Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

[Bill Taylor]

David asks  >  Do such facts have any relevance in discussing the notion of equality with God?   1. Yeshua, in his earthly service to humanity, was made a little lower than the angels.   BT: I fail to see how this statement needs to be handled or understood in a light different than that of the kenosis of Phi 2.5-11. It was in a state of servitude that the Son revealed the heart of his Father. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren"; "And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Heb 2.9-1; Phi 2.8-11). ____________________________________   2. Yeshua said his father was greater than he was.   BT: It was the Son's prerogative to honor the Father, to stand in the gap between humanity and God as mediator of God to man and man to God. For the sake of our weakness he places himself between us and his Father. As I said in my exegesis of Phi 2.5-11, it was/is impossible for humanity to reach the height of God; we have not the ability to make that ascent. God in his love for us sent his Son to be God with us. In Jesus Christ we meet the very embodiment of the sovereignty of God breaking into the world to claim for himself those who without him were lost. In him we have the coming of Immanuel, God himself condescending to be with us and one of us and for us. And so the Son became a little lower than the angels in coming to us, that he might raise us in his glorious ascension to the Father. In reference to this statement, John Calvin said something on the order that Christ was not here comparing the Father's divinity with his own, nor his own human nature with his Father's divine essence, but rather his present state with the heavenly glory to which he was soon going to be received. Taken in the context of its greater narrative in Scripture, I find this statement to be quite satisfactory.   And now, David, without undue respect, may I again tell you that I do not believe your reductionistic approach to deriving truth is always the best, especially when it is the big picture that we are attempting to apprehend? Torrance has argued that there is a comprehensive nature in God's trinitarian self-revelation, "which has an intrinsic significance as a whole that cannot be broken down and specified in terms of its constituent parts, upon which knowledge of the whole may then be built up; for in the Trinity the three divine Persons are internally interrelated in such a coninherent way that the one Being of God belongs to each of them as it belongs to all of them, and to all of them as it does to each of them." I agree with Torrance; hence I am reluctant to willfully participate in a degradation of the whole in a dogged pursuit of particulars, which cannot be known in themselves as parts. With due respect, in such hunts we are wont to lose the bunny.   And so, may I make a suggestion: rather than parse my thoughts into oblivion, how about a definitive statement from you on your own teaching on these matters? That, it seems to me, would give us all a comparative basis upon which to draw.   God bless you. I will be eagerly awaiting your presentation.   Bill