2.124.
29. Cp. Athanasius, Against the Arians 1.58, 36 (NPNF2 4.327, 340).
30. Several New Testament scholars dub this “christological monotheism,” e.g., N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, and Larry Hurtado.
31. Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son, 280–81.
32. Translation mine. Although horisthentos can be rendered “appointed,” the meaning “marked out” or “declared” (see BDAG horizō and most English versions) is also possible in extra-biblical Greek and is more appropriate here. Paul’s framing device, “concerning his Son” (“being placed . . . outside the bracket”) implies that the Son did not become the Son at his resurrection, but was the Son even before his birth: “ . . . concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,” i.e., “so far as his human nature is concerned” (Cranfield, Romans, 1.58–60). The “in power” modifier is also crucial, since it shows that the resurrection did not make him Son for the first time but powerfully exhibited what was true of him all along. Besides, as we have seen, the Gospels are explicit that he was the Son of God prior to his resurrection, going back (at least) to the Father’s declaration at his baptism, “You are my Son.”
33. Hurtado, How on Earth, 50.
34. Bauckham, “The Worship of Jesus,” in Climax of Prophecy, 118–49.
35. See Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 182–232, for an examination of many other New Testament texts where the divine name (Kyrios/YHWH) is applied to Jesus.
36. Rowe, “Romans 10:13.”
37. Bauckham’s formulation in Jesus and the God of Israel, 24–25, 130.
38. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 266–69.
39. Silva, Biblical Words, 102–7.
40. Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 384.
41. Hodge, “Religious State of Germany,” 520.
An Arian Response to a Trinitarian View
Danny André Dixon
Jesus is the Son of God
Lee Irons lays out a revealing summary of the number of times, and in what contexts the terms identifying Jesus as “the Son of God” in one form or another appear in five significant events detailed in the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But none of the passages that Irons points to suggest any eternal ontological connection of Jesus to the Father.
I will stipulate the intimate language of Jesus in referring to God as “my Father” (Matt 11:27 || Luke 10:22) and similar implications in the parable of the wicked tenants where he understands himself to be the father’s (God’s) “beloved son” whom he calls “my son” (Mark 12:6 || Matt 21:37 || Luke 20:13); but these designations, while proving intimacy do not establish that the language exclusively proves his point.
“Son of God” Much More Than “Messiah”
The Holmesian game’s afoot, however, when Irons introduces 2 Sam 7:14 which, in my view, sets forth the expectation that “God’s Son” means functional messiah. He says there are “compelling arguments” against this view and he proposes to review the most compelling of them.
First, he says that there is a distinction between “Messiah” and “Son of God” in various passages, defining him as a certain kind of Messiah. He lists verses where the phrase “the Christ, the Son of God” appears (Matt 16:16; 26:63; Mark 1:1; 14:61; John 11:27; 20:31).
This is his argument against the admitted scholarly view of others that the two titles can be synonymous. He says, “Another way of interpreting the juxtaposition is to take the second title as adding precision and definition to the first title.” He quotes a scholar, Joel Marcus, but gives little argument at this point. What we want are the reasons for the conclusion drawn.
He says he provides “further evidence,” but it is really the same sort of argument. Irons tells us, “The baptism of Jesus is widely recognized as the moment when he was anointed by the Spirit in order to undertake his office as the Messiah,” and as G. E. Ladd says, “he was already God’s beloved Son and pleasing to the Father before he was chosen and appointed to be the Messiah.” But isn’t this begging the question? Jesus’ beloved Sonship as stated by God presumes before beginning that the term does not mean Messiahship based upon a widely recognized understanding that he was not Messiah until he was anointed. Consider that this splitting up and sequencing of events provides prophetic understanding that by his very birth Jesus was Messiah. 2 Sam 7:12–16 and its parallel application to Jesus in Heb 1:5 indicate that Jesus’ place in the lineage of David made him God’s Son. Every king in the Davidic dynasty was “son of God.” It is of Solomon that God says, “I will be his father, and he will be my son,” and the writer of the letter to the Hebrews applies this verse and others to the one who would be the Son. For what reason, then, should the accounts of the baptism of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit be seen as anything other than simultaneous, and not antecedent or synonymous? It seems that Irons is suggesting that, from a prophetic standpoint (certainly understood fully later), it was not God’s intention that “son of God” would mean anointed king in the Davidic dynasty. Actually, it might be appropriate to ask if he thinks that any Son of God passage should be taken to mean “Messiah.”
Matthew 16:13–20 (|| Mark 8:27–30; Luke 9:18–21)42
In the account of Jesus’ conversation with his disciples, he asks them who they think he is. “Peter answered him, ‘You are the Christ’” (Mark 8:29). This is the unembellished answer also found in Luke’s account: “And Peter answered, ‘The Christ of God.’” Neither version seeks to make any ontological conclusions about Jesus’ identity. At this point, Peter simply recognizes Jesus as God’s Messiah. Yet the more embellished understanding in wording is given by Matthew: “Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’” (Matt 16:16). But note that Matthew does not even care to have Jesus make a statement about any implications of Peter’s observation. Does Jesus charge the disciples to tell no one that he was a certain kind of Christ, as in a Son of God sort of Christ? He certainly would have had a perfect opportunity to do so in the summation found in Matthew’s account. But no, he simply “charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.” (Matt 16:20). God’s king, beginning with Solomon in the Davidic dynasty, is called his “son.” Jesus, as the last anointed in the Davidic dynasty is called his Son. The anointed, the Christ, is God’s Son.
Compare the preceding with Luke’s account of Jesus’ interview with the Jewish leaders. David Garland aptly observes that they “ask two questions of Jesus, ‘If you are the Christ, tell
