1. This page is rather lengthy. It is pretty much copy-and-pasted from my correspondence. In addition, since I wrote this I have come across another view of this passage that I think is very interesting. I will give it as a postscript at the end. At this point I prefer my own understanding as given below, but the alternative was provocative enough that I wanted to include it.

 

Argument: The crucial thing is that Heb 1:3 shows Christ to be the Cradle of Creation, God's hypostatic emanation into this Creation, and the Power that sustains her. These cannot be taken metaphorically, or they are senseless, and a literal understanding means Christ preexisted. According to Hebrews 1, the Son (or Christ, by whom God spoke to us these last days) was the same One through whom also God made the ages. It is this Son to whom is said: "And you, Lord, at the beginnings founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands." (He 1:10)

 

Response: Verse 3: "And He (Jesus) is the radiance of His (God) glory and the exact representation of His (God) nature, and upholds all things by the word of His (God) power." When He (Jesus) had made purification of sins, HE (Jesus) SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE MAJESTY ON HIGH, having BECOME as much better than angels, as He (Jesus) has INHERITED a more excellent name than they."

 

If I wanted to communicate that the Son literally preexisted, and was ontologically the same thing as God (the Majesty on high) I would not be able to do it in a more confusing, obtuse, and contradictory manner than above. If however, I wanted to communicate that the MAN Christ Jesus perfectly represented, manifested, and expressed God (radiance of His glory, exact representation of His nature), and that as a result of this has been elevated to a place of supreme authority, then the above is NOT so confusing, obtuse, and contradictory.

 

Verse 5: "For to which of the angels did He (God) ever say, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'? And again, 'I will be a father to him and he shall be a son to me'?"

 

If I wanted to communicate that the Son literally preexisted, had no beginning of days, and was ontologically the same thing as God (the Majesty on high) I would not be able to do it in a more confusing, obtuse, and contradictory manner than above. If however, I wanted to communicate that the MAN Christ Jesus was conceived on a SPECIFIC day in the womb of a woman by God Himself and who related to God as a father and God related to him (Jesus) as a son, then the above is NOT so confusing, obtuse, and contradictory.

 

Verse 6: "And again, when He (God) brings the first born into the world, He (God) says, 'And let all the angels of God (the Majesty on high) worship Him (the Son)'"

 

This establishes that it is the will of God for His begotten Son to be worshipped.

 

Verse 8: But of the Son He (God) says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His (God) Kingdom."

 

Here God calls Jesus, "God". I think it's easily seen that when GOD (the Majesty on high) calls somebody, "God" that does NOT mean that the God (the Majesty on high) who does the naming and the God (Jesus) who receives the appellation are the same thing. Especially in light of the PREVIOUS statement that explicitly states that God desires the Son to be worshipped. And so it is not inappropriate to call the Son, "God" - nor is it wrong to worship him (the Son) even though he (the Son) is NOT God (the Majesty on high) and is distinct from God (the Majesty on high). This is why Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for saying, "My Lord and my God!" It is the Father's desire that the Son be worshipped - even to be called, "God" - the Father Himself has called the Son, "God" - or not, depending on which translation is being used. There is an alternative translation possible. It's given as a footnote in the RSV: "God is thy throne forever and ever..." This translation does not call the son, "God" at all.

 

Secondly, the capitalization on "God" is the translator's prerogative. It could just as easily be translated, "Your throne, o god, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his Kingdom."

 

Still speaking of the Son, Verse 9: "You (the Son) have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God (the Majesty on high), your (the Son) God (the Majesty on high) has anointed you (the Son) with the oil of gladness above your companions."

 

It seems clear that "God" means one thing in one instance (the Majesty on high, the Supreme Deity), and something else (the Son) in another instance. What the word, "God" is referring to can be determined by the context. When God says "Your throne O God..." He cannot be referring to Himself, indeed, it's EXPLICIT in the text that God is referring to the Son, and He (God) calls the Son, "God". This is an illustration of my position, "Sometimes the word, 'God' is used in a lesser sense." The lesser sense is easily seen by the context. You have two beings. One of those beings is God (the Majesty on high) - the other of those beings is the Son of God. The Son was begotten "TODAY" - a specific day. Before that day the Son was NOT begotten, after that day the Son WAS begotten. The word, "begotten" implies "created." God (the Majesty on high) is not begotten (created) at all; he is self-existent. Because of the Son's performance-in-life (you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness) the Father has elevated the Son to a position of supreme authority (sit at my right hand) and has anointed the Son with the oil of gladness above his COMPANIONS (other humans - the apostles perhaps, maybe all who love and follow the Son).

 

Secondly, the Son has a God - explicitly. "YOUR God".

 

Now we come to the real strength of your argument, verses 10-12. Not to be anti-climactic or anything, but I'm going to skip them here and come back to them in a moment. I wish to further establish the context in which they exist.

 

In speaking of our salvation it says in chap 2:3bff: "It was declared at first by the Lord (Jesus), and it was attested to us by those who heard him (Jesus), while God (the Supreme Deity) also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His (the Supreme Deity) own will."

 

You have been unable to refute the distinction here, you only say, "let's not forget that Jesus was also human." I reply, "Jesus was indeed human - but not ALSO human." My understanding is totally and completely consistent with this entire context as well as everything I have expounded here in the first chapter of Hebrews (I will deal with verses 10-12 in a moment).

 

Heb 2:5ff: "For it was not to angels that God (the Majesty on high) subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, 'What is man (the human race in general) that thou (the Majesty on high) art mindful of him, or the son of man (Jesus), that thou (the Majesty on high) carest for him? Thou (the Majesty on high) didst make him (the son of man - Jesus) for a little while lower than the angels; thou (the Majesty on high) hast crowned him (Jesus) with glory and honor (footnote: other ancient authorities insert: and didst set him (Jesus) over the works of thy (the Majesty on high) hands), putting everything in subjection under his (Jesus) feet.'"

 

Now in putting everything in subjection to him (Jesus), He (the Majesty on high) left nothing outside his (God or Jesus? I say God) control. As it is we do not yet see everything in subjection to him (God or Jesus? I say God). But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God (the Majesty on high) he (Jesus) might taste death for everyone."

 

In quoting this passage the author of Hebrews equates Jesus with humanity (son of man). If I wanted to communicate that the Son literally preexisted, and was ontologically the same thing as God (the Majesty on high) I would not be able to do it in a more confusing, obtuse, and contradictory manner than above. If however, I wanted to communicate that the MAN Christ Jesus perfectly represented, manifested, and expressed God, and that because of his faithfulness through suffering and death has been elevated to a place of supreme authority, then the above is NOT so confusing, obtuse, and contradictory.

 

Heb 2:10ff: For it was fitting that he (God) for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering. For he (Jesus) who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin.

 

If I wanted to communicate that the Son literally preexisted, and was ontologically the same thing as God (the Majesty on high) I would not be able to do it in a more confusing, obtuse, and contradictory manner than to say that the Son and those who the Son sanctifies have all one origin. But if I wanted to communicate that God (the Majesty on high) has MADE the MAN Christ Jesus perfect through suffering and he (Jesus) has therefore become the pattern to follow for those who are sanctified for salvation, and that Jesus is the sanctifier of men, then the above is NOT so confusing, obtuse, and contradictory.

 

Continuing: That is why he (Jesus) is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying,

 

"I (Jesus) will proclaim thy (the Majesty on high) name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I (Jesus) will praise thee (the Majesty on high)". And again, "I (Jesus) will put my trust in him (the Majesty on high)." And again, "Here am I (Jesus), and the children God (the Majesty on high) has given me."

 

This is enough to make the point,  - with the exception of verses 10-12 in chapter one, this pericope is, in a clear and obvious manner, completely consistent with my position, that Jesus was completely human, did not LITERALLY preexist, but was literally fathered by God Himself (the Majesty on high). Jesus perfectly and (so far as I know) uniquely manifested, expressed, reflected, and explained God (the Majesty on high) to humanity, lived a sinless life, became the sacrifice for sin as required by the Mosaic Law, and was consequently elevated to a position of supreme authority.

 

Now for verses 10 through 12.

 

I'm going to argue that verses 10-12 do not refer to the Son but to God (the Majesty on high). I ask you to not write me off immediately but to seriously consider my argument. If I have any capital with you I wish to spend it here, because the text in question (verses 10-12) is the only thing that seems to run counter to my understanding of the entire surrounding context.

 

In verse 2 it says, "...in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He (God) appointed heir of all things, through whom He (God) also made the world."

 

We see here that it is God who has made the world, not the Son. We can argue over what "through whom" means 'till the cows come home but the fact remains that it is GOD who made the world.

 

In 2:10 we read, "For it was fitting that he (God), for whom and by whom all things exist..." Here we see that all things exist by God. This is a reference to the previous sentence where God has put "all things" in subjection to the Son.

 

In 3:4b we read, "...the builder of all things is God."

 

So in the immediate context of the 3 verses in question (Heb 1:10-12), we have 3 statements that:

​

1) God made the world,

2) it is by God that all things exist, and

3) the builder of all things is God.

 

Secondly, all 3 verses in question are a quote from Psalm 102:25-27. Let us first examine the OT contexts of the OTHER quotes given. I have written them out so that you don't have to take the time to look them up and check the contexts. I want to save you time, and also help the flow of my argument:

 

Ps 2:7 quoted in Heb 1:5a - Here is Ps 2:7-12: "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him."

 

It is glaringly, obviously evident who is who here: the LORD is God; the Son is the Son. This WHOLE CONTEXT is completely and obviously consistent with what the writer of Hebrews is saying. He does NOT break the OT context in his use of this passage.

 

Hebrews 1:5b is from 1 Chronicles 17:13. Here is 1 Chronicles 17:10b-14. Nathan the Prophet is speaking to David; "Moreover I declare to you that the LORD will build you a house. When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever."

 

We can see that the context of this passage is completely consistent with what Hebrews is saying. GOD (the LORD - Yahweh) is telling David of one of his (David's) descendants. A descendant that will be fathered by God Himself, who will relate to God as a son to his father and who God will relate to as a father to a son, a descendant who will build a house for God's name, a descendant for whom God will establish the throne forever.

 

I couldn't find an OT passage that correlates to verse 6, "And let all the angels of God worship him."

 

Verse 7 is a quote from Ps 104:4 - Here is most of Ps 104: "Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, thou art very great! Thou art clothed with honor and majesty, who coverest thyself with light as with a garment, who hast stretched out the heavens like a tent, who hast laid the beams of thy chambers on the waters, who makest the clouds thy chariot, who ridest on the wings of the wind, who makest the winds thy messengers, fire and flame thy ministers. Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of thy thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them. Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth. Thou makest springs gush forth in the valleys; they flow between the hills, they give drink to every beast of the field; the wild asses quench their thirst. By them the birds of the air have their habitation; they sing among the branches. From thy lofty abode thou waterest the mountains; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy work. Thou dost cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread to strengthen man's heart. The trees of the LORD are watered abundantly, the cedars of Lebanon which he planted. In them the birds build their nests; the stork has her home in the fir trees. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the badgers. Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting. Thou makest darkness, and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep forth. The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. When the sun rises, they get them away and lie down in their dens. Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until the evening. O LORD, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all; the earth is full of thy creatures. Yonder is the sea, great and wide, which teems with things innumerable, living things both small and great. There go the ships, and Leviathan which thou didst form to sport in it. These all look to thee, to give them their food in due season. When thou givest to them, they gather it up; when thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good things. When thou hidest thy face, they are dismayed; when thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the ground. May the glory of the LORD endure forever, may the LORD rejoice in his works, who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke!"

 

The POINT of this WHOLE context is that God (the LORD - Yahweh) is the creator of all that is; He laid the foundations of the earth and so on. This is consistent with what is said in Hebrews, especially 1:2, 2:10, and 3:4b - the verses I have pointed out previously that state: it is God who has created the world, and all that is, not the Son. The author of Hebrews does NOT take this OT passage out of context.

 

Verse 8: "But of the Son..." and then he quotes Psalm 45:6-7. Here's Psalm 45:1-7: "My heart overflows with a good theme; I address my verses to the King; My tongue is the pen of a ready writer. You are fairer than the sons of men; Grace is poured upon Your lips; Therefore God has blessed You forever. Gird Your sword on {Your} thigh, O Mighty One, {In} Your splendor and Your majesty! And in Your majesty ride on victoriously, For the cause of truth and meekness {and} righteousness; Let Your right hand teach You awesome things. Your arrows are sharp; The peoples fall under You; {Your arrows are} in the heart of the King's enemies. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows."

 

It is clear that this whole context is consistent with how the author of Hebrews is using it. He does NOT take it out of context. We have two beings. God and the King. God has blessed the King forever. In speaking of the King it says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed you..." Same distinction here that Hebrews is making. The King is called, "God" - but there is a God over the King. A God who has blessed the King forever (sounds like Rom 9:5 doesn't it? "God blessed forever.") Hebrews calls this King, "the Son".

 

I will skip verses 10-12 and come back to them.

 

Verse 13 - "But to which of the angels has He (God) ever said..." and then he quotes Psalm 110:1. This is the most quoted OT passage in the NT. The greater context of it includes the declaration of the first "Lord" -(translated as, "Jehovah" in Young, Darby, and ASV. "Jehovah" refers to, "Yahweh." All other English translations have either LORD (Yahweh) or Lord (Adonai)) - that the second lord (adoni) is a "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Here is Ps 110:1-4:

 

"A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes! Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you. The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind; "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

 

The context of Ps 110 is completely and obviously consistent with what the author of Hebrews is saying. He does NOT take this verse from Ps 110 out of context.

 

Heading into Hebrews 2, we find a fairly extensive quote in verses 5-8 from Psalm 8. In Psalm 8:1 it says, "To the choirmaster: according to The Gittith. A Psalm of David. O LORD (Yahweh), our Lord (Adonai), how majestic is thy name in all the earth!" In speaking of this LORD, David says,

 

"When I look at thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast established; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?"

 

This establishes that it is God (Yahweh/Adonai) who is the Creator of the heavens, the moon and stars etc, NOT "the son of man". The author of Hebrews equates "the son of man" with Jesus.

 

In speaking of "the son of man" Ps 8:5-6 says: "Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet..."

 

The context of Ps 8:4-5 (quoted in Heb 2:6-8) is completely and obviously consistent with what the author of Hebrews is saying. He does NOT quote Ps 8:4-5 out of context.

 

I could go through the WHOLE book of Hebrews and demonstrate that the author NEVER quotes an OT verse out of context. Furthermore, most of the OT verses that are quoted in the first two chapters of Hebrews establish, among other things, that it is GOD Yahweh/Jehovah/Adonai who has created the universe. Many of the same passages also establish the distinction between GOD and the Son/king/lord/Adoni. The same passages establish that the son is human; that God is his father, that he is a descendant of David, and that he has been or will be elevated to a position of supreme authority over all the works - the creation - of GOD. All THIS is EXACTLY what the author of Hebrews says about Jesus.

 

Now in Heb 1:10 we come to that little word, "and". We immediately refer it to verse 8, "But of the Son He says..." We then proceed to read the following verses to be speaking of the Son: "And, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they will perish, but thou remainest; they will all grow old like a garment, like a mantle thou wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will never end."

 

We understand this to be speaking of the Son in spite of EVERYTHING that is said before and after to the effect that it is GOD who is the Creator, not the Son. And, as we shall see, it is taking the OT verse (Ps 102:25-27) out of context. Here is the larger context (Ps 102:18-27):

 

"Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet unborn may praise the LORD (Yahweh): that he looked down from his holy height, from heaven the LORD (Yahweh) looked at the earth, to hear the groans of the prisoners, to set free those who were doomed to die; that men may declare in Zion the name of the LORD (Yahweh), and in Jerusalem his praise, when peoples gather together, and kingdoms, to worship the LORD (Yahweh). He has broken my strength in mid-course; he has shortened my days. "O my God," I say, "take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure throughout all generations!" Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou art the same, and thy years have no end."

 

It is clear that the being who created the earth and the heavens is Yahweh. This is consistent with every other OT passage that the author of Hebrews has quoted, before and after Heb 1:10-12. This is also consistent with Genesis 1:1. It is also consistent with the Hebrew conception of God. He is Yahweh, the one and only one God, beside whom there is no other, who created the heavens and the earth. So, in ascribing Heb 1:10-12 to the Son, we are going against every other OT passage quoted in Heb 1 and 2, AND we are going against what the author of Hebrews has himself said: 1) God made the world, 2) it is by God that all things exist, and 3) the builder of all things is God, AND we are saying that the author of Hebrews, even though he consistently, in every other case, quotes the OT verses without breaking the original context, yet in this one and only one instance, he quotes the OT out of context and ascribes to the Son what is clearly ascribed to Yahweh - the creation of the earth and heavens. Furthermore, he (the author of Hebrews) does this counter to all Jewish thought, conception, and understanding of God (Yahweh) even though he is a Jew and even though he's writing to Jews. If you were to say that I'm proving your point that Jesus IS Yahweh, you are saying that the author of Hebrews is saying this in spite of the OT passages that he also quotes that CLEARLY distinguish the Son from Yahweh. I'd say there is a problem here, wouldn't you?

 

So what do we do - change our understanding of EVERYTHING else - or - change our understanding of HOW the author of Hebrews is using THREE verses from Psalm 102?

 

Would you like my understanding? ---- Well, you're going to get it anyway!

 

The PRIMARY FOCUS in chapters 1 and 2 of what the author of Hebrews is arguing is that Jesus is NOT an angel. THAT is the issue. In doing this, the author secondarily establishes that Jesus is a) NOT God and b) IS human. Why would the author of Hebrews be so concerned with proving that Jesus was not an angel? Because adoni is occasionally used of angels, but NEVER is it used of Yahweh. No Jew would confuse adoni with Adonai. No Jew would ever make the mistake that the Messiah is Yahweh Himself. But there COULD be dispute about whether adoni referred to an angel or to a human. Once it is established that Jesus is not an angel, the discussion naturally follows into Jesus' priesthood, for no angel can be a priest.

 

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs."

 

Can you see that the POINT of this paragraph is that Jesus is superior to angels? I infer that there was an issue - the issue was that certain people were teaching that Jesus was an angel. I have not tried to verify this inference historically, but I did do a google search: jesus+angel. There are all kinds of people running around TODAY teaching that Jesus is/was an angel. That he was the incarnation of the angel Michael etc. So I don't think my inference is far-fetched. I think that my understanding of what the issue was is confirmed as we read further:

 

"For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?"

 

The argument here is that the Son is superior to angels - i.e. God doesn't talk like this to angels.

 

"And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." Of the angels he says, "Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire."

 

Here the argument is that the Son is superior to angels because God commands angels to worship the Son. Secondly, it is God who makes angels winds and flames of fire, so God has the authority to command them, for He has created them.

 

"But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades."

 

This is a comparison/contrast. It compares/contrasts what God says to angels as opposed to what God says to the Son.

 

Now, notice the qualifiers and explanations before each OT quote:

 

1) For to what angel did God ever say,

2) Or again

3) And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says

4) Of the angels he says

5) But of the Son he says

 

Now we come again to that little word, "and". No qualifier, no explanation, no "again" - just, "and". If he is still speaking of the Son, why doesn't he say, "and again" or "or again" like he has when making his argument previously? Because, dear reader, he is not speaking of the Son, he is speaking of Yahweh, the maker of heaven and earth, even as the OT context he quotes from confirms and as I have argued above. And furthermore, no Jew would have any doubt as to who is being spoken of. Given the recipients of the letter - Jews - the author DOESN'T HAVE TO DEFINE WHO HE IS SPEAKING OF, every Jew on the face of the planet would know that this passage is not speaking of angels, nor is it speaking of the Messiah/Son, it's speaking of Yahweh/Adonai Himself:

 

"Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they will perish, but thou remainest; they will all grow old like a garment, like a mantle thou wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will never end."

 

"But to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet"?

 

The "he" in "But to what angel has HE ever said..." refers to what? It obviously is God - Yahweh - but where is the referent in the text? In the previous sentence - "Thou, Lord..."

 

"But to what angel has HE..." That's HE - Yahweh - He who has founded the earth in the beginning, He whose years will never end, He who will roll up the heavens like a mantle - THIS God, Yahweh, has said, not to any angel, but to the Son, "Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet."

 

"Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?"

 

STILL on the subject of angels, and arguing that the Son is superior to them.

 

"Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will."

 

The message declared by angels was valid - this being so, how much more the message declared by the Son? Those who heard him (the Son) told us (the author of Hebrews) of it, and Yahweh also bore witness to it.

 

"For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, "What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou carest for him? Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see Jesus..."

 

I can think of an alternative understanding to the one I gave above. My position stated above is:

 

"Now in putting everything in subjection to him [the Son], he left nothing outside his [Yahweh] control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him [Yahweh]. But we see Jesus..."

 

Alternative: "What is man [humanity in general] that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou carest for him? ["Man" and "son of man" is a parallelism; they mean the same thing - man in general] Thou didst make him [man-in-general] for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him [man-in-general], he [Yahweh] left nothing outside his [man-in-general] control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him [man-in-general]. But we see Jesus..."

 

Take your pick. Neither interpretation works against my position.

 

It does not make sense to say; "Now in putting everything in subjection to him [Jesus], he [Yahweh] left nothing outside his [Jesus] control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him [Jesus]. But we see Jesus..."

 

It makes no sense to say that we do not yet see everything in subjection to Jesus, but we see Jesus...

 

I could go on but this is enough to establish my position. The subject moves away from Jesus being superior to angels and into the subject of His priesthood. This naturally follows since no angel can be a priest. I'm sure you get it by now. So at this point my position is:

 

1) The Immaculate Conception is true. God literally fathered Jesus.

2) Jesus was completely and only human, descended through His mother from David. He had a single nature which was human, not a dual nature.

3) Jesus functioned as (among other things) the second Adam. The first Adam failed; the second Adam did not fail. Jesus lived a sinless life, perfectly expressed, reflected, manifested, (however you want to put it) His Father Yahweh to humanity, offered Himself as the sacrifice for sin in accordance with the Mosaic Law, the sufficiency of which is proved by His physical resurrection from the dead, and has been elevated by Yahweh to a position of supreme authority over Yahweh's creation.

4) I do not believe that Jesus literally preexisted, or that He was God Incarnate any more than you and I are "incarnations" of our fathers. However, it is God's will for Jesus to be worshipped since, among other things, He (Jesus) has become the way of salvation for man. "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER."

5) I believe that this is the basic position that the Bible presents as being what Jesus Himself taught, as well as what the Apostles taught.

 

 

Back to Arguments Index