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 identity. Is there a distinction to be made between angels and Christ? If Christ was exalted, what was he before that happened? Irons “hesitates to say Jesus is YHWH,” and he rejects modalism. It seems to me that Irons cannot escape some form of binitarian divine reality. Jesus is a second individual sharing in God’s identity. That makes Irons’s position polytheistic. Nor can he escape it by saying, even with me, that “Jesus is divine” based on the Greek in John 1:1. Angels are divine. Jesus, though not an angel, is divine. God is the ultimate and supremely divine One. Jesus is a divine other one.
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,
