"but it does shift some additional burden upon those claiming it is a figure
of speech"
No, David, it does not. That would be the case only if Bullinger had set out
to identify every use of figurative language in the Bible. But that is not
Bullinger's intent. By the way, I've got that book too, and I must say that
it has been immensely helpful over the years. Nowhere does he state an
intent to set forth every occurrence of figurative language: His is not to
give every reference to a particular figure of speech; instead he attempts
to address every figure of speech by referencing examples of its use in the
Scriptures -- a rather significant distinction.
Hebrews 1.5 is structured chiastically (A>B-B>A). The first and last lines
concern sonship and frame the second and third lines, which speak of
paternity.
A -- You are my Son;
B -- today I have become your Father
B -- I will be his Father
A -- and he will be my Son
David, do you deny my assertion concerning the chiastic structure of this
verse? Chiasm (sometimes called Chiasmos or Chiaston) is a figure of speech.
Bullinger addresses Chiasm on pages 374-384, citing many examples of this
structural form in Scripture. Yet he does not include Hebrews 1.5 in this
set of examples.
Should his lack of inclusion under Chiasm, cast dispersions on a further
lack of inclusion as it relates to this verse in other figurative forms?
Certainly it should not.
When one statement (and that is what this is: a statement, with multiple
quotations of that statement elsewhere) casts dispersions on the greater
narrative of Scripture, it is not unreasonable to suspect firstly that the
statement was not written with literal intent; hence the assertion that Ps
2.7 et al is to be taken figuratively.
Of this verse, William Lane writes: "There is a certain degree of unresolved
tension in the writer's designation of Jesus as Son, since the title can be
applied to the pre-existent Son (v3a-b), to the incarnate Son (v 2a), and to
the exalted Son. It was apparently the writer's conviction that although
Jesus was the pre-existent Son of God (cf. 5.8, "although he was the Son"),
he entered into a new dimension in the experience of sonship by virtue of
his incarnation, his baptism, his sacrificial death, and his subsequent
exaltation. This new dimension finds expression in THE LEGAL FORMULA OF
RECOGNITION, "You are my Son" (emphasis mine). A possible explanation for
the figurative thrust of this verse is as follows: If Lane is correct in
identifying this pronouncement a legal formula, then it is a figure of
Speech by definition and the Hebrew culture would have recognized it as
such. Hence we see that the day of that pronouncement came not once but on
several occasions throughout the course of the Son's earthly appearance: at
his baptism, at his transfiguration, and after his resurrection (cf. Acts
13.13), to name a few. "On this day" then is not a statement in reference to
a point in time which introduced the "Son's" ontological existence, it
refers to points in time which established the legal designation or
recognition of Sonship to the Son's eternal existence.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech
> I should point out that some scholars have attempted to be very thorough
in
> cataloging and identifying figures of speech. I have a volume by E.W.
> Bullinger called, "Figures of Speech used in the Bible." It is more than
> 1100 pages, but it does not list "This day have I begotten thee" as a
figure
> of speech. It does list the idea of "begotten" from Psalm 2:7 as being an
> anthropopatheia. The question posed in Heb. 1:5 of "Unto which of the
> angels said he at any time, thou art my son" also is listed as a figure of
> speech, but the phrase, "This day have I begotten thee" is not discussed.
> The volume has a good Scripture index so I am confident that I have looked
> at all the relevant places in this extensive volume. Of course, not
listing
> it as a figure of speech does not mean that it was not a figure of speech,
> but it does shift some additional burden upon those claiming it is a
figure
> of speech to explain what actual meaning is meant to be conveyed by this
> alleged figure of speech.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
