Posted on 05/07/2002 4:57:29 PM PDT by restornu
Does Hebrews 1:1-8 Teach that Christ is Almighty God?
Among the many "proof texts" that Trinitarians use to buttress their belief in Jesus' Deity, Hebrews 1:8 is considered to be one of the most striking and explicit examples. In Greek, the verse reads as follows: pros de ton huion ho thronos sou ho Theos eis ton aiona tou aionos kai he rhabdos tes euthutetos rhabdos tes basileias autou (Westcott-Hort). TEV translates the passage in a way that would seem to uphold the notion that Christ is God on some level. It says: "About the Son, however, God said: "Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever! You will rule over your people with justice," whereas Byington's Bible in Living English renders Heb. 1:8 thusly: "but as to the Son 'God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of integrity is the scepter of his reign.'
From a comparison of the two Bible versions cited above, translational and theological questions immediately come to the fore. Heb. 1:8 makes us wonder how we are to understand what the book of Hebrews says about the ontological status of our Lord and Savior. Does the book of Hebrews teach that Jesus is Almighty God?
Alternatively, does it ontologically subordinate him to the Father?
This essay will try to establish a more moderate claim than the Christological teaching of Hebrews as a whole. In this chapter, I will focus on what Heb. 1:8 and its cotext has to say about the Deity (deity) of Jesus Christ. In order to show the first century writer's seeming intent and meaning, I will approach Heb. 1:8 from three primary perspectives: (1) From an Old Testament perspective, looking to see what we can learn from Heb. 45:6ff. (2) From a cotextual perspective. That is, I will examine the word proskuneo in Heb. 1:6 and try to discern how its meaning bears on one's understanding of Theos and thronos in Heb. 1:8. (3) Lastly, I will consider the syntax of Heb. 1:8 and attempt to determine how one either should or might construe the word order in the said passage. This paper will argue that Heb. 1:8 should be interpreted as a royal account that religiously delineates the kingly status of the risen and exalted Christ without attributing to him, full Deity. We will therefore begin by outlining the structure of Heb. 1:1-8 and discussing verse by verse how each unit of the text contributes to understanding Heb. 1:8.
The Structure and Cotext of Heb. 1:1-8
Hebrews 1:1-4 constitutes the exordium of the treatise written to the first century Christians living in Jerusalem and Judea. It is a monumental accomplishment, not only religiously and theologically, but rhetorically as well. Professor Harold W. Attridge interestingly points out that "the rhetorical artistry of this exordium surpasses that of any other portion of the New Testament" (Attridge 36). George H. Guthrie adds that "with its majestic style and high concentration of programmatic topics, which the author will elaborate throughout the book, Heb. 1:1-4 may be identified as the 'introduction' of the discourse" (Guthrie 119). Indeed, Heb. 1:1-4 will serve as the ab initio of this discussion.
Heb. 1:1, 2 initiates the Christological discussion found in the book of Hebrews in a peerless rhetorical fashion. The writer liberally employs the literary device of alliteration as he writes: polumeros kai polutropos palai ho Theos lalesas tois patrasin en tois prophetais ep' eschatou ton hemeron touton elalesen hemin en huios (UBS4).
Admittedly, this biblical passage is packed with dynamic and skillful alliteration that instantly grabs the reader's attention. It is imperative, however, not to overlook the vital Christological message contained in the passage because of its literary features. The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that in the pre-messianic age, God (ho theos) communicated to humankind via numerous and diverse means and ways through such prophets as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Obadiah as well as Daniel. A.T. Robertson also explains "The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, and ways, as a progressive revelation of God to men. God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.). The two 'manys' are a literary device meaning 'variously' " (Robertson 557).
While we surely cannot label what Robertson calls, "the Old Testament revelation," inferior--Heb. 1:1, 2 definitely tells us that the divine revelation recorded in the Old Testament was only a faint adumbration of the things that were to come. For in the last days (eschatou ton hemeron) of the Jewish system of things, God decided to speak through "a Son" (NRSV). Two points concerning Greek articles and anarthrous constructions now deserve our attention.
First, we note that the writer of Hebrews utilizes the articular construction ho Theos in Heb. 1:1. The article, writes A.T. Robertson, "is never meaningless in Greek" (Qt. in Young 55). This observation does not mean that we always understand why a particular writer decided to use or not employ the article. In Philo, for example, we read that only the God of the Old Testament (YHWH) is properly called ho Theos (De. Som. 1.229ff). Philo explicitly writes that the Logos, however, is only called Theos (without the article). Origen supports this understanding in his Commentary on John as he too indicates that there is significance in including or omitting the article.
The use or non-use of the article is a complex issue and we do not want to suggest that it is a problem that one can easily resolve by arbitrarily differentiating between nouns that have the article and nouns that do not: "It is very difficult to set forth exact rules [for the article] that will cover every case" (Young 55). The truthfulness of this contention can be seen when we note that Ignatius of Antioch clearly has no trouble calling Jesus of Nazareth ho theos in his writings (Eph. 18:2) and John 20:28 evidently depicts Thomas addressing Jesus as: ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou. Furthermore, Satan the Devil is seemingly described as ho Theos tou aionos in 2 Cor. 4:4, though certain scholars have suggested (based on the LXX reading of Dan. 5:4) that Jehovah is actually the God alluded to in 2 Cor. 4:4 who blinds the minds of the unbelievers (Scott 85). That is, God allows the minds of the unbelievers to be unreceptive to divine enlightenment (Rom. 11:8; 2 Thess. 2:11, 12). The position taken in this work, however, is that ha Satan is the referent pointed to by the signifiers ho Theos tou aionos in 2 Cor. 4:4.
Regardless of how the article is employed elsewhere in the New Testament, it appears that Murray J. Harris is correct when he writes: "When (ho) theos is used, we are to assume that the NT writers have ho pater in mind unless the context makes this sense of (ho) theos impossible" (Harris 47). Indeed, Harris' observation is both astute and pertinent to our discussion when we return to Heb. 1:1, 2 and note that it is ho theos, whom the writer of Hebrews identifies as speaking through the prophets of old. Fittingly, the author of Hebrews utilizes the article when speaking of God the Father, for Heb. 1:1, 2 definitively shows that ho theos spoke to us through a Son (elalesen hemin en huios). So ho Theos mentioned in Heb. 1:1 must be synonymous with ho pater. This point additionally means that YHWH spoken of in the Old Testament (the One also called Alpha and Omega and the Most High God) must be ho pater (not ho huios tou theou). While this fact does not seem to bother him, Murray Harris does acknowledge that "for the author of Hebrews (as for all NT writers, one may suggest) 'the God of our fathers,' Yahweh, was no other than 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' "(Harris 47). This comment in no way implies that Harris disavows the Deity of Jesus Christ or that of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Harris' observations serve to make the pivotal point that the God (ho theos) of Heb. 1:1 is none other than the God and Father of Jesus Christ. In my view, the writer of Hebrews seems to maintain a crucial ontological distinction between the Most High God and His anointed Messiah. With that point established, we must move on to the second issue involving articular and anarthrous constructions in Heb. 1:1-2.
As mentioned earlier, when describing the Son of God, the writer of Hebrews tells us that God ultimately and definitively spoke through (instrumental en + the dative) "a Son" (NRSV). This expression (en huios) has been construed in at least two primary ways that we will now review.
Richard A. Young thinks that the anarthrous construction in Heb. 1:2 focuses on "the nature rather than the personality of the Son." Young thus concludes, "the character of the Son is contrasted with that of the prophets" (68). He subsequently points to the anarthrous construction in Heb. 5:8 as proof of this contention, where the writer of Hebrews reports that although the man Jesus Christ was a Son, "he learned obedience from the things he suffered." Young again notes that the focus in Heb. 5:8 is on "the character of the Son rather than his specific identity" (68).
Daniel B. Wallace basically echoes the sentiments of Richard Young when he avers that "a Son" is probably the way Heb. 1:2 should be rendered. Yet overall Wallace feels that there is no fully satisfactory way to compactly and succinctly communicate the writer's intent in Heb. 1:2. Nevertheless, Wallace does decide that the anarthrous construction in Heb. 1:2 "is clearly qualitative," but closer to the indefinite category on the continuum than the definite one (Wallace 245). Ultimately, Wallace writes that Heb. 1:2 speaks of the Son in a way that greatly sets him apart from both angels and men. Should one read this much into the anarthrous construction in Heb. 5:8, however?
As we analyze Heb. 1:2, it must be pointed out that the expression concerning Christ could be definite, indefinite, or qualitative or overlap on the continuum. While the expression in Heb. 5:8 could be either definite or indefinite, an indefinite sense alone (while possible) does not seem likely in Heb. 1:2. En huios could well be definite here (as suggested by Ryrie). However, in view of the context and the manner in which the writer utilizes the anarthrous construction vis-à-vis the Son in the rest of the letter, a qualitative or indefinite reading is the most likely one in Heb. 1:2. Although I tend to concur with Wallace and Young in viewing Heb. 1:2 and 5:8 as qualitative, I think that they read too much into the anarthrous construction in Heb. 1:2. The character or quality of sonship may be emphasized in Heb. 1:2, and the writer may emphasize the Son's superiority to the angels and the prophets. These facts, however, do not in and of themselves indicate that the Son God spoke through was ontologically or is ontologically superior to the angels or the prophets. That is, the inarticular usage of the writer of Hebrews does not mean the Son is Deity in the writer's eyes (Heb. 7:28). He became better than the angels when he received a new name from God (Heb. 1:4). Nevertheless, when God spoke through this human Son, he was actually lower than the angels and on par with his human brothers and sisters, being like unto them in all respects (excepting sin). Heb. 1:2 deals with Jesus of Nazareth and his activity in the sphere of humanity. It could well teach, therefore, that Christ was a continuation of the prophets that God through whom God spoke. But he was greater than Moses was since he existed before the prophet and since God created all things through him (cf. Heb. 1:3; 2:6-16; 4:15).
In Heb. 1:3, we come to yet another thorny problem in the exordium of Hebrews. Writing in delightfully pictorial terms, the author of Hebrews notes that the Son of God, through whom God made all things (panton), is the apaugasma tes doxes [tou theou] and the character tes hupostaseos autou [i.e., theos].
BAGD indicates that we cannot always clearly discern the meaning of apaugasma. Its active sense is "radiance" or "effulgence"; the passive sense is "reflection" (BAGD 82). This reference work goes on to point out that Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret and Chrysostom accepted the active meaning, and F.F. Bruce also suggests construing apaugasma in its active sense in Heb. 1:3 as does A.T. Robertson (Bruce 5; Robertson 557). Harold Attridge offers a perspicuous observation on this matter, when he informs us that "the context of Hebrews itself, where apaugasma is paralleled with 'imprint' (character), may support a passive understanding of apaugasma, although that second term [character] is not entirely free from ambiguity" (Attridge 43). In the final analysis, after discussing Philo and the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom, Attridge has to admit that the meaning of apaugasma is not easy to pin down. He seems to think, however, that the passive sense is more preferable in Heb. 1:3. While the precise meaning of apaugasma and even character may be somewhat ambiguous, the overall thrust of the words in the text are clear enough.
In Heb. 1:3, the Son is manifestly identified as the apaugasma (reflection or radiance) of God. The expression is similar to Paul's use of eikon tou theou in Col. 1:15 and, furthermore, the phrase informs us that as the image of God, Christ starkly resembles God and reflects his Father's characteristics. He is not, however, equal to His Father (Buchanan 7). The apostle John wrote that the One who sends is greater than He who is sent (John 13:16). Hebrews 7:7 also communicates the principle that the One who blesses is greater than he who is blessed (Luke 1:42). As the apostle, priest, prophet, coworker and reflection of God the Father, the Son mirrors God. Yet, he is not in the same category of being as his Father.
The same point could be made about the Greek word character. The word indicates that the character is a faithful reproduction of the original (Lev. 13:28). The character bears the form of the original without being identical to the original (2 Macc. 4:10). The Son thus externally resembles God without being God himself. Time and space do not permit us to dwell any longer on Heb. 1:1-4, however. We must move on to the next section of Hebrews chapter 1. For more information on character, consult A-S 479.
Your want to say what 'words' mean, yet call your OWN documents to be absolutely above reproach! Well, they are not!
Hollering and screeching will NOT enhance your argument; only rational looking at the data will.
KJV 1 Corinthians 15:50
50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
****************************************************************************************
Now this is real What you have question from the scriptures we can have a cordial discussion.
KJV Matthew 16:17
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
....To my understanding he receive this by the Spirit of the Lord this is where we are suppose to get witness to those things of the Lord.
KJV 1 Corinthians 15:50
50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Luke 24 ( Not a body of flesh and blood but of flesh and bone, after the resurrection of the Jesus.)
36 ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and frighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of these, does the FATHER have a fleshly body?
The Father has a body of Flesh and Bone.
This verse is directly OPPOSITE of your claim:
'The FATHER has a fleshy body.'
Rest that is a Jehovah witness site ....another apostate branch of the vine ...that will be lopped off and burned
ANSWER....To my understanding he receive this by the Spirit of the Lord this is where we are suppose to get witness to those things of the Lord.
John 14 (Because Simon Barjona kept the Lords commandments he was able to receive the knowledge from the Spirit of the Lord-)
15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
(This is the Holy Ghost another comforter) 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
This has nothing to do with the description of God, it means he didn't learn it from man. Flesh and Blood has to do with temporal body(what we have now).
Flesh and Bone has to do with Spirit body. (What the Heavenly Father and Jesus has, and we will received if we are worthy.
Clarification I mean to say "resurrected body" instead of "Spirit body"?
Flesh and Bone has to do with "resurrected body". (What the Heavenly Father and Jesus has, and we will received if we are worthy.
The Holy Ghost is a Spirit and has not a body.
What makes a city great? A center of culture and refinement in the midst of the wild frontier? The largest city for hundreds of miles? A well-planned, well-laid out, well-governed city of 20,000? In 1838, Nauvoo was the village of Commerce, Illinois, an unhealthy, mosquito-infested swamp where no one wanted to live. The state of Illinois allowed the Latter-Day Saints to seek refuge there. They had just been illegally and unjustly persecuted, murdered, plundered, and driven out of Missouri under an extermination order in defiance of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. They drained the swamp and transformed the area in ten short years into a model city, when illegal and unjust mob violence drove them out again, and they journeyed a thousand miles across the plains to build new cities, and new Temples, at incredible suffering and sacrifice, rather than raise their hand against their enemies.
What makes a city the greatest in the world? The divinely-appointed gathering place for scattered Israel, the covenant people of God? The headquarters of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, led by true prophets and apostles of Jesus Christ, called of God? The one place in the whole world, in the 1840s, where the divinely-appointed House of the LORD, the Holy Temple, stood, in full operation? If this is indeed a prophecy of Joseph Smith's, need we look to the future for fulfilment?
I looked it up. Fulfillment has 3 l's.
Who can argue with this?
If it TRUELY the HG, then WHY did Jesus say 'I' will come to you? (more evidence of trinity?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they are going to get 'another' Comforter, then they must already have at least ONE Comforter. If it TRUELY the HG, then WHY did Jesus say 'I' will come to you? (more evidence of trinity?)
You are right there are two comforters one of the Father and one of the Son when Jesus leaves the earth with a resurrected body.(So in Matt 16:17 it was the Holy Ghost of the Heavenly Father that, Simon Barjona received witness.After Jesus was resurrested we recieved another comforter HG.
Acts 1
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
(two angels) 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is btaken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey.
John 14
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
(Here Jesus is talking about his Father will [OUR] (the spirits the wills, can be one accord. There still are two personages The Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ are two personages the Holy Ghost is a Spirit, there always was 3 personages)
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.(the message he is giving us is from his Father in Heaven)
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I ago unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (Jesus Father is greater than Jesus there are two personages).
29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
(Jesus is of the Father in Heaven and the prince of the world is not of the Godhead Father, Son and Holy Ghost).
31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me acommandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
There are two Comforters spoken of. One is the Holy Ghost, the same as given on the day of Pentecost, and that all Saints receive after faith, repentance, and baptism. This first Comforter or Holy Ghost ... [is] ... powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge ...The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses.
Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses:
"16. And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
"17. Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
"18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. * * *
"21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me should be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
"23. If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions—Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the First Born.
(Joseph Smith, in the History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Vol 3, pp 380-381)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.