Two wills or One will?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Mike Murphy wrote:

> >4 ...having become so much better than the angels, as He has by 
> >  inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
> 
> When did Jesus BECOME greater than the angels?

You might find the answer to that several ways.  First is Philippeans 
2:6-9, the "kenosis" or "emptying" passage.  As God's emotive agent by 
which He brought creation into being (Heb. 1:2, John 1:3), the Son 
arguably has always been greater than the angels.  However, it is His 
incarnation that makes Him the inheritor of "a more excellent name". As a 
man, Jesus was made "a little lower than the *angels" (Psalm 8:5 NOTE: 
*Hebrew word _Elohim_, poss. trans. "God"; LXX, Jewish traditional trans. 
"angels")  Glorified in His resurrection, He now rightly wears the crown 
of King of heaven and earth.  Both "Adonai" (LORD) and "Adon" (Lord).  

> >6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
> > 
> >	"Let all the angels of God worship Him."
> 
> How was Jesus the firstborn BEFORE his worldy life?

It is put forth that Jesus was not the Son until He was begotten in 
Bethlehem. I will not dispute that assertion in this tretise.  However, 
the term "firstborn" has a deliberate useage here.  The firstborn son 
traditionally became chief inheritor, typically given a double-portion of 
inheritance.  He would inherit the father's assets, be given title to his 
property, and effectively take the reigns of leadership upon the father's 
demise, inability to continue his role as patriarch, or upon a time of 
the father's own choosing (effectively, a "retirement").  As the 
firstborn of God and the son of David, Jesus held legal claim to inherit the 
throne of both heaven and earth.

> >8 But to the Son He says:
> > 
> >	"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;..."
> >		 (cf. Deut. 33:27; Ps. 45:6)
> 
> That's a King James Trinity Scripture. 1ness does not believe it is possible
> for the flesh to be the same as the diety; the Son is not God but flesh.
> Therefore, this is a Trinity verse, not a Oneness verse. Actually, the
> translation does not match the Tanach or the Masoretic text.

Well, if we want to start picking nits (cracking knuckles), this text IS 
supported quite well by not only the Septuagint (which itself is held up 
by the Talmud's annotation), but the TM, Sinaiticus, Vatanicus, etc. And 
the differences you mention in the Tanach and Mas. are minute and bear 
little contextual impact on the translation.  (Gosh, I knew those boring 
lectures in Seminary would someday pay off!)

> >The author of Hebrews makes a very clear distinction between angels and 
> >the Son.  Jesus was not simply a glorified angel, as some assert.  The 
> >author asks a series of rhetorical questions, with the implied answer to 
> >each of them being "none of them."  As such, the office of the Son is 
> >clearly unique, and is filled by none other than God Himself (Heb. 1:8, 
> >cf. John 1:1-18).
> 
> But that is a very Trinitarian thing to say, that the Son is God. I think

You make that sound like a bad thing, Mike! :>

> the whole problem, at least in the LITERAL sense of Scripture, is that Jesus
> did not think of himself as God, and the NT never makes clear that we must.
> Either in Trinity or Oneness sense, both of which say Jesus is Jehovah.

EHHH...back up...according to Phil. 2:6, Jesus never considered "Godhood" 
a thing to be attained.  However, he made numerous allusions and 
statements to the effect that He was, in fact, God.

> >For the record, although I have in times past attended "Oneness" churches 
> >and understand the concepts behind it, I do not consider myself a 
> >traditional Oneness theologian.  On the converse, I am not a traditional 
> >trinitarian either.
> 
> I think Oneness is more logical than Trinitarianism, even though sometimes
> the differences are transparent. I think I mentally niether, although I
> worship and pray to Jesus nonetheless. 

I will not dispute the logic or worthiness of either camp.  I will 
observe, in closing, that I find it odd that someone who (at the very 
least) questions the diety of Christ would admit to venerating Him in the 
same manner that Jesus Himself said was reserved for God.  If God alone 
is to be worshipped, why bestow such an honorific upon someone you 
consider to be a rung or two below God?

	Humbly submitted,

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ~	Timothy A. Ashley                                           ~
 ~	tashley@erc.cat.syr.edu                                     ~
 ~	UnderNet IRC: #Apostolic (MollysGuy)                        ~
 ~                                                                  ~
 ~ "And  you  will  seek  Me,  and find Me, when         -|-        ~
 ~ you search for Me with all your heart."           -|-  |  -|-    ~
 ~				Jeremiah 29:13       _|__/ \__|_    ~
 ~                                                                  ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~