Southwestern Journal of Theology
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 62, No. 1 – Fall 2019
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
By Michael F. Bird. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. 155 pages. Softcover, $18.00
Jesus The Eternal Son, which began in a public dialogue held at a Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint forum, deals with the divinity of Jesus by focusing on Christological adoptionism. Michael F. Bird, lecturer in theology at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia, discloses the inaccurate evidence used by scholars (e.g. Bart Ehrman and James Dunn) to argue for adoptionism. Against the incorrect claims, Bird highlights two points from the primary sources: (1) a ripened adoptionism comes as a phenomenon during the second century CE; and (2) the de facto promoters are the Theodotians (xi). The rest of the book unfolds these two points.
In chapter one, Bird observes, based on research of early Christologies, that no one can claim “a single monolithic Christology of the early church.” Rather, he argues for a process of “early christologizing” (5). While the consensus in beliefs and practices within the early church appeared, a few disparate Christologies remained in their own context, which came to be known as heresies. Adoptionism, one of the heresies of the second and third centuries, is assumed to be the earliest recoverable Christology according to modern scholars. A full incarnational Christology was only developed afterwards (8). This presents a problem to Bird because he believes “there is no tangible evidence for an adoptionist Christology in the New Testament” (124).
In chapter two, Bird works with two biblical passages: Romans 1:3–4 and Acts 2:36. He refutes the Adoptionist interpretation, which asserts that Romans 1:3–4 reflects the creedal nature grammatically with substantive participles, implying Jesus is invested with divine sonship at his resurrection (11–13). According to Bird, however, Romans 1:3–4 pictures Jesus in transition from one state of divine sonship to another state of divine sonship, and not in transition from the earthly Son of David to a divine state as the Son of God by the resurrection. Namely, “divine sonship is already embedded in the designation of Jesus as the Davidic descendent prior to his resurrection” (16).
Respecting Markan Christological origin and the baptismal incident, chapter three elaborates on two aspects: (1) deification within the Greco-Roman world and (2) Jewish monotheism. Criticizing Greco-Roman notions of deification, Bird points out that they lack an essential distinction between humans and the eternal gods. Therefore, the Gospel of Mark could not correspond with the Greco-Roman idea of deification. Furthermore, deification looked absurd to those holding to Jewish monotheism. Bird brings in Josephus’s and Philo’s critiques of deification to emphasize that “the premise of monotheism, even with subordination and intermediary figures, includes an absolute distinction between God and humanity” (56–57).
In chapter four, Bird argues that Michael Peppard has misread the Gospel of Mark. Peppard projected both the imperial cults and Roman adoption practices onto the incident of baptism (66). To Bird, however, Mark 1:11 appeals to Old Testament allusions: Psalms 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1. The scriptural intertextual contexts exhibit “the call and commission of Jesus as the Son and Servant to complete his messianic task; it marks him out as the messias designatus, not as one who becomes the divine Son at this juncture” (72). Then, Bird enumerates four characteristics of the Gospel of Mark and emphasizes Jesus’ eschatological dimension as the Son of God (84–102).
In chapter five, Bird deems adoptionism as a product of the second century CE by examining three suspects of adoptionism: (1) the Shepherd of Hermas, (2) the Ebionites, and (3) the Theodotians. Delving into the first two cases, Bird concludes that both should not be considered adoptionism (107–120). Even in the case of Theodotus, Bird is reluctant to acknowledge that Theodotus is an adoptionist because he believed Jesus is a mere man and did not claim Jesus was divine and became divine. Bird finally claims that the occurrence of adoptionism was through a group of Theodotians in the 190s or early 200s.
This book is worthy of attention because not only does it deal with biblical and historical evidence regarding adoptionism but also implicitly defends the deeper meaning of the relationship between Jesus and God. The affirmation that Jesus is the eternal son is Bird’s real claim. His work shows that incarnational Christology is at the forefront of Trinitarian theology as well as Christology.
