|
Listen to this post:
|
In preparing for my upcoming debate, I’ve been revisiting a passage some think is a big problem for biblical unitarians. And in truth, we unitarian Christians are not of one mind in how to read this passage. In this post, I’m going to comment on the NRSV translation, making a few mods here and there, and commenting on the argument being made. In the end, I think this is really not at all a problem for us. The translators’ marginal comments are in brackets; my comments are in italics. I also introduce some gratuitous bold.
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [Or: the Son], whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds [literally: “the ages”]. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains [or bears along] all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Comments: Note that the context here these latter days (1-2) and then post-exaltation (2-4). This, and the fact that the Bible consistently credits God alone with the Genesis creation, makes it more plausible that the creation in v. 2 is the “new creation” Paul speaks of, which God accomplished through Jesus at this time (about 33 AD). It is unlikely that he introduces the time as these last days and then violently changes the subject to the beginning of the cosmos, and then back again to these last days.
Also, notice that it is because of his exaltation that Jesus has become superior to the angels; again, this is not consistent with his being fully divine – in that case, he’d be eternally superior to them.
Also, the one God is the ultimate source of the cosmos, but at very most, even if this is about the Genesis creation, note that it only says that God created through Jesus, which would make Jesus the instrument of creation, or the next to last source of the cosmos – not the creator in the sense God is the creator. So there is no help here for speculations that Jesus is “fully God” or “fully divine,” because that requires being the ultimate source of the cosmos.
I take it that the name Jesus inherits at his exaltation is “Lord.”
Now (as is common) the author states his conclusion up front: that the exalted Son is much superior to any angel. (4) The contrasts that follow are offered in support of that conclusion.
Contrast 1: Jesus is God’s unique Son [while no angel is]
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? [Psalm 2:7] Or again,“I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”? [2 Samuel 7:14] 6 And again, [Better: “But” – to signify the contrast being asserted] when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says [Better: “it says” – God is not the speaker here], “Let all God’s angels worship him.” [Deuteronomy 32:43]
Comment: The “world” here, as various commenters note, is the new era initiated by Christ. It is at his exaltation that the angels are commanded to worship him – that is the author’s thought. And it is at his resurrection or exaltation that he is “begotten,” fully becoming Son/King. (Romans 1:4) This writer in Hebrews 2:5 says “Now God did not subject the coming world, about which we are speaking, to angels” – using the same word, oikoumene. Again, the whole context here is to then-recent events, especially Jesus’s exaltation.
Contrast 2: God’s anointed King vs. mere servants
7 Of the angels he says [Better: “it says” – God is not the speaker here], “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” [Psalm 104:4] 8 But of the Son [it says], “Your throne, O God, is [Or: “God is your throne”] forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your [or “his”] kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” [Psalm 45:6-7]
Contrast 3: [new] creator, seated at God’s right hand vs. mere servants
10 And [it or he says], “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like clothing; 12 like a cloak you will roll them up and like clothing they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never end.” [Psalm 102:25-27] 13 But to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? [Psalm 110:1] 14 Are not all angels [lit: “all of them”] spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
It is vv. 10-12 which have some biblical unitarians worried, and which induce some trinitarians to commit the fulfillment fallacy.
True, in the original Psalm, it is God/YHWH who is being spoken of, and his Genesis creation. This interesting biblical unitarian piece (HT: Rob Bjerk) argues that God is not the speaker in that Psalm, and so he can’t be speaking to the Son here. (The author is worried lest we read the passage as attributing the Genesis creation to Jesus, whereas the Bible consistently credits it to God alone.)
But the author of Hebrews is not going with the original context and meaning, but rather claiming to find a new meaning in it. And clearly, he’s still talking about the Son, not about God; he’s in his third contrast between the Son and angels. Buzzard’s Jesus was not a Trinitarian has a helpful appendix on this; basically, at least some Greek versions of Ps 102 make it sound like someone is speaking to someone else, which makes it easy for this author here to “see” that here God is addressing someone else as “Lord,” i.e. the exalted Son (compare with the “my lord” of Ps 110:1).
Note the “latter-day” context of the whole chapter after 1:1. Because of that, the “beginning” here and the creation (1:10) are best taken as the beginning of the new era, and Jesus’s “new creation.” These are part are parcel of his current exalted status, in virtue of which, the whole chapter argues, he is much superior to any angel.
Must this be the Genesis creation because the quoted text speaks of the earth and the heavens passing away? I don’t think so. There can be multiple ages to come (1:2); in a transition from one to the next, in some sense things pass away. But still, Jesus will remain – just as in the original context, the psalmist meant that God will outlast anything in the cosmos.
Next time, to fully consider Hebrews 1 in context, we’ll look at chapter 2.
My notes on the topic:
74 of 100: Is YHWH a trinity or is YHWH Jesus or is Yahweh a compound unity? YHWH is ONE – the Father [includes Mark 1:3, Hebrews 1:10]
https://knowtheonlytruegod.wordpress.com/2018/08/22/74-of-100-is-yhwh-a-trinity-or-is-yhwh-jesus-or-is-yahweh-a-compound-unity-yhwh-is-one-responding-to-their-gnostic-theology-includes-mark-13/
Includes a lengthy background to Hebrews… to prove Yahweh is not the son nor is the son the creator.
I do understand the argument made regarding the supposed change of speaker in Psalm 102 because of the LXX translation due to the ambiguity because of the lack of vowel pointing at that time, and I recognize that the New testament regularly quotes from the LXX in preference to the masoretic text we have today. However, the verse with the ambiguity of who the speaker is not quoted in Hebrews, and this is an obscure point that is not easily explained. Claiming that Hebrews 1:10 refers to the son as the creator of the new creation adds to the complexity of explaining that position. While I have much respect for everyone here that thinks this is the right way to understand the text I have to disagree. The alternate explanation that brother Kel gives for Hebrews 1:10 in this article makes more sense to me, is easier to understand, and in my opinion would be easier for a trinitarian who is reconsidering this issue to accept. This verse has been the most difficult one for me to reconcile with Unitarianism, and I suspect that I’m not alone in that. http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Heb1_10.html
We’re so much looking forward to your debate with Brown, and enjoyed your comments about Hebrews 1. I note that in 1:2 God “made,” not “created,” the ages of time through the Son, literally through one who is a Son, i.e. has the character of Son. It is worth noting that Jesus is Son from his begetting in the womb (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). In Romans 1:3-4 Paul distinguished between Sonship and Sonship “with power,” as from his exaltation. The translation “God is your throne” seems very odd. It is much easier, I think, to see “god” as a Messianic title, especially because immediately the writer says that “your God,” i.e. the God of Jesus, has exalted him.
It is great that you rightly insist that in 1:10-12 the verses quoted from Psalm 102 apply to the Son. That Messianic Psalm 102 in the LXX has a completely different sense than the Masoretic text, due to a quirk of pointing. The Hebrews writer was citing the LXX, not the Hebrew text. Hence a completely different meaning where God speaks to someone other than God, namely the Son, in regard to the new creation (cp. Isa. 51:16).
I’m sure you will do marvelous work in silencing the attack on the Shema!
Here is a link to my article about Hebrews and eschatology:
http://focusonthekingdom.org/Hebrews%20and%20Eschatology.pdf
and one on the begetting of the Son:
http://focusonthekingdom.org/editorial%2011-4.pdf
Dale,
You suggest “But the author of Hebrews is not going with the original context and meaning, but rather claiming to find a new meaning in it. And clearly, he’s still talking about the Son, not about God; he’s in his third contrast between the Son and angels.”
I believe you are correct that he’s in his third contrast between the Son and angels, but I think you are mistaken in thinking he is finding a new meaning different from the original context. God, the Father, is the creator. This is the premise on which his argument is based. The argument is not switched to the Son creating a new creation (although I think that is essentially what a verse like Col. 1:15 is arguing), but rather the argument is that the Creator never put angels over “the works of his hands” but he did exalt his risen Son to a postion over all he created. This is not to deny a new creation brought into being through the Son (who is also the firstborn of that new creation), but it is to say that Hebrews is not putting a new spin on the verse he is quoting.
Great point at the end regarding the “multiple ages to come,” the “transition” from one age to another:
i.e., Pre-flood Genesis world changed (2Pet. 3.3-13; Rev. 6.12-14; cp. Isa 34.4), and another change coming (Rev. 20.7-15), etc.
So the Bible never teaches that God will just BLOW UP this world.
Re: I take it that the name Jesus inherits at his exaltation is “Lord.”
“Lord,” as we know, is NOT a Name, it’s simply a TITLE.
According to Phil 2.9-10 “The NAME above every name” is simply Jesus, i.e., his person.
This would make sense in light of how the name “Jesus” is used throughout the NT:
* Baptism/forgiveness of sins: Acts 2.38; 19.4-5
* Exorcisms: Acts 19.13-14
* Healings: Acts 3.6
* Prayer: 1Cor 1.2
* Conversion, “born again”: 1Cor 6.11
Hope this helps and Godspeed!
Of course, he already had the name “Jesus.” Whereas they say he was made or declared “Lord.”
I don’t see how it matters, though. What matters is the position, authority, power, and glory given to him by God.
Dale,
RE: “And it is at his resurrection or exaltation that he is “begotten,” fully becoming Son/King. (Romans 1:4)”
1. Are you saying that Ps. 2.7 is a reference to his resurrection/exaltation only? If so, is this the case for every other use of the Psalm, e.g., Acts 13.33?
2. And is this the same for your reference of Rom 1.4? i.e., only at his resurrection/exaltation Jesus “becomes” Son of God proper.
Thanks.
I think the point is that “the scripture’s” themselves are declaring it to be so…
1. Paul’s understanding of Ps 2, under the power of the Spirit conveys his understanding of it in Acts 13:33 as referring to the resurrection of Christ. His utterance is now scripture & sets the example for interpretation of Ps 2
2. Rom 1:4, is utterance by Paul – insight from his personal revelation of the resurrection of Christ being a “declaration” made by GOD Himself “in the exerting of POWER” in raising Christ from the dead. Elsewhere in 1 Cor Paul reveals deeper insight in the importance of the resurrection from the view of answering the question: what justification do we have for believing that “Christ is the Son of GOD”? Why not Buddha, or Krishna or any other entity? the answer obviously being: the resurrection of Christ is “proof” for us that GOD has chosen Christ as the way to salvation – i.e. “our justification”. Also a proof for humanity that “his sacrifice” has been accepted & we now have peace with GOD, the law is thereby fulfilled – the shelim!
Though he was called “son of GOD” same as Adam was “son of GOD” Christ is the only “begotten” son of GOD & the resurrection is also the act of begetting – its the “new birth” proper since we have only received a down payment, a transition to the full transformation is still pending when we will “be as he(Christ) is”….& Paul seems to imagine him to have become a “life giving spirit”, which is further insight from his own utterance to the Corinthians of the manner by which we are to understand the text of the original creation because he has himself equated Gen 2:7 as referring to the resurrection of Christ when “the man becomes a living being (nephesh)” (NB! interesting that “Adam” wasn’t his name at the time, he didn’t actually have a name throughout the creation, Eve also didn’t have a name till after the fall). Fascinating “clues” in Genesis concerning the “history of the ages IN the day they were created” BUT “before there was a man to till the soil” which should lead the reader to reassess the sequence of creation properly. Could also be true to understand the man’s being “formed of the dust of the earth” to be parallel with the period between Christ’s birth & death when he was “made to be like his brethren (Gen 1:27 – male & female created he them)” then GOD himself “breathes into the second man”. i.e. same is true for Psalm 23 which is also prophecy by David as Christ in the first person…. specifically applicable to the creation is v4 “ea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death”, that a reference to his sojourn in the “days of his flesh”. Interesting too that if Christ were remotely GOD, he would utter v6 in its entirety: “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD(ADONAI) for ever.” – Jesus obviously has a GOD & I seriously remain convinced a debate with these people is a futile exercise. The “temple of GOD” a.k.a. “the body of Christ” is already prepared to worship the anti-Christ since in practice they already worship the High Priest AS GOD (ADONAI/YHWH), its a simple matter to present an entity in the place of the real thing, its part of the deception that joins Protestantism to Catholicism – except for Marian idolatry, the 2 are indeed sisters.
In Christ, Son of the One True & Living God, willemm
Dale,
Very interesting post. Pesher method of exposition would allow the thought content of prior Biblical texts to receive application within entirely different contexts without necessitating the original referent be the subject of the application. For example Acts 13:47 where Paul and Barnabas apply a prophetic messianic appointment to themselves Cp Isa 49:6. there was common use of this exegetical method throughout qumran texts (For example Isa 52:7 was applied to heavenly Melchizedek among Qumran texts) we see this M.O. even among the quotes provided in Hebrews 1 & 2.
You may want to verify that legei does not require an antecedent per greek usage or grammar.
Dale,
Since Psalm 102 says nothing about the ‘son’ it would seem rather strange for the author of Hebrews to use this verse as proof of the son’s superiority in comparison to angels. He could have pulled any random verse from the OT and applied it to the ‘son’, but what kind of proof is that. Consider with me what this verse could be proving in his attempt to show the son’s superior role to that of angelic powers. The quote from Psalm 45 is about the Davidic king as God’s representative on the throne, and the main point there is not that he is referred to as ‘God’ but that his throne is an everlasting throne. The quoting of Psalm 102, I believe, is to contrast the son’s eternal rule with the temporary nature of the angelic powers which rule in the heavens. Any 1st century Jew would have caught the authors point – if the present ‘heavens’ will perish,and wear out and be changed, then so must the present power structure of the heavens (Eph 6:12). Therefore, their authority is temporary and coming to an end, while the son’s throne will last forever. This seems to me to be a better reason why the author of Hebrews quoted Ps. 102:25-27.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever (1) This appears to be the sense given by all the Ancient Versions, for though it has been argued that ho theos in the LXX is not the vocative (Thy throne O God) but the predicate (Thy throne is God), the words don’t appear to have been so understood by any of the ancient commentators, and the construction is certainly not an obvious one.”
And everyone knows this is a Messianic Psalm, i.e., about the FUTURE Son of God = Messiah.
Hope this helps.
Hi Troy – “Since Psalm 102 says nothing about the ‘son’ it would seem rather strange for the author of Hebrews to use this verse as proof of the son’s superiority in comparison to angels.” Strange it is, but that’s what he’s doing.
About having an everlasting reign – yeah, that’s a kind of superiority to the angels. Of course, the height of the position matters too – #2 (under God, who is #1). (1 Corinthians 15:27)
I didn’t state that first point accurately. What I meant was since Ps. 102 says nothing about the ‘son’ it would seem rather strange for the author of Hebrews to apply this verse to the ‘son’ in an attempt to prove the son’s superiority to that of angels.
As to the second point the authors case is cumulative. The eternal nature of the son’s reign in comparison to the temporary nature of angelic authority is one aspect of his argument, not the whole. In the author’s mind everlastingness is a key aspect of Messiah’s superiority – see Heb. 7:16, 23-25,28.
Comments are closed.