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 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. |