The Relationship of Jewish and Gentile Believers to the Law Between A.D. 30 and 70 in the Scripture

13 curiously uses a form of the verb y(voµm 14 rather than ELµL, emphasizing a transition rather than a state of being. Upon first reflection this word seems out of place to the thoughtful reader. Was there ever a point in which the Son became (yEvoµEvoc; , 1:4) better in his person than the angels? Of course, he inherited the name "Son" at a point in time, 15 but to have actu– ally "become" better in his person flies in the face of orthodox Christology. At least two solutions are traditionally offered to this conundrum. First, Lane moves the discussion from ontology to recognition by translating y(voµm as exalt. 16 That is, he understands the verse to describe the change in the honor which Jesus has received rather than a change in the person of Jesus. This avoids the obvious tension of some kind of development with reference to the deity of Jesus. However, though the idea of Jesus' exaltation is present in the context, this stretches the meaning of y(voµat. The authors of the rest of the New Testament and the author of Hebrews, have words for "exalt" ("exalted above the heavens," uljJri>.oTEpoc; Twv oupavwv , 7:26 ; and 5:5 "So Chri t did not exalt himself to be made a high priest" EauTov f86~aaEv ). In the immediate context of this extended period which describes Jesus ( 1:2-4), the aorist participle (yEvoµEvoc;, 1:4) i contrasted with a present participle (wv, 1:3) highlighting the contra t between what Je u ha alway been and what he has become . Thu , the word ha to do with the per on rather than hi treatment. Meier agrees : To tran late genomeno a ' howing him elf' or proving him lf to b ', a m modern ver ion do , doe n t do ju tice to the thought h r nd a id th ntra t ith 14 "h ing be ome a mu h b tt r than th n 1 " (1:4). 1 Wheth r J urr d t th in rn ti n r b pti m ( t the : 17) r th int f r th1 di u i n h mh n t n e th n m ' mp n- on ith it . 16 a , H br l , 7