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.
*I believe that God Almighty had a Son Jesus and that made him Father to Jesus, as well as hes our Father.
*The Father asked us to do His Will on Earth as it is in Heaven.
*I Don't think the Heavenly Father wants us to be confused here, by a different definition on Father/Son on earth and another one in Heaven.
*I also believe in the Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
LOL O.K. And, after you are done trying to overthrow 2000 years of Christian Teaching, undertake a scientifc explanation that water really has only 1.3784 atoms of oxygen.
You'll be happy to know that verse 4 was seized upon by the Arians; ancient heretics. If we are going to have heresies, can't we at least have new ones?
I suggest this poor fellow get over himself and return to the Catholic Church and its exegesis which has sole authority to explicate the meaning of the New Testament - which, after all, only seems fair as she wrote it etc.
This method of exegesis sets out to disprove rudimentary Christian understanding. I guess some find that "fascinating."
To me, it would be like some scholar setting out to "prove" that adultery had nothing to do with "The Scarlet Letter," while ignoring the still living Nathaniel Hawthorne. The author of this unfortunate piece tries something similar - he tries to "teach" us about Hebrews while the TEACHING Church is still alive.
John 14
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(Jesus and the Father are both divine, as well as the Holy Ghost)
Jesus is not His Father, and you are not are not your mother.
I truly don't believe that Heavenly Father has one definition in Heaven for the WORD, and another definition here on Earth for the WORD!
Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven!
Why sup from the brackish swamp of error and confusion when one can drink the limpid waters of truth?
"What is YOUR definition of 'the Word'?"
NIV John 6:46
46. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.NIV John 14:6-11
6. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
7. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
8. Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9. Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'?
10. Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
11. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
All I am saying the definition/relationship of Father and Son means the same in Heaven as it mean to us here on earth.
As far as I am concern Jesus is God Almighty to us here, but he still is not the Father in Heaven.
I truly don't believe that God has one definition in Heaven for the WORD, and another definition here on Earth for the WORD!
Let's throw out EVERYTHING the 'bible' says because John 6:46 and John 14:9 contradict one another!
No where did I say this to you!
As long as we are stirring the pot, let's do it BIG TIME......
What are you talking about this is a discussion of an understanding of words!
Luke 3
21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
1.Jesus being baptised present.
2.So here we have the Holy Ghost in a form of a dove present.
3.And the Heavenly Father speaking from heaven present.
Three seperate personages, all one in mind, but 3 individuals.
Philip 1
27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with bone mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
It is an unfortunate pattern taught me by the Christian Chronicles thread over the past months. It has defined my activities here to expose modern "Christianity" for what it really is a spin machine for the truth. Regardless of motivation or sincerity, Christianity is presenting such a contradictory and erroneous message to the lost that one must wonder if this is God's work at all. Any honest observation will prove that the fruits of this tree are division, strife, greed and ignorance. Here is the proof, they don't even know the God that they worship! Not to worry, Paul has a message for you all.
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Ephesians 3 1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
What contradiction? Do you really think John was confused, contradictory? I find it difficult to imagine others think the Word of God is contradictory....
NIV John 14
9. Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'?
"...gave instructions to try those who were preaching teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives or this law - Joseph forbids it. and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife"
(Joseph Smith Diary, Oct. 5, 1843, Church Historical Department)
Sermon Delivered at Nauvoo, Illinois July 19, 1840 http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Parallel/1840/19Jul40.html
Now let all who can coolly and deliberately dispose of their property come up and give of their substance to the [poor?] that the hearts of the poor may be comforted and all may worship god together in holiness of heart Come brethren come all of you.And I prophecy in the name of the Lord that the state of Illinois shall become a great and mighty mountain as a city set upon a hill that cannot be hid and a great that giveth light to the world The city of Nauvoo als[o] shall become the greatest city in the whole world. (We are still waiting................)
Right in front of your eyes, John reports that Jesus says than NO one has seen God.
And just 3 chapters later, he reports Jesus saying that they HAVE seen God!
I guess Phillip 1- means little to you!
Philip 1
27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with bone mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
There is plenty of dirt you can drag up on the LDS and each of those who have spread this stuff have been shown to be liars and decievers that distort the word and twist and folks who like gossip eat it up along with the backbitters, it part of their nature which is not of the Lord
Now what you have done has nothing to do with what was posted in the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Elsie
I guess my question to you is.......... "What is YOUR definition of 'the Word'?" All I am saying the definition/relationship of Father and Son means the same in Heaven as it mean to us here on earth.
As far as I am concern Jesus is God Almighty to us here, but he still is not the Father in Heaven.
I truly don't believe that God has one definition in Heaven for the WORD, and another definition here on Earth for the WORD!
Let's throw out EVERYTHING the 'bible' says because John 6:46 and John 14:9 contradict one another!
No where did I say this to you!
As long as we are stirring the pot, let's do it BIG TIME......
What are you talking about this is a discussion of an understanding of words!
Luke 3
21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
1.Jesus being baptised present.
2.So here we have the Holy Ghost in a form of a dove present.
3.And the Heavenly Father speaking from heaven present.
Three seperate personages, all one in mind, but 3 individuals.
9 posted on 5/9/02 12:33 PM Eastern by restornu
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Abuse
***********************************************************************************************
Nauvoo Reborn
Posted by Utah Girl May 4 10:38 PM with 9 comments
The Salt Lake Tribune | 5/4/2002 | PEGGY FLETCHER STACK lluminated against the darkened evening sky in Nauvoo, Ill., the rebuilt Nauvoo Temple is a picture of resurrected LDS Church history.
Temple Proves If You Build It . . .
Posted by Utah Girl May 3 8:45 AM with 4 comments
The Salt LakeTribune | 5/2/2002 | Peggy Stack Fletcher For Sale signs dot the landscape of this town on the Mississippi River -- offering not only Mormon pioneer homes but 1950s ramblers, pizza parlors and an abandoned building to the highest bidder. That buyer is usually a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Nauvoo Temple: New centerpiece rises in the 'city beautiful'
Posted by Utah Girl May 3 8:09 AM with 7 comments
The Deseret News | 5/2/2002 | Carrie A. Moore The "city beautiful" is coming of age and quickly.
Nauvoo Temple ? a vision of the past
Posted by Utah Girl May 2 5:30 AM with 15 comments
The Deseret News | 5/1/2002 | Carrie A. Moore
Local residents and the media get tour before open house After six years of construction, much of it guarded at gunpoint by pioneer craftsmen, the LDS Church's original Nauvoo Temple was dedicated 156 years ago today as most of its constituency had already been forced to migrate West. Members of the
(Nauvoo) Temple impact reaches far
Posted by Utah Girl May 1 5:38 AM with 8 comments
The Deseret News | 4/30/2002 | Carma Wadley
In all of American history, there has never been a building quite like the Nauvoo Temple. As an architectural achievement, as a cultural icon, as a religious centerpiece, it has a significance that stretches far beyond the LDS faith.
Lets Rebuild The Temple!...Israel Accepts the AntiChrist, But.....
Posted by antidemocommie Apr 16 11:47 AM with 97 comments
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.