Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 3:16 ¶ "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 3:16 ¶ "For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. |
Subject: Who is Jesus' God? |
Bible Note: 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. |