![]() ![]() My opponent made use of a line and a line segment to illustrate what he felt was the trouble with my interpretation of Hebrews 1:3. This is perhaps best seen when Beck’s New Testament translation renders carakthr “copy” (similarly, TestSim 5:4). As something “produced” or a “reproduction” Jesus is implicitly created. There exists significant difficulty for the Trinitarian when one considers that Hebrews 1:3 refers to “someth produced as a representation, reproduction, representation” (p. Far from meaning that man is identical to God or his image, or even that they were equal, man is the reproduction or that which was produced as a representation of God’s image and it is only to this extent that he is the “exact representation.” Regarding carakthr, my opponent may be overreaching in attempting to force “exact representation” to essentially mean “identical.” The former is not a necessary force of carakthr, as perhaps best seen when Clement spoke of man as the carakthr of God’s image (1Cle. In view was only what idols consisted of materially. The notion of attributes such as knowledge, power, holiness or even age was entirely absent. At 2:1 the passage refers to the “substance” ( hupostasis) of idols, “whose basic reality is someth material like stone, metal etc” (ibid.). The meaning here intended is as cited by BDAG comparable to a text in the early Christian Letter to Diognetus. ![]() By way of comparison, the “basic structure” of man is flesh. Instead we are looking at God’s “basic structure,” referring to whatever it is that he consists of. What is here in view is more specifically “substantial nature,” which has nothing to do with such attributes. I suspect confusion stems from the use of “nature” and “essence,” with my opponent perhaps connecting these with attributes (holiness, power, knowledge) that are aspects of God’s nature. The word hupostasis as it was originally understood in this context referred to “the essential or basic structure/nature of an entity, substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality” (p. He has apparently read “the exact representation of his being” to be “the exact representation of him.” There is a reason that the author of Hebrews chose the former over the latter. Reading my opponent’s words I understand him to have confused ‘God’s being’ with God himself. For the purpose of demonstrating my position and the soundness of it I will rely upon A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition (BDAG), for defining key terms, while examining a couple of cited parallels will offer further solidification. ![]() My opponent’s suggestion that Hebrews 1:3 articulates equality with God and Christ demands more attention be given this text. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |