CTRn.s.

13/1 (Fall 2015)23-45

Jesus as Lord and Son:

Two ompementary Truths
of Biblical Christology

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

Criswell T h eolgical Review

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.

IT THE ONTOLOGICAL-FUNCTIONAL DICHOTOMY IN

UNDERSTANDING JESUS E N T I T Y
What is this dichotomy?^ In Christology, to speak o f Christs
ontology refers to his nature or being, and as such an ontological
Christology usually stresses Christs deity over against his humafoty,
i.e., the fact that Jesus is God foe Son from eternity/ This form o f
Christology is often identified with classical Christology as represented
by the Chalcedonian definition. By contrast, to speak o f Christs function
refers to what he does and as such a funcfionai Christology usually
stresses Christs humanity over against his deity. This form o f
Christology is often identified with more liberal proposals and various
departures from orthodoxy. One o f its key assumptions is that Jesus is not
foe Son from eternity but rather became foe Son by virtue o f his work
(ftinction) and thus a strong emphasis is placed on Christs appointment
to Sonship and Lordship, which were features he did not possess prior to
his resurrection/
What are some ofthe results ofthis ofoolo^cal-functional dichotomy
in Christological formulation? Many observations could be given but I
will list five. First, in a segment o f non-evangelical/non-orthodox
theology a ftmctional Christology is often associated with the ancient
^On this point, see ?eter j. Gentry and Stephen j. Wellum, Gods Kingdom through
Gods Covenants (Wheaton, II: Crossway, 2015) cf., idem., Kingdom through Covenant.
Tor a curcent discussion of this dichotomy, see Myk Habets, The Anointed Son: A
Trinitarian Spirit Christology (Eugene, OR: ?ickwick ?ubiications, 2010), 10-52.
*E.g., Jn 1:1-2, Col 1: - ;? Beb 1:1-2.
5See e.g., Geoffrey w. H. Lampe, Godas Spirit (Oxford: Clarendon, 10??) James 0.
G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) Oscar Cullmann,
The Christology ofthe New Testament (London: SCM, 1959), 3-4. A key toxt at debate is
the use of Psalm 2 in the NT (e.g., Rom 1:34 Heb 1:5-65:5 ).

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

25

heresy o f Adoptionism.^ Since, as Oscar Cullmann contends, [w]hen it is

asked in the NT Who is Christ? the question never means exclusiveiy,
even primarily, What is his nature? but first o f all, What is his
fimction?,^ and as such, the focus is on Jesus becoming Son and Lord,
not being Son and Lord from eternity thus undermining Christs deity.
Second, those who follow this line ofthinking are often critical ofthe
early churchs Christological formulation, specifically the Chalcedonian
definition. Walking the path o f A dolf von Hamack, they contend that the
early church uncritically adopted a Greek philosophical mindset that
focused on ontology instead o f function and thus distorted the N Ts
primary sole emphasis on function. G f course, if frue, this argument is
a serious challenge to orthodoxy because it is charging classical
Christology with ultimately being unbiblical.
Third, in responding to various forms o f functional forms o f
Christology, some evangelicals overemphasize biblical texts which focus
on ontology and downplay minimize the functional. A good example
o f this is Robert Reymond in his excellent work, Jesus the Divine
Messiah.9 In response to the functional Christology o f James Dunn,
Reymond tends to downplay any emphasis on function in order to avoid
any hint o f Adoptionism, especially in his treatment o f ?salm 2, Romans
1:3-4, Philippians 2:5-11, and Hebrews 1:5-6. As ! note below,
Reymonds motive is laudable but his handling o f these texts is
questionable, ft seems that the o^ologic^-ftmctional dichotomy is
driving his exegesis in ways which do not account toe richness ofthe
biblical texts.
Fourth, in standard treatments evangelical Christology, there is a
tendency to dichotomize texts which refer to Christs deity and humanity,
or simply offer a list o f proof texts which demonstrate that Jesus is both
fully God and fully man.10 What is often lacking is how Christs deity and
humanity are (interrelated and thus how the NT presents a unified view
o f Jesus identity without separating his deity and humanity artificially.
Fifth, a common criticism o f classical Christology is that it
overemphasizes Christs deity at the expense o f his humanity. Repeatedly
we are told, even by evangelical theologians, that evangelicals
^See Gerald Bray, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2014), 227.
^Cullmann, Christology ofthe New Testament, 3-4. For others who hold to this view,
see proponents toe Jesus Seminar, John Hick, ed.. The Myth ofGodlncamate (London:
SCM, 1977).
8For a discussion of this charge, see Habets, The Anointed Son, 10-52.
Robert L. Reymond, Jesus Divine Messiah (Feam, Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor,
2003).
10Many evangelical systematic theologies unpack Christology by first focusing on
Christs deity and all toe pertinent texts before they turn to a focus on Christs humanity. No
doubt, this is somewhat inevitable but what is lacking is how toe Bible presents toe Sonship
and Lordship of Christ in a way which ties his deity and humanity together as the Son from
eternity who now ^: ^ Son and Lord by virtue ofhis incarnation and cross work.

26

Criswell Theological Review

understand better Christs deity than they do his humanity. 11 No doubt,

there are a number o f reasons for this assertion, but one reason is related
to the ontology-frmction debate. The charge carries weight given the
fact that much o fN T Christology focuses on what Christ does as the man
Christ Jesus and how, as a result o f his incarnation and cross work, he
wins for us our salvation. But with that said, one must also exercise
caution in adequately stressing Christs deity. Instead, it is better to
focus on Christs deity and humanity, especially in the way that Scripture
relates them in Jesus Christ our Lord and his glorious work on our behalf.

III. A BRIEF RESPONSE TO T^^ONTOI.OGICAL-FtJNCTIONAL

DICHOTOMY IN CHRISTQLQGY
Much could be said in response, but 1 will offer two points. First,
Richard Bauckhams recent work has nicely demonstrated that the
category o f divine identity better explains NT Christology than the
categories o f ontology and function}1 Divine identity refers to the way
God acts as Creator, sovereign Lord, and R edeem er-as the one tree and
living God. hr light o f Gods identity as the Creator, Lord, and God o f
Israel, Jesus is presented in the NT as participating and sharing in the
divine rele. If this is so (which I think it is), then this entails that what
Jesus does (fimctional) is intimately tied to who he is (ontological), and
vice versa. In other words, one cannot think o f one without the other. As
Bauckham rightly contends, Jesus participation in the unique divine
sovereignty is not just a matter o f what Jesus does, but o f who Jesus is in
relation to God. Though primarily a matter o f divine nature or being,
it emphatically Is a matter o f divine identity. It includes Jesus in the
identity o f the one God. When extended to include Jesus in the creative
activity o f God, and therefore also in the eternal transcendence o f God, it
becomes unequivocally a matter o f regarding Jesus as intrinsic to the
unique identity o f God.13
Second, in treth (although this may be a slight overstatement) the
ontolo^c^-fanctional dichotomy only gained traction due to the
influence o f historical criticism on biblical-theological studies. Historical
criticism approached the Bible with a false theology. For the most part, it
did not read Scripture as Gods authoritative, unified Word. It sought to
remove Jesus from the storyline o f Scripture with its disastrous
dichotomy between the Jesus o f history and the Christ o f faith which
11Bruce A. Ware, The Man Christ Jesus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 13. Cf.,
Gordon D. Fee, The New Testament and Kenosis Christology, in Exploring Kenotic
Christology: The Self-Emptying / God, ed. c. Stephen Evans (New York: Oxford
University Fress, 2006), 25.
1^Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God oflsrael: God Crucified and Other Studies
the New Testaments Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans, 2008).
Ibid.,31.

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

27

resulted in Jesus being removed from the Bibles own authoritative

interpretation and presentation o f him .14 If this approach to biblicaltheological studies is rejected (which we must do), then placing Jesus
within the storyline and covenantal unfolding o f Scripture does not result
an ontological-fonctional divide. In fact, what we discover is a NT
Christology which follows a basic unified pattern and which stresses two
complementary truths sim u lt^ eo u sly tru th s which ultimately ground
and warrant the un^ue, incomparable identity o f Jesus as God the Son
incarnate.
What are these two complementa^ truths that the NT presents about
Christs unique identity and which rejects the ornologic^ftmctional
dichotomy? Truths which also underscore both Jesus deity and humanity
and give the very rationale for foe necessity o f foe incarnation and
Christs entire cross work, given foe triune Gods choice to save us?
The first truth is fois: Jesus is Lord and Son because he is the eterna
Son, the secondperson ofth e triune Godhead. This truth underscores foe
uniqueness o f Jesus as the divine Son in relation to his Father and foe
Spirit. Ultimately, this truth grounds foe Sons deity and provides the
seedbed for Trinitarian formulation. Furthermore, this truth is also
presented in terms ofthe stotyline ofth e OT, which identifies Jesus with
Yahweh as foe one true and living Creator God, the God o f Israel, who
alone must save.
The second trufo is this: Jesus is Lord and Son because he becomes
he is appointed as Lord and Son due to his incarnation, life, death, and
resurrection. This truth accents the reality and necessity o f the
incarnation and what Jesus achieves as foe incarnate Son. Furthermore, it
also picks up foe storyline ofthe OT which sfresses that redemption must
come through a man, first emphasized in Genesis 3:15 and then
progressively developed through foe typological patterns o f foe biblical
covenants, and epitomized in foe coming o fth e Davidic king (e.g., Isa
7:14; 9:6-7; 11; 42, 49, 53, 61; Ezek 34). Thus, in his humanity, foe
eternal Son fidfills foe roles o f previous sons (e.g., Adam, Israel, David)
by inaugurating G o d s long-awaited kingdom and foe new covenant age,
and he is able to do so precisely because he is God foe Son incarnate.
These complementary truths form foe basic pattern o f NT
Christology, and as noted, they are rooted in foe storyline o f Scripture.
Another way o f stating it: the OT anticipates and promises foe coming o f
Yahweh (LORD) and the Messianic King, while the NT announces his
arrival and identifies Jesus as the LORD (deity) who is foe great King
(incarnate one). NT Christology, then, does not pit Christs ontology and
function against each other; instead, it unites them in foe person and work
o f Christ the LORD who is foe King.

14On this point, see Stephen j. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, forthcoming, 2016).

28

Criswell Theelogical Review

IV. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE TWO COMFLEMENTARY TRUTHS

OF BIBLICAL CHRISTOLOGY
1. Romans 1:3-4
Romans 1:3-4 is an important Christological te^t. Some scholars
have argued that it is proof that Fauls Christology was adoptionistic, i.e.,
Jesus was not the eternal Son but rather he became the Son at his
resurrection. Appeal is made to verse 4 where the participle, horisthentos,
the aorist passive o f the verb, horiz, means to appoint and hence the
interpretation: Jesus was appointed the Son at his resurrection, which
assumes that he was not Son prior to this event. For example, Dunn
argues this view by linking Romans 1:3-4 with Acts 13:32-33 and its use
o f Fsalm 2. By appealing to Fsalm 2 : 7 - I will tell o f the decree: The
LORD said to me, You are my Son today I have begotten you Dunn
argues that the today was thought by early Christians to teach that
Jesus divine sonship should be viewed principally as a role and status
he had entered upon, been appointed to, at his resurrection ^ and as such,
it was something he gained and did not have.
in v e r s e ly , Robert Reymond, resisting any hint o f adoptionism,
translates the participle as was marked out or was designated^ and
understands the spirit o f holiness verse 4 as a reference to Christs
divine nature. Reymond then argues that it was not at the resurrection that
Jesus took on a new role and entered into a new state i.e., the state o f
exaltation from his previous state o f humiliation rather, the
resurrection simply marked out Jesus as the Son in accordance with what
he is on his divine side (that is, according to the spirit o f holiness). ^
But are these the only two options? Is there no other option that better
accounts for the text and underscores the complementary paths outlined
above? Let us explore a third option by making three observations about
the text.
^Dunn, Christology in the Making, 36. Dunn states late!: But the language of the
earliest post-Easter confession of Jesus sonship and the earliest use of Ps. 2:7 certainly
seem to have placed the decisive moment becoming quite clearly in the resurrection of
Jesus (46, emphasis his). Als see j. A. T. Rbinsn, The Human Face ofGod (Lndn:
SCM ?mss, 19?3), 161, for this same pint.
^See Reymnd, Jesus, Divine Messiah, 3?8-?9.
^Reymnd, Jesus, Divine Messiah, 382. Reymond also argues the following two
points, whieh are difficult to sustain. First, flesh, sarx, in V 3 is a reference to Christs
human nature which is contrasted i n v 4 with according to the spirit of holiness which he
understands as a reference to Jesus divine nature (see 376-81). Second, he rejects w 3-4 as
teaching successive stages in the life of Christ or inserting a conttast between what Jesus
was before, and what he was after his resurrection. Thus, the relation between the two
participial phrases ofvv 3-4 is one of climax not contrast, so that at the resurrection Jesus
was not appointed as Son. Rather he displayed his Sonship or demonstrated it in accordance
with his divine nature (see 381-84).

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

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.

Second, it is best to render the participle, horisthentos (v. 4) as

appointed or designated instead o f declared or marked out.^ The
emphasis o f the verse is on the appointment o f the Son as Son by God
foe Father by virtue o f his work. This does not entail a merely fimctional
Christology. After all, as Doug Moo reminds us, we must remember that
foe Son is foe subject o f the entire statement in verses 3-4: It is foe Son
who is appointed Son. The tautologous nature o f this statement reveals
that being appointed Son has to do not with a change o f e sse n c e -a s if a
person or human messiah becomes Son o f God for foe first tim e -b u t
with a change in status or ftmction.^ This point is tied to OT typological
structures rooted in foe enthronement o f the Davidic king. As the Davidic
Son, foe Messiah, God foe Son incarnate comes as foe Lord and as foe
antitype o f the sons o f the OT, and by his work foe Messianic age has
dawned. His work is a work in power that appoints him, not terms
o f his nature, but in terms o f his mediatorial role as the God man. By
virtue o f his entire cross work, a new order is inaugurated in which foe
Son attains a new, exalted status as foe Son. Jesus, then, is Son and Lord
from eternity and now Son in power, as Messiah. In him, foe two
eschatological strands o f the OT come together: It is Yahweh who saves
18See j. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 38 A fallas: Word, 2 8( 1- .
^See Thomas R. Schreine!, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
2008), 38-39; Douglas Moo, The Epistle the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI:
erdmans, 1996), 46-4?; Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological
Study (Feabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 240-44.
*Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 38-39.
^See Moo, Romans, 47-48; Schreiner, Romans, 42.
**Moo, Romans, 48.

30

Criswell Theotogieal Review

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.

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

31

Jesus reigns as Son o f God, powerfully active to bring salvation to all

who believe (c f, 1:16).2 So the contrast is not between the two natures
o f Christ or even Christs consecrated spirit, but between the two states o f
Christbetween his state o f humiliation and exaltation so that while
Jesus was on earth, he was the Messiah and the Son o f God, but his
death and resurrection inaugurated a stage o f his messianic existence that
was not formerly his. Now he reigns in heaven as Lord and Christ.2It is
this sense, that Christs resurrection constitutes him as the messianic
Son o f God with p o w e r - Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 1:3-4 is a beautifol illustration o f the two complementary
truths o f biblical Christology that stresses both the deity and humanity o f
our Lord. Jesus is Son and Lord because he is the eternal Son, and he is
also Son and Lord because o f his work as the God-man. The kind o f
Redeemer we need one who can undo the work o f Adam, accomplish
our forgiveness, and usher in Gods kingdom and the new creation must
be God the Son incarnate.
^ ih lip p ia n s 2:5-11
This text has been at the center o f heated Christological discussions
for a variety o f reasons. In theological studies it has served as an
impoitant proof-text for the kenotic theory, a phrase taken from the
Greek verb keno (v. 7), that means to empty. In the nineteenth
century, a number o f theologians advocated a view o f the incarnation
which contended that the Son gave up or emptied himself o f some o f
his divine attributes in taking on our human nature.2
In biblical studies, a couple o f important discussions have sureounded
this text. First, much has been written on whether this text is a pre-Fauline
hymn original to Faul. Regardless o f how one resolves this debate,
most acknowledge that minimally we must accept it as representing
Fauls own view, and as such, interpret it accordingly.2 Second, more
recently, some, like James Dunn, have proposed that the text is dependent
upon an Adam-Christ contrast.2* If so, then the text is simply contrasting
the first Adam, who was in the image o f God and who wrongly tried to
become like God, with the second Adam, who existed in the image of
God but never strove to be equal with God. In this way, Dunn argues that
the text only refers to the human Jesus and his exaltation to an earthly
position o f glory; it does not refer to the preexistent divine Son who
27Moo, Romans, 50.
28Schreiner, Romans, 42-43.
29On kenoticism, see Oliver D. Crisp, Divinity and Humanity (C^nbridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), 22-39; Donald Macleod, The Person ofChrist (Downers Grove,
IL: IVF, 1998), 205-212; Donald G. Dawe, The Form ofa Servant: A Historical Analysis of
the Kenotic Motif (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963).
^See P. T. OBrien, Commentary on Philippians, N1GTC (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Eerdmans, 1991), 188-202.
^See e.g. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 114-21.

32

Criswell Theotogical Review

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.

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

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

Criswell Theological Review

Fourth, in terms o f the controversial phrase in verse 7, but he

emptied himself, we should understand it as a metaphorical expression
that refers not to the subtraction or reduction o f divine attributes but to the
addition o f a human nature. A clear and strong contrast is introduced by
the voluntary act o f the preexistent Son that ultimately takes him to the
cross. But what is the precise meaning o f the verb ekenserf! Should it be
translated to empty (NRSV) or made himself nothing? (FSV, N1V).
What does this voluntary act consist of?
Before going further, it is important to note what the text does not
say. Contra the extreme kenotic views, there is no hint that the Son
emptied himself o f his divine attributes or o f the form o f God. Such
views cannot claim this text as evidence for their position. Not only
should the verb be understood in an idiomatic way to give up ones
rights- a n d thus metaphorically (hence the translation o f the ESV,
NIV), but the nature ofthe kensis is explained by two ^rticipial phrases
which describe the manner in which the Son emptied himself:^ (1) by
taking the form o f a servant (morphn doulou labn), and (2) by being
made in human likeness {en homoimati anthrpn genomenos).
Thus the context itself interprets the emptying as equivalent to
humbling him self and taking on a lowly status and position by
becoming human and by choosing to die on a cross for us (v. 8). The
nature ofthe incarnation does not involve the subtraction or reduction o f
the Sons deity but the addition o f a human nature. The stress, then, is not
on exchanging the form o f God for the form o f a servant (slave), but
on the Son manifesting the form o f God in the form o f a servant. The
text says nothing about Christs emptying as the giving up o f divine
attributes; rather, it consists in the taking to or the adding to himself a
complete human nature and upon doing so, willingly undergoing the
agony o f death for our salvation. As Macleod rightly concludes: It is
what Christ assumes that humbles and impoverishes him: hence the
justice o f Augustines comment that he emptied himself not by changing
His own divinity but by assuming our changeableness.^
Space forbids a more detailed reflection on the nature o fth e Sons
humbling himself, yet something more needs to be said regarding the
Sons state o f humiliation. Macleod notes that verses 7-9 stress three
movements in the Sons humiliation. First, it began with his taking the
o f a servant/slave {morphn doulou) (v. 7): He became a slave,
without rights: a non-person, who could not turn to those crucifying him
and say, Do you not know who I am?49 In other words, the eternal Son,
who had all the rights o f deity, became a nobody and willingly submitted
to his Fathers will for us. Second, the incarnation involved the Son
taking on our human likeness {homoima) and being found in human
47See OBrien, Philippians, 218-23.
48Macleod, Person ofChrist, 216.
49Ibid.

Stephen j. Welluni: Jesus as Lord and Son

35

form (kai schmati heurtheis hs anthrpos) (w . b)?, which entails that

he became all that we as humans are except without sin (cf., Rom 8:3).
Just as strongly as this text stresses the full deity o f Christ, it also, along
with the entire NT, emphasizes the full humanity o f Christ. One cannot
think o f the identity o f Jesus apart from him being fully Cod and fully
man. Third, the emptying o f Christ terminated not in his incarnation but
in his obedient death on a cross ( . 8). Having folly identified himself
with us in his incarnation, Christ willingly humbled him self in a final,
climatic act ofob ed ience-d eath on a cross! Apart from the emptying and
humbling o f Christ there would be no salvation for us. But foe emptied
Christ, i.e.. Cod the Son incarnate on a cross, bears our sins, satisfies
divine wrath and justice, and secures our eternal redemption. Christ is
Yahweh who saves in a way that temporarily hides his glory. In this
sense, then, we can say that kensis involved an obscuring o f the divine
glory o f Christ, what many have rightly labeled krypsis (hiddenness),
but without foe loss o f his dety.*
O f course, this is not foe end o f foe story. Even though in foe
incarnation and foe cross, foe glory o f the Son is hidden by his flesh, that
hiddenness is only our perception o f it. God foe Son did not become less
than God. As he clothed him self in our human nature, he also bore our
sfos in that very nature. And in that act o f obedience, he turned his great
moment o f vulnerability foto foe moment o f greatest victory over sin,
death, and foe evil one.
Fifth, verses 9-11 stress an incredible, decisive change that occurred
in history, theologically referred to as foe state o f exaltation. In verses
6-8 Christ is foe subject o f the verbs and participles and attention has
been focused upon his selfrhumbling and obedience as foe eternal Son
taking to him self a human nature. Then in verse 9, foe emphasis shifts to
foe Fathers decisive action to exalt foe Son as a result o f his workl
Kensis involved a real renunciation but not o f his deity. This is best seen
in foe temptation accounts, when Satan tells foe incarnate Son to turn
stones into bread, which assumes he can do so, but then later on, Jesus
exercises fois kind o f power in foe feeding o f foe 5,000 and his other
miraculous acts. Macleod points out foe difference between the two
incidents. In foe first, Jesus was tempted to use his power for himself. In
foe second, he used it for others.** This distinction helps explain foe selfhumbling o f foe Son in the incarnation. Even though Jesus is able to
exercise all o f his divine prerogatives, he chose not to unless foe Father
allowed. As our Redeemer, Jesus chose to live his life so that he never
acted for his own interest but always for ours.
The text concludes where it began, wifo foe Son exalted foe
h eaven s-o n ly now every knee will bow, not just in heaven but also on
foe earth and every tongue will confess not that God but that Jesus Christ
50See Crisp, Divinity and Humanity, 118-53.
**Macleod, Person 0/Christ, 220.

36

Criswell Theolgical Review

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.

52See OBrien, Philippians, 233-34, who makes this point.

53In its OT context, Isaiah 45:20-25 engages in a polemic against idolatry, insisting
that the God 01 Israel is the only true God. Yhwh declares, By myself I have sworn from
my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: To me every knee
shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance (v 23). The allusion to this text in
?hilippians 2:10-11 is impossible to miss. By the use of this text, Paul not only confesses
that there is only one true God, but also that Jesus, the crucified and resurrected one, is the
LORD not in the sense that he is the same person as the Father, but that he shares in the
divine rule and thus is eg a l to the Father in every way. As Schreiner, (New Testament
Theology, 326-2?), concludes, Clearly, Paul teaches that Jesus shares in the same divine
nature as Yahweh himself, but Paul does this without denying monotheism the
distinctions between the Father and the Son. Cf., Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel,
4145; OBrien, Philippians, 241-43 David F. Wells, The Person of Christ (Westchester,
1L: Crossway, 1984), 64-65.
3*Douglas Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, PNTC (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Eerdmans, 2008), 107. Cf., N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon. TNTC (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans, 1986), 64.
33SeeMoo, Colossians and Philemon, 114-16.

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

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

CrisweU Theological Review

understanding the meaning o f firstborn is the OT. There the te!m is

closely linked to the right ofthe ^ ^ g e n it u r e . Israel is Gods firstborn
son (Ex 4:22), which entails their ruling the world for God, while the
Davidic king also receives the title as well (F$ 89:2?) I will make him
the firstborn, the highest ofthe kings ofthe earth.
As Schreiner points out, in the case o f David, he was not the first
Israelite king. That privilege belonged to Saul. Nor was David the oldest
in the family; in fact, he was the youngest. Designating him as the
firstborn signals his sovereignty, and this is c o n fin e d by Hebrew
parallelism. The word firstborn is elucidated by the phrase the highest
ofthe kings ofthe earth.61 In this way, firstborn has the connotation o f
supreme over, which is precisely its meaning in Colossians 115 This
interpretation is confirmed by verse 16 for (hoti) by him all things
were created- w h ic h not only explains the fact that the Son existed
before creation, that he is the agent o f creation, but also that he is
supreme over creation because he is its creator.
3)
erse lb contains a third affirmation that further solidifies the
deity ofthe Son. Not only is the divine work o f creation attributed to the
Son, the extent ofth e Sons supremacy is also highlighted by citing three
ways the creation is related to him in him, through him, and fo r him.
First, in him (en auto) all things were made. Here Faul asserts that all
o f Gods creative work was in terms o f or in reference to Christ,63
which links the Son to the Father in the closest o f terms and ties the
dependence o f creation entirely upon the Son. Second, through him (d v
autou) and then thirdly, /o r him (eis auton) focuses on the beginning
and end o f creation. The Son stands at the beginning o f creation as the
one through whom all things were created and he stands at its end as the
goal ofth e universe /o r him.64 The thought o f this verse moves from
the past (the Son is the agent o f creation), to the present (the world owes
its allegiance to the Son), and to the fixture (the Son whose sovereignty
will become universal). Again, we would be hard-pressed to find stronger
affirmations ofthe Sons deity.
Step 2. The intervening stanza (vv. l?-18a) continues to
underscore the deity ofthe Son as it transitions to the glorious work ofthe
incarnate Son. The opening line, And he is before all things, looks back
61Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 327.
^See Moo, Colossians and Philemon, 20
9

. Cf., OBrien, Colossians, Philemon, 44-

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.

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

39

to verses 1 5 6 with its focus on the Sons relationship to creation, while

the last line, and he is the head o f the body, the church, introduces the
focus on Christs redemptive work that is developed in verses 1 8 b 2 0 .
The middle line, and in him all things hold together, looks both
directions, uniting the twofold presentation o f NT Christology: Jesus is
Son and Lord because o f who he is and by virtue o f what he does. In
particular, verse 17 teaches the Sons preexistence and supremacy over
the entire universe as its Creator and providential Lord. In other words,
apart from the Sons continuous sustaining activity, prior to his
incarnation and as the incarnate Son, the universe would disintegrate.65
ven in the state o f humiliation, the NT attributes to Jesus o f Nazareth
divine cosmic fractions which underscore his identity as Cod the Son
incarnate, thus making kenotic views nigh impossible.
Step 3. Turning to the second main stanza (w . 1 8 b20 ), we see Jesus
work accented as Cod the Son incarnate. The same sovereign creator and
providential Lord is also head over his people, the church.66 How has he
accomplished this great work o f reconciliation (v 20)? The text is clear: it
is due to his crucifixion and resurrection, he is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead. As Schreiner explains, Jesus rules over death
because he was the first to conquer death.6^ In this way, he is the founder
o f a new humanity by his incarnation, death, and resurrection, so that in
everything he might be preeminent. Thus, by his resurrection (which is
tied to his entire work), he inaugurates a new order, evidenced by the
word beginning (arche),6* and he becomes the founder o f a new
humanity. In Christ and his work, the resurrection age has burst forth, and
he has set the pattern for all those who have fallen asleep; he is foe
firstfimits who guarantees our future resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23).
Thus, what is his by right, namely Lordship, has now become in fa c t, due
to his inauguration ofthe new creation via his entire cross work for us.^
But ?aul is not yet finished. In verse 19, he again strongly stresses
Jesus deity as God foe Son, For in him all foe fitilness o f God was
pleased to dwell. In other words, the Son, Paul asserts, is foe place
where God in all o f his fullness was pleased to take up his residence and
display his glory. As Moo notes, In typical New Testament emphasis,
65The verb used, sunestken, is in the perfect tense. As Moo notes; the use ofthe
perfect tense suggests a Stative idea: the universe owes its continuing coherence to Christ.
See Colossians and Philemon, 125,
^Even C. F. D. Moule in The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Fress, 1977), 87, has noted that this statement is rich in Christological
affirmation since it treats the Son as a corporate person. Cf., Moo, Colossians and
Philemon, 126-28.
^Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 328.
68Ibid. also see Moo, Colossians and Philemon, 128-29 OBrien, Colossians and
Philemon, 50-51.
69SeeN. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon, 73-75.
70On this point, cf., OBrien, Colossians and Philemon, 52; Moo, Colossians and
Philemon, 130-33.

40

Criswell Theelogical Review

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.

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

41

sacrifice on the cross to he efficacious, the Redeemer had to be both

divine and human. That is why, as Wells correctly asserts, for the author
an affijmation o f Jesus full humanity as well as sinlessness was not an
incidental matter (4:15; 7:26); it was the sine qua non for the Sons
sacrificial mission. His pure humanity was as much necessitated by his
pretemporal appointment as was his full divinity, for each was
indispensable to his saving work.^
These truths are developed throughout the entire book but uniquely
begin in the opening verses, which, many ways, serve as the books
thesis. Unlike typical NT letters, the author dispenses with the usual
greetings and lays out his thesis in a single, complex sentence, built
around the main statem en t-G od.... has spoken. As the author looks
across the panorama o f redemptive history, he speaks both o f the
continuity and discontinuity o f Gods work centered the Son
which highlights the incredible identity o f our Lord and allows him to
develop these opening verses throughout the remainder o f the book. As
he does so, he intertwines the two complementary truths o f NT
Christology, thus stressing the identity o f Jesus as God the Son incarnate.
Let us look at this text two steps.
Step /. The author, through a series o f contrasts, asserts that God has
spoken finally and definitively in these last days in his Son. The first o f
three contrasts focuses on the eras o f Gods sp e a k in g -10ng ago.... in
these last days. Along with the entire NT, the author divides redemptive
history into two successive ages and views the Son as the one who
inaugurates the last days, i.e., Gods sovereign rule and reign.^
Implicit, if not explicit, in this affirmation is the identification o f Jesus
with Yahweh.^
The second contrast stresses the qualitative superiority o f Gods
speaking in the Son. Long ago, God spoke at many times and in
various ways but now, in the Son, Gods speaking is complete. This is
not to say that the OT prophetic revelation was inferior the sense o f not
fhlly authoritative; rather the point is that the previous revelation was
deliberately incomplete, fra^entary, and amicipatory.^
This point is reinforced by the third contrast between the agents o f
revelation: by the prophets.... by his Son, or better, in Son {en
hui).79 By this contrast the author presents the Son as more than a
prophet; he is in a qualitatively different category. Once again, this is not
Wells, Person ofChrist, 54-55.
76See William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC 4?a (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 10-12
Wells, Person ofChrist, 52-53.
See Wells, Person ofChrist, 21-66; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 23341.
This is the meaning of the expression, at many times and in many ways. Not only
was the OT revelation repetitive but by its very nature it was incomplete. In the progress of
revelation, more and more of Gods plan was disclosed to us, pointing forward to and
culminating in the coming ofChrist.
For a discussion of this point see Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 11 George H. Guthrie,
Hebrews, N1VAC (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan, 1998), 46-4?.

42

Criswell Thelgical Review

! 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.

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lrd and Son

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

Criswell Thetogieal Review

divine cosmic functions to the Son even as the in c a t e one the

Sons deity is taught. Is it any wonder that the Son is utterly unique,
supreme, and greater? He could he nothing less.
Fifth, after stressing the deity o f the Son, the author returns to the
second truth o f Christology, i.e., the Sons work as the incarnate one. The
Son is now presented as the only Redeemer o f humans, presupposing that
he has taken on our humanity and accomplished a work for us as our
great High Friest a work which no human (or angel) could achieve. In
this way, the Son is presented as the all-sufficient Redeemer after
making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand o f the Majesty
on high... The use o f the aorist ^ i c i p l e , having made (poisamenos)
purification for our sins, underscores the once-for-all-time nature o f his
work.^ While the Son is ceaselessly the radiance o f Gods glory and the
exact correspondence o f his nature; while he continuously upholds the
universe; now, due to his glorious work for us as our High Friest, his
cross work is now finished and complete. Furthermore, the Sons
Lordship is also stressed by its use o f Fsalm 110 in verse 3 a Fsalm
used e^ensively in Hebrews (see 1:13; 5:6; 6:20; 7:1-8:13). What is
significant about this is the fact that the Son is identified with the
heavenly throne o f God and thus included in the unique identity o f the
Y ^ e h - f t n t h e r proof o f his deity. How is Jesus able to fulfill all these
roles? Precisely because he is God the Son incarnate.

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.

Stephen j. Wellum: Jesus as Lord and Son

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.