Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Brian Holt, a Jehovah's Witness layman, has this year published a work entitled Jesus: God or the Son of God. Holt and I have been 'friendly enemies' for the past few years, and upon publication of his book, Holt was kind enough to send me a copy. He requested that I review his work for Tekton-specifically, the chapter on Acts and Romans-and this request, and then some, will be granted in the present essay.

HOLT ON THE TRINITY-GENERAL INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

With no offense intended, I begin my criticism with a few comments on Holt's understanding of the Trinity, along with his general hermeneutic. Holt isn't a scholar, and he isn't at all ashamed of this fact. If one is looking for a good theological or historio-critical work on Christology, one won't find it in Holt's 366 page book. For example, his bibliography consists of sixty-plus Watchtower publications, and of the twenty-one other works listed, the only one really worthy of the subject at hand is Harris's Jesus as God-indeed something of an ugly duckling in a bibliography which cites the likes of McDowell's The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Halley's Bible Handbook, and Webster's New World Dictionary. Indeed, the back cover of Holt's book states, in what appears to be a comment that is intended as a boast of sorts, 'The book takes a unique approach in that it examines scriptural evidence rather than that based on history or philosophy'. But the mere fact that Holt isn't embarrassed by such a bibliography proves something-it proves that Holt has what he would no doubt take to be a virtue, and something which J. P. Holding has shown to be exegetical suicide.

Holt believes that the Bible is sufficient by itself for a correct understanding of the Bible, as though the whole of Scripture had been custom-written, for all practical purposes, for himself (or, 'us') with basically no need of outside resources to inform his notions (an attitude Tekton has decried in several essays; see summation here). In other words, Holt is of the KJV-onlyist mentality. Holt believed (until I corrected him) that both J. P. Holding and Richard Bauckham were Catholic because they cite works such as The Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach in order to place their Christologies in an historical context ('why would anyone use something other than what they believe to be God-inspired Scripture to advance their argument?'), and so on. This isn't an attempt on my part to 'make fun' of Brian or dress him up as a 'theological dummy', or any other such manner of character bashing. I don't think Holt would take my above comments in any other way than a compliment-such is the confidence he seems to have in Scripture and the ability of the common man to grasp its meaning.

Working alongside this exegetical presupposition, and partially caused by it, is in my opinion an excessively unflexibile logic confined within the parameters of his own presuppositions-somewhat reminiscent of Eunomius, the ultra-Arian against whom the Cappadocians waged war. With, literally, nothing by way of 'laying the groundwork' by analyzing second Temple Jewish theology or conceptual categories, Holt blazes through the NT with a rather curious modus operandi. We'll take his treatment of 2 Cor. 1:19 and 2 Cor. 4:4 as instances in illustration.

2 Corinthians 1:19

This Scripture Makes Me Think: _Jesus is God _Jesus is not God (Holt, 240)

We might call this style of kjv-onlyism 'read it/rope it' exegesis. Occasionally, Holt will toss in a further question, such as 'explanations are: _Scriptural _Nonscriptural,' or, resorting to an arid reductionism in order to explain away passages such as Jn. 20:28 ('My Lord and my God!'), Holt will point out a passage such as Jn. 10:34 ('Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?"')-the inference being 'since god is obviously not necessarily God, you have no right to automatically claim that Jesus is God, though he is "God".' This latter display of Scriptural interpretation which cannot but reduce the plain meaning of a text 'down to size', by hook or by crook, can be called 'read it/bleed it' exegesis (both manners of exegesis prove extremely troublesome for Holt in his attempt to show that Jesus is Michael, as will be demonstrated below). A few things immediately come to mind here. First, Holt has shown that 'going by the Bible alone', when translated into English, means 'going by the parenthetical understandings that pop into my mind when I read the Bible', which is painfully illustrated in the commentary he lays between Scripture and the 'yes/no' questions that follow (and as the answering of the questions is intended to be influenced by the commentary, it is well worth pointing out that such commentary would have been significantly different had Holt done some groundwork). Thus, in point of fact, it is actually 'read it (= 'the words of Scripture')/rope it' (='the meaning extracted therefrom after it has passed through the filter of my unanalyzed theological and philosophical a priori's, without the distinct benefit of social-historical knowledge requisite to condition them). It is not a coincidence that the JW's, who claim they go by 'Scripture only, and not the doctrines of fallible men', actually never go by Scripture only. Their 'Bible studies' consist of studying a series of man-made books about a book in the Bible-or, in other words, JW-biased commentaries on Scripture. Hence, for them, 'going by the Bible' actually means 'going by the (manmade Watchtower's understanding of the) Bible'-it being assumed that there is a one-one correspondence between this statement with or without that which is included in the parentheses. This isn't a criticism that immediately disqualifies Holt's work, yet it is a fact which I think Holt would do well to give due consideration before making any further publications.

The second thing that comes to mind is that Holt has a very weak grasp on what the relationship between the Father and Son is within the Trinity, and as with nearly all neo-Arians attempting to make short work of the Trinity, utilizes a misunderstanding of the Athanasian Creed as a strawman to fight against (Holt, 127). The entire backbone of his book ('if Jesus is "sent", he is therefore less than the Father', etc.) is neatly disposed of with Wisdom Christology-a theological template he never once engages, no doubt due to the fact that he hasn't the caliber of resources that deal with it. The reason why I make such a point of this is because I, several times prior to the publication of his book, gave him a list of resources that would amend this absolutely huge error on his part. He didn't listen, I think due to the fact that he didn't think he needed to; and I don't think he thought he needed to because of his kjv-onlyist hermeneutic. (In fairness to Holt, he recently told me that the reason why he isn't 'up on' the Wisdom tradition is due to the fact that most of the Trinitarians he has engaged in argument didn't rely on the Wisdom argument-hence as far as he knew, he had no reason to explore it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Wisdom Christology serves as the basis for Nicene Christology, and I therefore will still base my commentary on Holt's work upon this theological template.)

But it would be unfair for me to nit-pick his book too death. Holt is sincere, and his work offers an excellent view into the neo-Arian mindset. Holt makes evident why he, and those like him, believe what they believe. He explores an extraordinarily large number of classic Trinitarian proof texts (indeed, a critic has very little ground for accusing him of 'hiding the evidence', or any such thing), and within the context of his own presuppositions, Holt offers a consistent Biblical defense of Arianism. For this reason I recommend his book to those who are interested in understanding the anti-Trinitarian mindset.

Now, let's see how Holt's argument works once we dispose of those presuppositions.

SOME HISTORIO-THEOLOGICAL PROLEGOMENA

Before moving into Holt's chapter on Acts and Romans, I'll first place Acts and Romans in context by laying some historical-theological groundwork. First, I'll briefly illustrate what Jewish monotheism was prior to the birth of the Church. Second, I'll give a brief analysis of the theological freight of the concept of one 'sitting at the right hand' of God. Finally, I'll examine what N. T. Wright calls 'christological monotheism' and Larry Hurtado calls 'the mutation of monotheism' within the first Christian community, along with some instances in illustration from the New Testament. This will provide a framework grounded in history (rather than my bringing my own presuppositions to the text and imposing it as a framework) within which the book of Acts and the epistle to the Romans can be properly understood.

First, then, a few words about what constituted second Temple Jewish monotheism. It is quite unfortunate that Holt didn't consult the works of someone like Larry Hurtado or Alan Segal before he carried his presupposition that 'one God = one person' through his entire book, and this for the simple reason that modern studies of Jewish monotheism show that it is extremely unlikely that the Jews of Jesus' day understood monotheism in this sense (i.e., a single center of consciousness and will-Descartes' Cartesian ego-over against every other such center of consciousness and will). Paranthetically, it is also worth noting that modern studies of 'personhood' strongly suggest that communion-interpersonal relationality-is an essential ontological presupposition for personhood. In other words, if a person is a person, then a person must be personal; but if a person is personal, then that person needs to be in communion with another person (cf. also the 'object-relations' theory in modern psychology). Personhood is simultaneous with, and consequent upon, the act of communion. This sounds esoteric, but extended reflection upon the issue seems to vindicate the claim. Those interested in pursuing this line of thought should consult Martin Buber's I and Thou, and for a specifically Christian and Trinitarian study, John Zizioulas' Being as Communion or Catherine Mowry LaCugna's God For Us (243-317).

But if we are to drop the Enlightenment's philosophical understanding of 'person' as 'autonomous ego', in what way can we define early Jewish monotheism? Many today advocate the position that it would be more accurate to define monotheism as 'monolatry', the worship of only one divine being, but I think that such a definition can be made more definite and concrete by taking a few steps backward. As Richard Bauckham argues in God Crucified, 'this, in my view, is a confusion, because the exclusive worship of the God of Israel is precisely a recognition of and response to his unique identity.' (14) And how was this identity articulated? Bauckham argues that 'the answer given again and again, in a wide variety of Second Temple Jewish literature, is that the only true God, YHWH, the God of Israel, is the sole Creator of all things (Isa. 40:26, 28; 44:24; 45:12, 18; 48:13; 51:16; Neh. 9:6; Hos. 13:4lxx; 2 Macc. 1:24; Sir. 43:33; Bel 5; Jub. 12:3-5; Sib. Or. 3:20-35; 8:375-376; Frag. 1:5-6; Frag. 3; Frag. 5; 2 Enoch 47:3-4; 66:4; Apoc. Abr. 7:10; Pseudo-Sophocles; Jos. Asen. 12:1-2; T. Job 2:4) and sole Ruler of all things (Dan. 4:34-35; Bel 5; Add. Est. 13:9-11; 16:18, 21; 3 Macc. 2:2-3; 6:2; Wis. 12:13; Sir. 18:1-3; Sib. Or. 3:10, 19; Frag. 1:7, 15, 17, 35; 1 Enoch 9:5; 84:3; 2 Enoch 33:7; 2 Bar. 54:13; Josephus, Ant. 1:155-156).' (10-11) Bauckham argues that previous studies of Second Temple monotheism are hampered by the fact that they ignore Jewish thought categories, seeking to identify what God is rather than who God is. And it should be noted that Bauckham doesn't wish, at all, to deny that worship was reserved only for the one God. In calling worship a 'response to his unique identity', worship is still recognized as an evidence that the one worshipped is indeed God.

With that in mind, I next focus on Larry Hurtado's One God, One Lord. Hurtado's work is something like a classic in the study of 'early Christian devotion and ancient Jewish Monotheism'. In it, he argues that the conceptual category of Divine Agency provided the template for the first Christians in their articulation of the person of Jesus Christ. After examining the agency of Divine Attributes (Word, Wisdom, etc.), Exalted Patriarchs (Moses, Enoch, etc.) and Principal Angels (Yahoel, Michael, Metatron, etc.), Hurtado concludes that the way in which the first Christians went beyond the theological tradition that preceded them was in their worship of Jesus. No divine attribute had ever been an object of worship, as they were thought of as hypostases (an existential expression of essence) of the one God. No patriarch, no matter how exalted, was ever an object of worship, nor were any of the chief angels. Yet, as Hurtado shows (93-124), the earliest Christian documents we have give evidence that Christ was an object of 'cultic devotion', or, in other words, 'Jesus is given the unprecedented sort of devotion that is otherwise reserved for God in Jewish groups.' (xiii)

So how was 'monotheism' defined by the Jews' of Jesus day? Actually, I think that such a question is itself an anachronism. I don't think that early Jewish monotheism was rigorously defined-such definitions were the work of later generations and consequent upon philosophical reflection. As N. T Wright has it-

Within the most fiercely monotheistic of Jewish circles throughout our period-from the Maccabean revolt to Bar-Kochba-there is no suggestion that 'monotheism' or praying the Shema, had anything to do with the numerical analysis of the inner being of Israel's god himself. It had everything to do with the two-pronged fight against paganism and dualism. Indeed, we find strong evidence during this period of Jewish groups and individuals who, speculating on the meaning of some difficult passages in scripture (Daniel 7, for example, or Genesis 1), suggested that the divine being might encompass a plurality. Philo could speculate about the Logos as, effectively, a second divine being; the Similitudes of Enoch might portray the Son of Man/Messiah as an eternal divine being; but none of these show any awareness that they are transgressing normal Jewish monotheism. Nor are they. The oneness of Israel's god, the creator, was never an analysis of god's inner existence, but always a polemical doctrine over against paganism and dualism. It was only with the rise of Christianity and arguably under the influence both of polemical constraint and Hellenizing philosophy, that Jews in the second and subsequent centuries reinterpreted 'monotheism' as 'the numerical oneness of the divine being'. (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 1, pg. 259)

Neo-Arians such as Holt will no doubt wave off the testimony of N. T. Wright, this due not to the fact that they have any good evidence that he is wrong, but rather because of the kjv-onlyist mentality which cannot but impose its presuppositions, with or without warrant; still less let go or question those presuppositions. But back to the question of defining Jewish monotheism, I don't believe that the fact that it was 'undefined' is good grounds for imagining that it lacked conceptual reference within the minds of its adherents, quite the contrary. By that I mean that the understanding of the one God of Israel was based upon YHWH's revelation of himself in history and Scripture, while at the same time it hadn't yet been brought to a point such that it could articulate its God in personalistic categories with philosophical precision. Bauckham is correct to point out that only this One is the one who created all that is and rules all that is, and Hurtado is correct to point out that the One God was the only object of worship, yet a moment's reflection will show that, granting the above conclusions of Hurtado and Bauckham, subsequent revelation in the course of salvation history can develop the understanding of the one God, bringing it to a more definite point, so to speak.

Moving along, I suggest that there were (and still are) three ways that the Jews of Jesus' day identified who the one God is, one fact caused by the recognition of that identity that serves as a further means of identifying the one God, and one fact about that one God that we can understand as the basis which (or, for any neo-Arians reading this, 'that could possibly have') served as the point of departure for further developing the understanding of this one God, while remaining faithful to Jewish monotheism. The three ways in which Jews identified who God is were: the divine name of YHWH, who is the only creator of all that is, and who is the only ruler of all that is. The fact related to this identity which serves as a further means of identifying the one God is that he was the sole object of worship. The fact about this one God that serves as a possible point of departure for legitimate theological development is the fact that this one God is always revealed as personal. If function (God relating himself personally to Israel in the course of salvation history) presupposes ontology-i.e., if what God does necessarily tells us something about what God is-then it is definitely on the cards that the God who relates himself personally to creation is in himself personal, and therefore more than one person.

Because I'll be reviewing Holt's chapter on Acts and Romans, there is one theological concept that I need to analyze briefly, and that is the concept of 'sitting at the right hand of God'. Holt, slow to 'apophaticize' his anthropomorphic tendencies, constantly grasps from such a predication of Christ that this is indeed a way in which Christ is distinguished from the one God (after all, two objects beside one another cannot occupy the same space at the same time, therefore they must be distinct, etc.). But the concept itself, as employed by the first Christians especially, actually goes in the opposite direction. To 'sit at the right hand of God' for them meant 'to sit beside God on God's throne' (cf. Rev. 22:1, 'the throne of God and of the lamb'). Once we add to this fact that 'the throne' was a symbol for the ruling of creation by God, the tables are immediately turned on the neo-Arian, for this places Jesus within the 'divine identity', as was shown above. Martin Hengel has given an extraordinarily thorough analysis of this theological concept in his Studies in Early Christology, pgs. 119-225, and he concludes that it is 'the very first step to the "one in being with the Father" of Nicaea, for he, with whom God shares his throne, must also be "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6)'. (225)

A few comments are in order before moving on to the next issue. First, it should be noted that Wisdom was portrayed as sharing God's throne in the OT (Wis. Sol. 9:4, 10, cf. Prov. 8:30; Wis. Sol. 8:3; Sir. 24:3). Given the distinctly personal manner in which Wisdom is portrayed in some of these passages ('daily I was his delight, rejoicing before him always', 'for the Lord of all loves her', etc.), they instantly show themselves as passages capable of serving as a starting point for the further definition of monotheism, if such a development were to occur. This isn't to suggest that whoever wrote these works thought of Wisdom as a distinct person alongside God, or even needed to-the point is solely that the way in which Wisdom was described in these texts could possibly serve as a means whereby this claim could be advanced if further revelation in the course of salvation history welcomed it. This observation becomes increasingly noteworthy once we recall that the personhood of God seems the most immediately plausible point of departure for the development of Jewish monotheism. Second, Holt and company will no doubt ask, 'Why, if this is identifying Jesus as God, do the Scriptures constantly distinguish between Christ and the God at whose right hand he is seated?' This is a fair question, and it deserves an answer. The answer is to be found, I think, in the fact that the Wisdom template which the NT authors applied to the Son as Son made it unnecessary to say anything like 'Christ, who is God beside God', or 'God the Son, seated at the right hand of God the Father', or 'the one God, who is Father and Son seated beside one another'. Describing Jesus as the 'Son of God' in light of the Wisdom template covered much more ground, in a much more precise way, than the above manners of expression would have (see above links). Indeed, the question itself is anachronistic, insofar as it desires a fourth century mode of expression, which was sharpened by controversy and the result of intense philosophical clarification, to take the place of a first century mode of expression which would have said the exact same thing to a first century audience. Once the proper understanding of the relationship between the Father and Son is grasped, the question becomes irrelevant.

Next a brief examination of the 'christological monotheism' of the NT is in order, offering evidence from which we can reconstruct a theological context within which Acts and Romans can be situated. Christological monotheism can be defined as 'the inclusion of Christ within the divine identity'. The four defining notes of the divine identity need to be recalled here-YHWH, the sole creator of all things, the sole ruler of all things, and the sole object of worship. We'll briefly examine each of these four points, followed by a comment on the notion of a personal God.

The New Testament identifies Christ as YHWH several times. An exhaustive listing of such passages would be quite lengthy (along with being a road well traveled by others in their apologetic efforts contra modern Arians), so here a few examples will have to suffice. Romans 10:13 quotes Joel 2:32 ('everyone who calls on the name of YHWH shall be saved'), applying this passage to Christ (cf. Rom. 10:9, 12). Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes Psalm 102:25-27 ('In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands'), applying this to Christ (cf. Ps. 102:1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24). John 17:11 is another example ('Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me'), alongside Phillipians 2:9 ('God also highly exalted him and gave him the name above every name') and Hebrews 1:4 ('having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs'). Yet it is the book of Acts that gives us what is probably the strongest evidence in this regard. The practice of 'calling upon the name of the Lord (YHWH)' was quite common in the Old Testament (Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 21:23; 26:25; Ps. 80:18; 99:6; 105:1; Isa. 12:4; Joel 2:32; Zeph. 3:9; Zech. 13:9), yet Acts gives us several instances of calling upon the Lord, wherein Jesus is the one signified. Peter heals 'in the name of Jesus Christ' (3:6; 4:10), Stephen's final prayer is 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' and 'do not hold this sin against them' (7:60), the good news is 'the kingdom of God and the name Jesus Christ' (8:12), believers are baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' (2:38; 8:16), Ananias testifies that it is a defining mark of early Christians to 'invoke your (Jesus') name' (9:14), Paul must 'suffer for the sake of my (Jesus') name' (9:15), the unbeliever's sins are washed away by 'calling on his (Jesus') name' (Acts 22:16)-in short, the message of Acts is that 'There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved' (4:12). According to the book of Acts, it was in and by calling on Jesus that YHWH was called. As Hurtado has it-'In short, in these references to the use of the name of the risen Lord, we have another glimpse of the nature of the distinctive devotional pattern of Christianity, a pattern that originated so early in the movement that it must be seen as a mutation in Jewish monotheism.' Such an argument is certainly worth consideration.

And on the side, it is worth mentioning that this probably explains why there is absolutely no evidence in early Christianity that the name 'YHWH' was of especial importance for them-the historical person and life of Jesus is the full revelation of God (Jn. 1:18), hence the divine name ha been surpassed, becoming superfluous as a designator of the one God, now known as 'the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'. If I'm wrong here, I have a few questions for Holt. Granted that God protected his Word, the Bible, from being corrupted in any significant way by man over the course of history, why is it that the name 'Jehovah' could be dropped so easily? Was it that the name isn't one of the important things? Or rather, is it that the name is important, and God (for some obscure reason) allowed this particular piece of precious information to be discarded? But if it is important, and he allowed it to be dropped, does that not modify in some sense our trust of God's Word? I believe that Hurtado's argument, in light of Jn. 1:18, etc., goes a long way in explaining this phenomenon, while at the same time demonstrating faithfulness to the Jewish tradition (as a legitimate development of it) that preceded the birth of the Church.

That YHWH, the one and only God, was the sole creator of all things, is absolutely affirmed by the OT. A listing of such passages was given above, so only one such passage needs to be cited here: 'I am YHWH who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth' (Isa. 44:24). The texts in the New Testament that show Christ to be involved in creation are well known, and I'll take Jn. 1:3 as representative of all such passages: 'All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being'. The Holt camp thinks it highly relevant that creation ('merely'!) comes 'through' Christ, but pointing this out hardly helps them here for the simple reason that it means that if Christ is not included in the identity of YHWH, and Christ was involved in the creation of all that is, then Isa. 44:24 is false, necessarily. In that case YHWH didn't create alone or by himself anymore than Jack Bruce made the song 'White Room' alone and 'by himself'. Isaiah 44:24 leaves absolutely no room whatsoever for the inclusion of a being ontologically distinct from God in the act of creation. (Its also worth pointing out that any Trinitarian model which lacks a 'from whom, through whom' distinction in the operations of the persons is distinctly at odds with the Wisdom tradition, alongside probably being logically incoherent. There cannot be three distinct principles of origin unless we, per impossible, assume another ground of origin as a precondition for them. On the other hand, it is logically possible for three persons to exist necessarily if one such person is the Origin of the other two, and all three persons in virtue of their properties presuppose the existence of the other two. See Swinburne's The Christian God, pgs. 125-191, for a rigorous defense of the logical coherence of the Trinity). And before moving on, it is worth calling to mind that, once again, the Wisdom tradition in the OT provides precedent for such a move in the NT. Wisdom was 'a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty' and 'a reflection of eternal light' (Wis. Sol. 7:25-26), and as such is included in the identity of the one God, and therefore can be called 'the fashioner of all things' (7:22) as well as 'an associate in his (God's) works' (8:4) without violating creational monotheism. (I have since brought Isa. 44:24 to Holt's attention, and he hasn't yet provided anything like a satisfactory answer.)

Speaking further of Wisdom, pseudo-Solomon writes that 'she renews all things' (7:27) and 'she orders all things well' (8:1), which brings us to our third defining mark of Jewish monotheism-that only God is the sole ruler of all things. My brief analysis of Jesus' 'sitting at the right hand' of God already went some distance in illustration of this fact, and I'll here offer a few more passages. First, one can sight Mt. 28:18: 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.' This passage is quite straightforward, yet the Holt camp would quickly point out that this was given to Christ by one who has more authority than Christ. This is a fair objection, and deserves an answer, for there are several examples in Scripture of 'vice regents', etc., who rule in place of one who has greater authority still. There are two facts that need to be pointed out here. First of all, Jesus is included on God's throne, 'far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but in the age to come.' (Eph. 1:21) This is an inclusion of Jesus in the divine rule, and not a distinguishing of Jesus' rule from the divine rule. Granting, per impossible, that such a placement of Jesus would be possible for a Jewish monotheist who defines his monotheism in light of the Cartesian ego, Holt's objection would have force only if this placement were shown to be a contingent placement, i.e., if Jesus' sharing of the divine throne isn't intrinsic to his person. But this objection also falls flat due to the fact that, as pointed out above, God's Wisdom is his throne partner. While it would be new for Wisdom, subsisting as human, to participate in the divine rule, the role itself is intrinsic to the person of Wisdom. It will be granted, however, that such an explanation can only become comfortable for those in the Holt camp once an extended analysis of Chalcedonian Christology (i.e., how, exactly, we Trinitarians understand Christ's two natures as being united in a single person) is presumed, and this is unfortunately beyond the scope of this essay.

Our final mark of Jewish monotheism is the worship of God alone. The hymns in the NT give solid evidence that Christ was indeed included in the worship of the one God. The primary christological hymns are Phil. 2:6f., Col. 1:15f., and Heb. 1:1f. The first of these hymns, Phil. 2:6f., concludes by stating that 'so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father'. The passage is all the more forceful when it is viewed in light of the passage from the OT that serves as its basis: 'For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Only in YHWH, it shall be said of me…' (Isa. 45:22-24). It's also worth mentioning that Holt fails to tie in the Isaian passage with his analysis of the Pauline hymn. Indeed, Holt's comments that 'we see two different persons, not just the Father and Jesus but God and Jesus mentioned in this verse,' and that 'we also see that Jesus was given this name … no one had to give Jehovah supreme status but Jesus did have to be given his position by God,' (95-96) fall quite flat in light of the Isaian passage, alongside the comments made in the paragraph above regarding the Incarnation. That an exalted human is given what only God can have doesn't make it any easier to explain why that was given to him-if, that is, you aren't willing to allow that human to be God. If the traditional explanation of the two natures of Christ is taken into account, this is precisely what we would expect. It is very hard to understand how Jesus could, if he were actually human, find himself as human, and as one who had emptied himself of the divine prerogatives on the divine throne unless he was placed there. In sum, I think that N. T. Wright's comments on this passage are worth our attention.

Here, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul is quoting a monotheistic text from the Old Testament. Not just any miscellaneous monotheistic text, either. This comes from Isaiah 40-55, where we find the clearest and most sustained scriptural exposition of the exaltation of the one true God over all false claimants, and at the same time the stoutest declaration of the sovereignty of the one God, ruling out all possibility of ontological dualism. Isaiah 45:23 declares, in the name of YHWH, Israel's one God: 'To me, and me alone, every knee shall bow, every tongue swear.' The whole point of the context is that the one true God does not, cannot and will not share his glory with anyone else. It is his alone. Paul, however, declares that this one God has shared his glory with-Jesus. (What Saint Paul Really Said, 68)

Holt may wish, at this juncture, to turn to Jn. 17:22 in another read it/bleed it attempt, but this will be of no avail, for there is an ancient soteriological doctrine (which was actually one of Athanasius' strongest arguments for the divinity of Christ) which accounts for our sharing in the glory that is God's only-theosis. According to this, we are not glorified with God's glory as distinct from God, but by virtue of our participation in the Son of God (cf. Jn. 1:12-13; 4:14; 6:56; 15:5; 17:21-24; Eph. 1:3, 5, 9-10, 22-23; 2:7, 10, 15-16, 22; 3:6, 18-19; 4:10, etc-this doctrine is quite distinct from the Mormon doctrine, and is to be found throughout the NT, as well as in the Church Fathers), to whom this glory belongs essentially and as a matter of course (cf. Jn. 17:5; Heb. 1:3). This soteriological motif belongs within the context of Chalcedonian Christology, and as such, a full exposition is beyond our scope here. Nevertheless, I think Holt would do well to familiarize himself with it, as he several times seizes on theosis-related passages in a read it/bleed it attempt to prove that since even we can partake of this glory, it therefore (obviously) follows that Jesus isn't God (Holt, 22, 94, 96-98, 316, 318) .

But returning to the worship of Christ, another text needs to be mentioned. There are several texts in the OT which belong to a specific literary genre-apocalyptic-and as such are loaded with theological significance. I refer here to the scene of the eschatological throne of God in heaven (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-23; Isa. 6:1-4; Ez. 1; Dan. 7:9-10). The purpose of such imagery is to express 'the true reality which must in the end also prevail on earth … heaven is the sphere of ultimate reality: what is true in heaven must become true on earth.' Or, more specifically, the throne scene 'represents the theocentric nature of all reality, which exists ultimately to glorify God.' (Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 31-33) This point was alluded to in cursory fashion above, but it deserves some further elaboration as my final comment on the four marks of Jewish monotheism, and the position of Christ in relation to it.

Isa. 44:6 gives a peculiar title for YHWH which, in various forms, has definite significance in the book of Revelation-'I am the first and I am the last' (cf. Isa. 48:12). This title designates 'God as eternal in relation to the world. He precedes and originates all things, as their Creator, and he will bring all things to their eschatological fulfillment.' (Bauckham, 55) In Revelation, this title occurs in four different passages (within the prologue and epilogue)-1:8; 1:17; 21:6; 22:13. It is agreed, by all parties, that the first and third of these belong to God (= the Father), and that the second belongs to Christ. The point of disagreement revolves around the fourth such occurrence. Those in the Holt camp would ascribe it to God, but Bauckham gives an extremely insightful argument for ascribing it to Christ. The structure of these names form a definite chiastic pattern, which can be described thusly (Bauckham 57)-

A; 1:8; end of prologue; God; Alpha and Omega; connexion with parousia (1:7)

B; 1:17; beginning of vision; Christ; first and last; connexion with new life (1:18)

B'; 21:6; end of vision; God; Alpha and Omega, beginning and end; connexion with new life (21:5-6)

A'; 22:13; beginning of epilogue; Christ; Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end; connexion with parousia (22:12).

Bauckham also notes that, within the chiastic pattern 'if the three phrases are treated as equivalent, then Revelation contains seven occurrences of them in self-declarations by God and Christ … The number is not likely to be accidental, since … two of the other three most important designations for God in Revelation occur seven times. Numerical patterns have theological significance in Revelation. Seven is the number of completeness … the sevenfold occurrence of a significant divine title indicates the fullness of the divine being to which that title points.' (26-27)

These factors definitely carry weight-if we exclude Christ's designation in Rev. 1:17 as indicative of divinity (which would be quite odd, as it is the closest parallel to the Isaian usage), then we throw the careful structure of Revelation off balance (leaving only 6 usages of variations on 'the first and the last' in the book), along with wrecking the chiastic pattern relating the prologue to the epilogue. Yet if we allow 1:17 to be a divine designator, then that same chiastic pattern strongly suggests that we allow 22:13 to apply to Christ as well.

Confirmation of the application of 22:13 to Christ, along with taking 1:17 as portraying Christ as divine, comes from Rev. 5:11-14, wherein Christ is on the eschatological throne and worshipped by all of creation. Combined with the application of the title 'the first and the last'in its various forms to Christ, this passage is, in my opinion, the strongest indication that the first Christians included Jesus in the identity of God (also, it needs to be kept in mind that the express theological intent of an eschatological work such as Revelation is to show the absolute goal of all existence-the worship of God by his creation-yet in this book Christ is never once shown as worshipping God), and therefore will be quoted in full.

Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels surrounding the throne and the living creatures and the elders; they numbered myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, singing with full voice, 'Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!' Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, all that is in them, singing, 'To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!' And the four living creatures said, 'Amen!' And the elders fell down and worshiped.'

In bringing this section to a close, I wish to summarize what the evidence suggests. We have seen that there were four marks of Jewish monotheism: the divine name, the creator, the ruler, and the sole object of worship. We have seen that in the NT, Christ was assigned each of these distinctive marks. Every objection to the significance of these ascriptions fails. They fail, first of all, due to the fact that the four marks are interrelated; in the New Testament with Christ, and theologically one with another. Any complaint (such as 'but why did Christ have to be placed on the throne by God if he is divine?') can be discarded by noting first of all that Jesus, as God's Wisdom, has such properties as a matter of course, and second, by pointing out that if the Son becomes human, we would expect him to be given these things as human-once again as a matter of course. The theological freight of the manners in which the NT portrays Christ is far too strong to be dismissed, seemingly outright, by such 'how come?' questions. Unless it can be demonstrated that Christ in his pre-incarnational existence didn't already have these things (and all the NT hymns move in the opposite direction, as they show Christ descending and then ascending to where he was before), or that the Incarnation of the Son of God is impossible, the evidence leans strongly in favor of the Trinitarian understanding of the NT evidence. Hence all objections to this conclusion must be relegated to Chalcedonian Christology, where the neo-Arian can try his hand at proving that this formulation of Christ is incoherent, before he can begin to criticize Nicene Trinitarian Christology.

Before moving on to Holt's commentary on Acts and Romans, a brief word should be said about the final mark of Jewish monotheism-God's personhood-and how it relates to the above. As for myself, I feel that the fact that God is personal is in itself good grounds for believing him to be multi-personal. If Trinitarians are often accused of believing in an overly mysterious God, the Trinitarian can take consolation in the fact that his God isn't half so mysterious as the 'lonely-only' god of Unitarianism, isolated and alone for a literally infinite amount of time. Indeed, the tables seem to be turned on the Unitarian here: the Unitarian complains of mysteriousness, but this complaint always (from what I've seen) results from a misunderstanding-a misunderstanding that Wisdom Christology almost single-handedly corrects. The confusion I speak of here can be summarized thus-'how can one be three?' Yet we don't say that 'one is three'. The sense in which God is one is completely distinct from the sense in which God is three. We confess that God is one, first of all, ascribing this title to the Father as Father, who is the source of the other two persons and the origin of all of the activity of the one God. We confess that God is one, secondly, in that we proclaim that the Father, Son, and Spirit share the same nature, along with each of the persons presupposing necessarily the existence of the other two. We confess that God is one, thirdly, in that every action of the one God is accomplished by the three persons in unison, with each person performing the aspect of the activity which corresponds to his particular manner of procession (originates in the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, etc.)-the particular perfection of his person. We don't confess that God is one person who is identical with three persons who are not identical with eachother.

Hence the 'mathematical objection' to the Trinity can be dropped at once. The mystery of the Trinity isn't to be found at the level of logic-the Trinity is not logically incoherent. The Trinity is a mystery in the strict sense, but it is not a mystery in that sense. In what way is the Trinity a mystery? The mysteriousness of the Trinity can be located in the exact same place as that mystery with which we are most familiar. The mystery of the Trinity is to be found in the (existentiell) concept of personhood, and simultaneously, communion. For this reason, the Trinitarian doctrine of God is a priori more likely to be true, for the hardest thing to understand about it is something we are familiar with in our own lives. The point at which it baffles the mind is identical with a baffling that we face (if we give it but a moments attention), while affirming, every day. But it is quite otherwise with the Unitarian god, for at the point with which we are most familiar-the very ground and presupposition of our thinking about God or anything at all-personhood-is the point at which thought of the Unitarian god stops without being able to start. The Unitarian god cannot find his way out of his own eternity, yet he cannot be thought of as personal until he is thought of as leaving that eternity to interact with creation (for those who think of God as existing in time everlastingly backward, this point becomes even more ominous). The Unitarian God is personal viz-a-viz creation, but we have no idea-indeed, we can't even begin to begin to imagine-how he is personal in himself and without creation. Interestingly (and ironically), Edgar Foster, in a personal correspondence with me some time ago, suggested that we think of Aristotle's Nous-God as a world unto himself 'thinking and loving Godself'-in order to alleviate this difficulty (as though the fact that Aristotle taught this doctrine automatically disqualifies the possibility of its incoherence). Yet as Henry Bugbee insightfully points out, it is precisely at this point that Aristotle's logic is silenced, and that 'philisophical reflection would eventuate in an ultimate occasion for incorrigible wonder' (The Inward Morning, 38). It is indeed an incorrigible wonder in light of personhood-the mind that seeks a mono-personal God must in effect shut down at this point. Any Unitarian who feels up to the task can try to make some sense of this, but in so doing he will soon find himself in a 'dark cloud of unknowing' and mystery that surpasses anything he is so fond of accusing the Trinitarian of. For even though we Trinitarians worship an absolute mystery, we can say in truth to the Unitarian that 'you worship what you do not know; we worship what we know' (Jn. 4:22), and that on that account the Trinitarian holds to a far less paradoxical account of the one God than does the Unitarian.

HOLT ON ACTS AND ROMANS

Holt begins his section on Acts by stating that Acts is an account of how 'the Christian congregation grew from a small group to many thousands of persons', and then asking whether or not these new Christians 'who accepted the faith' were 'told that God was a Trinity'? (Holt, 219) Now, it must be stated at the beginning that the basic argument that runs through Holt's book is so repetitive that if one answers even one of Holt's objections, one has, in effect, answered almost all of them. The cumulative force of his various arguments are somewhat like an anti-type of the Hydra. If you cut off the head of the Hydra, two more spring up in its place. Holt's arguments, on the other hand, are such that if you cut off the head of one of them, pretty much all of them fall off in turn. As shown above, Holt thinks it rather telling against the Trinitarian that Jesus is constantly distinguished from God in Scripture. What Holt doesn't realize is that Trinitarians aren't monarchial modalistic tritheists, i.e., we don't teach that the Trinity consists of three persons who are identical with the person who is God while being distinct from one another. This error on Holt's part is another unfortunate-extremely unfortunate-aspect of his book, for a reader of Holt's work would expect that the author would have a mastery and understanding of the subject he writes about. A JW would think it rather clumsy on my part if I were to point out dozens of passages that say 'there is only one God', followed by pointing out that the NWT calls Jesus 'a god' that is, according to JW theology, a god other than God the Father, thence concluding that 'JW's are therefore polytheists in the strict sense', rigorously applying this false inference to Scripture and WT publications in order to make my case. In such a case, coming up with 450 proofs on my part would be allthesame as coming up with only 1, and this for the simple reason that the JW in answering one of my proofs has answered them all, because my misunderstanding of JW theology forced me to see contradictions where there were none. This is what Holt has done to the doctrine of the Trinity. Instead of asking whether or not Jesus is 'identical with the person who is God', he ought to have asked whether or not the Son is eternal and of the same nature (='having the same monadic properties') as 'God and the Father'. In other words, he ought to have examined the way in which the Son is related to God. Had he done this, not only would the bulk of his 366 page work have escaped the charge of irrelevancy, but also, he wouldn't have constantly shown a rather embarrassing lack of comprehension of his subject matter, which is constantly revealed throughout his work as he complains of 'the Trinity that defies all logic'. In any event, Holt has asked me to review his chapter on Acts and Romans. My review of this chapter of his work will, in light of the above prolegomena, show the unfortunate and quite surprising degree of Holt's ineffectiveness in arguing against the deity of the Son.

Acts 1:7 'He said to them: "It does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction."'

This scripture makes me think: _Jesus is God _Jesus is not God (Holt, 219-220)

After reading this, I can only shake my head in bewilderment as the word 'ouch' comes into my mind for Holt's sake. First of all, where do we get any indication that Jesus, at this point in time, is limited in knowledge? Is Jesus one of the disciples? If not, then how does their not having knowledge of the parousia entail Jesus' not having knowledge of it? It seems that Holt has not only allowed his presuppositions to mistake what Scripture actually says, but also to read what it doesn't say. His pointing out that 'it wasn't a group vote' is a rather clumsy false dichotomy, as Trinitarians expect everything to originate in the Father anyway. This passage from Holt's work is an example of read it/rope it exegesis. The question has been falsely put, and on that account doesn't deserve an answer.

Acts 2:36 'Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.'

_Jesus is God _Jesus is not God

After 366 pages of the above, one can see why Holt's work tends to become somewhat repetitive. He may as well have simply quoted Mt. 3:17, stated 'Ya see! Ya see! Jesus is God's Son, and therefore not God!', followed by something like 'See also Mt. 3:18-Rev. 22:21; ibid.'. First of all, Holt unwittingly tends towards adoptionism in his understanding of the exaltation of Christ. He expects us to think that Christ wasn't Lord before the Incarnation? There is absolutely no Scriptural justification whatsoever for this 'reading between the lines' ad infinitum on Holt's part. This is so especially in light of the sapiental background of NT Christology (Jn. 1:1f; Col. 1:15f; Phil. 2:5f), wherein the Son is clearly shown as already having the heavenly glory before he became man (Jn. 17:5). Luke's point isn't that Christ was not Lord prior to his being man-Luke doesn't focus on Christ's preexistence at all; his point is that Jesus the Nazarean, the man who preached before you and was crucified in absolute humility in the sight of all, is now 'Lord of all' (Acts 10:36).

Holt's happy comment that 'the whole speech leads people to think Jesus is not God' is actually quite off the mark. Keep in mind that we're only at the second chapter in Acts J What Holt fails to do (no doubt because he failed to see the significance) was to tie in the fact that two verses prior, Peter quoted Ps. 110 in reference to Jesus ('the Lord said to my Lord, "sit at my right hand"'), which we have dealt with above. Ps. 110 is quoted, or alluded to, more than any other OT passage in the NT (Mt. 22:44, 26:64; Mk. 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Lk. 20:42f, 22:69; Acts 2:33, 2:34f, 5:31, 7:55f; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 1:13, 8:1, 10:12f, 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22. cf. John's way of stating this theme: Jn. 1:18; Rev. 3:21, 5:6, 5:13, 7:10, 12:5, 22:1), nearly thirty times. This text was obviously of key importance for the first Christians, and the text itself has far reaching Christological implications. Hengel notes that 'the resurrected Christ sat to the right beside God himself on the 'throne of glory' … which is located above the Merkaba, the throne-chariot with the four animals. He thus is given the most immediate form of communion with God which was comprehensible to a Jew based upon the texts of the Old Testament (149). In other words, if one was speaking to a Second Temple Jewish audience, and one wished to assert a Christology which (necessarily) entails Nicene Trinitarian theology, then one would speak exactly as Peter spoke.

And interestingly enough, we happen to have a few instances of the application of this text from the time period in question. Mt. 22:44 (and pars.) has Jesus putting this text before the Pharisees, to which 'no one was able to give an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any questions.' The implication here is that Jesus was advancing a way of understanding Ps. 110 that put the Pharisees on edge, and the proof of this will be given below. The two texts that Second Temple Jews had the most difficulty dealing with were Ps. 110 and Dan. 7, and those who understood them in the sense advocated by Jesus were termed by later rabbis as 'two-powers heretics' (see Segal, Two Powers in Heaven). Regarding Ps. 110, Bauckham notes that the 'discontinuity between early Christology at this decisive point and the beliefs and expectations of Second Temple Jewish literature can be illustrated from the fact that, whereas Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament, in the whole of the literature of Second Temple Judaism there is only one probable allusion to the verse, in the Testament of Job (33:3), where its use bears little resemblance to its significance for early Christians. Nowhere in early Judaism is it applied to one of the exalted heavenly figures-angels or patriarchs-who occupy important places in heaven now or in the future. Nowhere is it applied to the Messiah, who is never, of course, supposed in early Jewish expectation to rule the cosmos from heaven, but only to be a ruler on earth. … its absence from the literature shows that it had no importance for them, whereas for early Christians it was of key importance. The difference simply reflects the fact that early Christians used the text to say something about Jesus which Second Temple Jewish literature is not interested in saying about anyone: that he participates in the unique divine sovereignty over all things.' (Bauckham, God Crucified, 30-31)

Indeed. There are four other instances in the NT wherein this Psalm is used before a non-Christian Second Temple Jewish audience. The one that Holt failed to see as being of much import (Acts 2:33f.) notes that those who heard it were 'cut to the heart' (2:37). Acts 5:31 shows Peter and Co. quoting it again, this time 'before the council' (5:27), and after hearing it 'they were enraged and wanted to kill them … had them flogged' and 'ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus.' (5:33-40) In the spirit of the preceding passage, Acts 7:55f has Stephen claim, before the council, that he sees 'the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God', the result of which was that 'they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him'.

The final instance is quite interesting. Jesus is on trial before the high priest's circus court. The high priest said, 'I put you under oath before the living God: you are the Messiah, the Son of God?' (Mt. 27:63) Of course, the high priest and his gang were quite hellbent on finding anyevidence they could have in order to bring a charge against Jesus. But it would be a mistake to fail to recognize the import of Jesus' response. The question 'are you the messiah?' was quite capable of being given an inoffensive style of answer. There was no set understanding of what the Messiah would be in Second Temple Judaism. Still, the manner in which the question was phrased ('the messiah … the son of the living God) leaves the implication that Jesus' accusers were trying to extrapolate from him a plausible charge which corresponded to the more questionable and controversial points in his ministry, such as his 'theologically uncomfortable' exegesis of the highly volatile Ps. 110:1 alluded to above (Mt. 22:44). For a full exploration of this theme, I recommend the reader to N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God; for right now a brief summary will have to do. The point that stands out regarding Jesus' response is that he phrased it in precisely the manner which would have been most theologically objectionable. Now, above I argued that Second Temple Judaism's doctrine of monotheism was undefined, hence at first glance Holt would here reply that if I was right, then 'we certainly wouldn't expect the Jews to have been so shocked by Jesus' claims to sitting on the throne', and so forth. This objection is rather too ambitious, in that it fails to take into account the fact that I'm not here arguing that it was the that that was sitting on the throne that was objectionable, but the who. Ps. 110 and Dan. 7 were hard enough for the rabbis to deal with (and interestingly, the LXX went so far as to 'alleviate' the ambiguity by translating Dan. 7:13 as 'he came as the Ancient of Days' rather than 'he came to the Ancient of Days'). Like much of Scripture, it was a passage which could only be 'made sense of' in light of further historical developments and theological insights. Jesus was, in this regard, the impetus par excellence.

'You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power (Ps. 110:1) and coming on the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13).' (Mt. 26:64) N. T. Wright comments that since 'we have no evidence of anyone before or after Jesus saying such a thing of himself, it is not surprising that we have no evidence of anyone framing a blasphemy law to prevent them doing so. But, granted the charge of false prophecy already hanging over him, and the "two powers" implication that the reference to Daniel 7 suggests, it seems … open that the phrase is being given a new meaning: "the one who will sit at the right hand of the god of Israel."' (551)

'Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy."' (Mt. 26:65) It is extremely telling that Holt has no comment on the charge of blasphemy in his book, but rather, we are told (181) 'Jesus confirms their idea he is the Son of God, not God. Unless the religious leaders had an understanding of the Trinity, they could not have used the term "Son of God" to mean Jesus was God since in the preceding verse Jesus said he would be sitting at God's right hand. Apparently they thought "Son of God" meant something other than God" (followed, of course, by the gratuitous 'this scripture makes me think …'). What Holt deserves here is nothing other than a (!).

Yet I'll pretend, for the sake of argument, that Holt has since improved his notions. Holt will no doubt respond, 'sure, the Jews tried to apply a blasphemous sense to Christ's words, but his words by themselves weren't meant to be taken that way; what he said was perfectly in harmony with the scripture in Dan. 7:13.' But in saying such, Holt would reveal both a misunderstanding of what I'm arguing for, and a severe exaggeration of his grasp of the historio-theological implications of Dan. 7:13, especially when conjoined to Ps. 110:1. Jesus interpreted these, in light of one another, in the sense which filled the texts with the meaning that Jews were least prepared for, and this becomes all the more acute when it is understood that Jesus' reference to himself 'coming on the clouds' was undoubtedly understood as a prophetic judgement of God upon his accusers, to be fulfilled in front of their own eyes. The latter is almost certainly the point which would have hit his accusers 'right in the guts'. To them, he was a false prophet leading Israel astray, and I doubt that his 'counter-cultural' method of ministry, which came to a zenith in his cleansing of the Temple, did much to alleviate the 'dubious celebrity' he had gained for himself in their eyes. So for his accusers, Jesus response meant that 'this deceptive and heretical man, who is a false prophet, has just given us grounds to charge him with blasphemy, joy!' We have no reason to suppose that Jesus meant to correct the third of these notions, which would undoubtedly be Holt's line if he has managed to follow the argument I'm laying out. On the other hand, it seems as though Jesus had no real desire to improve their misconceptions regarding the first and second notions-he knew that they hadn't sincerity enough to hear him out. He let the claim stand as it was, and the chips fall where they may. It wasn't the claim to divinity that convicted him, it was his polemical way of stating it towards a crowd that didn't like him.

The particularly Christian way of understanding Ps. 110 was the instrumental cause of Christ's death, the direct cause of Stephen's death, and it struck every audience of whom we have evidence as a dagger in the heart. Yet Holt's theological insight into the use of this text in Acts 2 is that 'Jesus was not the "God of our forefathers" but he was raised up by this One. Peter then states that God gave Jesus his position as Savior. Is this not the conclusion the listeners would have drawn from hearing this?' (224) No, it is not the conclusion the listeners would have drawn. The boast on the back cover of Holt's book about examining 'scriptural evidence rather than that based on history or philosophy' is here coming to blossom in full splendor. The read it/rope it mentality is indeed going on all eight cylinders as the sparks fly and Holt automatically equates his messianic 'position as Savior' with the Second Temple Jewish understanding of being 'seated at the right hand of God' ('of course they would have understood this as I do; it is obvious, is it not?', etc.).

The full implications of this text-that is, to see how far it went in speaking about the one of whom it was predicated-can be gleaned from the way in which the author of Hebrews uses it. In the first chapter of Hebrews, the author illustrates the nature and person of the Son, and in doing so he quotes 7 OT passages (and makes an allusion to Wis. Sol. 7:26 and Ps. 110 in the hymn fragment that precedes the catena of OT texts-this will need to be kept in mind as we explore John's use of Ps. 110). In this chapter alone, the author 1)identifies the Son of God as the one through whom all things were created (1:2, 10-12); 2)identifies the Son of God with God's eternal Wisdom (1:2, 3)-the key defense in the Nicene apologetic!; 3)assigns the name of YHWH to the Son of God (1:4); and, 4)states that the Son of God, as man, has been elevated infinitely beyond the angels who now worship him (1:4, 6). It is interesting that this chapter begins and ends with an allusion to Ps. 110 (1:3, 13), and at this point we should ask Holt a question. Does Holt imagine that Peter's speech in Acts 2 would have immediately convinced the audience that Peter was claiming points 1 through 4 above? After Peter quoted Ps. 110, does Holt imagine, for example, that the Jews would have thought 'therefore this Jesus was the one through whom Jehovah, who created alone, created all things'? _Yes _No J

But the fact that points 1 through 4 were claimed for Christ by the authors of the NT renders Holt's entire book void. Christ never claimed that he was the one through whom all things were created, nor can one claim that Jesus advanced points 2 through 4 in as explicit a manner as the author to Hebrews did. Hence, if the author of Hebrews had the synoptic gospels before him (according to Holt, Hebrews was written before John), the author would not be able to make the claims he does if he accepted Holt's hermeneutical key. Nor would John have been able to. If I'm wrong here, I ask for Holt to explain to me how the following NT citations of the OT as clear and straightforward as Holt seems to think the whole of Scripture is: Rom. 10:6-9, Deut. 30:12-14; Gal. 3:16f, Gen. 12:7f; or Gal. 4:22-31, 1 Cor. 10:1-4, 2 Cor. 3:7-8. Its not as though there's anything within the OT originals that exactly begs to be understood in the sense which Paul understood them. The Christian way of reading Scripture, as shown by the Apostles, is absolutely at odds with the way Holt treats Scripture. One gets the sense that for Paul or John, Scripture was something like a living garden, full of unexplored wonders and hidden treasures. For Holt, it would seem that Scripture is like a lawbook or catechism. One can easily imagine John in prayer, recalling Christ's words and linking them to the figure of Wisdom, and just as he goes to 'pen' his Spirit guided insights, Holt shows up from an Ebionite pep-rally with his adoptionist proof texts in a 'yes/no' question format in order to prove that Christ had no pre-existence ('Luke 1:32 says that "he will be called the Son of the Most High". This scripture makes me think: _He already was the Son of the Most High _He isn't yet the Son of the Most High, but he will become that').

The point is simply that it doesn't matter how quickly this or that person perceived the full implications of Christ's sitting at the right hand of God. In point of fact, we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that the apostles were quick to pick up on the theological implications of anything (Jn. 14:9); still less that if Jesus were the eternal Son of God that he would have felt the need, or had reason, to blast the news around Israel complete with trumpets and drumrolls (Mk. 3:11-12), as Holt seems to expect. The NT texts that quote Ps. 110 always show the unbelieving audience as hostile to its application, and they posit no limit as far as possible implications go-this especially when historio-theological context is taken into account. Yet from the number of times that Christians employ it, one has warrant to infer that this passage, almost by itself (Christ's sage-style preaching, alongside alluding to himself as God's Wisdom was no doubt a second factor, among other things), served as a catalyst for developing an essentially Nicene Christology. Perhaps the safest claim would be that the image itself of Christ beside God on the heavenly throne would have struck the imagination with such force that the initial reaction would not have been to immediately engage in deductive theological inferences. Such an image doesn't give birth to thought (='analytic statements') so much as it does devotion and awe. But after the image has settled within the mind it has shaken, and, coordinating itself with other articles of faith before the mind, the mind can then reflect analytically upon the impact of the image upon the faith in its entirety, interpreting the old doctrines in light of the new revelation and the new revelation in light of the old doctrines. If Christ is on the eschatological throne of glory with God, the implications reach all the way into eternity, both backwards and forwards, for the Jewish mind of the Second Temple period.

I've spent quite a deal of time on this passage for the simple reason that, in having done so, I no longer need to deal with any of Holt's other analyses of passages from Acts, nor Romans. Its not that I'm avoiding answering Holt, rather, Holt has failed to ask the question. Towards the end of his book, Holt tells us that the results of his study (see above for examples J) have shown that of '400-plus scriptures … 53 supposedly say Jesus is God while the remaining 386 show otherwise.' (311) Leaving aside the specific applications of Holt's somewhat cyborg-like modus operandi, one wonders how his tabulation tactic would work in the OT regarding whether or not God has a physical body, for example? In short, Holt's book is a remarkable testimony to the wrong way to read Scripture.

Holt ought rather to have asked questions like 'what does this passage say about Jesus' relationship to God'? The answers would have been all over the place, but the picture that emerged in the end would have been a good deal less distorted. With the above passage (Acts 2), in the final analysis the answer is, as Heb. 1 has shown, that Jesus is the radiance of God and intrinsic to God-Nicene Christology. Holt will no doubt respond that I haven't faced his monomaniacal fixation on the passages which distinguish Jesus from 'God', but this objection is ultimately founded upon a misconception on Holt's part. First of all, Holt needs to demonstrate that his understanding of monotheism was the common property of Second Temple Judaism. If Holt has begged the question in this regard-which he has-then the response he deserves is significantly modified. Next, Holt needs to show that he grasps Nicene Christology (link above)-what it entails, what it requires, and what disproves it (next section). As Holt has no decent understanding of Nicene Christology, his deserving of an answer reduces in proportion. Finally, Holt needs to gain a firm understanding of Chalcedonian Christology (the two natures of Christ) and what it implies. After having done this, we can have a serious dialogue with Holt. As it stands, Holt's work hasn't yet reached a level worthy of serious refutation.

My intention isn't to belittle Holt, but rather, to wake him up. Though answer enough has already been given for Holt's chapter on Acts and Romans, I'll indulge Holt somewhat by analyzing his second prooftext from Romans which, presumably, indicates that Jesus isn't the Son of God in the Nicene sense. On page 228 we read-

Romans 1:7 May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and (the) Lord Jesus Christ. Paul makes a distinction between God and Jesus. Note that the difference is not just between the Father and Son but it is between God and Jesus. Why did he not just say "peace from God the Father and God the Son"? If the answer is because Paul's words would not have confused them because they already understood the Trinity, when were they taught it and why are we not taught

it in the same way?

Holt with his Bible is nearly as dangerous as a starving dog with its bone. The exegetical rigor which Holt employs throughout his analysis of Romans is perhaps illuminated further by his take on Rom. 1:4, after which we are greeted with-

Paul said Jesus was God's Son. This scripture makes me think: _Jesus is God _Jesus is not God

Both questions are, of course, intended in a rhetorical sense by Holt. It is obvious that he finds his case (see above J) quite compelling since he felt it worthwhile to go through the entire NT in like manner. For that reason, we need to once again go over the basics. Holt asks an interesting question at the end of his analysis of Rom. 1:7. If, he asks, the early Christians 'already understood the Trinity, when were they taught it and why are we not taught it in the same way?' For those in Holt's camp, this is the entire crux of the situation, and I'll attempt a point of departure for an answer.

First of all, Holt (and Co.) needs to arrive at something like a working understanding of what Trinitarians understand by calling both Father and Son "God". As I've mentioned above, from Holt's book we are left with no reason to imagine anything other than that Holt thinks that, in saying such, we intend to imply that both the Father and the Son are identical with the person who is God, while not being identical with one another. But this is so far from the truth that its nearly laughable-it would be laughable indeed had Holt not analyzed the entire NT under such a notion-which moves the appropriate response from laughter to irritation. Its as though the doctrine of the Trinity were a giant brick house and Holt has attempted to destroy it by taking a camelback flamethrower to it-the result is a lot of smoke and inconvenience, but in the end the house is as though untouched.

In a previous essay, I outlined six summary theses of Nicene Christology-

1. The Father and the Son are both God,
2. The Father and Son are both God due to the fact that they share the same nature,
3. The Son's possession of this nature comes from the person of the Father
4. The essential property of God the Father as Father determines a functionally subordinate structure amongst the persons of the Trinity, and this structure does not in any sense entail the ontological inferiority of either the Son or the Spirit.
5. For the person of the Son, this subordinate structure, and ontological equality with God, are both entailed by the Wisdom/Logos template wherein the ontological and economic activity of the Son are defined.
6. Due to the fact that it is the Father as Father in whom the entire Godhead is implicitly contained and within whom the other two divine persons are subsumed, it is absolutely proper and within the bounds of Nicene orthodoxy to refer to the Father as 'God' within a context wherein the Son and Spirit are present yet as distinct from 'God' as such, or in a context wherein 'God' is predicated of the Father only, while the Son and Spirit are not mentioned explicitly.

And it seems as though Holt has grasped point 1-with both the grip and understanding of a bulldog-and run with it for all he's worth. It is points 2 through 6 which he has missed, and an exploration of these will answer Holt's question regarding when the first Christians were 'taught' the Trinity. We have already seen the drastic import, entirely missed by Holt, of the theme of 'sitting at the right hand of God'. There is one book in the entire NT which, rather fortunately in this case, gives a thematic exegesis of this text, and that is, once again, Hebrews. What is especially remarkable in Hebrews is the manner in which Scripture is interpreted by the first Christians. Heb. 1:5-14 can be summarized as an attempt to define the nature and person of the Son, specifically over-against that of angels, by utilizing OT texts in light of the first Christians understanding of Christ. Recall that in vs. 3 the author begins with a highly charged allusion to Wis. Sol. 7:26. This can best be understood as a description of the nature of the Son's sonship. From there, the author refers implicitly to the kenotic Incarnation of the Son-his becoming man that he might 'make purifications for sins'. After this, we see the Son as man taken back to the place where he already was as God's Son, prior to becoming man . This is the first allusion to Ps. 110 in Hebrews. Holt would no doubt point out that 1:4 claims that the Son has 'become' superior to the angels, and that he has 'inherited' the divine name, but the inference that Holt draws from these facts is far off the mark. 1:4 doesn't mean that the Son as Son was without either of these prior to the ascension anymore than 1:5 means that the Son wasn't 'Son' prior to the resurrection-1:3 precludes this understanding. The point that the author is making can be understood in light of orthodox Christology (the Son already was on the throne of God prior to the Incarnation, but after he became man, it was the Son as man that 'inherited' that which the Son by nature already had-see the analysis of Col. 1:15f below), but the very meaning which Holt extrapolates from this passage to argue against the Trinity do an equal amount of damage to his archangel Christology, and his complaint, if valid, would lead us quicker to become adoptionists than anything else. He has sawn off the branch he is sitting on.

Returning to Heb. 1, after the allusion to the Son's sharing of the throne of glory and the divine name, the author quotes Ps. 2:7 and 2 Sam. 7:14. A strong case can be made that both of these passages were understood to be messianic passages, yet the author understands this messianic sonship in a hitherto unexpected fashion (cf. 1:2-3). Its as though the author has 'removed the veil' (2 Cor. 3:14) from the OT, and used Christ himself as the hermeneutical key for understanding the whole of the OT.

Next (1:6), the author quotes Deut. 32:43, 'Let all God's angels worship him', applying this to the Son. Originally the passage was applied to YHWH, and within its original context, it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Messiah. The point is that the author of Hebrews is sifting the OT in order to find texts that will highlight the theological point he is making. This nearly reminds one of Origen, and it is difficult to imagine that Holt would have accepted this manner of exegesis had he been a Jew in NT times. It seems much more likely that Holt would have complained that the author was 'taking Scripture out of context'. At any rate, in light of the author's unmistakable desire to distinguish the Son from the angels, we have little reason to suspect that the author intended the 'worship' to be given to the Son in a watered down sense. The above mentioned theological point is this-the Son is infinitely above the angels and is intrinsic to God.

In 1:8, the author quotes Ps. 45:6-7, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever'. Holt's response to this is that, 1)the footnotes (!) in some Bibles say that it is possible to translate this passage as 'God is thy throne', 2)in its original context, the term 'God' would have been predicated of King Solomon (the implication being something like, 'What, is he God too?'), 3)Heb. 1:9 tells us that God (='the Son') himself has a God (='the Father'), therefore if we allow 'God' to be applied to the Son in this case, we ought understand it in the sense in which it is applied to Solomon-a mighty one indeed, but not 'the God'. (Holt, 106-109, cf. 268)

As to Holt's first point (read it/bleed it sourcework), it isn't even worth considering. As Ray Brown says, 'This is rejected by the vast majority of scholars for various reasons. Were a nominative rendering intended, one would expect a different word order placing "God" before "throne". In the preceding verse of the psalm in the Septuagint we read: "Your weapons, O Mighty One, are sharpened"; the law of parallelism would indicate that the next verse should read: "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Moreover, the parallelism from the very next line in the psalm cited by Hebrews in v. 8 ("and the scepter of uprightness is …") suggests that in the line under consideration the subject is not "God" but "throne" ("Your throne is")'. (An Introduction to New Testament Christology, 186) Since Holt atleast allows for the normal rendering of Heb. 1:8, and believes that the normal rendering would merely result in applying 'God' to Christ in the sense mentioned in point 2 above, we'll leave the first point behind and move on to the second. What has gone wrong here? Holt has missed the point that the author isn't interested in applying the psalm to Christ in its original sense-the author is interested in applying whatever passages are appropriate for the demonstration of the theological point that the Son is intrinsic to God. Hence Solomon, and his throne, in Ps. 45 would be understood as a type of Christ and God's throne; something that points forward to an ultimate fulfillment. And likewise, this adjusts the impact of Holt's point 3 above, and the Son's having one who is called 'your God' needn't bother us anymore than the fact that 'his' God, according to the original context of the Psalm when linked to Heb. 1:8, would indicate that that God (='the Father') is praising the one whom he calls 'O God'. Psalm 45 was originally a psalm praising the king (='the Son' in Hebrews), and the one who addressed (='the Father' in Hebrews) that king (='the Son' in Hebrews) was less in rank than the king. Of course, I'm not trying to advance this as anything like the correct way to understand Heb. 1:8-9; I'm simply showing how quickly Holt's style of exegesis either goes to seed or nowhere at all. Though I belong to a Church which puts Tradition on par with Scripture, I don't really have a problem with Sola Scriptura so long as it doesn't result in the above style of exegesis. If one insists on going by 'Scripture alone', very well-I myself believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture. I simply ask that they don't place their own parenthetical notions on par with Scripture itself ('surely we can see this, is it not obvious?'), and take the time to do the research in order to do the job right.

The way in which the passage in question should be understood has already been laid out in 1:3. The sense in which the Son is 'God' is this-he has the 'exact' nature of 'God's very being', and the way he is related to God as God's Son is akin to the manner in which the sun's shine is related to the sun: eternal ex-pression and procession, being intrinsic to and caused by the source. Heb. 1:10-12 is a passage applied to the Son that quotes Ps. 102:25-27, wherein YHWH is praised as the absolute creator of all that is. Holt's line is quite interesting here. He argues that even though this verse applies an OT YHWH passage to Christ, 'by this same rule though, David, Zechariah, Isaiah, Asaph, and others are Jesus because these men originally said something about themselves and their own life that was then prophetic of Jesus … In fact, Hebrews 1:5b is a direct quote of 2 Samuel 7:14 which was originally applied to king Solomon! Who argues Solomon and Jesus are the same person?' (Holt, 109-110) But as was shown above, this ignores the 'Alexandrian' typological exegesis of the author, and this way of reading Scripture (read it/bleed it) can just as easily be used to show that the Father is less in rank than the Son, and praising him. What Holt has failed to do is note the way in which the author of Hebrews is using the OT, and what he is using it for. The entire first chapter of Hebrews is written solely to 'praise the redeemer as highly as possible'. (Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 278)

Witherington also notes that Hebrews 1 can be broken into three parts, each of which correspond to the opening paragraph. 1:1-2a is commented on in v. 5, calling on Ps. 2:7 and 2 Sam. 7:14 as commentary on Christ's role as creator and his divinity. 1:2b-3a is commented on in vss. 6-12, citing Deut. 32:43; Ps. 104:4; Ps. 45:6-7 and Ps. 102:25-27 in order to illustrate the attributes mentioned in vss. 2b-3a. 1:3b-4 speaks of Christ's placement on God's throne, and is elucidated by the use of Ps. 110. (276) Had Holt taken the time to try to understand what the author was trying to say according to the exegetical methods of his time period, his understanding of Heb. 1 wouldn't be subject to the misunderstandings that his modus operandi so readily invites. By returning to the context (which doesn't simply mean 'read this scripture in light of other scriptures and make the best sense of the whole of it as I can'), we see a coherent and brilliantly styled organization of OT passages which illustrate the point laid out in the opening lines-Christ is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of his being. The author to Hebrews didn't simply quote passages from the OT, he arranged a catena of passages in light of a christocentric theological motif. If we keep an eye on this, we follow what the author meant to say. If we hop to and fro in order to shrink this passage down to a Unitarian fit, which is what Holt has done, the entire point is lost. It is indeed worth noting that Holt never connects the various portions of Heb. 1. I don't doubt Holt's sincerity-I know him to be honest. But the above analysis of Heb. 1, alongside the analysis of the NT's use of Ps. 110, shows just how much homework Holt needs to do, and indeed, ought to have done before he wrote a book. His exegetical tactics can only have appeal for those who are both Arians and also of the kjv-onlyist interpretive bent.

Now, returning to Holt's question: 'when were the Christians taught the Trinity?' What Holt doesn't understand is that Heb. 1 by itself gives as an explicit a Christological Trinitarian formulation as we could hope for. Returning to the six points of Nicene Christology I laid out above, we've arrived, already, at points 2 through 5 in toto. Point 6, which follows as a corollary of 2 through 5, explains why Paul didn't open his letters with a benediction from 'God the Father and God the Son'. That God is the Father of the Son, and that the NT authors interpreted this sonship in light of the figure of Wisdom is quite enough. That the Son is constantly distinguished from 'God' (='the Father') isn't a good argument against the Trinity. Why? Because the way in which God is related to the Son requires the Trinitarian understanding of the Father and Son. The fight of the Nicenes wasn't over whether or not Jesus is 'God', the fight was over the way in which Jesus is related to God. Is the Son intrinsic to the identity of God, or is he a contingent creation created ex nihilo?

A final elaboration of the import of the theme of 'sitting on the throne of God', and how it ties into all of the above points regarding the Trinity, can be illustrated by the sense in which John takes it. The gospel of John is written, according to some modern commentators, almost thoroughly chiastic in structure (see, for example, Bruno Barnhart's The Good Wine: Reading John from the Center). The basic plausibility of this will be hinted at in the next section. For the present, I turn my focus to Jn. 1:1, 18. Jn. 1:18 is a statement of the 'sitting at the right hand of God' in Johannine fashion. 'It is God the only Son, who is in the Father's heart'. Holt is no doubt too excited over the implications, and possible ways of translating this verse so that it doesn't call Jesus 'God the only Son'. But my focus lies elsewhere-in the portion of the verse I have italicized. Whether or not the whole of John is written in chiastic form, it is nearly unanimously agreed that the hymn that opens the gospel (Jn. 1:1-18) is undoubtedly so. And in this case, Jn. 1:18 would be paired with Jn. 1:1-'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'

Again, at this point, Holt will need to be called back to focus, as his first impulse would be to go off on a tangent and haul in the .0001823 percent of Bible translations that allow the Son to be called a god other than the god. As all Trinitarians are well enough aware, the predication of the Son as 'theos' points to his divine nature-its not to be understood as a proper noun (i.e., we don't mean to understand that the Son is identical with the person who is God, but identical in nature). Most scholars take Jn. 20 to be the original ending of John (which doesn't at all imply that Jn. 21 is necessarily anything less than God-inspired Scripture). Whether or not they are correct, its certainly true that the chiastic structure of John ends at Jn. 20.

Keeping in mind the above two passages, we can lay out a basic framework of John's Christology thus-

A- Jn. 1:1; Son; Jesus is identical in nature with God as his eternal Word/Wisdom

B- Jn. 1:18; God; the Son is the Father's Beloved throne partner

What is interesting here is the way that these two passages implications correspond to the two Christological claims that end John (or atleast its portion in chiastic narrative). Jn. 20:28 reads, 'Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"' Jn. 20:31 tells us that 'Jesus is … the Son of God'. Holt thinks that 20:31 is decent grounds for not giving 20:28 its full Christological impact ('after all, Thomas certainly knew that if Jesus is the Son of God, he therefore can't be God', etc.) But this is indeed as good a place as any to demonstrate the way in which we Trinitarians understand the relationship between the Father and Son, and based on the Johannine usage, to demonstrate its meaning throughout Scripture as a whole. The second set of Christological confessions could be laid out as-

B'- Jn. 20:28; God; the worship of the one who sits on the throne of glory, and is therefore God

A'- Jn. 20:31; Son; the Son's sonship is to be understood inlight of the Wisdom paradigm

It cannot be doubted that John saw Jesus as God's throne partner. His final vision of the eschaton begins with 'the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb' (Rev. 22:1). The vision of Rev. 5:11-14, which has all creation worshiping God and the Lamb together on the throne gives an indication of what sitting on the throne implies. As noted above, nowhere in Revelation is Jesus shown as being included with creation in such scenes, which is of inestimable theological import considering Revelation's genre. He is on the throne; he therefore is God. Holt asks where and when the early Christians were taught the doctrine of the Trinity. As was shown above, Psalm 110:1, which the first Christians understood as placing Jesus on the throne of God, is the most alluded to OT text in the entire NT. This passage not only tells us not only that Jesus is now placed alongside God in relation to creation. It also, as the relationship between Jn. 1:1 and 18 shows, implies an eternal relationship between God and his Beloved who 'dwells in his heart'. Hence in reviewing Holt's chapter on Acts and Romans, the answer to the question 'when were they told that Jesus was God!?!' is answered rather sooner than he expected. The theological point of departure that could only imply a Trinitarian Christology was first announced, by the Apostles, with Peter's proclamation in Acts 2:33-35. It tells us the way in which the Son is the Son-every time Scripture uses the word, every time it refers to Jesus. Trinitarian Christology, then, was taught by Peter in the first Apostolic announcement of the Kingdom of God, with Christ on the throne.

On page 316 of his book, Holt states that the Trinitarian needs to ask himself, 'Am I allowing the Bible to shape my viewpoint of Jesus or am I allowing a preconceived doctrine to shape it?' Unfortunately, it seems that it never occurred to Holt to ask himself whether or not he was allowing his preconceived viewpoints to shape the Bible. That said, I turn to an issue that has more bearing on the question of whether or not Jesus is God-the origin of the Son of God.

HOLT ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SON OF GOD

As mentioned above, there is no indication of any sort in the OT that anyone other than YHWH God was responsible for the act of creation. I have argued that this fact, conjoined to the evidence in the NT that Jesus was believed to have been involved in the act of creation (Jn. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14), assigns to Jesus one of the four defining marks of Jewish monotheism, thereby placing him within the divine identity. Holt, however, maintains that the inclusion of Jesus in the act of creation does not constitute the inclusion of Jesus within the identity of God. Going by the OT and the conceptual categories of Second Temple Judaism, Holt's view ('we have no problem recognizing God and Jesus, Father and Son, were working side by side making the things in the universe', Holt, 59) is definitely and absolutely excluded, and I challenge him to justify himself in adhering to it based on those terms (Holt does try to link Jesus with Wisdom in Prov. 8:22 as he who was 'created in the beginning', more below). Yet, regardless of the explicitness of the OT in this regard, Holt claims that there is within the NT evidence that Jesus is a creature. There are two such texts in the NT. I'm going to adopt a somewhat unique position with regard to these passages based on Wisdom Christology, theosis soteriology, and the sophiology of Origen, and, 'taking the gauntlet as it is thrown', show that even if we grant the words in question a temporal reference, the Trinitarian view is still to be preferred.

While it is maintained throughout the OT that God only was responsible for the act of creation, it was quite often asserted that he accomplished creation through the agency of either his Word or his Wisdom. Note the emphasis on the word 'his', for those in the Holt camp need reminding that this Wisdom is something that belongs intrinsically to God. The following passages will demonstrate the participation of Wisdom/Word in the act of creation.