"but it does shift some additional burden upon those claiming it is a figure of speech"
Bill Taylor wrote:
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.
I disagree. If the work was considered an exhaustive list, and this passage was not listed, then it would end the discussion. As it is, his work attempts to identify and catalogue quite a bit. Even without his work, there is a burden of proof upon those who claim a statement is a figure of speech to explain how it is a figure of speech. There is still the meaning that is meant to be conveyed that needs to be explained. Having a work as extensive as this not mention this particular "idiom" (Slade's reference) adds an additional burden to those who continue to maintain this perspective without explaining what the idiom means and how the idiom has been used in other writings.
Bill Taylor wrote:
Hebrews 1.5 is structured chiastically (A>B-B>A). ... David, do you deny my assertion concerning the chiastic structure of this verse?
This verse is quoting from two separate books. I don't deny the pattern you point out, but I don't understand what significance this has. Can you explain your point here?
Bill Taylor wrote:
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.
Perhaps because it is not an intentional chiasm, being a quote from two separate books. In any case, this kind of "figure of speech" is not the same as what is being alleged about Heb. 1:5. This kind of figure of speech is a literary style, but when we are told Heb. 1:5 is a figure of speech, we are being told that the passage does not literally mean what it says. I am still left with the question of, what exactly is meant to be conveyed by the words given to us.
Bill Taylor wrote:
Should his lack of inclusion under Chiasm, cast dispersions [sic] on a further lack of inclusion as it relates to this verse in other figurative forms? Certainly it should not.
Of course not, but my comment about this not being dealt with was not casting aspersions. It simply indicated the need for further analysis. If you want to make some point about Heb. 1:5 being an intentional chiasm, and you can't reference Bullinger's dealing with this issue, then more burden is placed upon you to establish this point. You have more work to do if you can't reference someone else who has already done it.
Bill Taylor wrote:
When one statement (and that is what this is: a statement, with multiple quotations of that statement elsewhere) casts dispersions [sic] 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.
I agree that if a passage cannot make sense literally, then we should consider figurative or allegorical interpretations, but I see no reason not to take Psalm 2:7 literally, exactly as it is written. You apparently perceive problems with the passage that I do not. Note that even though I don't have problems with a literal reading of this verse, I would still be happy to consider figurative readings as long as someone will explain what the figurative meaning is. The passage was written to say something, and I don't want to just ignore the meaning of the passage just because the consensus is that the verse is figurative.
Bill Taylor wrote:
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"),
Something here escapes me, Bill. I am guessing this is a reference to Heb. 5:8. The verse before this one refers to the "days of his flesh" and the verse following speaks of his "being made perfect" (growth), so I don't know why he seems to use this passage to refer to the "pre-existent Son of God." The word "son" here in this verse seems to refer specifically to his earthly experience here on earth as the son of God. Do you see it differently?
Bill Taylor wrote:
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).
I am glad he sees a "new dimension" being experienced here. This is exactly what I perceive, and what I think Judy perceives by speaking of Christ "emptying himself" when he became flesh. If the crux of the difference between us is this, then we really just have a semantic difference. I would not use the term son for this earlier dimension whereas you would create labels for different kinds of sons, such as the "pre-existent son" versus "incarnate son," etc.
Bill Taylor wrote:
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.
If this is true, then we ought to be able to find documents that use this kind of "legal formula." Otherwise, it is only speculation. Maybe Slade can help us out here. Is the phrase, "this day I have begotten you" the common legal terminology used to announce the arrival of a son?
Bill Taylor wrote:
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) [sic], to name a few.
I assume you mean Acts 13:33. Your reference to Lane indicated that there was more than simply a pronouncement happening at these times. He seems to speak of an actual change in relationship. Do you agree with that aspect of what you quoted for us?
Bill Taylor wrote:
"On this day" then is not a statement in reference to a point in time which introduced the "Son's" ontological existence,
Nobody has argued this at all. The son had ontological existence from all eternity. We all agree on this. The question is whether or not he was known as the son of God prior to his incarnation, or whether he was simply known as God or as the Logos of God? Does the idea of "son of God" have root in his incarnation or in his past eternal existence as Deity?
Bill Taylor wrote:
it refers to points in time which established the legal designation or recognition of Sonship to the Son's eternal existence.
From your perspective, was this "legal designation" made in eternity past,
or was it first made when the Logos became flesh and dwelt among men?
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.
