Heb 1:8 - Why did you make it so difficult?

[Gryllus Maior]

A pronoun is being modified here, not a noun. Also if μεθ’ ὑμῶν is being “added to” εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα then εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is not standing alone, is it ? Stop trying to do the dirty work for Gryllus, which he is not willing to do so for himself; because he probably knows that he is wrong. A true profile in courage. He is willing to lead naive people like you astray in the process.. Don’t be a victim of his ego.





There is no “predicate nominative” here because nothing is in the nominative case after the Subject.

Ego has nothing to do with it. An accurate reading of the Greek does.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Where I disagree with Gryllus is to see μεθ’ ὑμῶν as adverbial on its own. If it is to be taken on its own, it must stand in place of a predicate nominative as the main clause, because εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα will then become a dependent adverbial clause, which acts on that main clause.

For I disagree with Gryllus that "εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα" can be applied directly to the verb alone. Although adverbial ( a time clause), it is a dependent adverbial clause, that qualifies the whole of ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν. μεθ’ ὑμῶν with ᾖ is acting as the main clause. The substance of the communication is that "I may be with you."

As I said, I think the better way is may be to see the whole of «μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα» is as standing in place of a predicate nominative rather than adverbial, but it makes little difference if you take whole clause as one clause. It's where to you hive off εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα as an independent clause that things become complicated. However I agree the idea of two independent adverb clauses following each other in succession makes little sense.

Of course both prepositional phrases can stand on their own. Just leave one or the other out:

"He is with you..."

"He is forever..."

"He is with you forever..."

This is really simple, and RJM is the one making it complicated. The two adverbial phrases both modify the verb, but they also complement one another. And all this to defend a particular theological reading of Heb 1:8!

 

[cjab]

Of course both prepositional phrases can stand on their own. Just leave one or the other out:

I'm not saying they can't. I was just addressing John 14:16. I also don't think John 14:16 has much relevance to Heb 1:8, the secret to which lies in the meaning of Ps 45:6.

It may be the case that Elohim is improperly translated as "God" in that Psalm, if the subject of it is really the king, which it appears to be.

 

[The Real John Milton]

"He is with you..."

"He is forever..."

"He is with you forever..."

This is really simple, and RJM is the one making it complicated. The two adverbial phrases both modify the verb, but they also complement one another. And all this to defend a particular theological reading of Heb 1:8!

Your grammar of the clause allows for only bold above, red above is allowed for by BeDuhn’s and my grammar and is impossible with your grammatical understanding. I have explained why at least twice so far , and you have no real response.

 

[cjab]

I'm not saying they can't. I was just addressing John 14:16. I also don't think John 14:16 has much relevance to Heb 1:8, the secret to which lies in the meaning of Ps 45:6.

It may be the case that Elohim is improperly translated as "God" in that Psalm, if the subject of it is really the king, which it appears to be.

κύριος is surely the preferred rendering of Elohim in Ps 45:6, rather than θεός.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

κύριος is surely the preferred rendering of Elohim in Ps 45:6, rather than θεός.

That's an interesting assertion. What would be your rationale? The LXX translator rendered with θεός not κύριος, and Jerome with Deus, not Dominus, so that the understanding of it as "God" has quite an ancient pedigree...

 

[cjab]

That's an interesting assertion. What would be your rationale? The LXX translator rendered with θεός not κύριος, and Jerome with Deus, not Dominus, so that the understanding of it as "God" has quite an ancient pedigree...

By verses 1,2 & 7, the subject of the Psalm is not God but the king (cf. "concerning the king" in verse 1), to which Elohim must apply in verse 6. By verse 7, God has exalted the Elohim in verse 6. Therefore Elohim must be translated Lord, not God.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

By verses 1,2 & 7, the subject of the Psalm is not God but the king (cf. "concerning the king" in verse 1), to which Elohim must apply in verse 6. By verse 7, God has exalted the Elohim in verse 6. Therefore Elohim must be translated Lord, not God.

Yeah, I'm just not sure that it was read that way. You might want to consider John 10:31ff, which supplies an interesting parallel:


31 Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν. 32 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Πολλὰ ἔργα καλὰ ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός· διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε; 33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν[/b[. 34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι Ἐγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε; 35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο...

 

[The Real John Milton]

Yeah, I'm just not sure that it was read that way. You might want to consider John 10:31ff, which supplies an interesting parallel:


31 Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν. 32 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Πολλὰ ἔργα καλὰ ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός· διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε; 33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν[/b[. 34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι Ἐγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε; 35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο...

Notice that he identifies himself with the Θεοί group and not with ὁ Θεός.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Notice that he identifies himself with the Θεοί group and not with ὁ Θεός.

How so? He's drawing a comparison. If it's okay for "the θεοί group" to be called θεοί, how much more so υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ to be called θεός?

 

[The Real John Milton]

How so? He's drawing a comparison. If it's okay for "the θεοί group" to be called θεοί, how much more so υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ to be called θεός?

Precisely, because he is first among equals, being Messiah. If he was claiming to be God he would have invoked the hundreds of places where God calls himself the Almighty and appropriated that verse to himself, like Exodus 29:46, maybe.

This is a strong proof that Jesus was not claiming to be ὁ Θεός.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Precisely, because he is first among equals, being Messiah. If he was claiming to be God he would have invoked the hundreds of places where God calls himself the Almighty and appropriated that verse to himself, like Exodus 29:46, maybe.

This is a strong proof that Jesus was not claiming to be ὁ Θεός.

Amazing how you can read the text and come to precisely the opposite conclusion than the authorial intent.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Amazing how you can read the text and come to precisely the opposite conclusion than the authorial intent.

Amazing how you do that.

 

[The Real John Milton]

So why didn’t Jesus identify with God in response to their charge,say, with a verse like Exodus 29:46, but instead identified with men instead with Psalm 82:6 ?

He had literally hundreds of verses to pick from where God calls himself God , yet he picked a verse where men are called “god,” in the one and only place in the bible ( other than Exodus 7:1, and 4:16 where Moses is called a god) to do so.

Anyone ?

 

[cjab]

Yeah, I'm just not sure that it was read that way. You might want to consider John 10:31ff, which supplies an interesting parallel:


31 Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν. 32 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Πολλὰ ἔργα καλὰ ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός· διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε; 33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν[/b[. 34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι Ἐγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε; 35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο...

Don't forget that the original language wasn't Greek. We're only talking about a restrospective translation of Jesus' words into Greek with Θεοί even by the apostle John.

So that issue of Θεοί versus κύριοι wouldn't have arisen with Jesus. I suspect that in Greek κύριοι has a rather mundane sense of "owners" and doesn't convey the sense of "gods" accurately. But the English word "lords" does. So Θεοί could be rightly translated as "lords" in the passage you cited.

In fact Θεοί itself is a somewhat anomalous word for John's gospel to use, given it's reference to pagan idol gods. So we have to grasp these things in their Hebraic sense, rather than in their strictly Greek sense. With the English "gods" we can understand the sense, by the wide English sense of "gods", rather than by the pagan Greek sense of "gods". It's just a case of making best sense. I'm not sure that the best sense of Elohim (inferring the singular) in Ps 45:6 is "God."

 

[John Milton]

Don't forget that the original language wasn't Greek. We're only talking about a restrospective translation of Jesus' words into Greek with Θεοί even by the apostle John.

So that issue of Θεοί versus κύριοι wouldn't have arisen with Jesus. I suspect that in Greek κύριοι has a rather mundane sense of "owners" and doesn't convey the sense of "gods" accurately. But the English word "lords" does. So Θεοί could be rightly translated as "lords" in the passage you cited.

In fact Θεοί itself is a somewhat anomalous word for John's gospel to use, given it's reference to pagan idol gods. So we have to grasp these things in their Hebraic sense, rather than in their strictly Greek sense. With the English "gods" we can understand the sense, by the wide English sense of "gods", rather than by the pagan Greek sense of "gods". It's just a case of making best sense. I'm not sure that the best sense of Elohim (inferring the singular) in Ps 45:6 is "God."

We don't know what Jesus spoke with certainty. He was likely speaking Hebrew or Aramaic at this point, but we don't know that. For this reason it is unclear with whom the "issue of Θεοί" arose. I don't think there is an "issue" here at all, but I find it interesting that you seem to lay fault on the author.

Your speculation about the meaning of κύριος has no merit. The word deals with authority and fitness/appropriateness (in a poor effort to express the thought in English) and the ones who possess/wield it rather than generic ownership.

I agree with your assertion that Psalm 45 is primarily an address to the the king, but that does not mean that the word must have the same sense when applied to the king and when applied to Jesus, regardless if one thinks the Hebrew should've been θεοί or κύριοι. The problem with the oneness view is not found in Hebrews 1:8; it's in Hebrews 1:10 where creation is said to have been done by the Son. There it is very difficult, if not impossible, to explain away what seems to be the clear sense of the passage.

 

[cjab]

We don't know what Jesus spoke with certainty. He was likely speaking Hebrew or Aramaic at this point, but we don't know that. For this reason it is unclear with whom the "issue of Θεοί" arose. I don't think there is an "issue" here at all, but I find it interesting that you seem to lay fault on the author.

I laid no "fault" on the author and I didn't say there was an issue with "Θεοί" excepting what it would ordinarily have conveyed to Greek pagans (i.e. pagan idol gods). However the readers of John would have been Christians, so they would likely have grasped the Hebrew context.

Your speculation about the meaning of κύριος has no merit. The word deals with authority and fitness/appropriateness (in a poor effort to express the thought in English) and the ones who possess/wield it rather than generic ownership.

In Luke 19:33, κύριοi (in the plural) can be as mundane defering to the owners of (shareholders in) a colt. So it may impart no sense of divine authority (i.e. corresponding to Elohim) whatever if used loosely, and so wouldn't be appropriate in a theological context.

I agree with your assertion that Psalm 45 is primarily an address to the the king, but that does not mean that the word must have the same sense when applied to the king and when applied to Jesus, regardless if one thinks the Hebrew should've been θεοί or κύριοι. The problem with the oneness view is not found in Hebrews 1:8; it's in Hebrews 1:10 where creation is said to have been done by the Son. There it is very difficult, if not impossible, to explain away what seems to be the clear sense of the passage.

I don't comprehend your issue, and what's oneness got to do with anything? I am not that.

 

[John Milton]

I laid no "fault" on the author

I said "seem to," and that is a fair understanding of what you wrote.

and I didn't say there was an issue with "Θεοί" excepting what it would ordinarily have conveyed to Greek pagans (i.e. pagan idol gods).

Anything said to people of different backgrounds could be misunderstood. That doesn't mean that the utterance or translation is the problem.

In Luke 19:33, κύριοi (in the plural) can be as mundane defering to the owners of (shareholders in) a colt.

And how exactly would that square with the verse 34? "οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· ὅτι ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει"?

So it may impart no sense of divine authority (i.e. corresponding to Elohim) whatever if used loosely and so wouldn't be appropriate in a theological context.

It denotes authority. The extent of that authority is unclear. There is nothing about it that would be inherently inappropriate in any of the senses under discussion here.

I don't comprehend your issue, and what's oneness got to do with anything? I am not that.

My point was that one verse can't be properly understood without the other. Whether you are oneness or not, you seem to be making the same type of error.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Don't forget that the original language wasn't Greek. We're only talking about a restrospective translation of Jesus' words into Greek with Θεοί even by the apostle John.

So that issue of Θεοί versus κύριοι wouldn't have arisen with Jesus. I suspect that in Greek κύριοι has a rather mundane sense of "owners" and doesn't convey the sense of "gods" accurately. But the English word "lords" does. So Θεοί could be rightly translated as "lords" in the passage you cited.

In fact Θεοί itself is a somewhat anomalous word for John's gospel to use, given it's reference to pagan idol gods. So we have to grasp these things in their Hebraic sense, rather than in their strictly Greek sense. With the English "gods" we can understand the sense, by the wide English sense of "gods", rather than by the pagan Greek sense of "gods". It's just a case of making best sense. I'm not sure that the best sense of Elohim (inferring the singular) in Ps 45:6 is "God."

1) The "original language" may not have been Greek, but Greek is the language we've been given, and attempts to appeal to Aramaic or Hebrew (unless an OT quotation) are speculative.

2) θεός is the word chosen by the NT writers for the one true God. There are other usages, but these are determined by context. They selected this word long before English even existed as a language.

3) Throughout the LXX, what word is most consistently translated by κύριος?

Words are stubborn little things that like to hang on to their range of meaning. In Ps 45:6 אלהימ was chosen for a reason, and the LXX had a good reason to translate it θεός. They did not use the equivalent of "Lord" but the equivalent of "God."

 

[The Real John Milton]

I don't comprehend your issue, and what's oneness got to do with anything? I am not that.

Do you believe Jesus is God ?