Preexistence and Incarnation
I have very little disagreement with this section of Irons’s essay I wonder, though, why Irons can speak of Jesus as preexistent Logos who “existed as a divine being distinct from God.” Although he seems to embrace the historic view of the Trinity as set forth in The Westminster Confession of Faith, he uses the word Trinity only twice and within only an inch or two of space of each reference to it, and has a very unconventional but apparently scholar-welcome (e.g., Richard Bauckham) conception of it. The references he gives from John’s Gospel and the Johannine epistles seem on-target (at least, I agree with his brief listing of them), and I can even agree that Phil 2:5–11 may very well be a very early statement of Christian understanding predating liberal scholarship’s erroneous view that the high Christology found in the Gospel of John is something developed and finalized well into the second century.
Two Tests of Ontological Deity
Creation
Without question Jesus is set forth in Scripture as being creator (John 1:3, 10; Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6).48 Irons examines the wording of all the passages emphasizing the all-inclusive language in which both “Paul and John go out of their way to eliminate any exceptions.” But note that, for example, Hebrews 2:8 says that “God has put all things in subjection under [Christ’s] feet. For in that he [God] put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” Someone might read Heb 2:8 without acknowledging Scripture as a whole and argue against the existence of any exception to those things that are put under Christ.
However, 1 Cor 15:27 shows that there is an exception to “all things” under Christ, saying: “When he saith all things are put under him [Jesus], it is manifest that he [God] is excepted, which did put all things under him.”49 The idea that is presented is that given certain things one would understand from prior knowledge based on other Scripture, some things are manifestly excepted. Leaving theological presuppositions aside before making lexicographical decisions permits taking the Greek word prōtotokos to pertain literally to birth order (as applied to Jesus in Col 1:15).50 Consider also Jesus’ affirmation that the Father granted that the Son would have life in himself (John 5:26). He also says in connection with his sending commission by God, “I live because of the Father” (John 6:57). Jesus came into being as first-born from (Gk. ek) God, and the rest of creation came into existence through the agency of (Gk. dia) Christ.
Aseity
Irons presents several examples of attributes of God which he says are tests of his ontological deity. Indeed, he joins Herman Bavinck in affirming aseity as what may be the primary attribute of God’s being. These are characteristics that only God has from himself. Then regarding John 5:26 he observes that God who has life in himself grants that status to Christ. One cannot have that which he has not obtained, so there is a logical problem with Irons’s understanding of the biblical phrase “has life in himself” as applied to Christ. John’s wording does indeed start from the perspective that life was something that the Father already had without consideration in the text of the origin of that life. So it is self-existent. But Jesus’ status as a living entity has a beginning. Christ’s nonexistence—when he did not have life in himself—changes from the point that the Father gave him life and certainly continues from that point forward. Irons lists Heb 13:8, which says “Jesus is unchanging, ‘the same yesterday and today and forever,’” and argues that the statement implies eternity.
Certainly “forever” can extend unendingly into the future. But it is an absurd idea that just because a status begun at a point in time yesterday continues to every yesterday past. Finally along this line Irons cites Heb 1:11–12, pulled from the Septuagint reading of Ps 102:25–27, where the Lord’s created heaven and earth are contrasted with his continuity into future eternity. The passage does not speak of this Lord’s eternal existence into both past and future. It identifies this Lord as having been the cause of the created order (discussion supra [v. 10] notwithstanding), predicts creation’s end (vv. 11–12a), and declares the Lord’s steady status from that point forward (v. 12b). The Logos, whose beginning was when he was given life by God (and as a consequence now has life in himself, John 5:26; 6:57), was God’s agent of creation, which has a fiery future (2 Pet 3:10–13). He is presently remaining and Scripture says he will remain into eternity future.
The Exaltation of Christ
Despite a number of problems considered above, Irons believes the Son’s ontological deity has been proven. He begins at Rom 1:4 where Jesus is “Son of God in power” modified by the Greek word horisthentos, which he translates as “marked out” or “declared” in keeping with standard lexicons and, he says, most English versions. The controversy is as simple as identifying whether Jesus as Son always had authority or was granted it. It has been my position that Jesus’ ability as a man to do miracles was authority given by God (Matt 9:8), subject to limitation (e.g., in Nazareth “he could not do any miracles,” Mark 6:5). All authority in heaven and on earth was given to him after his resurrection (Matt 28:18). And as Peter announces to Israel, God “has made him both Lord and Messiah this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). These are not statements “sealing the deal” of Christ’s aseity. They are statements acknowledging that he was a being limited in his abilities by God who is ontologically superior to and apart from him.
Sovereign
Irons’s understanding of God is puzzling. Since reading his discussion I am amazed that he calls himself a Trinitarian. He holds that God the Father alone is the ultimate power in the universe (1 Tim 6:15). Yet he says God exalts Jesus to share that divine sovereignty with him. I note in an elementary way that one cannot exalt someone who already and always held the position to which he was raised. Irons is admitting there was a time when Jesus did not have the status he has now. Yet he says Jesus’ Sonship is eternal. This is a philosophical contradiction. While Irons does not see that a mere creature could be given that divine authority, I demonstrate in my opening essay that the idea was not foreign to the Jewish mind at the time Jesus lived. That the Jewish leaders had a particular problem with Jesus specifically seems to go without saying. But they seem to arbitrarily regard pretenders to the office of Messiah. And Jesus said enough at his trial to cause them to reject him.
Worship
Irons affirms that worship belongs properly only to the one true God. But worship is also reserved for anyone whom God has granted the authority. The angel Irons mentions in Rev 19:10 did not have that authority. Yet 1 Chron 29:20 tells us that David told the people, “‘Now bless Jehovah your God.’ And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshiped Jehovah, and the king.” That I agree with the various passages Irons lists indicating that Jesus was worshiped does not mean one should therefore conclude that only God can be worshiped. God has exalted Jesus to be worshiped. That is within his prerogative to do so.
The Divine Name
While God does not give his glory to others, he does tell the Israelites to listen to the angel that he had sent ahead of them: “Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him” (Exod 23:20–21). I agree with other verses Irons lists indicating that “in his exalted state” Jesus bears God’s name Jehovah (which he writes as “YHWH”). My argument has been that one who is exalted did not hold the position or bear the name earlier.
It is this phrase “participates in the identity of YHWH” that is so interesting. Irons has a chronological problem. I am compelled to call him out and have him clearly explain what he means by it. An angel bears God’s name in Exodus. Perhaps Irons believes it also shares in Jehovah’s