Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Stephen j. Wellum
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
I. INTRODUCTION
T h e focus o f this article is on the glorious subject o f our Lord Jesus
Christ. Why? Two reasons will suffice. First, there is no greater person to
focus on than our Lord. Not only is he at the center o f all o f Scripture, he
is also central to the Gospel itself (cf., Lk 24:25-27 ph 1:9-10). To
know him is life eternal 1( Jn 17:5). Our delight now and for eternity is
to know our triune God in the face o f his Son and this is warrant enough
to focus on him. Second, and more specifically, by focusing on
Christology, 1 want to illustrate how a sound biblical theology ought to
inform systematic theology by thinking through how foe Bible presents
Chrisfs person and work and how this presentation ought to inform our
Christological formulations.1
In reflecting on this second reason, an important lesson to learn in
doing theoiogy is that mere citations o f Scripture-what we call proof
texts do necessarily make a theology biblical. Froof o f this point is
not hard to find. In reading various theologies, biblical texts are often
cited improperly more s^ cifically, they are often cited in ways contrary
to how those biblical texts ftmction in Scripture. So for a theology to be
biblical, its theological conclusions must not only refer to Scripture they
must also account for how foe Bible itself presents the topic and unpacks
1On the nature of and relationship heneen biblical and systematic theology, see ?eter
j. Gentry and Stephen j. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological
Understanding ofthe Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 21-126.
24
it 1
the Rihles unfolding covenantal storyline.2 In this article, I
intend to illustrate this point in reference to Christology. My goal is to
reflect on how the Bible identifies who Jesus is as God the Son incarnate,
thus showing how the Bibles unfolding narrative weaves together foe
Sons full deity and humanity without artificially separating them.
1 will proceed in three steps. First, 1 will set the context by briefly
discussing a false way o f thinking o f biblical texts in relation to Christ,
what is famously known as foe ofoologic^-fanctional dichotomy, and
some o f its results in Christological discussion. Second, 1 will offer a
brief response to fois reductionistic way o f doing Cltfistology. Third, 1
will turn to four biblical examples which illustrate how the NT does not
follow fois dichotomy but instead integrates ontology and function
properly in a whole-Bible presentation o f Christ.
25
26
27
14On this point, see Stephen j. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, forthcoming, 2016).
28
29
First, the text teaches the Sons preexistence and deity. Flacing the
phrase, concerning his Son (peri tou huiou autou) before foe first o f
two participial clauses o f verses 3 and 4 underscores foe Sons
preexistence. No doubt, foe reference to Jesus as foe Son recalls Israels
status as Gods son (Ex 4:4),18 but given foe placement o f foe words
before foe two participles o f verses 3 and 4, it is best to understand that
Faul is affirming that foe Son who became foe seed o f David and who
was appointed Gods Son in power was already foe Son before these
events.^ The title Son works at two levels: it designates Jesus as foe
eternal Son and as the Son who is foe antitype o f previous sons
Adam, Israel, and David. Both these truths are found in fois text. Thomas
Schreiner states fois well: The one who existed eternally as foe Son was
appointed foe Son o f God in power as the Son o f David... In other words,
the Son reigned with foe Father from all eternity, but as a result o f his
incarnation and atoning work he was appointed to be foe Son of God as
one who was now both God and man.20 In this way, foe preexistence and
deity o f the Son is stressed while simultaneously emphasizing foe
appearance o f the Son on foe stage o f human history as foe incarnate
M essiah.
30
in and thrnugh his King (Isa 9:6-7; Ezek 34). This is why, as Mo notes,
[t]he transition from V. 3 to V. 4, then, is not a transition from a human
messiah to a divine Son o f God (adoptionism) but from the Son as
Messiah to the Son as both Messiah tf^pow erfal, reigning Lord.^
Third, this understanding o f the text is eonfirmed by the antithetieal
parallel between aceording to the Spirit holiness" and aeeording to
the fresh. Confrary to some who suggest that the flesh/spirit eontrast is
between Jesus human and divine natures^ or others who argue that
spirit o f holiness is a referenee to Christs obedient, eonseerated spirit
that he manifested throughout his earthly life,25 a better suggestion, whieh
does justiee to ?auls overall redemptive-historieal framework, is to
interpret the contrast between flesh/spirit as referring to eras/ages in
redemptive history. In this understanding, the old era is that which is
represented by Adam and dominated by sin, death, and toe flesh, while
toe new era is represented by Christ and characterized by salvation, life,
and toe Spirit.26 As applied to Christ, toen, toe eternal Son has now come
and taken our humanity upon him self By doing so, in his earthly life, i.e.,
his life in toe realm o f the flesh, he is toe promised Messiah, and by his
powerfrd work epitomized in toe resurrection, he has also brought with
him toe Spirit. Moo nicely summarizes this point: In Christ toe new
era o f redemptive history has begun, and in this new stage o f Gods plan
^Moo, Romans, 49. This understanding is further grounded in the fact that there is
probably an allusion to ?salm 2:7 in this verse: You are my Son; today 1 have begotten
you. In the NT, ?salm 2 is quoted a number of times and in quite diverse ways (see Acts
4:25-26; 13:33; Heb 1:5
5:5
Rev 2:7; 12:5; 19:15). Reymond,Jesus, Divine Messiah, 77
81, for example, consistent with his interpretation ofRomans 1:3-4, argues along with many
in the early church that ?salm 2:7, in its OT context, does not apply to the Davidic king but
rather it should be understood as a direct reference to Christ. In this way, it is an address of
the Father to the Son in eternity past, which for many in the early church was used as one of
the textual proofs for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. However, it is not
necessary to interpret it this way. In fact, in its immediate context, it is difficult not to read it
as a reference to the Davidic king. A better interpretation is to read ?salm 2 typologically.
As each Davidic king was enthroned, so this ?salm pointed forward to the day when the
Messiah, due to his triumphant cross work and resurrection, ushers in Gods kingdom and
all that it emails, and as such, is now exalted and seated at Gods right hand, having been
given a name above every name. In this way, as Schreiner notes, the new dimension that
results by virtue of Jesus work was not his sonship but his heavenly installation as Gods
Son by virtue of his Davidic sonship (Schreiner, Romans, 39) and thus mifilling all of the
hopes and expectations of the OT.
^For this interpretation see the discussion in Moo, Romans, 49.
^See Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah, 378-81, who argues this point.
^See Moo, Romans, 49-50 Schreiner, Romans, 43-45; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An
Outline ofHis Theology (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans, 1975), 64-68. The use of flesh in
Paul is diverse but predominately is tied to the old age associated with Adam, sin, and death.
Even though one has to be careful in pushing this too far in Romans 1:3-4 since it could
entail that Christs human nature was fallen, even the more neutral uses of sarx (e.g., Rom
3
:
2
0
1
;11:14 ;5 ,9:3 ;4:1 Cor 1:26, 29) carry a nuance of weakness. The reason for this,
Schreiner, Romans, 43, explains), is that the flesh participates in the old age of sin and
death. Thus, as ?aul states elsewhere, Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom
8:3)not that he was bom fallen but weak and taking on a human nature associated with
this old age in order to inaugurate the new age that is characterized by the Hoty spirit.
31
32
humbles him selfby taking upon our humanity.32 However, the arguments
against this view are strong, and the traditional view, which I will assume,
is better grounded.33 Let us look at this important text in five steps as an
illustration ofthe two com^imentary truths.
First, the text is broken into two parts, verses 6-8 and 9-11, with two
verbs in each section describing Jesus self-humbling in connection with
his taking our human nature (i.e., the state o f humiliation) and the
Fathers action in exalting him due to his victorious work (i.e., the state o f
exaltation).3* The thought o fth e text, then, moves from the pre-existent
Son, to the state ofhumiliation, resulting in the exaltation ofthe Son to a
new role due to his obedience to the Father. The text is not describing
how the Son gained e^ a lity with God, but how he effected our salvation
by his incarnation and willing submission to the Father on our behalf.
Second, the preexistence and deity o f the Son is stressed by the
phrase, who, though he was in the form o f God ( hos en morph theou
huparchn).35 Even though there has been much debate on the precise
meaning o f form o f God, and it is true that whatever is said o f form
(morphe) in verse 6 must also apply in verse 7 where the same word is
used, in recent years, F. T. GBriens treatment o f the term is most
helpful.36 After surveying the term morph, he concludes that it refers to
that form which truly and folly expresses foe being which underlies it.37
This conclusion is built o ff the work o fR . F. Martin who focused on foe
use o f morph in foe LXX.38
As applied to Christ, then, what is asserted is that foe Son has always
existed in foe morph theou, which is another way o f affirming the foil
deity and quality o fth e Son with foe Father.3 This text, then, assumes
and provides a contrast between two forms o f existence and appearance
ofthe Son: foe majesty and glory he had from eternity as he shared in the
divine glory as God foe Son and what he became by taking to himself the
^See Dunn, Christology in the Making, 14 2 , esp. 19 .
See N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline
Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 56-98 OBrien, Philippians, 196-98 Fee, Pauline
Christology, 375-93 Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 323-27.
34See OBrien, Philippians, 205-32 Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 324.
OBrien, Philippians, 206, rightly observes that the relative pronoun, hos, links and
identifies the historical Jesus with this Son who existed prior to the incarnation.
36See OBrien, Philippians, 205-211.
Ibid.,210.
See R. F. Martin, Carmen Christi (Oambridge: Cambridge University Fress, 1967),
99-120. Martin discovered that: (1) mo^h denoted the appearance or form of something by
which we describe it2) )morph and eikn (image) are used interchangeably and (3)
eikn and doxa (glory) are also equivalent terms. Taken together this entails that morph
belongs to a group of words which describes God not as he is in himself but as he is to an
observer. Morph, then, does not describe Gods nature per se, but it assumes the nature and
it is a term which truly and firlly expresses the nature which underlies it. C f, Macleod,
Person of Christ, 212 OBrien, Philippians, 207-11.
OBrien, Philippians, 211.
33
morphn doulou (verse 7), i.e., becoming fully and truly human, now as
God the Son incarnate.^ Macleod captures the heart o f this contrast:
The subject o f the kensis, therefore (the one who emptied
him self), is one who had glory with the Father before the world
began (Jn. 17:5)... He possessed all the majesty o f deity, performed
all its ftmctions and enjoyed all its prerogatives. He was adored by
his Father and worshipped by the angels. He was invulnerable to
pain, frustration and embarrassment. He existed in unclouded
serenity. His supremacy was total, his satisfaction complete, his
blessedness perfect. Such a condition was not something he had
secured by effort. It was the way things were, and had always been;
and there was no reason why they should change. But change they
did, and they changed because o f the second element involved in the
kensis: Christ did not insist on his rights... he did not regard being
equal with God as a harpagm os41
Third, it is best to translate the difficult phrase, ouch harpagmon
hgsato to einai iso the as, he did not think equality with God
something to be used for his own advantage.^ The issue is not whether
Jesus gains equality with God or whether he retains it. The text is clear:
foe Son exists in foe form o f God and thus shares equality with God
(v. 6).43 Instead, foe issue is one o f Jesus5 attitude in regard to his divine
status.44 As Schreiner points out, Faul assumes that Jesus is equal with
God. The verse does not teach that Jesus quit trying to attain equality with
God. Rather, Paul emphasizes that Jesus did not take advantage o f or
exploit the equality with God that he already possessed.4* In other
words, the grasping or dantage-takin g does not have equality with
God as its goal; rather, it begins from
Thus the emphasis o f the text
is on the attitude ofthe pre-existent Son who already is fully God he did
not regard equality with God as excusing him from foe task ofredemptive
suffering and death, but actually as uniquely qualifying him for that
vocation.
^See Bauckham, Jesus and the God oflsraei, 41-42.
^Maclecd, Person ofChrist, 213-14.
^Bauckham, Jesus and the God oflsraei, 41. This translation is dependent upon the
work of R. w. Hoover, The Harpagmos Enigma: A ?hilological Solution, Harvard
Theological Review 64 (1971), 95-119, who translates the word, harpagmos, as an idiom to
mean something to use for his own advantage. See the discussion in OBrien, Philippians,
211-16; Wright, Climax ofthe Covenant, 77-82 Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 325.
*See Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 325 OBrien, Philippians, 216 Wright,
Climax ofthe Covenant, 72, 75, 80-83, who all rightly argue that to exist in the form of
God is parallel to be e ual with God.
**See Bauckham, Jesus and the God oflsraei, 41.
*Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 325.
*^OBrien, Philippians, 216.
34
35
36
is Lord. Verses 9-11 stress that it is preeisely due to Jesus obedienee that
the Father now vindicates him by exalting him to the highest position, the
heavenly throne o f God.52 The Father bestows on Christ the name above
all names, which is his own name, Yahweh (Fhil 2:9-11; cf., Isa 45:22
23) and with this name comes universal lordship and the worship o f all
creation. There is simply no way to do justice to these final verses, let
alone the entire section, without affirming the full deity and humanity o f
the Son. Moreover, Fauls application o f Isaiah 45:20-25 to Jesus a
text which refers exclusively to Yahweh is part o fa NT pattern whereby
OT Yahweh texts, franslated L ord, are repeatedly applied to Christ.^
A clearer affirm ation o f Jesus as God the Son incarnate could not be
given and it is also a perfect illustration o f the two complementary truths
o fN T Christology.
T Colossians 1:15-20
It is an understatement to say that this text is one o f the
Christological high points o f the New Testament.** Similar to
Fhilippians 2:6-11, many have argued that it is an early Christian hymn
that Paul adopted. Regardless o f whether this is so, minimally we must
affirm that Paul has incorporated it into his letter and thus interpret it as
his own. The text is divided into two main stanzas (vv. 15-17 and 18b20 )
with a transitional stanza between the two (w . 17-18a).** In the first main
and transitional stanza, Jesus is presented as Lord/deity because he is the
eternal Son, the agent o f creation, and the sustainer o f the universe. In the
second main stanza, Jesus is presented as becoming Lord due to his work
as Redeemer. In both o f these ways, the Lordship o f Christ is presented in
both creation and redemption. Let us consider this text in three steps.
37
Step 1. The full deity o f the Son is clearly taught in the first main
stanza (. 15-16). Three affirmations ground this assertion. Let us look
at each ofthem in turn.
1) The Son is described as the image o f the inasible God (eikn
tou theou tou aoratou), which strongly suggests that he possesses the ery
nature o f God. Image carries the sense o f something that looks like, or
represents, something else.^ As in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the stress is on the
Son as the perfect reeation o f God. No one has ever seen God, writes
John, but the only God, who is at the Fathers side, he has made him
known (Jn 1:18). Here Faul makes the same point by stressing that the
Son, from eternity, has perfectly reflected the Father, and now in his
incarnation r e a l s the inasible God just as perfectly. Only a dtyine Son
can thusjustify such an assertion.
In addition, the use o f image ( 1eikn) also suggests an echo back to
the creation o f humans. In Genesis 1, humans are created as Gods imagebearers, designed to represent him in the world. Howeer, we are not to
think that we are the original image. Rather, the Son is the original image
in accordance with which humans were created: he is the archetype and
we are the ectype.^ This is why God the Son, who was the perfect image
o f God, is not only the pattern o f our creation but in becoming human has
now taken on the role o f the last Adam.^ In this sense, as Wright notes,
from eternity Jesus held the same relation to the Father that humanity,
from its creation, had been intended to bear.^ Humanity was designed to
be a finite representation o f Gods self-expression within his world and to
rule oer creation under Gods lordship, but sadly, Adam, we failed.
Howeer, in Jesus, the one who has eternally borne the Fathers image
perfectly and completely now takes upon our humanity in order to 11
the put*poses which God had marked out both for himself and for us (cf..
Heb 2:5-18). Upon Jesus Christ, then, as God the Son incarnate, has come
the role marked out for humanity, an emphasis which is fijrther taught in
the next affirmation.
2) The Son is the firstborn o f all creation (prtotokos pass
ktises). Since the Arian controversy the fourth century, much debate
has centered on the meaning o f this phrase. At first glance it might
suggest, as Arms proposed, that Jesus is the first creature in time and thus
a created being. Hweer, in the Nicene Creed, the church rejected this
understanding and instead affirmed, along with Scripture, that Christ is
the firstborn in temis o f rank and authority.^ The background to
^Moo, Colossians and Philemon, 117.
57Ibid., 118-19. Also see Sehreiner, New Testament Theology, 327.
58Wright suggests that this emphasis on the Son as the image of God shows that the
Son is the elimax of the history of ereation, and at the same time the starting-point of the
new creation. See Colossians andPhilemon, 70,
5Wright, Colossians andPhilemon, 70.
^Firstbom (prtotokos) can convey both the idea of priority in time and rank.
Ultimately it is the context which must determine its use. Cf., Moo, Colossians and
Philemon, 119-24.
38
45.
^See Moo, Colossians and Philemon, X20-2X and OBrien, Colossians, Philemon, 4546, for a discu$$ion ofthe preposition en. Should it be taken in the instrumental sense: by
him all things were created? Or, should it be taken in the sense of sphere, in him all things
were created? Both Moo and OBrien argue for the latter.
6*Murray j. Barris, Three Crucial Questions about Jesus (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker,
1994), 80-81, rightly notes that in V 16 the verb, to create is first used in the aorist passive
(ektisth) and then in the perfect tense (ektistai). This is more than stylistic. It probably
underscores the emphasis that creation not only came to exist by the Son but that it now
continues to exist by him. Also see Moo, Colossians andPhilemon, 124.
39
40
Christ replaces the temple as the place where God now dwells and
GBrien rightly adds, All the attributes and activities G o d -h is spirit,
word, wisdom and g lo ry -a re perfectly displayed in Christ.^ This is not
a temporary dwelling, either, as Colossians makes clear. In Colossians
2:9, the verb dwells or lives (katoikeo) is not only in the present
tense, but the adverb, in bodily form (smatiks) is separated from the
verb, which Harris suggests entails two distinct affirmations: that the
entire fallness o f the Godhead dwells in Christ eternally and that this
follness now permanently resides Christ in bodily form.73 So what is
true o f God the Son prior to the incarnation is also true o f him postincarnation, namely, that the entire follness o f deity (nature and
attributes) resides in him. It is hard to find a higher Christology than this.
In Jesus the Christ, we have the revelation o f the one true God, who
reigns supreme over all. There is no sphere o f existence over which he is
not sovereign and supreme. No wonder, then, that all people are
summoned to submit to him in trust, love, worship, and obedience.
4. Hebrews 1:1-4
It is not an overstatement to say that the entire book o f Hebrews is
centered in Christology. From the opening verses to the close o f the book,
the main subject matter o f the letter is the majesty, supremacy, and glory
o f the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Additionally, in Hebrews the basic
pattern o f NT Christology continues: Jesus is Son and Lord because o f
who he has always been (1:2-3) and by his work o f taking on our
humanity and firlfilling the role o f Adam (2:5-18), David (1:4-14), and
the High Friest (4:14-10:39) and thereby securing our redemption and
inaugurating the promised age to come. Hebrews places alongside one
another the unqualified affirmation o f both the Sons deity (e.g., 1:2-3, 414) and his humanity. Jesus is from the tribe o f Judah (7:14), he was
^lnerable to temptation (but not to sin) as we are (4:15), he learned
obedience as we do even though he was the Son (5:8), and he had to be
perfected as we do (2:10). But it is crucial to note why these assertions
are made. It is only as God the Son incarnate that the Son is able to
inaugurate the promised age associated with the coming o f Yahweh and
Messiah, undo the work o f Adam, and most importantly, firlfill the role o f
the great High Priest by perfectly representing us and accomplishing for
us a 11 and effective atonement for sin (Heb 7-10). Even though
Hebrews does explain how the eternal Son became human, the author
is vitally concerned to stress the 1 deity and humanity o f the Son in
order for us to have an all-sufficient Lord and Savior. For the Sons
71Moo, Colossians and Philemon, 33.
7^OBrien, Colossians and Philemon, 53.
73Harris, Three Questions about Jesus, 66; cf., OBrien, Colossians and Philemon,
0- 4 .
Wright, Colossians and Philemon, 79.
41
42
! downplay the authority o f the OT prophets. Rather the point is that the
previous revelation was incomplete and intended by God to point beyond
itself to its fulfillment in the Son. That is why the Son is greater: he is the
one about whom the prophets spoke. Even more, the Son is the one in
whom all o f Gods revelation and redemptive purposes culminate (cf.,
Eph 1:9-10), which after all, is precisely how the author develops these
opening verses in the remainder his letter. GT prophets, priests, and kings
all point forward and anticipate the final prophet, priest, and king; the
sacrifices and ceremonies o f the old covenant point forward to what has
now come in Christ and the inauguration o f a new covenant era foretold
by the OT.
Step 2. Given these incredible assertions, what warrant is given to
substantiate the claim that Gods speaking in the Son is far greater than
anything that has preceded him; even more, the Son is precisely who the
OT prophets spoke of, longed for, and anticipated? The answer is that he
grounds his assertions in the unique identity o f the Son as God the Son
incarnate (w . 2 b 4 ). Five crucial identity statements are given.
First, the Son is first described as the appointed heir o f all things
(v. 2b). It is best to understand this appointment similar to Romans 1:3-4
and in light o f such OT texts as Fsalm 2, especially given the fact that
Fsalm 2:7 is quoted in verse 5 as the basis for the argument that Christ is
better than angels.80 Some early church fathers understood Psalm 2:7-8 to
refer to the Sons appointment in eternity past, what was called the
eternal generation o f the Son.81 However, ft is better to interpret Psalm 2
as a reference to the Davidic king, a type and pattern o f the one to come.
That is why the entire NT applies Psalm 2 to Jesus in terms o f his
appointment as the antitype o f David (1:2, 5, 8-9, 13; 5:5; cf., Acts 13:33
Rom 1:3-4), the one who by virtue o f his incarnation, death, and
resurrection is now installed to Gods right hand as the messianic king.82
Once again, we see the second truth o f NT Christology emphasized and
the importance o f the incarnation underscored. However, even though
Jesus appointment to be the heir o f all things (v. 2b) is directly tied to
his incarnation and saving work as a man, the author makes it clear that
we must not think that the Son is merely another David (1:5; 5:5) or
Adam (2:5-9) or Moses (3:1-6) priest (5:1-10), but that he is also God
the Son from eternity and thus deity. The next three identity statements
stress this exact point.
Second, the Son is now described as the agent o f creation (v. 2b):
through whom also he created the world. Not only is this consistent
with other NT texts which attribute the divine work o f creation to the Son
thus teaching his deity (Jn 1 : 1 - 3 1 7 - 1: 15 01 ), but ft also speaks o f the
80See Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 12; Guthrie, Hebrews, 47; Schreiner, New Testament
Theology, 380-81.
81For a defense of this view see Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah, 77-81.
*See Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 380-81.
43
roles o f the Father and Son in creation it is through the Son that the
world is made. Gods work in creation is ultimately a triune work.
Third, the Sons 1 deity is further underscored erse 3a: He is
the radiance o f the glory o f God and the exact imprint o fh is nature. This
language so strongly affirms the full deity o f the Son that in church
history, as Wells reminds us, the Arians on toe basis o f this text alone
retosed to recognize toe authenticity o f Hebrews.^ Two statements are
simultaneously asserted about toe Son, evidenced by the fact that they are
written in synonymous ^rallelism the radiance ( 1apaugasma) o f toe
glory o f God and the exact imprint ( 1charaktr) o f his nature
chupostases). Together they make the same point: namely that we
cannot understand toe identity o f Jesus apart from affirming that he is
God toe Son and frilly God.85
Fourth, additionally, in verse 3b, similar to Colossians 1:15-17, toe
Son is presented as toe Tord o f providence: he upholds toe universe by
the word o f his power. In speaking o f the Son upholding iphern) toe
universe, toe concept expressed is dynamic, not static. The verb implies
toe idea o f c a s i n g something from one place to another,^ so that we are
told that it is toe Son through whom toe entire created order comes to
exist, is sustained, and is carried to its appointed end. In attributing these
It is also im plant to ncte the force of the kaiand through whom... As William
Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 12, suggests, its pujse is to link this second relative clause with foe
first, thus underscoring foe fact that foe appointed Son, whose appointment is no doubt tied
to history and his incarnation and entire cross work is also foe same one who preexisted as
foe Son and through whom God created foe universe. Here, once again, we see foe two paths
of Ghristological reflection converge forming foe basic pattern ofNT Christology.
**See Wells, Person ofChrist, 53. The Arians denied foe eternal preexistence and deity
of the Son.
The termsapaugasma and charaktr are found only here in foe NT. The former term,
apaugasma, is best translated, radiance or effulgence and not reflection (see Lane,
Hebrews 1-8, 12-13). The emphasis is that foe Son is foe one who makes visible foe very
glory of God, something which only God can do (cf., Jn 1:14-18). The thought here is very
similar to the prologue of Johns gospel. See ?hilip E. Hughes, A Commentary the
Epistle the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 41-42; D. A. Garson, The
Gospel According John, ?NTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 111-39. As in John,
so here in Hebrews, foe stress is on fois point: as a result of foe incarnation, foe Son of the
Father from all-eternity now makes visible to us foe Fathers glory. Macleod (Person /
Christ, 80), nicely captores fois idea: He [foe Son] is foe glory made visible: not a different
glory from foe Fathers but foe same glory in another form. The Father is foe glory hidden:
foe Son is foe glory revealed. The Son is foe Father repeated, but in a different way. The
latter term, charaktr, continues fois same thought. Originally, the term denoted an
instrument used for engraving and later the impression made by such an instrument. Used in
this sense, foe word thus speaks of the features of an object or person by which we are able
to recognize it for what it is (Guthrie, Hebrews, 48). In foe case of coins, for example, foe
term was used to speak of the exact reproduction of the image on foe stamp (Macleod,
Person ofChrist, 80). In this context, then, as this word is applied to foe Son, the author is
asserting in foe strongest ofterms that what foe Son represents perfectly is foe very nature of
God. In fois way, as Guthrie, Hebrews, 48, rightly notes, fois expression is parallel to other
NT texts that speak of Jesus as foe form, likeness, image of God (e.g., Jn 1:2 Fhil
2:6 Col. 1:15).
*Hughes, Hebrews, 45-46.
44
V. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
In this article, our focus has been on the glory o f our Redeemer, our
Lord Jesus Christ. In addition, ft has also served as an exercise in doing
theology and illustrating how to move from biblical to systematic
theology.
Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus is God the Son Incarnate. Yet it is
not enough merely to show that Jesus is fully God and fully man; it is also
important to let Scripture unpack these truths in terms o f its own
authoritative presentation. As we do so, we discover that the old divide
between ontological and ftmctional Christology is only reductionistic.
ft is also unnecessary. As Jesus is described in terms o f the Bibles own
storyline. Scripture teaches two complementary truths simultaneously
truths which are interwoven and inseparable from each other Jesus is
Son and Lord because o f who he has always been and he is Son and Lord
by virtue o f his incarnation and work. In describing the identity o f Jesus,
Scripture never pits his deity over against his humanity, or vice versa,
since ft is only as God the Son incarnate that he is able to accomplish all
o f Gods sovereign redemptive purposes for us.
87See Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 15.
88See Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 21-23, 233-53.
45
Letting Scripture keep these truths together not only reveals for us
the unique identity o f Christ but also what he has come to do. Jesus
cannot be rightly understood apart from placing him within the storyline
o f Scripture and when we do, we are led to a Jesus who is worthy o f all
our praise, worship, and obedience, the sovereign Creator Lord and
Redeemer o f his people. Furthermore, it is also important to see that the
Jesus described in Scripture is no different than the Jesus described in
later Christological creeds, thus demonstrating that the churchs
confession o f Jesus as God the Son incarnate is warranted biblically and
theologically.
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.