The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense

by Robert M. Bowman Jr., J. Ed Komoszewski, Michael F. Bird (foreword)

A current, comprehensive, and clear defense of the deity of Christ.

The central theological claim of Christianity, that Jesus is God incarnate, finds eager detractors across a wide spectrum--from scholars who interpret Jesus as a prophet, angel, or guru to adherents of progressive Christianity and non-Christian religions and philosophies. Yet thorough biblical scholarship strongly supports the historic Christian teaching on the deity of Christ.

Authors Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski follow the approach of their landmark 2007 study on the same topic, Putting Jesus in His Place. They focus on five pillars of New Testament teaching, using the acronym HANDS, and demonstrate what both Jesus and the earliest believers recognized, namely, that Jesus shares in the

- Honors that are due God
- Attributes of God
- Names of God
- Deeds that God does
- Seat of God's eternal throne

The Incarnate Christ and His Critics engages objections to the divine identity of Jesus from Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, progressive Christians, Muslims, Unitarians, and others. Bowman and Komoszewski show how biblical scholarship cannot reasonably ignore the enduring, wide-ranging, and positive case for the deity of Christ.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Christian Non Fiction

856 pages, Hardcover

Published November 12, 2024

Reviews

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This excellent work is a virtual encyclopedia of arguments for the full deity of Christ. It sums up the counterarguments from Mormons and JWs and others, addresses them, offers accessible and insightful interpretation of key passages through the OT, and throughout the work presents the biblical foundation for confessing that Jesus is God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, being of substance with the Father.

[Michael Philliber · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s that scene in Talladega Nights where Ricky, Carley, Cal and the family are all gathered around the dinner table that’s running over with pizza, fried chicken and tacos. Ricky begins to give thanks to sweet baby Jesus, which then launches a rough and raucous dialogue about which Jesus each character likes. Cal even pipes up with his “I like to picture Jesus in a Tuxedo T-shirt, 'cause it says, like, 'I wanna be formal, but I'm here to party, too.' If one can make it through the whole exchange without losing themselves in laughter or frustration, it becomes an apt allegory of much of the religious landscape from the 20th to the 21st Century. Many Americans have their favorite version of Jesus, from folk religion to secularist. Therefore, I was delighted when a friend alerted me to a brand-new 896-page hardback, “The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense”. Robert M. Bowman Jr., President of the Institute of Religious Research, and J. Ed Komoszewski, Equipping Pastor at Reformation Church in McKinney, TX, have handed pastors, professors, and parishioners a well-studied, biblical digest of what classic Christianity has found out about the Jesus of Scripture. Though the size may seem intimidating for many, this orderly, carefully crafted monograph is worth the cost and time. One will not only walk away with a clearer perspective on Jesus freely offered to us in the gospel, but they will return to this work for years to come.

Up front, the book’s purpose is “to defend the deity of Christ as understood in traditional Christian theology by presenting a comprehensive overview of the biblical basis for this doctrine” (31). To reach their goal, the authors compile the whole study under five headings, a five-fold acronym: HANDS. H-Jesus receives the honors due to God, A-Jesus possesses the attributes of God, N-Jesus bears the names of God, D-Jesus does the deeds that God does, and S-Jesus occupies the seat of God’s throne. All 38 chapters are collected under one of these letters and focus on that given theme. To say it was quite “handy” would be close to a dad-joke, but it works for me.

The authors, also, interact with seven detracting conceptions of Jesus, all of which are very contemporary. They list them as seven families of views that are alternative perspectives about Jesus: Myth (skeptics), Muslim prophet (Muslims), Mystic (progressive Christians), Man above all others (Unitarians), Michael the archangel (Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some Adventists), Mormon’s God (Latter-day Saints), and Manifestation of the Father (Oneness Pentecostals). This interacting with critics could turn into a hate-fest or scoffers’ rally, but Bowman and Komoszewski treat each “family” with respect, giving them their due where they have things right, and challenging those positions charitably where they’re wrong. Most of what these positions claim I was well aware of, but there were some details that were eye-opening. The authors are clearly correct when they assert, “Unorthodox Christologies generally err by adopting extreme or overly simplistic positions on one or more key interpretive issues” (762).

Though the book takes a bit to read through, for obvious reasons, nevertheless it has a wealth of detail and biblical and linguistic information that make it a worthwhile effort. I deeply appreciated how plainly biblical the book was. I also found delightful the extensive work on John 1:1, the Old Testament texture for the title “Lord” in the New Testament (how often it’s God’s covenant name – YHWH – applied to Jesus), the impeccability of Christ, Isaiah 8:12-13 and its relationship to 1 Peter 3:13-15, and so much more. What the authors say about the titles given to Jesus could be said of the whole HANDS acronym: “The very wealth of divine titles with which the New Testament writers shower the Lord Jesus Christ shows that they are serious when they refer to Jesus as Lord and God” (526).

“The Incarnate Christ and His Critics,” hot off the press as it is, needs to be in the hands of every Christian minister, elder, bible teacher, and professor. And it is fitting to be taken up and worked through by patient followers of Jesus, whatever their role. Maybe you think it might be too late to secure copies for Christmas gifts, but just remember that the Christmas season begins on December the 25th and goes on for twelve days. Get out there, snatch up a copy for yourself and another. I highly recommend the work.

[James-Michael Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

A true magnum opus dealing with every possible objection to orthodox Christology from all the unorthodox perspectives one encounters out there. It's not light or fast reading...but it's definitely set the bar. If you enjoyed Bauckham's "Jesus and the Israel of God", this is an excellent next step.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding treatment on the deity of Christ.

[Nelson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book appears to be considered the definitive text arguing for the deity of Christ (whereby Christ Jesus is God, shares equality with the Father, and is a member of the trinity) using the Bible to make its case. It is important to note that this book does not tackle the various logical issues that this conception of Jesus and raises, which has been well argued by Dr. Dale Tuggy. The book attempts to make a cumulative case for its view of Jesus using the HANDS acronym (Honors, Attributes, Names, Deeds, Seat), a sort of inference to the best explanation. The writers try to fairly represent the critics (Unitarians, sceptics, Jehovah’s witnesses, oneness Pentecostals, LDS, & liberal Christians).

But the real questions is: do their arguments succeed? In my opinion, it’s a resounding no. The book consists of throwing as much spaghetti at the wall as possible (throwing out every argument they can come up with - however implausible) and proudly declaring they have amply proved their point. Sadly, it would take a book of its own to go through all of their arguments, but some general issues can be raised.

I followed closely their arguments against the Jehovah’s Witness position, since this book is supposed to contain the preeminent argument against our belief that Jesus (although being a god) does not share equality with the father. The trouble I ran into, is that they simply do not address the various lines of reasoning Jehovah’s Witnesses use for their conclusions. They provide only a superficial overview of our position and, occasionally, a paltry analysis of the arguments, and as a result their rebuttals fall flat. I would go so far to say they are attacking a strawman presentation of Jehovah’s Witness arguments. One bothersome point they would frequently make is to mention the perceived bias of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their various sources, as well as perceived bias in the NWT. What the writers fail to understand is that accusation goes both ways - the writers of this book and their sources are also biased themselves - the seeming lack of self-awareness is astounding. Ironically, the writers do acknowledge Jehovah’s Witnesses do use and have used multiple Bible translations. Before the NWT, it was the KJV and the ASV. Thus by no means are our beliefs dictated by the NWT, but by the Bible and a correct analysis of scripture and the original languages.

But now, let’s just focus on a few of the lines of evidence they attempt to use and see how they stack up. First, look at the use of proskuneo in the Bible. They show many of the reasons why it is plausible that the proskuneo given to Jesus was plausibly not tantamount to recognising that he is in fact God almighty. Yet, they somehow arrive at the conclusion that, actually, it was because he was God. They get there by using the same formula they follow throughout the book: interpreting certain verses according to their prior position, cite some trinitarian scholar or scholars who agree with them already (and which may or may not include a half-baked grammatical argument), and throw in an imagined allusion/s to an OT text/s. After which, they declare a bold victory!

Secondly, the writers believe Jude 5 is most plausibly translated « Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved you out of Egypt… ». Here is the major issue with this translation: it is controversial even among scholars who are trinitarians (as the writers acknowledge). But this illustrates the fact that these writers will go to any length to argue their case, even by proudly defending what is, at best, controversial.

I cannot leave out the classic John 1:1 debate out of this review. The writers make the typical argument that John 1:1, despite lacking the definite article, could be translated in a manner that supports their theology (an argument of which I am nonetheless sceptical). But they fail to recognise that the Jehovah’s Witness translation is, likewise, grammatically possible. Naturally, they marshal trinitarians scholars and grammarians in support of their preferred translation, but they fail to acknowledge that (for the sake of argument) both translations are grammatically possible and it is necessary to make your theological case as to what reading fits closer with the Bible. In my opinion, and that of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the case they make falls short. Oh and they make the case that when « god » is used in reference to Jesus, that it is an acknowledgement he is in fact God Almighty, an argument no less convincing than their others.

Fourth point: John 14:14. The writers accept the translation: « … if you ask me anything in my name … ». Firstly, there is a lot manuscript evidence against that translation, the debate shifted to favour that rendering on the basis of only one manuscript (p66). Secondly, the phrase is redundant and non-sensical - how does it make sense to ask someone to ask them something in their own name? Thirdly, the writers argue the rendering is plausible simply on the basis that it is a difficult reading and thus (they believe) it was omitted by copyists. So they are saying it is likely to be the true rendering because the reading is more difficult. But that simply begs the question! It is in fact, not a difficult reading at all if you believe Jesus is God Almighty. On the other hand, that is not the correct reading because it was an interpolation that does not fit with the verse and the wider context.

Last point, they naturally accept the Granville Sharp Rule, a « rule » used to derive their preferred translation of just two Bible verses: Titus 2:13 & 2 Pet. 1:1. Naturally Jehovah’s Witnesses will reject this rule. But the writers will say: « but the scholars! » well yes, many scholars agree with them (some do not). But remember, these scholars already agree with the conclusion, thus there is no reason for them not to accept the supposed « rule ». In fairness, they make additional arguments for the GSR in those specific verses, but they simply lack plausibility unless you agree with conclusion. I have included a detailed justification for rejecting the rule as a comment below (since to include it here would result in a lengthy diversion).

Invariably, someone will read my review and say I didn’t adequately rebut all their arguments. Well, true, that would require a book of its own. Suffice it to say, Jehovah’s Witnesses have published, and have publicly available, enough material to make the case that Jesus is in fact the created and subordinate son of God. That stands on its own merits for anyone willing to analyse the question with a view to discovering the truth. Ironically, I am less convinced by the trinitarian position than ever before - since this book is supposed to contain THE best argument for their position ever written. Yet I found myself profoundly unconvinced and indeed more sceptical than ever.

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is quite simply a tour de force in Christology.

Bowman and Komoszewski have written the best book on Christology that I have ever read.

They use the HANDS acronym to argue that Jesus is the God of Israel made flesh. They engage with alternative exegesis and worldviews yet argue convincingly for the deity of Christ.

It's a big book, but well-worth the time to work through it. I will come back to it again and again.

[Hudson Galdamez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finished May 27th, 2025