The news came by state radio, state newspaper, and state television. Great Leader Kim Il-Sung had make a startling announcement.
Hereforth, my beloved son Kim Jong-Il is also your Leader.
What did it mean?
“They are really one Leader” said Jun-suh. Look at their portraits. Are they not one man, photographed slightly differently?
“No,” argued Seo-yun; Kim Jong-Il is the son of Great Leader.
“Well, that would make him also a Great Leader, wouldn’t it?” And we all know that there is just Great Leader. We have been taught this all our lives.
Seo-yun countered, raising an eyebrow, “One can’t be one’s own son…” She paused to let the point sink in.
But Jun-suh was unmoved. He pressed his case. “The Great Leader is one. This goes without saying. Our love and loyalty are for him, and him alone. It is him alone we praise at our festivals.”
“Wait… I was at that recent rally… the Great Leader and his son our Leader were both there!”
Jun-suh stared blankly. “Well of course they were both there. They are both Great Leader.”
“But you don’t understand, Jun-suh. I could just see that they are two Leaders, not one.”
“Great Leader is beyond our comprehension. Let us not forget that he walked at three weeks old and talked at eight weeks. And during his three years at Kim Il-sung University he wrote 1,500 books and six great operas. And we both know Great Leader has no need of bathrooms. So this is no ordinary man. Don’t limit him.”
“I’m not limiting him – you are, when you insist that he can’t make his own son share in his rule and in his honor.”
“No, you’re limiting him.”
“Whatever. But, mustn’t we do as he tells us?”
“Always.”
“But he has just told us to honor his son alongside him.”
“No, he’s told us to honor his son as him.”
“That not what he said – you heard it!”
“That must be what he said! Do you not recall what he told us long ago?”
I am your Great Leader, your only Leader. You must follow only me, honor only me.
“But now he says to honor his son too.”
But Jun-suh would not be persuaded. There can only be one Great Leader, and surely he would never share his glory or power with another.
Dale
Yes but trinitarians see the Son NOT as the agent but as the actual Creator, alongside God the Father; Heb 1.10 serving as their best proof text. Do they not?
Pingback: A Tale of Three Kims – Part 2 (Dale) » trinities
Xavier – we actually AGREE!!
So the worship of Revelation 5:14 is genuine worship – the ascribing of worth to the “living one” who BECAME dead (as God never did), and is now living for ever and ever.
I have been wondering about the word “ritual”. The Messiah’s request (actually, command) that we “eat” and “drink” as a means of remembering his broken body and poured out blood sounds like the only thing I do that could be classed as “ritual”.
Marg
Of course Marg. He is worshipped EXACTLY because he was DEAD and now lives immortal. Unlike God. 😉
I believe the concept of AGENCY is involved in every part of Hebrews 1. That is the concept that makes perfect sense out of verses 10-12, just as it is written.
By the way, the more you read Revelation 5, the more wonderful it seems – especially if you read it along with chapters 1 and 4.
I am beginning to think that the elders (in 5:14) are actually worshipping the Lamb as the “living one” who, though he became dead, is “living for ever and ever”. (Compare with 1:17-18).
I wouldn’t stake my life on it, of course; but it seems to fit the context very well.
Dale
Just in reference to this question how do you understand Heb 1.10 where the Son SEEMS to be the Creator/founder of heaven and earth? If this is the case, would it be contradictory to to rephrase the question you posted above as: is it contradictory to have a Creator under another Creator?
On the face of it, no. This is why many ancient unitarians believed that the pre-human, pre-existent son was the agent through whom God made the cosmos. This of course does not settle how we should interpret those two verses you have in mind firm Hebrews one.
Mark – yes – I think it is contradictory to suppose that one is elevated to being the ultimate source of all else. But is it contradictory, in your view, that a human being should be elevated to a place of honor beside God, ruling under him?
So, I’ve been lurking here a while. I’m not sure I find these rather polemical posts as interesting as I did a lot of the earlier material. I think for me this one clearly breaks down on the last point “There can only be one Great Leader, and surely he would never share his glory or power with another.” – the implication is that in the situation described this is obviously rather narrow minded and there are no reasons for it to hold other than the belief of the devout. There is a clear difference in the Trinitarian worldview, however, as there is a clear ontological basis for such a division – the creator exists on a different level of reality to anything created whereas in this situation the role taken by on by the different people is clearly somewhat contingent and could (in theory) be occupied by anyone. In other words, it’s entirely possible for someone to be elevated to a leadership position, but it’s not possible for them to be elevated to the position of creator and source of all being.
Comments are closed.