Friday, September 03, 2010

Discussion on Psalm 102 at Theopologetics

If you are interested in Jewish thought as it relates to Christology, then this will be of interest to you. Over at the THEOPOLOGETICS BLOG, me, DAVID BARRON, and Chris (the blog's author) are discussing some fascinating (at least we think so!) aspects of Psalm 102. The reason this discussion is interesting is because of the author of Hebrews' quotation of Psalm 102:25-27. The discussion is very long, but is worth reading. Anyone can feel free to chime in if they like, as long as it is directly related to the discussion. You can check the whole thing out HERE.

12 comments:

Chris said...

I've really enjoyed the discussion, even though David disagrees with us. I'm currently debating another topic elsewhere at my blog, and David's demeanor has been very refreshing in light of that of the participant in the other debate. I hope David feels I've reciprocated the respect, at least for the most part :)

micheygirl66 said...

I left this comment on his blog..maybe you'll answer me here since that thread is so long I've no idea where it stands in relation to discussion of the angel of the Lord right now..it may have shifted away.

I have NOT read this whole thread but it is only anyone's inference that the angel of the Lord is Jesus.Who is the angel of the Lord in these texts?

(Mat 28:2-7) And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. ... 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

(Luke 2:9-11) And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.


There are more I could cite,but proof that this angel of the Lord isn't the OT one,clearly a separate being from Jesus would be appreciated.And if you can't prove that,what would this mean for the confident trinitarian assertion that God's angel is the second person of his own substance?

Dave said...

I don't believe that there is one single "angel of Jehovah," for it is a generic descriptor suiting any angel. However, as the best reading of Jude 5 is "Jesus," it appears to have been him at least sometimes within the Exodus account.

Dave said...

Chris,

Yes, I do. I enjoyed the discussion!

The Apologetic Front said...

Kellie, thanks for your comment. I know the thread is long, so I'd recommend reading the post to which the entire discussion is based. The "angel of the Lord" issue is irrelevant to the issue, as we are discussing the LXX of Psalm 102.

But to briefly address your comment, I wouldn't argue that the "angel of the lord," even if it is YHWH himself, proves that this is speaking of "The second person of the Trinity, who is one in substance with the Father" or something along those lines.

At most, the angel is either:

1. YHWH Himself through identification.

Or

2. YHWH in representation or agency only, which second temple Judaism would allow for.

Though it could be argued that both are the case, I don't want to get off topic from the discussion

micheygirl66 said...

Dave as you well know that is at the very least a precarious ambiguous text and the fact is MOST scholars would agree Jesus doesn't belong there.How do you feel when triniatrians use texts with other more plausible interpretations and translations to try and make their case viable?As for the angel of the Lord,even the NIV study bible knows a special agent of Yahweh can bear his name without being Yahweh.Ex. 33 is a clear as day what happens if someone ACTUALLY sees Yahweh.Any one who says he is Jesus,whether trinitarian or not,is doing nothing but inferring.I understand you literalize Wisdom and Word but the Hebrews POETICIZED and vividly PERSONIFIED the two,and Jesus didn't fulfill the two till he became the Messiah.(John 1:14,1 Cor. 1:30)

Btw,I think it's significant that in these passaes and more the angel has *the* before it.

Dave said...

I don't think that is necessarily the case, and I think you'll find that those who do reject it there do not do it because it is the most likely rendering based upon the text itself, but because it is difficult. I don't find it difficult. The textual evidence has far more weight behind this rendering than any other, so I'm not doing as those Trinitarians you speak of.

Paul says "the rock was Christ" and yet Jews said it was Wisdom. If it "was" Christ, there must have been a Christ there for it to be.

micheygirl66 said...

Acts 20:28 is "well attested" to the trinitarian view.But their rendering is difficult..that's where reason comes in.You're also again assuming that the literal rock that gushed literal streams that followed the Israelites that TYPIFIED metaphorically the true rock to come had ANOTHER rock,the angel of Yah there with the literal rock and that this angel has to be Christ eventhough Hebrews says he is so much better than angels and God didn't speak through him till the Last days.Doesn't make any sense to me anymore.Just like God made the world by his LITERAL word from his mouth with no suggestion of an additional person named word next to him.I won't argue this further though to respect Mike's wish to keep it about Hebrews.I posted a blog about what Buzzard says about Hebrews 1:10.

Dave said...

The rendering at Acts 20:28 is a translation issue, not textual.

Paul says "the rock was Christ," with the key word being "was." Paul referred to this historical event and identified that event with Christ, not something typified by him. He could well have said that it "is Christ," as elsewhere, and there would have been no issue. But the Jews identified this with Wisdom and Paul identifies Wisdom with Jesus.

Please don't argue respecting divine mediation from Hebrews 1, for it does not speak to such. It speaks only of human mediators, ignoring entirely, for example, the angels. If Christ preexisted, he woud not be mentioned in such a context.

Now I'll ask you on Hebrews 1, if 2:5 is to be read back into 1:10, when will the earth to come "perish" and be "changed"?

micheygirl66 said...

Yes,that rock "was" Christ in that it typified him.You're utterly divorcing the genuine literal rock that was there from this passage..either that or adding another that the text itself doesn't.I'm willing to identify Jesus with wisdom too...he respresents what was there from the very beginning,what was intrinsic to Yahweh,,his will,word,wisdom,plans,and prophecies.And in these God created the world.Christ fulfilled to a tee in perfection what God used to create the world,his LITERAL word and wisdom that Christ represented beautifully.I've yet to see any "Arian",myself included,attempt to explain all the texts that are explicit in their confirmation that Yahweh created ALONE and APPOINTED Christ over the works of *his own* hands without special pleading and literalizing what's poetic.As for the heavens and earth perishing,it must mean that they are PERISHABLE while the resurrectd Christ isn't.This is poetic metaphoric language,clearly.Not to be taken quite literally.

Dave said...

Why then, when Paul speaks of typology, does he use the present "is" as if the symbol remains? There was a literal event where Wisdom was said to be the source of the rock, yet Paul is saying that it was Christ who provided the rock.

Please provide a text that remains unexplained.

Now the new heavens and new earth are not perishable. They will never perish, they will endure forever. Were they perishable, mankind would be perishable and yet we'll have eternal life.

micheygirl66 said...

Dave there are other reasonable views of this text as well..so I won't be dogmatically arguing one as if nothing else is possible.BUT if you're going to be LITERAL with it then the new creation that Christ began when he was resurrected ..some of them WILL "perish" by "falling away" after becoming "new men."..etc.Here's another take on Heb here for an open mind only:

"Now the God last mentioned was Christ’s God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews], addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son’s kingdom…i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth. So it seems to be a declaration of God’s immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ’s kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102nd Psalm, viz. [Author uses KJV] To infer thence this conclusion, “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before Thee. In like manner, it here proves the Son’s throne should be established forever and ever, by the same argument, viz., by God’s immutability.” -Norton, Reasons, pp. 214 and 215.

What I can't respect is holding one view with clenched fists when there are other possible reasonable interpretations.I've said enough about the literal rock that you're adding an additional rock to by inference and pleading.Even if a person was there to make the rock gush,this text is talking about the literal rock,simply.