Archive for December, 2011|Monthly archive page

The Son and His existence from all eternity

In Apologetics, Chrisitian, Christ, Saved, Trinity on December 26, 2011 at 10:04 pm

the exact imprint of his nature

kai charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou

kai charaktēr

1 Long ago, at many times and ain many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but bin these last days che has spoken to us by dhis Son, whom he appointed ethe heir of all things, fthrough whom also he created gthe world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and hthe exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. iAfter making purification for sins, jhe sat down kat the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name lhe has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

m“You are my Son,

today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

n“I will be to him a father,

and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings othe firstborn into the world, he says,

p“Let all God’s angels worship him.” 7 Of the angels he says, q“He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” [1]

Louw Nida 89.92 89.92 καίa: a marker of coordinate relations—‘and.’ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας ‘James and Joseph and Simon and Judas’ Mt 13:55; χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ Ro 1:7; κεκένωται ἡ πίστις καὶ κατήργηται ἡ ἐπαγγελία ‘faith means nothing and the promise is ineffectual’ Ro 4:14.

Strong’s Greek #2532 2532. καί kai; a prim. conjunc.; and, even, also:—accompanied(1), actually(2), after(2), again(1), again*(1), along(4), also(535), although(1), although*(1), besides*(1), both(37), both*(1), certainly(1), continue(1), either(2), else(1), even(132), forty-six*(1), if(1), including(1), indeed(20), indeed*(2), just(3), likewise(1), more*(2), moving about freely*(1), nor(4), now(2), only(2), only*(1), or(11), same(1), so(30), than(2), than*(4), then(105), though(1), though*(6), together(1), too(34), until(1), very(3), well(13), when(7), whether(1), while(1), whose*(1), without*(4), yet(9).

58.62 χαρακτήρ, ῆρος m: a representation as an exact reproduction of a particular form or structure—‘exact representation.’ ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ ‘who is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his being’ He 1:3.[2]

Strong’s Greek #5481 † χαρακτήρ* A. In the Greek World. χαρακτήρ is orig. a nomen agentis: “one who χαράσσει.” The verb, derived from the noun χάραξ, means “to cut to a point,” “to sharpen,” Hes. Op., 387, 573, and then later it takes on the technical sense “to inscribe” on wood, stone, or brass. Anth. Graec., 7, 710, 8; in part. it is a tt. in minting coins, Aristot. Pol., I, 9, p. 1257a, 35–41; Fr., 485, p. 1557a, 36; Fr., 551, p. 1569a, 30.1 Since, at the time minting began, nomina agentis in Ionic and Attic were usually formed with -της, and the ancient suffix -τηρ was used only in relation to tools and vessels,2 one may assume that χαρακτήρ first denoted an object, “die,”3 IG2, II/III, 2 No. 1408, 11 f., cf. 1409, 5 (both c. 385 b.c.),4 then “impression,” “image,” “impress,” Plat. Polit., 289b; Aristot. Pol., I, 9, p. 1257a, 41. More gen. χαρακτήρ can then denote “coinage type,” ἦν δʼ ὁ ἀρχαῖος χαρακτὴρ δίδραχμον, Aristot. Atheniensium Res publica, 10, 2,5 and finally the “coin” …

The First Testament revelation was progressive. All could not be revealed at once, and because all could not be understood at once. Thus the revelation was given in many parts. In addition to this, it was given in different modes. It was given in the form of law, prophecy, history, psalm, sign, type, parable. Expositor’s1 says that the people of Israel “were like men listening to a clock striking the hour, always getting nearer the truth but obliged to wait till the whole is heard.”

The words “in times past” are the translation of palai (παλαι). The Greek has two words meaning “old,” archaios (ἀρχαιος), meaning “old in point of time,” and palaios (παλαιος), meaning “old in point of use, worn out, ready to be displaced by something new.” The close association of our word palai (παλαι) to palaios (παλαιος) suggests that the writer had in mind by its use, the fact that while the First Testament revelation was not to be cast aside, yet it was time for a new one to be given, one that would be God’s final word, one that would complete and round out the first one.

The translation so far reads “In many parts and in different ways of old.” Now comes the word “God.” It is preceded by the definite article which has several functions here. First of all, it serves notice on the reader, that the God of whom the writer speaks, is the same God whom the Hebrew addressees of the epistle profess to worship. Thus does the writer seek to place himself on common ground with his readers in the very beginning of a treatise which is highly argumentative in character. It is the debater’s technique which concedes all it safely can to an opponent. The other function of the article here is to indicate the particular Person of the Godhead spoken of, God the Father.

The next word “spake,” is a participle in the Greek text, and is associated with the word “spoken” of verse two, which is a finite verb. That is, “God, having spoken, spoke.” Thus, we have the two revelations, that of the First Testament and that of the New, joined together.[3]

Moving from the foundation set in the first part of the passage we have established that the revelation is progressive from beginning to end in time and content.









to Outline

Chapter summary. Hebrews begins with a grand affirmation. God, who has spoken to man through intermediaries, has now spoken to us by His Son, a Son who is God Himself in all His splendor and power (1:1–4).

The author underlines the fact that the Son is superior to angels. Jewish tradition held that angels gave the Old Covenant (the Pentateuch, the Law) to Moses. This One through whom God has now spoken is superior for He, not angels, is spoken to by God as “My Son” (v. 5). He is superior, for angels are commanded to worship the Son (v. 6). He is superior because angels are servants, while the Son sits on the throne (vv. 7–9).

The Son is superior not only as Creator of the universe, but as One who in endless life sits at God’s right hand (vv. 10–13). Angels are ministering spirits; not masters of the universe, but servants of God’s saints (v. 14).

Key verse. 1:3: God, exactly.

Personal application. We cannot honor Jesus too highly.

Key concepts.

Last days » 2 Timothy 3. Revelation » Psalms 18-21, 1 Corinthians 2. Prophets » Deuteronomy 18. Angels » Daniel 10. Father » Deuteronomy 31-32, Luke 12. Kingdom » Psalms 140-145, Matthew 4. Creation » Isaiah 40.


Many times and various ways (1:1). Old Testament revelations came in dreams and visions, through prophets, and in direct messages from the Angel of the Lord (Genesis 18-19). The revelation that comes through Christ continues this tradition, but is a final, ultimate revelation because its agent is God the Son.

The Son’s nature (1:3). The Gk. makes the meaning of key phrases clear. The “radiance” of God’s glory is apaugasma, which is a brightness shining from within, and a brightness caused by an external source. Jesus shines with His own and with the Father’s brightness—and the two lights are one.

The phrase “the exact representation of His [God’s] being” is the charackter. In the 1st century this indicated the imprint of a die, such as the impression on coins. Jesus “bears the stamp” of the divine nature itself.

Jesus’ superior name (1:4). The “name” in biblical times summed up all a person was. Though eternally superior to angels as God, Jesus also “became” in accomplishing our salvation. The name “Saviour” was added to His laurels.

“Firstborn” (1:6). The use of this term does not suggest an origin for Jesus subsequent to that of the Father. Rather prototokos is frequently used as a technical theological term, applied only to Jesus. It affirms His supreme rank and His unique relationship with the Father and His unique position within the family of God (cf. also Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5).

“Flames of fire” (1:7). This verse quotes Ps. 104:4. It is taken by some to refer to forms God’s angelic servants may take (cf. 2 Kings 6:17). It is more likely that this phrase, in a passage intended to exalt Christ, contrasts the fiery glory of angels with the awesome radiance of Christ’s true deity. Fire is impressive. But not when compared to the awesome power of the sun.

“Sit at My right hand” (1:13). The right hand is the traditional place of power and authority in the biblical world. Christ not only laid the foundations of the earth, and possesses endless life and existence, He also exercises all the power and authority of Deity.

Angels: ministering spirits (1:14). The Gk. word angelos means “messenger.” It is used 175 times in the N.T. The N.T. teaches that Satan leads a host of evil angels (Matt. 25:41; Jude 6), whom many believe are the demons of the Gospels, dedicated to harm human beings and resist God’s purposes. God’s angels, on the other hand, are committed by Him to serve and support us, who are the “heirs of salvation” (Heb. 1:14; cf. Matt. 18:10; Acts 12).

While angels have a supportive ministry, and no doubt protect and in other ways help believers, this passage reminds us that Jesus, not angels, is to be the focus of our faith. Paul sternly scolds those who exalt angels rather than Christ (Col. 2).[4]

The definite article appearing before “prophets,” sets these individuals off by themselves as a class. The fact that the article is absent before the word “Son,” emphasizes character, nature. It speaks of the Son-relationship of the Messiah to God the Father. It speaks of the distinction that exists between the prophets as God’s creatures used as instruments in His hands and the Son who by nature is Deity. The Son belongs to a different category. God spoke through One who is in character a son.

The revelation God gave in His Son, consisted not merely in what was said, as in the case of the prophets, but in what the Son was, not merely in what He (the Son) said. In other words, it was not primarily, nor finally, a revelation given through words, but through a Personality. It was a revelation made by One who in all that He is and all that He does and says, reveals the Father. He is the Logos, the total concept of Deity, Deity told out, the Word of God, not in the sense of a spoken or a written word, but in the sense of a Person who in Himself expresses all that God the Father is. He said on one occasion, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). And so John could write, “In the beginning was the Logos (Λογος) (the Word), and the Word (Logos (Λογος)) was in fellowship with God (the Father), and the Logos (Λογος) was as to His nature Deity” (John 1:1). This is the Person in whom God gave His final revelation to the human race.

But now, after the exegesis of this wonderful portion of God’s Word, we must pay attention to the argument of the writer. He wrote the book to prove just one proposition to be true; “The New Testament is superior to and takes the place of the First Testament.” His first major argument (1:1–8:6) shows that the Founder of the New Testament is superior to the founders of the First Testament, which makes the former Testament superior to the latter. The first class of individuals he selects among the founders of the First Testament are the prophets. He has now shown that the Founder of the New Testament is superior to the prophets in that the latter were merely created beings used as instruments by God, whereas the former is the Son, God the Son, thus very God of very God. But not only is the Son superior in His Being, but the mode of revealing God’s Word to the human race was superior in His case. When the prophets spoke, it was merely as mouthpieces. When the Son spoke, it was God Himself who spoke. Thus, by two counts already, has the writer shown that the One who gave the truth of the New Testament to man is superior to those who gave the truth of the First Testament.[5]

When God saves a sinner, He breaks the power of the indwelling sinful nature at the moment that sinner places his faith in the Lord Jesus (Romans 6). When that believer dies, he loses the sinful nature, and in his glorified body has only the divine nature. God also removes the guilt and penalty of sin and gives the believer a righteous standing. The Son of God made all this possible when He died on the Cross. His blood delivers the believer from the power of sin in this present life, and from the presence of sin in the future life. His blood removes the guilt and penalty of sin and cleanses the believer from its defilement. That is what is included in the act of our Lord making purification for sins.

The participle is in the aorist tense, which indicates that His act of making purification for sins was a single definite act, and a once-for-all act. The writer had just been speaking of the fact that the Son was the creator, sustainer, and motivater of all things from their beginning all down the ages of time. It was and is His responsibility to see to it that they in the plan of God are brought to a final ultimate and proper conclusion. Sin interposed itself in the smooth-working perfect universe. In carrying on all things to the desired end, the Son had to confront and deal with sin which had thrown the world into disorder and out of God’s order.

When His work on the Cross was finished, the Son “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” The seated posture indicates that His work was finished, in contrast to the Levitical priests who never sat down so far as their tabernacle work was concerned, and for the reason that their work was never finished, and this because the blood of bulls and goats could not pay for sin. The verb “sat down” denotes a solemn, formal act. It speaks of the assumption of a position of dignity and authority. The reference is to the Son’s glorification and ascension. In His exalted state He is still bearing on all things toward their destined consummation, and is still dealing with sin as the Great High Priest, saving believing sinners in His precious blood and cleansing saints from the defilement of sin that at times enters their lives.

With this, the inspired writer closes his argument to the effect that the Son of God is superior to the Old Testament prophets. He has enumerated seven superiorities. First, the Son is superior to the Old Testament prophets in that, whereas they were the mouthpieces of God, He was God Himself speaking on earth. Second, the Son inherits all things, the prophets being part of that inheritance. Third, the Son created all things and is the One who operates and manages the universe and all its creatures all down the successive ages of time. Fourth, the Son is the effulgence, the out-raying of the glory of God, not merely in the sense that He is the outshining of that glory, but that He Himself is a divine center of the out-raying of God’s glory, co-eternal and co-existent with the Father, of the same substance as the Father and, while the Son by eternal generation from the Father, yet also very God of very God, possessing in Himself life and light. For instance, the sunshine resting upon the earth is of the same essence as the light still in the sun, and is the outshining of the light in the sun. But the Lord Jesus is more than that illustration includes. He is not merely the outshining of God’s glory, but the outshining of that glory which in itself becomes a center from which the glory of God out-rays itself. Fifth, the Son is the exact impression of the Person and the character of Deity, thus its exact expression. Sixth, the Son carries the weight of the universe, maintains its coherence, and carries on its development. Seventh, He has by the shedding of His own blood on the Cross, put away sin.

Is He better than the prophets? Yes, infinitely so. Not one of these superiorities could be ascribed to the Old Testament prophets, or for that matter, to any ancient or modern so-called prophet of any religious system. In view of the Son’s superiorities over God’s prophets, what audacity it is for Modernism to place Socrates alongside of the Son of God. What sacrilege to say that He was only a human being. The Jesus of the Gospels is the Jesus of the Epistle to the Hebrews (2:9). Again, what a low-estimate first century Israel had of its Messiah, as shown by the fact that the writer needed to demonstrate that He was superior to its prophets.[6]

tēs hypostaseōs autou

92.24 ,, τό (pl. οἱ, αἱ, τά): a reference to an entity, event, or state, clearly identified by the linguistic or non-linguistic context of the utterance—‘the, he, she, it.’5 τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν ‘for we are also his offspring’ Ac 17:28; τὸ γὰρ ἅγιον πνεῦμα διδάξει ὑμᾶς ‘for the Holy Spirit will teach you’ Lk 12:12; παντὸς ἀκούοντος τὸν λόγον τῆς βασιλείας ‘everyone who hears the message about the kingdom’ Mt 13:19.[7]

Strong’s Greek #3588 3588. ho, hē, τό to; the def. art.; the:—about(2), all(5), case*(3), cause*(1), circumstances*(3), companions*(8), condition*(1), experiences(2), far(1), followers*(1), former*(1), meat(1), one(6), one who(1), one*(1), others(4), others*(1), outsiders*(3), people(1), sight(1), some(7), some*(5), suitable(1), these(4), things(1), this(31), those(406), those who(17), together*(8), under*(1), welfare(1), what(47), what had happened(1), what*(1), which(14), who(52), whoever(8), whom(4). ho; see 3739.

92.11 αὐτόςb, ή, ό: a reference to a definite person or persons spoken or written about (with an added feature of emphasis in the nominative forms)—‘he, him, she, her, it, they, them.’ αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν ‘for he will save his people from their sins’ Mt 1:21; καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ ‘and this was the sixth month for her who was called barren’ Lk 1:36; αὐτῶν τὴν συνείδησιν ‘their conscience’ 1 Cor 8:12; καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ ‘and taking the child by the hand, he said to her’ Mk 5:41.[8]

Strong’s Greek #846 846. αὐτός autos; an intensive pron., a prim. word; (1) self (emphatic) (2) he, she, it (used for the third pers. pron.) (3) the same:—accompanied*(2), agree*(1), anyone(1), both*(1), city(2), even(1), here*(1), herself(5), himself(83), itself(7), just(1), lies(1), like(1), like-minded(1), money(1), myself(10), number(1), one(1), one’s(2), other(1), ourselves(8), own(2), part(1), people(1), person(1), personally(1), righteousness(1), same(59), same things(4), same way(1), selves(1), sight(1), temple(1), theirs(3), themselves(23), there*(2), these(1), these things(2), this(1), those(2), together*(8), very(17), very one(1), very thing(4), well(1), who(3), whose(2), whose*(1), women(1), yourself(3), yourselves(14), yourselves*(3).

58.1 ὑπόστασιςa, εως f: the essential or basic nature of an entity—‘substance, nature, essence, real being.’ ὃς ὢν … χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ ‘who is … the exact representation of his real being’ or ‘… nature’ He 1:3. In some languages there is no ready lexical equivalent of ‘real being’ or ‘nature.’ Therefore, one may express this concept in He 1:3 as ‘who is … just like what he really is.’[9]

Strong’s Greek #3588 3588. ho, hē, τό to; the def. art.; the:—about(2), all(5), case*(3), cause*(1), circumstances*(3), companions*(8), condition*(1), experiences(2), far(1), followers*(1), former*(1), meat(1), one(6), one who(1), one*(1), others(4), others*(1), outsiders*(3), people(1), sight(1), some(7), some*(5), suitable(1), these(4), things(1), this(31), those(406), those who(17), together*(8), under*(1), welfare(1), what(47), what had happened(1), what*(1), which(14), who(52), whoever(8), whom(4). ho; see 3739.

Once again the phrase “the exact imprint of his nature” broken down in detail to help explain how the being of God is never divided but the persons of God are presented in scripture, detail and actions.

Verse 3. the brightness] The substitution of “effulgence” for “brightness” in the Revised Version is not, as it has been contemptuously called, “a piece of finery,” but is a rendering at once more accurate and more suggestive. It means “efflux of light”—“Light of (i.e. from) Light” (“effulgentia” not “repercussus”) Grotius. It implies not only resemblance—which is all that is involved in the vague and misleading word “brightness,” which might apply to a mere reflexion:—but also “origin” and “independent existence.” The glory of Christ is the glory of the Father just as the sun is only revealed by the rays which stream forth from it. So the “Wisdom of Solomon” (7:26)—which offers many resemblances to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and which some have even conjectured to be by the same author—speaks of wisdom as “the effulgence of the everlasting light.” The word is also found in Philo where it is applied to man. This passage, like many others in the Epistle, is quoted by St Clement of Rome (ad Cor. 36).

of his glory] God was believed in the Old Dispensation to reveal Himself by a cloud of glory called “the Shechinah,” and the Alexandrian Jews, in their anxious avoidance of all anthropomorphism and anthropopathy—i.e. of all expressions which attribute the human form and human passions to God—often substituted “the Glory” for the name of God. Similarly in 2 Pet. 1:17 the Voice from God the Father is a Voice “from the magnificent glory.” Comp. Acts 7:55; Lk. 2:9. St John says “God is Light,” and the indestructible purity and impalpable essence of Light make it the best of all created things to furnish an analogy for the supersensuous light and spiritual splendour of the Being of God. Hence St John also says of the Word “we beheld His glory” (1:14); and our Lord said to Philip “he who hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (14:9). Comp. Lk. 9:29.

the express image] Rather, “the stamp” (charactēr). The R. V. renders this word by “very image” (after Tyndale), and in the margin by “impress.” I prefer the word “stamp” because the Greek “charactēr” like the English word “stamp,” may, according to its derivation, be used either for the impress or for the stamping-tool itself. This Epistle has so many resemblances to Philo that the word may have been suggested by a passage (Opp. i. 332) in which Philo compares man to a coin which has been stamped by the Logos with the being and type of God; and in that passage the word seems to bear this unusual sense of a “stamping-tool,” for it impresses a man with the mark of God. Similarly St Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians (1:15)—which most resembles this Epistle in its Christology—called Christ “the image (eikōn) of the invisible God;” and Philo says, “But the word is the image (eikōn) of God, by Whom the whole world was created,” De Monarch, (Opp. ii. 225).

of his person] Rather, “of His substance” or “essence.” The word hypostasis, substantia (literally that which “stands under”) is, in philosophical accuracy, the imaginary substratum which remains when a thing is regarded apart from all its accidents. The word “person” of our A. V. is rather the equivalent to prosōpon. Hypostasis only came to be used in this sense some centuries later. Perhaps “Being” or “Essence,” though it corresponds more strictly to the Greek ousia, is the nearest representative which we can find to hypostasis, now that “substance,” once the most abstract and philosophical of words, has come (in ordinary language) to mean what is solid and concrete. It is only too possible that the word “substance” conveys to many minds the very opposite conception to that which was intended and which alone corresponds to the truth. Athanasius says, “Hypostasis is essence” (οὐσία); and the Nicene Council seems to draw no real distinction between the two words. In fact the Western Church admitted that, in the Eastern sense, we might speak of three hypostaseis of the Trinity; and in the Western sense, of one hypostasis, because in this sense the word meant Essence. For the use of the word in the LXX. see Ps. 38:6, 88:48. It is curiously applied in Wisd. 16:21. In the technical language of theology these two clauses represent the Son as co-eternal and co-substantial with the Father.

upholding all things] He is not only the Creative Word, but the Sustaining Providence. He is, as Philo says, “the chain-band of all things,” but He is also their guiding force. “In Him all things subsist” (Col. 1:17). Philo calls the Logos “the pilot and steersman of everything.”

by the word of his power] Rather, “by the utterance (rhemati) of His power.” It is better to keep “word” for Logos, and “utterance” for rhema. We find “strength” (κράτος) and “force” (ἰσχύς) attributed to Christ in Eph. 6:10, as “power” (δύναμις) here.

when he had by himself purged our sins] Rather, “after making purification of sins.” The “by Himself” is omitted by some of the best MSS. (א, A, B), and the “our” by many. But the notion of Christ’s independent action (Phil. 2:7) is involved in the middle voice of the verb. On the purification of our sins by Christ (in which there is perhaps a slight reference to the “Day of Atonement,” called in the LXX. “the Day of Purification,” Ex. 29:36), see 9:12, 10:12; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Pet. 1:9 (comp. Job. 7:21, LXX.).

sat down] His glorification was directly consequent on His voluntary humiliation (see 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; Ps. 109:1), and here the whole description is brought to its destined climax.

on the right hand] As the place of honour comp. 8:1; Ps. 110:1; Eph. 1:20. The controversy as to whether “the right hand of God” means “everywhere”—which was called the “Ubiquitarian controversy”—is wholly destitute of meaning, and has long fallen into deserved oblivion.

of the Majesty] In 10:12 he says “at the right hand of God.” But he was evidently fond of sonorous amplifications, which belong to the dignity of his style; and also fond of Alexandrian modes of expression. The LXX. sometimes went so far as to substitute for “God” the phrase “the place” where God stood (see Ex. 24:10, LXX.).

on high] Literally, “in high places;” like “Glory to God in the highest,” Lk. 2:14 (comp. Job 16:19); and “in heavenly places,” Eph. 1:20 (comp. Ps. 93:4, 112:5). The description of Christ in these verses differed from the current Messianic conception of the Jews in two respects. 1. He was divine and omnipotent. 2. He was to die for our sins.[10]

In conclusion of Hebrews we see the Son expressed for his person yet his total completeness in the Father. The Sun is known for its rays of light and heat yet it is distinct from its rays. Distinction in the Godhead is vital to the creation, redemption, and salvation of man. We become guilty of dividing the being of God instead of the persons of God. A category error confusing the language of God.

a [Num. 12:6, 8; Joel 2:28]

b 1 Pet. 1:20; [ch. 9:26; Acts 2:17]

c ch. 2:3

d See Matt. 14:33

e Ps. 2:8; Matt. 21:38; See Matt. 28:18

f [ch. 3:3]; See John 1:3

g ch. 11:3

h See 2 Cor. 4:4

i See ch. 9:14

j See Mark 16:19

k [Luke 22:69]

l Eph. 1:21; Phil. 2:9

m ch. 5:5; Acts 13:33; Cited from Ps. 2:7

n Cited from 2 Sam. 7:14; [Ps. 89:26, 27]

o See Rom. 8:29

p Cited from Deut. 32:43 (Gk.); [Ps. 97:7]

q Cited from Ps. 104:4

[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Heb 1:1–7.

m masculine

[2] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 591-92.

1 The Expositor’s Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LLD.

[3] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), Heb 1:1.

[4] Lawrence O. Richards, The Bible Readers Companion, electronic ed. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991), 855.

[5] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), Heb 1:2.

[6] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), Heb 1:3.

5 5 In this semantic analysis, no distinction is made between the articular and the pronominal use of ὁ, ἡ, τό. In the articular construction, ὁ, ἡ, or τό simply occurs together with a substantive, while in the pronominal usage, there is no combined substantive, since the substantive is fully understood from the context.

[7] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 815.

[8] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 813.

f feminine

[9] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 584.

[10] F. W. Farrar, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, With Notes and Introduction, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891), 56-58.

%d bloggers like this: