A Divine Savior
I have little disagreement with Irons’s understanding that Jesus the Messiah is “our divine Savior.” The language is appropriate for the references he gives (Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1). It is through him—Jesus as God’s agent—that he accomplishes our salvation. It is because God decided that Jesus was the one to accomplish this that makes it necessary, not that Christ had to be divine (although he was!).
42. For this analysis I am looking at Aland, Synopsis, which in the English has the RSV.
43. Garland, Luke, 900.
44. BDAG, 736, informs us that the Greek particle oun is “inferential denoting that what it introduces is the result of or an inference from what precedes so, therefore, consequently, accordingly, then.” See also Daniel Wallace who observes that the inferential conjunction oun “gives a deduction, conclusion, or summary to the preceding discussion.” Wallace, Greek Grammar, 673.
45. Literally, “sons of the Most high.”
46. Κöstenberger, “John,” in Beale and Carson, eds., Commentary, 465.
47. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, 202ff.
48. But the affirmation of Heb 1:2 that the Son created “the world” is a bit more specious since aiōn in Heb 1:2 is more properly translated “age,” and many of the ancient sources for the rendering “the world” as a spatial concept may be more appropriately listed as “a segment of time as a particular unit of history.” See BDAG 32.
49. Kerrigan, Biblical Christ, 57.
50. BDAG 894. Also see Thayer who, although not without providing discussion to the contrary, specifically lists Col 1:15 as an instance of prōtotokos as appropriately applied to Christ as one “who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things.” See Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, 555.
A Socinian Response to a Trinitarian View
Dustin R. Smith
I wish to applaud Lee Irons for his stimulating presentation of Jesus as the divine Son of God. His engagement with both ancient and modern sources is both noteworthy and commendable. I particularly value his eager honesty which comes out when he openly wrestles with how some of the more difficult evidence should be understood. His arguments demonstrate that he has pondered these issues over an extended period of time while at the same time assessing their implications. His case aims to illustrate that Jesus is the divine Son of God, one who eternally preexisted with the Father. At the incarnation, the Son of God took up man’s nature, becoming both divine and human. After his earthly ministry, God exalted him to his right hand and bestowed upon him divine honor. Irons additionally intends to demonstrate that this very position is taught within the New Testament.
Irons’s presentation, in my opinion, suffers from a variety of flaws. Unfortunately, the space allotted to me will only allow me to respond to a selection of my concerns. Nevertheless, I intend to raise objections regarding what seems to me to be some of the most pressing areas of contention. My hope is that through gentle dialogue and questioning, Irons and I can find some common ground in our attempts to engage the biblical data seriously as believing Christians.
My initial concern is the language which Irons regularly employs regarding the “divinity” and “deity” of Jesus. He begins his presentation in an attempt to define these terms, citing an example from the Latin historian Livy as evidence of what he does not intend. Irons fails to clearly articulate what these terms do in fact mean, leaving me somewhat bewildered. He states that Jesus is “eternally divine” and that he “belongs on the divine side of the Creator-creature distinction.” It is difficult to define a term when you use the word within its definition. I am unable to agree or disagree with whether Jesus is “divine” or “deity” if there is no consensus on what these terms, slippery as they can be, clearly mean or entail. I suggest that we jettison these two words, both because of the obscurity that comes from defining them and because they are absent from modern English translations of the Bible.51
This leads to my next point of apprehension. By arguing that Jesus Christ is “eternal” and that he belongs on the Creator side of the spectrum, Irons is essentially saying that Jesus has always existed. A significant corollary to his point would be an insistence that Jesus was never brought into existence, since he does not belong to the category of “created creatures.” I find these claims to be significantly at odds with the biblical data. For one, Jesus is certainly not alive and active anywhere within the pages of the Hebrew Bible.52 In fact, there is a scholarly consensus that the title “Son of God” is used in three different ways within the Hebrew Bible (referring to the Davidic king, the people of God, and the heavenly hosts), but never in a manner which refers to a preexisting personal being alongside the Father.53 Furthermore, Yahweh is routinely described as the one who has no equal (2 Sam 7:22; 1 Chr 17:20; Jer 10:6, 7), with no other besides him (Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 45:5, 6, 21, 22; 46:9; Joel 2:27). I am curious how it could be that the Son of God literally preexisted alongside God the Father when the biblical authors repeatedly acknowledge God by saying, “You alone are Yahweh” (2 Kgs 19:19; Neh 9:6; Pss 83:18; 86:10; Isa 37:20), “there is no one like you” (Exod 8:10; 9:14; 1 Sam 2:2; Ps 86:8). This unique God, Yahweh, is one and the same as the Father, whom Jesus identifies as the only true God (John 17:3). What about Isa 44:24, which plainly indicates that Yahweh, the sole creator, was all alone at creation, by Himself?
I additionally wish to question why Irons ignored the massive birth narratives and genealogies in Matthew and Luke, both of which, it seems to me, clearly indicate that Jesus was brought into existence in the womb of Mary (Matt 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). If the Bible’s two birth narratives feature the miraculous birth of Jesus by highlighting his coming into existence, in what sense can we rationally speak of Jesus as “eternal?” If Jesus is indeed brought into existence, this actually puts him on the creature side of the Creator-creature distinction. I look forward to Irons’s interaction on these important points.
Irons’s presentation raises another issue concerning monotheism. If Jesus is on the divine side of the Creator-creature distinction, then how many persons are in that group? In other words, how many are on the divine side of this split? Isn’t the Son of God numerically distinct from the Father, whom Irons (correctly) identifies as Yahweh? Does this not make two, one who is Yahweh and one who is the son of Yahweh? This certainly calls monotheism into question. If there are only two on this side, is this even Trinitarianism anymore? It sounds more like binitarianism. Perhaps some clarification will shed some light on my puzzlement.
Another concern I wish to raise regards his argument that the title Son of God applied to Jesus means something “far more” than an indicator of messianism. In fact, Irons is convinced that this title is indicative of Jesus’ “divine Sonship” (I confess that I am still unsure what “divine” means). I respectfully suggest that these conclusions go beyond the available evidence. The authors of the New Testament (and the historical Jesus himself) were influenced by Jewish literature and