Christmas Studies 1

[bwme...@toast.net]

Luke 2:9-14 includes "Glory to God in the highest. . ." =20

Now it would be well for a Christian, particularly at this season, to
have some understanding of what that means. And that is greatly
lacking. As is so of most of the rest of the passage.=20

(eg "and on earth peace," when the Lord Jesus emphatically declared
He did NOT come to bring peace on the earth, but the exact opposite! A
high percentage of Christmas cards present this fallacy; and the
atheists, blasphemers, and skeptics have a heyday pointing ridicule
at it, ie, "yeah, some peace!")

In "Glory to God in the highest . . .," is this a "doxology," or a
command? Specifically, Who is "God," here? And specifically, who is
"in the highest? And where does the following reference to the earth
fit in?

If Hebrews 1:6 refers to this event, then all these questions are
there answered quite clearly; and the answers are not the ideas almost
everyone holds:

(1) It is a command, an imperative, NOT a doxology, directed to all
of the angels, God's angels, demons, and satan included.

(2) "God" is not here the Father, but specifically and pointedly the
baby Lord Jesus in the manger, not "in the highest." He had "come
down."

(3) Pointedly, "in the highest" alludes to the angels who are there,
rather than either the Father or the Son.

(4) The command is not addressed only to the angels who are in the
highest, but everywhere: particularly those in the earth as well.

The verse might be rendered, or paraphrased, according to Hebrews 1:6,
as:

"Give glory to God, all of you throughout the highest heavens and on
the earth . . .",

"God" specifically meaning the baby Lord Jesus in the manger in
Bethlehem.

That is, IF Hebrews 1:6 alludes to this event, as it certainly used to
seem, before the commentators and preachers did their work on it:

I have long had a problem with many versions and commentaries on
Hebrews 1:6 ---. As usual, they seem to do everything possible to
destroy or whitewash every allusion to the Lord's deity. ("An enemy
hath done this," as the Lord said. There are, of course, not only
tares in the church, but also tares in man's versions of the Bible).

One of the best on it IMO, is Jamieson Faussett and Brown, which I
just noticed recently. Here are this morning's notes I just added to
my own commentary on the verse:

**************************************
In the Greek, "again" is transposed; but this does not oblige us, as
ALFORD thinks, to translate, "when He again shall have introduced,"
etc. namely, at Christ=92s second coming; for there is no previous
mention of a first bringing in; and "again" is often used in
quotations, not to be joined with the verb, but parenthetically ("that
I may again quote Scripture"). English Version is correct (compare #Mt
5:33; Greek, #Joh 12:39).=20
=97-JFB=20

RWP (AT Robertson's Word Pictures) agrees, by implication, stating
that at which place the "again" belongs (meaning "again" another
quotation, or "again" another bringing in) is indeterminate from the
grammar.

JFB's comment, "for there is no previous mention of a first bringing
in," seems to strongly indicate, in fact, that Alford=92s and the
others=92 who take it that way is not only unnecessary, but outright
wrong; being again, as so often, nonsensical (a dangling reference).=20

And as usual, their arguments are suspect on other grounds, as well:=20

(1) Almost none of them even mention or allude to the interpretation
that first comes to mind, the very evident allusion of the verse to
Luke 2:9-14. That indicates "agenda" to me. This agenda, of nullifying
and smokescreening every Scripture which points to the Deity of
Christ (which is the case here: It points to "Glory to God, in the
highest," as "God" being specifically the Lord Jesus, and the angels
as being the ones "in the highest," along with the Father), is
distressingly evident everywhere in the versions and the commentaries.
(2) Also indicative of agenda are their strained arguments for Deut
and Psa passages, and appealing to LXX instead of Heb, where their
arguments are not supported in the Heb. Sometimes that is a valid and
necessary argument (eg Paul=92s quotation of Isa. 59:20-21 from Rom.
11:26); but here it seems not so, but strained. Still, it is possible
and usual in NT quotations; and that is why IMO BOTH interpretations
are valid {091208}.=20
***********************************************

Bob

"The Son of Man is come into the world to seek and save that which was
lost."

"That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am
chief."

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))