By: Gen. Jim – 1/2/25
Part 1 –
“But to the Son He says: Your throne, is forever & ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness & hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed you.” -Hebrews 1:8,9.
You might want to read that in other translations. I personally like the Amplified Bible: “But about the Son [the Father says to Him], ‘Your throne, O God is forever & ever, & the scepter of His Kingdom. You have Loved righteousness [integrity, virtue, uprightness in purpose] & have hated lawlessness [injustice, sin]…’” (see Ps. 45:6,7).
Hebrews contains all the doctrines of the Gospel embodied in it. It is an epitome of the dispensations of God-to-man, from the foundation of the world to the advent of the Lord Jesus. No one for sure knows who the author is. It was written to the Jews, not the Gentiles.
Does Hebrews confirm that Jesus of Nazareth Is the “True God?” He, the Son, is superior to angels, to Moses, to Aaron. If you’re like me, I dig into ancient historical writings & read up on their views of certain texts. I also like to read what the early Church fathers wrote/early Christians, e.g., the pre-Nicene Christians & the pre-Nicene Church. A good source is “The Anti-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson; 1885-1887; 10 vols., (1994). Great rabbis have discussed Jesus’ Sonship/Godship. Rabbi Tanchum, quoting Yalcut Simeoni, part 2, fol.53, states: “This is the King Messiah, who shall be greatly extolled, & elevated: He shall be elevated beyond Abraham, … more eminent than Moses… more exalted than the ministering angels.” -He refers to Isa. 52:13, “Behold, My servant shall deal prudently, He shall be exalted & extolled, & be very high.”
Yalcut Kadesh (fol.144) says, “The Messiah is greater than the patriarchs, than Moses; & than the ministering angels.” Many rabbis/scholars have written on the “Godhead of Christ.” These Jewish men believed that Christ was greater than men/angels, hence, by “greater,” they meant Jesus was uncreated, an uncreated Divine Being; the majesty & preeminence of Christ (see Heb. 11:4,5 = more excellent name; angels adore Him, 1:6; angels were created by Him, vs.7; in His humanity, He was endowed with greater gifts, vss.8,9; He is eternal, vss.10-12; He is more highly exalted, vs.13; the angels are only the servants of God; He, the Son, vs.14.
Vss.8,9
“If this be said of the Son of God,” writes one Bible scholar, “then Jesus Christ MUST BE GOD; & indeed the design of the author (the apostle Paul?) is to prove this.”
We know the author was quoting from Psalm 45:6,7, which the ancient Chaldee paraphrast, & the most intelligent rabbis, refer to the Messiah. On the 3rd verse, “Thou art fairer than the children of men,” the Targum says:“Thy beauty, O King Messiah, is greater than the children of men.”
Aben Ezra wrote: “This Psalm speaks of David, or rather of his son, the Messiah, for this is His name.” He also cites Ezek. 34:24, “And I, the LORD, will be their God, & My servant David a prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken.” Other rabbis agree with Aben Ezra.
As to be expected, debates over Scripture is ongoing over certain meanings. Many use the Hebrews 1:8,9 as a proof text of the Divinity of Christ. I believe it is so. “But some late versions,” as prof. Adam Clarke (A.C.) writes, “of the N.T. have endeavored to avoid the evidence of this proof by translating the words: “God is thy throne for ever & ever;” and if this version be correct, it is certain the text can be no proof of the doctrine.” (A.C.’s commentary & critical notes, 1800’s) Scholars also argue over how certain texts are written, nominative case is often used for the vocative, particularly by the Attics; but the “original” text shows, “Thy throne, O God, is forever & ever, and to eternity.” This, scholars say, includes both worlds; & extends over all time; & will exist through all endless duration.
We can include Mt. 28:18, “All power is given unto Me (Jesus), both in Heaven & Earth.” “Thy throne” (Heb. 1:8) can be interpreted, “My throne.” Either way, “throne” speaks of His “dominion” – from creation to the consummation of all things. John 17:5 states, “… O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself (lit., “alongside”), with the glory which I had with You BEFORE the world was,” NKJV. Phil. 2:6 says, “who (Christ Jesus), being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.” (NKJV). The NIV reads: “who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” Here Jesus is declared to be “in very nature God,” The possessor of “equality with God,” (see also Jn. 10:30 = “I & the Father are ONE,” meaning UNITY/SAME.) The following text, Phil. 2:7, “but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a (human) servant…” Jesus did not give up part of His Deity in coming, as a man, to earth; it means that He relinquished the glory that He had with His Father: Jesus was both God & man/Divine & human. He was FULLY DIVINE & FULLY human. He, as a man, humbled Himself & became obedient to death in order to accomplish His Father’s will; He became, as John wrote, “… He is the propitiation for our sins…” – 1 Jn. 2:2; see also 4:10.
One ancient scholar translates Elohim, by θέε, “O God,” in the vocative case (VC); & the Arabic adds the sign of the VC, and even allowing that ὁ θεός here is to be used as the nominative case (NC). This rendering by Aquila is not countenanced by any version, nor by any manuscripts yet discovered.
Church fathers/leaders like Coverdale, Wycliffe et al. understood Heb. 1:8, to be the nominative, & translated it so (& yet it is evident that this NC has the power of the VC) Tyndale & others follow in the same way (these men were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for their Bible translations).
Sound Divine
It has ever been the opinion of the most sound divines, that Heb. 1:8,9 were extracted from Ps. 45 – addressed by God the Father unto God the Son. Those who try to erase or deny the Divinity of Christ, say the true meaning of vs.8, contend that ὁ θεός is here the nominative (designating, of, or in the case of the subject of a finite verb; vocative case means designating, of, or in the case of nouns/pronouns/or adjs. used in direct address to indicate the person or thing addressed etc.), & that the true meaning is: “God is thy throne for ever.” These “scholars of Greek” lack critical acumen. It is, as Gk. scholars say, a rule in the Gk. lang., that when a substantive noun is the subject of a sentence, & something is predicted of it, the article, if used at all, is prefixed to the subject, but omitted before the predicate. The Gk. translators of the Old Test., & the authors of the N.T., write agreeably to this rule.
The Septuagint (O.T. Greek/LXX) has established phraseology, when a substantive noun has something predicated of it in the same sentence. (one can research all this in ref. to Ps. 45 & Heb. 1).
Q. If the Father “begot” the Son? He who was thus “begotton” had a beginning of His existence; and from this it is manifest, that there was a time in which the Son was not, so goes the debate. This Trinity or Tri-Unity takes us into another debate, which I have written on in years gone by. I will keep to the Divinity of the Son for now. The debate on “begotten” is ongoing (Jn. 3:16 KJV).
1781 A.D.
In 1781 a fourth vol. of the Arminian Magazine (p.384), an article entitled “An Arian Antidote;” here is a quote: “Greater or lesser in infinity, is not; inferior Godhead shocks our sense; Jesus was inferior to the Father as touching His manhood (Jn. 14:28); He was a son given, & slain intentionally from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), & the first-born from the dead of every creature (Col. 1:15,18). But, our Redeemer, from everlasting (Is. 63:16) had not the inferior name of Son; in the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God from eternity, & the Word, made flesh, was God.” This is pointedly against the eternal Sonship of the Divine nature (declares Prof. A. Clarke) He asks, why did Mr. W (the author) insert this? & if by haste; why did he not correct this when he published in 1790, in the 13th vol. of the magazine, 8 tables or errata to the 8 first vols. of that work? Clarke is concerned with “the inferior name of Son” Clarke is concerned with the dignity & glory of Christ’s nature. What the author of “An Arian Antidote” wrote is that “from everlasting had not the inferior name of Son.” What name did He have?
Barnabas (70-100 A.D.) wrote, “He is Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image… likeness,” referring to Gen. 1:26. It is plain that the Father & Son were of the same image & likeness. (see 1:139, Epistle of Barnabas);
Ignatius (35-107 A.D.) wrote, “God Himself was manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life” (1.58) He continues, “Continue in intimate union (ONE) with Jesus Christ, our God,” 1:68. Continuing in one of his letters (on his way to Rome as a prisoner to be executed, he wrote, “I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ,” 1:96, written in 105 A.D..
Some find it hard to believe that Jesus, the Son, was also God, not God the Father, but “God the Son.”
Aristides (2nd century) says, “He is called the Son of the Most High God…” (125 A.D., 9:265)
In a letter sent to Diognetus (125-?), he made it also plain that, “Truly God Himself, who is Almighty, the Creator of all things… placed among men… God sent Him as God…” (1:27).
Second Clement also believed Jesus was God: “… it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as a God…” (105 A.D., 7:517)
Justin Martyr (100-165) echos the same: “We… worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, & holding Him in the second place (as God the Son).” (160 A.D., 1:166). In the same writing JM says, “The Word… He is Divine.” (1:166). He continued with, “The Father of the universe has a Son. And He, being the First-Begotten Word of God, is even God,” 1:184. He continues: “For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, Angel & Man,” 1:211.
There are just too many quotes to list them – but JM believed Jesus too was God, Divine: “If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the Only, Unbegotten, Unutterable God.” (1:263)
Part 2 –
Hebrews 1
“He reflects the glory of God & bears the very stamp of His nature…” 1:3. (see the KJV/RSV). God’s Son is the EXACT counterpart of the Father (vs.3). The New Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) reads: “He is the reflection of God’s glory & the exact imprint of God’s very Being…” The NIV has, “the radiance” & “exact representation” “Express image”/ “Stamp of His nature.” Gk. scholars point out that χαρακτήρ is unique in the N.T. It means the “impression of a seal left on wax or clay;” image or stamp emphasizes the Son’s ONENESS with the Father, He bears the express image of God the Father & reflects His glory.
It is also noted (by Gk. scholars), this figure is more accurate than the reflection of glory. It suggests a detailed reproduction of the nature of the Father – the Father & Son are DIVINE Beings (Jn. 14:6,7).
This takes us back to 1:8: “But unto the Son He saith, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever & ever…’” Is the Father calling the Son, God? – ὁ θεός, “O God.” As already stated, some read, “God is thy throne” or “thy throne is God,” to me these make no sense.
It is apparent that the early Christians believed that Jesus was/is God. Melito (d.190) states “… the immortal died (Jesus), & the Celestial was laid in the grave.” (170 A.D., 8:756) “… God was put to death, the King of Israel slain!” (8:758)
Athenagoras (2nd century): “there is the one God & the Logos proceeding from Him, the Son. We understand that the Son is inseparable from Him.” (175 A.D., 2:137)
Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.) quotes from our text (Heb. 1:8,9): “Thy throne, O God, is forever & ever…” He comments: “For the Spirit designates by the name of God-both Him who is anointed as Son, & He who anoints, that is, the Father. And again, ‘God stood in the congregation of the gods; He judges among the gods.’” (I just wrote a long article on “gods & goddesses,” quoting this same text (Ps. 82:1). Irenaeus continues: “Here he refers to the Father & the Son, & those who have received the adoption.” (180 A.D., 1:419); “… Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men… God, Lord, King Eternal, & the Incarnate Word… He is the Holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, & the Mighty God.” (180 A.D., 1:449). Here Irenaeus quotes from Isaiah 9:6). Let me finish the quote from Isa. 9:6: “Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Did Isaiah make a false claim by calling the Son/Messiah, “The Mighty God,” “The Everlasting Father?” His name shall be called (Elgibbor), the prevailing or conquering God. (in Hebrew). The Everlasting Father, meaning the Father of the everlasting age. One trans. I read uses “Times’ Father,” meaning the Son was the Father in time who had children (count the times Jesus calls His followers, “children.” This Father/children continues until the End. I am a child of God, of both the Father & Son. We are the “sons” of God (mainly used as both male & female followers/believers). “Abi ad,” the Father of eternity. The O.T. Gk., i.e. Septuagint has, “the Messenger of the Great Counsel.” But instead of Abi ad, a manuscript of De Rossi has Abiezer, “the helping Father;” evidently the corruption of some Jewish scribe; who did not like such evidence in favor of the N.T. Christian Messiah/Savior.
Jesus was a Son given – the human nature, in which the FULNESS of the God-head was to dwell (see Mt. 1:20-25; Lk. 1:35, & Isa. 7:14. The last text deals with the name “Immanuel” (as does the N.T. texts), The Lord – “Jehovah.” (note: for a Adonai, 25 of Kennicott’s MSS., 9 ancient, & 14 of De Rossi’s, read “Yehovah.” And so vs.20, 18 MSS. Many MSS. & editions have Immanu El, “God with us.”
The term/name, “Mighty God” = “Divine in Might;” “Everlasting Father” = “A Father forever”
Matt. 1:23 quotes Isa. 7:14 – “Immanuel, God with us.” This child called Immanuel was not, is not just any child, for “I” is identified as the true owner of the land (Isa. 8:8). Isa. 9:6 & 11:1-5 refer to the Son before coming to earth as both God & man. I’ve written on this years ago, i.e. the nature of Messianic prophecy. Peter wrote about what the prophets of old spoke about (1 Pet. 1:10-12), salvation by & through Jesus the Christ.
Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) says, “He is God in the form of man… the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand… He is God.” (195 A.D., 2:210); “There is a suggestion of the Divinity of the Lord in [Isaac’s] not being slain. Jesus rose after His burial, having suffered… just like Isaac was released from being sacrificed.: (2:215); … The Son in the Father & the Father in the Son… God the Word, who became man for our sakes.” (2.215).
The Fiery Christian Tertullian (160-230 A.D.), wrote about Christ’s Divinity: “Search, then, & see if the Divinity of Christ is true.” (197 A.D., 3:36); “Christ is received in the person of Christ, because even in this manner is He our God.” (207 A.D., 3:319); “Christ never used that familiar phrase of all the prophets, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ For He was Himself the Lord… prefacing His Words… ‘Truly, truly, I say unto you.’” (210 A.D., 3:534). Good point. He continues: “… the Scriptures teach us & we say that they belonged suitably to the Son also… How is it that the Son suffered, yet the Father did not suffer with Him? [The answer is that] the Father is separate from the Son, though not separated from Him as God…” (213 A.D., 3:626).
A leading presbyter in the Ekklesia at Rome, Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.) wrote about Christ’s Divinity as well:
“By the Ancient of Days, he means… the Lord, God, & Ruler of all… ‘His dominion is an everlasting dominion.’ The Father, having put all things in subjection to His own Son…” (205 A.D., 5:189).
It is obvious that Hippolytus was speaking of the text found in the book of Daniel, 7:9,13, & 22, where he mentions “the Ancient of Days”
Part 3 –
Who was this “Ancient of days?” was He the Father or the Son? Much has been written about this Person. Most scholars believe Him to be as vs.13 describes, no doubt, Christ, i.e. “the Son of man” who “came with clouds of heaven, & came to the Ancient of Days,” vs.13. The Heb. reads, “bar enosh,” = the “Son of miserable man” (see Mt. 24:30). Vs.14 certainly applies to the Lord Jesus, after His resurrection (Mt. 28:18).
Other translations read “one that was ancient of days,” “the ancient One” etc. In vs.22 “the ancient One,” i.e., One who has lived a great number of years. In Ugoritic text “El” is called “King, father of years.” But many object, no pious Jew would think of representing the Deity as an old man, hence, they believe this must be the Persian Ormazd, who appears as the great judge in Persian religion. Others believe him to be one of the “watchers” in 4:17. Ezekial 1:26; 43:6,7; Isa. 6:1; Job. 36:26; Ps. 102:24; Isa. 41:4 etc. should be read.
Living long does not = decrepit. The Bible uses picture words to describe truths. The whiteness of hair does not = old age but, the radiance of His Being & the whiteness of His garment = purity.
Vs.13 speaks of “the clouds of heaven.” We find this mentioned in 1 Thes. 4:17, “the clouds;” In Mt. 24:30; 26:64; Mk. 13:26; 14:62; Lk. 21:27; Rev. 1:7,13; 14:14 needs to be considered.
In Ps. 104:3 Yahweh uses the “clouds” as His chariot (see also Isa. 19:1; Ps. 18:10; Mt. 26:64; Rev. 1:7, & in II Esdras 13:3 we read: “… something like the figure of a man came up out of the heart of the sea, And I saw that this man flew with the CLOUDS of heaven…” Was he writing about the Messiah (Dan. 7:13)?).
Confusion over Dan. 7:13: “One like the Son of man” need denote no more than a figure in human form. In apocalyptic men are symbolized by beasts, but celestial beings by the human form (see Enoch 89-90). So, here we are to think of a celestial being in contrast to the terrestrial nature of the beasts.
In the N.T. & in Enoch 45-57 the son of man is an individual whose office is to be interpreted messianically. (see also the Talmud, i.e. the Sanhedrin 98 a).
There are so many views/interpretations on these texts. I’m not giving any here. Study for yourself!
Back to Hippolytus
Hippolytus points out that although the body of Christ was dead, Christ Himself was ALIVE “… for the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father is not…” (205 A.D., 5:194); who, then, was in heaven but the Word incarnate – who was sent to show that He was upon the earth & was also in heaven?” (5:225).
I think Hippolytus was referring to Jesus’ statement, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who IS (present tense) in heaven” – Jn. 3:13. How could the Son be on earth (speaking) & in heaven at the same time? Some manuscripts omit “who is in heaven.” [note: the implicit reference to John 1:18, “no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotton Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him” (i.e., “He has made Him known”), may have led to the marginal gloss (unless it is an “original” part of the text), “who is in heaven.” Scholars, again, debate: if this reading – Western, Caesarean, & Syrian – is accepted, the present tense must be taken as futuristic (see Jn. 7:34 where Jesus says, “ye shall seek Me, & shall not find Me; & where I am, thither ye cannot come.” 12:26; 14:3; 17:24 etc.)
John 3:13 seems a figurative expression for, “No man hath known the mysteries of the Kingdom of God,” as in Deut. 30:12; Ps. 73:17; Prov. 30:4; Rom. 11:34 etc.. Gk. scholars say “the Son of man is in heaven,” means the ubiquity or omnipresence of His nature; Christ, not the man Jesus, can be in both heaven (Spirit) & on earth.
Hippolytus finishes with: “Having been made man, He is still God forever. For to this effect, John also has said, ‘Who is, & who was, & who is to come – the Almighty.’ And he has appropriately called only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony & said, ‘All things are delivered unto Me by My Father.” (205 A.D., 5:225)
Eusebius (270-340 A.D.), quoting Caius: “… there are older writings (e.g. Victor), which they wrote against the pagans… For who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus & Melito…” Eusebius mentions Irenaeus & Melito’s books: Irenaeus, 130-200 A.D. was bishop at Lyons (now France). In 190 he wrote to Victor, bishop of Rome, pleading tolerance for the Christians of Asia Minor who celebrated Easter on a different day than did Early Christian Beliefs. Melito (d.190 A.D.) was bishop of Sardis in Asia & a prolific writer. Sardis is mentioned in Rev. 3:1. That Ekklesia had “a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments…” vs.4.
Eusebius continues: “… All the psalms, too, & hymns… which have been written from the beginning by the faithful – celebrate Christ the Word of God, ascribing Divinity to Him.” (215 A.D., 5:601).
[note: Caius was a 3rd century Presbyter in the Church of Rome who wrote against major heresies of his day. He is also known as Gaius]. Eusebius was bishop of the Ekklesia in Caesarea during the reign of Constantine. His “Ecclesiastical History was a principal source for the history of the Ekklesia from the 1st century down thru the time of Emperor Constantine. Enter Origen (185-255 A.D.), a pupil of Clement of Alexandria, called the “father of Christian theology,” a prolific writer of the pre-Nicene Ekklesia (some estimate he wrote around 2,000 works). So, what did he have to say about Christ’s Divinity?
“No one should be offended that the Savior is also God…” (225 A.D., 4:250);
“… The work of the Son is not a different thing from that of the Father…” (4:251);
“Jesus Christ Himself is the Lord & Creator of the soul.” (4:271);
“No one will logically think this Son of God, in respect of the Word being God, is to be contained in any place… it is distinctly shown that the Divinity of the Son of God was not shut up in some place.” (4:377);
“We might say of Christ, that by nature this first principle [Gk. archē] is Deity…” (228 A.D., 9:307);
“It is permitted to say… ‘I am the beginning & the end, the Alpha & Omega, the first & the last’ (quoting Rev. 1:8,11,17.
Q. Did the Divine Christ/Son have a beginning?
Part 4 –
Since the Father is “Eternal”, the Son must be also, Rom. 1:20 speaks of “… His eternal power & Godhead,” His Divine nature, i.e. Deity. Paul, in writing to Timothy, wrote: “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God (i.e. only God) who alone is wise, be honor & glory forever & ever,” 1 Tim. 1:17, NKJV. Here the Greek word aiōn is used, meaning perpetuity, used for both the Messianic period & endless future, without END! Aiōnios is taken from aiōn, also meaning perpetual (but used of past time, or past & future as well, forever, everlasting etc.
Aīdios, another Gk. word meaning everlasting. So, both aiōnios & aidos denotes everlasting/eternal (consult a Gk. Dict. for better understanding). Aiōnios is used in Rom. 16:26 where the NKJV has “everlasting God;” other trans. have “eternal God.” There are many texts using eternal/everlasting: Rom 16:26 = God; 1 Tim. 6:16 = His power; 1 Pet. 5:10 = His glory; Heb. 9:14 = the Holy Spirit; Heb. 9:12 = of the redemption effected by Christ, & of the consequent salvation of men, 5:9, as well as of His future rule, 2 Pet. 1:11, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, Lk. 1:33; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, Jn. 3:16, & of the resurrection body, 2 Cor. 5:1, elsewhere said to be immortal, 1 Cor. 15:53, in which that life will finally be realized, Mt. 25:46 & Titus 1:22 etc.
While it is true that the Gk. word aiōnios can describe either undefined but not endless duration (as some cults use it to prove Hell is not endless), but when it comes to the END, it always means “endless duration,” not “limited duration”).
Beginning vs End
Since the Scriptures teach us that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are “eternal,” meaning they have no beginning nor end, what did the risen/glorified Christ mean, “I am the Alpha & the Omega, the Beginning & the End,” Rev. 1:8? In vss.11 & 17 He uses “the First & the Last.” Not only this but He calls Himself “the Almighty” in vs.8 (see Isa. 9:6).
Beginning:
Greek, archē (ἀρχή): the root “arch” primarily indicated what was of worth, hence, the verb “archō” meant “to be first,” and “archōn” denoted a ruler. So also arose the idea of a “beginning,” the orgin, the active cause, whether a person or thing, e.g. see Col. 1:18. The above Gk. word can also mean Chief in order, time, place or rank, such as magistrate, power, principle, rule.
Archomai (ἄρχομαι) denotes “to begin” (verb): Jesus was the beginning of the New World Order, aka N.T. Christianity: He will be the end of it as well; nothing to come after it except judgment of the nations = Heaven or Hell. Is there an END to the Father’s/the Son’s Divinity?
Rev. 1:8
The Alpha & Omega was a mode of speech the Jews used to express the whole compass of things by aleph & tau, the first & last letters of the Hebrew alphabet; John, writing in Greek uses “A” = alpha & “Ω” = omega. With the rabbis (Heb.) mealephvead tau, = “from aleph to tau,” expressed the whole of a matter – from beginning-to-the-end.
Examples: in Yalcut Rubeni, fol.17,4: “Adam transgressed the whole law from aleph to tau;” i.e., “from the Beginning to the End;”
Ibid., fol.48,4: “Abraham observed the law, from aleph to tau;” i.e., “he kept it entirely, from the Beginning to End.”
Ibid., fol.128,3: “When the holy blessed God pronounced a blessing on the Israelites, He did it from aleph to tau;” i.e., “He did it perfectly.”
God the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit were the Creators of all things, establishers, as well as the destroyers: aleph = matter out of which all things were formed; tau = the destruction of all things. Revelation speaks of the destruction of the “old” & the creation of the “here” = “Now I saw a NEW heaven & a NEW earth, for the first heaven & the first earth had passed away…” Rev. 21:1 – there will be a “New Jerusalem” as well as the lake of fire (gehenna), vss.2 & 8. Again, “I am the Alpha & the Omega, the Beginning & the End” is found in 2:6.
Who is the speaker in Rev. 1:8 – the Father or the Son? Who is the speaker in 21:6? Some say the Father, some the Son. We might consider “the beginning: “In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, & the Word was God.”, Jn. 1:1 (Greek enarchēi). Was (is) the Son the “Word” or is the Father? Were “all things” made by the “Father” or the “Son”? (vs.2), “by Him,” by who? There is no doubt Jn. 1:1 is speaking of the Son/His Divinity. John writes about the eternal/Divine Son. Jesus is called “the Word of God” because the phrase occurs over 1,200 times in the O.T. to refer to the message of God. Jesus is the expression & communication of the Word. He is both the incarnate & the inspired Word.
To me it makes no difference, for the Father & the Son are ONE, not math wise, but UNITY wise.
Was John’s vision that of the Father or of the Son (Rev. 1:12-16). The “voice,” “I am the first & the last: I am He that liveth, & was dead; &, behold, I am alive for evermore (eternally)” (Rev. 1:17,18). We conclude that it was/is the risen Christ Jesus who appeared/spoke to John. Vs.14,15 speaks of “the Ancient of days” (as we’ve seen in Daniel 7:9). John applies this description of God to the heavenly Christ. One Bible scholar wrote that Christ calls Himself the first & the last (Rev. 1:17), a title similar to that given God (Father), the Alpha & the Omega (vs.8). It is hard for some to make a distinction between the “Father”/ “Son”. Jesus stated in Jn. 17:11 that He & His Father are ONE, see also Jn. 10:30, meaning that the Father and the Son are not the very same Divine Being, but ONE in Divinity/Unity.
(note: some scholars tell us that the phrase “I am Alpha & Omega, the first & the last,” is not found in the best texts).
Isaiah 44:6 does say, “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, & His redeemer the LORD of hosts; ‘I am the first, & I am the last…”(see also Genesis Rabbah 81:2).
Back to Origen
Origen went on to say, “one cannot be in the Father except by ascending upwards from below & first coming to the Divinity of the Son…” (228 A.D., 9:313);
“The Canaanite woman came & worshipped Jesus as God…” (245 A.D., 9:446);
“He is perceived as being the Word, for He was God in the beginning with God. He reveals the Father.” (9:452);
“We now believe Jesus Himself, when He speaks respecting His Divinity: ‘I am the way, the truth, & the life’.” (248 A.D., 4:426);
“… We quote these passages, making no distinction between the Son of God & Jesus (the Man).” (4:434);
“The Divinity of Jesus is established by these things: the existence of the Churches of the saved, the prophecies uttered concerning Him, the cures brought about in His name, & the wisdom & knowledge that are in Him.” (4:477);
“Every prayer… thanksgiving is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest – the living Word & God, who is above all the angels. And to the Word Himself will we also pray…” (4:544);
“Although we may call Him a second God, let men know that by the term… we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all their virtues, & a Reason capable of containing all reason.” (4:561);
“The architect of this world is the Son of God. His Father is the first God & Sovereign Ruler over all things.” (4:595);
“’The people who sat in darkness (the Gentiles) saw a great light’ – the God Jesus.” (4:603).
Here Origen quotes from Isaiah 9:2 In a long quote (248 A.D., 4:643,644), Origen refutes Celsus, who accuses the Christians of worshipping 3 Gods, e.g., Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, Origen quotes from the mouth of Jesus, “I & My Father are one,” “As you & I are one,” & “My Father is in Me & I in Him.” The Muslims also accuse Christians of idol worship, the worship of Father, Son, & Mary. The Roman Catholics may worship Mary but true Christians do not (see my Islamic/R. Catholic articles-posted).
Origen put forth a long refutation against idolatry. The Father-Son-Holy Ghost are not 3 gods but ONE GOD in 3 persons. Origen says, “To explain this fully, & to justify the conduct of the Christians in refusing homage to any object except the First-Born of all creation (who is His Word & is God!), we must quoted from Scripture.” (248 A.D., 4:639).
In years past, I’ve watched debates between Muslim & Christian, between Christian & Christian on this subject – “the Christians worship 3 gods!”. You can still find debates up on the “net.”
Novation (d.257 A.D.) had plenty to say concerning the Divinity of the Son:
“Why, then, should man hesitate to call Christ ‘God,’ when he observes that is declared to be God by the Father, according to the Scriptures?… whoever acknowledges Him to be God may find salvation in Christ as God…” (235 A.D., 5:621);
“In what way do they [heretics] receive Christ as God? For now they cannot deny Him to be God. Do they receive Him as God the Father or God the Son? If as the Son, why do they deny that the Son of God is God?…” (5:621);
“This saying can be true of no man: ‘I & the Father are one.’ Christ alone declared this utterance… out of His Divinity… Paul says, ‘… of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.’” (5:622).
Part 5 –
Since so many believe that there is only ONE God (the Father only), let us examine Jesus’ saying on His meaning.
First, speaking of ONE (numeral), the Gk. word Heis is used. It is used as the first cardinal numeral, masculine (feminine & neuter nominative forms are mia & hen), to signify (1) (a) one in contrast to many, e.g., Mt. 25:15; Rom. 5:18, (R.V.), “(though one (trespass),” i.e., Adam’s transgression, in contrast to the “one act of righteousness,” i.e., the Death of Christ (not as A.V., “the offence of one,” & “the righteousness of one”); (b) metaphorically, union/unity, e.g., Jn. 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21,22; Rom. 12:4,5; Phil. 1:27; (2) emphatically, (a) a single (one), to the exclusion of others, e.g., Mt. 21:24; Rom. 3:10; 1 Cor. 9:24; 1 Tim. 2:5 (twice); (b) one, alone, e.g., Mk. 2:7, R.V. (A.V., “only”); 10:18; Lk. 18:19; (c) one & the same, e.g., Rom. 3:30, R.V., “God is ONE,” i.e., there is not ONE God for the Jew & ONE for the Gentile; Gal. 3:20, which means that in a promise there is no other party; 1 Cor. 3:8; 11:5; 12:11; 1 Jn. 5:8 (lit., “& the 3 are into 1; i.e., “UNITED in ONE & the same witness); (3) a certain one, in the same sense as the indefinite pronoun “tis,” e.g., Mt. 8:19, R.V., “a (scribe),” (see marg.), “one (scribe),” A.V., “a certain (scribe);” 19:16, “one”; in Rev. 8:13, R.V. (marg.), “one (eagle)”; heis tis are used together in Lk. 22:50; Jn. 11:49; This occurs, the Gk. scholars tell us, frequently in the papyri (see Moulton, Prol., p.96); (4) distributively, with hekastos, each, i.e., every one, e.g., Lk. 4:40; Acts 2:6, “every man” (lit., ‘every one’); in the sense of ‘one… & one,’ e.g., In. 20:12; or one… followed by allos or heteros, the other, e.g., Mt. 6:24; or by a second heis, e.g., Mt. 24:40, R.V., “one”; Jn. 20:2; in Rom. 12:5 heis is preceded by kata (kath’) in the sense of “severally (members) one (of another),” R.V. (A.V. = “every one… one”); Mk. 14:19; in 1 Thes. 5:11 the phrase in the 2nd part, “each other,” R.V. (A.V., “one another”), is, lit., ‘one the one’; (5) as an ordinal number, equivalent to (Gk.) prōtos, first phrase “the first day of the week,” lit. & idiomatically, ‘one of sabbaths,’ signifying ‘the first day after the sabbath,’ e.g., Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; (see vines N.T. Gk. words/Moulton’s Prol. p.96/other Gk. Expository Dictionary/Concordance, Lexicons et al.).
Before I proceed with the Pronous (τίς/tis), I want to say something about Jn. 14:16: “And I (Jesus) will pray (to) the Father, & He will give you ANOTHER HELPER, that He may abide with you forever.” Jesus here is speaking of “the Spirit of truth,” called “HELPER” (vs.17) or Greek, “Parakletos,” i.e. “Comforter” (see Rom. 8:15 where “He,” not “IT” is called, “Spirit of adoption”). (see my articles on the Holy Spirit, posted).
Another
The use of Allos (ἄλλος) & Heteros (ἕτερος) have a different meaning. Allos expresses a numerical difference & denotes another of the same sort; Heteros expresses a qualitative difference & denotes another of a different sort. John’s 14:16, Christ promised to send “another Comforter” (allos, another like Himself, not heteros). Paul wrote: “I see a different (A.V., ‘another’) law,” heteros, a law different from that of the spirit of life (not allos, a law of the same sort), Rom. 7:23. After Joseph’s death “another king arose,” heteros, one of a different character, Acts 7:18. So, the Apostle Paul wrote about “a different gospel (heteros), which is not another” (allos, another like the one he preached), Gal. 1:6,7. (see heteros (not allos) in Mt. 11:3, & Acts 27:1; in Lk. 23:32 heteroi is used).
The two Gk. words are only apparently interchanged in 1 Cor. 1:16 & 6:1; 12:8-10; 14:17 & 19, e.g., the difference being present, though not so readily discernible.
However, they are not interchangeable in 1 Cor. 15:39-41; here “heteros” is used to distinguish the “heavenly glory” from the “earthly,” for, as Gk. scholars point out, these differ in genus, & “allos” to distinguish the “flesh” or men, birds, & fishes, which in each case is “flesh,” differing not in genus but in species. So, “allos” is used again to distinguish between the heavenly bodies, for these also differ not in kind but in degree only.
[note: the distinction comes out in the compounds of heteros, via., heteroglōssos, “strange tongues,” 1 Cor. 14:21; heterodidaskaleō, “to teach a different doctrine,” 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; heterozugōm “to be unequally yoked” (i.e., with those of a different character), 2 Cor. 6:14.
Vine points out, for another numerically must not be confounded with another generically (Jn. 14:16). Jesus says “… the Father… will give you another Advocate (R.S.V.)…” The KJV has comforter (i.e., Helper), stressing that the Holy Spirit would be “another” like Jesus = Divine. A Comforter (Paraclete) is an advocate called alongside for aid in time of trouble (like persecution/prosecution/prison etc.), we see the same in 1 Jn. 2:1, “Advocate.” The Father is also known as The God of All Comfort (2 Cor. 1:3).
Jesus goes on to say, “… I am in My Father, & ye in Me, & I in you.”, vs.20.
The Muslims believe the Holy Spirit was/is Mohammed. Yep! I have a study in one of our 2 Faces of Islam publications on this. But, take the above saying (Jn. 14:20), was Jesus speaking of the Holy Spirit or the Islamic Prophet? The Bible was written even before the Qur’an or Hadiths. Can Mohammed be in the early believers? Can he be in us today, as the Paraclete? How utterly foolish!
The Spirit, the Paraklēton/allon here implies the personality of the Spirit equality of both Jesus & the Spirit with the Father.
One-Pronouns
Tis (τίς), an indefinite pronoun signifying a certain one, some one, any one, one (the neuter form ti denotes a certain thing), is used (a) like a noun, e.g., Acts 5:25; 19:32; 21:34; 1 Cor. 3:4; or with the meaning ‘someone,’ e.g., Acts 8:31, R.V., “someone” (A.V., “some man”); Rom. 5:7; (b) as an adj. (see certain: the indefinity pronoun tis signifies anyone, someone, a certain one; the neuter, ti, a certain thing, e.g., Mt. 20:20; Mk. 14:51 etc.).
Hos (ὅς), as a relative pronoun, signifies “who;” as a demonstrative pronoun, “this,” or “the one” in contract with “the other,” or “another,” e.g., Rom. 14:2, A.V. (R.V., “one man”); 1 Cor. 12:8.
(1) The R.V. often substitutes “one” for “man,” e.g., Mt. 17:8 (oudeis, no one); 1 Cor. 3:21 (i.e., ‘no person’); 1 Cor. 15:35; 1 Thes. 5:15; 2 Tim. 4:16; 1 Jn. 2:27; 3:3.
(2) The pronoun houtos is sometimes translated “this one,” e.g., Lk. 7:8.
(3) In 1 Pet. 3:8, A.V., homophrōn, = “likeminded” (R.V. = “of one mind” (lit., ‘of the same mind’).
(4) In Acts 7:26, “at one,” is, lit., ‘unto peace.’
(5) For “everyone” in Acts 5:16 see “Every.”
(6) In Mk. 9:26 nekros, dead, is translated” one deed.”
(7) In Acts 2:1 “in one place” translates epito auto, lit., ‘to the same,’ which may mean ‘for the same (purpose);’ in 1 Cor. 11:20 & 14:23, the R.V. translates it “together.”
(8) In Mk. 1:7, A.V., the article ho, the, is rendered “one” (R.V., “he that”).
(9) In Mk. 7:14, A.V., the pl. of pas, “all” (so R.V.), is translated “every one;” in Mt. 5:28, A.V. pas, with the article, is translated “whosoever” (R.V. “every one who”).
(10) In Acts 1:24, A.V. “whether” is, lit., & as the R.V., “the one whom.”
(11) In 2 Thes. 2:7, the article is rendered “one that,” R.V. (A.V., “he who”).
Part 6 –
I’ll continue on with more quotes from Novatian. The Novatianists believed that the Church should not pronounce ecclesiastical forgiveness to repentant believers who denied Christ during persecution. It should be noted, all of the quotations in the Anti-Nicene Fathers about then are from their opponents, (read Treatise against Novation written in 255 A.D.)
“Therefore, He (Christ Jesus) is not only man, but God also… For it is not the nature of man, but of God…” (235 A.D., 5:623);
“If Christ was only man, how did He say, ‘Before Abraham was, I am!?’ … Although He was born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham” (5:624,625).
Good point!
John 8:58
Jesus argued with the Jews of His day over His Divinity: “ye are of your father the devil!” He told them (Jn. 8:44). The Jews accused Him of having a devil (8:48,49). After a heated exchange of words Jesus & the Jews got into the issue of Abraham (8:52-58).
Sohar numer fol.61 reads: “Abraham rejoiced because he could know, & perceive, & cleave to the Divine Name.” The Divine Name is Yehovah; & by this they simply mean God Himself (ref.: 8:56 = “your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: & he saw it, & was glad.”)
Verse 58: “… Before Abraham was, I am.” The following is a lit. trans. of Calmet’s note on this text:
“I am from all eternity. I have existed before all ages. You consider in Me only the person who speaks to you, & who has appeared to you within a particular time. But besides this human nature, which ye think ye know, there is in Me a Divine & Eternal nature. Both, united, subsist together in My person. Abraham knew how to distinguish them. He adored Me as his God; & desired Me as his Savior. He has seen Me in My eternity, & he predicted My coming into the world.” That is one scholar’s take on 8:58.
Bishop Pearce (1800s) wrote:
“What Jesus here says relates (I think) to His existence antecedent to Abraham’s days, & not to His having been the Christ appointed & foretold before that time; for, if Jesus had meant this, the answer I apprehend would not have been a pertinent one. He might have been appointed & foretold for the Christ; but if He had not had an existence before Abraham’s days, neither could he have seen Abraham, (as, according to our Eng. trans., the Jews suppose Him to have said,) nor could Abraham have seen Him, as I suppose the Jews understood Him to have said in the preceding verse, to which words of the Jews the words of Jesus here are intended as an answer.” One can dig out many quotes from scholars/theologians et al. on what Jesus meant. [see Ex. 3:14 = “I AM who I AM;” Isa. 43:13 = “… before the day was I AM He…”; Jn. 17:5 = “… O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine own Self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” that is, from eternity. (see also vs.24; Ps. 90:2 = “… from everlasting to everlasting thou art God;” Eph. 1:4 = “… before the foundation of the world.”). God & the Son existed before all things. There was not a time when they did not exist. The Bible uses language, human language to describe the highest description of the ETERNITY & DIVINITY of God.
Jesus’ statement, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: & he saw it, & was glad” (8:56) is ref. to Gen. 17:17. It is important to note that the Aramaic Targum of this passage renders the Hebrew word for “laughed” by “rejoiced,” &, also, in the pre-Christian Book of Jubilees, with its expansion of the stories in Genesis, it is repeatedly said that Abraham “rejoiced.” In one passage, Prof. W.F. Howard & A.J. Gossip, (Exegesis & Exposition), they say the writer adds, “For he knew & perceived that from him would arise the plant of righteousness for eternal generations, & from him a holy seed so that it should become like Him who had made all things” (The Interpreter’s Bible, John, pg.609). E. Nestle says, “Abraham Rejoiced,” (see his Expository Times, XX [1909], p.477). Strack & Billerbeck (Kommentar Zum N.T. aus Talmud and Midrasch, II, pp. 525-26) cite rabbinical expositions of Gen. 24:1 (where the Heb. reads: “he came into the days”) as meaning “he came to the veil of this world,” i.e., the curtain which separates this world from the future world; or “he came to the days,” i.e., the absolute sense, “into all the days these are.” They conclude, “These passages show that the old synagogue was often concerned with the revelations of the future granted to Abraham. Christ Jesus, they claim, must thus have been able to count upon His hearer’s understanding of His claim in this passage. “My day” = “the day of the Lord” = O.T. passim. This eschatological day has dawned with the coming of the Son of Man.
“Before Abraham was, I AM” (ref. to Jn. 1:1,2,18). The incarnate Logos (Word) is speaking. As in 10:31, the hostile Jews wanted to stone Jesus. Christ has always been Divine & as a man (human), He did not forsake His Divinity, he merely laid it aside to work as a man among men. Phil. 2:6,7 tells us that Jesus, “being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, & coming in the likeness of men.” Here we find the word “form” (NKJV), “Morphē”/Gk. μορφή = shape (fig.) nature.
Part 7 –
What did Paul mean, “being in the form of God?” Was He or was He not God? Obviously, this verse has received its share of criticism/controversy. Some scholars observe that as the apostle is writing of what Christ WAS before He took the form of a servant, the form of God, which He divested Himself when He became man, cannot be anything which He possessed during His incarnation or in His divested state; consequently neither the opinion of Erasmus, that the form of God consisted in those “sparks of Divinity” by which Christ, during His incarnation, manifested His Godhead, nor the opinion of the Socinians, that it consisted in the power of working miracles, is well founded; for Christ did not divest Himself either of one or the other, but possessed BOTH ALL THE TIME!
Some say, since Christ, when He became man, could not divest Himself of the nature of God: Heb. 1:3 tells us a lot about Christ, e.g., “brightness of His glory”/ “express image of His person.” By the “form of God” we are to understand that visible, glorious light in which the Deity is said to dwell (1 Tim. 6:16) & by which He manifested Himself to the men/women of old (Deut. 5:22,24); which was commonly accompanied with a numerous army/retinue of angels (Ps. 68:17), & which in Scripture is called the Similitude, (Num. 12:8; The “Face,” Ps. 31:16; The “Presence” (Ex. 33:15); the “Shape” of God = (Jn. 5:37). So “Form,” here used, which signifies a person’s external shape or appearance, & not His nature or essence. Jesus looked like a human – He was both human & Divine (see Mk. 16:12/Mt. 17:2. The form of God, that is, His visible glory, & the attendance of angels, as the Son of God enjoyed with His Father before the world was. (Jn. 17:5). Heb. 1:3 speaks of His “brightness,” of this he divested Himself when He became flesh, resumed it after his ascension… & will come with it to be Judge (Mt. 16::27).
It should be noted that during His earthly humiliation, as God & equal with the Father, was no encroachment on the Divine prerogative; for, as He had an equality of nature He had an equality of rights. Jesus’ sufferings/trials etc. as a man did not affect the eternal Deity. Phil. 2:6, as said, is hard to grasp. One scholar once said that almost every word in it has to be explained with the closest attention.
The word for “being” (ύπαρξη) is a philosophical word which denotes the underlying nature, as opposed to chance variations. Something which we call humanity is inherent in the human race, but Christ, in His fundamental attributes, was/is “Divine;” expressed by “in the form of God.”
The Greeks, it is said, with their keen analytical sense, had two separate words for “form”: 1 – one of them applied to mere shape/appearance; 2 – the other suggests that the form of an object is the expression of what it really is.
The reality discloses itself in the form. It is the word which the apostle employs here in Phil. 2:6 (ευ μορφή). So, when Paul stated that Christ existed in the “form” of God, he implies that Christ was of the same nature as the Father, that the principle of His Being was essentially Divine. Since He had this affinity with the Father, He might have aspired to “equality” (vs.6) with Him; He might have claimed an equal share in ALL the powers which the Father exercises & in all the honors which are rendered to Him by His creatures. Yet He never attempted the robbery (vs.6) which might have raised Him higher. The RSV has “a thing to be grasped (exploited) (ἁρπαγμός), a crucial word in vs.6; in the Greek of Paul’s time it was often used in the general sense of a prize or a windfall (as some scholars point out) – something one lays hold of at once when it comes his/her way. The suggestion may thus be that Christ Jesus was not tempted by a chance. No! He was always UNDER the Father’s authority/rule as a Son. Robbery suggests a violent revolt! Unlike ministers of today who will do just about everything to seize power & glory. Satan is the arch robber (thief) who steals God’s honor/glory whenever he can (working in & through false messengers. (consider Isa. 14) We might also remember Milton’s Paradise Last.
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” Jesus was meek (not weak!); He was not after the spotlight of fame & fortune as so many are today. Paul also authored 2 Cor. 8:9, “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich (spiritually), yet for your sakes He became poor.” Phil. 2:7 states that Jesus “made Himself of no reputation…” Some versions say “but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant (slave).” Jesus, humble, obedient & at the same time strong in spirit. He “emptied Himself” (ἑαυτόν ἐκένωσεν). This is the same as “made Himself of no reputation.” Christ laid aside His Divine rank and assumed the “the form of a (human) servant” (lit., “a slave”). He didn’t merely disguise Himself as a slave but became one; unlike so many in the ministry who disguise themselves as “sheep” but are in truth “wolves”!
Verse 8 says, “being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, & became obedient unto death…” Here Paul uses the other word for “form (some versions use “fashion”; The KJV has “form”), meaning shape/appearance, i.e., Divinity.
Novatian (d.257 A.D.) wrote, “If Christ was only man, how did he say, “Before Abraham was, I am?’” (235 A.D., 5:624). He goes on to ask, “How can it be said that ‘I & the Father are one,’ if He is not both God & the Son?” (5:625);
“… He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father.” (5:625). All those that believe trinitarianism, believe that the Father, the Son, & the Holy Ghost are 3 separate Divine Beings called “God” – the UNION of 3 Divine persons = ONE Godhead. The “oneness” folks do not believe this.
“If Christ had only been man,” Novatian wrote, “He would have been spoken of as being in ‘the image of God,’ not ‘in the form of God.’” (5:633).
Cyprian (d.258 A.D.) wrote, “Christ is God…”. He quotes from Isaiah, Jeremiah & Baruch. He also quotes from Psalms, from the gospel of John, Romans, & Rev. Paul wrote, “… Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God,” Rom. 9:5 (NKJV). Jeremiah 23:6 speaks of “The LORD our righteousness” (LORD = Heb. YHWH Tsidkenu). What do the “One-ners” think of Rom. 9:5?
This text has also caused plenty of controversy. There are two Eng. texts here: “God over all, blessed forever” or the one “who is over all, God blessed forever,” which is correct?
Compare:
“Whose are the fathers, & of whom as concerning the flesh Christ come, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” -vs- “to them belong the patriarchs, & of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen” (KJV/RSV).
Scholars (Greek/Eng.) debate here. The question can’t be answered on the basis of the Gk. since it is a matter almost entirely of punctuation, & Gk. MSS in the early period were never punctuated. There is even one additional possibility, viz, “… flesh, who is over all. God be blessed forever”; but the choice is probably to be made between the KJV/RSV translations. The majority of modern scholars & commentators favor the latter because of the unlikelihood of Paul’s having here referred to Christ as “God” (Θεός). Although the apostle goes so far as to suggest for Christ “equality with God” (as we’ve seen in Phil. 2:5-11) & is willing to apply to Jesus passages in the O.T. in which God is alluded to under the name “the LORD,” he apparently shies aways from actually calling Christ “God,” at least this is the thinking of some Gk./Eng. scholars. (one may look up Ps. 41:13; 66:20; 72:18; 89:52; 106:48; Eph. 4:6 et al.) Rom. 1:25; 11:36; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20 can be read as well.
Trust me, I’ve read dozens of books & Bible versions – the debating over Scripture is endless. Some scholars/authors etc. are very conservative, some far left, others, in the middle.
The Bible scholar (Gk./Heb.) Adam Clarke comments on Rom. 9:5: “These ancestors were more renowned, as being the progenitors of the human nature of the Messiah. Christ, the Messiah, Kara oapka, according to the flesh, sprang from them. But this Messiah was more than man, He is God over all; the very Being who gave them being, though He appeared to receive a being from them.” (Book of Romans, VOL II, p.109, 1831 A.D.).
Clarke goes on to write: “Here the apostle most distinctly points out the twofold nature of our Lord – His eternal Godhead & His humanity; & all the transpositions of particles, & alterations of points in the universe, will not explain away this doctrine (that Christ is God) … this verse contains such an eminent proof of the DEITY of Christ… the opposers of His DIVINITY should strive with their utmost skill & cunning to destroy its force.” He goes on to mention a professor (Gk.) of his day, Dr. Taylor, who was an Arian, has considered the text: ‘Christ,’ he says, ‘is God over all, as He is by the Father appointed Lord, King, & Governor of all. The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son (Jn. 5:22); has given all things into his hands (Mt. 28:18); He is Lord of all (Acts 10:36); has given Him a name above every name (Phil. 2:9); has put all things under His feet (Eph. 1:21,22). This is our Lord’s supreme Godhead… the object of everlasting blessing (Rev. 5:12, 13) …’”.
Col. 1:16,17 speaks of His state & power. Vs.19 says, “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fulness should dwell.” “All the fulness”? That is all the Majesty, power, & godliness/goodness of God should be manifested in & by Christ Jesus. The “fulness” (Gk. πλήρωμα/plērōma) = repletion or completion, i.e., (subj.) what fills (as contents, supplement), or (obj.) what is filled (as container, performance) – which is put in to fill up, fulfilling. This Gk. word comes from the Gk. word πληρόω/plēroō, meaning to make replete, i.e., (lit.) furnish, execute (an office), accomplish, fully perfect etc. This is not all, Col. 2:9 says, “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” This “filling”/ “fulness” is opposed to the vain/empty doctrine of the Gentile/Jewish philosophers; there is a “fulness” in Christ Jesus suited to the empty, destitute state of the human soul/spirit. This is WHY Jesus says (twice) “you must be born again” (Jn. 3:3,5).
By the “Godhead” or “Deity”, θεότης, we are to understand the state or being of the Divine nature; & by the fulness of that Deity, the infinite attributes essential to such a nature.
So, the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, as opposed to the Jewish tabernacle, or temple. God’s presence was there, but in Christ, God is present in Christ. Not only this, but He/They dwell in the hearts of all born again believers (see Eph. 3:17). Paul says, after his statement (Col. 2:9), that “ye (we) are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality & power,” vs.10. (recall Jn. 17:20-23 where we find God’s desire for unity/oneness).
Being “complete,” i.e. “completeness in Christ” is believed by Paul. He wrote about a matter-of-fact “completeness.”
I now want to finish up with quotes from the early Church fathers. The Seventh Council of Carthage had this to say: “Jesus Christ, our Lord & God, is the Son of God the Father & Creator.” (256 A.D., 5:567);
Victorinus (d.304 A.D.): “He is, because He endures continually. He was, because with the Father, He made all things.” (280 A.D., 7:344);
Methodius ((d.311 A.D.): “Since He truly was & is, being in the beginning with God, & being God, He is the Chief commander & Shepherd of the heavenly ones.” (290 A.D., 6:318);
Lactantius (250-325 A.D.): “We believe Him to be God.” (304 A.D., 7:139);
Arnobius (d.330 A.D.): “Do these (pagans), then, hear with offended ears that Christ is worshipped & that He is accepted by us & regarded as a Divine Person?” (305 A.D., 6:423);
“Christ performed all those miracles… For this was the proper duty of true Divinity…” (305 A.D., 6:425);
“If what we say is admitted to be true, He is proved to have been God by the confession of everyone,” (305 A.D., 6:429).
The Apostolic Constitutions (compiled 390 A.D.) simply stated, “we profess that Christ is not a mere man, but is God the Word & Man, the Mediator… He is the High Priest of the Father,” (390 A.D., 7:454).
Fin –
I’ll end this article with a quote (rather lengthy) from Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.). He writes about God the Word:
“Christians call Him the Word, because He carries tiding from the Father to men. But they maintain that this Power is indivisible & inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible & inseparable form the sun in the heavens… They say that the Father, when He chooses, causes His Power to spring forth. And when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself… This power, which the prophetic Word calls God… is indeed something numerically distinct [from the Father]… This Power was begotten from the Father by His power & will, but not by division, as if the essence of the Father were divided. For all other things that are partitioned & divided are not the same after the partition as they were before they were divided. And, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from the original fire. Yet, the fire from which many fires can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.” (160 A.D., 1:264). There are dozens of quotes if one desires to research them. Amen.
Extra –
Holy Spirit
[Note: in My article (Muslim Articles – set 2, part 3, Islam Study) I ask:
“Why do you (Muslims) insist that the Gk. ‘Paraclete’ (which the N.T. was written in, not Arabic!) is ‘Periclyte,’ as Ali says ‘… the Greek word Paraclete which the Christians interpret as referring to the Holy Spirit is by our Doctors/Scholars taken to be Periclyte, which would be the Greek form of Ahmad.’ What a delightful twist of words!”
Muslims go so far as to say that Jesus prophesied Muhammad coming: Sura 61:6. (see the rest of my comments about how the Christian & Muslim interpret the Word “comforter”/ “Parakletos.” You’ll be shocked!