Main menu:
Hebrews 1.8
pros de ton Huion HO thronos sou ho Theos eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos
πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν , Ὁ θρόνος σου , ὁ Θεὸς , εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ,
unto however the Son the throne of you O God [is] to the age of the age
kai hē rhabdos tēs euthytētos rhabdos tēs basileias sou
καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος , ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου .
and the sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of the kingdom of you
But about the Son he says,
‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a sceptre of justice will be the sceptre of your kingdom.’
This passage, a quotation from Psalm 45.7–8, is one of a number used in the first chapter of Hebrews to demonstrate the pre-
In considering the options, we should remember that Hebrews is a letter of comparisons. First the author contrasts Christ with the Old Testament prophets, then with the angels, then with the Levitical priesthood. In each case Christ is presented as something greater and better than what went before. Given that the bulk of the Chapter One is devoted to stressing Christ’s superior status to the angels, it seems only natural that it should use the only verse in the Septuagint which describes the Messiah directly as ‘God.’
It is admittedly true that the Greek here could be translated ‘God is your throne for ever and ever,’ as appears, almost alone among modern versions, in the New World Translation and in early editions of the NEB. But quite apart from the fact that such an expression is unparalleled elsewhere in Scripture, such a phrase would place an undue emphasis on the Father’s eternal nature when, in the context both of the chapter and the book as a whole, it is the eternal nature of the Son that is being emphasised. For this reason, the translation
The reference to Christ’s deity here is underlined by the description of him in verse 3 as ‘the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact representation of his being’. As Warfield points out, this implies ‘a correspondence as close as that which an impression gives back to a seal: the Son of God in no single trait in the least differs from God.’<2> Moreover, the impression is strengthened in verses 10–12 by the application to Christ of the Psalmist’s description of Yahweh as the eternal creator of the universe. Robert Reymond concludes that ‘there can be no doubt in view of the content of his first chapter that for the writer of Hebrews all that God is as God, so Jesus is, as the Son, from, to, and throughout eternity.’<3>
2 Peter 1.1
Symeōn Petros doulos kai apostolos Iēsou Christou tois isotimon
Συμεὼν Πέτρος , δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , τοῖς ἰσότιμον
Simon Peter a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ to those who equally precious
hēmin lachousin pistin en dikaiosynē tou Theou hēmōn kai
ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν , ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ
with ours having obtained a faith through [the] righteousness of the God of us and
Sōtēros Iēsou Christou
Σωτῆρος , Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Savior Jesus Christ
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
The second letter of Peter begins with a construction very similar to that in Titus 2.13, causing most modern versions to translate it ‘the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ However, since 1.2 explicitly distinguishes ‘God’ from ‘Jesus’, it might be argued that 1.1 actually refers to them both separately, as we find in the Authorised Version.
But this is to ignore the three occasions where the almost identical phrase ‘our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ is used, with no sense that it refers to more than one person. Michael Green, commenting on the similarity between the phrase ‘God and Father’ (referring to one person) in 1 Peter 1.3, and ‘God and Saviour’ (which, constructed in a similar way, should also refer to one person) in 2 Peter 1.1, observes that ‘when Peter wishes to distinguish the two persons (1.2) his construction is quite different.’<4> Indeed, Charles Bigg goes so far as to suggest that ‘if the author intended to distinguish two persons, he has expressed himself with singular inaccuracy.’<5>
In any case, this opening description of Jesus as ‘God’ seems to give rise directly to the line of argument which follows:
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (1.3-
Here, Jesus’ divine status is central to the argument being put forward: without it, we cannot ‘participate in the divine nature’.
Since, as we pointed out in Titus 2.13, the words ‘God and Saviour’ formed a well-
1 John 5.20
oidamen de hoti ho Huios tou Theou hēkei kai dedōken hēmin dianoian hina
οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει , καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν , ἵνα
we know moreover that the Son -
ginōskōmen ton alēthinon kai esmen en tō alēthinō en tō Huiō
we might know him who [is] true and we are in him who [is] true in the Son
autou Iēsou Christō houtos estin ho alēthinos Theos kai zōē aiōnios
αὐτοῦ , Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ . οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς , καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος .
of him Jesus Christ He is the true God and life eternal
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (Revised Standard Version).
The main question raised by this passage is what exactly John means by the pronoun ‘this’ at the beginning of the last sentence. Murray Harris lists no less than seven suggestions from different writers as to what it could be referring back to, including the entire verse, or even the letter as a whole!<6> Since ‘him who is true’ in the previous sentence seems to be referring to the Father, we could argue that ‘the true God’ does so as well, particularly as Jesus describes the Father as ‘the only true God’ in John 17.3.
Logically, however, it seems more likely that John is referring back to ‘Jesus Christ’ at the end of the previous sentence, a connection that is made much more obvious if, as we find in many modern versions, the Greek pronoun οὗτός is translated ‘He’ rather than ‘This’:
And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (NIV)
Moreover, since Christ is described as ‘eternal life’ at the beginning of the letter, it seems fitting that the same title applies to him here. In short, as Rudolf Schnackenburg argues, the ascription of deity to Christ ‘seems to occur intentionally at the end of the letter, at the climax of the triumphant expression of faith.’<7> Richard Lenski goes further, arguing that ‘if the Son is less, if he is not the real God even as the Father is the real God, then this entire epistle and all it declares about his blood, expiation, our fellowship with God, etc, are futile.’<8>
There may be a further clue here in the relationship with John’s gospel itself. Anyone reading the first chapter of the letter and the gospel will be struck by the similarity of the main themes: life, light, truth, and so on. If the structure of the letter is presenting the main themes of John’s gospel in a condensed form, it may well be that the reference to Christ as ‘the Word’ at the beginning of the letter cements a link with the opening of the gospel, while1 John 5.20 is intended to correspond to Thomas’s remarkable address to Jesus as ‘My Lord and my God’ in John 20.28.
All this, of course, amounts to pure speculation: the pronoun simply hangs in the air, with no clear direction with which to point! Such double meanings are strongly characteristic of John’s writing style (for example, verse 3.7 in the gospel of John might mean ‘you must be born again,’ but it could also be translated, ‘you must be born from above.’). We should notice that the first four verses of the letter are teeming with similarly ambiguous pronouns, and they appear on repeated occasions later in verses such as 2.25, 2.28 and 5.16 (more apparent if we read the letter in the Authorised Version). Larry Hurtado comments that ‘in the light of the close link between the Son and the Father in this document, it may be that the author did not intend a mutually exclusive choice.’<9>
The logical conclusion here may be, may be the strong hint provided in 2 John 9 that Father and Son together constitute God. Rather than pointing to either/or alternatives, John wants to keep us waiting and wondering. The unresolved question seems to be reaching towards the inexpressible mystery that ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10.30).