Friends,
I have corrected some typos in the post below,
concerning the figurative meaning of Hebrews 1.5 and Psalms 2.7 et al. I
typed that post in the early ours of this morning and made several
mistakes in the process. As I reread it I realized that I stopped short of
making explicit a fairly significant point. Although I made this point by
implication, its thrust may not be all that apparent. And so please indulge
me as I attempt to articulate it more explicitly.
If I am to understand Judy and David correctly,
they are interpreting the statement, "This day I have become your Father,"
to be addressing one specific day -- and only that day -- that Jesus was
born or became incarnate. They understand this statement to express a doctrine
of incarnational Sonship; that is to say that prior to the physical birth of
Jesus the "Son" did not exist, even though the Word did exist in the Godhead and
is eternal. I and some others have challenged this interpretation and in that
challenge have made the assertion that the statement -- "This day ..." --
is to be taken figuratively and is not to be taken literally. The response to
this has been a counter-challenge for us to explain how it is that this
statement is figurative.
It is my belief that the statement is figurative in
that it refers not to one point in time but to multiple points in time
throughout eternity and redemptive history. Yes, it applies to the birth of
Jesus Christ: "This day I have become your Father." But this is not the
only point in time to which it refers. Look with me at Acts 13.32-33: "And we
declare to you glad tidings -- that promise which was made to the
fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has
raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.'" Here Paul uses this same statement from Ps. 2.7 to
establish the Sonship of Jesus Christ, but he does not place the origin of that
event at the moment of Jesus' birth, as Judy and David maintain it
must be; instead he uses this statement to establish Sonship by way of
Jesus' resurrection from the dead, stating that "God has fulfilled this for us
their children, in that He has raised up Jesus."
Now, does this mean that Jesus was not the "Son"
until the "day" of his resurrection? No, it does not, and that is not the
argument I am attempting to set forth. Jesus indeed was the Son prior to the
resurrection. But how can this be when verse 33 clearly states, "Today I have
begotten You" -- that "day" is the day of his resurrection, not the day he
became incarnate? The reason it can be is because the statement is figurative;
it is not to be taken as a literal reference to one specific day in time. It is
instead a proclamation, a decree which was used at different points of
ultimate significance to affirm the divine Sonship of Christ. The fact that it
is used in one place to affirm this status at his birth does not negate or limit
its use in another place to affirm the same Sonship at his resurrection.
This is because Son is eternally begotten. The statement of Ps 2.7 refers
not to one point or one day but to every day, and on certain days -- like at his
birth and at his resurrection -- the Father chooses to make the
grand announcement: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten
You."
Thank you so much,
Bill
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 12:05
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of
Speech
"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.
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.
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 (Heb 1.5), 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 proclamation 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 proclamation 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 13.33), 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
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.
>
>
>
>
> ----- 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.
>
