Skip to content

Web Research Findings

Study Question

How do the New Testament writers reconcile strict Old Testament monotheism ("YHWH alone is God") with attributing divine titles, worship, creation, and judgment to Jesus Christ? What does "one God" mean in light of the NT's Christological claims? (Capstone synthesis of trin-01 through trin-07.)

Sources Found

Richard Bauckham — God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament / Jesus and the God of Israel (Eerdmans, 2008)

URL: thegospelcoalition.org Key claims: - Central thesis: "the highest possible Christology -- the inclusion of Jesus in the unique divine identity -- was central to the faith of the early church even before any of the New Testament writings were written, since it occurs in all of them." - Jewish monotheism is best understood not as an abstract philosophical category but as the conviction that "YHWH appears in a class of his own" -- exclusive transcendence over all beings. - Markers of divine identity in Second Temple Judaism: (1) exclusive worship and devotion, (2) creation and cosmic rule, (3) the divine throne, (4) divine personifications (Spirit, Word, Wisdom) distinguished from angelic beings. - "Exclusive devotion is now given to Jesus, but Jesus does not thereby replace or compete with God the Father, since he himself belongs to the unique divine identity" (p. 106). - NT texts depict Jesus "sitting on the heavenly throne of God" with "characteristics of the divine identity that were regarded in Second Temple Judaism as distinguishing the uniqueness of the one God" (p. 181). - Bauckham uses the term "divine identity" deliberately to distinguish his framework from later patristic discussions of function vs. ontology, and to locate NT Christology within Second Temple Jewish categories. For Israel, understanding Who God is was more significant than understanding What divinity is. - Key passages analyzed: 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Philippians 2:6-11 (with Isaiah background); Romans 3:28-30; Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32 applied to Christ); Revelation 5; Matthew 28:17; Ephesians 1:21-22; Hebrews 1:4; John 10:30. Relevance: Primary scholarly framework for understanding how NT writers include Christ within YHWH's identity without breaking monotheism. Directly addresses the capstone question. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Larry W. Hurtado — Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003) / Blog posts on binitarian devotion

URL: larryhurtado.wordpress.com Key claims: - Earliest Christianity represents a "remarkable, and to my knowledge singular, 'mutation'" in Jewish devotional practice by including Jesus as a programmatic recipient of worship alongside God -- a practice that "still appears...novel and without real analogy or precedent." - Initially used "binitarian" to describe "a pattern in which we find two distinguishable but uniquely linked figures: God and Jesus." Later preferred "dyadic" to avoid importing later doctrinal connotations. - "Triadic" describes the overall God-discourse shape in the NT (God, Jesus, Spirit), but only the first two function as devotional recipients in earliest practice -- the Spirit "does not feature as identified recipient of earliest Christian devotion." - Emphasis on devotional/worship practice rather than theological concepts: the key evidence is what early Christians did (prayer, invocation, hymns, prophetic declarations in Jesus' name). - Specific evidence cited: Maranatha invocation (1 Cor 16:22) -- a prayer "addressed to the exalted Jesus"; Romans 10:9-13 -- OT language for worshipping "the Lord" applied to calling upon Jesus; 1 Corinthians 1:2 -- believers defined as those who call upon Jesus; Revelation 5:1-13 -- heavenly worship "to him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb." - Ancient Jewish monotheism defined not as denying other divine beings' existence but as maintaining "exclusivist worship scruple" -- devout Jews avoided cultic worship of other deities. The inclusion of Jesus in this exclusive worship category is the fundamental shift. Relevance: Complements Bauckham's identity framework with devotional/liturgical evidence. Shows that Christ-worship was not a late theological invention but an earliest-stratum practice among Jewish monotheists. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

N.T. Wright — Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Fortress, 2013)

URL: postost.net Key claims: - Wright sees 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Philippians 2:6-11 as reflecting "a view of God in which the crucified Jesus has a central place in the Shema." - Speculates Paul may have regularly recited the reformulated Shema of 1 Cor 8:6 in the same manner he had previously recited Deuteronomy 6:4. - Wright's exposition centers on three modifications: (1) monotheism redefined in light of Christ (and the Spirit), (2) the people of God and their election reconfigured, (3) the future of God's people reimagined. - Follows Bauckham and Hurtado in seeing Paul as including Jesus within the divine identity, but goes beyond them: the "hidden clue to the origin of Christology" is OT/Jewish stories about the return of YHWH to Zion. Jesus accomplished what only YHWH was expected to do -- "judge and save, to bring about a new exodus, to defeat his enemies, to establish his glorious presence." - Wright's approach foregrounds narrative and eschatology rather than ontological categories alone. Relevance: Shows a third major scholarly framework (narrative-eschatological) for understanding Christological monotheism. The YHWH-return motif adds a dimension neither Bauckham's identity approach nor Hurtado's devotion approach captures alone. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Chris Tilling — Relational Christology

URL: postost.net Key claims: - Offers a "relational christology" perspective that Wright approves of -- emphasizes Christ's relationship to God rather than ontological categories. - Argues that the way Paul relates to Christ mirrors the way Israel relates to YHWH, suggesting Christ occupies YHWH's relational position. Relevance: Adds a fourth scholarly approach (relational pattern) to the Bauckham-Hurtado-Wright constellation. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Andrew Perriman — Alternative reading of 1 Corinthians 8:6 (counter-position)

URL: postost.net Key claims: - Rejects Bauckham's ontological reading of 1 Cor 8:6. Argues for convergence rather than bifurcation -- Paul brings together Jewish monotheism with apocalyptic narrative about the exalted Jesus. - Functional delegation, not ontological identity: "Lordship is given to the man whom God raised from the dead." Jesus receives delegated authority like Israel's king in Psalm 110:1. - Argues the primary OT source is Malachi 2:10-12 (one Father + eschatological judgment), not the Shema. - Objects: "Why has Paul not actually quoted the Shema in full...especially if he means to divide it?" - The ex/dia distinction ("from whom" / "through whom") reflects source vs. agency -- relational hierarchy, not ontological unity. - Cites Acts 2:36 ("God made him both Lord and Christ") -- lordship is bestowed, not inherent. - Points to 1 Corinthians 15:28 (Son's ultimate submission) as evidence against permanent shared divine identity. Relevance: Major counter-position to the Bauckham/Wright/Hurtado consensus. Forces the study to reckon with delegated-authority readings and the ex/dia distinction in 1 Cor 8:6. The 1 Cor 15:28 tension is a real exegetical issue. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture -- especially the ex/dia distinction, the Malachi 2:10 parallel, and the 1 Cor 15:28 submission

Michael J. Kok et al. — Critical Questions for the Early High Christology Club

URL: bibleinterp.arizona.edu Key claims: - Kok questions whether early high Christology scholars feel "concern to date a 'high Christology' as close as possible to the founding" -- potential dating bias. - Daniel O. McClellan objects to ontological retrojection; advocates a "communicable agency" framework. Argues "angelomorphic christology was too quickly dismissed" and that divine agency provided "handy conceptual templates" for Christ's relationship to God. - Michael Peppard critiques neglect of imperial cult parallels as context for Christ-devotion. - Dale critiques Bauckham's "christology of divine identity" as "crucially ambiguous." - Martin Hughes suggests "Plato's distinction and connection between God in being...and God in action" represents "the operative form of binitarianism at the time the NT was taking shape." - McClellan: "the requirement to find a Jesus that is united with God's being still holds...that's the interpretation of 'one God' that I think is presentistic." - Alternative models proposed: divine agency framework (functional rather than ontological), angelomorphic Christology (angel of YHWH as template), communicable agency (cognitive universal explaining extended divine agency without ontological identity). Relevance: Represents the scholarly dissent from the Bauckham/Hurtado consensus. The angelomorphic and agency models are alternative explanations that the study must address. The charge of "presentistic" ontological reading is methodologically important. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture -- especially whether the NT evidence fits an agency model or demands something stronger

Scholarly Analysis of John 1:1c — Colwell's Rule and Qualitative Theos

URL: dangitbill.wordpress.com ; uasvbible.org Key claims: - Colwell's Rule (1933): an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative that is definite in context will usually lack the article. But Colwell never authorized turning this frequency observation into a prescriptive device that forces definiteness on all such nouns. - Philip Harner's study (1973) showed that preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives most often carry a qualitative force -- they predicate the nature or essence of the subject rather than identify the subject with a particular individual. - The predicate nominative in John 1:1c is "most likely qualitative, meaning 'the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had.'" - An anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite -- ruling out "a god" while also distinguishing from "the Word was [the same person as] God." - The absence of the article before theos in 1:1c prevents identification of the Word with the God of 1:1b (which would collapse the distinction), while the qualitative force affirms the Word shares fully in the divine nature. Greek analysis: anarthrous theos as qualitative predicate nominative; Colwell's Rule vs. Harner's qualitative category; mass/count noun distinction applied to theos. Relevance: Directly addresses the grammatical basis for John's Christological claim. The qualitative reading supports "the Word was fully God in nature" without collapsing the persons -- critical for the monotheism-deity synthesis. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Greek Analysis of John 10:30 — hen (neuter) vs. heis (masculine)

URL: christiandefense.org Key claims: - A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures 5:186): "One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal. 3:28), but one essence or nature." - The plural verb esmen ("are") reinforces the distinction between two persons while asserting essential unity. A singular verb (eimi or estin) would have implied a single person. - Immediate context strengthens the reading: Jesus claims to give eternal life and hold His sheep in His hand (10:28-29) -- divine prerogatives matching YHWH's claims in Deut 32:39. - The Jews' response -- "You...make Yourself God" (10:33) -- demonstrates they understood Jesus as claiming deity, not mere organizational unity. Greek analysis: hen (neuter singular) = one in essence/nature; heis (masculine singular) = one person; esmen (plural copula) = two distinct subjects. Relevance: Key grammatical evidence for unity of essence without collapse of persons. The Jewish audience's reaction is contemporaneous interpretation evidence. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Greek Analysis of Colossians 2:9 — theotetos, pleroma, somatikos

URL: studylight.org ; sonofyah.wordpress.com Key claims: - Theotetos (theotes, G2320) occurs only here in the entire NT. It refers to the essential nature/essence of deity -- the "Godhead" itself. Distinguished from theiotes (G2305, Rom 1:20), which refers to divine quality or attributes that creation can display. - Trench's distinction (cited widely): theotes = the being of God; theiotes = the quality of being like God. Lightfoot: theotes = "the whole glorious total of what God is, the supreme Nature and Being of God." - Pleroma (fullness, completeness, totality) counters Gnostic claims that only partial divine knowledge or emanations inhabited Christ. - Katoikei (present tense, "takes up permanent residence") -- the fullness of deity continuously dwells in Christ, not temporarily. - Somatikos (bodily) -- the fullness dwells in Christ's physical body; hapax legomenon. Greek analysis: theotetos (essence of God) vs. theiotes (divine quality); katoikei (present tense = permanent residence); somatikos (hapax, bodily form). Relevance: Paul's strongest single-verse statement about the fullness of deity in Christ. The theotes/theiotes distinction is critical for demonstrating Paul claims more than divine-like qualities. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Hebrews 1:3 — charakter tes hypostaseos

URL: thegospelcentral.org ; preceptaustin.org Key claims: - Charakter originally referred to an engraving tool or the impression made by such a tool (like a stamped imprint on a coin or seal); came to denote an exact imprint, copy, or identical representation. - Hypostasis literally means "that which stands beneath" (hypo + stasis) -- the underlying substance, essence, or true reality of something. - Combined meaning: "Jesus is the exact imprint of God's very substance" -- His nature is identical to that of God; Christ is divine exactly as God is divine. - Ambiguity in the term hypostasis: the Bible never refers to God's ousia and only once to God's hypostasis (here). Debate exists whether hypostasis here refers to God's nature or His entire person. - The early church fathers used this verse to refute Arians who denied Christ's full deity. Greek analysis: charakter (exact imprint/representation) + hypostasis (underlying substance/essence); apaugasma (radiance/effulgence) of God's glory in same verse. Relevance: Hebrews' most direct statement about the Son's ontological relationship to the Father. The charakter metaphor implies identity of nature, not mere similarity. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Scott R. Swain — "To Him Who Sits on the Throne and to the Lamb: Hymning God's Triune Name in Revelation 4-5" (Reformed Faith & Practice)

URL: journal.rts.edu Key claims: - The Lamb, though having a human biography ("born of the tribe of Judah"), exists on the divine side of the Creator-creature distinction -- no creature "in heaven or on earth or under the earth" can open the scroll. - Worship progression: first to the One on the throne alone (4:9-11), then to include the Lamb (5:8-12), then unified worship: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory" (5:13). - Conclusion "does not envision the worship of two or three gods" but rather "the worship of one God in three persons." - Revelation uses "a singular verb to describe the reign of God and of the Lamb" -- violating standard grammatical agreement and emphasizing their unity. - The Holy Spirit appears as "the seven Spirits of God" (4:5), connected to "seven horns" and "seven eyes" of the Lamb (5:6), drawing on Zechariah 4:1-14. The Spirit is described as belonging to both the Father and the Lamb. - "Divine hymning is the primary mode of divine naming" in these chapters -- doxologies function as the ultimate expression of trinitarian theology. - Attending to Revelation's Christological naming "eventually necessitated the orthodox confessions of Nicaea." Relevance: Shows how Revelation's climactic worship scenes present the most explicit co-worship of Father and Son in the NT. The singular verb for joint reign and the creator-creature boundary are strong data points. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Philippians 2:5-11 — morphe theou and kenosis

URL: academia.edu ; tyndale.tms.edu Key claims: - Morphe theou ("form of God"): Greek morphe corresponds to Hebrew tselem ("image") in Genesis 1:26 -- denotes not mere appearance but the very essence and nature of deity. - Hyparchon ("existing/being") -- present participle indicating ongoing, continuous state: Christ eternally existed in the form of God. - Kenoo ("emptied himself"): signifies Christ's voluntary restraint of divine prerogatives, not a reduction of His deity. What was "emptied" was not divine nature but the exercise of divine rights. - Harpagmos ("something to be grasped/exploited"): Christ did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited for self-advantage. Scholarly debate centers on whether this implies he already had equality (res rapta -- a thing already possessed) or could have grasped for it (res rapienda -- a thing to be seized). - The hymn's climax (2:9-11) echoes Isaiah 45:23 (YHWH text) -- "every knee should bow...every tongue confess" -- applied directly to Jesus. This is the most explicit transfer of a YHWH-exclusive text to Christ. - J.D.G. Dunn's dissenting view: the Christ-hymn is best understood as Adam Christology, not preexistence Christology. Claims this reading "yields no proof of the supposed preexistence." Greek analysis: morphe (form/essential nature), hyparchon (present participle = continuous existence), kenoo (empty/pour out), harpagmos (grasping/exploitation), doulos (slave/servant). Relevance: Central passage for the kenosis question and the Isaiah 45:23 quotation applied to Christ. The Dunn dissent must be addressed. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Alpha-Omega / First-Last Title Sharing

URL: gotquestions.org ; pastorjasonelder.com Key claims: - "Alpha and Omega," "First and Last," and "Beginning and End" are used interchangeably across Revelation 1, 21, and 22. - BDAG defines the usage as a merism -- naming two extremes to encompass everything between them. - Isaiah 44:6 ("I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God") and Isaiah 48:12 are the OT source for the "First and Last" title -- explicitly a monotheistic declaration. - Revelation 1:8 applies "Alpha and Omega" to "the Lord God" (the Almighty). Revelation 1:17-18 applies "the First and the Last" to one who "was dead, and is alive" -- can only be Jesus. Revelation 22:13 combines "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" in Jesus' final self-identification. - Counter-argument (JW position): the contexts differ -- Rev 1:17-18 specifies death and resurrection, which "cannot refer to God." Therefore different persons bear the same titles with different meanings. - Response: Isaiah 44:6 uses "First and Last" as an exclusive divine claim ("beside me there is no God"). If Jesus bears this title, the monotheistic framework demands he share the divine identity, not merely hold a delegated role. Relevance: The title-sharing evidence is one of the strongest arguments for identifying Jesus with YHWH's unique identity. The counter-argument is important to address. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Richard M. Davidson — "Proverbs 8 and the Place of Christ in the Trinity" (JATS 17/1, Spring 2006)

URL: digitalcommons.andrews.edu Key claims: - Davidson argues the language in Proverbs 8 "goes beyond poetic personification to that of hypostasis (description of an actual divine being)." - NT descriptions of Jesus as Wisdom allude to Proverbs 8:22-31, including John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, and Hebrews 1:1-4. - The Hebrew terminology analyzed includes qanah (Prov 8:22, variously translated "possessed," "created," "acquired") and its implications for whether Wisdom/Christ is created or eternal. - Published in peer-reviewed JATS -- represents Adventist scholarly engagement with the Christology/Trinity question. Relevance: Shows the OT Wisdom tradition as background for NT Christological claims (especially John 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-17). The Proverbs 8 question connects to prior studies in the trin series. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Matthew 28:19 — Singular onoma for three persons

URL: christiandefense.org Key claims: - The singular onoma ("name") governs three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Defenders argue this implies a shared divine identity under one Name. - Sharp's Rule #6 applied: when kai ("and") connects singular nouns of the same case and the article precedes each noun, each personal noun denotes a distinct person. The three names denote three distinct persons unified under one name. - Scholarly debate on authenticity: some suspect the triadic formula is a later interpolation. Eusebius is cited as quoting Matt 28:19 without the triadic formula in some early works. - However, the text is well supported in the oldest Greek manuscripts of the NT. - The passage is significant as the only text where all three persons are explicitly named together in a coordinate formula. Relevance: Relevant to the synthesis question -- the singular onoma suggests unified identity of three distinct persons. The interpolation debate must be noted but the manuscript evidence evaluated. Status: Lead to verify against Scripture

Summary of Scholarly Landscape

The scholarly discussion of how NT writers reconcile monotheism with Christ's deity has crystallized around what is now called the "early high Christology" consensus, though it remains contested. Three major frameworks dominate: Richard Bauckham's "divine identity" model argues that Jewish monotheism was defined by who God is (the unique creator, ruler, and object of worship) rather than what divinity is, and that the NT writers included Jesus within this unique identity by attributing to him the same markers -- creation, cosmic lordship, the divine throne, the divine name, and exclusive worship. Larry Hurtado's "devotion" model builds the case from practice rather than theology: earliest Jewish Christians offered Jesus the prayers, hymns, invocations, and cultic reverence previously reserved for YHWH alone, and did so as monotheists, not as people abandoning monotheism. N.T. Wright's "narrative" model adds eschatological depth: Jesus did what only YHWH was expected to do (return to Zion, defeat enemies, establish his kingdom, judge and save), and the earliest Christians recognized this narrative identity.

These three frameworks converge on a shared conclusion: the highest Christology is not a late development but is present in the earliest strata of Christian evidence (Pauline letters, pre-Pauline hymns, Aramaic liturgical invocations like Maranatha). They disagree on the mechanism -- identity markers, worship practice, or eschatological narrative -- but agree that Christ-worship within Jewish monotheism is not an anomaly but the defining characteristic of earliest Christianity.

Dissenting voices raise important challenges. Andrew Perriman argues that 1 Corinthians 8:6 reflects functional delegation (Christ receives bestowed lordship per Psalm 110:1 and Acts 2:36), not ontological inclusion in divine identity. Daniel McClellan and others propose "divine agency" and "angelomorphic Christology" frameworks that explain Christ's exalted role without requiring ontological identification with YHWH. Michael Peppard notes the neglect of imperial cult parallels. J.D.G. Dunn reads Philippians 2:5-11 as Adam Christology rather than preexistence Christology. These critics charge the consensus with "presentistic" ontological reading -- importing later Nicene categories back into first-century texts. However, the majority position responds that the NT evidence exceeds what any agency or angelomorphic model can accommodate: no angel receives the worship, the divine name, the creation role, and the eschatological judgment prerogatives that the NT assigns to Jesus.

The Greek grammatical evidence is particularly significant for this study. John 1:1c's anarthrous theos as qualitative predicate nominative (Harner, correcting Colwell) supports "the Word was fully God in nature" without collapsing persons. John 10:30's neuter hen (not masculine heis) with plural verb esmen indicates unity of essence with distinction of persons. Colossians 2:9's theotetos (not theiotes) claims the essential being of God (not merely divine qualities) dwells permanently in Christ bodily. Hebrews 1:3's charakter tes hypostaseos describes an exact imprint of God's underlying substance. Philippians 2:9-11's application of Isaiah 45:23 to Christ transfers YHWH-exclusive worship language. The Alpha-Omega/First-Last title sharing across Revelation transfers Isaiah's exclusive monotheistic declaration to Jesus.

Research Directives for Downstream Agents

  1. Bauckham's divine identity markers -- Verify each marker (creation, cosmic lordship, divine throne, divine name, exclusive worship) against specific NT texts. Which passages explicitly attribute each marker to Christ?
  2. 1 Cor 8:6 Shema reformulation -- Parse the Greek structure. Evaluate the ex/dia distinction (Perriman's objection). Compare with Deut 6:4 LXX. Is Paul splitting, supplementing, or transforming the Shema? Also check Malachi 2:10-12 as an alternative background text.
  3. 1 Cor 15:28 tension -- Perriman argues the Son's submission to the Father disproves permanent shared divine identity. Research what this verse actually says in Greek and how it relates to 1 Cor 8:6 and Phil 2:9-11.
  4. John 1:1c qualitative theos -- Parse the Greek. Verify Harner's qualitative category against the grammar tools. Check whether the anarthrous construction supports "God in nature" without collapsing the distinction from 1:1b.
  5. John 10:30 hen/heis/esmen -- Parse the Greek. Verify Robertson's grammatical claim about neuter hen vs. masculine heis. Check the Jewish audience's reaction in 10:31-33 as interpretation evidence.
  6. Col 2:9 theotetos -- Verify the theotes/theiotes distinction with Strong's data. Parse the present tense of katoikei. Check whether Paul's usage supports essential deity or could be read as divine quality.
  7. Heb 1:3 charakter tes hypostaseos -- Parse the Greek. Check the range of meaning for hypostasis in the NT and LXX. Examine the full Heb 1:1-14 argument chain (Psalm quotations, angel comparisons).
  8. Phil 2:5-11 morphe theou and Isa 45:23 -- Parse the Greek terms (morphe, hyparchon, harpagmos, kenoo). Verify the Isaiah 45:23 quotation in Phil 2:10-11. Evaluate Dunn's Adam Christology counter-reading.
  9. Rev 5:8-14 co-worship -- Analyze the worship progression (ch. 4 to ch. 5). Check the singular verb for joint reign (Swain's claim). Verify whether the Lamb receives identical worship language as the One on the throne.
  10. Alpha-Omega / First-Last title sharing -- Map Rev 1:8, 1:17-18, 2:8, 21:6, 22:13 against Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12. Determine whether the same titles are applied to both God and Christ, and whether context supports identifying them within the same divine identity.
  11. Matt 28:19 singular onoma -- Parse the Greek construction. Evaluate the textual-critical question (interpolation charge vs. manuscript evidence). Assess the theological significance of singular "name" for three persons.
  12. Hurtado's devotional evidence -- Verify the Maranatha invocation (1 Cor 16:22), Rom 10:9-13 (Joel 2:32 applied to Christ), and 1 Cor 1:2 (calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus) as evidence of Christ-worship within Jewish monotheism.
  13. McClellan's agency/angelomorphic counter-model -- Test whether the NT evidence for Christ's deity can be adequately explained by divine agency or angel-of-YHWH categories. Check whether any NT text explicitly distinguishes Christ from angelic beings (Heb 1:4-14 is key).
  14. Davidson's Wisdom Christology from Proverbs 8 -- Trace the Wisdom-Christ identification through John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 1:24, Col 1:15-17, Heb 1:1-4. Check whether the OT Wisdom tradition provides background for the NT's creation-through-Christ language.
  15. Wright's YHWH-return narrative -- Identify NT passages where Jesus is presented as doing what YHWH was expected to do (return to Zion, judge, save, defeat enemies). Check whether this narrative identity is present in the earliest sources.