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
