Results 21 - 40 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tara1 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Why don't we address God as Yahweh? | Bible general Archive 2 | Tara1 | 112306 | ||
Hello Kalos, Execellent post. I might add that the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint of the Hebrew Scriptures used the YHWH in their Greek and some even translated it into Greek as "AOI". But then the later manuscripts of the Septuagint changed it to "Kurios" or "LORD". Thanks again for your post but the answer to your question is that Jehovah is the Latinized form or "translation" into English just as the Latin form of the Gr. Iesous, corresponds to the Heb. Yeshua or Yehohshua for the English name for Jesus and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”. Tara1 |
||||||
22 | Why don't we address God as Yahweh? | Bible general Archive 2 | Tara1 | 112304 | ||
Hello Tim, Please answer why we have in our Bible according to Revelation 1:1 a revelation from God himself that he gave to Jesus while in heaven, where it tells us to praise "Jah" which is a transliteration of the Hebrew expression haleluYah´, appearing 24 times in the Hebrew Scriptures but now in the Greek Scriptures with the Greek form of it appearing four times at Revelation 19:1-6? So if the Bible uses it shouldn't we? Tara1 |
||||||
23 | Was Jehovah wrong? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112290 | ||
Hello Tim, 1 Corinthians 8:5 to me answers your question by saying, “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” You wouldn't say that Jesus Christ is the Father would you? As I've said before, the Bible calls Jesus "theos" several places but the Father Jehovah must be the only Almighty God and Jesus the "Son of God" but never is he called the "Almighty" theos. Tara1 |
||||||
24 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112185 | ||
Hi CDB, I’ll respond to a question asked of me by a couple of you recently of which is, What’s necessary for one to be saved. I open with the apostle’s Paul and Silas’ reply to the jailer just after their miraculous release from prison bonds, “They said: “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of Jehovah (according to 7 Hebrew Translations) to him together with all those in his house. 33 And he took them along in that hour of the night and bathed their stripes; and, one and all, he and his were baptized without delay. “ Yes, believing who Jesus is and what he taught is paramount to having divine approval. But more is needed since even the Demons believe. Jesus’ half brother says at James 2:19, “ You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder.” Along with that believing the previous verse, verse 18 tells us that we must have “faith and works” to be pleasing to God. Notice though that verse 19 also mentions believing that there is one God. If Jesus is “a god” and Jehovah is Almighty God, then does this verse present a problem with this theology? I’ll allow the Scriptures to respond. 1 Corinthians 8:5 answers saying, “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” I will refrain from commenting and allow God’s holy spirit to direct understanding to those whom he draws, as John 6:44 says concerning Jesus “No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him”. Thus, what we do with what we have learned and believe must be included. Jesus put it this way at John 14:12, “He that exercises faith in me, that one also will do the works that I do.” Here Jesus tells us that faith in him and the doing of his works are to be included. Jesus’ primary work while on earth was according to his own words were as recorded for us at John 18:37 to Pilate’s question, “Well, then, are you a king?”, Jesus replied: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.” As the Scriptures show, the truth to which he bore witness was not just truth in general. It was the all-important truth of what God’s purposes were and are, truth based on the fundamental fact of God’s sovereign will, His right as Creator to rule and His ability to fulfill that will. By his ministry Jesus revealed that truth, contained in “the sacred secret,” mentioned in Eph. 1:9,10 as being God’s Kingdom with Jesus Christ, the “son of David,” serving as King-Priest on the throne. Again at John 17:6,26 are Jesus’ words and they tell us another all-important truth where he says, “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them.” This is emphasized by it being the first thing Jesus prayed for in his model prayer of Matthew 6:9 “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. “ or “treated holy” or “held sacred”. Yes, Jesus and his followers are “known” for using God’s name, Jehovah and treating it very very special, since it’s the highest name in all the universe. Well, “The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the [true] God and keep his commandments. For this is the whole [obligation] of man. 14 For the [true] God himself will bring every sort of work into the judgment in relation to every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad. Eccl. 12:13. I hope you enjoyed reading this, as I enjoyed writing it. I hope too that it was non-controversial as I'm trying. Tara1 |
||||||
25 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112108 | ||
Hello CDBJ, My personal answer is a resounding, "Yes"! I've explained this time and again. Tara1 |
||||||
26 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112069 | ||
Hello CDBJ, Your profile says, "I personally trusted in Jesus Christ to be the very Son Of God and my Savior in Oct. 1965, while reading the Bible by myself. I thuoght at the time that I was the only one in the World that knew the message of salvation, as I had never heard it before. I thought that I had a lot of work to do to get this message out, all by myself. Praise the Lord, I found out that there are more of us who love Jesus for who He is and what He did. I have been teaching home Bible studies, and in the past few years the Lord has helped me write Biblical poetry, to try and reach people. I study a lot and I enjoy the Greek of the New Testament. I am very bothered by people who claim to be believers yet don't have a hunger for God's precious Word! You can reach me by E-mail cbickett@neo.rr.com That's exactly what I'm saying here! I have not said anything contrary to your statement in your profile. If we go beyond that then we are adding and taking away from Scripture (Rev. 22:18) by interpretation, using man's philosophy or tradition. I am well versed in what tradition has done to our beloved Word of God and deem it a deplorable atrocity to accept puny man's manipulations bringing dishonor to our Almighty Loving Heavenly Father and of the One whom he sent forth. I believe with all my heart what John 17:3 says to you and me, "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." Don't you? Tara1 |
||||||
27 | Tara1, Where are angels called gods? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112066 | ||
Thank you Searcher, Nothing could be simpler could it? The point being that reason becomes cloudy when you don't want to understand something. The Bible calls these men elohim, and its not me making it up. The Bible calls angels elohim. The Bible calls Jesus Elohim. The Bible calls Jehovah Elohim. The Bible calles Satan theos (greek for elohim) not me. Yes, to many Satan is their god, not a false god since the Bible calls him in 2 Cor 4:4, "the god of this system of things". "But as for me and my household we shall serve Jehovah", Joshua 24:14. I too serve Jesus Christ as John 1:18 says to, as Jehovah God's Son and GOD, only begotten GOD. Tara1 |
||||||
28 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112051 | ||
difference in the references to Jesus in 1:17 and 2:8 and the “Alpha and Omega”. In the margin of certain Hebrew manuscripts of the Masoretic text there are notations that read: “This is one of the eighteen emendations of the Sopherim,” or similar expressions. These emendations (corrections) were made with good intentions because the original passage appeared to show irreverence for God. One of the 18 emendations is found at Habakkuk 1:12 where it tells us that Jehovah cannot die. It says, “You do not die.” Heb., lo´ ta·muth´. This was the original reading, but the Sopherim changed it to read lo´ na·muth´, “we shall not die”. Rev 22:12,13 has the “Alpha and Omega” with “the First and the Last” thus it must refer to Jehovah God and not to Jesus Christ. Tara1 |
||||||
29 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112050 | ||
part 2 6 tells us that those ‘brothers’ (spiritually speaking) of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” The Scriptures never refer to the conquering Christians as “sons” to Jesus Christ. (Heb 2:11 and Matt. 12:50 and 25:40 show them as “brothers” not “sons” of Jesus Christ. Revelation 22:12-13 too should be understood to refer to Jehovah, the Father and God of Jesus. This verse contains phrases such as “the first and the last“, obviously another way of saying the “Alpha and the Omega”, likewise “the beginning and the end”. The Alpha and the Omega begins speaking in verse 12 and notice how he continues to identify himself as one who is coming on down through verse 15. Then in verse 16 the question is whether or not the speaker changes or stays the same. If it does not change then the Alpha and the Omega would reference Jesus. Does the simple conclusion that verse 16 begins with the first-person singular “I” followed by the identification of the speaker, “Jesus,” mean that the previous verses are also the words of Jesus? Two examples from this same Bible book show this does not necessarily mean that that must be the case. Rev 1:9 is one example where if we concluded such has to be the case then the apostle John would have to be the Alpha and the Omega. But I know of no one that argues that this is the case. The second example is Rev 22:8. Would anyone argue that John is the one “coming quickly” in verse 7? So, there are indeed sudden changes of speakers in the book of Revelation since Rev 1:1 says, “A revelation by (1) Jesus Christ, which (2) God gave him, . . . And he sent forth his (3) angel and presented it in signs through him (3)(angel) to his slave (4) John.” Consider the thought that the “angel” of verses 12-16 of chapter 22 might very well be speaking for both “the Alpha and the Omega” and Jesus Christ in verses 12-16, read the dialogue between John and one of God’s angels found in Rev 21:9-22:11. Notice in whatever Bible version you read these verses the various breaks for changes of speakers are provided by punctuation in the English language, since it was not there originally. There are many examples in the OT where angels speak for God and even referring to themselves as Jehovah.-Ex 3:2-6; Ac 7:30 “The First and the Last” an expression found three timesin the book of Revelation. Rev 1:17-18 identifies Jesus as the “First and the Last”. Rev 2:8 likewise shows by its context that Jesus is the “First and the Last”. Both of these are in relation to his death and unique resurrection by his Father and interestingly, is the reason for his being called the “firstborn from the dead” as in Rev 1:5 and Col 1:18 Also, notice that the “Alpha and the Omega” is Not used in conjunction with this “the First and Last” in these two places and neither is the phrase “the beginning and the end”. Now notice how an ancient manuscript helps to draw an accurate conclusion. Just a couple hundred years after John’s writing the book of Revelation the Codex Alexandrinus reads “firstborn,” instead of “first,” at both Revelation 1:17 and 2:8; but in 22:12 where the “Alpha and the Omega” is lacking and would be dying and coming to life again, we find “first”, not “firstborn”. This shows that the scribes of Codex A saw a |
||||||
30 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112049 | ||
Alpha and Omega. Who is this “A” to “Z” so to speak, according to the Scriptures? Who is this “first and last,” and “beginning and end” I will note three manuscript variations that lend support to a specific line of thought which have contributed to varying conclusions. By a study of each occurrence of these descriptions or titles, we can determine who was intended to be referred to, according to context. Rev 1:8, according to the NIV and NWT agree that the Alpha and Omega is the Almighty God who is Jehovah and there are no varying ancient manuscripts of this verse. Now let’s look at verse seven and see if the link is legitimate in identifying verse 7 to verse 8 to being Jesus. Who is the one one identified in verse 7 where it says, “the One who is, and who was, and who is to come” is given to One who is clearly distinguished from both the “seven spirits” and “Jesus Christ.” Obviously the only other one from whom “undeserved kindness and peace” could come is the Father. The “coming” of the “Alpha and Omega” in verse 8 is consistent with Jehovah’s “coming” in verse four. Revelation 6:16,17 also tell us of the Father’s coming along with the Lamb. Note the word “their“ in the phrase, “the great day of their wrath has come”. The Textus Reseptus (from which we have the KJV and Jerusalem Bible versions) has the Greek for “His” (autou). The other main manuscripts such as the Sinaitic MS of the fourth century and according to Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975, “all minuscule” have the Greek word for “their” (autwn). This interpolation lends support to a line of thought not originally intended. Thus Rev 1:7 speaks of Jesus’ coming. Rev 1:8 speaks of Jehovah’s coming. Rev 1:4 speaks of Jehovah’s coming. The second interpolation of ancient manuscripts is found in Rev 1:11. If this interpolation were correct, if the KJV, Textus Reseptus were correct then Jesus would be an indisputed reference as the Alpha and Omega since verses twelve through twenty show him to be the speaker in this context. What’s interesting is that other Bible versions also add the words “Alpha and Omega”, dishonesty at it’s height, such as, “The Living Bible”, “The Amplified New Testament“, and “Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible”, by Robert Young who even admits that “the oldest MSS.” omit the Alpha and Omega interpolation, in his commentary, “Young’s Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible“, paperback ed 1977 p. 179. Revelation 21:6 too should be understood to refer to Jehovah, the Father and God of Jesus when taken in context. Verse five tells us that the One seated on the throne is the speaker and in verse 6 he identifies himself as the “Alpha and the Omega”. Now I ask of the last of verse 7, who will be his son? The opening words identifies those that conquer as “his son”. Gal 3:26 and 4: |
||||||
31 | Tara1, Where are angels called gods? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112037 | ||
correction, in the above post, where I said NIV, I meant NASB. NIV transtlated elohim here as "heavenly beings", |
||||||
32 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 112014 | ||
Hi EdB, A. T. Robertson, in his book "Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5 1932 on page 339 admits that "God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God", either makes good sense. end quote. While having to admit this, A. T. Robertson nonetheless surely takes a different stand on Jesus' God being Jehovah since he was of the Baptist faith, you are correct. The same is true of John 1:1. Robertson though makes the affirmation, not I, that "the article is never meaningless in Greek". Since John 1:1 is void of the Gr. definite article "ho" some reason for this is to be determined. Many Greek scholars conclude therefore that the "theos" in question be understood as qualitative. I am simply explaining a text with sound reasoning that several Bible translations agree upon. Tara1 |
||||||
33 | 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) |
||||||
34 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111989 | ||
Hello CDBJ, We can't know what Thomas was thinking in that statement now can we? I agree the comment was not corrected, thus it is correct. Was Thomas thinking "My Lord (Jehovah) my God (Jehovah) while looking at Jesus? Possibility. Again though Jesus is our Theos John 1:18 tells that “the only-begotten god Gr., monogenes´ theos´, as does John 1:1. Ps 8:4,5 offers insight to this by telling us that even angels are properly called gods. Are they though our Almighty God to be given what Jesus tells us in Matt 4:10 to give only to Jehovah? You tell me. Tara1 |
||||||
35 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111985 | ||
Hello Colin, I really don't feel that I've been challenged. I'll answer your Biblical questions with Biblical answers only. Shoot. Please limit it to a few verses. If you've asked me a question and I didn't answer, I apologize. I don't want to argue, or cause animosity, just discuss Bible verses, and why I believe what the Bible actually says. While I'm writting this, I wonder if you were the one that wrote me concerning the Alpha and Omega? If so, I'll answer that question for you. If not please ignore the question. Tara1 |
||||||
36 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Tara1 | 111982 | ||
Hello Hank, Yes, I do enjoy reading what many post on this forum. I also believe that many desire to learn what the Bible teaches and not the man-made philosophy that is posted now and then. Let each judge for himself what is truth and what's not. The Bible is clear even for us simple and uneducated. I only believe and teach what the Holy Scriptures actually teach. You mention "orthodox". Does labeling a teaching as "orthodox" make it truth? Think of "orthodox" christianity's track record. If you like, I'll summorize it since Jesus' day, for you and then you tell me, you support it. Tara1 |
||||||
37 | 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 |
||||||
38 | 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. |
||||||
39 | 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. |
||||||
40 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |