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
