Christians Caught In Their Own Tricky Theology

[R. S. Martin]

I'm not sure what happened but this person posted a thread about Some tricky theology questions, and ten hours later no Christians had yet responded so I took a stab at it. I let it be known that I'm not speaking as a believer but that this is what I think the author meant by the text. I was totally respectful. One tricky passage was from Hebrews.

 

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Two Christians have come on since then. One said he might be able to post later if he can think of something not already referenced in the responses, and mentioned other issues with the book of Hebrews--identity of Melchizedek and two brothers that fell away beyond the point of reconciliation, none of which was originally posted. The other Christian, lapwing, was the poster of the OP. Lapwing would not even acknowledge my answers. I'm thinking: If the best the Christians can do is ignore their existence my answers must be good!

 

I should mention that because of very strict forum rules they are not allowed to ridicule me or make fun of my answers. But I did expect them to find some fault. It's still early days and fault-finding might still be forthcoming but I feel encouraged to the point where I'm going to post it here.

 

I'll summarize the questions so as not to plagiarize.

 

Lapwing:

 

Bible Passage: It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. But there is a place where someone has testified: “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a littlea lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.” In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. Heb 2:5-9 NIV

 

Question: What does it mean? [Read his questions for yourself. I find them very confusing but basically he seems not to know what to make of the passage.]

 

My Response: I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Salvation (world to come), as taught by Christianity, is not for angels but for humans. Maybe it's because humans are lower than the angels that they require salvation in the first place. Angels are already in heaven. The King James Version is clearer to me. It says "put everything in subjection" to man. NIV says "put under him." Animals, rocks, the ground of the field, the trees--all of it was subject to the will of humans and what they decided to do. No bulldozers, earthmovers and dynamite in David's time, or spacecraft and trips to the moon, but dominion all the same.

Animals, trees. and plants lived and died by the will of man. The ground bore whatever man planted in it. Man could dig it, cultivate it, use it for building material or roads. Rocks and trees could be used for weapons, building material, roads. Of creatures on earth, man was "crowned with glory and honour" and "set over the work" of "God's hands." All the other things were "in subjection under his feet."

If everything was in subjection, nothing was left out. That's what the writer to the Hebrews is talking about. He emphasizes that "everything" was put in subjection--not just some things but everything. Yet he notes that something was not in subjection. Death was not in subjection to man. Jesus, the writer taught, took on human form to overcome death so that death, too, would be subject to man. Now that Jesus did that, there is truly nothing that is not subject to man because now man can survive death, i.e. have everlasting life in heaven (world to come). You might have to read the rest of the chapter to really get that point.

In the rest of the chapter, the writer explains how Jesus was not ashamed to be equal to humans (v. 11). Yet though he was in human form he had the power to "destroy him that had the power of death," and he was able to use death to do it (v. 14). The writer emphasizes that Jesus did not do this as an angel but as a mere man (v. 16). Because he did it as a man he is like a high priest, the writer says (v. 17), and able to sympathize with humans (v. 18). The writer uses passages from the OT to back up his arguments.

That is what I get out of Hebrews 2:5-18.

 

***************************************************

 

Lapwing: With reference to Moses and Jesus in Hebrews 3: Is Jesus part of the church?

 

My Response: I can't speak for what the churches believe on these forums but I can quote scripture. My former church believed that Jesus is the head of the church as per Eph. 5:23-32. It also believed the relationship between the church and Christ was the same as between husband and wife. I don't know if the relationship between husband and wife can be said the be the same as the relationship between the head and the rest of the body...I often heard that the relationship was very intimate because Jesus died for the church. I heard the church referred to as the Bride of Christ. In my modern opinion, the head is part of the body and the wife is part of the married couple.

I'm surprised that no Christians have responded to your questions.

 

 

***************************************************

 

Lapwing:

 

Bible Passage: The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them". Mt 13:10,11 NIV

 

Question: How do we reconcile secrets with the Great Commission? By now the whole world knows.

 

My Response: I'm looking at this again. Isn't this pretty much what the Christians on these forums are always telling non-believers about the faith--that one has to believe in order to understand? According to strict traditional Calvinist belief, I am told, only the predestined can understand the "secret" of salvation. Obviously, that throws into jeopardy the belief held by many other Christians that belief is a choice...

Seriously, though, I always thought the parables were a ploy of secrecy more for the time of Jesus than for our day. It was politically better for him not to be too open about some of the things he had to say. That's one way to interpret things. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the parables and sayings are repeated from other traditions of that part of the world, some of them hundreds--even thousands--of years old by the time of Jesus. Possibly this isn't what you had in mind but it's the best I can do at the moment.