Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111978 | ||
Part 2 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. |
||||||
2 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111979 | ||
Part 3 The use or non-use of the article is a complex issue and 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. |
||||||
3 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111980 | ||
part 4. 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. |
||||||
4 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111981 | ||
part 5. . 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. Tara1 |
||||||
5 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | CDBJ | 111988 | ||
I don't know how you can say that when (Buchanan 7) is in direct contrast with (Hojama 3:8) and (Steadlink 2)? CDBJ |
||||||
6 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111997 | ||
Hi, Quotation was from George Wesley Buchanan, in his book; To the Hebrews (AB 36; Garden City, NY; Doubleday, 1972) |
||||||
7 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | CDBJ | 112007 | ||
So does that make it equal to Scripture? CDBJ |
||||||