Hebrews 1: 5 Commentary

Don’t forget Matt 1:18 the Genesis of Jesus Christ was as follows vrs23 a virgin shall be with child and bear a Son…Luke 1:35 the one who is born will be called the God of the old testament!!!

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 05:20 am

Charles,

My point is that the basis for the NT record of the virgin birth is explicitly stated as the fulfillment of a 500 year old prophecy and not a pagan myth, legend or tradition. Whether or not anyone thinks Isaiah was co-opting a pagan myth is a completely different matter and would require a bit more in-depth analysis.

And not intending to be inordinately picky, but before the virgin birth, there was only 4,000 years of recorded history and just exactly when and where the pagan myths about virgins really began is probably a bit speculative.

Concerning the name Immanuel, that also is explicitly mentioned in Matthew 1:23 as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy; not because everyone called Christ “Immanuel” but because of what the name means: “God with us”. This is a common prophetic method. There are literally dozens of “names” ascribed to Jesus from the OT though none of them were his actual birth name: Jesus (savior).

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 04:28 am

Scott, re your post 297, Isaiah prophesied five hundred years earlier, but the example I mentioned in post 294 happened five THOUSAND years earlier. The idea of a virgin birth had been around long before Isaiah.

Isaiah doesn’t give a timing to his prophecy, doesn’t give the virgin a name, and doesn’t get the name of Jesus right. You can argue about this as many have, but Immanuel and Jesus are not the same name and therefore not the same man. I made my point about vague prophecies in post 269.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 03:12 am

Matthew 1:22-23 tells us EXACTLY where the basis for the virgin birth comes from: it was PROPHESIED in Isaiah nearly 500 years earlier.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 02:25 am

Jayant, re your post 295, it seems that Luke and Matthew both wrote about the virginity of Mary without reading each other. From your (religious) point of view this probably means that both evangelists were inspireed to write the same thing. From my (practical) point of view it probably means that the belief had been in circulation before the gospels were written. It is not a “presumption” or a “theory” to suggest that such a tradition might have been derived from other religions. Religions share commonalities, not least among them the concept of gods having children and the similarities in the stories and miracles.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 22:54 pm

Matthew and Luke narrates the Gospel, including the the narraives of Jeusus’ birth, on the basis of the events that took place. They just describes what events took place and not theorizing or giving philosophical explanation of the virgin birth. It is therefore quite unlikely that they wrote about virgin birth on the basis of some Egyptain, Greek or roman (or even some Hindu tradition, some one say try to include) traditions! Christian beliefs in the virgin birth is based on these Gopsel , and not on those other traditions. Making some presumptions doesn’t make it a good theory.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 21:19 pm

With regard to the virginity of Mary one may note that the idea may have been inherited from earlier religions. For example we find that long before the birth of Jesus the Egyptian goddess Neith was credited with giving birth to a god without engaging in sex. It is a way to combine godly and human attributes in a person, something which was very common in the Egyptian, Greek and Roman (early Christian) cultures.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 14:34 pm

Post 292 and others have made reference to the assumption that Jesus was born without sin. I would like to remind everybody that this is only an assumption based mostly on Col 2:9 (For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form) and on a chauvinistic bias which presumes that sin is passed only by the father. These are all dubious assumptions. The Bible does NOT say that Jesus was sinless at birth.

At the same, though, the Bible does NOT say anything about the original sin until Paul introduces the concept 25 years AFTER the death of Jesus (see my post 2 on Romans 5:12).

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 14:13 pm

Dearest Scott, Thank you for your patience & continung to endeavor to understand why I remain unmovable in the truth the scriptures themselves declare!
Scott, I have never once said that Yahshua had no advantage over the rest of us pathetic humans. He had & still has GREAT advantage in he had the privilege of being “BEGOTTEN OF GOD”. HE ALSO HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF being BORN w/out the sin nature we have all inherited from Adam & Eve. He has the privilege of being Adam remade, if you will, as the “Last Adam” to redeem mankind back to what Adam was before the fall. We were to be perfect in every way. We were to have glorious, unbroken fellowship w/ God our Father. We were to take dominion over all God’s creation & walk in total dependance to our Father but yet total freedom knowing God’s unfathomable Love. All of that was lost when Adam & Eve forfeited their gift because they wanted to “become like God….”. Yahweh’s plan was to send the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God to “redeem” us all back to once more live & not die in the glorious presence of our Heavenly Father. Yahshua was that plan made manifest in the fullness of time. Made like his brethren(Heb 2:7) for only human blood could purchase back what another human being had lost. (Roman 5:12) “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin…………..vs 15 ” for if many died through one man’s tresspass, much more have the grace of God & the free gift by the grace of “that one man” Jesus Christ abounded for many.”ESV
I can only draw my conclusion from the Word of God & not creeds of men. The scripture is clear, the doctrines of men are confusing & distorted & rob our precious Savior of the very real & horrendeous price he paid that we be truly redeemed back to what God’s original intention for us was to be.
Scott, I will address the virgin birth at a later time…..I’m very fatigued. Much Agape, Candace

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 08:08 am

Candace/Mark,

Many of our mutual beiefs regarding the work of Jesus on our behalf (forgiveness, justification, sanctification, destiny, authority, kingdom rule, glorification)seem to run on parallel tracks. You both speak of the “beauty of the great truth” that Jesus was a created being like any other man and the “difficulty” that a “proud” man has in accepting that. Trinitarians would say the same thing about those who refuse to accept the divinity of Christ. Personally, I don’t like judging a person’s motives; whether we are truly open to each other’s POV will only occur as we hammer the scriptures on the anvil of truth.

But even though we may share many peripheral beliefs about the WORK of Christ, there is a great chasm of difference regarding our beliefs about the PERSON of Christ. I think you would both agree that this is a critical difference. A “game changer” as the saying goes.

As I’m truly trying to understand your position, I only come away shaking my head in the same manner that both of you likely do toward me and other trinitarians. [Candace, you’ve begun to answer my question posted under Gen. 2:7. I’d like to respond but I would prefer that you post your answer under that text and we can carry on from there].

So, the aforementioned being said; why was the virgin birth necessary? I don’t understand your position on this at all. Why was it even necessary for God’s Son to come into the world? Candace said he had no particular advantage over any other human being so how was he able to live a sinless life? What made his intercession more powerful than anyone elses? Perhaps the best way to ask the question is: Just what do you mean by the “Son” of God? HOW is your Jesus the son of God? What is your understanding of what took place inside of Mary?

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/26/2010 22:35 pm

Candance is explaining very simply if you at all have desire to liston to your sister in Christ… Her points hold up to the bible teaching far better than anything any one else has said in this long post. If you are here to prove your point or your already held belief then I pitty you. Scott you sound like and inteligent guy and I respect your right to your interpetation. The only way the scripture can not be broken is through exactly what Candace is pointing out. Be wrong is a difficult thing to overcome for proud people, so I pray that you and the other believers would come to see the beauty in this great truth. It is so difficult for christians to believe this revelation that Yahweh is sole master of the entire creation especially of his beloved son.

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/26/2010 18:41 pm

So sorry Scott…I’ve been having quite an awful time w/ a major virus disrupting my computer. Still working on that:(
Why was Yahshua even tempted by satan himself for 40 day if it really wasn’t a temptation.(God is not tempted neither does He tempt) If Yahshua was incapable of sinning it was all for not & a huge farce.
Those temptations were very real & Yahshua could have succumbed to anyone of them. After his grueling time of testing, Yahshua needed the angels to come & strengthen him.
When the scripture teach he overcame the world, they literrally mean he succeeded where Adam failed. Yahshua knew his mission was to overcome so we too could overcome just like he had by “walking in the spirit” connected to our Father. Remember, he said, I can do nothing. Because he overcame, we are more than conquerors & destined to be co-heirs & joint rulers w/ the Son of God.
If he’s truly God then his temptations were bogus & he overcame nothing. His crucifiction is a sham for God can not die. And we can never be like him or do the greater works for he’s God & we’re not.(I Jn 3:2) We have no mediator for he is God, no high priest etc. The scriptures become hopelessly broken. Candace

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/26/2010 08:00 am

Scott, concerning your question (Gen 2:7) There’s a very simple answer but you may not receive it as my dealings w/ you have proven time & time again.
” Whuy didn’t God just make Adam sinless like Jesus” (paraphrase) Yahshua WAS made just like Adam. i.e without sin! BUT, Yahsua just like Asam have a FREE WILL. God did not want pre-programed robots. He wanted us to choose Him & love Him of our own free will. Yahshua/Jesus was evrey bit as capable of sinning as Adam was or any of us.HE CHOSE NOT TO.

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/26/2010 07:34 am

Roland (post 286), I have very simple answers to your questions and comments.

You wrote: If the original manuscripts in ANY language DID exist how would anyone know that what the prophets wrote was from God even if we knew what the original Bible said?

Answer: We don’t know now and we wouldn’t know then. This is a matter of belief. You may BELIEVE they are from God, but you can’t state it as a fact. You can’t back up your belief with proof.

You wrote: If the original manuscripts fell apart or crumbled with age, how would anyone know the copies we have today are accurate?

Answer. Again, we don’t know. We DO know that changes were made from the earliest surviving copies to the present versions but we may never know what changes were made from the originals.

You wrote: If God did not inspire His written Word, the Holy Bible would not have stood the test of time.

Again, we don’t have God’s original word, so obviously the Bible has NOT withstood the test of time.

You wrote: It would be unreasonable to expect a 2000-year piece of “paper” made from a plant to remain intact.

I totally agree, and this just goes to show that the Bible is an earthly thing written by earthly beings and subject to earthly conditions just like any book. If it was from an infinite God, would he have let his word disappear?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/26/2010 01:49 am

Charles (post 284),

I have a greater question: If the original manuscripts in ANY language DID exist how would anyone know that what the prophets wrote was from God even if we knew what the original Bible said? There is a lesser question in degree or importance: If the original manuscripts fell apart or crumbled with age, how would anyone know the copies we have today are accurate?

Most Bible academicians around the world are in final agreement the text we have in print today from the oldest manuscripts available are accurate except for minor variants. Original language text (copied from the original text if you prefer) on the sixty-six books of the Holy Bible is available online for scrutiny. Commercial programs are also available to aide in textual criticism.

Historians agree that Scribes wrote on paper made from the papyrus plant. The papyrus plant dried, became brittle, and crumbled much like a large leaf placed between the pages of a book. Other manuscripts were handwritten on paper made from thin animal skins, but the ink faded. Scribes scraped the original skins and rewrote on them. As a manuscript aged, faded, or began to fall apart, devout Scribes copied them by hand on fresh “paper.” In this manner, men inspired of God preserved God’s Word in the original languages. God, in reality, inspires His written Word (2 Tim. 3:16). If God did not inspire His written Word, the Holy Bible would not have stood the test of time.

It would be unreasonable to expect a 2000-year piece of “paper” made from a plant to remain intact. It would be equally unreasonable to expect the ink on an animal skin not to fade. Today, there are many people who save receipts when they buy products or goods. Cash registers print receipts with good ink on good paper. Yet, the ink fades within a matter of years, the paper receipt exposed only to air.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/26/2010 01:08 am

Where are you people “getting” this phase…”God the Son” or “God the Holy Spirit”???? That can be found nowhere in any of the translations I’ve studied & those are many. Or are those bogus titles coming from men & their creeds which evolved some 300 yrs after Yahshua’s death & resurrection? Why do so many insist on building their doctrines on creeds of unsaved, unspirit filled men instead of the the Word of God???? Yahshua “coming from” God, IS NOT GOD but the Son of God. “Broken Record”…..Yahshua being given “All” by God an Heir. i.e his anointing (the Christ) his authority, his power, his life even comes from the Father, his resurrection, his position (at the right hand of God) his kingdom, everything was given him by God!
Mark….EXCELLENT pont! i.e John did not see the Lamb/Yahshua/the Son while in the presence of Almighty God! It took any angel to show him “who WAS worthy” to open the scrolls. AND GOD, ON HIS THRONE, HANDED the scrolls to THE LAMB to open! Did the Father hand those scrolls to Himself??? That Lamb, who still bears the scars of his sacrifice was the only one worhty. Yahweh DOES NOT bear those scars! The Glorified Christ (anointed one) does, (broken record) The LAST ADAM! Not GOD Almighty. We were redeemed by one such as ourselves….a “man” made perfect because his Father IS God. Gal 4:4 “in the fullness of time God sent forth His son, MADE of a woman”.KJV “The SEED of a woman shall bruise the head of satan”. Gen 3:15 God IS not a seed, the promised Msessiah or The Lamb. Yes, God is Savior & He choose to save us through the shed blood of His son.

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 23:00 pm

Roland (post 283), how do you know what the original Bible said. Nobody alive today has any originals in ANY language.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 19:57 pm

Reply to Post 281

Mark, God the Son in His deity existed in eternity past. In fact, He has been fully active since before He made the worlds(Heb. 1:2). God the Son in His deity revealed Himself and spoke to humankind before His incarnation not only through the prophets, but through the agency of God the Holy Spirit. God the Son in His deity spoke to humankind openly. He did not speak to humankind in secret. He plainly tells you this Himself in Isaiah 48:16.

God the Son in His deity IS the Alpha. In His glorified God-man “body,” His human and divine natures forever united, Jesus the Christ IS the Omega (Rev. 1:8).

Translators of the original languages of the Holy Bible often go through painstaking effort to decide the intent of an author. Writing the author’s intended meaning in plain language, especially in another language including English, can be difficult. A translator’s error does not corrupt God’s Word preserved in the original languages of the Holy Bible.

Hope this helps. Merry Christmas to all.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 18:18 pm

Sorry Heb 1:1-2

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 09:53 am

Roland there is no God the Son, this is the purpose of this whole discussion. Heb 5:1 Is stating that GOD Yahweh the eternal never spoke to us through his son previous to his creation. How could he speak to or through a son that hadn’t been created yet. Heb.1:2 Has “when” in these last days Has spoken to us by his son. Whom (God Yahweh father) He has appointed Heir of all things… “Now comes the corruption of scripture”If the translator uses the word “for” “or on account of” this verse makes sense to the previous verse and a half, once you say Through you destroy the first verse and a half and make it void of sense…

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 09:52 am

Reply to post 277

Charles, the rhetorical question in Heb. 1:5 is designed to answer the question whether God in His humanity is SUPERIOR to angelic creation. There is no question that God the Son in His Deity is superior to angels – after all He created the host of heaven! Therefore, the question posed, To which of the angels did He [God the Father] say . . . .” The obvious answer is “to none.” Why? God was not an angel. In His humanity, God the Son REMAINED superior to angelic creation.

Hope this helps. Merry Christmas to all.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 07:34 am

Candace,

Please excuse MY ignorance. My limited understanding of Unitarians is they believe in God as one person. (Perhaps I should use a lower case “u”). Though united in the belief of three persons in one God I know that Trinitarians are all over the map on most other issues of doctrine. I suppose it’s the same with unitarians as well. Forgive me if I’ve lumped you under a label that doesn’t apply.

Regarding the question about Genesis 2:7; you’ll find it in post #6 under Genesis 2:7.

Regarding your question about Jesus’ prayer in John 17; I have a couple of thoughts:

I know you are familiar with Eph 4:3 concerning the “unity of the Spirit”. Also “Christ in you the hope of glory” as well as numerous other verses referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Now, this may open up a whole new “can of worms” because it gets into the teaching of the person of the Holy Spirit and I know there are many who do not believe in “God the Holy Spirit”; but to a Trinitarian, the indwelling of the Spirit of God and Christ in the individual believer is tantamount to “becoming” God himself. (I put this in quotes because it needs clarification; bear with me).

As a new creature in Christ, our nature is changed from a God hater to a God lover. This happens as the very Spirit of God himself indwells our spirit. In this way, it can be said that we are “like God”. The sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is for the express purpose of conforming us to the character of Christ (who is God). Therefore, we can become “one” with the Father and the Son because we are indwelt by the very same Spirit. We cannot; however, “become” God. Unity in the Spirit and Oneness in nature cannot change our dependence as creatures; “Without me, you can do nothing.”

God always wanted mankind to “be like God”; but Satan (who also wants to be like God) convinced our first parents that they could do it on their own. But Satan’s modus operendi is in direct conflict with God’s who wanted it to occur in HIS way. When we become “like God” as a result of the grace of God by the Spirit of God; it can then be truly said that we are One with God.

This is what I believe Jesus was praying about.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 06:17 am

“As God, Jesus Christ was not able to sin. As Man, Jesus Christ was able not to sin.” (#276)

Roland- Well said! And thanks for weighing in on the discussion.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 05:20 am

Roland, I am glad you got back to the verse in question (your post 276). You said “We now come to Hebrews 1:5. The author makes a statement of fact in the form of a question – a rhetorical one.”

Rhetorical questions have obvious answers. To me this question would be rhetorical only if Jesus was an angel, in which case the obvious answer would be “the angel Jesus”. Do you accept this seemingly foregone conclusion that Jesus was nothing but a mere angel?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 04:57 am

The author of Hebrews asserts the superiority of God the Son in His humanity over angelic beings. In Heb. 1:1-4, Jesus, the Son of God, appeared on the earth, atoned for our sins, and sat at the right hand of the God the Father in heaven. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit existed in eternity past before creating angelic beings. God the Father is the author of the plan of salvation for humankind, God the Son is the executer of the plan of salvation, and God the Holy Spirit is the revealer of the plan of salvation.

We now come to Hebrews 1:5. The author makes a statement of fact in the form of a question – a rhetorical one. To which of the angels [class of spiritual beings] said He [God the Father] Thou art my Son [God the Son in His humanity] this day [the day God the Son incarnated into this world as flesh and blood with a sinless human nature] have I begotten thee [God the Son in His humanity]? And again, I will be to him [God the Son in His humanity] a Father [like any human father would be to a human son], and he [God the Son in His humanity] shall be to me [God the Father] a Son.”

When God the son was born as humankind, He took on a dual nature. He was fully God and fully man. As God, Jesus Christ was not able to sin. As Man, Jesus Christ was able not to sin.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 02:12 am

The discusion has roamed but the core is how did Jesus become God. The simple answer is it happen when the legend grew as word spread across the known world. Has the legend grew over the first three centuries man had turned away from the Jew Jesus and turned him into the greek jesus and this let to his amalgumation and transformation from man to God. But the problem was there was only one God in Israel and that was Yahweh. So the gentiles turned the son of God into God the son and then added the holy spirit to boot. Its no wonder everyone is confused. But the demons know the truth because they are spirit and they see into heaven. There is only one God sitting on the throne. So thats why James 2:18 states the demons fear. So what Im saying is that it is our physical limitations that keep us from just looking to the throne of God like John did in Rev.5:1-7 John the apostle spent 3 1/2 years with Jesus and forgot he even existed for 1/2 hour till one of the elders reminded him about the lamb. I find this astounding that in the presence of GOd alone he forgot who Jesus or as you say the other god was…

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2010 23:06 pm

Although Hebrew 1:5 is the reference being comented upon here, the contributors have roamed through the Bible!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2010 17:14 pm

“Whoever denies that Yahshua(Yahweh is Savior)came as a human being is an anti-Messiah” (1 John 2;23) as quoted in 272 is right. Those who followed the gnostic teaching held that Jesus could not be God if he had come in the flesh. But this was the nullifying of the death of the cross of Jesus that was there for our salvation. This was a hersey John warned the people of God about. This verse says Jesus CAME! it doesn’t say jesus was born in the flesh. And Jesus had said that he had come from the Father. He was in the bosom of the Father. he proceeded from the Father! The Father was the foutain head, the source, the origin (Kephale in Greek. Any one ccoming from the God Father cannot be less than God!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2010 17:12 pm

Welcome Stephen….Heb 1:5 was but an invitation to enter into a discussion concerning who “The Son of God” truly is. As you can see, the Body of Christ is most definitely divided on this most impotant truth….in fact, our very salvation depends upon it! (IJohn 4:2,3) “whoever denies that Yahshua came as a human being is anti-Messiah”. CJB (IJohn 2:23) “Everyone who denies the Son, is w/out the Father, but the person who acknowledges the Son has the Father as well.” May the Ruach ha Kodesh lead & guide you into ALL truth.

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2010 16:33 pm

Dear Bible Commentators, as a regular visitor (but I never post) I want to know why this Bible Verse is so popular with you? More than 250 postings! I don’t mind if you continue discussing this particular Bible Verse, but please don’t forget the rest of God’s Word. I am looking forward to see your comments on other Verses the coming year.

By Stephan R (wrote 2 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2010 12:39 pm