Hard time with Jesus as "Son" In Hebrews 1

[Stope]

Im reading Hebrews chapter 1, and in doing so I dont want to read into it what's not there - I indeed believe that Jesus is God, but as I read Hebrews ch. 1 (and trying the best i can to read it as a first century Jew), I cant help but think the face value interpretation 1:4-9 is that Jesus is indeed superior and has attributes of God, but is a literal son. Please see below my thoughts in italics and share any insight where I err:

4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

-----In "having become" it appears that he wasnt at one point prior to his life on earth in possession of a more excellent name than the angels. That is, if He was ALWAYS God then would he not ALWAYS have had a more superior name?

----What is meant by the fact that He "Inherited" this superior name?

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”?

----I know that Jesus eternally progress through the Father, but at face value this appears that "today" it again seems that at one time he was NOT the son

----What is meant by "begotten"? And when I ask this I am very curious as to what a first century Jew would think of this?

Or again,
“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”?

-----Again, the timing issue here: that is, it appears at one point Jesus was NOT a son

6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”

-----I know "firstborn" represents status, but It would appear that "bringing" the "firstborn" into the world is a more literal "firstborn" as in the chronologically first born son

7 Of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

-----Given all the confusion for myself that I mentioned above, I would see here in these verses (as well as in the first 3 verses of Ch 1) that at face value Jesus is God, and thats what makes the "son" talk in above passages so confusing

Any thoughts would be a blessing

 

[RamistThomist]

Well, for starters we deny that Christ's divine nature communicated divine attributes to his human nature. That way he could suffer, show ignorance, etc. It's why we aren't Lutherans or Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Stope]

The Father didn't send the second Person of the Trinity to "become" the Son of God. Instead, God sent His Son (John 3.17; Galatians 4:4; and 1 John 4:9-10) to save His people.

But from some of these texts it APPEARS he "Became" the Son

 

[Stope]

Well, for starters we deny that Christ's divine nature communicated divine attributes to his human nature. That way he could suffer, show ignorance, etc. It's why we aren't Lutherans or Eastern Orthodox.

I follow that, but the title "Son" in connection with its appearing to have a starting time/date/chronology is what is confusing

 

[RamistThomist]

Well, for starters we deny that Christ's divine nature communicated divine attributes to his human nature. That way he could suffer, show ignorance, etc. It's why we aren't Lutherans or Eastern Orthodox.

I follow that, but the title "Son" in connection with its appearing to have a starting time/date/chronology is what is confusing

"Son" doesn't necessarily always mean Second Person of the Trinity. Israel is called "Son" and it isn't hypostatically one with the divine essence. Son can be a royal, Davidic title.

 

[Jack K]

I'm always fearful of not being precise enough when discussing Trinity and nature-of-Christ matters, but let me throw out a few thoughts (always subject to being corrected by more precise theologians here)...

Hebrews 1 seems to be, actually, a key passage supporting the fact that Jesus is both eternal/unchanging God and a man who achieved greatness.

We're told that Jesus is the exact imprint of God's nature, that the world was created through him, and that he upholds the universe by his word. But at the same time, we're told the things you mentioned about Jesus inheriting a name and becoming superior. At first, this sounds inconsistent. How can both be true? But both must be true if Jesus is both perfect God and perfect man. According to his divine nature, he has always had a name superior to the angels. But according to his human nature, he has grown and has earned a name superior to the angels. Because Jesus has both natures, both are true!

So what is this name which Jesus has both had since eternity and earned as a man? He is the "Son." We must be careful not to think of the designation "Son" as referring only to Jesus' status as the eternal Son of God (belonging to his divine nature). Many, many times in the Bible, Jesus is called the "Son" when his human nature clearly is in play. Matthew opens his gospel by calling Jesus the Son of Abraham and the Son of David, and Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man. None of those "Son" names would fit if it weren't for Jesus' human nature. So when we read "Son" in the Bible, we should not think only of the unchanging divine nature; we should also see the human Jesus who grew into these sonship roles. All of this is part of what it means for Jesus, the person, to be the "Son."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Joh_5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

 

[VictorBravo]

The language of "son" and "begotten" comes directly from Psalm 2.

This Psalm refers to God speaking of "my king upon the holy hill of Zion."

And this Son, as King, must be embraced. Those who reject him perish from the way. But those who trust in him will be blessed.

The target audience of Hebrews would have recognized that psalm right away. The whole context is the mediator king to come. Now he has come. The prophecy is fulfilled.

Add to that the other references and statements in Hebrews 1, e.g.:

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; ("God made the worlds by him?).

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (The Father addresses this Son who is made King with the title "O God"?).

This Son is no ordinary son, to be sure. He is God, creator, and also appointed mediator.

Huge amounts of theology and doctrine are packed in Chapter 1.

A starting point would be to weigh the context of all these things, keeping in mind that the Son was (is forever) always the Son in the Trinity, but he was not revealed to be the Son of prophecy (the mediator-prophet, priest, and king) until his birth and appointed work on earth.

 

[Warren]

Well, for starters we deny that Christ's divine nature communicated divine attributes to his human nature. That way he could suffer, show ignorance, etc. It's why we aren't Lutherans or Eastern Orthodox.

Hey, which creed or confession is this idea communicated? I mean that the divine isn't communicated to the human. Because the EO deny there's any confusion of persons. I feel like its Chalcedon, but is there a Reformed source? Thanks Reidian.

I think what Jack said is valuable to keep in mind. Jesus wasn't just anointed by the Spirit to talk the part of being God: he looked the part every hour. His deeds are incredible. He's an action-packed juggernaut of godly living - he invites us into that new life from the vantage of one who's lived the life himself.

 

[Warren]

Joh_5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

And again in Chp 10, when Jesus exegetes Psalm 82.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I think the best summation, and exposition, of the meaning(s) of the "Son" in Psalm 2:7 and Heb 1:5 is John Owen's:

Spoiler

 

[Dachaser]

Think that we have to see that Jesus was the ternal Son of God, but that in the Incarnation he added his humanity, so that might influence how to understand Hebrews, as the writer took the proclamation of God towards the King of Isreal and applied that towards Jesus HImself. Jesus is God the Son and also the Son of Man, so His name of Jesus became LORD, as Paul explained in his Epistle...

 

[Dachaser]

God the Son became the man Jesus..Who is now forever fully God /fully Man!

 

[Dachaser]

the writer was using the language of the OT coronation of the King of Isreal to express that Jesus was the Son of God, as neing exaulted up now as the true King, but does NOT mean that he was adopted into becoming God,a s that was one of the ancient heresies of that time!

 

[Dachaser]

As it involes His humanity, not His Deity though!

 

[Dachaser]

That was my understanding on this assage, as Jesus is exaulted in His Deity as the Lord, but also in His humanity as the true King!

 

[Stope]

I think the best summation, and exposition, of the meaning(s) of the "Son" in Psalm 2:7 and Heb 1:5 is John Owen's:

Thank you so so very much for taking the time to post that as indeed that very much helped me. In fact, just this morning on my commute I was listening to William Still and he was asserting the same idea as Owen does here (FYI Still maintains that the "today" is in connection with the day he was resurrected).

Again, thank you!

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

John Owen's commentary is available online.

 

[Stope]

Just by way of update, I have read/listened to, for greater understanding, on this passage (namely Heb 1:5 "For to which of the angels did God ever say,“You are my Son,today I have begotten you”?) quite a few resources (Allister Begg, Sinclair Ferguson, Mark Dever, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, , Owen, etc) and, believe it or not, I have found the discussion by Dr James White very helpful