Click For Photo: https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/40/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-01-at-10.15.49-AM.png
In her sparkling essay, Amy Peeler (“What does ‘Father’ Mean? Trinity without Tiers in the Epistle to the Hebrews”) explains Hebrews’ theo-logy and contends the positions of Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem and Owen Strachan are lacking. There is clearly some shifting and some side-stepping and some back-tracking and some re-expressing going on this circle of former eternal subordinationists, but their changes are not as clear as they ought to be — nor do their audiences realize just how far off at times they got. The issue often has been their lack of attention to inseparable operations.
In their new book, Michael Bird and Scott Harrower (Trinity without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology) collect essays, one of which is by Peeler. Here are some highlights:
Hence - Hebrews - Term - Theos - Kyrios
Hence, when one is analyzing Hebrews and comes to the term theos or kyrios, it is exegetically responsible, even necessary, to inquire which referent—God the Father, God the Son, or the triune God—the author might be invoking.
A solid section follows that has this conclusion: The Father and the Son share (or have) the same glory, power, and will in Hebrews.
Power - Glory - Father - Son - Opening
The shared power and glory between the Father and the Son in the opening sentences also point toward the will they both share. Participation of both the Father and the Son in the actions described above suggest that they both willed to create, to sustain the creation, to cleanse sin, and to reign over all things. There is one will of God which both Father and Son enact, although they enact this one will in different ways.
Thus far, in an attempt to read Hebrews faithfully, I believe I have articulated theological positions with which few would disagree. God the Father...
Wake Up To Breaking News!