JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE
of
Holsteen, Nathan. “The
Trinity In The Book Of Hebrews.” Bibliotheca Sacra 168:671 (Jul 2011): 335-346. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/bsac168-671-06.
THEO 510 LUO (Spring 2013)
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary
Nathan C. Merrill (ID# 01189706)
March 17, 2013
CONTENTS
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….....................1
Brief
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………1
Critical
Interaction………………………………………………………………………………..1
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………...4
Introduction
The doctrine of the Trinity – God
existing as three persons in a single essence – is paramount to the Christian faith. Many have asserted it to be
an innovation of the third and fourth centuries rather than a genuine biblical
doctrine. Despite this objection, the vast majority of Christendom still
asserts that the Triune God is well attested to throughout the whole of
Scripture. This brief critique will examine one such assertion by Nathan D. Holsteen
in his paper, “The Trinity in the Book of Hebrews,”
from the Bibliotheca Sacra (July 2011). Holsteen argues that Hebrews clearly
affirms Trinitarianism. Though not overtly stated as such,
the Trinity is indirectly represented through the affirmation of God’s oneness concomitant
with the portrayal of the three separate Persons of the Godhead. Holsteen
declares that Hebrews depicts the Trinity by 1) inferring God’s oneness via His
involvement in the past and present; 2) upholding the deity of each Person of
the Godhead; and 3) revealing each divine Member’s respective role.
Brief Summary
Throughout
his article, Holsteen maintains that the Epistle to the Hebrews implicitly
affirms the Trinity. In fact, the internal coherence of the book itself is
contingent on this affirmation. Holsteen contends that Hebrews infers the
Trinity by representing both the oneness and triunity of God. The unity of God
is attested to by linking God’s actions in the OT with those in Hebrews. Triunity
is evidenced by portraying the divinity of each member of the Godhead and their
respective divine functions. Therefore, according to Holsteen, Hebrews confirms
the unity of God as subsisting in the three Persons of the Godhead. Moreover,
this trinitarian standpoint is requisite for the coherency of the book itself; denying
the implicit affirmations of the Trinity renders the message of Hebrews
meaningless.
Critical
Interaction
To begin
his argument, Holsteen suggest that the unity of the Trinity is tacitly implied
in Hebrews. He notes God’s oneness is suggested by linking His
actions in Hebrews with OT passages where His oneness is assumed. For instance,
chapter three references various OT narratives where the unity of God is
presupposed. Though not explicitly mentioned in Hebrews, Holsteen is able to
draw out the implicit inferences to the unity of God. Moreover, his assertion
on God’s oneness, as portrayed in Hebrews, concur with the conclusions of other
eminent scholars and help
substantiate the traditional orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.[1]
In addition to affirming the oneness of God, Holsteen contends that
Hebrews also infers God’s triunity. This three-ness
is connoted by confirming the divinity of each Person of the Godhead and His
respective divine functions.
The divinity of the first Person of the Trinity, according to Holsteen,
is alluded to throughout Hebrews. For example, He is mentioned in the first
sentence of the letter and called upon in the closing benediction (13:20). He
is also distinguished by His functions: the One who begot the Son (1:5); the
Father of believers (12:9); the “Judge of all” (v. 12:23); the One who spoke at
Mt. Sinai (v. 12:19, 20); “the Author of salvation” (2:10); and Agent for
progressive sanctification (10:10). Indeed, Holsteen has provided generous
support from Hebrews for the deity of the Father. Further, his arguments for
the Father’s deity agree nicely with evangelical theology.[2]
Like the Father, the Son’s deity is implicated via His station and
function everywhere in Hebrews. He is depicted as the very radiance and essence
of God (1:3), superior to all (2:5-8), the “Mediator of the new covenant” (v.
12:24), and the Agent of creation (1:2,10). According to Kimlyn Bender, a
biblical scholar from Truett Seminary, Christ as the Agent of creation is
especially noteworthy, since it more overtly infers the Son’s deity.[3]
In addition, other reputable theologians have made similar claims about how Christ’s
specific roles suggests His divinity.[4]
The Spirit’s deity, though referenced much less than that of the Son and
Father, is also tacitly affirmed in Hebrews. His divinity is particularly
denoted throughout Hebrews by ascribing God the Father’s words in the OT to the
Holy Spirit (3:7; 9:7-8; 10:15-17). Since the Spirit’s words are designated as
the Father’s, this strongly implies His deity. Charles Ryrie, and Andreas J.
Kostenberger, both prominent biblical scholars, also note this implication in Hebrews
in their defense of the Holy Spirit’s divinity.[5]
Lastly,
Holsteen makes some important remarks on biblical hermeneutics. He notes that
it is imperative to keep in mind the implicit affirmations of a given biblical
text because these indirect affirmations constructs the internal coherency of
the message itself. The Epistle to the Hebrews employs such implicitness, as
outlined above, to elucidate the doctrine of the Trinity.
Conclusion
Holsteen has plainly demonstrated that
Hebrews upholds Trinitarianism. He has shown how Hebrews portrays the unity of
God – subsisting in the three Persons of the Godhead – and demarcated the
separate members of the Trinity via their divine functions. What’s more, he has
posited that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for the coherence
Hebrew’s message. Given the said conclusion, one would be hard-pressed to deny
that the Bible teaches Trinitarianism. Moreover, future studies in biblical theology
should justly consider internal coherence in their hermeneutics as Holsteen has
done in his paper.
[1]Jiøí Moskala, “Toward
Trinitarian Thinking in the Hebrew Scriptures,” Journal
of the Adventist Theological Society 21/1-2 (2010), 247; Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology
(Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1986), 51.
[2] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook
of Theology, Rev. & expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publ., 2008), 289,
648.
[3]Kimlyn J Bender,
"Christ, Creation and the Drama of Redemption: 'the Play's the Thing . .
.'." Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 2 (2009): 158.
[4] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook
of Theology, Rev. & expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publ., 2008), 227,
228; Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books,
1986), 247.
[5] Andreas J. Kostenberger, et al.,
The Cradle, the Cross and the Crown: An
Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group,
2009), 692; Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor
Books, 1986), 345.
Bibliography
Bender, Kimlyn J. "Christ,
Creation and the Drama of Redemption: 'the Play's the Thing . . .'.," Scottish
Journal of Theology 62, no. 2 (2009): 149-74,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/222367586?accountid=12085 (accessed March
13, 2013).
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook
of Theology. Rev. and expanded. ed. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008.
Kostenberger, Andreas
J., et al. The Cradle, the Cross and the
Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: B&H Publishing
Group, 2009.
Moskala, Jiøí. “Toward
Trinitarian Thinking in the Hebrew Scriptures,” Journal
of the Adventist Theological Society 21/1-2 (Jan 1, 2010): 245-275. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 16,
2013).
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology.
Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1986.
No comments:
Post a Comment