It's been a long day, and I have another long workday tomorrow. So I could be misunderstanding your question about Moses. Do you have a specific reference/page number in mind?
Also see https://books.google.com/books?id=K_NJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=solomon+zeitlin+angels&source=bl&ots=OcQoxXS5BO&sig=ACfU3U1kyZV-7GNHQsRL_VHuBGE7cBilrg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhjYGUoKfkAhXumeAKHVyVC3sQ6AEwB3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=solomon%20zeitlin%20angels&f=false
Your first link led me to this and the link I posted, of interest is the translation on page 319. I have quoted in part. My interest is the depiction of Moses as an "angel".
“all the com[mandments of Y]HWH through the mouth of Moses, his anointed one.”
pg161:-
several Qumran texts the prophets are designated as God’s anointed ones (CD 2:12; cf. CD 6:1 [=4Q267 2 6; 6Q15 3 4]; 1QM 11:7–8).
So what could be "Angels"?
pg 167:-
Like the author of 4Q377, R. Jose the Galilean (beginning of the second century C.E.) understood the verb of Exod 24:16 as referring to Moses and interpreted his covering with a cloud as an act of sanctification. Also, according to both texts, Moses’ sanctification had to do with his role as the bearer of the divine words. Moreover, R. Jose believed that Moses’ stay in the cloud took place after the Ten Commandments were given. As has been noted above, this might have been also the point of view of the author of 4Q377. Finally, the passage from b. Yoma goes on to cite the saying by R. Nathan (middle of the second century C.E.): R. Nathan says: The purpose of Scripture was that he [Moses] might be purged of all food and drink in his bowels so as to make him equal to the ministering angels. This notion of Moses’ being purged to become as one of the ministering angels should be compared to the scroll’s comparison of the sanctified Moses to an angel.
I have no reason to think that Sadducee did not believe in angels. But one thing is for sure that they did not believe in them to the same extent or with the same understanding of there opponents.
Additionally, see https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/dcly.2007.2007.issue-1/9783110192957.6.499/9783110192957.6.499.xml
This work might provide some answers. It also appears that Moses was being compared to an angel: he himself encountered the Angel of YHWH.
Yet another article on the Sadducee subject: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614455?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I think many scholars make too many things needlessly complex. We're also living in a time when people challenge about everything: I recently came across someone who says there is no evidence for "Gehenna" being a 1st century garbage dump. Maybe so.
It seems clear to me that most Jews believed in spirit creatures (i.e., angels).
Maybe it's been my impression, but it sometimes appears you want to interpret "angels" as non-spirit beings. For example, in Heb. 1:4. But surely Dan. 7:10 is discussing spirit creatures.
They're just saying Gehenna did not become a garbage dump. Or no evidence for it.
But Heb. 1:4 teaches that Christ has been given a name (singular) that is superior to/better than the names possessed by angels. Why would we think the verse is speaking about personal names for the angels. Some scholars insist Christ was given the name YHWH, others say it was Lord (Kurios), then another suggestion is that the name he was given represents authority. We're not necessarily talking about personal names for angels, of which we only have 2 in the Bible. However, read Saul Olyan's study on angelic names: a short but powerful book.
I am familiar with all these types of ideas but when was he given the name. When inherited?
What about Matthew
21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus (Jehovah is salvation), for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,”
His name was Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ) the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, but Moses called him Joshua or Jehoshua (Numbers 13:16 - Hebrew: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yehoshua), the name by which he is commonly known.
When read in context, it seems that Heb. 1:4 declares that Christ (the Son of God) received the superior name upon being raised from the dead and exalted. See Heb. 1:3; Phil. 2:9-11.
Here is the complexity of what onoma means: it does not always signify a proper name, but sometimes represents authority or an office. Compare Isa. 9:6.
I stress that name doesn't always refer to a personal name: much discussion of this point in the scholarly literature. See Rev. 19:12, 16.
Some commentators believe the name Christ was given was, Son of God (Heb. 1:5-6).
Here's an editorial comment from John Calvin's "Hebrews" commentary, regarding Heb. 1:5ff:
“If it be objected,” says Stuart, “that angels are also called sons, and men too, the answered [sic] is easy: No one individual, except Jesus, is ever called by way of eminence, the Son of God, i.e., the Messiah or the King of Israel,” Joh 1:49. By “The Son of God” is to be understood here His kingly office: He was a Son as one endowed with superior power and authority; and angels are not sons in this respect. — Ed.
Compare Thomas Aquinas's remarks on Heb. 1:4-7 in his "Hebrews" commentary.
On my view of Lk. 9:49, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/11/onoma-may-s.html
I don't see much difference between that usage and Matthew 7:21-23; Acts 2:38; 22:16.
I've read the wenstrom.org file about onoma before. Many different views concerning onoma, but still room (IMO) for the authority/office interpretation. Compare Acts 4:12; 19:13, 17; 1 Pet. 4:14-16; 1 John 2:12.
It seems that the authority was conferred at his resurrection. See Mt 28:18-20. Philippians buttresses this understanding.
I like this article about the first chapter of Hebrews: https://search.proquest.com/docview/214614606?pq-origsite=gscholar
Here's a quote from that article:
The preceding verses (1:3-4) indicate that Christ sat at the right hand of God, "having come to be as much greater than the angels as the name he has inherited is greater than theirs." The most obvious reading of this sequence is that Christ's session at God's right hand is the point at which he is enthroned with the royal title of "Son," thus inheriting at that point a more excellent name than the one the angels possess.18
The "in the name of" language has been discussed on the blog: see Moulton-Milligan's entry for onoma and A.T. Robertson's comments regarding Matt 28:19. The articles I've linked deal more with onoma (etc.) in Heb. 1:4. Jesus was Son of God in the flesh (Heb. 5:8), but Hebrews also links the title "Son" with his resurrection and ascension (Heb. 1:5-6).
With Matt 28:19 it is easily apparent that the names themselves are not the focus because of being combined but the usage in Luke is not so clear. One would expect a single name and method if the names themselves might matter and ruach ha kodesh is not what I would call a "name". Psalms 51:11.
Is this individual in Luke doing things the way Jesus would or is he using Jesus name as per some of the non biblical examples where the actual names are used. We still have the potential problem of chronology that unfortunately Hurtado was not able to shed any additional light regarding Jesus giving anyone the ability to heal as a gift.
My point about Matt 28:19, as Robertson observes, is that "name" in the verse basically means "authority." To quote Robertson verbatim:
"The use of name (ONOMA) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority" (Robertson's Word Pictures).
Although Moulton-Milligan look at the matter a little differently, they acknowledge the "office" or "authority" meaning for ONOMA. By the way, I would not call pater or huios proper names either.
I believe the man in Luke was trying to drive out demons possibly using Jesus' personal name, but even more so, attempting to exorcise by the authority of Jesus. You need to read Luke 9:49 in the light of verse 48.
Robertson's WP: "The man was doing the Master's work in the Master's name and with the Master's power, but did not run with the group of the Twelve."
Cambridge GT: "ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰωάννης εἶπεν. Mark 9:38-41. This sudden question seems to have been suggested by the words ‘in my name,’ which Jesus had just used.
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια. It was common among the Jews to attempt exorcism by many different methods; see on Luke 4:35; Luke 4:41; Luke 8:32. This unknown person—like the sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13-14, but evidently in a more faithful spirit—had found that the name of Jesus was more powerful. Specimens of Jewish exorcisms are given in the Jewish Book of Jubilees, and in Shabbath, 67; Pesachim, f. 112 a, b; see too Tobit 6:16-17; Jos. B. J. VII. 6, § 3."
See https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000608446301400205?journalCode=tbtd
Maybe the man healed/claimed to heal without receiving power from Jesus--or maybe we don't have enough information to say when he got the power from Christ. Lots of unknowns.
Second, the lit on Hebrews is immense (the same for Philippians), but here's an extended quote from D.A. Carson concerning Heb. 1:10ff:
But here I shall focus attention on the final verses of the psalm. Regular Bible readers will recognize that verses 25-27 are quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12, with God addressing the Messiah, in effect giving him divine status. One may well ask how the writer of Hebrews construed the Old Testament in this way.
The answer turns in part on the fact that the original Hebrew of the Old Testament was composed with what today we call consonants. Vowels were not included. They were added much later—indeed, the most common vowel system was added to the Hebrew text about one thousand years into the Christian era. Usually this presents no problems. Once in a while, however, it is possible to read the Old Testament consonantal text with a slightly different vowel choice, yielding a different meaning. In this instance there is no question at all about the consonants. But the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, shows how those translators understood the Hebrew—and in this passage they understood it exactly as the Epistle to the Hebrews takes it. The traditional vowel placement, preserved in our English versions, understands verses 23-24 much as in the NIV. The thought is parallel to verses 11-12. But the LXX and Hebrews read it as follows: “He answered him in the way of his strength, ‘Declare to me the fewness of my days. Do not bring me up [i.e., summon me to action] in the middle of my days; your years are for generations on end. In the beginning you, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth. . . .’” The implication of this rendering is that God is addressing the psalmist, whom God addresses as Lord and Creator. That is how Hebrews takes it. On this view, the entire psalm is messianic, an oracular psalm like Psalm 110 (see vol. 1, meditation on June 17). Try rereading Psalm 102 that way; it makes sense. Compare the use of Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1 (see meditation for September 4): the Davidic king is addressed as God, and this too is cited in Hebrews 1. But even if the traditional Hebrew vowel assignments are correct, the inferences drawn by Hebrews 1 are not far away, though they must be drawn on quite different grounds.
– D.A. Carson, For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God’s Word, Volume 2 (Wheaton, IL., Crossway Books, 1999), October 13.
Moreover, see David Allen's work on these types of verses in Hebrews.
receives. . . in my name: The phrase epi tw onoma ("in my name") has the same sense as "in my behalf" (hen.ken emou) in 9:24. For the "name" as an identification for Christians, see the note on [Luke] 6:22. Both sending and receiving are understood to be "in his name," that is, as representing him.
Johnson also makes an interesting point that none of Jesus' disciples had healed anybody at that point. It seems to touch on your question to Hurtado.
See 4Q39.
ReplyDeleteAlso 4Q45.
ReplyDeleteSee https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193168?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/angels-and-angelology-2
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hebrew/mediator.html
“And he comm[anded ] that were not created from eternity and forever.”
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/6414762/_The_Sinai_Revelation_according_to_4Q377_Apocryphal_Pentateuch_B_Dead_Sea_Discoveries_18_2011_pp._155-172
By implication it is saying that Moses was, or does it just mean "destined" ?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3264909.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
ReplyDeleteIt's been a long day, and I have another long workday tomorrow. So I could be misunderstanding your question about Moses. Do you have a specific reference/page number in mind?
ReplyDeleteAlso see https://books.google.com/books?id=K_NJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=solomon+zeitlin+angels&source=bl&ots=OcQoxXS5BO&sig=ACfU3U1kyZV-7GNHQsRL_VHuBGE7cBilrg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhjYGUoKfkAhXumeAKHVyVC3sQ6AEwB3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=solomon%20zeitlin%20angels&f=false
More about the Sadducees: https://bible.org/seriespage/sadducees
ReplyDeleteYour first link led me to this and the link I posted, of interest is the translation on page 319. I have quoted in part. My interest is the depiction of Moses as an "angel".
ReplyDeleteFurther to that see:-
https://www.academia.edu/6414762/_The_Sinai_Revelation_according_to_4Q377_Apocryphal_Pentateuch_B_Dead_Sea_Discoveries_18_2011_pp._155-172
Pg160:-
“all the com[mandments of Y]HWH through the mouth of Moses, his anointed one.”
pg161:-
several Qumran texts the prophets are designated as God’s anointed ones (CD 2:12; cf. CD 6:1 [=4Q267 2 6; 6Q15 3 4]; 1QM 11:7–8).
So what could be "Angels"?
pg 167:-
Like the author of 4Q377, R. Jose the Galilean (beginning of the second century C.E.) understood the verb of Exod 24:16 as referring to Moses and interpreted his covering with a cloud as an act of sanctification. Also, according to both texts, Moses’ sanctification had to do with his role as the bearer of the divine words. Moreover, R. Jose believed that Moses’ stay in the cloud took place after the Ten Commandments were given. As has been noted above, this might have been also the point of view of the author of 4Q377. Finally, the passage from b. Yoma goes on to cite the saying by R. Nathan (middle of the second century C.E.): R. Nathan says: The purpose of Scripture was that he [Moses] might be purged of all food and drink in his bowels so as to make him equal to the ministering angels. This notion of Moses’ being purged to become as one of the ministering angels should be compared to the scroll’s comparison of the sanctified Moses to an angel.
I have no reason to think that Sadducee did not believe in angels. But one thing is for sure that they did not believe in them to the same extent or with the same understanding of there opponents.
ReplyDeletehttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd08/b74503dece55d65a05a34a0ba826d901d0f2.pdf
Additionally, see https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/dcly.2007.2007.issue-1/9783110192957.6.499/9783110192957.6.499.xml
ReplyDeleteThis work might provide some answers. It also appears that Moses was being compared to an angel: he himself encountered the Angel of YHWH.
Yet another article on the Sadducee subject: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614455?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I think many scholars make too many things needlessly complex. We're also living in a time when people challenge about everything: I recently came across someone who says there is no evidence for "Gehenna" being a 1st century garbage dump. Maybe so.
It seems clear to me that most Jews believed in spirit creatures (i.e., angels).
Is the level of degree that I am exploring. I have never disputed the existence of angels but rather, who & how many.
ReplyDeleteAre they claiming that Gehenna does not mean the valley of hinom?
Maybe it's been my impression, but it sometimes appears you want to interpret "angels" as non-spirit beings. For example, in Heb. 1:4. But surely Dan. 7:10 is discussing spirit creatures.
ReplyDeleteThey're just saying Gehenna did not become a garbage dump. Or no evidence for it.
Their are certain things that give me a problem. Like Hebrews 1:4 when it talks about names. What names? How many angel names do we have?
ReplyDeleteBut Heb. 1:4 teaches that Christ has been given a name (singular) that is superior to/better than the names possessed by angels. Why would we think the verse is speaking about personal names for the angels. Some scholars insist Christ was given the name YHWH, others say it was Lord (Kurios), then another suggestion is that the name he was given represents authority. We're not necessarily talking about personal names for angels, of which we only have 2 in the Bible. However, read Saul Olyan's study on angelic names: a short but powerful book.
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with all these types of ideas but when was he given the name. When inherited?
ReplyDeleteWhat about Matthew
21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus (Jehovah is salvation), for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”
which means, “God is with us.”
A word play - effectively a single name?
His name was Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ) the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, but Moses called him Joshua or Jehoshua (Numbers 13:16 - Hebrew: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yehoshua), the name by which he is commonly known.
ReplyDeleteGiven a name.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T3FmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=daniel+8:16+name+or+description&source=bl&ots=ysNcSsdjpx&sig=ACfU3U163bLJQIztTbmGLdqQCAfXI9vYuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigvb3AsKvkAhXMYlAKHWwABmoQ6AEwE3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20ram%20and%20the%20he%20goat&f=false
ReplyDeleteWhen read in context, it seems that Heb. 1:4 declares that Christ (the Son of God) received the superior name upon being raised from the dead and exalted. See Heb. 1:3; Phil. 2:9-11.
ReplyDeleteHere is the complexity of what onoma means: it does not always signify a proper name, but sometimes represents authority or an office. Compare Isa. 9:6.
I stress that name doesn't always refer to a personal name: much discussion of this point in the scholarly literature. See Rev. 19:12, 16.
Some commentators believe the name Christ was given was, Son of God (Heb. 1:5-6).
Here's an editorial comment from John Calvin's "Hebrews" commentary, regarding Heb. 1:5ff:
“If it be objected,” says Stuart, “that angels are also called sons, and men too, the answered [sic] is easy: No one individual, except Jesus, is ever called by way of eminence, the Son of God, i.e., the Messiah or the King of Israel,” Joh 1:49. By “The Son of God” is to be understood here His kingly office: He was a Son as one endowed with superior power and authority; and angels are not sons in this respect. — Ed.
Compare Thomas Aquinas's remarks on Heb. 1:4-7 in his "Hebrews" commentary.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/onoma
ReplyDeleteThe name given at birth or while Christ was human probably is different from the name of Heb. 1:4; Phil. 2:9-11, etc.
ReplyDeleteSo what was being said at Luke 9:49?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/word_studies/greek/onoma.pdf
ReplyDeleteAlso was the authority of his name given at resurrection or at baptism?
ReplyDeleteThe wording of Phillipians 2:5 is interesting.
ReplyDeleteOn my view of Lk. 9:49, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/11/onoma-may-s.html
ReplyDeleteI don't see much difference between that usage and Matthew 7:21-23; Acts 2:38; 22:16.
I've read the wenstrom.org file about onoma before. Many different views concerning onoma, but still room (IMO) for the authority/office interpretation. Compare Acts 4:12; 19:13, 17; 1 Pet. 4:14-16; 1 John 2:12.
It seems that the authority was conferred at his resurrection. See Mt 28:18-20. Philippians buttresses this understanding.
I like this article about the first chapter of Hebrews: https://search.proquest.com/docview/214614606?pq-origsite=gscholar
ReplyDeleteHere's a quote from that article:
The preceding verses (1:3-4) indicate that Christ sat at the right hand of God, "having come to be as much greater than the angels as the name he has inherited is greater than theirs." The most obvious reading of this sequence is that Christ's session at God's right hand is the point at which he is enthroned with the royal title of "Son," thus inheriting at that point a more excellent name than the one the angels possess.18
More in-depth treatment of some elements here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X9701906606
ReplyDeleteMat 3:17 is inescapable.
ReplyDeleteAs for Luke does what you have linked deal with what is meant by - in the name of?
The "in the name of" language has been discussed on the blog: see Moulton-Milligan's entry for onoma and A.T. Robertson's comments regarding Matt 28:19. The articles I've linked deal more with onoma (etc.) in Heb. 1:4. Jesus was Son of God in the flesh (Heb. 5:8), but Hebrews also links the title "Son" with his resurrection and ascension (Heb. 1:5-6).
ReplyDeleteWith Matt 28:19 it is easily apparent that the names themselves are not the focus because of being combined but the usage in Luke is not so clear. One would expect a single name and method if the names themselves might matter and ruach ha kodesh is not what I would call a "name". Psalms 51:11.
ReplyDeleteIs this individual in Luke doing things the way Jesus would or is he using Jesus name as per some of the non biblical examples where the actual names are used. We still have the potential problem of chronology that unfortunately Hurtado was not able to shed any additional light regarding Jesus giving anyone the ability to heal as a gift.
My point about Matt 28:19, as Robertson observes, is that "name" in the verse basically means "authority." To quote Robertson verbatim:
ReplyDelete"The use of name (ONOMA) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the
papyri for power or authority" (Robertson's Word Pictures).
Although Moulton-Milligan look at the matter a little differently, they acknowledge the "office" or "authority" meaning for ONOMA. By the way, I would not call pater or huios proper names either.
I believe the man in Luke was trying to drive out demons possibly using Jesus' personal name, but even more so, attempting to exorcise by the authority of Jesus. You need to read Luke 9:49 in the light of verse 48.
Robertson's WP: "The man was doing the Master's work in the Master's name and with the Master's power, but did not run with the group of the Twelve."
Cambridge GT: "ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰωάννης εἶπεν. Mark 9:38-41. This sudden question seems to have been suggested by the words ‘in my name,’ which Jesus had just used.
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια. It was common among the Jews to attempt exorcism by many different methods; see on Luke 4:35; Luke 4:41; Luke 8:32. This unknown person—like the sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13-14, but evidently in a more faithful spirit—had found that the name of Jesus was more powerful. Specimens of Jewish exorcisms are given in the Jewish Book of Jubilees, and in Shabbath, 67; Pesachim, f. 112 a, b; see too Tobit 6:16-17; Jos. B. J. VII. 6, § 3."
See https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000608446301400205?journalCode=tbtd
Maybe the man healed/claimed to heal without receiving power from Jesus--or maybe we don't have enough information to say when he got the power from Christ. Lots of unknowns.
I discussed Heb. 1:4 here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/05/hebrews-14-onoma.html
ReplyDeleteCompare https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2013/12/onoma-in-philippians-29-11-moulton.html
Moving forward slightly to Hebrews 1:6.
ReplyDeleteCompare context and overall wording for Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q44.
http://dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q44.htm
Also compare Hebrews 1:10 with these two witnesses:-
ReplyDeletehttp://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%20102.htm
First, the writer of Hebrews is not relying on a Hebrew text, but rather likely the LXX (Deut 32:43):
ReplyDeleteεὐφράνθητε οὐρανοί ἅμα αὐτῷ καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῗς ἐχθροῗς καὶ τοῗς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῗ κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ
Second, the lit on Hebrews is immense (the same for Philippians), but here's an extended quote from D.A. Carson concerning Heb. 1:10ff:
But here I shall focus attention on the final verses of the psalm. Regular Bible readers will recognize that verses 25-27 are quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12, with God addressing the Messiah, in effect giving him divine status. One may well ask how the writer of Hebrews construed the Old Testament in this way.
The answer turns in part on the fact that the original Hebrew of the Old Testament was composed with what today we call consonants. Vowels were not included. They were added much later—indeed, the most common vowel system was added to the Hebrew text about one thousand years into the Christian era. Usually this presents no problems. Once in a while, however, it is possible to read the Old Testament consonantal text with a slightly different vowel choice, yielding a different meaning. In this instance there is no question at all about the consonants. But the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, shows how those translators understood the Hebrew—and in this passage they understood it exactly as the Epistle to the Hebrews takes it. The traditional vowel placement, preserved in our English versions, understands verses 23-24 much as in the NIV. The thought is parallel to verses 11-12. But the LXX and Hebrews read it as follows: “He answered him in the way of his strength, ‘Declare to me the fewness of my days. Do not bring me up [i.e., summon me to action] in the middle of my days; your years are for generations on end. In the beginning you, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth. . . .’” The implication of this rendering is that God is addressing the psalmist, whom God addresses as Lord and Creator. That is how Hebrews takes it. On this view, the entire psalm is messianic, an oracular psalm like Psalm 110 (see vol. 1, meditation on June 17). Try rereading Psalm 102 that way; it makes sense. Compare the use of Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1 (see meditation for September 4): the Davidic king is addressed as God, and this too is cited in Hebrews 1. But even if the traditional Hebrew vowel assignments are correct, the inferences drawn by Hebrews 1 are not far away, though they must be drawn on quite different grounds.
– D.A. Carson, For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God’s Word, Volume 2 (Wheaton, IL., Crossway Books, 1999), October 13.
Moreover, see David Allen's work on these types of verses in Hebrews.
Regarding Luke 9:49, Luke T. Johnson writes:
ReplyDeletereceives. . . in my name: The phrase epi tw onoma ("in my name") has the same sense as "in my behalf" (hen.ken emou) in 9:24. For the "name" as an identification for Christians, see the note on [Luke] 6:22. Both sending and receiving are understood to be "in his name," that is, as representing him.
Johnson also makes an interesting point that none of Jesus' disciples had healed anybody at that point. It seems to touch on your question to Hurtado.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i2i5haDHAygC&pg=PA73&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a2.htm
ReplyDeleteSee section III ("The Only Son of God").