In Heb. 1:4, it's possible that the "name" (ONOMA) refers to the increased privileges of the resurrected and elevated Messiah. Isa. 9:6 prophesied that the Messiah's name would be 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, and Prince of Peace." Interestingly, the prophet writes that all of these titles or descriptions constitute one name. The "name" mentioned by the writer of Hebrews is pretty much co-extensive with the description listed in Isa. 9:6.
Cf. Rev. 19:11-13.
George Buchanan also writes (in the Anchor Bible commentary on Hebrews) that "since his [Christ's] inheritance was associated with his sonship, which name he inherited, he was evidently made Son, heir, apostle, and high priest (1:2; 3:1; 5:10) all at once" (Buchanan, Hebrews, 9).
Daniel Wallace lists the phrase KREITTWN GENOMENOS TWN AGGELWN as a genitive of comparison and in addition to this construction in the passage, the datival form of hOSOS (hOSWi) indicates that Jesus became better than the angels since he inherited ('to the degree that he inherited') a name superior to their name. See the entry for hOSOS in BAGD 586.
Paul Ellingworth calls attention to the fact that ONOMA is anarthrous here and its reference is vague. He suggests that the name (ONOMA) in this context might be "Son," but he suggests that it might also refer to the exaltation of the "eternal Son" (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 106). At any rate, one should not place too much emphasis on the anarthrousness of ONOMA (see BDF 254.2).
For 1:4, the RSV reads: "having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."
13 comments:
https://thirdmill.org/seminary/lesson.asp/vs/HEB/ln/2
From 36:28
Compare https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic40moffuoft/page/8
I don't agree with him 100%, but Moffatt's commentary is worth reading.
Video dealing with the Trinity: https://thirdmill.org/seminary/lesson.asp/vs/TRI/ln/1/df/y
That video is just towing the party line. Same as the evolution community. Speak against them and your out of these clubs.
From what I have found so far is that the trinity was not really pushed until the era of the KJV onwards.
"The revelation of God without reason or understanding" ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia
The Greeks made that mess.
Notice that the Trinity video comes from the same seminary which produced the video you posted about Hebrews. I wondered if they were Trinitarians. The seminary apparently upholds that doctrine.
The Trinity was pushed way before 1611: what about all the church councils that preceded the KJV?
Trinitarian thinking likewise existed before Greeks; for example, how about the Latin theologians, who leaned that way?
On the Trinity and reason, B.B. Warfield said:
"In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any ethnic religion present in its representations of the divine being any analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity."
In any case I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. The video I posted along with its part 1 do not deal with the trinity. From what I have read so far from many sources they seem fairly accurate. Part one has a good overview of the authorship controversy.
You cannot separate someone's view of the Trinity from his/her view of Hebrews. The video was fine in many parts, but when it discussed Heb. 1:4-5ff, it wasn't clear to me in what sense they were claiming Jesus is God's Son. Trinitarians usually argue that Son has some technical meaning at Heb. 1:4-5. One point of potential disagreement for me is when the video claims that all Davidic kings were considered sons of God. At any rate, Christ could be the Son of God from different perspectives, not just because he's king.
Third Mill includes these remarks about Hebrews:
"Because Aaronic priests would perish, the priesthood of Aaron passed from father to son. In contrast to this, the priesthood of Jesus is eternal. His priesthood is forever; he is still the same priest … Melchizedek has no human right to be a priest, but he enters history as a priest, chosen by God, and then disappears. Jesus does the same, and ascends to heaven at the end of his earthly ministry after his resurrection."
There is still much to be considered regarding terms like "son(s) of god" & "heaven(s)" withing the archaeological witness.
I have no problem seeing that some kings were considered to be sons of god, after the fact.
"the son of god" does not have to mean the only son of god, but rather the foremost son of god.
Jesus was unique as the "only begotten son of god" as GMatthew tells us early on.
I still think that John 18:4-6 is talking about Jewish troops who still recognized Jesus as there rightful king.
I still find it interesting that Jewish translators do not transliterate as Melchizedek but rather translate it as "rightful king".
Jeff Benner thinks that the roots of the word "priest" are:-
While the priests of Israel were the religious leaders of the community this is not the meaning of the word kohen. The Hebrew word for the priests of other nations is komer from a root meaning burn and may be in reference to the priests who burn children in the fires of Molech (2 Kings 23:10). The word kohen comes from a root meaning a base such as the base of a column. The koheniym (plural of kohen) are the structural support of the community. It is their responsibility to keep the community standing tall and straight, a sign of righteousness.
Post a Comment