Also, if you get the chance look into Alan Segal’s work called “The Two Powers in Heaven”. He addresses some of what’s called Jewish Binatarianism. Heiser has a lecture from 2013 about the subject matter.
Brown is correct in his interpretation of Ps. 2. In fact, Brown gets his interpretation of this Psalm from the NT. Paul cites Ps. 2:7 specifically in reference to the fulfillment of Jesus' resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God (Acts 13:30-35), "But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. And *we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, You are My Son; today I have begotten You.* As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’" Ironically, this precise interpretation of Ps. 2 is also found in Hebrews 1 (a text you cite, yet offer no exegesis), see also Hebrews 5:5. The Book of Hebrews is rife with messianic references. The epistle’s very first sentence (Hebrews 1:1-2) is an allusion to Psalm 2 -- the Son who is heir of all things (Hebrews 1:1-2) corresponds to Ps. 2:7-8 (“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as Your possession”). In 1:3 (“When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”) there is a reference to Ps. 110:1 (“The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’”). According to Hebrews 1:3, Psalm 110:1 reaches it's climax: “When He had made purification of sins… .” (cf. Romans 1:4). This is the contextual setting for what follows in v. 5. Hebrews 1:5 (“For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU’? And again, ’I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME’?”) is a combination of two classic messianic texts, Ps. 2:7 (“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”) and 2 Samuel 7:14 (“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me”). One cannot interpret Ps. 2:7 in a manner that you do without also interpreting reference to 2 Samuel 7:14 in the exact manner, because they are thematically linked in v. 5. And in 1:6, “firstborn” is a Davidic allusion (Ps. 89:27), and corresponds with the “begotten” theme in 1:5. The OT reference in 1:5 is a citation from a coronation Psalm about the enthronement of the king (Ps. 2:7, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”).
Further, in Hebrews 1:7 there is a reference to Ps. 104:4 LXX. In this text Ps. 104:4 LXX is specifically used to distinguish between the angels who were “made,” or “created” (ποιῶν) in contrast to He who is “forever and ever.” In it’s original context, YHWH is contrasted to the heavenly celestial beings. The angels are as variable as the wind; they are changeable. They are transitory like flames of fire and can pass off the scene at some point, but YHWH is immutable and unchanging. Whereas the Psalmist is contrasting between created celestial beings and YHWH, who is eternal; the author of Hebrews utilizes this text to draw a contrast between created celestial beings and Jesus. And notice how Hebrews 1:7 (cf. Ps. 104:5 LXX) is linked to what follows in Hebrews 1:10-12, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, and like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.” (Hebrews 1:10-12) In Ps. 104:5 LXX it speaks of YHWH as, “He established the earth upon its foundations.” Yet we hear that very same echo in Hebrews 1:10-12. According to Ps. 104, “He” who “established the earth upon its foundations” is the one whom “wisdom” is said to subside with (Ps. 104:24 LXX). Yet the author of Hebrews speaks of the Son as that one who carried out the very specific action of laying the foundation of the earth. Psalm 102:24-27 LXX was originally about the immutable and unchanging characteristics of YHWH, but the author of Hebrews applies it to none other than Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:10-12). That Ps. 104:5 (cf. Hebrews 1:7) is used to distinguish between the “created” celestial beings, and the eternal and unchanging Lord, Jesus Christ; and that Ps. 104:5 is thematically and intertextually connected to Ps. 102:24-27 - the use of both texts cohesively speak to the eternal nature of Jesus Christ. Further, Hebrews 1:8-9 contain another citation from a royal psalm, Ps. 45:6-7. Some of the very same themes echoed here in 1:8-9 are then carried forward in the verses that follow (1:10-12). And of course, 1:13 is another reference to Ps. 110:1. The day the king took the throne is the moment in which he became God’s son (“begotten,” Ps. 2:7), that it was at that point that God adopted him into His family thereby making him a royal child, so to speak. In retrospect, it was at that moment that Christ was resurrected and ascended into heaven to sit at God’s right hand that He would actively rule as David’s representative, in the office of the “firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”
Face facts, Christ is Eternal! What do you do with John 17vs5? Ps This debate was amazing, James White and Micheal Brown destroyed these guys on a scriptural level! M.B is a legend and a hero of the Christian faith!
I believe John 17:5. Christ was begotten as the Beginning before creation, but he is not eternal. That’s reserved to the unbegotten God. Can you trace your view to the early church? Michael Brown is not immune to mistakes. There are no celebrity exegetes.
ThePristineFaith As early as Thomas referring to Christ as My Lord and My God? I agree there are no celebrity exegetes and i hold to the same theology as James White which is the total opposite of M.B so I’d say he’s prone to a few mistakes but nevertheless i love him as a brother in Christ and a bold man of God who stands firm for the Christian Faith. You read the bible with one eye closed dear friend, Nobody can effectively die for sinners apart from the One who is described in Isaiah 9vs6. Seriously how do you get around verses like this? These are just springing into my head as i write i mean do we read the same bible?!?
It's obvious in the context (verses 1 and 2) that this is glory that was with God to be given to Jesus, and not that Jesus was with God "in glory" or something like that. It was necessary for not only the creation to have begun, but for the people to exist before Jesus could have such a glory, such authority from God.
Jonathan Jensen Not that Jesus was with God in glory????? What about the first verse of Johns gospel? Jesus is the eternal Word, read it in the greek it is completely undeniable. 👍🏼
@@1988TheHitman Also, notice that in John 8.58, Jesus does not say, “Before Abraham came into existence, I came into existence.” Rather, there is a very stark contrast being made here, one that I don’t think is really brought out well in English translations. Notably, Jesus expresses an existence of a different order than that of Abraham by contrasting between Abraham, who “came into being” (genesthai), and He, who simply is (ego eimi). By itself, ego eimi does not imply eternal pre-existence; however, when placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai (“came into being”), ego eimi or its related forms (because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb “to be”) stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of “coming into being.” It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 that ego eimi implies eternality, not merely temporal priority. Jesus’ words closely echoes Psalm 90.2, which speaks of the eternal being of God in contrast to those things that “came into being” -- “Before the mountains came into being (genethenai) and the earth and world were formed, even from age to age, You are (su ei, second-person equivalent of ego eimi),” Psalm 90.2 (see LXX).
With all due respect I disagree with your take on this subject. I felt compelled to go back into some material I read earlier this year from a book titled “The Unseen Realm” by Dr. Michael Heiser, specifically on this Greek word monogenes. Just a heads up, the context of this passage was in regards to the sons of God seem elsewhere in the Bible and who they are as part of Yahweh’s divine family. “Only begotten” is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially to modern ears. Not only does the translation “only begotten” seem to contradict the obvious statements in the Old Testament about other sons of God, it implies that there was a time when the Son did not exist-that he had a beginning. The Greek word translated by this phrase is monogenes . It doesn’t mean “only begotten” in some sort of “birthing” sense. The confusion extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos (“only”) and gennao (“to beget, bear”). Greek scholars later discovered that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao , but rather from the noun genos (“class, kind”). The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” without connotation of created origin. Consequently, since Jesus is indeed identified with Yahweh and is therefore, with Yahweh, unique among the elohim that serve God, the term monogenes does not contradict the Old Testament language. The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenes . If you know your Old Testament you know that Isaac was not the “only begotten” son of Abraham. Abraham had earlier fathered Ishmael (cf. Gen 16:15; 21:3). The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son, for he was the son of the covenant promises. Isaac’s genealogical line would be the one through which Messiah would come. Just as Yahweh is an elohim , and no other elohim are Yahweh, so Jesus is the unique Son, and no other sons of God are like him.“ Hope you would consider this and be encouraged to go even deeper into God’s word.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[1/2] เปิดแคมป์หลอนต้อนรับ 2 ตัวพ่อแห่งวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2uPuHYHgwiI/mqdefault.jpg)
Also, if you get the chance look into Alan Segal’s work called “The Two Powers in Heaven”. He addresses some of what’s called Jewish Binatarianism. Heiser has a lecture from 2013 about the subject matter.
Brown is correct in his interpretation of Ps. 2. In fact, Brown gets his interpretation of this Psalm from the NT. Paul cites Ps. 2:7 specifically in reference to the fulfillment of Jesus' resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God (Acts 13:30-35),
"But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. And *we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, You are My Son; today I have begotten You.* As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’"
Ironically, this precise interpretation of Ps. 2 is also found in Hebrews 1 (a text you cite, yet offer no exegesis), see also Hebrews 5:5.
The Book of Hebrews is rife with messianic references. The epistle’s very first sentence (Hebrews 1:1-2) is an allusion to Psalm 2 -- the Son who is heir of all things (Hebrews 1:1-2) corresponds to Ps. 2:7-8 (“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as Your possession”). In 1:3 (“When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”) there is a reference to Ps. 110:1 (“The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’”). According to Hebrews 1:3, Psalm 110:1 reaches it's climax: “When He had made purification of sins… .” (cf. Romans 1:4). This is the contextual setting for what follows in v. 5.
Hebrews 1:5 (“For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU’? And again, ’I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME’?”) is a combination of two classic messianic texts, Ps. 2:7 (“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”) and 2 Samuel 7:14 (“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me”). One cannot interpret Ps. 2:7 in a manner that you do without also interpreting reference to 2 Samuel 7:14 in the exact manner, because they are thematically linked in v. 5. And in 1:6, “firstborn” is a Davidic allusion (Ps. 89:27), and corresponds with the “begotten” theme in 1:5. The OT reference in 1:5 is a citation from a coronation Psalm about the enthronement of the king (Ps. 2:7, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”).
Further, in Hebrews 1:7 there is a reference to Ps. 104:4 LXX. In this text Ps. 104:4 LXX is specifically used to distinguish between the angels who were “made,” or “created” (ποιῶν) in contrast to He who is “forever and ever.” In it’s original context, YHWH is contrasted to the heavenly celestial beings. The angels are as variable as the wind; they are changeable. They are transitory like flames of fire and can pass off the scene at some point, but YHWH is immutable and unchanging. Whereas the Psalmist is contrasting between created celestial beings and YHWH, who is eternal; the author of Hebrews utilizes this text to draw a contrast between created celestial beings and Jesus. And notice how Hebrews 1:7 (cf. Ps. 104:5 LXX) is linked to what follows in Hebrews 1:10-12,
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, and like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.” (Hebrews 1:10-12)
In Ps. 104:5 LXX it speaks of YHWH as, “He established the earth upon its foundations.” Yet we hear that very same echo in Hebrews 1:10-12. According to Ps. 104, “He” who “established the earth upon its foundations” is the one whom “wisdom” is said to subside with (Ps. 104:24 LXX). Yet the author of Hebrews speaks of the Son as that one who carried out the very specific action of laying the foundation of the earth. Psalm 102:24-27 LXX was originally about the immutable and unchanging characteristics of YHWH, but the author of Hebrews applies it to none other than Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:10-12). That Ps. 104:5 (cf. Hebrews 1:7) is used to distinguish between the “created” celestial beings, and the eternal and unchanging Lord, Jesus Christ; and that Ps. 104:5 is thematically and intertextually connected to Ps. 102:24-27 - the use of both texts cohesively speak to the eternal nature of Jesus Christ.
Further, Hebrews 1:8-9 contain another citation from a royal psalm, Ps. 45:6-7. Some of the very same themes echoed here in 1:8-9 are then carried forward in the verses that follow (1:10-12). And of course, 1:13 is another reference to Ps. 110:1.
The day the king took the throne is the moment in which he became God’s son (“begotten,” Ps. 2:7), that it was at that point that God adopted him into His family thereby making him a royal child, so to speak. In retrospect, it was at that moment that Christ was resurrected and ascended into heaven to sit at God’s right hand that He would actively rule as David’s representative, in the office of the “firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”
Face facts, Christ is Eternal! What do you do with John 17vs5?
Ps
This debate was amazing, James White and Micheal Brown destroyed these guys on a scriptural level!
M.B is a legend and a hero of the Christian faith!
I believe John 17:5. Christ was begotten as the Beginning before creation, but he is not eternal. That’s reserved to the unbegotten God. Can you trace your view to the early church? Michael Brown is not immune to mistakes. There are no celebrity exegetes.
ThePristineFaith
As early as Thomas referring to Christ as My Lord and My God?
I agree there are no celebrity exegetes and i hold to the same theology as James White which is the total opposite of M.B so I’d say he’s prone to a few mistakes but nevertheless i love him as a brother in Christ and a bold man of God who stands firm for the Christian Faith.
You read the bible with one eye closed dear friend, Nobody can effectively die for sinners apart from the One who is described in Isaiah 9vs6. Seriously how do you get around verses like this? These are just springing into my head as i write i mean do we read the same bible?!?
It's obvious in the context (verses 1 and 2) that this is glory that was with God to be given to Jesus, and not that Jesus was with God "in glory" or something like that. It was necessary for not only the creation to have begun, but for the people to exist before Jesus could have such a glory, such authority from God.
Jonathan Jensen
Not that Jesus was with God in glory????? What about the first verse of Johns gospel? Jesus is the eternal Word, read it in the greek it is completely undeniable. 👍🏼
@@1988TheHitman Also, notice that in John 8.58, Jesus does not say, “Before Abraham came into existence, I came into existence.” Rather, there is a very stark contrast being made here, one that I don’t think is really brought out well in English translations. Notably, Jesus expresses an existence of a different order than that of Abraham by contrasting between Abraham, who “came into being” (genesthai), and He, who simply is (ego eimi).
By itself, ego eimi does not imply eternal pre-existence; however, when placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai (“came into being”), ego eimi or its related forms (because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb “to be”) stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of “coming into being.” It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 that ego eimi implies eternality, not merely temporal priority. Jesus’ words closely echoes Psalm 90.2, which speaks of the eternal being of God in contrast to those things that “came into being” -- “Before the mountains came into being (genethenai) and the earth and world were formed, even from age to age, You are (su ei, second-person equivalent of ego eimi),” Psalm 90.2 (see LXX).
With all due respect I disagree with your take on this subject. I felt compelled to go back into some material I read earlier this year from a book titled “The Unseen Realm” by Dr. Michael Heiser, specifically on this Greek word monogenes. Just a heads up, the context of this passage was in regards to the sons of God seem elsewhere in the Bible and who they are as part of Yahweh’s divine family.
“Only begotten” is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially to modern ears. Not only does the translation “only begotten” seem to contradict the obvious statements in the Old Testament about other sons of God, it implies that there was a time when the Son did not exist-that he had a beginning. The Greek word translated by this phrase is monogenes . It doesn’t mean “only begotten” in some sort of “birthing” sense. The confusion extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos (“only”) and gennao (“to beget, bear”). Greek scholars later discovered that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao , but rather from the noun genos (“class, kind”). The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” without connotation of created origin. Consequently, since Jesus is indeed identified with Yahweh and is therefore, with Yahweh, unique among the elohim that serve God, the term monogenes does not contradict the Old Testament language. The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenes . If you know your Old Testament you know that Isaac was not the “only begotten” son of Abraham. Abraham had earlier fathered Ishmael (cf. Gen 16:15; 21:3). The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son, for he was the son of the covenant promises. Isaac’s genealogical line would be the one through which Messiah would come. Just as Yahweh is an elohim , and no other elohim are Yahweh, so Jesus is the unique Son, and no other sons of God are like him.“
Hope you would consider this and be encouraged to go even deeper into God’s word.
Jesus is Jehovah God’s ‘Unique Son’ because He alone was “brought forth” or “begotten” from the Father’s essence in eternity past. Obviously.