What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture
The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews
Biblical Foundations Book Awards Runner Up and Finalist What does the epistle to the Hebrews mean when it calls Jesus "Son"? Is "Son" a title that denotes his eternal existence as one person of the Trinity? Or is it a title Jesus receives upon his installation on heaven's throne after his resurrection and ascension? In this Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (SCDS) volume, which promotes fresh understandings of Christian belief through creative, faithful readings of the canonical text, pastor and New Testament scholar R. B. Jamieson probes the complexity of the Christology presented in the epistle to the Hebrews. Exploring the paradox of this key term, Jamieson argues that, according to Hebrews, "Son" names both who Jesus is eternally and what he becomes at the climax of his incarnate, saving mission. Jesus is, in short, the eternal Son who became the messianic Son for us and for our salvation. This volume thereby offers a case study showing how the church's core convictions about Christ lead us not away from the text, but deeper into it. Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture, edited by Daniel J. Treier and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, promotes evangelical contributions to systematic theology, seeking fresh understanding of Christian doctrine through creatively faithful engagement with Scripture in dialogue with church.
195 pages, Paperback
Published May 25, 2021
5 people are currently reading
122 people want to read
About the author
R.B. Jamieson
3 books8 followersBobby Jamieson is a Ph.D. student in New Testament and affiliated lecturer in New Testament Greek at the University of Cambridge. He and his wife are members of Eden Baptist Church, and they live in Cambridge with their three children. Bobby previously served as assistant editor for 9Marks.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
June 12, 2025
2025
Speed reread, after spending a few weeks of deep study in how the NT uses Psalm 2. After resisting it, I’m now on board with Jamieson’s take. But I’m not rating it higher simply because I agree, but because after surveying a bunch of other books, his was clearly the most insightful and carefully thought out. I was originally resisted his proposal because I’m wary of both/and solutions—so often they are attempts to avoid interpretive problems and not ways to press into them. And I am compelled to read Ps 2:7 as teaching eternal generation… but I was defeated after deep study of Hebrews 1/5 and rereading Jamieson’s scholarship of the passages
2023
Still processing this one. “The (divine) Son became (the messianic) Son” has good explanatory power, and the partitive exegesis is very helpful.
However, the argument for the “messianic sonship” aspect depends seeing Ps 2 as regarding the appointment of historic Davidic kings. Jesus then slots into this idea as the ultimate anointed king. But I’m not 100% convinced that’s what Ps 2 is about at all. I hold (and think the NT and early church do too) that Ps 2 exclusively refers to Christ (and not other “Davidic kings” also named “son”). If true, this undermines the “messianic sonship” part of the argument. Which would then put pressure on us to think the “given” and “appointed” language of Heb 1 and Rom 1 etc are more akin to “confirming”—an idea which the author admits has strong support in the Christian tradition. So maybe we don’t need this “son becomes son” thesis at all.
As to the name that Christ inherits in Heb 1 being “son,” I’m unsure. It’s true that there is a the strong link between Heb 1:4 and v5. But the remainder of the psalms cited in the chapter have key conceptual links to Heb 1:1-3 and they use “God” and “Lord” (even “firstborn” if Ps 89 is alluded to and “Christ” is in Ps 45) So is “Son” of Ps 2 too limiting a candidate for “name” in Heb 1:4? Especially given Phil 2:5-11 and Acts 2:36, where Jesus is also “made” Christ and Lord. Maybe the “name” is broader than a single word (eg Son) but a constellation of titles as seen in Heb 1.
🧐
Speed reread, after spending a few weeks of deep study in how the NT uses Psalm 2. After resisting it, I’m now on board with Jamieson’s take. But I’m not rating it higher simply because I agree, but because after surveying a bunch of other books, his was clearly the most insightful and carefully thought out. I was originally resisted his proposal because I’m wary of both/and solutions—so often they are attempts to avoid interpretive problems and not ways to press into them. And I am compelled to read Ps 2:7 as teaching eternal generation… but I was defeated after deep study of Hebrews 1/5 and rereading Jamieson’s scholarship of the passages
2023
Still processing this one. “The (divine) Son became (the messianic) Son” has good explanatory power, and the partitive exegesis is very helpful.
However, the argument for the “messianic sonship” aspect depends seeing Ps 2 as regarding the appointment of historic Davidic kings. Jesus then slots into this idea as the ultimate anointed king. But I’m not 100% convinced that’s what Ps 2 is about at all. I hold (and think the NT and early church do too) that Ps 2 exclusively refers to Christ (and not other “Davidic kings” also named “son”). If true, this undermines the “messianic sonship” part of the argument. Which would then put pressure on us to think the “given” and “appointed” language of Heb 1 and Rom 1 etc are more akin to “confirming”—an idea which the author admits has strong support in the Christian tradition. So maybe we don’t need this “son becomes son” thesis at all.
As to the name that Christ inherits in Heb 1 being “son,” I’m unsure. It’s true that there is a the strong link between Heb 1:4 and v5. But the remainder of the psalms cited in the chapter have key conceptual links to Heb 1:1-3 and they use “God” and “Lord” (even “firstborn” if Ps 89 is alluded to and “Christ” is in Ps 45) So is “Son” of Ps 2 too limiting a candidate for “name” in Heb 1:4? Especially given Phil 2:5-11 and Acts 2:36, where Jesus is also “made” Christ and Lord. Maybe the “name” is broader than a single word (eg Son) but a constellation of titles as seen in Heb 1.
🧐
October 11, 2022
I’ve had mixed feelings about the theological retrieval movement as a whole, but Jamieson’s book is theological retrieval at its very best. Drawing from both the church fathers and modern scholarship, he brilliantly demonstrates how great minds past and present can help us make sense of apparent puzzles in the biblical text, taking as his main topic the question: How can the author of Hebrews describe Jesus as both “being” the Son from eternity and “becoming” the Son at his ascension? While the categories the church fathers used are immensely helpful in doing exegesis, Jamieson ultimately argues his case from the biblical text itself, making clear where the final authority lies. He’s also a clear and engaging writer, which made this book all the more enjoyable to read.
February 11, 2025
This volume does some things incredibly well, and others not so much. However, the shortcomings are more methodological than anything else.
As for the positives, Jamison encourages and instructs readers in sound theological reasoning. He asks questions that last generations glossed over, and he handles them well. I may not agree with every conclusion, but he leads readers by the hand to how he arrived at that point. He taught me to think deeply, and that alone is worth the price of the book.
Also, I greatly appreciate his use of recapitulation. After some denser sections, he summarizes the past argument before moving forward.
Now, the negatives. Some of the conclusions of which I disagree arise because of methodological issues. One, Jamieson demonstrates my critique of the retrieval movement. For some, “theological retrieval” is strictly classical and conciliar. If someone read unaware of the broader retrieval moment, he would be led to believe that good theology ended with Augustine (and maybe, Aquinas). Jamieson ignores any Reformation or post-Reformation theologians who mined the patristics and councils with greater fervency than our own day. If he had utilized them and their understanding of the threefold office of Christ, it would have greatly aided his argument. Furthermore, an expansion of the two states of Christ (a linchpin of Reformation Christology) would have been beneficial overall.
Furthermore, Jamieson falls into the same trap as the modern biblical theology movement. Hebrews has much to say, but Hebrews does not speak alone. His failure to interact with other biblical books would have greatly enhanced and clarified many points of his argument. The unity of God’s covenants dealings provides the grounds for engaging the Old and New Testament. The Christ of Hebrews is the Christ of both Testaments, and we cannot see Him rightly through a microscope.
As for the positives, Jamison encourages and instructs readers in sound theological reasoning. He asks questions that last generations glossed over, and he handles them well. I may not agree with every conclusion, but he leads readers by the hand to how he arrived at that point. He taught me to think deeply, and that alone is worth the price of the book.
Also, I greatly appreciate his use of recapitulation. After some denser sections, he summarizes the past argument before moving forward.
Now, the negatives. Some of the conclusions of which I disagree arise because of methodological issues. One, Jamieson demonstrates my critique of the retrieval movement. For some, “theological retrieval” is strictly classical and conciliar. If someone read unaware of the broader retrieval moment, he would be led to believe that good theology ended with Augustine (and maybe, Aquinas). Jamieson ignores any Reformation or post-Reformation theologians who mined the patristics and councils with greater fervency than our own day. If he had utilized them and their understanding of the threefold office of Christ, it would have greatly aided his argument. Furthermore, an expansion of the two states of Christ (a linchpin of Reformation Christology) would have been beneficial overall.
Furthermore, Jamieson falls into the same trap as the modern biblical theology movement. Hebrews has much to say, but Hebrews does not speak alone. His failure to interact with other biblical books would have greatly enhanced and clarified many points of his argument. The unity of God’s covenants dealings provides the grounds for engaging the Old and New Testament. The Christ of Hebrews is the Christ of both Testaments, and we cannot see Him rightly through a microscope.
Read
May 11, 2025For BT613: General Epistles
Helpful reading for anyone studying Hebrews as it sets the stage for the rest of the book: the who, what, why of Christ.
Helpful reading for anyone studying Hebrews as it sets the stage for the rest of the book: the who, what, why of Christ.
April 10, 2022
Summary: A discussion of the use of “Son” in Hebrews proposing that it is a paradox, that Jesus is the divine Son who became the messianic “Son” at the climax of his saving mission.
The very first verses of the book of Hebrews present us with a challenge. What does the author mean when he refers to Jesus as “Son”? Verses 1-3 seem to describe one who is the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, eternally God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Yet verse 5, quoting Psalm 2:7 and the parallels in 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13 seem to suggest that Jesus is given the title “Son” at the point of his enthronement, after resurrection and ascension. This has resulted in at least three approaches: 1) that Jesus only becomes the Son, an adoptionist, less than eternally divine, approach, 2) being the Son and becoming the Son are irreconcilable, resulting in a Christology at tension with itself, and 3) Jesus is always and already the Son, a divine Christology approach.
In this work, R.B. Jamieson proposes an alternative. He sees a paradox in which both meanings are true. Jesus is the Son who became the Son. Jamieson begins his argument with highlighting six Christological concepts that he contends are part of the classical Christological toolkit: 1) Who Jesus is? A single divine subject, 2) What Jesus is? One person with two natures, 3) When this Jesus is? Eternal divine existence and incarnation in time, the last times, 4) Theology and economy, or “partitive exegesis,” that is distinguishing passages speaking of Jesus as eternally divine, and those speaking of his incarnation, 5) Twofold or reduplicative predication, a complement to number 4 in focusing on the incarnate state, and distinguishing what passages reference Jesus divine nature an what his human nature, and 6) paradoxical predication: the communication of idioms, that seemingly incompatible qualities must be ascribed to the single person of the Son. He roots these in conciliar Christianity and proposes that these, although an unusual exegetical strategy, actually allow one to read with the grain of Hebrews.
In succeeding chapters then, he unpacks his argument of the Son who became the Son. Chapter 2 focuses on the use of Son as a divine designation of his mode of divine existence, distinct from the Father and the Spirit, and as a reference to his deity. Chapter 3 turns to the Son’s incarnate mission, fully divine and fully human, and that his life, suffering, death, and resurrection are not fissures in Christology but reflect tension and resolution. Chapter 4 focuses on the enthronement of Jesus upon completion of his saving mission, confirming his messianic rule, in which he is designated messianic Son. Then, the unique twist of chapter 5 is that Jesus could only become the messianic Son because he is the divine Son incarnate–only the God-man can fill this office.
In the conclusion of the book, he first returns to the “toolkit” and shows how the Jesus of Hebrews is the Jesus of Chalcedon. He then proposes in brief that one might extend his approach to at least two other passages: Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4. Finally, he points to the pastoral implication of his argument, that in the Son who became the Son, we have been given all we need in Christ.
I thought this book a marvelous example of theology and biblical studies in conversation. We see in careful study of Hebrews the questions and data about the nature of the Son that became the substance of conciliar discussion. And we see how the “Christological toolkit” of the councils offers resources for making sense of the biblical data. What I also appreciated was the carefully organized and articulated argument of this book. Jamieson “shows his work,” enabling us to follow him with clarity of language and steps in his argument. Scholars of other persuasions will have to show why theirs is a better construction of the text than this well-argued case.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
The very first verses of the book of Hebrews present us with a challenge. What does the author mean when he refers to Jesus as “Son”? Verses 1-3 seem to describe one who is the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, eternally God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Yet verse 5, quoting Psalm 2:7 and the parallels in 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13 seem to suggest that Jesus is given the title “Son” at the point of his enthronement, after resurrection and ascension. This has resulted in at least three approaches: 1) that Jesus only becomes the Son, an adoptionist, less than eternally divine, approach, 2) being the Son and becoming the Son are irreconcilable, resulting in a Christology at tension with itself, and 3) Jesus is always and already the Son, a divine Christology approach.
In this work, R.B. Jamieson proposes an alternative. He sees a paradox in which both meanings are true. Jesus is the Son who became the Son. Jamieson begins his argument with highlighting six Christological concepts that he contends are part of the classical Christological toolkit: 1) Who Jesus is? A single divine subject, 2) What Jesus is? One person with two natures, 3) When this Jesus is? Eternal divine existence and incarnation in time, the last times, 4) Theology and economy, or “partitive exegesis,” that is distinguishing passages speaking of Jesus as eternally divine, and those speaking of his incarnation, 5) Twofold or reduplicative predication, a complement to number 4 in focusing on the incarnate state, and distinguishing what passages reference Jesus divine nature an what his human nature, and 6) paradoxical predication: the communication of idioms, that seemingly incompatible qualities must be ascribed to the single person of the Son. He roots these in conciliar Christianity and proposes that these, although an unusual exegetical strategy, actually allow one to read with the grain of Hebrews.
In succeeding chapters then, he unpacks his argument of the Son who became the Son. Chapter 2 focuses on the use of Son as a divine designation of his mode of divine existence, distinct from the Father and the Spirit, and as a reference to his deity. Chapter 3 turns to the Son’s incarnate mission, fully divine and fully human, and that his life, suffering, death, and resurrection are not fissures in Christology but reflect tension and resolution. Chapter 4 focuses on the enthronement of Jesus upon completion of his saving mission, confirming his messianic rule, in which he is designated messianic Son. Then, the unique twist of chapter 5 is that Jesus could only become the messianic Son because he is the divine Son incarnate–only the God-man can fill this office.
In the conclusion of the book, he first returns to the “toolkit” and shows how the Jesus of Hebrews is the Jesus of Chalcedon. He then proposes in brief that one might extend his approach to at least two other passages: Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4. Finally, he points to the pastoral implication of his argument, that in the Son who became the Son, we have been given all we need in Christ.
I thought this book a marvelous example of theology and biblical studies in conversation. We see in careful study of Hebrews the questions and data about the nature of the Son that became the substance of conciliar discussion. And we see how the “Christological toolkit” of the councils offers resources for making sense of the biblical data. What I also appreciated was the carefully organized and articulated argument of this book. Jamieson “shows his work,” enabling us to follow him with clarity of language and steps in his argument. Scholars of other persuasions will have to show why theirs is a better construction of the text than this well-argued case.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
May 22, 2021
Glorious
July 15, 2021
Jamieson's book answers how the author of Hebrews uses and understands the name, given to Jesus, "Son." If Jesus is pre-existent as God the Son (as Hebrews affirms), how can the Son *become* the Son? Jamieson follows the "narrative Christology" of Hebrews to provide an answer. And I think he's right.
This is a well-written, rigorously argued, and impressive work. Perhaps more important than simply being a great book, though, is *why and how* this book is so good.
Jamieson's book is not simply another addition to an ever-increasing NT studies field. It's a book that demonstrates the brilliance of a more broad and generous way of doing NT studies. This more broad and generous way is lit by systematic theology, historical theology, Patristic theology--in other words, it's a book that casts a vision for what scholarship can look like if we refuse to silo biblical studies and the various theological disciplines. Jamieson says it like this: "In the whole book I attempt to demonstrate that this classical christological toolkit enables us to read with the grain of Hebrew's narrative Christology, to say about the Son all that Hebrews says about the Son and, ultimately, to perceive something of why Hebrews asserts that the Son became Son" (20).
This toolkit, outlined in Chapter 2, is important not because with it we can squeeze out a certain reading of the text. Rather, these tools are meant to "keep options open" and to help us "consider the possibility that Hebrews says more things than are dreamt of in our historical-critical philosophies" (44). They are meant to improve and bring more clarity to our exegesis--not replace it. Jamieson uses this "christological toolkit" with great success. In so doing, he models a promising new path for biblical studies scholarship, informed by Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, or John of Damascus.
To his credit, Jamieson does not slavishly follow the Patristic theologians he brings into the conversation. There are points at which he departs from some of Athansius' or Cyril's exegetical conclusions. He highlights the disagreement, states why he concludes differently, and clarifies his point further. He is a humble and charitable reader of the Great Tradition.
There are beautiful and brilliant sentences throughout the book that show how Jamieson's role as a pastor/preacher helps him to be a clear, patient, and summative writer. For instance:
"After offering this sacrifice to God in heaven, Christ sat down at God's right hand in royal repose, his single sacrifice sufficient to save . . ." (93)
"Psalm 110:1 plants a seed that sprouts and flowers in Hebrews' exposition of Jesus as the theandric Messiah, the divine Son incarnate who does as a man what only God may." (135)
"The whole aim of Hebrews' Christology is to explain how the Son became what he needed to be in order to become the Savior we needed." (138)
The book is filled with sentences like these that are aimed at helping the reader grasp the significance of the previously made point and synthesizing it with his broader argument.
Jamieson provides a master class in theological grammar for us. You may not agree with all of his conclusions (I'm still having to mull over some of the threads in his argument) but this book is an exemplary contribution to Christian scholarship. We have much to learn from Jamieson in how he weaves disciplines together that ought never to have been torn apart.
This is a well-written, rigorously argued, and impressive work. Perhaps more important than simply being a great book, though, is *why and how* this book is so good.
Jamieson's book is not simply another addition to an ever-increasing NT studies field. It's a book that demonstrates the brilliance of a more broad and generous way of doing NT studies. This more broad and generous way is lit by systematic theology, historical theology, Patristic theology--in other words, it's a book that casts a vision for what scholarship can look like if we refuse to silo biblical studies and the various theological disciplines. Jamieson says it like this: "In the whole book I attempt to demonstrate that this classical christological toolkit enables us to read with the grain of Hebrew's narrative Christology, to say about the Son all that Hebrews says about the Son and, ultimately, to perceive something of why Hebrews asserts that the Son became Son" (20).
This toolkit, outlined in Chapter 2, is important not because with it we can squeeze out a certain reading of the text. Rather, these tools are meant to "keep options open" and to help us "consider the possibility that Hebrews says more things than are dreamt of in our historical-critical philosophies" (44). They are meant to improve and bring more clarity to our exegesis--not replace it. Jamieson uses this "christological toolkit" with great success. In so doing, he models a promising new path for biblical studies scholarship, informed by Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, or John of Damascus.
To his credit, Jamieson does not slavishly follow the Patristic theologians he brings into the conversation. There are points at which he departs from some of Athansius' or Cyril's exegetical conclusions. He highlights the disagreement, states why he concludes differently, and clarifies his point further. He is a humble and charitable reader of the Great Tradition.
There are beautiful and brilliant sentences throughout the book that show how Jamieson's role as a pastor/preacher helps him to be a clear, patient, and summative writer. For instance:
"After offering this sacrifice to God in heaven, Christ sat down at God's right hand in royal repose, his single sacrifice sufficient to save . . ." (93)
"Psalm 110:1 plants a seed that sprouts and flowers in Hebrews' exposition of Jesus as the theandric Messiah, the divine Son incarnate who does as a man what only God may." (135)
"The whole aim of Hebrews' Christology is to explain how the Son became what he needed to be in order to become the Savior we needed." (138)
The book is filled with sentences like these that are aimed at helping the reader grasp the significance of the previously made point and synthesizing it with his broader argument.
Jamieson provides a master class in theological grammar for us. You may not agree with all of his conclusions (I'm still having to mull over some of the threads in his argument) but this book is an exemplary contribution to Christian scholarship. We have much to learn from Jamieson in how he weaves disciplines together that ought never to have been torn apart.
October 7, 2022
R.B. Jamieson sets out to apply classical Christological categories to the exegesis of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He does so especially in addressing Hebrews' claim that Christ Jesus is the eternal Son of God who became God's son. While this may seem paradoxical Jamieson presents this take as one that makes the most sense of what the Epistle says. He notes that there have been two dominant positions when reading the letter. Son is either something that Christ is or something he becomes. But, he points out the paradox of the text.
"The heartbeat of Hebrews' pastoral program is present possession of Christ. What makes being a Christian worth it is who Christ is, what Christ alone has done for us, and what Christ alone can give us. Everything Christ gives is founded on and follows from not only what he has done, but who he is. Christ gives what no one else can, and Christ himself is the greatest of his gifts. No one else will do. But if you have Christ, you have all you need."-R.B. Jamieson (pg. 169)
"The heartbeat of Hebrews' pastoral program is present possession of Christ. What makes being a Christian worth it is who Christ is, what Christ alone has done for us, and what Christ alone can give us. Everything Christ gives is founded on and follows from not only what he has done, but who he is. Christ gives what no one else can, and Christ himself is the greatest of his gifts. No one else will do. But if you have Christ, you have all you need."-R.B. Jamieson (pg. 169)
June 22, 2025
This book was a joy to read. It is theologically rich it is practically helpful. It will be a help to any pastor or teacher who is working their way through the book of Hebrews. One cannot get beyond Hebrews 1:1-4 without asking who is the Son and when did he become Son.
“This book is about a name—or rather, a title, "Son," that at one crucial juncture the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls a "name." The fundamental question this book asks is, What does the author of Hebrews mean by calling Jesus the "Son"? Is "Son" a title given Jesus at his enthronement as Messiah, his session at God's right hand? Or does "Son" denote his eternal inclusion in the identity of the one true God?
The author, R. B. Jamieson, says:
In this book I will argue that we should answer "yes" to both questions and that the second is crucial for, not in tension with, the first. More specifically, I will advance three theses about Jesus' sonship in Hebrews. First, "Son" designates Jesus' distinct mode of divine existence. The Son eternally exists as God and as distinct from the Father and the Spirit. Second, "Son" also designates the office of messianic rule to which Jesus is appointed at his enthronement. Jesus is appointed Son when he sits down at God's right hand in heaven. Third, Jesus can become the messianic Son only because he is the divine Son incarnate. According to Hebrews, "Messiah" is a theandric office: only one who is both divine and human can do all that Hebrews says the Messiah does” (1-2)
The Christology of the book of Hebrews is deep and profound, and this brief book will help you discover the riches of Christ revealed within. Whether you agree with every exegetical decision made by Jamieson or come to the same conclusion regarding how “the Son becomes the Son,” you will go away, seeing and savoring more of Christ in the book of Hebrews.
And that’s a good and glorious thing!
Quotes
“Hebrews portrays Jesus as both truly God and truly human, like his Father in every respect and like humans in every respect” (28, quoting Richard Bauckham)
"But if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though he was even before and always Lord and framer of the heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation written." (30, quoting Athanasius)
Referring to scriptural passages that speak of the Son being appointed king, Cyril writes, "And he endured such things, in order that, as a man, he would be adopted as Son, although by nature he exists as God, and that he would make a way, through himself, for human nature to participate in adoption, and would call into the kingdom of heaven those tyrannized by sin." For Cyril, Jesus is the divine Son who is also "adopted" as Son as a man, in the economy. (48)
God "has spoken to us by (his Son" (Heb 1:2). The Son can constitute the Father's full and final revelation because he Son4 fully shares the Father's being. As Meier puts it, "He who is eternally the ef-
fulgence of God's glory and the image of his substance is alone the adequate revealer and content of revelation."26 The Son is the peerless eschatological revealer of God because he is God.
In classical Christology, the conceptual
contribution of Hebrews 1:3a is enshrined and elaborated in Nicaea's language of "light from light" and "true God from true God." (56)
At various points Hebrews refers to the Son's life of faithful obedience amid suftering, his saving death, resuprection, perfection, ascent to heaven, appointment te high priestheod, self effering in the heavenly tabernacle, and finally his appeintment as Messiah in power when he sat down at Gods right hand. (86)
Understanding perfection as the eschatological fulfillment of God's saving purposes informs what it means for Jesus to be perfected. Jesus perfection is his fitness to become the mediator, the conduit, the source of this eschatological fullness. Only the perfected Christ can perfect others. (91)
Cyril continues, "And, although he exists as God by nature, he endured such things in order that, as a man, he would be adopted as Son, that he might make a way through himself for human nature to participate in adoption, and call into the kingdom of
heaven those tyrannized by sin." (115)
Jesus uses Psalm 110:1 to enlarge his hearers' concept of who the Messiah is. His point is not so much that the scribes expectations of the Messiah were wrong as that they were not enough. In Jesus' riddle, Psalm 110:1 becomes almost a hermeneutical rule: expectations of the Messiah as "Son of David" may be central, but they must not draw a circumference. Such hopes Cmay focus but not limit. Jesus' challenge is this: if you leave Psalm 110:1 out of the equation, your Messiah will be too small. (124)
Finally, in his comments on Hebrews 12:2, Cyril specifies that Jesus reigns as a man on God's throne:
Yet, although the Lord is equal in glory and sharing the same throne, as Son to Father and God to God, he also seems, as it were, to ascend to such eminent and transcendent powers because of the flesh and the incarnate economy when we hear, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." (126)
The enthroned Jesus is indeed highest of human kings, by virtue of a reign that infinitely transcends theirs. Jesus the Messiah not only fulfills this Davidic expectation, he overflows it. (128)
As Ceslas Spicq acutely observes,
It is remarkable that Jesus, as a man, having belonged to one of the smallest nations of the world, which rejected and crucified him, is appointed heir not only of Palestine or the Orient, but of the universe, of all the riches of earth and of heaven. He is the Lord and master of all that exists. (131-32)
Adolf Schlatter put his finger on the problem Hebrews' recipients were facing. He said that they were asking, "Is it worth it to be a Christian?" Hebrews answers with a single word: Christ. The refrain of urgent reassurance that resounds through the letter is, "We have Christ." What do we have? A great high priest who is not only exalted but compassionate, a hope that anchors our soul in the inner sanctum in heaven, a high priest seated on God's throne, confidence to enter the Holy of Holies, an altar from which none but Christ's people may eat…In Hebrews, Christ's work cannot be divided from his person, nor his person from his work. Who he is and what he gives are inseparable. (168)
The heartbeat of Hebrews' pastoral program is present possession of Christ. What makes being a Christian worth it is who Christ is, what Christ alone has done for us, and what Christ alone can give us. Everything Christ gives is founded on and follows from not only what he has done, but who he is. Christ gives what no one else can, and Christ himself is the greatest of his gifts. No one else will do. But if you have Christ, you have all you need. (169)
“This book is about a name—or rather, a title, "Son," that at one crucial juncture the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls a "name." The fundamental question this book asks is, What does the author of Hebrews mean by calling Jesus the "Son"? Is "Son" a title given Jesus at his enthronement as Messiah, his session at God's right hand? Or does "Son" denote his eternal inclusion in the identity of the one true God?
The author, R. B. Jamieson, says:
In this book I will argue that we should answer "yes" to both questions and that the second is crucial for, not in tension with, the first. More specifically, I will advance three theses about Jesus' sonship in Hebrews. First, "Son" designates Jesus' distinct mode of divine existence. The Son eternally exists as God and as distinct from the Father and the Spirit. Second, "Son" also designates the office of messianic rule to which Jesus is appointed at his enthronement. Jesus is appointed Son when he sits down at God's right hand in heaven. Third, Jesus can become the messianic Son only because he is the divine Son incarnate. According to Hebrews, "Messiah" is a theandric office: only one who is both divine and human can do all that Hebrews says the Messiah does” (1-2)
The Christology of the book of Hebrews is deep and profound, and this brief book will help you discover the riches of Christ revealed within. Whether you agree with every exegetical decision made by Jamieson or come to the same conclusion regarding how “the Son becomes the Son,” you will go away, seeing and savoring more of Christ in the book of Hebrews.
And that’s a good and glorious thing!
Quotes
“Hebrews portrays Jesus as both truly God and truly human, like his Father in every respect and like humans in every respect” (28, quoting Richard Bauckham)
"But if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though he was even before and always Lord and framer of the heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation written." (30, quoting Athanasius)
Referring to scriptural passages that speak of the Son being appointed king, Cyril writes, "And he endured such things, in order that, as a man, he would be adopted as Son, although by nature he exists as God, and that he would make a way, through himself, for human nature to participate in adoption, and would call into the kingdom of heaven those tyrannized by sin." For Cyril, Jesus is the divine Son who is also "adopted" as Son as a man, in the economy. (48)
God "has spoken to us by (his Son" (Heb 1:2). The Son can constitute the Father's full and final revelation because he Son4 fully shares the Father's being. As Meier puts it, "He who is eternally the ef-
fulgence of God's glory and the image of his substance is alone the adequate revealer and content of revelation."26 The Son is the peerless eschatological revealer of God because he is God.
In classical Christology, the conceptual
contribution of Hebrews 1:3a is enshrined and elaborated in Nicaea's language of "light from light" and "true God from true God." (56)
At various points Hebrews refers to the Son's life of faithful obedience amid suftering, his saving death, resuprection, perfection, ascent to heaven, appointment te high priestheod, self effering in the heavenly tabernacle, and finally his appeintment as Messiah in power when he sat down at Gods right hand. (86)
Understanding perfection as the eschatological fulfillment of God's saving purposes informs what it means for Jesus to be perfected. Jesus perfection is his fitness to become the mediator, the conduit, the source of this eschatological fullness. Only the perfected Christ can perfect others. (91)
Cyril continues, "And, although he exists as God by nature, he endured such things in order that, as a man, he would be adopted as Son, that he might make a way through himself for human nature to participate in adoption, and call into the kingdom of
heaven those tyrannized by sin." (115)
Jesus uses Psalm 110:1 to enlarge his hearers' concept of who the Messiah is. His point is not so much that the scribes expectations of the Messiah were wrong as that they were not enough. In Jesus' riddle, Psalm 110:1 becomes almost a hermeneutical rule: expectations of the Messiah as "Son of David" may be central, but they must not draw a circumference. Such hopes Cmay focus but not limit. Jesus' challenge is this: if you leave Psalm 110:1 out of the equation, your Messiah will be too small. (124)
Finally, in his comments on Hebrews 12:2, Cyril specifies that Jesus reigns as a man on God's throne:
Yet, although the Lord is equal in glory and sharing the same throne, as Son to Father and God to God, he also seems, as it were, to ascend to such eminent and transcendent powers because of the flesh and the incarnate economy when we hear, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." (126)
The enthroned Jesus is indeed highest of human kings, by virtue of a reign that infinitely transcends theirs. Jesus the Messiah not only fulfills this Davidic expectation, he overflows it. (128)
As Ceslas Spicq acutely observes,
It is remarkable that Jesus, as a man, having belonged to one of the smallest nations of the world, which rejected and crucified him, is appointed heir not only of Palestine or the Orient, but of the universe, of all the riches of earth and of heaven. He is the Lord and master of all that exists. (131-32)
Adolf Schlatter put his finger on the problem Hebrews' recipients were facing. He said that they were asking, "Is it worth it to be a Christian?" Hebrews answers with a single word: Christ. The refrain of urgent reassurance that resounds through the letter is, "We have Christ." What do we have? A great high priest who is not only exalted but compassionate, a hope that anchors our soul in the inner sanctum in heaven, a high priest seated on God's throne, confidence to enter the Holy of Holies, an altar from which none but Christ's people may eat…In Hebrews, Christ's work cannot be divided from his person, nor his person from his work. Who he is and what he gives are inseparable. (168)
The heartbeat of Hebrews' pastoral program is present possession of Christ. What makes being a Christian worth it is who Christ is, what Christ alone has done for us, and what Christ alone can give us. Everything Christ gives is founded on and follows from not only what he has done, but who he is. Christ gives what no one else can, and Christ himself is the greatest of his gifts. No one else will do. But if you have Christ, you have all you need. (169)
March 17, 2025
In summary, I think the book does a magnificent job of: (1) making explicit the logic of Sonship – Jesus is ‘the Son became the Son’ – in Hebrews that had hitherto been expressed either implicitly or insufficiently by scholars, (2) justifying this logic in the text with the robust aid of conciliar Christology, (3) proposing this two-sense solution for analogous texts like Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4, but perhaps most promisingly (4) positively reframing the nature of conciliar Christology and its relationship with the New Testament.
However, I think that Jamieson, blinded by his hypostatic fervour, ultimately mislocates the ‘central Christological conundrum’ of Hebrews that serves also as its major theological construction – what might perhaps be better called the paradox of Jesus' high priesthood.
However, I think that Jamieson, blinded by his hypostatic fervour, ultimately mislocates the ‘central Christological conundrum’ of Hebrews that serves also as its major theological construction – what might perhaps be better called the paradox of Jesus' high priesthood.
August 12, 2022
Solid careful exegesis. The best part of the book is what seems to be the seed for his book Biblical Reasoning with Tyler Wittman, summarizing the exegetical tools that the church fathers utilized and that we should utilize as well.
The actual issue of Sonship in Hebrews, I have mixed thoughts about. Perhaps a sign of the strength of the book--in the last chapter I found myself wondering why it was still going. The issue doesn't seem that complex to me, exegetically and theologically speaking. That said, I'm not in the academy, and this book was clearly written for the academy. The vocabulary used and the authors cited make that clear.
I'm also not quite sure about the designation of 'son' as a title in Heb 1:4, as opposed to say a status. And I think, reflecting the academic discussion this is in the midst of, that question did not receive as concentrated attention as would have helped me.
The last chapter is worth the price of the book, where Jamieson discusses the relationship between the book of Hebrews and Chalcedon. Showing that the creeds are not developing answers to questions raised earlier but instead reflecting the biblical framework that already exists is incredibly useful. The work this does in showing the proper use of creeds in a Protestant tradition is fantastic.
The actual issue of Sonship in Hebrews, I have mixed thoughts about. Perhaps a sign of the strength of the book--in the last chapter I found myself wondering why it was still going. The issue doesn't seem that complex to me, exegetically and theologically speaking. That said, I'm not in the academy, and this book was clearly written for the academy. The vocabulary used and the authors cited make that clear.
I'm also not quite sure about the designation of 'son' as a title in Heb 1:4, as opposed to say a status. And I think, reflecting the academic discussion this is in the midst of, that question did not receive as concentrated attention as would have helped me.
The last chapter is worth the price of the book, where Jamieson discusses the relationship between the book of Hebrews and Chalcedon. Showing that the creeds are not developing answers to questions raised earlier but instead reflecting the biblical framework that already exists is incredibly useful. The work this does in showing the proper use of creeds in a Protestant tradition is fantastic.
June 28, 2023
A great resource on the book of Hebrews, which rejects the false dichotomy of Christ as the eternal Son and Christ as the one who becomes enthroned at the ascension. He also shows how classical theological categories are not impositions in the text but rather judgments that arise from the text and guide future reading of/reflection on that text.
One critique would be his lack of clarity regarding adoptionism. While he firmly rejects full adoptionism, he seems to look somewhat favorably on Cyril's idea that Christ was adopted according to his human nature. This was explicitly rejected in the Spanish Adoption Controversy and subsequent Frankfurt Council. Because it's not an ecumenical council, I would have understood if he concluded differently from the council, but he doesn't even seem to be aware of the controversy or council at all.
One critique would be his lack of clarity regarding adoptionism. While he firmly rejects full adoptionism, he seems to look somewhat favorably on Cyril's idea that Christ was adopted according to his human nature. This was explicitly rejected in the Spanish Adoption Controversy and subsequent Frankfurt Council. Because it's not an ecumenical council, I would have understood if he concluded differently from the council, but he doesn't even seem to be aware of the controversy or council at all.
May 19, 2021
‘Had’ to read it for work - and very glad I did. Bobby does a great job of ignoring some false academic boundaries, and shows us who Jesus is according to Hebrews.
It is pretty technical - the series it is in, is - but well worth the read.
Would recommend to those in systematics and NT/early Christianity in particular. Valuable for keen pastors thinking about preaching Hebrews or topical teaching on Jesus.
It’s also surprisingly short - not in a bad way, but in a helpful and tight writing way.
It is pretty technical - the series it is in, is - but well worth the read.
Would recommend to those in systematics and NT/early Christianity in particular. Valuable for keen pastors thinking about preaching Hebrews or topical teaching on Jesus.
It’s also surprisingly short - not in a bad way, but in a helpful and tight writing way.
July 25, 2021
What a great volume. You have read the first couple of chapters of Hebrews and scratched your head and said, "Do what?" It seems to be a paradox when you read verses such as Hebrews 1:5 (ESV) — 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? or even Hebrews 1:5 (ESV) — 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?, and even Hebrews 2:17 (ESV) — 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. And probably, the most paradoxically amazing statement of them all Hebrews 5:7–9 (ESV) — 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him."
What could these verses mean? In reference to H 1.5, was there ever a time Jesus was not begotten of the Father? Was Christ a creature who was created, or was He the Creator? Was he the Messiah while on earth or did he have to be given that title in heaven after his presentation of the sacrifice for our sins? These are all reasonable questions and questions that most, if not all, Christians sort of think about glancingly with their minds as they read such verses, whether in Psalms, Hebrews, or elsewhere in the Bible. The good thing is that there are answers to those questions and good answers.
Christ was never created and He is the Great I Am. He is Yahweh, Himself. Christ is the Messiah and he always was the Messiah, but he was not enthroned as the Messiah until He sat at the right hand of the Father and His sacrifice was accepted. The "son, not yet son" paradox is perhaps the most intriguing, as Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God in all eternity, but His incarnation brought the paradox of His flesh having to learn and obey the Father in way that is almost confusing, but when linguistically compared to other Biblical narratives, gets understanding.
H 5.7-9 is probably the most paradoxical statement in the Bible, for me personally. I always wondered how could Christ pray in the garden for "this cup (the cross) to pass" while Hebrews also says H 12:2 (ESV) — 2 "looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, ----who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross----, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." How can He pray for the cup of death to pass and also look at the crucifixion as a joy? With Him asking for deliverance from the Cross, wouldn't that be splitting the will of the Triune God, thus literally breaking the Trinity to pieces - which is heresy? I've read that verse as His prayer was deliverance from the cross for 30 years, but always thinking there had to be another answer...and there is another answer. The answer is that he was praying and that prayer was answered by His Father and the answer was the resurrection. He wasn't praying for deliverance from the cross, He was praying for deliverance from death! Just read this book!
Read this book. I cannot explain it in a few short paragraphs. The book is quite good, orthodox, and is remarkably clear.
What could these verses mean? In reference to H 1.5, was there ever a time Jesus was not begotten of the Father? Was Christ a creature who was created, or was He the Creator? Was he the Messiah while on earth or did he have to be given that title in heaven after his presentation of the sacrifice for our sins? These are all reasonable questions and questions that most, if not all, Christians sort of think about glancingly with their minds as they read such verses, whether in Psalms, Hebrews, or elsewhere in the Bible. The good thing is that there are answers to those questions and good answers.
Christ was never created and He is the Great I Am. He is Yahweh, Himself. Christ is the Messiah and he always was the Messiah, but he was not enthroned as the Messiah until He sat at the right hand of the Father and His sacrifice was accepted. The "son, not yet son" paradox is perhaps the most intriguing, as Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God in all eternity, but His incarnation brought the paradox of His flesh having to learn and obey the Father in way that is almost confusing, but when linguistically compared to other Biblical narratives, gets understanding.
H 5.7-9 is probably the most paradoxical statement in the Bible, for me personally. I always wondered how could Christ pray in the garden for "this cup (the cross) to pass" while Hebrews also says H 12:2 (ESV) — 2 "looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, ----who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross----, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." How can He pray for the cup of death to pass and also look at the crucifixion as a joy? With Him asking for deliverance from the Cross, wouldn't that be splitting the will of the Triune God, thus literally breaking the Trinity to pieces - which is heresy? I've read that verse as His prayer was deliverance from the cross for 30 years, but always thinking there had to be another answer...and there is another answer. The answer is that he was praying and that prayer was answered by His Father and the answer was the resurrection. He wasn't praying for deliverance from the cross, He was praying for deliverance from death! Just read this book!
Read this book. I cannot explain it in a few short paragraphs. The book is quite good, orthodox, and is remarkably clear.
July 14, 2021
4.5 stars. Jamieson postulates that the best way to read and understand Hebrews' "paradox of sonship" is by retrieving the theological grammar and reading of Conciliar Christology (the Christology confessions laid down at Nicene, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon). I first learnt to read and differentiate Christ sonship "according to the second person of the Trinity" and "according to His role as the Messianic-Davidic King" by reading Garner's "Son in the Son," which was building on earlier works of Vos and Gaffin. Garner's work delineates the doctrine of adoption in Pauline soteriology and corpus, and with that theological grammar, I came quite easily to Hebrews' "paradox of sonship," though Jamieson definitely helped me refine my theological reading and probed further reflections, as well as making a lot of great exegetical observations from Hebrews. Essentially, Hebrews' "paradox of sonship" is found in Hebrews 1, where the author of Hebrews seems to swing between "divine sonship" and "appointed sonship." Jamieson takes an additional step from Garmer, postulating the theological relationship between Christ's sonship according to His divinity and His humanity, borrowing heavily from Cyril of Alexandria but making further exegetical observations, and therefore the case that he is positing in this book is that the book of Hebrews reveals Christ as "the Son that became Son" so as to accomplish salvation and redemption, as well as entering His role of Davidic King and High Priest. Also did a bit of theological synthesis with Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:3-4, which was the central texts in the works of Gaffin and Garner, so I was slightly disappointed that he did not interact with them (ok he did interact with other scholars that came to similar conclusions and readings from both Hebrews and Pauline corpus but I was disappointed he did not interact with my Westminster homies, except for maybe Moises Silva). Both Garner and Jamieson's reading are rejected by some scholars, either because modern grammatical-historical enforces a reductionistic "single-layered" reading to the "sonship" presented in Hebrews, or overzealously guards against the heresy of "adoptionism" (Christ becoming the second person of the Trinity). Jamieson also advocates for further historical retrieval in the theological reading of Scripture, as the earlier Conciliar confessions reflect careful observations and employed scriptural language to ensure faithful theological boundaries in the reading of Scripture, pushing back against the tide of modern/postmodernism's insistence on "anti-credo/historical" mode of reading, which accused earlier theologians as "reading their theology into the text." Indeed, my favourite quote now is from Jamieson: "if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of the theology is in the reading."
December 7, 2025
“Hebrews not only warrants classical christological convictions; classical christological convictions enable a coherent reading of Hebrews. A central contention of this book is that classical Christology is the right tool for the job of reading Hebrews…Not only does the text warrant theological reflection and confession, but the right theology, which speaks the substance of the text, leads us deeper into the text.”
This book has forever deepened my love for the epistle to the Hebrews. Jamieson explores the complex Christology of this letter and shows us how Cyril of Alexandria, other key church fathers, and the Chalcedonian Definition can inform how we read this dense letter. Indeed, for Jamieson, Hebrews and the Definition of Chalcedon render “identical judgements about the identity of Christ.” Jamieson sees in Hebrews a proto-creedal Christology, and challenges New Testament scholarship that posits an evolutionary Christology in the early church, or sees later theological developments as an imposition on the text.
This book is a rather dense—and at times technical—read, so it requires some patience to work through, but the effort is worth it! Jamieson shows the dialectical or paradoxical nature of Hebrews claims about Christ: Jesus is the divine and eternal Son who became man to be enthroned and become Messianic Son (read that again). Jamison has 3 theses that he advances and defends well in the book:
1. According to Hebrews, “Son” designates the eternal and divine existence of the Son.
2. “Son” also designates the office of messianic rule to which Jesus is appointed at his exaltation.
3. Jesus can only become Son because he is the divine Son incarnate.
There were a few points in Jamieson’s exegesis where I did not agree, but overall I think he faithfully captures the brilliantly complex picture of Christ in Hebrews. Some may be reluctant to accept some of his conclusions to the paradoxical or dialectical nature of his conclusions. If you liked his and Tyler Wittman’s work “Biblical Reasoning,” then you will find this book to be a great case study of their hermeneutical principles put to practice. This book is also a great example of how the church fathers and conciliar decisions can better guide our biblical interpretation!
This book has forever deepened my love for the epistle to the Hebrews. Jamieson explores the complex Christology of this letter and shows us how Cyril of Alexandria, other key church fathers, and the Chalcedonian Definition can inform how we read this dense letter. Indeed, for Jamieson, Hebrews and the Definition of Chalcedon render “identical judgements about the identity of Christ.” Jamieson sees in Hebrews a proto-creedal Christology, and challenges New Testament scholarship that posits an evolutionary Christology in the early church, or sees later theological developments as an imposition on the text.
This book is a rather dense—and at times technical—read, so it requires some patience to work through, but the effort is worth it! Jamieson shows the dialectical or paradoxical nature of Hebrews claims about Christ: Jesus is the divine and eternal Son who became man to be enthroned and become Messianic Son (read that again). Jamison has 3 theses that he advances and defends well in the book:
1. According to Hebrews, “Son” designates the eternal and divine existence of the Son.
2. “Son” also designates the office of messianic rule to which Jesus is appointed at his exaltation.
3. Jesus can only become Son because he is the divine Son incarnate.
There were a few points in Jamieson’s exegesis where I did not agree, but overall I think he faithfully captures the brilliantly complex picture of Christ in Hebrews. Some may be reluctant to accept some of his conclusions to the paradoxical or dialectical nature of his conclusions. If you liked his and Tyler Wittman’s work “Biblical Reasoning,” then you will find this book to be a great case study of their hermeneutical principles put to practice. This book is also a great example of how the church fathers and conciliar decisions can better guide our biblical interpretation!
August 7, 2024
Does Hebrews use the term “Son” of Jesus to refer to him as the pre-incarnate Divine Son who was incarnate for our salvation, or as the human who was enthroned as Son at his ascension? Is Son a designation of divinity, or of Messiahship? Jamieson says “Yes, both.” Jamieson uses two things that we are told should never be mixed: modern exegetical tools and patristic, creedal theology to come to this conclusion. He carefully demonstrates that contrary to popular modern belief among scholars, patristic writers, Nicea, and Chalcedon do not add to or synthesize the raw theological material found in Hebrews and elsewhere (with respect to Jesus’ divinity and humanity), Hebrews (along with John, Peter, Paul) have already carefully wrestled with this wondrous reality: Jesus is not merely a Son of David born to become the Son of God to save us, he is the divine Son who was incarnate, etc. in order to become the Son of God in human form — for our salvation. The creeds and fathers didn’t figure this out hundreds of years later, Jamieson argues the careful accounting was already there, and the fathers/creeds/definitions were simply safeguarding the mystery (a mystery they tried not to explain, but rather said was ineffable).
Contrary to the direction of scholarship over the past few centuries which is rewarded for ignoring patristic writings in favor of carving out new directions and answers altogether, we need more readings of scripture like this which read the fathers and creeds in both careful and charitable lights.
Make no mistake, this is a work of theological exegesis that stands up to all the modern rules.
Why does any of this matter? This nuance is core to the message of Hebrews. The Hebrew Christians were struggling to endure. The Hebrew writer argues that their only and all-sufficient answer is the divine Son who became Son, Jesus.
Contrary to the direction of scholarship over the past few centuries which is rewarded for ignoring patristic writings in favor of carving out new directions and answers altogether, we need more readings of scripture like this which read the fathers and creeds in both careful and charitable lights.
Make no mistake, this is a work of theological exegesis that stands up to all the modern rules.
Why does any of this matter? This nuance is core to the message of Hebrews. The Hebrew Christians were struggling to endure. The Hebrew writer argues that their only and all-sufficient answer is the divine Son who became Son, Jesus.
September 3, 2021
There is much to commend about this book. First, it is well-written and compelling. Jamieson's thesis about Jesus as the divine, eternal Son who became the Messianic Son does justice to both the biblical data and the Christian tradition. His “paradox of Sonship” approach allows him to affirm and combine the evidence presented by the various interpretive camps that seem to emphasize one aspect of the term “Son” over the other.
Second, he provides another example of how to combine biblical, systematic, historical, and patristic theology, joining together what no man should separate. His chapter on the classical Christological toolkit was very helpful.
Third, it is highly refreshing and encouraging. What I enjoyed most about this book was Jamieson’s charity, respect, and catholicity in his interactions with such a wide range of scholarship. There is no straw manning or cancelling those with whom he disagrees. Instead, he presents the best versions of their arguments, highlights their contributions to the discussion of “Son” in Hebrews, attempts to find as much common ground with his “opponents” as possible and shore up weaknesses in their positions. In an uncharitable, impatient, polarized world, this charitable and catholic approach to Scripture is most welcome.
Second, he provides another example of how to combine biblical, systematic, historical, and patristic theology, joining together what no man should separate. His chapter on the classical Christological toolkit was very helpful.
Third, it is highly refreshing and encouraging. What I enjoyed most about this book was Jamieson’s charity, respect, and catholicity in his interactions with such a wide range of scholarship. There is no straw manning or cancelling those with whom he disagrees. Instead, he presents the best versions of their arguments, highlights their contributions to the discussion of “Son” in Hebrews, attempts to find as much common ground with his “opponents” as possible and shore up weaknesses in their positions. In an uncharitable, impatient, polarized world, this charitable and catholic approach to Scripture is most welcome.
January 10, 2023
This was an excellent read. Jamieson is a whip-smart and engaging writer. More importantly, he’s the best kind of biblical scholar—skilled with the tools of grammatical-historical interpretation, up on all the literature (ancient and modern), and unafraid to use theological concepts and categories to elucidate Scripture. This book deals with the paradoxical Christology of Hebrews in which the One who >is< eternally and ontologically Son nevertheless >becomes< Son (i.e., the enthroned Messiah) by way of His temporal mission (Incarnation, Active/Passive Obedience, Resurrection, Ascension, Session). Throughout, Jamieson argues convincingly that the trinitarian and Christological categories of Nicaea and Chalcedon aren’t later “developments” so much as the faithful rendering of properly biblical judgments in the conceptual grammar of the councils’ respective contexts (cf. David Yeago). Modern scholars are keen to excise or downplay dogmatics as alien theologizing foisted upon the text, but they fail to see the way the early church’s dogmatic insights help us understand the internal logic that makes sense of what we’re reading—especially in a book like Hebrews.
November 19, 2023
Originally, I wanted to read this book while studying Hebrews and after some conversations with a Jehovah’s Witness. When I actually read it, I will say, I skim-read it because I was preparing to talk with Muslims about the Sonship of Jesus while also wanting to finish this book for my own delight. In light of how fast I read it (and maybe skipped some pages?), I want/plan to read it again.
The theological depth of Jamieson’s discussion brought so much glory, beauty, and truth to my understanding of the Sonship of Jesus. Reading this book brought clarity and the need to worship. Jamieson helped me to grow in my understanding of why the Eternal Son had to be perfected in obedience, why Hebrews 1 is written as it is, and more that I can remember right now.
I love the Patristics and loved Jamieson’s use of them.
I did not know about the theological debates/discussions within evangelical circles about Jesus’ Sonship. I was glad to know more.
It was (and will be?) a great tool for further study!
The theological depth of Jamieson’s discussion brought so much glory, beauty, and truth to my understanding of the Sonship of Jesus. Reading this book brought clarity and the need to worship. Jamieson helped me to grow in my understanding of why the Eternal Son had to be perfected in obedience, why Hebrews 1 is written as it is, and more that I can remember right now.
I love the Patristics and loved Jamieson’s use of them.
I did not know about the theological debates/discussions within evangelical circles about Jesus’ Sonship. I was glad to know more.
It was (and will be?) a great tool for further study!
July 9, 2021
The Paradox of Sonship argues that the best way to account for the title 'Son' in Hebrews is to realise that Hebrews uses 'Son' in 2 ways: as a statement of Jesus' divine nature, and as a human, Messianic office he assumes by virtue of his incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension. The Son became Son.
The good? The book is right: consistently, self-evidently right. The bad? Nothing really - except that this feels like a 160 page statement of the obvious: a bit dull, quite repetitive. If you read the opening chapter and believe it, you've basically got the book. It has a strong conclusion, though.
The good? The book is right: consistently, self-evidently right. The bad? Nothing really - except that this feels like a 160 page statement of the obvious: a bit dull, quite repetitive. If you read the opening chapter and believe it, you've basically got the book. It has a strong conclusion, though.
February 23, 2022
It didn't open up Hebrews quite as much as I'd hoped and it's quite repetitive, but the central claim that the eternal Son becomes the resurrected and exalted Messiah-Son is very well made, with some excellent nuggets along the way (e.g. angels and priests as servants of God, an great summary of perfection, "Jesus' present priestly intercession is a salvific exercise of divine omnipotence").
March 17, 2022
Well written and thought provoking. Enjoyed the many quotes from the Early Church Fathers, and a deep diving into the mystery of the Incarnation. If you can read, study, preach, or teach Hebrews without an exploration of Christology…you’re doing it wrong.
April 10, 2025
This book made me fall in love with Hebrews again and it illuminated its themes in a way I haven’t seen before. It made me want to read it even more deeply.
Is there a better compliment I can give a book?
Is there a better compliment I can give a book?
July 6, 2025
Great book expositing Hebrews’ idea of the eternal Son becoming the Messianic Son. A little high level for a general audience (this is written for seminarians), but it was an enjoyable read and gave me a deeper appreciation for Christ’s messianic fulfillment while maintaining His eternal Sonship.
September 2, 2022
Superb, even if occasionally repetitive.
March 4, 2023
This is really good.
Patient and attentive reading Hebrews that demonstrates the legitimacy of patristic exegetical categories for reading scripture more broadly.
Patient and attentive reading Hebrews that demonstrates the legitimacy of patristic exegetical categories for reading scripture more broadly.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews