Jason BeDuhn on Hebrews 1:8

[Cal_Minian]

Once again, Dr. BeDuhn has a whole chapter just on Hebrews 1:8. He covers the Greek in detail which I have not reproduced here. I do provide some snippets to show his conclusions.




Fortunately, there is another literary context to help us, namely the original psalm that is being quoted in Hebrews 1:8 Psalm 45 is a hymn in praise of the king of Israel. God is addressed nowhere i n this psalm. Instead, we get a lengthy description of the king’s ideal life. He is described as shooting arrows, girded with a sword, perfumed, living in ivory-embellished palaces, entertained with lutes, attended by fair princesses, and aroused by their beauty. Can there be any doubt that the life described here is of a very human king? So what does it have to do with Jesus, and why is it quoted as if it is about Jesus?
It’s really quite simple: Jesus is the Messiah. The Messiah is the rightful king of Israel. What is said about the king of Israel can be said equally of the Messiah. ...

Within the Jewish tradition, Psalm 45 has never been taken to call the king "God." The modern translation published by the Jewish Bible Society reads, "Your divine throne is everlasting." The Greek translation of the psalm made before the beginning of Christianity, which reads exactly as the author of Hebrews has quoted it, certainly followed this traditional Jewish understanding of the verse, and its translators thought that by using ho theos they were saying "God is your throne," not "Your throne, 0 God."
...

So we must conclude that the more probable translation is "God is your throne . .," the translation found in the NW and in the footnotes of the NRSV and TEV. Three giants of modern New Testament scholarship -- Westcott, Moffatt, and Goodspeed -- came to the same conclusion independently.

TRUTH IN TRANSLATION
For orders and information please contact the publisher - UNIVERSITY PRESS of AMERICA, INC.
4501 Forbes Blvd. Suite 200 - Lanham, Maryland 20706 - 1-800-462-5220 www.univpress.com

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Huh?

Does BeDuhn take on the arguments by, say, Harris (Jesus as God)? Does he bring up what Robertson said about the difficulties of the Greek? (Robertson, the great grammarian says the passage could go either way, "God is your throne", or "your throne O God" - if he doesn't deal with Robertson's grammatical argument his conclusion is faulty)

Lastly, Moffatt and Goodspeed are not literal translations.
It appears from the threads you are quite taken with this book, have you read the debate he did with Robert Hommel?

Thanks, from Guy

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133934#post133934)
ghbearman:

Huh?

Does BeDuhn take on the arguments by, say, Harris (Jesus as God)? Does he bring up what Robertson said about the difficulties of the Greek? (Robertson, the great grammarian says the passage could go either way, "God is your throne", or "your throne O God" - if he doesn't deal with Robertson's grammatical argument his conclusion is faulty)

Lastly, Moffatt and Goodspeed are not literal translations.
It appears from the threads you are quite taken with this book, have you read the debate he did with Robert Hommel?

Thanks, from Guy

There is more to the Hebrew 1:8 chapter than what I posted. I am trying to be careful about copyright.

And, yes I read the debate with Hommel. It was very one-sided. BeDuhn dominated.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

06-27-2003 @ 04:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133934#post133934)
ghbearman:

Huh?

Does BeDuhn take on the arguments by, say, Harris (Jesus as God)? Does he bring up what Robertson said about the difficulties of the Greek? (Robertson, the great grammarian says the passage could go either way, "God is your throne", or "your throne O God" - if he doesn't deal with Robertson's grammatical argument his conclusion is faulty)

Lastly, Moffatt and Goodspeed are not literal translations.
It appears from the threads you are quite taken with this book, have you read the debate he did with Robert Hommel?

Thanks, from Guy

Yes,
BeDuhn says that the Greek could go either way. I have frequently had Trinitarians dogmatically state that it could not. However, BeDuhn makes a very interesting observation that the Jews have never interpreted Psalm 45:6-7 to refer to God. That is the verse quoted at Hebrews 1:8.

However, both the Hebrew King and Jesus were placed as king by God.

That is a consistent hermenutic.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139693#post139693)
Cal_Minian:

Yes,
BeDuhn says that the Greek could go either way. I have frequently had Trinitarians dogmatically state that it could not. However, BeDuhn makes a very interesting observation that the Jews have never interpreted Psalm 45:6-7 to refer to God. That is the verse quoted at Hebrews 1:8.

However, both the Hebrew King and Jesus were placed as king by God.

That is a consistent hermenutic.

Kind Regards,
Cal

"BeDuhn makes a very interesting observation that the Jews have never interpreted Psalm 45:6-7 to refer to God." Is that a fact? Then DeBuhn does not know doodly squat. Note this verse from the LXX translated by Jews, 250 BC!
6 ¶ (44:6) {1} Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 08:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139790#post139790)
OldShepherd:



"BeDuhn makes a very interesting observation that the Jews have never interpreted Psalm 45:6-7 to refer to God." Is that a fact? Then DeBuhn does not know doodly squat. Note this verse from the LXX translated by Jews, 250 BC!
6 ¶ (44:6) {1} Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

Dear OldShepherd,
The LXX is in Greek and it has o qronos sou o qeos just like the GNT. The issue is still is, is hO QEOS nominative or vocative?

I have seen you prolifically quote from Hebrew sources, and it is very telling that you have nothing on this verse to prove that they considered this to be God.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139801#post139801)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
The LXX is in Greek and it has o qronos sou o qeos just like the GNT. The issue is still is, is hO QEOS nominative or vocative?

I have seen you prolifically quote from Hebrew sources, and it is very telling that you have nothing on this verse to prove that they considered this to be God.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Its very telling like every other false teacher, every single thing you post you presume to be so profound that it virtually destroys the Trinitarian argument. Even you acknowledge that the Trinitarian interpretation is one of the possibilities. And here once again this issue is settled very clearly by the early church. Perhaps you could come up with another out-of-context Dg. reference you could misquote and twist to support your presuppositions. It is very telling that you do NOT have anything concrete or specific to prove your argument on this point.

[AVmetro]

I agree with ghbearman on this. Harris makes a strong case for the Trinitarian interpretation. I believe BeDuhn is also ignoring the Hebrew parallelism presented in the Psalm i.e.:
Psa 45:3 (44:3) Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Mighty One, in thy comeliness, and in thy beauty.."

..cf..

Psa 45:5 (44:5) Thy weapons are sharpened, Mighty One, (the nations shall fall under thee) they are in the heart of the king's enemies.

..cf..

Psa 45:6 (44:6) Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

And, yes I read the debate with Hommel. It was very one-sided. BeDuhn dominated


Care to illuminate on the above?


BeDuhn says that the Greek could go either way. I have frequently had Trinitarians dogmatically state that it could not. However, BeDuhn makes a very interesting observation that the Jews have never interpreted Psalm 45:6-7 to refer to God. That is the verse quoted at Hebrews 1:8.

The Jews also utterly reject the rendering "Jehovah" as an rendering of the Tetra.

As for the application of Ps45; You may want to take a look at Psalm16..cf..Acts2:23-32.

As for 'Jewish interpretation'. Note what Justin Martyr cites in response to Trypho {the Jew}:
Then the fourth of those who had remained with Trypho said, "It must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham."

"It is not on this ground solely," I said, "[b]that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is said] by David. For there is written by him: `The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool, ' as I have already quoted. And again, in other words: `Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of Thy kingdom: Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.' If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord, besides the Father of all things and His Christ, answer me; for I undertake to prove to you from Scriptures themselves, that He whom the Scripture calls Lord is not one of the two angels that went to Sodom, but He who was with them, and is called God, that appeared to Abraham."

And Trypho said, "Prove this; for, as you see, the day advances, and we are not prepared for such perilous replies; since never yet have we heard any man investigating, or searching into, or proving these matters; nor would we have tolerated your conversation, had you not referred everything to the Scriptures: for you are very zealous in adducing proofs from them; and you are of opinion that there is no God above the Maker of all things."
Further on:
And speaking in other words, which also have been already quoted, [he says]: `Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of rectitude is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hast hated iniquity: therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. [He hath anointed Thee] with myrrh, and oil, and cassia from Thy garments, from the ivory palaces, whereby they made Thee glad. Kings' daughters are in Thy honour. The queen stood at Thy right hand, clad in garments embroidered with gold. Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear, and forget thy people and the house of thy father; and the King shall desire thy beauty: because he is thy Lord, and thou shalt worship Him.' Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.
Source here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4499_940094).

I believe there are significant implications to the above.

God bless

[AVmetro]

I also neglected to mention that the context of Ps45 was written concerning a warrior King. Hence, "the nations will fall under you" and "your arrows are sharp in the heart of the King's enemies" etc. See Rev19:13-14 et al. However, Solomon (take note of what the name means in Hebrew) was not a warrior. His reign was one of peace per YHWH.

God bless

[OldShepherd]

06-28-2003 @ 04:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134266#post134266)
Cal_Minian:

There is more to the Hebrew 1:8 chapter than what I posted. I am trying to be careful about copyright.

And, yes I read the debate with Hommel. It was very one-sided. BeDuhn dominated.

Kind Regards,
Cal

If you call "dominated" being unable to produce documentation for his views on several occasions.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 11:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139858#post139858)
OldShepherd:



Its very telling like every other false teacher, every single thing you post you presume to be so profound that it virtually destroys the Trinitarian argument. Even you acknowledge that the Trinitarian interpretation is one of the possibilities. And here once again this issue is settled very clearly by the early church. Perhaps you could come up with another out-of-context Dg. reference you could misquote and twist to support your presuppositions. It is very telling that you do NOT have anything concrete or specific to prove your argument on this point.

Dear OldShepherd,
I make no pretenses about being profound. I am a simple student of the bible who likes to research the original languages.

I make no claim that I have destroyed the entirety of the Trinitarian argument merely because I have rightly pointed out that your English translation of the Greek Septuagint can be translated as either vocative or nominative.

I DO NOT agree that the Trinitarian interpretation is possible because it can be translated in two different ways.

If hO QEOS in hO QRONOS SOU hO QEOS is nominative then the king is not being called QEOS at all. If it is vocative, then the earthly king is being addressed as QEOS in the same way other humans who represent God can be called QEOS.

Neither view requires a Trinitarian interpretation.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140245#post140245)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I make no pretenses about being profound. I am a simple student of the bible who likes to research the original languages.

I make no claim that I have destroyed the entirety of the Trinitarian argument merely because I have rightly pointed out that your English translation of the Greek Septuagint can be translated as either vocative or nominative.

I DO NOT agree that the Trinitarian interpretation is possible because it can be translated in two different ways.

If hO QEOS in hO QRONOS SOU hO QEOS is nominative then the king is not being called QEOS at all. If it is vocative, then the earthly king is being addressed as QEOS in the same way other humans who represent God can be called QEOS.

Neither view requires a Trinitarian interpretation.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Except for the context of Hebrew 1, the rest of the chapter, which definitely impacts on this discussion. Isn't there something in there about how the one being addressed as qeoV is greater than the angels, who were also called "theos" And isn't mankind a little lower than the angels? Ooops.

And of course we cannot even think about the ECF, e.g. Justin, because they are "secular, and unless they support the WBTS then they are not worthy of consideration.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 12:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139898#post139898)
IronMetro:

I also neglected to mention that the context of Ps45 was written concerning a warrior King. Hence, "the nations will fall under you" and "your arrows are sharp in the heart of the King's enemies" etc. See Rev19:13-14 et al. However, Solomon (take note of what the name means in Hebrew) was not a warrior. His reign was one of peace per YHWH.

God bless


Dear IronMetro,
I think you overpress the references to the military strength of Solomon. He had a large empire to protect and that does require an army even during times of peace.

That being said, I am not dogmatic as to which Hebrew king this verse refers to. That is quite besides the point.

It does refer to a human Israelite king who was either called elohim or it was said that elohim was his throne.

Since Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from this verse at the most you can press for is that Jesus is called QEOS after the manner of the human Hebrew King of Psalm 45.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141585#post141585)
Cal_Minian:

Dear IronMetro,
I think you overpress the references to the military strength of Solomon. He had a large empire to protect and that does require an army even during times of peace.

That being said, I am not dogmatic as to which Hebrew king this verse refers to. That is quite besides the point.

It does refer to a human Israelite king who was either called elohim or it was said that elohim was his throne.

Since Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from this verse at the most you can press for is that Jesus is called QEOS after the manner of the human Hebrew King of Psalm 45.

Kind Regards,
Cal

"God was his throne!" Does the Messiah (or the king is Ps 45) sit "on" God?

The one being called qeoV is Heb 8 is higher than the angels who are also called "theos" And of course mankind is lower than the angels and no man or angel was ever told to sit at the right hand of God. So Heb 1 clearly makes a distinction between the Son and men and angels.
Hbr 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

[AVmetro]

I think you overpress the references to the military strength of Solomon. He had a large empire to protect and that does require an army even during times of peace.

If mere possession of "military strength" is all that is referenced to, this begs the question as to what significance "the nations will fall under you" (LXX)/ "people fall under you" and "your arrows are sharp in the heart of your enemies" (Heb.) holds? This is not merely the language of a warrior King but that of wars themselves.

Again, Solomon's reign was one of peace per YHWH. Yet compare with Rev19:13-14:

Now I saw heaven opened and behold a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True,....Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron....And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: King of kings and Lord of lords. [NKJV]


That being said, I am not dogmatic as to which Hebrew king this verse refers to. That is quite besides the point.

It does refer to a human Israelite king who was either called elohim or it was said that elohim was his throne.

As Heb1:8 tells us, this verse was written in reference to Christ. Therefore, under your interpretation, we have a human king "representing" another who is also "representing" God. Rather redundant, isn't it?


Since Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from this verse at the most you can press for is that Jesus is called QEOS after the manner of the human Hebrew King of Psalm 45.

Not in the least. What is to stop Heb1:8 from being the reality which {Solomon} was representing? I.e. Solomon representing Christ who is truly God. This is precisely why I made reference to Psalm16..cf..Acts2:23-32.

As I demonstrated above, the context of Ps45 (in addition to that of Heb1 - see OS's last post) makes it clear that this is what is in view.

God bless

[AVmetro]

Today @ 08:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141642#post141642)
OldShepherd:



"God was his throne!" Does the Messiah (or the king is Ps 45) sit "on" God?

The one being called qeoV is Heb 8 is higher than the angels who are also called "theos" And of course mankind is lower than the angels and no man or angel was ever told to sit at the right hand of God. So Heb 1 clearly makes a distinction between the Son and men and angels.
Hbr 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Not to forget:

"For He did not subject the world which is to come, concerning which we speak, to angels." [EMTV]

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141654#post141654)
IronMetro:



If mere possession of "military strength" is all that is referenced to, this begs the question as to what significance "the nations will fall under you" (LXX)/ "people fall under you" and "your arrows are sharp in the heart of your enemies" (Heb.) holds? This is not merely the language of a warrior King but that of wars themselves.

Again, Solomon's reign was one of peace per YHWH. Yet compare with Rev19:13-14:

Now I saw heaven opened and behold a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True,....Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron....And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: King of kings and Lord of lords. [NKJV]



As Heb1:8 tells us, this verse was written in reference to Christ. Therefore, under your interpretation, we have a human king "representing" another who is also "representing" God. Rather redundant, isn't it?



Not in the least. What is to stop Heb1:8 from being the reality which {Solomon} was representing? I.e. Solomon representing Christ who is truly God. This is precisely why I made reference to Psalm16..cf..Acts2:23-32.

As I demonstrated above, the context of Ps45 (in addition to that of Heb1 - see OS's last post) makes it clear that this is what is in view.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
I did not see any arguments presented that refutes the fact that if the king of Psalms 45 was indeed called elohim then in Hebrews 1:8 the Son of God is QEOS in the same manner.

As for the context of Hebrews 1, I have already posted on that subject here. In brief, Hebrews 1:4 states that the Son BECAME better than the angels.

That means that before this he was not BETTER than the angels prior to this event.

What was he before he became better than the angels? Answer that and you will be forced to recognize that he is being distinguished from the angels in a way that does not prove your point.

In addition the means by which he became better has nothing to do with his nature. It was a NAME he was given.



ASV Hebrews 1:4 having become by so much better than
the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name
than they.


Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

8<


As for the context of Hebrews 1, I have already posted on that subject here. In brief, Hebrews 1:4 states that the Son BECAME better than the angels.

This is irrelevant as the point of the context is superiority. In regards to "became", see below.


That means that before this he was not BETTER than the angels prior to this event.

See below:


What was he before he became better than the angels? Answer that and you will be forced to recognize that he is being distinguished from the angels in a way that does not prove your point.

In answer to your question, a 'man'.

See:

Heb 2:7 - "You have *made* him a little lower than the angels. You crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of Your hands." [MKJV]

So as the overall context informs us, Christ was MADE "lower than the angels", then afterwards, MADE "better than the angels" (Jn17:5). A slight allusion to Phil2:6.

You already believe that Christ was the ARCHangel Michael prior to His birth in Bethlehem. Even during His {incarnation} Christ was the Father's "only-begotten Son" ..."in whom {He} was well pleased". You may want to refer to Acts13:33. Was Christ not God's Son prior to this? Note how the Psalm was fulfilled i.e. by the resurrection of Christ.


In addition the means by which he became better has nothing to do with his nature. It was a NAME he was given.

The point of the context:

Ch1vs4..cf..

Heb 2:5 - "For he did not put the coming world we are talking about under the control of angels." [ISV]

{Paul} consistently delineates between Christ and the angels as to distinguish them. I think it's rather clear that the apostles didn't believe Christ to be an angel (Jude1:9 et al).

God bless

[o2bwise]

Iron,

Do you believe John the Baptist to be an angel?

You know your greek, Iron. Angel has more possible renderings, i.e. messenger.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 08:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141691#post141691)
IronMetro:

8&lt;



This is irrelevant as the point of the context is superiority. In regards to &quot;became&quot;, see below.



See below:



In answer to your question, a 'man'.

See:

Heb 2:7 - &quot;You have *made* him a little lower than the angels. You crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of Your hands.&quot; [MKJV]

So as the overall context informs us, Christ was MADE &quot;lower than the angels&quot;, then afterwards, MADE &quot;better than the angels&quot; (Jn17:5). A slight allusion to Phil2:6.

You already believe that Christ was the ARCHangel Michael prior to His birth in Bethlehem. Even during His {incarnation} Christ was the Father's &quot;only-begotten Son&quot; ...&quot;in whom {He} was well pleased&quot;. You may want to refer to Acts13:33. Was Christ not God's Son prior to this? Note how the Psalm was fulfilled i.e. by the resurrection of Christ.



The point of the context:

Ch1vs4..cf..

Heb 2:5 - &quot;For he did not put the coming world we are talking about under the control of angels.&quot; [ISV]

{Paul} consistently delineates between Christ and the angels as to distinguish them. I think it's rather clear that the apostles didn't believe Christ to be an angel (Jude1:9 et al).

God bless


Dear IronMetro,
You claimed that Hebrews 1 proved that Jesus was not an angel and therefore God. Now that I point out that he BECAME better than the angels you say that was as a man. Which is it? Would you like to reword your previous claim that Jesus is distinguished from the angels AS God in Hebrews 1?

You seem to have refuted your own premise, unless I miss something very subtle in your argument.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

You claimed that Hebrews 1 proved that Jesus was not an angel and therefore God. Now that I point out that he BECAME better than the angels you say that was as a man. Which is it? Would you like to reword your previous claim that Jesus is distinguished from the angels AS God in Hebrews 1?

You seem to have refuted your own premise, unless I miss something very subtle in your argument.

You've simply misunderstood my argument. I did not mean to imply that Christ became better than the angels in becoming a 'man'. Or that His role as "man" entails that He be better, if that is what you are asking.

I stated that Christ could become 'better than the angels' on account of being previously made lower than they (Cf..Jn1:14,17:5; Heb2:7,14 et al) in regards to His humility as 'man'. I then made reference to Phil2:6 i.e. "form of a servant".

I never stated that Christ ceased to be {the} 'God'. He *didn't* become 'better' than the angels as touching His divinity. That is a constant.

Heb 1:4 having become so much better than the angels, He has inherited a name more excellent than they.

..cf..

Phi 2:8-9 "..and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled
Himself, having become obedient until death, even the death of a cross. Because of this also God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name.." [LITV]

>

Yes, the first chapter of Hebrews is meant to demonstrate Christ's superiority over the angels from which He is distinguished as well as how He is superior. I cited vs7 from chapter two in order to demonstrate how Heb1:4 could be a possiblility. Ps8:4-6 from which Heb2:7 is taken has it's original reference to 'mankind' (e.g. Adam etc.). In applying this passage to Christ, {Paul} is making reference to Christ's becoming a 'man' (Jn1:14).

Now let's read the following:

Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, at the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are works of Your hands. They will vanish away, but You will continue; and they will all become old, like a garment, and You shall fold them up like a covering, and they shall be changed. But You are the same, and Your years shall not fail."

Is the above only applicable to Christ after having become 'better' than the angels? No. Before, during and after His exaltation Christ was "better than" the angels per said reason. This was the point I made in my last post concerning Christ being the Father's "only-begotten Son.." with whom "..{He} was well
pleased".

God bless

[AVmetro]

Yesterday @ 07:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141854#post141854)
o2bwise:

Iron,

Do you believe John the Baptist to be an angel?

You know your greek, Iron. Angel has more possible renderings, i.e. messenger.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Regarding John the Baptist, yes. But isn't Christ a "messenger" of YHWH as well? Yes. Then what is Paul's point in the verse cited to which you refer? He has just finished demonstrating the superiority of Christ to the 'angels'. In chapter 2 he wraps this up with:

Heb 2:5 For He did not put the coming world under angels, about which we speak

The latter half of the verse being particularly indicative of what "angel" denotes here.

Then he goes on to state in reference to Christ:

Heb 2:6-9 but one fully testified somewhere, saying, "What is man, that You are mindful of him; or the son of man, that You look upon him? You made him a little less than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor; and "You set him over the works of Your hands. You subjected all things under his feet." For in order to subject all things under him, He left nothing not subjected to him. But now we do not yet see all things being subject to him; but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little
less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste of death for all.

Again, making reference to Christ and his subjection to a level lower than that of the angels.

God bless you Tony - IM