An Analysis of the Doctrinal Issues of the Son of Man/Son of God: As Found In Hebrews

AN ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTRINAL ISSUES OF THE SON OF MAN/SON OF GOD: AS FOUND IN HEBREWS

Approaching the biblical book of Hebrews in order to ascertain a deeper understanding of its inherently troubling theological issues is a daunting task that can become an enigma. Within the thirteen chapters of the letter’s composition are some of the most significant and grandiose ideas found within Scripture, and some of the most profoundly troubling areas of New Testament theology. From the struggle of authorship and destination, coupled with anti-temple religious affections in the compelling call to leave behind the Judaic way of worship, to the significant warning passages found within the tome, Hebrews offers a bevy of controversy in its interpretation and germane points of understanding[1].

The Book of Hebrews profound use of the LXX as its base, under-girds the basic assumptions of a strong Helenization of the Jewish community, as the Jewish people navigated the channels of Roman expansionism in the then known world. Dr. S.E. Robinson, Brigham Young University, Provo Utah, in Jesus and Hillel writes:

“Some rather significant steps associated with Hillel reflect a considerable degree of Hellenistic influence. To cite one example: ‘Talmudic tradition associates with Hillel the adoption of hermeneutical rules of exegesis similar to those in usage among stoics and others.’ Whether the influence was limited only to terminology or to the very methodology, it is clear that the contacts between Jerusalem and Alexandria were rich and varied[2].”

The Judaic overtones of rituals, and significant personalities, listed in Hebrews that were distinctly Jewish in nature, coupled with the unique challenge to discard the trappings of Judaism for the greater and superior revelation of Christ, betrays the author’s background as well as the cultural and religious milieu of his intended audience. These were people who were familiar with the outer accoutrements of the Judaic faith who apparently were struggling with the possibilities of a return to the former ways of worship, leaving behind their newfound faith in Christ.

The author’s dismissal of the Temple’s centrality of position in the sacrificial expression highlights the author’s dismay at the possibility of returning to the Temple system for atonement.  Hebrew’s contrast of Christ’s sacrifice with the pre-Temple Tabernacle format, quite possibly indicates an Essene influence of the corruption of the priestly caste, and a longing for a righteous expression through Zadok’s lineage[3]. Melchizedek’s inclusion as Jesus’ true line in the priestly equation identifies the author’s expression of Christ’s superiority over all that is human, and consequently, temporary in its essence. By connecting Melchizedek to Jesus, the author demonstrates the necessitation to do away with a priestly ministry that was a response to a rejection by the Hebrew people in the wilderness of the rightful place God had intended them to express as a nation who would serve God as priests in close proximity of relationship. This compulsion to convey the superiority of Jesus as a priest of a vastly dominant manifestation, serving after the order of Melchizedek, not Aaron, is noted by Barnabas Lindars in The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Lindars states in relation to the eternal nature of Christ’s priesthood:

“The appearance of the eschatological priest makes a complete break with the Levitical priesthood, which can then be seen to have had only limited duration. Jesus, being a descendant of Judah (7:14), was not qualified for the Levitical priesthood, but he has been proved to be the eschatological priest by virtue of being the Messiah…It thus follows that perfection (teleiosis, verse 11), i.e. the completion of God’s plan, could not be reached through the Levitical priesthood, because no priestly act under the old law has ever been shown to be capable of having this permanent effect.[4]

Contextually, the perfection of Jesus as presented through His learned obedience and suffering, fits within the scheme of a superior priestly ministry. The significance of Jesus overcoming the temptations that create a commonality of familiarity within the confinement of the human experience cannot be underestimated in the profundity of its importance in the salvific scheme.  Matthew 4:1-11, contains the poignant temptation passage of Christ following His inaugural introduction. This encounter between Jesus and the accuser, although repeated at various junctures throughout His earthly ministry, carries no greater weight anywhere as it does in the wilderness experience. Jesus as the true High Priest conquers and vanquishes he who had subjugated the human expression of God’s creation.

Hebrews answers the relevant questions that surround considerations of theological anthropology. Jesus’ domination of sin, His ascension to the right hand of the Father, His reception of the title ‘Son’, all point to the infinite greatness of Christ’s true mission: freeing those in captivity. As such, Hebrews presents a major paradigm shift in early Christology. The author’s advanced use of Greek language and mastery of unique idiomatic expressions emerges through the grid of Christ’s humanity coupled with His divinity.  Irenaeus, in Against Heresies says it well in the following:

“This word has in these last times, according to the time appointed by the Father, been united to his own workmanship and has been made passable man. Therefore we can set aside the objection of them that say, ‘If he was born at that time, it follows that Christ did not exist before then…’ We have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist since he existed with the Father always; but when he was incarnate and made man, he recapitulated (or summed up) in himself the long line of the human race, procuring for us salvation…so that what we lost in Adam…we should regain in Christ Jesus.[5] [6]

The assertion, fully human, fully divine[7], is the basis of the Book of Hebrews assertion as to the supremacy of Christ. Christ is superior in Revelation (1:1-4), and greater than angelic beings (1:5-7:28). The Hebrew’s author identifies the conceptual superiority with the challenging understanding of Jesus as a superior model of faith (12:1, 2). This covenantal nature of Hebrews and its revelation of Christ effectively transitions New Testament theology from the primitive focus on Jesus as Son of Man, into the greater, or superior, aspect of the Sonship existence of Christ and his placement in the heavenly realm (1:13)[8].

According to Dr. Craig Evans, Professor of Biblical Studies, Trinity Western University, B.C. Canada, in the Dictionary of New Testament Background, in an article on Messianism, the title, Son of Man, carries within its perimeters significant importance that far outweighs the popularity of the designation in self-disclosure by Jesus.  Evans states:

“This articularity (sic) is not technical, as though ‘Son of Man’ is a messianic title (though later it becomes that), as attested in the Similitude’s of Enoch; rather, it is specific…Jesus…refers specifically to the one in the vision of Daniel 7…this explains why Jesus declares that as ‘Son of Man,’ Jesus has received God’s kingdom and authority, permitting him to act on behalf of God’s people in the cosmic struggle against Satan’s kingdom.[9]

This title holds within its context the necessary configuration of obedience and dependence. Paul’s expression of humiliation and exaltation in Philippians 2:5-11 perfectly encapsulates this concept from the natural realm of earthly existence. The suffering servant of Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15 connects well with the kenosis understanding of Pauline theology as presented in the Book of Philippians. He who is God became man and existed in spatial existence. The Johaninne inclusion of Christ’s dependency as man limited in deliberative power is expressed in John 5:19: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son also does,[10]” exemplifies the uniqueness of relational qualities of Christ as servant in His human expression.

  1. A. Carson, in Exegetical Fallacies, indicates a belief in the subordination of Christ in a limited sense to the durative timeline of his earthly ministry. Carson asserts: “(Jesus) abandoned some substantial measure of independence in the use of his divine prerogatives[11].” The kenosis limitation in obedience as man, restricted to human confinement, gives substance to the teaching in Hebrews as Christ author’s salvation’s power (2:10-13) through the vehicle of the incarnation. Jesus as the suffering servant (2:18) becomes one who related to the immensity of the struggle against sin and yet overcomes the conflict triumphantly (4:15). The net result of this theology of conflict allows the elicitation of sympathy from Christ to those who are still pitched in the battle against sin’s devastating power.

As the author of salivation (2:10-13), Jesus also furthered the connective quality with humanity’s frailty by the identification of brotherhood with those who fall under redemption’s jurisdiction. The difficulties of this simplistic, yet advanced, theological construct/concept is clearly seen in the work Jesus and Hillel. The textual consideration in Jesus and Hillel asserts variables in the development of Christological understanding existed within the early church. Dr. Flusser, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, asserts that:

“(Christology’s) origin lies in the mythical elements of the Second Temple Judaism, some of which were connected with the figure of the messiah. This mythical atmosphere nourished Jesus sublime self-awareness. He not only expressed his personal experience by messianic conceptions, but also by these mythical ones as well.[12]

This quote expresses the enormity of confusion that exists when Jesus is only viewed as man, and not God.

Flusser continues by stating that it’s: “Sometimes difficult to distinguish between Christological Jewish concepts…and the theologoumena, or innovation, made by Jesus and /or the church. Even these new Christian motifs emerged well within the spirit of Judaism.[13]” As such, Jesus is seen as a human charismatic leader, who sought to revolutionize the religious conceptions of his day. This suppression of Jesus, restricting him to the arena of humanity, while conversely denying His deity, causes him to be no better than Hillel or other Rabbis of the day. This is a marked violation of the description of the unknown Rabbi behind Hebrews, wherein Christ is witnessed to be superior to all of the created order in his unique expression. The contrast between the two ‘self-awareness’ modes of Hillel and Jesus cannot be granted credibility without becoming entrapped in the unthinkable belief system that states: “It is unthinkable that an unassuming, local, idealistic rabbi could later become an object of divine honor.[14]

The mystery of kenosis, God becoming man, has long violated human sensibilities. Yet, this divine mystery contains within it, the embryonic substance of salvation’s universally applicable power.  It also grants insight into the gravity of sins subtle tug and influence in the equitable conclusion of the Christ event, as portrayed in Hebrews. As stated in a previous, unpublished paper:

“To accept partial abandonment, limited use, or non-independent use of non-communicable attributes opens up the limited access to very human responses on the part of Christ. These limitations, which apparently were agreed upon in the pre-determinative Council of God (Ephesians 1:4,7), grants access, not to sin, but to the reality of possibility, if indeed there is to be a perfect, real substitutional sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:1-10), and a merciful and faithful high priest in the things relating to God (Hebrews 2:16,17, 8:1, 9:1,2,24)…For temptability to be true, temptations end had to be possible, just as in the first Adam.[15]

This identification of the Son of Man as He who overcame sin’s persuasive power, may shed light on one of Hebrews main mysteries: the need for Heaven’s cleansing (9:18-23). It is possible that the cleansing of heaven’s most holy place, the reality through which the temporal exists, signifies the cleansing of the new Tabernacle’s position: the human heart (seat of the soul). Pursuit of this as a possible point of theological research may prove to be a worthwhile endeavor. This substitutionary sacrifice links well with the greater concepts of Hebrews. He who overcame sins subtle power as Son of Man now enters the true Holy of Holies as Son of God, thus, effectively navigating the transitional phase of salvations necessity.

In this light, the kenosis limitations are reversed, as Jesus re-emerges, not as a suffering man under the discipline of learning’s strict tutelage. Rather, Jesus assumes His previously abrogated positional authority, having successfully performed the task of salvations elucidation perfectly. This may shed a different understanding on the significance of the heavenly Tabernacles lack of a Holy Place. The substitutionary work of atonement pre-empts its necessary inclusion. Christ’s solitary sacrifice, by its eternal nature, and implied durative application, renders a Holy Place as unnecessary and unwarranted. There simply is no further warrant for any sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 9:11-14, 23-28). The kenosis shifting of valuations, adding material substance into the energies of God, creates a new paradigm whereby the essence of God becomes more knowable, thus more accessible. In this configuration, Christ is indeed the superior revelation.

The transitional nature of Hebrews depiction of Christ as Son of God, seated at the right hand of the Father, implies the resumption of Christ’s pre-incarnate essence, existing as He truly is: infinite, eternal, incomprehensible, incomparable. Yet, as one who existed in the form/morphe of man as servant, He remains as one who is both knowable and accessible: one who sympathizes. The hypostatic union of Christ, God coupled with humanities essence, appears to co-exist in the Trinitarian concept. God is both independent and dependent upon the self-revelation of the Three who exist as One. This contributes greatly to the equations understanding.

Hebrews author sets the stage for the later appreciation of the churches conceptual perception as to man’s ability to know God. This hypothesis restricts mans ability to be familiar with God exclusively to the realm of metaphysical considerations. This limitation expresses itself in the epistemological pursuit of God’s energies, not His essence. By this it is meant that God in His character and expression exists in a vortex of unknowable substance. This is witnessed by the impossibility of finite substance comprehending infinite essence. The two negate interaction, as a conciliatory consideration:  finite and infinite exist in diametrically opposite polar extremes.

This characterization means, in essence, that man can never truly know God for all he is:  as He is in perpetuity. But man can know God as He is through the revelation of His energies, or actions. The knowability of God is thus reduced to the substantive actions of God as He expresses Himself through motion as He actively participates in creations boundaries.  By this it is to be understood that man only knows God in a limited way: revealed through the revelatory inclusions of God interacting with men by way of divine interdiction.

The matrix of Son of God and Son of Man becomes essential in the unfolding revelation, as this is the substantive form of material unveiling God has chosen to utilize for this revelation.  Kenotic limitations serve as the divine vehicle whereby infinite devolves into the realm of the finite: unknowable immensity becomes knowable and touchable through essential substance.

The superiority ideologies of Hebrews context allow this progressive nature of limitation/revelation to exist in a quantifiable, incremental, format. Jesus is superior in revelation and superior to both angels and Moses. Jesus is a superior high priest who has authored a superior covenant and Jesus will forever exist as a superior model of faith for the believer to emulate, and, conversely, to exalt. These actions of a superior servant who exists as exalted kurios creates both the dilemma and blessing of obedience to those who cling to the profession of faith and navigate successfully the risk factor of the warnings of the author of Hebrews.

The solemnities of the warning passages take greater significance when viewed through the restrictive prism of the Christ event. God is only knowable to man on His conditions and terms.  Hebrews unveils this Mysterion by showing humanity that God has quantitatively performed an act of self-revelation, unfolding His essence through the nature of knowing Him as He is, through this self-disclosure. Hebrews carries within itself the truth of Jesus own incisive testimonial: “He who has seen me has seen the Father (Jn 14:9).”

When God is made known through his energies by way of the Christological manifestation, the unknowable becomes known. This disclosure allows God to be acknowledged through a limited constraining element of knowledge. However, even in this cognitive phenominalism, logic dictates restrictiveness in God’s epistemological understanding from the human vantage point. God is known through the superiority of the One who exists perpetually in Sonship: but He is never known in totality. The kenotic limitations preclude complete action through energies. The union of God and man restricts the knowable nature of God into the essential criterion of causality and disclosure: God is known through that which He reveals Himself ontologically and empirically through.

H.D. McDonald, in Jesus: Human and Divine elucidates this significant understanding of the divine necessitation of human disclosure by way of natural substance. McDonald states: “The figure of Jesus as it is presented to us in the Gospel story and interpreted to us in the rest of the New Testament is that of One who was no unearthly angelic visitant, no demigod in human shape. It was a real man who lived a perfect life amid the human realities of our common way.[16]” Disclosure came through the One who relates to the human experience via the pathway of suffering. But the hardships endured are only a small part of the equation. Hebrews author lent theological language that would develop the untenable theological consideration as Flusser states: “It is unthinkable that an unassuming, local, idealistic (sic) rabbi could later become an object of divine honor.[17]”  Flusser’s difficulties reflect well the dialogue of the discouraged followers of Christ, who were tempted to restrict their understanding of Jesus to that of a simplistic Rabbi who was charismatic and inspiring. If kenotic relegation were the end, net result, faith would be a pointless exercise, worthy of abandonment.

McDonald forces enlightenment and understanding of the transitional nature of Hebrews Christology by highlighting attention and focus upon the titular use of ‘Lord’ (kurios) and ‘Theos’ (God) in Hebrews (1:8, 10).[18] Murray Harris disparages those who attempt to denigrate the importance of these designations in Hebrews. Harris states:

“It is scarcely adequate to claim, as V. Taylor does (Essays 85), that ‘the divine name is carried over with the rest of the quotation’ and the writer ‘has no intention of suggesting that Jesus is God’ so that ‘nothing can be built upon this reference.’ Even if the author was not consciously applying a divine title to Christ, one cannot assume that he failed to recognize the theological import of such an incidental application…that the ‘deity of Christ, which is relevant but not necessary to the argument, is only mentioned in passing’ fails to do justice to the significance of this address in the flow of the argument.[19]

These two pillars of understanding, kurios/Theos, and their importance, should not be neglected in considering the message of Hebrews. As Dr. John Draine, Directory, Center for the Study of Christianity and Contemporary Society, University of Stirling, UK states in an article entitled Son of God in the Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its Developments:

“Hebrews represents an important transition from early images of Sonship to later metaphysical beliefs. Jesus as Son of God is a key theme and a basic confession of faith (Heb 4:14).  Sonship can almost be synonymous with the perfection and totality of salvation (Heb 4:14, 5:9, 6:6, 7:3, 28:8-9), rooted in the assumption that Jesus achieved this status through suffering and resurrection (Heb 5; 8, 6:6, 10:29) and with the language of divine begetting (Ps. 2) providing the frame of reference.[20]

Sonship supercedes the significance of energies as applied by God in the creative nature of existence. Hebrews author possibly includes philosophical language that frames the Platonic understanding of divine logos that perhaps influenced Augustine and other apologists who endeavored to incorporate philosophical ideas into the language and expression of the Book of Hebrews. Ontologically, Jesus form validates His superiority over the creation that He framed (v. 3), utilizing the Christian experience of language and knowledge.

Dr. Seyoon Kim, Professor of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena CA, in an article entitled Kingdom of God taken from the Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its Developments, refers to the Lordship phenomena of Hebrews as well. Kim states: “A similar phenomena takes place with reference to Jesus Christ…it belongs to the central theme of Hebrews…(and) functions prominently to substantiate the Lordship of Kingship that the exalted Jesus Christ has come to exercise on God’s behalf.[21]” Jesus, as Son and Lord, exerts dominion over the created order of nature and of revelatory functionality. This positions Christ as the one who is worthy to receive all worship and honor.

Another point of interest is found in an article by David deSilva, Assistant Professor of New Testament, Ashland Theological Seminary, Portland OR, on Exaltation and Enthronement taken from the Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its Developments. Dr. deSilva postulates that:

“Hebrews opens with a vivid presentation of Jesus’ exaltation and enthronement.  Following Jesus suffering of death on behalf of all (Heb 2:9) and making purification for sins (Heb 1:3), God seats Jesus at God’s right hand (Heb 1:3, 13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2).[22]

Hebrews begins where kenosis ends, with a vivid and powerful explanation of the current status and reasoning for the Christ event. Not only is Jesus infinitely superior to all that has been created, He exists as a High Priest of the supernatural order of God, following in the typology of the Melchezidekian order. This representation precedes perfectly the creedal expressions of Nicea I and Constantinople I in the poignant expressions of “truly God, truly man.[23]

Hebrew’s use of language is a distinct expression, rooted in Jewish theology as presented in the Old Testament with a notable exception. Dr. Kevin Giles, Vicar of St. Michael’s Church, Victoria, Australia, comments in an article taken from Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its Developments, on Church states: “On reading Hebrews one is immediately struck by the distinctive language, Christology and use of the O.T…. Hebrews appeals primarily to the O.T. to make its case; it envisages a radical breach with Israel.[24]

This differential in focus, utilizing language of a cultic nature in its inclusiveness, yet directing separation, follows the dialectic method of understanding of the Christological considerations and their impact on the fledgling Church. It fits well within the restrictions of Hegel’s Dialectic Method of: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The Christ event, as presented in New Testament theology, utilizes the methodology of taking two opposing poles of belief, or reality, that appear to exist in conflict and reconciling the extremes. The emerging new truth causes a shifting of previously existing paradigms. The systematic negation of the polar extremes creates a meeting place somewhere in between. In philosophical pursuits, it is the anticipated end of rational and logical non-biased observations of whatever data is presented for consideration and creating a correlation between them.

 

THESIS                                                                 ANTITHESIS

   

SYNTHESIS

The above model is a representation of Hegel’s dialectic as applied to the Christ event. The Greek philosopher Plato in both conception and understanding originally postulated Hegel’s ruminations of the dialectic theorems and methodology. Descartes later advanced these theories in the secular realm in his adaptations of the thought process projections as applied to the theories of human epistemological considerations. It appears that further research in the Hebrews author’s influence of Greek philosophical schools of thought on the Christological questions presented in the homily is strategically warranted in a guarded way. Dr. L.W. Hurtado, Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology, University of Edinburgh, comments in an article on Christology taken from the Dictionary of the New Testament and its Developments, states: “All earliest Christian literature is also Hellenistic, reflecting the impact of Hellenistic culture in the language (Koine Greek), rhetorical and literary conventions, and some of the conceptual categories and themes they exhibit… Jewish tradition, which served as the earliest matrix of earliest Christianity, had been in direct interaction with Hellenistic culture for more than 300 years…in the Diaspora and in Palestine…it further complicates matters, however, that the labels Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic have been used by scholars in varying ways.[25]” To synthesize these variables of an elemental nature in thought, could create an interesting field of study and warrants further advanced study and research in determining, what, if any, influence Greek philosophical thought may have had on the author of Hebrews prior to the transcription of the Letter. Was there a philosophical causation that led to a portion of the various areas of consideration in a material sense, an efficiency sense, formal considerations, or, in the finality of presentation?

Hebrews as a cohesive entity is a compelling challenge to the astute observer. The advanced language construct, the theological ideas, its underlying philosophical considerations, all congeal to render a powerful, substantive quandary that forces the reader to consider the immediate force of the Christological implications deduced through the document. The greatest expression of the Book seems to be found in that form which exceeds the philosophical maneuverings of the author and the imagined audience. This most powerful and personal confrontation to persist in The Faith, under-girds the deepest of theological considerations as presented in the treatise by the author of the Book of Hebrews. To understand Hebrews is to be found among those who walk within the parameters of both practical obedience and persevering faith. May the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ be constrained by the efficient boundaries of this simple yet profound message.

[1] Butler, Trent, Gen. ed., Holman Bible Dictionary, (Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville TN, 1991), pp.624-27

[2] Flusser, D., Article: Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness, Charlesworth, James & Loren Johns, Gen. ed. Hillel and Jesus, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis MN, 1997), p.120

[3] Basser, Herbert, Dictionary of New Testament Background, Evans, Craig & Stanley Porter, Gen. Eds. (IVP, Downers Grove Ill, 2000), Article: Jewish Priests and Priesthood, pp.824-7

This information has been extracted from this excellent article.

[4] Lindars, Barnabas, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, Cambridge Press, UK, 1991, pp.77-8

[5] Irenaeus, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Roberts, Alexander & James Donaldson, Against Heresies Gen. Eds. Hendrickson Publications, Peabody MA, pp.445-6

[6] Bettenson, Henry & Chris Maunder ed. Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford Press, Oxford UK, 1999, p.32

[7] ___ Op. cit. p.27

[8] ___ Holman’s Bible Dictionary, op. cit., (Holman’s, TN, 1991), p.625, This is a reworded presentation of the pertinent divisions as applied to the papers construction that equally fits the construct presented by Dr. Sauer in the course Hebrews, NBST 652, Liberty University EDP, Lynchburg VA

[9] Evans, Craig & Stanley Porter, Gen. Eds. Dictionary of the New Testament Background and its Developments, Evans, Craig, Article: Messianism, (IVP, Downers Grove, ILL, 2000), p.704

[10] Holy Bible, NIV, (Hendrickson Bible Publishing, Nashville TN, 1991), All quotes are taken from the NIV Bible, unless otherwise cited

[11] Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1996), p.45, Rodney Decker, in a 9 page Internet article on Kenosis at: www.faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/rd, quotes Dr. Carson-This is a third party quote from Dr. Decker’s article on the Kenosis passage

[12] ___ Flusser, D., Hillel and Jesus, op. cit. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis MN, 1997), p.104

[13] ___ Flusser, D., Hillel and Jesus, op. cit. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1997), p.104

[14] ___ Flusser, D., Hillel and Jesus, op. cit. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis MN, 1997), p.106

[15] Unpublished paper presented to Dr. Jack Deans by the author of this paper, for course work THEO 510, (Liberty University, Lynchburg VA), Summer 2001, Title: Peccability vs. Impeccability: Is the Answer Found in the Kenosis Passage?

[16] McDonald, H.D., Jesus: Human and Divine, op. cit. (Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1968), p.41

[17] ___ Flusser, D., Hillel and Jesus, op. cit. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis MN, 1997), p.120

 [18]McDonald, H.D., Jesus: Human and Divine, op. cit. (Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1968), pp.64-5

[19] Harris, Murray, Jesus as God, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids Mi, 1992), pp.222-3

[20] Draine, John, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, Evans, Craig & Stanley Porter, Gen Eds. op. cit. Article: Son of God, (IVP, Downers Grove Ill, 1997), p.1112

[21] Kim, Seyoon, Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its Developments, Martin, Ralph & Peter Davids, Gen. Eds. (IVP, Downers Grove Ill, 1997), Article: Kingdom of God, p.632

[22] deSilva, David, Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its Developments, Martin, Ralph & Peter Davids, Gen. Eds. (IVP, Downers Grove Ill, 1997), Article: Exaltation and Enthronement, p.360

[23] Shaw, Joseph & R.W. Franklin, Harris Kaasa and Charles Buzicky, Gen. Eds., Readings in Christian Humanism, (Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis MN, 1982), p. 99

[24] Giles, Kevin, Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its Developments, Martin, Ralph & Peter Davids, Gen Eds. op. cit. (IVP, Downers Grove Ill, 1997), Article: Church, pp.197-8

[25] Hurtado, L.W., Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and its Developments, Martin, Ralph & Peter Davids, Gen Eds. op. cit. (IVP, Downers Grove Ill, 1997), Article: Church, p.170

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.