Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Son did not *become* superior to the angels because he is the creator

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Son did not *become* superior to the angels because he is the creator

    The Hebrew's author's words "having become" in 1:4 grammatically rule out the Son becoming superior to the angels because he is the creator or the "agent" of creation (see Heb 1:2 & 1:10).

    "having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they" (Heb. 1:4, NASB)

    "The word translated here as "having become" most naturally refers to a transition from an old status to a new status, that is, from a status lower than the angels to a "name greater" than theirs."

    Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Westminster, Louisville: 2003) p 46

    To see how completely illogical it is to argue that the Son became superior to the angels because he is the creator in 1:10, all we have to do is combine the words of Heb 1:4 with 1:10.

    "having become so much better than the angels, as "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS" (Heb 1:4, 10, NASB)

    Ask yourself: was the Son's work of creation an "act" that directly resulted in him as "having become so much superior the angels"? Of course not!

    Again, the only way this would work is if the Son was previously inferior to the angels BEFORE he created the universe.

    It would be one thing if the Hebrews author had said in Heb 1:4, "having ALWAYS been superior to the angels," but such is clearly not the case.

    Again, this means is that the only way the Son could *transition* from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them is if he was previously lower than them and because of some action, became superior to them. Obviously as the agent of creation or creator, he could not have come from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them. Thus it logically follows it is only as a man, not as the creator, that the Son has become so much superior to the angels, and that by way of his passion and heavenly enthronement (heavenly exaltation).

    In short, to argue that the Hebrews author is asserting the Son's superiority over the angels because he is the agent of creation (1:2) or the creator God (1:10) is to read these verses out of context. My point is that everything in Heb 1-2 must be interpreted in light of Heb 1:4 (not to the exclusion of, such as Toml keeps doing), because this verse is the writer's main "point of emphasis" or "theme."


  • #2
    Originally posted by Eusebius View Post
    The Hebrew's author's words "having become" in 1:4 grammatically rule out the Son becoming superior to the angels because he is the creator or the "agent" of creation (see Heb 1:2 & 1:10).

    "having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they" (Heb. 1:4, NASB)

    "The word translated here as "having become" most naturally refers to a transition from an old status to a new status, that is, from a status lower than the angels to a "name greater" than theirs."

    Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Westminster, Louisville: 2003) p 46

    To see how completely illogical it is to argue that the Son became superior to the angels because he is the creator in 1:10, all we have to do is combine the words of Heb 1:4 with 1:10.

    "having become so much better than the angels, as "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS" (Heb 1:4, 10, NASB)

    Ask yourself: was the Son's work of creation an "act" that directly resulted in him as "having become so much superior the angels"? Of course not!

    Again, the only way this would work is if the Son was previously inferior to the angels BEFORE he created the universe.

    It would be one thing if the Hebrews author had said in Heb 1:4, "having ALWAYS been superior to the angels," but such is clearly not the case.

    Again, this means is that the only way the Son could *transition* from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them is if he was previously lower than them and because of some action, became superior to them. Obviously as the agent of creation or creator, he could not have come from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them. Thus it logically follows it is only as a man, not as the creator, that the Son has become so much superior to the angels, and that by way of his passion and heavenly enthronement (heavenly exaltation).

    In short, to argue that the Hebrews author is asserting the Son's superiority over the angels because he is the agent of creation (1:2) or the creator God (1:10) is to read these verses out of context. My point is that everything in Heb 1-2 must be interpreted in light of Heb 1:4 (not to the exclusion of, such as Toml keeps doing), because this verse is the writer's main "point of emphasis" or "theme."
    The text is plain enough and is confirmed

    Hebrews 1:2 (ESV)
    2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

    Hebrews 1:8-10 (ESV)
    8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
    9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
    10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;


    confirmed in multiple places

    John 1:3 (ESV)
    3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    John 1:10 (ESV)
    10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
    Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
    16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
    1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV)
    6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

    6 verses all teaching the same thing

    and what would be out of context would be to attribute verse 10 to other than Christ for then it does not serve to further the the author premise that the son is superior to the angels

    Why don't you and Schenck explain how a referencve to other than Christ fits the writers flow

    further we know from scripture the lower rank can be accounted for by his taking on flesh and and non use of divine prerogatives

    Philippians 2:5-7 (ESV)
    5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
    6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
    7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

    As a man he would be lower than the angels

    This view is reflected below


    Verse 4. Being made... better—by His exaltation by the Father (Heb 1:3, 13):in contrast to His being "made lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). "Better," that is, superior to. As "being" (Heb 1:3) expresses His essential being so "being made" (Heb 7:26) marks what He became in His assumed manhood (Php 2:6-9). Paul shows that His humbled form (at which the Jews might stumble) is no objection to His divine Messiahship. As the law was given by the ministration of angels and Moses, it was inferior to the Gospel given by the divine Son, who both is (Heb 1:4-14) as God, and has been made, as the exalted Son of man (Heb 2:5-18), much better than the angels. The manifestations of God by angels (and even by the angel of the covenant) at different times in the Old Testament, did not bring man and God into personal union, as the manifestation of God in human flesh does.
    A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.





    Comment


    • #3
      Good job refuting another uni OP that twists the scriptures to suit a false christ.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TomL View Post

        The text is plain enough and is confirmed

        Hebrews 1:2 (ESV)
        2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

        Hebrews 1:8-10 (ESV)
        8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
        9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
        10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;


        confirmed in multiple places

        John 1:3 (ESV)
        3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
        John 1:10 (ESV)
        10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
        Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
        16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
        1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV)
        6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

        6 verses all teaching the same thing

        and what would be out of context would be to attribute verse 10 to other than Christ for then it does not serve to further the the author premise that the son is superior to the angels

        Why don't you and Schenck explain how a referencve to other than Christ fits the writers flow

        further we know from scripture the lower rank can be accounted for by his taking on flesh and and non use of divine prerogatives

        Philippians 2:5-7 (ESV)
        5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
        6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
        7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

        As a man he would be lower than the angels

        This view is reflected below


        Verse 4. Being made... better—by His exaltation by the Father (Heb 1:3, 13):in contrast to His being "made lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). "Better," that is, superior to. As "being" (Heb 1:3) expresses His essential being so "being made" (Heb 7:26) marks what He became in His assumed manhood (Php 2:6-9). Paul shows that His humbled form (at which the Jews might stumble) is no objection to His divine Messiahship. As the law was given by the ministration of angels and Moses, it was inferior to the Gospel given by the divine Son, who both is (Heb 1:4-14) as God, and has been made, as the exalted Son of man (Heb 2:5-18), much better than the angels. The manifestations of God by angels (and even by the angel of the covenant) at different times in the Old Testament, did not bring man and God into personal union, as the manifestation of God in human flesh does.
        A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.




        what part of "having become" don't you get?

        For those who out of context understand the Son to be the creator in Heb 1:10, ask yourself:

        Did the act of creation by the Son result in a change of status from being made lower than the angels to a status of being made higher than the angels? Yes or no?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Christophany View Post
          Good job refuting another uni OP that twists the scriptures to suit a false christ.
          how about instead of you making your usual drive-by pejorative remarks, you instead actually address the text under question?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Eusebius View Post
            The Hebrew's author's words "having become" in 1:4 grammatically rule out the Son becoming superior to the angels because he is the creator or the "agent" of creation (see Heb 1:2 & 1:10).

            "having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they" (Heb. 1:4, NASB)

            "The word translated here as "having become" most naturally refers to a transition from an old status to a new status, that is, from a status lower than the angels to a "name greater" than theirs."

            Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Westminster, Louisville: 2003) p 46

            To see how completely illogical it is to argue that the Son became superior to the angels because he is the creator in 1:10, all we have to do is combine the words of Heb 1:4 with 1:10.

            "having become so much better than the angels, as "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS" (Heb 1:4, 10, NASB)

            Ask yourself: was the Son's work of creation an "act" that directly resulted in him as "having become so much superior the angels"? Of course not!

            Again, the only way this would work is if the Son was previously inferior to the angels BEFORE he created the universe.

            It would be one thing if the Hebrews author had said in Heb 1:4, "having ALWAYS been superior to the angels," but such is clearly not the case.

            Again, this means is that the only way the Son could *transition* from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them is if he was previously lower than them and because of some action, became superior to them. Obviously as the agent of creation or creator, he could not have come from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them. Thus it logically follows it is only as a man, not as the creator, that the Son has become so much superior to the angels, and that by way of his passion and heavenly enthronement (heavenly exaltation).

            In short, to argue that the Hebrews author is asserting the Son's superiority over the angels because he is the agent of creation (1:2) or the creator God (1:10) is to read these verses out of context. My point is that everything in Heb 1-2 must be interpreted in light of Heb 1:4 (not to the exclusion of, such as Toml keeps doing), because this verse is the writer's main "point of emphasis" or "theme."
            Good points. "He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" in Heb 1:4 is the inheritance by which the son "obtained a more excellent name than they."

            So the author of Hebrews is stating the reasons for calling Jesus a son in Heb 1:2 as "(1) whom he hath appointed heir of all things, (2) by whom also he made the worlds;" and giving separate reasons for awarding the son his inheritance.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Eusebius View Post

              what part of "having become" don't you get?

              For those who out of context understand the Son to be the creator in Heb 1:10, ask yourself:

              Did the act of creation by the Son result in a change of status from being made lower than the angels to a status of being made higher than the angels? Yes or no?
              What part of my comments did you not get - see comments in blue

              And why did you not address my objection to your denial that I have highlighted in Red

              Originally posted by TomL View Post
              The text is plain enough and is confirmed

              Hebrews 1:2 (ESV)
              2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

              Hebrews 1:8-10 (ESV)
              8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
              9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
              10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;


              confirmed in multiple places

              John 1:3 (ESV)
              3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
              John 1:10 (ESV)
              10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
              Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
              16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
              1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV)
              6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

              6 verses all teaching the same thing

              and what would be out of context would be to attribute verse 10 to other than Christ for then it does not serve to further the the author premise that the son is superior to the angels

              Why don't you and Schenck explain how a reference to other than Christ fits the writers flow


              Sorry but all you are doing is seeking an excuse to deny a functional difficulty to your theology while overlooking the contextual difficulty your interpretation involves you in

              further we know from scripture the lower rank can be accounted for by his taking on flesh and and non use of divine prerogatives

              Philippians 2:5-7 (ESV)
              5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
              6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
              7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

              As a man he would be lower than the angels

              This view is reflected below



              Verse 4. Being made... better—by His exaltation by the Father (Heb 1:3, 13):in contrast to His being "made lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). "Better," that is, superior to. As "being" (Heb 1:3) expresses His essential being so "being made" (Heb 7:26) marks what He became in His assumed manhood (Php 2:6-9). Paul shows that His humbled form (at which the Jews might stumble) is no objection to His divine Messiahship. As the law was given by the ministration of angels and Moses, it was inferior to the Gospel given by the divine Son, who both is (Heb 1:4-14) as God, and has been made, as the exalted Son of man (Heb 2:5-18), much better than the angels. The manifestations of God by angels (and even by the angel of the covenant) at different times in the Old Testament, did not bring man and God into personal union, as the manifestation of God in human flesh does.
              A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.




              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TomL View Post

                What part of my comments did you not get - see comments in blue

                And why did you not address my objection to your denial that I have highlighted in Red

                Originally posted by TomL View Post
                The text is plain enough and is confirmed

                Hebrews 1:2 (ESV)
                2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

                Hebrews 1:8-10 (ESV)
                8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
                9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
                10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;


                confirmed in multiple places

                John 1:3 (ESV)
                3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
                John 1:10 (ESV)
                10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
                Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
                16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
                1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV)
                6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

                6 verses all teaching the same thing

                and what would be out of context would be to attribute verse 10 to other than Christ for then it does not serve to further the the author premise that the son is superior to the angels

                Why don't you and Schenck explain how a reference to other than Christ fits the writers flow


                Sorry but all you are doing is seeking an excuse to deny a functional difficulty to your theology while overlooking the contextual difficulty your interpretation involves you in

                further we know from scripture the lower rank can be accounted for by his taking on flesh and and non use of divine prerogatives

                Philippians 2:5-7 (ESV)
                5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
                6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
                7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

                As a man he would be lower than the angels

                This view is reflected below



                Verse 4. Being made... better—by His exaltation by the Father (Heb 1:3, 13):in contrast to His being "made lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). "Better," that is, superior to. As "being" (Heb 1:3) expresses His essential being so "being made" (Heb 7:26) marks what He became in His assumed manhood (Php 2:6-9). Paul shows that His humbled form (at which the Jews might stumble) is no objection to His divine Messiahship. As the law was given by the ministration of angels and Moses, it was inferior to the Gospel given by the divine Son, who both is (Heb 1:4-14) as God, and has been made, as the exalted Son of man (Heb 2:5-18), much better than the angels. The manifestations of God by angels (and even by the angel of the covenant) at different times in the Old Testament, did not bring man and God into personal union, as the manifestation of God in human flesh does.
                A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.



                Unlike you, I'm not interpreting Heb 1:10 to the exclusion of, but rather in light of, the writer's "focal point" or "theme" in 1:4.

                Again, the writer's words "having become" grammatically rule out the Son qua creator as having become from a status lower than the angels to status so much higher than them. It is only as Son qua man that Jesus can be said of as "having become" from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them, which is in keeping with Heb 2:9.

                But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour [above them]; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb 2:9, KJV, bracketed emphasis mine)

                The second problem with identifying the Son as the Genesis creator in Heb 1:10 is that this would mean the Son put HIMSELF over the worksof his own hands [creation], which would directly contradict the writer's point in Heb. 2:7b:

                “You [God]…appointed him [Jesus] over the works of Your [God’s] hands” (Heb. 2:7b, added emphasis mine).

                Again, if the Son is the Genesis creator, then this means that he put HIMSELF over the works of his own hands (Genesis creation), and thus was responsible for exalting himself over the angels, as opposed to God exalting the Son over the angels, which is clearly the writer's point in Heb. 2:5-9.

                Thirdly, as has already been pointed out to you, while Ps. 102:25 is carried over with the rest of the quotation, the writer has no intention of developing this particular point, so that nothing can be of substance can be built upon this point. His interest lies solely on the particular aspect the quality of "immutability" (changeableness) that was conferred upon the Son as a direct result of his resurrection.



                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Eusebius View Post

                  Unlike you, I'm not interpreting Heb 1:10 to the exclusion of, but rather in light of, the writer's "focal point" or "theme" in 1:4.

                  Again, the writer's words "having become" grammatically rule out the Son qua creator as having become from a status lower than the angels to status so much higher than them. It is only as Son qua man that Jesus can be said of as "having become" from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them, which is in keeping with Heb 2:9.

                  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour [above them]; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb 2:9, KJV, bracketed emphasis mine)

                  The second problem with identifying the Son as the Genesis creator in Heb 1:10 is that this would mean the Son put HIMSELF over the worksof his own hands [creation], which would directly contradict the writer's point in Heb. 2:7b:

                  “You [God]…appointed him [Jesus] over the works of Your [God’s] hands” (Heb. 2:7b, added emphasis mine).

                  Again, if the Son is the Genesis creator, then this means that he put HIMSELF over the works of his own hands (Genesis creation), and thus was responsible for exalting himself over the angels, as opposed to God exalting the Son over the angels, which is clearly the writer's point in Heb. 2:5-9.

                  Thirdly, as has already been pointed out to you, while Ps. 102:25 is carried over with the rest of the quotation, the writer has no intention of developing this particular point, so that nothing can be of substance can be built upon this point. His interest lies solely on the particular aspect the quality of "immutability" (changeableness) that was conferred upon the Son as a direct result of his resurrection.



                  The first thing to note is you did not respond to my objection listed below my comments in blue and in red

                  What part of my comments did you not get - see comments in blue

                  .................................................. ......................

                  And why did you not address my objection to your denial that I have highlighted in Red

                  Originally posted by TomL View Post
                  The text is plain enough and is confirmed

                  Hebrews 1:2 (ESV)
                  2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

                  Hebrews 1:8-10 (ESV)
                  8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
                  9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
                  10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;


                  confirmed in multiple places

                  John 1:3 (ESV)
                  3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
                  John 1:10 (ESV)
                  10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
                  Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
                  16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
                  1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV)
                  6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

                  6 verses all teaching the same thing

                  and what would be out of context would be to attribute verse 10 to other than Christ for then it does not serve to further the the author premise that the son is superior to the angels

                  Why don't you and Schenck explain how a reference to other than Christ fits the writers flow

                  Sorry but all you are doing is seeking an excuse to deny a functional difficulty to your theology while overlooking the contextual difficulty your interpretation involves you in

                  further we know from scripture the lower rank can be accounted for by his taking on flesh and and non use of divine prerogatives

                  Philippians 2:5-7 (ESV)
                  5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
                  6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
                  7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

                  As a man he would be lower than the angels

                  This view is reflected below


                  Verse 4. Being made... better—by His exaltation by the Father (Heb 1:3, 13):in contrast to His being "made lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). "Better," that is, superior to. As "being" (Heb 1:3) expresses His essential being so "being made" (Heb 7:26) marks what He became in His assumed manhood (Php 2:6-9). Paul shows that His humbled form (at which the Jews might stumble) is no objection to His divine Messiahship. As the law was given by the ministration of angels and Moses, it was inferior to the Gospel given by the divine Son, who both is (Heb 1:4-14) as God, and has been made, as the exalted Son of man (Heb 2:5-18), much better than the angels. The manifestations of God by angels (and even by the angel of the covenant) at different times in the Old Testament, did not bring man and God into personal union, as the manifestation of God in human flesh does.
                  A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.

                  they take care of your first objection

                  Next who does john say created

                  John 1:1-3 (KJV)
                  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
                  2 The same was in the beginning with God.
                  3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

                  Was it not the word who is God and became flesh as Jesus Christ

                  Heb 2:7 However is not speaking of Christ but of humanity in general

                  Psalm 115:16 (KJV)
                  16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

                  You were told this previously but you just ignored it

                  and for your final comment

                  Thirdly, as has already been pointed out to you, while Ps. 102:25 is carried over with the rest of the quotation, the writer has no intention of developing this particular point, so that nothing can be of substance can be built upon this point. His interest lies solely on the particular aspect the quality of "immutability" (changeableness) that was conferred upon the Son as a direct result of his resurrection.
                  What does that mean ?

                  Did the writer not attribute creation to the son ?

                  Your comment brings up additional points

                  Nowhere is the unchangeable of the son attributed to the resurrection

                  Hebrews 1:10-12 (KJV)
                  10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
                  11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
                  12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

                  and the passage places the son in existence from the foundation of the earth - a point you deny and teaches the eternality of the son another doctrine you deny

                  The book of Hebrews is in fact a treasure trove of doctrines which you deny


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Eusebius View Post
                    The Hebrew's author's words "having become" in 1:4 grammatically rule out the Son becoming superior to the angels because he is the creator or the "agent" of creation (see Heb 1:2 & 1:10).

                    "having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they" (Heb. 1:4, NASB)

                    "The word translated here as "having become" most naturally refers to a transition from an old status to a new status, that is, from a status lower than the angels to a "name greater" than theirs."

                    Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Westminster, Louisville: 2003) p 46

                    To see how completely illogical it is to argue that the Son became superior to the angels because he is the creator in 1:10, all we have to do is combine the words of Heb 1:4 with 1:10.

                    "having become so much better than the angels, as "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS" (Heb 1:4, 10, NASB)

                    Ask yourself: was the Son's work of creation an "act" that directly resulted in him as "having become so much superior the angels"? Of course not!

                    Again, the only way this would work is if the Son was previously inferior to the angels BEFORE he created the universe.

                    It would be one thing if the Hebrews author had said in Heb 1:4, "having ALWAYS been superior to the angels," but such is clearly not the case.

                    Again, this means is that the only way the Son could *transition* from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them is if he was previously lower than them and because of some action, became superior to them. Obviously as the agent of creation or creator, he could not have come from a status lower than the angels to a status higher than them. Thus it logically follows it is only as a man, not as the creator, that the Son has become so much superior to the angels, and that by way of his passion and heavenly enthronement (heavenly exaltation).

                    In short, to argue that the Hebrews author is asserting the Son's superiority over the angels because he is the agent of creation (1:2) or the creator God (1:10) is to read these verses out of context. My point is that everything in Heb 1-2 must be interpreted in light of Heb 1:4 (not to the exclusion of, such as Toml keeps doing), because this verse is the writer's main "point of emphasis" or "theme."
                    Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

                    Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, [see Jn 17:5] thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
                    Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
                    Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
                    Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
                    Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
                    Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Eusebius View Post
                      To see how completely illogical it is to argue that the Son became superior to the angels because he is the creator in 1:10, all we have to do is combine the words of Heb 1:4 with 1:10
                      Hello Eusebius,

                      I agree in light of the Hypostatic Union doctrine. The Son as creator would be according to the Divine Nature. And Christ's exaltation isn't ontological but positional. In the ontological sense, the Son according to the Divine Nature has always been and always will be superior. What you would have to do is demonstrate Son in the Trinity according to his Divine Nature is inferior and became superior to the angels ontologically.


                      1. THE SUBJECT AND NATURE OF THE EXALTATION. "...Reformed theology, on the other hand, regards the person of the Mediator, that is, the God-man, as the subject of the exaltation, but stresses the fact that it was, of course, [u]the human nature in which the exaltation took place[/u]. The divine nature is not capable of humiliation or exaltation. ..." (Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof).

                      As a Hypostatic Unionist we must interpret the Person of the Son according to the Divine Nature as being God from an eternalness stand-point of him remaining the same in each subcategories of states (preexistence, incarnation, and exaltation) without any form of ontological change and succession. And to interpret the same Person of the Son according to the human nature as being man from his humiliation state and exaltation state stand-point by receiving positional status of rank in glory and honor, authority and power, being above the dominion of angels, and a new name above all.
                      Last edited by binyawmene; 03-28-2020, 03:35 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by binyawmene View Post

                        Hello Eusebius,

                        I agree in light of the Hypostatic Union doctrine. The Son as creator would be according to the Divine Nature. And Christ's exaltation isn't ontological but positional. In the ontological sense, the Son according to the Divine Nature has always been and always will be superior. What you would have to do is demonstrate Son in the Trinity according to his Divine Nature is inferior and became superior to the angels ontologically.


                        1. THE SUBJECT AND NATURE OF THE EXALTATION. "...Reformed theology, on the other hand, regards the person of the Mediator, that is, the God-man, as the subject of the exaltation, but stresses the fact that it was, of course, [u]the human nature in which the exaltation took place[/u]. The divine nature is not capable of humiliation or exaltation. ..." (Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof).

                        As a Hypostatic Unionist we must interpret the Person of the Son according to the Divine Nature as being God from an eternalness stand-point of him remaining the same in each subcategories of states (preexistence, incarnation, and exaltation) without any form of ontological change and succession. And to interpret the same Person of the Son according to the human nature as being man from his humiliation state and exaltation state stand-point by receiving positional status of rank in glory and honor, authority and power, being above the dominion of angels, and a new name above all.
                        Hello binyawmene,

                        Not sure I'm following you when you say, "What you would have to do is demonstrate Son in the Trinity according to his Divine Nature is inferior and became superior to the angels ontologically."

                        My point is that is the Hebrews author's words "having become" in 1:4 grammatically rule out him arguing for the Son's superiority over the angels because he is the creator in Heb. 1:10.

                        IOW, as I have ad nauseam pointed out to Toml, all of the events and/or actions in Heb 1-2 are being offered up by the Hebrews author to demonstrate the Son's superiority over the angels as a direct result of his exaltation/elevation. Obviously it is only as an exalted man that the Son could be said to have become so much superior to the angels.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by oldshepherd View Post

                          Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

                          Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, [see Jn 17:5] thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
                          Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
                          Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
                          Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
                          Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
                          Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
                          There is nothing in Heb 1 that suggests the Son qua creator became superior to the angels. Care to try again.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TomL View Post


                            The first thing to note is you did not respond to my objection listed below my comments in blue and in red

                            What part of my comments did you not get - see comments in blue

                            .................................................. ......................

                            And why did you not address my objection to your denial that I have highlighted in Red

                            Originally posted by TomL View Post
                            The text is plain enough and is confirmed

                            Hebrews 1:2 (ESV)
                            2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

                            Hebrews 1:8-10 (ESV)
                            8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
                            9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
                            10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;


                            confirmed in multiple places

                            John 1:3 (ESV)
                            3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
                            John 1:10 (ESV)
                            10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
                            Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
                            16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
                            1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV)
                            6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

                            6 verses all teaching the same thing

                            and what would be out of context would be to attribute verse 10 to other than Christ for then it does not serve to further the the author premise that the son is superior to the angels

                            Why don't you and Schenck explain how a reference to other than Christ fits the writers flow

                            Sorry but all you are doing is seeking an excuse to deny a functional difficulty to your theology while overlooking the contextual difficulty your interpretation involves you in

                            further we know from scripture the lower rank can be accounted for by his taking on flesh and and non use of divine prerogatives

                            Philippians 2:5-7 (ESV)
                            5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
                            6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
                            7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

                            As a man he would be lower than the angels

                            This view is reflected below


                            Verse 4. Being made... better—by His exaltation by the Father (Heb 1:3, 13):in contrast to His being "made lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). "Better," that is, superior to. As "being" (Heb 1:3) expresses His essential being so "being made" (Heb 7:26) marks what He became in His assumed manhood (Php 2:6-9). Paul shows that His humbled form (at which the Jews might stumble) is no objection to His divine Messiahship. As the law was given by the ministration of angels and Moses, it was inferior to the Gospel given by the divine Son, who both is (Heb 1:4-14) as God, and has been made, as the exalted Son of man (Heb 2:5-18), much better than the angels. The manifestations of God by angels (and even by the angel of the covenant) at different times in the Old Testament, did not bring man and God into personal union, as the manifestation of God in human flesh does.
                            A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.

                            they take care of your first objection

                            Next who does john say created

                            John 1:1-3 (KJV)
                            1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
                            2 The same was in the beginning with God.
                            3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

                            Was it not the word who is God and became flesh as Jesus Christ

                            Heb 2:7 However is not speaking of Christ but of humanity in general

                            Psalm 115:16 (KJV)
                            16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

                            You were told this previously but you just ignored it

                            and for your final comment



                            What does that mean ?

                            Did the writer not attribute creation to the son ?

                            Your comment brings up additional points

                            Nowhere is the unchangeable of the son attributed to the resurrection

                            Hebrews 1:10-12 (KJV)
                            10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
                            11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
                            12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

                            and the passage places the son in existence from the foundation of the earth - a point you deny and teaches the eternality of the son another doctrine you deny

                            The book of Hebrews is in fact a treasure trove of doctrines which you deny

                            The Hebrew's author's words "having become" in 1:4 grammatically rule out the Son becoming superior to the angels because he is the creator or the "agent" of creation (see Heb 1:2 & 1:10).

                            "having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they" (Heb. 1:4, NASB)

                            "The word translated here as "having become" most naturally refers to a transition from an old status to a new status, that is, from a status lower than the angels to a "name greater" than theirs."

                            Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Westminster, Louisville: 2003) p 46

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Eusebius View Post

                              what part of "having become" don't you get?

                              For those who out of context understand the Son to be the creator in Heb 1:10, ask yourself:

                              Did the act of creation by the Son result in a change of status from being made lower than the angels to a status of being made higher than the angels? Yes or no?
                              Yes, according to His HUMANNITY.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X