This language is frequently accompanied by the reader’s presupposition, as if the gospel writers intended only Jesus’ human nature came into existence, thus communicating Jesus is somehow more than human. He goes on to say, 

“the Synoptics call Jesus an anthrōpos a total of eleven times (three times in Matthew 3; two times in Mark; six times in Luke). What may be surprising to some is the increased persistence regarding Jesus’ humanity within the Fourth Gospel, which calls him an anthrōpos fifteen times – more than Matthew, Mark, and Luke combined!” p. 139.

Irons was adamant that the 

“historic, orthodox interpretation of the birth narratives…is superior to Smith’s psilanthropic interpretation because it is consistent with the New Testament’s preexistence-incarnation teaching.”

Irons made the claim that 

“by focusing on the virgin birth, they teach that Jesus is the divine Son of God who took true human nature into personal union with himself by being born of the virgin” p. 154. 

Apart from being entirely outside the scope of Synoptic data and relevance, this is also wholly an eisegetical and anachronistic perspective. The Gospel writers make no such claim.

While Irons foundationally objected to Smith’s “methodology” on the grounds of a perceived reliance on Jewish literature, Irons exemplified somewhat of a double-standard, being completely dependent on later views forced upon the Jesus narratives, all the while claiming his paradigm to be derivative from the biblical text. 

Smith covered a great deal of Christological ground in short order, as to the New Testament’s identity of Jesus. He examined the title “Son of God” within biblical context and use, rather than a Nicene and ontological one: 

“It should come as no surprise that Jesus frequently spoke about his identity. Within the Gospels, Jesus refers to himself most often as the Son of Man, the messianic human agent of judgment from Daniel 7:13…No less than forty times does Jesus address God as ‘My Father.’ As a good Jewish monotheist who without hesitation affirmed Judaism’s Shema (Mark 12:28-34), Jesus identified the Father as ‘My God’ ten times (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; Rev 3:2, 20). Since the Father was Jesus’ God, he regularly claimed his unreserved subordination to Him by saying things like ‘the Father is greater than all,’ ‘the Father is greater than I,’ and so forth (John 10:29; 14:28; 20:17” p. 141-142.

The statements made by the Gospel narratives concerning Jesus’ identity were not taken as stated by Smith’s interlocutor Irons, but were coupled with an interpretation of Phil 2 and divine self-emptying (meaning an ontologically divine self) p.148. This interpretation finds its way into Irons’s perspective of what the Gospel writers intended, i.e. only the human aspect of the divine Son of God.

There are of course multitudinous details that could continue to be examined regarding this discussion, but it’s high time to close the cover (I don’t like to keep too many Irons in the fire). In my opinion, while arguing with class and clarity, both Irons and Dixon failed to provide any conclusive evidence to substantiate their views (whether historically Orthodox or not), and I failed to be convinced.

Out of all three essays and subsequent interaction, Smith stuck to the core of biblical evidence, and I found his premises to be derived from solid historical and cultural contexts without imposing anachronistic arguments or extraneous issues.

Throughout the discourse, while a mutual consensus of Jesus’ identity between the three interlocutors was not reached, nor were there hailed “victors,” the goal of a gentlemanly, coherent and scholarly dialogue accessible for non-academics most certainly was.

I want to commend Lee Irons, Danny Dixon and Dustin Smith for their contributions resulting in a valuable work that will no doubt become an asset for people in years to come, as there are those seeking to educate themselves on basic arguments from multiple sides of this ancient conversation. Upon completing the last segment of the dialogue, the reader is left with a framework and comprehensive bibliography to further examine any of the issues discussed.

It is my hope – as I am sure is also true of the authors – that many individuals as a result, will do just that. Don’t be afraid, dig in.

 - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (Hos 4:6; Isa 5:13)

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part X

Much of Smith’s argument focused on addressing literal versus notional preexistence. Using Old and New Testaments as well as a wide range of ancient Jewish literature, Smith demonstrably produced convincing evidence for notional preexistence.

In his response, Irons objects to “Smith’s methodology,” stating that he could not 

“follow Smith in elevating this early Jewish literature to such heights that it is capable of defining the qualifications for the Messiah” p. 149. 

I believe this to be an inaccurate assessment of Smith’s presentation, there was no indication that Smith derived his Christology or claimed to do so from anywhere but the Scriptures. His citation of Jewish literature was patently for the purpose of illuminating perspectives of the Second Temple era, examining the various methods, metaphors and allegorical ways of speaking concerning the religious dynamics of utmost value in the worship and service to their covenant God, Yahweh.

Smith points out that the subjects of (but not limited to) the patriarchs, the Torah and (name of) Messiah etc. were among the most important elements in their worldview. 

“Things which are fixed within God’s plans are regularly spoken of as having already taken place, despite the fact that they clearly have not done so in the literal sense (see Gen 15:18; 28:4; 35:12; 2 Kgs 19:25; Matt 6:1; Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 2:7; 2 Cor 5:1)” p. 102-105.

Despite the hyperbolic presence of “heavenly messenger” (e.g. 1 Enoch, p. 149) language, the notion that these texts must necessarily spell out messianic expectation to have been a human being is absurd. The foundation and bedrock of messianic hope was first detailed in Deut 18, where God had promised he would raise-up a prophet like Moses from among the community of Israel, not that he would send an existing angelic messenger or incarnate himself. This individual was not expected to be anything other than human; it didn’t need to be re-defined. In these other texts however, embellishment not redefinition, is often exhibited. Smith never suggested biblical definition should be abandoned for or surveyed as equal to extra-biblical texts.

In the final reply to his challengers, Smith expressed his astonishment concerning the disregard of various Jewish texts: 

“I am disappointed that my employment of Jewish texts in an attempt to recreate plausible historical contexts was so effortlessly dismissed. Any text, biblical or extra-biblical, needs to be placed into its proper context…I find it rather amazing that Irons waves the sola scriptura flag in defense of his position, seeing how the consensus of Church historians is that the Trinity was a slowly developing doctrine of the course of the first five centuries. Scholars who have attempted to acutely define the specifics regarding how ‘a preexisting being can become human’ are regularly puzzled, forcing them to retort to unpersuasive lingo concerning a ‘mystery [which] can only be described in terms of a paradox’” p. 176.

A Shema Conspiracy?

970 times the adjective echad (one) occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. This word is the simple, numerical word for one, as in “two are better than one [echad]” Ecc 4:9 or “if one [echad] can overpower him who is alone, two [shenayim] can resist him. A cord of three [shalash] strands is not quickly torn apart” 4:12. The words echad, shenayim, shalash are equivalent to one, two, three in English.

The adjective yachad (unity or denoting togetherness) occurs 45 times. Among many examples are “the kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together [yachad] against Yahweh and against his anointed” Psa 2:2 and “behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity [yachad]!” Psa 133:1.

The adjective yachid (special, unique, solidarity) occurs a heaping 12 times in such ways as “Take now your son, your only [yachid] son, whom you love” Gen 22:2 and “God makes a home for the lonely [yachid]” Psa 68:6.

This may strike some as useless or trivial information, but be assured that battles have been fought over less. As useful and helpful a tool as the internet can be, it can also be a destructive mechanism for endlessly disseminating falsehoods. One must do proper research and check the validity of claims before accepting them as authentic. The argument over the word echad and its implications for supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is no exception.

There have been some – especially among the Messianic movement - who claim that in Hebrew the word echad denotes “a compound plural/unity.” The shema, which is the closest match to a declarative credal statement in Judaism is found in Deut 6:4, “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!”

Needless debate and endless quarrels have arisen in recent (and not so recent) times regarding this subject, but the point of the matter (pun intended) is that facts tell the story. The word echad is never a “compound plural/unity.” Though the accusation has been made, the truth of the matter is that ancient (or modern) Rabbis did not replace echad with yachid (meaning unique, special or solitary) or contrariwise for the sake of covering a supposedly Trinitarian aphorism in the shema.

It is a verifiable fact that there are no existing Hebrew texts (at least in my searching) of Deut 6:4 which contain, or as some seem to suggest, “retain” yachid rather than echad. If such a conspiracy of the rabbis existed, where an attempt was made to hide the “later truth” of a “Triune Godhead” uncovered by third-century AD Christian Bishops that was Israel’s hidden, covenant-God all long, shouldn’t at least one manuscript bear witness of this atrocity? Every extant manuscript of the Torah at verse 4 reads as echad. These manuscripts were meticulously hand-copied utilizing numerous scribes and witnesses to validate their accuracy. Even when entering into the age of the printing-press, bringing with it new bibles and commentaries, throughout the transition, the reading remained consistent.

In the NT, the proof stands for itself, never is the shema redefined as proof of Jesus’ divinity or for a Triune Godhead. Scholars such as Wright and Hurtado have made attempts and continue to opine that 1 Cor 8:6 is an instance where Paul split the shema, redefining it to include Jesus within the identity of Yahweh. The view has multiple issues, having many scholars in disagreement, but it is not the subject of this post. Either way, it may aid views of binitarianism, but does nothing to propose a tri-personal God.

Mark 12:29 is an instance where Jesus, after being interrogated as to the greatest command, cited the shema, “Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.” The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the HS is quoted where the Greek word heis, is the translator’s choice for the word echad. While it is true that heis can be used in a collective sense such as Paul’s words to the Galatians, “you are all one in Christ” (3:28) it does not work in the designation of God due to the singular pronouns that accompany it.

Ultimately it comes down to the theological traditions to which people are conformed and the lenses through which they have chosen to see. Though it comes with a cost as high as textual veracity, when the apotheosized traditional dogma is threatened, it readily becomes apparent that anything goes. This is a hopeless argument.

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part IX

In the third section of The Son of God:Three Views of the Identity of Jesus, Dustin Smith takes the podium and gives a solid apology for his position. He provides the reader with a brief sketch of his story which was instrumental in shaping his current perspective. He also began by summarizing the conclusions he has drawn as being 

“the result of pursuing the question concerning the identity of Jesus” 

and a 

“personal quest,” 

to which I can intimately relate. p.128

   

Smith’s argument consisted of examining 

“the expectations of the Messiah from the Hebrew Bible” and “how those texts were interpreted in the Second Temple period…the birth of the Messiah…key data from relevant texts…the life and teaching of Jesus, particularly how both Jesus viewed himself and how other viewed him…the importance of the suffering and death of the Messiah…Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation” and “texts which describe the return of Jesus to consummate the kingdom of God upon the earth” p. 128.

At the outset of Irons’s response to Smith’s essay, he began by attempting to place a determinative label on what was presented, “a view called psilanthropism.” Irons defined this for the reader in the footnotes: 

“from the Greek words psilis (mere) + anthrõpos (man)” p. 146. 

My reasoning for citing this is due to its nature as an archetypal remark often encountered when a “high Christology” is being defended against lower Christological inquiries or persuasions. As I briefly sketched earlier in this series, Irons’s definition of “divine” had to do with ontology; he was tenacious on that point. What becomes a great muddle when describing the “humanity” of Jesus is, regardless whether from the orthodox perspective and the doctrine of two-natures or from a “psilanthropic” one, the questions naturally needing to be answered are, “what does it mean to be human,” and “was Jesus properly in this classification?” Perhaps then, the archaic notion of what is meant by “mere man” can begin to be addressed.

Is this supposed to be a declaration of ontology, that Jesus was more than flesh and blood unlike the rest of humanity, and his cellular composition was on another level or in alternative class? Or, does this mean that Jesus was flesh and blood in his humanity just like all other members of the human race (as orthodoxy itself describes) but was not a mere man in his nature, essential character as well as his relationship to and with God?

If the latter is correct, then in my reading of his discourse, Smith’s opinion regarding Jesus’ identity falls well into this category; Jesus was no “mere” or ordinary man in this way. The discussion is too often textually extraneous, where anything short of divine and full equality with God - in an ontological sense – provides one side of a false dichotomy opposed to a degrading sense of Jesus presented as a “mere man” on the other. Was Moses a “mere” man? Were Adam, David, Abraham, Joshua, Elijah, John B. “mere” men? Smith follows up this dialogue with the following: 

“Irons seems to have misunderstood my position by his repeated claim that I supposedly paint Jesus as being ‘a mere man.’ I wish to respond by stating that this designation is an unfair representation of both my Christology and of my initial essay.”

Smith went on to list many characteristics and descriptions which set Jesus in a position of exalted status. p 167-8 This argument often contains a combination of conflicting terminology, therefore when discussing the historical Jesus one must be cognizant that it is not an ontological discussion. Jesus’ role as the ideal human who is greater than any other to ever exist, having become the second Adam, restoring the image, the one who reveals the Father, the king of Israel through whom God is bringing about recreation, having attained first-born status and subsequent inheritance by right, among many others places him wholly outside of mere man. These are all biblical themes woven into the fabric of the Jesus story.

Trinities Post - The Son of God Review

I was flattered to have Dr. Dale Tuggy from Trinities.org dedicate a post to my review of The Son of God. 

Be sure to head on over and check it out. While you're there, snoop around a bit, he has some amazing content.

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part VIII

Throughout his segment of the book, Dixon made some great observations and thoughtful analysis. I was not however, persuaded by his overall thesis, that Jesus is a divine being (although not “divine” as defined by Irons), who literally existed before his birth as the preincarnate logos. At the commencement of his short and thorough Arian oeuvre, Dixon presented the fundamental premise of his presentation:

“divine as he [Jesus] may have been (John 1:1) he is not eternal in the sense of having had no beginning, nor is he Almighty God – mighty and exalted as Jesus the Christ may be, any more so than God’s other children will eventually be (John 1:12; John 3:1-2)” p. 65.

Dixon was somewhat vague in his explanation of Jesus’ origin:

“I believe the one who became Jesus came to have existence with God as a sentient individual at some unrevealed time before becoming a human individual, born as miraculously as was Adam the original human son of God (Luke 3:38) or his helper who corresponded to him (Gen 1:26-27; 2:18-25).”

Dixon does accept the miraculous events that brought about the birth of Jesus, however he does not see this as being this "sentient individual's" origin. While he did not specify, this naturally communicates that Jesus was the human aspect of a preincarnate divine “self” known as the logos. This logos (sometimes mistakenly identified as Jesus) was the instrument of God in the creation of cosmos in Dixon’s way of reckoning.

With no disrespect toward Mr. Dixon, his intention to produce evidence for Jesus as a preexisting divine figure, who instead of being “out of” Mary (Smith rightly and crucially points out p. 98) as the gospels describe, is rather imagined as having traveled “through” her. This, in my opinion is not convincing. On page 45, Smith - replying to Irons - addressed this very thing,

“Irenaeus seems to be exaggerating when he writes, ‘This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube,’ something radically different from Matthew’s and Luke’s insistence that Jesus was brought into being inside his mother Mary.”

The Bible’s clear language of “begetting” and what that entails has been sacrificed for another definition.

Dixon then proceeded through a series of investigations into Jewish writings and motifs. I found his citations to be a compelling and reasonable synopsis of the messianic milieu, although not a convincing proof for Arianism. His developed investigation was true to his stated objectives:

“1. The one and only ‘God’ ought to be understood as Jews of Second Temple monotheism understood him to be. 2. The exclusiveness of Father-God Yahweh/Jehovah is not comprised by exalted, worshiped, and Yahweh-functioning human or angelic figures who are also presented in the Second Temple-period writings as gods. 3. Jesus’ position and treatment is a result of his exaltation, which parallels secondary figures in Judaism. 4. Jesus’ life is derived from the Father” p. 66.

I have no objections to his claims, but these do not presuppose a preexistent divine figure. Dixon covered many key issues often misunderstood by well-meaning Christians:

“The Bible affirms that there is only one true God (Deut 6:4; John 17:3; 1 Tim 2:5), and while it would be easy for a believer to say that because there is only one God all other gods are false, this would be an oversimplification from the standpoint of the biblical data.” 

Dixon then quotes Carl Mosser,

“Moderns are often unaware that theos had a much broader semantic range than is allowed for G/god in contemporary Western European languages” p. 67.

Quoting from James McGrath, he also rightly concludes that agents who represent an authority are an important piece of evidence to not be ignored:

“Agency was an important part of everyday life in the ancient world. Individuals such as prophets and angels mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures were thought of as ‘agents’ of God. And the key idea regarding agency in the ancient world appears to be summarized in the phrase from rabbinic literature so often quoted in these contexts: ‘The one sent is like the one who sent him.’ The result is that the agent can not only carry out divine functions but also be depicted in divine language, sit on God’s throne or alongside God, and even bear the divine name” p. 67, from McGrath, Only True God, 14.

Dixon made another great comment,

“The ability of a Jewish author to speak of one who is an exalted divine agent as 'your God' demonstrates just how far agency was understood to go – even to the point of permitting the transfer of God’s titles to God’s specially appointed agents.” 

Here, Dixon again departs from the definition of “divine” as used by Irons. Dixon is not promoting an ontological identity with Yahweh as Irons did, but rather a subordinate position to him, stating that God

“is ontologically superior to and apart from him” p. 33.

Dixon spent a fair amount of time investigating the Melchizedek character, and other than strengthening his development of agency and actions said to be performed by Melchizedek, I am not entirely sure what his intention was or how it aided in determining whether or not Jesus was a preexistent divine being alongside God.

It also seemed to me in numerous places as though the concept of notional or ideal preexistence presented succinctly by Smith was not even taken into consideration by Irons or Dixon, but rather brushed aside as implausible. Dixon especially, who quoted from a wide variety of Jewish literature from the Second Temple period would surely have known that what Smith presented was a common element of thought. Instead, a literal preexistence and conscious existing with the Father in some form or another was preferred by Irons and Dixon amid the difficulties this reading poses on multiple hermeneutical levels. For example, on page 113 Dixon - responding to Smith – wrote,

“Enoch, Jacob and others preexisted their human existence according to Second Temple Jewish literature. This is problematic for a point of view that says no one could have imagined such.”

Perhaps I am missing the weight of the argument, but what reason is there to conclude that Second Temple use of preexistence concerning exalted figures and patriarchs are not within terms of ideal preexistence and hyperbolic narratives? Am I to conclude from these pieces of literature that Jews envisioned the Torah to be errant when it told of the births of Jacob from his mother, that Jacob only came into flesh at that time? To conclude that literal preexistence was normative based on these texts is a seemingly tenuous thread on which to hang one's argument.

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part VII

On page 61 in response to Smith’s arguments, Irons - explaining the delicate balance between the Son’s divine and human natures - spoke of the self-imposed limitations the Son took upon himself when he came into union with human nature. Irons respectfully chided Smith for a rather “superficial understanding” of the “historic doctrine of the two natures of Christ” 60. 

Irons here again postulates the existence of a two-natures primacy: 

“The Council of Chalcedon, based on the teaching of Scripture, helped define for the church the language and the theological grammar that ought to be used in speaking of the two natures of Jesus…although the Bible sometimes uses paradoxical language…’The Son does not know the day or the hour of his coming’ means ‘The Son, according to his human nature, does not know the day or the hour of his coming.’ ‘The Son died’ means ‘The Son died according to his human nature.’  The divine nature of the Son is omniscient and immortal. But because of the incarnation, the Son has taken a true human nature into personal union with himself, so that the Son can experience human things like not knowing everything, being tested and tempted, hungering and thirsting, dying, being raised from the dead, and so on” 61.

There are multiple difficulties embedded within these statements, so I will comment on each one separately:

The text. 

There is nothing within the texts cited to insinuate that the reading offered by Irons the genuine intent of the author. It is a mistake to anachronistically read “Son” as the later, ontological second person of the Trinity, as “defined” at Chalcedon. The synoptics refer to the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and mean what they say. To suggest that the texts infer only the human half of the “Son” is presumptuous, calling into question the reliability of context and language.

The Son, himself. 

Irons used the phrase, 

“the Son has taken a true human nature into personal union with himself.” 

His use and presupposition of the “Son” is problematic because the synoptic use refers not to the divine nature and/or preincarnate Son, but the historical human Jesus. Irons seemed to reflect that in his understanding of the two natures, there was not a balanced union of human to divinity present within the “Son,” but rather a divine “self” who put on a human robe. Irons used “himself” to refer to the divine, preincarnate “Son” who took “a true human nature.” This again, borders on Docetism, where the “Son” only seemed to be human, was merely a human apparition or manifestation of a divine reality. Another implication of this is that the preincarnate “Son” did indeed change if in fact he became a split person of two natures, due to him having an eternal existence when he was not incarnated.

Omniscience. 

If a being is omniscient, then there isn't anything that being does not know. Irons’s reasoning for the Son taking up a human nature was 

“so that the Son can experience human things like not knowing everything, being tested and tempted, hungering and thirsting, dying, being raised from the dead, and so on.” 

This is a contradiction, not a paradox. If a being is omniscient, then experience in order to “gain knowledge” of something is completely unnecessary, due to it already being known in an "all knowing" mind. If the Son did not “know” without experience, the Son was not omniscient. Such explanations are wholly outside the scope of biblical data. Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift?

Dying.

Irons’s use of the Son was at certain points that of the two-nature identification, and not only the human nature. He said,

“When the Gospels tell us that Jesus died by crucifixion, they are not saying that the divine nature died – which is impossible – but that his human nature died, or, more accurately that Jesus the Son of God died according to his human nature.”

It aroused my curiosity further when Irons posited that the Son came into personal union with

“true human nature…so that the Son can experience human things like…dying, being raised from the dead…” 

If the preincarnate Son, the Logos, the divine nature could not die (“which is impossible” according to Irons), how then does the “Son” experience dying if when incarnating into “true human nature” he laid aside all divinity and divine knowledge? This raises questions concerning God’s (the Son) cognitive access into the human consciousness of the human Jesus, creating implications for God being incarnate in everyone. Is Irons suggesting a two-minds premise? Hick, citing Thomas Morris’s “two-minds” Christology theory states,

“there was what can be called an asymmetric accessing relation between the two minds. Think, for example, of two computer programs or informational systems, one containing but not contained by the other. The divine mind had full and direct access to the earthly human experience resulting from the incarnation, but the earthly consciousness did not have such a full and direct access to the content of the overarching omniscience proper to the Logos, but only such access, on occasion, as the divine mind allowed it to have.”

To which Hick then comments, 

“I conclude that the two-minds Christology fails to give an intelligible meaning to the idea of divine incarnation and is in the end no better than the two-substances Christology which it seeks to replace.” Hick, Metaphor, 50, 60.

The point of the matter is that the Scripture never discusses or assumes this is the reality of Jesus of Nazareth. 

One Great Tri-Personal Book - Part VI

On page 32 Dixon challenged Irons regarding the son’s aseity, and in passing, references John 5:26, questioning how the son could have aseity if that life was granted. Responding to Dixon on page 57, Irons got a bit linguistically creative and asserted that “grant” has another definition from its 

“ordinary meaning, that is when it is predicated of creatures, normally implies a temporal sequence in which a creature comes into possession of something it did not previously possess. But that ordinary meaning does not fit here, otherwise the verse would be self-contradictory. Therefore, it is best to see the Father’s ‘grant’ of life to the Son as an eternal or timeless grant – admittedly not an ordinary use of the verb ‘grant,’ but then again, this is no ordinary context.” 

I would be intrigued to see this dictionary of word definitions with extraordinary meanings. This is another example where Irons seems to use a circular argument. It is seen by Irons as a place where an “ordinary meaning” does not fit, but in this case he believes it communicates the ontological qualities of the Son of God’s aseity. How is one to draw-out “eternal or timeless granting” from didōmi? I submit this is not what the text nor the word “granted” allows.

Although it is an age-old way of speaking of the son’s relationship to the Father, an ontological Son of God who has two natures has nonetheless still failed to meet the basic tenets of human speech and comprehension. When the ancient writers put their quill to parchment or orally disseminated the stories pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth, did they use intelligible language meant to communicate an idea for the express purpose of being understood by their audience, or did they use secret gnosis language not intended to be fully appreciated until the later fathers explained?

What is the point of "sonship" if one does not truly come from the other but eternally existed alongside? Why say “son” at all if it is not what is being communicated? Why use “beget” if not within the scope of human terminology and cognition?

The argument containing later “divine Son” nomenclature that Irons recapitulates fails to persuade:

“The Son always was included within the divine identity or essence, eternally, by the Father’s eternal generation of the Son. The exaltation of Christ does not change, create, or add to it. It merely makes it evident to us so that we can now see what was true of him all along. The reason the exaltation of Christ is needed is because the Son emptied himself by becoming man, thus temporarily and partially hiding aspects of his divine identity” 50.

Within this rational, I am therefore obligated to abandon all rules of grammar and logic and accept on faith that the true definition of “son” is actually an ontological category, denoting identity with Yahweh? I am to accept that what the human Jesus did, resulting in his exaltation didn’t matter, because it only revealed what was already there? This fails to meet any qualification for true humanity. Hick precisely points out, 

“Merely to assert that two different natures coexisted in Jesus ‘without confusion, without change, without division, without separation’ is to utter a form of words which as yet has no specified meaning. The formula sets before us a ‘mystery’ rather than a ‘clear and distinct idea’. Further, this is not a divine mystery but one that was created by a group of human beings meeting at Chalcedon in present-day Turkey in the mid-fifth century. Many attempts were made in the great period of Christological debates, both before and after Chalcedon, to give intelligible meaning to the idea of a God-man. However, they all failed to meet the basic Chalcedonian desiderata, namely to affirm both Jesus’ deity and his humanity, and accordingly they had to be rejected as heresies…This fallacy, however, within such appeals to mystery as a substitute for conceptual clarity is that the kenotic Christology is not a revealed truth but…a theory. It is a humanly devised hypothesis; and we cannot save a defective hypothesis by dubbing it a divine mystery.”  Hick, Metaphor, 48, 71.

On page 53, in response to Dixon and Smith’s challenges, Irons offered the following lines again, 

"Jesus’ claim to be son of God," 

“making himself equal with God” and 

“the divine son of God as he claims”

 as though he had successfully proven Son of God is ontological and denotes the later “God the Son.” It's not ontology that is being called into question by Jesus’ detractors, but authority.

On page 54, when appealing again to the three-stage Christology and the “self-emptying” of the “Son, subsequently taking the form of a bondservant, Irons wrote, 

“he voluntary chose not to exercise all of his divine attributes and prerogatives, making himself appear as a mere human, although his divine glory did shine through at times even during his humiliation and prior to his exaltation.” 54

Perhaps I am misunderstanding his intentions with these lines, but they have a tone of Docetism and make me wonder whether he ascribes to the Chalcedonian creed at all. Jesus did not merely “appear” human, he was an actual, full flesh and blood human with the same characteristics as us.

Regarding the two natures, am I to conclude that the divine nature (or center of consciousness) of the Son is the God aspect, but the human nature is not mere human but is also in some sense God? His human nature only looked human, but was somehow not? I understand the orthodox position on the matter to be that the second member of the Triune God was in two natures, divine and human, God and man (vague and confusing though it is). The hypostatic union was the full divine Son in union with full flesh and blood human, Jesus of Nazareth: 

“Perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man…made in all things like us, sin only excepted…must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, distinctly, inseparably [united]…the special property of each nature being preserved and being united in One Person and subsistence…” Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon, NPNF second series, vol. 14, 264-265.

On page 56, responding to Dixon’s claim of the Logos being an agent of creation but not God himself, Irons used again his creature/creator argument, and attempted to clarify his meaning in Paul’s words, “all things” (1 Cor 15:27), how it cannot include God, but rather those things of the created order. I found it humorous when Irons made the following statement,

“it must include all created things. If it included all things that exist, then it would include God the Father himself, which would mean that God created himself – an obvious absurdity.”

When I read this, I had to think that “creating himself” seems no less absurd than what I must conclude when reading of Jesus’ calling the Father “his God.” Perhaps this issue can be resolved by appealing to the “human nature” argument, the catch-all paradox. God being his own God, God creating himself; it sure is a toss-up.