Thanks for the post, David. I am going to be gone
for a couple days and then back to the grind in a big way in that we are
rushing to build a fireplace before carpet arrives, so I may not get back to
this before it is hashed out by others. However, I will quickly point out that
Wright seems, at least to me, to be setting forth the evolution of son-of-God
language in Jewish thought; its mature form finding manifestation in the
language of Paul. That evolution of thought, it seems to me, should not be
extrapolated back into our statements concerning the eternal form of God's
existence prior to its maturity nor especially its infancy -- as God
revealed himself in new and fuller discloser to his people in history leading up
to the full revelation of his Son in the Christ event in the fullness of
time, culminating in resurrection and ascension; whereupon the preacher to the
Hebrews may introduce his sermon with the reflective statement, "God, who at
various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the
prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who
being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and
upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our
sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high," ... NKJ Hebrews 1:1-3
Am I making any sense?
If not, my apologies, as I've got to go; blessings
all,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:16
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Son of God
> reading more of Tom Wright lately, from two books: "Paul for Everyone.
> Romans: Part One" (which is laymen style commentary on Romans 1-8), and "The
> New Interpreter's Bible," Volume X (Acts, Introduction to Epistolary
> Literature, Romans, 1 Corinthians).
>
> Wright defines the phrase, "son of God," as follows:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Originally a title for Israel (Exodus 4.22) and the Davidic king (Psalm
> 2.7); also used of ancient angelic figures (Genesis 6.2). By the New
> Testament period it was already used as a messianic title, for example in
> the Dead Sea Scrolls. There, and when used of Jesus in the gospels (e.g.
> Matthew 16.16), it means, or reinforces, 'Messiah', without the later
> significance of 'divine'. However, already in Paul the transition to the
> fuller meaning (one who was already equal with God and was sent by him to
> become human and to become Messiah) is apparent, without loss of the meaning
> 'Messiah' itself (e.g. Galatians 4.4).
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> I think we all agree with Wright's characterization of the concept of son of
> God. If not, please let me know. My question to the theologians on the
> list concerns this concept that Wright puts forth here that "son of God" did
> not have the concept of eternal existence originally. Do any of you think
> there might be a problem of our culture reading into the texts our own
> perception of the son of God being begotten at some point before his birth?
>
> To recap, the two opposing concepts before us in regards to the discussion
> has been:
>
> 1. Yeshua, the Messiah, the son of God, existed from eternity past as God,
> a separate person, but of the same substance as God. A little over 2000
> years ago, he was begotten of God, begotten of the Holy Ghost, in human
> flesh, born of a woman, and would be called henceforth, the son of God, in
> that he was unique among men, having been begotten both of a woman and of
> God at the same time.
>
> 2. Yeshua, the Messiah, the son of God, was begotten of God in eternity
> past, not at any particular point in time. In that he was not made, nor
> begotten at any particular time, the word "begotten" apparently must be
> understood in a figurative way, to refer to his coming into existence, but
> not at any particular point in time in that he has always been. In like
> manner, Psalm 2:7, which says, "this day have I begotten thee" must be
> understood figuratively, not to speak of any particular day, but of every
> day. The implication of this understanding is that Yeshua has always had
> the son relationship to the father that we see him have in the gospels.
> This then, has been coined, the eternal sonship doctrine, the teaching that
> Yeshua not only existed in eternity past, but he has been known as the son
> of God for all eternity.
>
> 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.
>
