The Son-"Begotten Not Created"
Here are my rough, rough notes on my Hebrews study again. I've been thinking through why this writer is showing the superiority of the Son over the angels.
·The Son-“Begotten, Not Created”
·See Heb. 2:9-Jesus was made a little lower than the angels (He’s fully man)
·He’s fully man so that He could taste the fullness of death for us-PROPITIATION
·By the grace of God He tasted death for us-this is an expression of His grace
·The writer of Hebrews quotes several Old Testament passages regarding “the Son.”
·He is showing the Hebrews through the OT that “He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than [the angels]”
·Conclusion: While fully man, Jesus, the Son, is also fully God.
Chapter 2
·What does this mean for us? Heb. 2:1-We ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard.
Verse 2-4: “For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?”
Here we see Jesus, the Son, the One who has a more excellent name than the angels because of inheritance, speaking of the salvation that comes through faith and grace. The word spoken through angels (see Gal. 3:19) was the law (the ministry of condemnation and death, see 2 Cor. 3:7,9), which had glory. But the Son, who is better than the angels, and has much more glory, speaks the word of salvation. The Hebrews to whom this epistle is written, even holding the law in high esteem, must give the more earnest heed to the word spoken of by the Son Himself, namely that of salvation through His grace. We must also give the more earnest heed to this word, for God speaks even now (see Rev. 4:5).
·Chapter 3 will speak more of Christ’s superiority over Moses.
3 comments:
OOooooo, you are getting into the meat of what the first ecumenical councils tried to decide! :) This leads to the questions that cause me to lose sleep trying to figure out.
So what do you think the difference is between being "begotten" and being "created"? Do you think that it is possible to biblically answer the controversy that led to the Council of Nicea, namely having to choose between what Arius is reported to say ("There was a time when the Son was not.") and the creedal statement that the Son was "eternally begotten (whatever that means)" before all aeons?
Did you have a Happy Thanksgiving? :)
Joel:
Do you really lose sleep over stuff like this? I don't know about you, but with my job, at 10:30pm, there is very little that can keep me awake! (Just messing with you, bro!)
Anyway, I don't know much about what "eternally begotten before all aeons" means, but I do know of some "pre-incarnate" appearances of our Lord Jesus. In other words, I do not believe that there was "a time when the Son was not." After all, Hebrews 1:8,12 state that His years will not fail. Later in Hebrews we see that Jesus is a priest, not according to the order of Levi (which priests were prevented by death from continuing), but according to the order of Melchizedek (who did not have beginning of days nor end of life).
I also fully believe, according to what I've been looking at in the first few chapters of Hebrews, that Jesus is fully man, which makes Him the perfect High Priest.
So does that answer your question?
By the way, yes, Thanksgiving was awesome! How's that little guy of yours?
Haha, yes sometimes I do lose sleep over this stuff. Do I need a hobby or what??!?
As far as "eternally begotten" is concerned, it is a clause from the Nicene Creed in response to Arius' alleged, "There was a time when the Son was not." Orthodoxy's concern was that if the Son is not eternal, he must be a creation of God, even if He is created from God's own "substance." And a creation cannot be worshipped. But the Bible clearly calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. He at some point had to be begotten, so to reconcile the two, Athanasius and others said that Jesus was begotten before all time, space, matter, etc, in an event that was in eternity in the other direction. I'm not sure Nicea's proposition settles anything definitively, and Arius' view is blatant heresy because he did acknowledge pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus, but as a lesser god and the first creation of God through whom all things were made. Arius made Jesus not-quite-God and not-quite-man. Nicea's implications possibly create a conception of God closer to Hinduism's Brahma instead of Judaism's YHWH. So, I don't know where I stand on these issues, but I appreciate your answer. :)
Nathan is doing great. He's learning that if he cries, someone will pick him up and pay attention to him until he stops. So, he's making his parents do tricks for him. :)
Post a Comment