Book Notes: “A Classical Christological Toolkit” by R. B. Jamieson

These Book Notes are designed to take a chapter or essay from an academic work, summarize its contents, and explain its relevance for the life and ministry of the church

Book Notes is a series from our brother Drake Isabell. If you enjoy these posts, please let him know in the comments below.

Today’s Book Notes are from R. B. Jamieson, The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021), chapter 1, “A Classical Christological Toolkit.”

What is this book about? 

Jamieson’s main goal in this book is to answer a seemingly simple question: what does the author of Hebrews mean when he refers to Jesus as the “Son.” The reason I use the term “seemingly” is that, on the one hand, there are passages in Hebrews that indicate Jesus has always been the Son (Heb 1:1-3, 8-12; 5:8; 7:3) while elsewhere he seems to speak of Jesus becoming the Son (1:4-5). How do we reconcile this paradox? Drawing heavily from the theological and exegetical insights of the church fathers–while also bringing to bear insights from modern Bible scholars–Jamieson concludes (spoiler alert) that the author of Hebrews uses the term “Son” in two distinct but closely related ways. That is, he sometimes refers to Jesus’ identity as the eternal Divine Son, the second person of the Trinity; and at other times he refers to Jesus’ role as the Messianic Son, the descendant of David who, through the incarnation, accomplished redemption and began to rule as “Son” at His enthronement upon ascending back to His Father.

What is he doing in this chapter? 

In his opening chapter, “A Classical Christological Toolkit,” Jamieson lays out the resources provided by “conciliar Christology,” which he defines as “the sum total of the teachings of the first seven ecumenical councils of the church regarding the person of Christ” (24, footnote 2). In other words, before starting on his journey into the Christology of Hebrews, Jamieson attempts to show his readers the theological and exegetical “tools” that he plans to use from the teachings about Jesus that the church has held throughout most of its history. After listing out these six tools, he offers a further explanation of the relationship between Hebrews’ depiction of Christ and the later teachings of conciliar Christology, then concludes the chapter with a response to potential objections to his method of using these tools to interpret the text.

Walking through “A Classical Christological Toolkit”

Jamieson begins the chapter by outlining his six Christological “tools”--defined as “six distinctions, concepts, and reading strategies” drawn from the classical teachings of the church about Jesus (24)–which he will use to better understand what Hebrews is saying about Jesus’ sonship. The first three tools are phrased as answers to three key questions about Jesus: who, what, and when? The final three are “strategies of reading and predication that seek to account for the paradoxical fullness of what a text like Hebrews says about Jesus” (if you don’t understand what he means by that, don’t worry; it’ll become clearer once we look at the tools themselves).

1. Question: Who? Answer: A single divine subject. Jamieson writes, “As when we meet anyone, the first question we tend to ask on encountering Jesus naturally is, Who is he? And the answer that conciliar Christology gives, and that I will argue the text of Hebrews gives, is God the Son” (25). Jamieson’s emphasis in giving this answer is on the singleness of Jesus’ identity. In other words, there are not two “Sons” or two “Jesuses,” one divine and one human. Both Hebrews (e.g., Heb 1:2-4) and classical Christology (e.g. Nicene Creed, Definition of Chalcedon, Cyril of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, Athanasius) insist that there is only one subject, one person performing all the actions ascribed to the Son.

2. Question: What? Answer: One person with two natures. While Jesus is one, single subject, he is both “human” and “more than human,” and “what he possesses that is more than human is divine in the fullest sense of the word” (28). Jamieson insists that distinguishing between these first two questions (“who” versus “what”) is crucial to understanding both classical Christology and the author of Hebrews.

3. Question: When? Answer: Eternal divine existence and incarnation in time, in the last times. Drawing again from the example of church figures such as Athanasius and Cyril, Jamieson makes a distinction between “the Son’s existence in eternity from his incarnation in time” (30). This becomes necessary when interpreting the various activities the author of Hebrews ascribes to Jesus, such as creating the world, atoning for sin, and serving as our High Priest. In each case, to rightly understand what the text is saying, we need to ask the question: Is the author referring to the Son’s existence/activity in eternity past, during previous eras of human history, or during these “last times” after becoming incarnate?

4. Theology and economy, or “partitive exegesis.” While the term “partitive exegesis” sounds intimidating, the concept is really just a straightforward application of the answers to the previous three questions. Partitive exegesis recognizes that “certain biblical passages ascribe divinity to Christ–they ‘theologize’ him–while other passages designate Christ as incarnate and describe what pertains to his incarnate state” (32). Following the example of some of the aforementioned figures from church history, Jamieson argues that when we read a passage describing the nature and/or work of Christ, we need to discern whether the text is speaking of Jesus’ divine essence (“theology”) or his incarnate state (“economy,” which in classical Christology is shorthand for “plan of salvation” as accomplished through the incarnation). With regard to Hebrews, he writes, “Sometimes Hebrews speaks of the Son as he is God; sometimes Hebrews speaks of the Son as he has become human. The theology-economy distinction recognizes this difference and invites us to read accordingly” (36).

5. Twofold or reduplicative predication. Again, terms like “reduplicative predication” sound overly-technical (and in certain settings, they would be), the concept is again a staple of Christian orthodoxy. In sum, twofold/reduplicative predication is simply the recognition that the reason why biblical passages can speak of Jesus as divine while others ascribe human traits to him (a.k.a. theology vs. economy, or partitive exegesis) is because Jesus has two natures, one fully divine, the other fully human (i.e., the answer to question #2). Jamieson writes, “While theology and economy distinguish between the scope of different biblical passages or assertions (simply divine or incarnate), twofold predication distinguishes between the incarnate Christ’s divine and human natures as the basis of, or warrant for, particular assertions” (36). To be perfectly honest, I find it a little confusing that he lists twofold predication after partitive exegesis, since the former is really the grounds of the latter.

6. Paradoxical predication: the communication of idioms. As the final tool in his Christological toolbelt, Jamieson cites the practice sometimes referred to as the communicatio idiomatum (“communication of idioms”). The idea here is that, if the Son is truly one subject with two distinct natures, then it is perfectly appropriate to make certain kinds of paradoxical statements about him, “naming Christ according to his divine nature and predicating of him what is true only by virtue of his human nature” (39). As a couple of biblical examples of this, Jamieson cites Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:8, where the apostle asserts that “the rulers of this age…would not have crucified the Lord of glory”; and Peter in Acts 3:15, where he indicts his audience by saying they “killed the Author of life.” Jamieson also cites examples from church history, such as Ignatius’s use of phrases like “the blood of God” and “the suffering of my God”; or Gregory of Nazianzus’s saying that “the fleshless one is made flesh, the Word becomes material, the invisible is seen, the intangible is touched, the timeless has a beginning” (39-40). As far as the purpose of his book goes, Jamieson writes, “While Hebrews does not feature such bracingly paradoxical sentences, I will argue that its whole witness to Jesus warrants them” (39).

After unpacking these six Christological tools, Jamieson briefly discusses the relationship between conciliar Christology and the Christology of Hebrews. He argues that while the two sources use different terms, different forms of presentation (e.g., the implications of an epistle versus the structure of a creed), and different degrees of specification, their teachings about Jesus “say substantially the same thing in different ways” (42).

In response to the potential criticism of using these teachings to read a specific theology into the text, Jamieson clarifies that he views these Christological tools as having explanatory power to unpack what is already in the text, not authority to determine ahead of time what the text says. He writes, “I will use the reading strategies sketched above not to decide in advance what the text must say but to consider the possibility that Hebrews says more things than are dreamt of in our historical-critical philosophies. I have honed these tools not to replace exegesis but to improve exegesis…My use of these tools is strictly heuristic; they are hearing aids, not an answer key…While lenses may distort vision, the right lenses restore it. The right kind of theology does not lead us away from the text but deeper into the text. It sends us back to the text better equipped to hear what the text actually says” (44-45).

Finally, Jamieson mentions two areas where, in the course of his exegesis of Hebrews, he will differ with many key figures who represent classic Christology, such as Chrysostom, Aquinas, and Cyril. First, he will argue that the term “Son” in Hebrews 1:4-5 is a title that Jesus receives upon completion of His saving work and enthronement in heaven rather than another reference to His eternal Sonship. Second, he will argue that the author of Hebrews locates Jesus’ appointment to the role of High Priest after His resurrection from the grave rather than at the point of His incarnation (47).

Why does this matter?

I am largely in agreement with the “toolkit” Jamieson advocates for and believe it to be beneficial in at least three areas:

1. It helps us to speak/write/sing about Jesus in a way that is biblically faithful, theologically sound, and genuinely glorious. On the one hand, it prevents us from diminishing the incredible Scriptural truths regarding Jesus’ full divinity and full humanity. On the other hand, it gives us the freedom to exemplify the beauty of Christ's incarnation through lyrics like, “Amazing love! How can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me?”

2. It draws our attention to historical theology as an aid to exegesis itself rather than only a guardrail against heresy (as important as that second function is). Too often in the area of biblical interpretation, consulting church fathers or creeds becomes an afterthought, something to check off our list or satisfy our curiosity. But, as Jamieson argues, the great stream of historic Christian teaching (what some authors refer to as the “Great Tradition”) is a source of exegetical and theological wisdom that can help us understand the teachings of God’s Word.

3. That said, as helpful as church fathers and creeds can be, Scripture and Scripture alone is our final authority. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura means that all other sources of doctrinal teaching are ultimately subject to the teachings of the Bible itself. Jamieson’s willingness to differ from weighty figures of church history where he sees their conclusions differing from the biblical text should serve as an example for us to imitate as well. Draw from the well of wisdom that is historical theology; but do not make simple appeals to tradition as an authority over what the text is actually saying.