That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part twelve

In Hebrews 1:1-4 we read the following:

By many portions and many modes, of old, God, speaking to the fathers in the prophets, in the last of these days speaks to us in a Son, Whom He appoints enjoyer of the allotment of all, through Whom He also makes the eons; Who, being the Effulgence of His glory and Emblem of His assumption, besides carrying on all by His powerful declaration, making a cleansing of sins, is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights; becoming so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.

The point of these verses is that, during “the last of these days,” God began speaking to Israel in a way that he hadn’t spoken before – i.e., “in a Son.” That is, the implied contrast that’s being made by the writer is between how God spoke “of old” and the new way in which God began speaking to Israel “in the last of these days.” And the clear implication is that God didn’t speak to Israel “in a Son” prior to “the last of these days.”

In response to this understanding, Stephen has objected that “this is in reference to Christ as Prophet, as opposed to Christ’s entire existence.” But no one’s claiming or arguing that what the Hebraist wrote “is in reference to Christ’s entire existence.” What the non-Arian is pointing out is simply that God didn’t speak to Israel through his Son before “the last of these days” began. In other words, what we read here is exactly what we’d expect to be the case if Christ didn’t pre-exist as a celestial being through whom God was speaking in the past.

The contrast being made is not between Jesus-as-prophet and the rest of the prophets. This understanding actually nullifies the contrast being made, for – as I’ve pointed out before –God continued to speak to Israel by means of prophets even after he began speaking to Israel through Christ. What became true after “the last of these days” began wasn’t that God wasn’t speaking by means of prophets (or that God was now speaking exclusively through Christ), but that God was now speaking to Israel through his Son. Again, the implication is that, in the past, God hadn’t been speaking to Israel through his Son.

Regarding the expression, “through Whom He also makes the eons,” it’s assumed by Arians that the author was referring to all of the eons here (i.e., the past, present and future eons). However, it’s not necessary to understand the expression “the eons” as a reference to all of the eons. For the plural “eons” is used elsewhere in Scripture in reference to eons that we can reasonably conclude are future without the writer explicitly having to inform us of this fact (in the same way, the next eon – i.e., that which will begin when Christ returns to earth – is not always referred to as the eon that is “to come,” yet we know from the context that the next eon is in view without having to be explicitly told so). Thus, one cannot object to the fact that the writer of Hebrews doesn’t explicitly tell us that the eons in view in v. 2 are future eons.

Concerning the use of the expression “the eons,” A.E. Knoch wrote the following:

That there are eons in the future is clearly shown by Christ’s reign over the house of Jacob for the next two eons (Luke 1:33). It is during these two eons that the results of His suffering and shame and death will reap its rich fruition. They are the eons of blessing in a very notable way – such as could not be the case now and as will hardly be appropriate after the consummation. And this fact it is that blends in blessed harmony with the doxologies which sing of His conquest over sin (Romans 1:25), His relationship to the eonian nation (Romans 9:5), the truth that not only all is out of Him and through Him, but will be for Him in these eons (Romans 11:36), the full realization Bible Harmony of the reconciliation (Romans 16:27), and its ministry by the apostle (II Corinthians 11:31). (All in All, page 175)

Obviously, A.E. Knoch’s understanding of which “the eons” are in view in the verses referenced above wasn’t influenced by a non-Arian doctrinal bias or interpretation of Hebrews 1:2. Knoch simply believed that it was evident from the immediate context that “the eons” in view in these verses are the future eons. Nevertheless, Stephen doesn’t agree with Knoch (or me) that the future eons are exclusively in view in each of the verses that Knoch references in the above quote. For example, concerning Rom. 1:24-25, Stephen objects as follows:

Why is this only referring to the future two eons? If all is created in Him, He may not have immediate authority, but it’s certainly a blessing to be used in this manner. I guess you could argue that it is limited to the last two eons, by breaking down or interpreting it to a specific kind of blessing (as I’m sure some in Christ will do,) but even still, this would only provide further proof that the meaning of word “eons” here is only changed within the context of the passage.

I’m not sure I understand Stephen’s statement that God “may not have immediate authority, but it’s certainly a blessing to be used in this manner.” In any case, I think (and I think Knoch would’ve agreed with me here) that there’s an implied contrast between the present state of affairs (which involves mankind failing to glorify and thank God [Rom. 1:21-23], and instead offering “divine service to the creature rather than the Creator” [v. 25]) and what will be true in the future (i.e., God being “blessed for the eons”). “Blessed” means “spoken well of.” When defining “happy” (“joyousness springing from within”), Knoch even contrasts it with “blessed” (which he defines as “the expression of the good opinion of others”). The implication is that God isn’t being spoken well of (i.e., praised) by most humans at this present time, but will be during “the eons” to which Paul referred.

Concerning Rom. 9:5, Stephen objects as follows:

“Last I checked, God is blessed for the eons. The eons are His.”

As is the case with Rom. 1:25, there is an implied contrast being made here between what’s true at this present time and what will be true in the future. Despite the fact that “the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the legislation and the divine service and the promises” belong to Israel (Rom. 9:4), most Israelites are in unbelief. God is not, during this present wicked eon, being “blessed” by his covenant people. However, that which isn’t true at this present time will be true during “the eons” that Paul had in mind here.

Concerning Rom. 11:36, Stephen objects as follows:

Does [God] not have glory in everything? It would be pretty damn silly of us to say that He doesn’t hold glory in His achievements (Rom. 1:20,) simply because it’s ‘not apparent’ to humanity right now.

The irony here is that Stephen appeals to Rom. 1:20 to support his claim that “It would be pretty damn silly of us to say that [God] doesn’t hold glory in his achievements.” But in the very passage that Stephen references, we read the following concerning what’s true of the majority of humans during this present wicked eon:

“…knowing God, not as God do they glorify or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened is their unintelligent heart. Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid, and they change the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being and flying creatures and quadrupeds and reptiles.”

In other words, God isn’t getting the glory that he deserves at this present time from mankind. But in the eons that Paul had in mind in Rom. 11:36, God will get the glory of which he’s worthy.

Now, it must be emphasized that my point in appealing to these and other verses is not that, if the eons referred to in the verses referenced by Knoch are future eons, then we should conclude that the eons referred to in Heb. 1:2 are future. Rather, my point is simply as follows: one can’t claim that, because the eons referred to in Heb. 1:2 aren’t explicitly said to be future eons, they can’t be future eons. As Stephen would agree, the context in which the word “eons” is used should inform our understanding of which eons the author had in mind. So does the context in which we read of “the eons” in Heb. 1:2 give us reason to believe that these are the future eons only? Yes.

The words “in the last of these days” provide us with not only the timeframe for when God began speaking to Israel in his Son but also for when “the eons” in view are made by God through Christ (or will begin to be made – the tense of the word “makes” allows for a present or future act). In other words, since the focus of v. 2 is clearly on what began to be true “in the last of these days,” it would be more reasonable to understand the making of “the eons” in view as being the activity of God through the Son during the “last of these days” as well. Again, it is this period of time that is the focus of this passage (and arguably the entire book of Hebrews).

To this, Stephen J. has responded as follows:

“The evangel of God should still be contextualizing this, and when you do that, ‘makes’ becomes far more sensible as pertaining to the eons, and not just future eons.

The evangel of God – i.e., the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations (1 Cor. 15:1-4) – is perfectly consistent with the scriptural testimony of how and when Christ was brought into existence by God. It doesn’t reveal that Christ pre-existed as a non-human celestial being. In fact, we’re explicitly told that the evangel of God is concerned with a man (i.e., Christ) who “comes of the seed of David” (Rom 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). No non-human, celestial being can be said to have come of the seed of David. Thus, the evangel is not concerned with a non-human celestial being who lived prior to the first eon. For one to argue otherwise only shows that one has some misunderstanding with regard to what, exactly, “the evangel of God” is.

Since the evangel of God is concerned with a certain human being who comes of the seed of David (and who died for our sins and was roused the third day), this evangel is perfectly consistent with the truth of when God began “[speaking] to us in a Son.” So there’s no good reason to think that “the eons” to which the Hebraist was referring include past eons (or the present wicked eon). The eons that God makes through Christ are the eons that are going to begin through certain actions that Christ will be directly involved in (e.g., the judgments that will bring this present eon to a close, and his return to earth), and over which he’s going to reign.

The only reason one would think that it’s even possible for “the eons” referred to here to include the eons that began long before Christ was generated (and that these eons were made by God through a celestial being who later became Christ) is that one already believes that Christ pre-existed. In other words, in order for one to think that the Arian interpretation of Hebrews 1:2 is even possible, one has to already believe that Christ pre-existed his conception. Otherwise, one would correctly identify “the eons” of Heb. 1:2 as the eons that will begin sometime during “the last of these days” (and not as eons that began long before “the last of these days” began).

In any case, what Stephen (or any Arian) needs to prove is that “the eons” referred to in Heb. 1:2 must include the past eons, and can’t refer to the future eons only. But he can’t prove this. All he can do is assume and assert that it’s the case, or claim that it seems “more likely” to him that the eons referred to in Heb. 1:2 include past eons (which is only the case because he already believes that Christ existed before the first eon began). When we’re not reading Hebrews 1:2 with this Arian presupposition, we have good reason to conclude that the eons that God makes through Christ are the same eons during which Christ shall be reigning over the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32-33), and which we find referred to later in the letter to the Hebrews as follows:

Hebrew 13:8

Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, is the Same One for the eons also.

Given the fact that, in v. 8, the Hebraist had just referred to the past (“yesterday”) and the present (“today”), it follows that “the eons” to which he went on to refer are the eons that he went on to refer to as “the eons of the eons” (Heb. 13:21). Again, the only reason one would think that it’s even possible for the eons referred to in Heb. 1:2 to include more than these future eons is that one already believes that Christ existed before the first eon began.

In response to my statement that “It was Christ’s sacrificial death that made him (and no one else) worthy of this supreme allotment” (and that it’s this “allotment of a more excellent name” that enables Christ to be the one through whom God “makes the eons”), Stephen went on to assert that “God appoints [Christ], because it was through Him that the eons (continue to be, present tense,) created.” But that’s not what we’re told by the inspired writer. Stephen is reading this idea into the text. Based on what’s actually written in Hebrews 1:1-4, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that God appointed Christ “enjoyment of the allotment of all” because Christ is the one through whom God has been making each of the eons. Not only is this not stated, but this interpretation doesn’t even make sense.

If a certain celestial being already had the God-given authority to be the one through whom God makes the eons, how did the exercise of this authority result in him being appointed enjoyer of the allotment of all? Why wouldn’t a certain pre-existent celestial being through whom God already made the first three eons have been just as worthy of being enjoyer of the allotment of all before doing so as he was after doing so? If a certain celestial being had the God-given authority to make the first three eons, why wouldn’t he also have had the preeminent status that’s inseparably connected with being “enjoyer of the allotment of all”?

The fact is that when God appointed Christ “enjoyer of the allotment of all,” Christ became enjoyer of the allotment of all (in support of this, one need only consider every occurrence of the word translated “appoints”: https://biblehub.com/greek/5087.htm). And for Christ to be appointed enjoyer of the allotment of all, he had to be made Lord of all. That is, it’s only as Lord of all that Christ can be the enjoyer of the allotment of all. And Christ didn’t become Lord of all – and thus wasn’t appointed enjoyer of the allotment of all – until after his death and resurrection. Thus, Stephen is once again “putting the cart before the horse” here. To believe that Christ was appointed enjoyer of the allotment of all before his death and resurrection is to completely minimize the importance and necessity of the sacrifice because of which Christ was made Lord of all.

The same point can be made regarding the statement that Christ is “carrying on all by His powerful declaration” (Heb. 1:3). In order for Christ to be doing this, he has to have all authority in heaven and on earth. That is, Christ has to be Lord of all in order to have the authority that’s implied by the universe-sustaining activity of which we read here. If Christ was “carrying on all by His powerful declaration” before his death and resurrection, then Christ was already Lord of all before his death and resurrection. But we know that’s not the case; it was because of his sacrificial death that Christ was made Lord of all, and thus received the universal authority by which he’s able to perform the activity that expressed in the words, “carrying on all by His powerful declaration.”

The fact is that the Arian interpretation of when Christ was appointed enjoyer of the allotment of all contradicts the truth affirmed in v. 4. If God appointed a pre-existent celestial being “enjoyed of the allotment of all” when Stephen thinks that he did, then this being was already “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.” That is, this being would’ve already been superior to the messengers long before Christ actually accomplished that which resulted in him being given this high-ranking status. Since Christ didn’t become so much better than the messengers until after his sacrificial death (when he made “a cleansing of sins”), it follows that Christ wasn’t appointed enjoyer of the allotment of all until after his sacrificial death.

Stephen went on to say, “And again, being the Effulgence of His glory should be indicating that, to the Christ member, being in the Image of God would highlight His lack of ‘human’ qualities in the celestial, making Him the Channel through Whom God creates the eons.”

What Christ’s being “the Effulgence of [God’s] glory” should indicate to those in the body of Christ is that Christ – the Son in whom God is now speaking “in the last of these days” – is the ideal, perfected member of that race of beings that God created in his image and likeness on the 6^th day of creation. That is, Christ is the only human who perfectly represents God. And he is also the only human (and indeed the only created being) to whom God has given all authority in heaven and on earth (and thus the authority to be the one through whom he can make – and will make – “the eons” that the writer had in mind).

Does Stephen not think that Christ is “the Effulgence of [God’s] glory” now? No. Stephen would agree that Christ is “the Effulgence of [God’s] glory” now. So how does this description of Christ in Heb. 1:2 support the Arian view? Answer: It doesn’t. Stephen is simply taking a truth that pertains to Christ – a glorified human being – and applying it to a being that he thinks existed eons before Christ was generated by God.

Stephen: Furthermore, Aaron switches the allotments, here. Now it’s not “God using the appointed Enjoyer of the allotment of all to make the eons,” but “God using the appointed Enjoyer of an allotment greater than the messengers to make the future eons.” Switching the passages around creates this contingency, not the direct line of reasoning laid out in Hebrews itself.

Stephen’s interpretation of when God appointed Christ enjoyer of the allotment of all (and which eons are in view here) disregards the fact that the state of affairs and activities involving Christ about which we read in the opening verses of Hebrews pertain to the time period that the writer referred to in v. 1 as “the last of these days.” The writer was referring to what has been true since “the last of these days” began (and not what was true long before this present time period began). Stephen’s interpretation completely ignores this contextual key to understanding what the author had in mind. Rather than letting the very first verse inform his understanding of what follows, Stephen is letting his own doctrinal position inform his interpretation. What Stephen refers to as “the direct line of reasoning laid out in Hebrews itself” is simply his own assumption-based interpretation of what’s said in the text.

Moreover, not only does Stephen’s interpretation disregard the contextual timeframe specified in v. 1, but – as noted earlier – it makes Christ’s preeminent status as “enjoyer of an allotment of all” and authority as the one who is “carrying on all by His powerful declaration” based on something other than his death. This is a serious error.

Hebrews 1:10-13

In Hebrews 1:10-13 we read the following:

And,

Thou, originally, Lord, dost found the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. They shall perish, yet Thou art continuing, and all, as a cloak, shall be aged, and, as if clothing, wilt Thou be rolling them up. As a cloak also shall they change. Yet Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not be defaulting.

Now to which of the messengers has He declared at any time, “Sit at My right, till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet”?

What we read in these verses is one of several scripture-based arguments that the author of the letter uses to defend the truth affirmed earlier in the letter. In Heb. 1:3-4 we read that Christ “is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights; becoming so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.” It is this truth – i.e., that Christ became “so much better than the messengers” – that the author is defending in Hebrews 1:5-14. The reader must keep this fact in mind in order to better understand why the Hebraist quotes the verses that he does. As we’ll see, the Arian understanding of Heb. 1:10-13 is contrary to the truth that’s being defended, and makes no sense when viewed as part of the Hebraist’s overall defense of this truth.

The first scripture-based argument given in defense of the point made in v. 4 is found in verses 5-6. The first part of this argument begins with gar (“for”) and the second part begins with de (“yet” or “now”). The Hebraist goes on to begin each subsequent argument with kai (“and”), and completes the section with de (“yet” or “now”). Thus, the three scripture-based arguments being made in Hebrews 1:5-14 can be divided up as follows:

First argument (Heb. 1:5-6)

v. 5 “For…” (gar)

v. 6 “Yet/Now…” (de)

Second argument (Heb. 1:7-9)

v. 7 “And…” (kai)

vv. 8-9 “Yet…” (de)

Third argument (Heb. 1:10-13)

vv. 10-12 “And…” (kai)

vv. 13-14 “Yet/Now…” (de)

It should be noted that v. 14 can be understood as a conclusion to all three sections/units, and not just the conclusion of the last.

In Heb. 1:10-12, the author is quoting from Psalm 102. However, it’s important to note that the wording of the quotation aligns more closely with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Septuagint or LXX) than it does with the Hebrew text. That the quotation from Psalm 102 is based on the LXX is evident from the plural translation of “works” (the singular form is found in the Hebrew text). In fact, we can reasonably conclude that the LXX is the source for all seven of the citations used in the first chapter of Hebrews.[i] It should also be noted that the citation in Hebrews 1:10-12 is not restricted to Psalm 102:25-27, for the opening phrase of Hebrews 1:10 (“Thou, Lord”) is not found in Psalm 102:25 but rather in Psalm 102:12.

When the writer begins his third argument, the subject changes from Jesus to Yahweh (for Yahweh is the subject of the passage being quoted by the Hebraist). It is Yahweh who was being addressed by the psalmist (see Psalm 102:1, 12, 19-23). It is, therefore, Yahweh who the Hebraist had in mind when he quoted from Psalm 102. This means that the one saying “Thou, originally, Lord” isn’t Yahweh, but rather the psalmist. In contrast with this fact, the Arian thinks that the “Lord” being addressed in Heb. 1:10 is Christ (and that the one addressing him is Yahweh). This means that the Arian interpretation of Heb. 1:10-12 is mistaken both with regard to the identity of the one speaking and the identity of the one being addressed.

Not only is the Arian interpretation mistaken with regard to who’s being addressed as “Lord” in Heb. 1:10-12, but the Arian view of why the Hebraist quoted from Psalm 102 actually makes no sense. The Arian interpretation of Heb. 1:10-12 doesn’t support the truth that the author is defending. Recall that the truth being defended is that which was previously stated in Heb. 1:4 – i.e., that Christ “is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights; BECOMING so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they.”

The Arian understanding of the use of Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1:10-12 is contrary to this truth. If the Hebraist was quoting from Psalm 102 to make the point that Christ is the one who created the heavens and the earth, then it would mean that Christ has always been better than the messengers. In fact, Christians often appeal to this passage in support of their view that Christ is Yahweh (since, again, Yahweh is the one being addressed in the Psalm from which the Hebraist is quoting). But even according to the Arian’s more “creative” interpretation of Heb. 1:10-12 (according to which Christ is being addressed, but isn’t being identified with Yahweh), it would still mean that there has never been a time in Christ’s existence when he wasn't better than the messengers. This would also follow if, in accord with the Arian view, Christ was appointed ”enjoyer of the allotment of all” when (or shortly after) he was created. None of the messengers have ever had this status. If Christ has had this preeminent status since the heavens and the earth were created, then he never became better than the messengers.

Moreover, every other passage from the Old Testament that the Hebraist quotes in Heb. 1:5-14 refers to Christ as a human being who became better than the messengers at some point after his life on earth began. The Arian understanding of why the Hebraist quotes from Psalm 102 is completely out of harmony with the other scripture-based points made in verses 5-14. It doesn’t fit. Only when Heb. 1:10-12 is understood as part of an argument that includes Psalm 110:1 (and which supports the truth that Christ now shares God’s authority over creation) does the Hebraist’s use of Psalm 102 make sense within the context in which it’s quoted.

Now, according to the Arian view of the use of Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1:10-12, the Hebraist was quoting an additional passage from the Hebrew Scriptures (Psalm 102:25-27) to support the same point being made in verses 8-9 (where he quotes Psalm 45:6-7). However, this reading isn’t consistent with how the Hebraist writes. Elsewhere, when the Hebraist quoted an additional verse from the Hebrew Scriptures to support the same point being made by the verse previously quoted, he linked the verses with the word “again” (palin) rather than the word “and” (kai) alone (see Hebrews 1:5; for other examples of this use of palin, see 2:13; 4:5; 10:30; cf. Romans 15:9-12).

Thus, had the author intended his quotation of Psalm 102 in Hebrews 10:10-12 to be understood as another example from the Hebrew Scriptures of how Christ has become superior to the messengers, we would expect him to have used palin (“again”) or kai palin (“and again”), and not merely kai (“and”) alone. We therefore have good reason to believe that, by using kai alone in v. 10 (rather than using palin or kai palin), the writer was beginning a new argument (which, again, means that verses 10-12 are linked with v. 13). Verses 10-12 are not making the same point as, and do not serve the same purpose as, verses 8-9. Rather, v. 10 is the beginning of a new argument.

By combining Psalm 102:25-27 with Psalm 110:1 (“Yahweh said to my Lord, sit at my right hand...”), the author is making the point: Jesus has been given the authority over creation that once belonged exclusively to Yahweh. The argument being made in the final section (Hebrews 1:10-13) can be syllogized as follows:

1. Yahweh has supreme authority over the heavens and the earth (Psalm 102:25-27)

2. Christ was exalted to the right hand of Yahweh (Psalm 110:1)

3. Christ now shares Yahweh’s authority over the heavens and the earth.

This conclusion is in accord with what’s later said in Heb. 2:5-9. In this passage, the following point is made: the dominion/position of authority over the entire terrestrial creation that God gave Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:26-29) – and which was subsequently lost after Adam sinned – is, through Christ, being restored. Note especially the expression “the works of Thy hands” in Heb. 2:7 (quoted from Psalm 8:4-6). This is the same expression found in Heb. 1:10 (where it refers to the heavens). The fact that it occurs in both Heb. 1:10 and Heb. 2:7 isn’t a coincidence; in both cases, it belongs to an argument in which the author is proving that Christ was given authority over what God created.

In accord with the fact that Yahweh is the one being addressed in the psalm from which the Hebraist is quoting (Psalm 102), the words “Yet Thou art the same, And Thy years shall not be defaulting” (Heb. 1:12) are simply a way of emphasizing Yahweh’s inability to die. The fact that Yahweh’s “years shall not be defaulting” (or “shall not come to end”) simply means that God cannot die (and note that this was something that the Psalmist considered to be true of the One whom he was addressing at the time when he was writing). Even Martin Zender – who, of course, is strongly opposed to the non-Arian position – has acknowledged this fact. Concerning the use of the word eonian in Romans 16:26, Zender wrote the following:

“This verse isn’t trying to tell anyone that God lives forever. Everyone already knows God lives forever. Psalm 102:27 testified long ago that, ‘His years shall have no end.’ It’s old news.” (ZWTF, Vol. 1, Issue 14, pg. 3)

If one agrees that the truth of Yahweh’s inability to die – i.e., that “God lives forever” – is being affirmed in Psalm 102:27, one should agree that the same truth is being affirmed in Hebrews 1:12. And since Psalm 102:27 and Heb. 1:12 refers to the fact that God cannot die, it cannot be understood as a reference to Christ. For, after being alive on the earth for approximately 33 years, Christ died/became lifeless (and remained dead/lifeless for three days). In other words, Christ’s years “defaulted.” Jesus’ God and Father, on the other hand, has never died; it was just as true when Psalm 102 was written as it is today that Yahweh’s years “shall not come to end.” However this was not true of Christ at the time when Psalm 102 was written.

In response to my pointing out the fact that the words, “And Thy years shall not be defaulting” (v. 12) are emphasizing God’s inability to die, Stephen wrote the following:

Right, no way this could be referencing the Son, the way verse 8 says it does.

Stephen is, of course, being sarcastic here. However, while Stephen and I are in agreement that verse 8 is “referencing the Son,” Stephen’s belief that v. 10 is also referencing the Son is unjustified. It’s simply being assumed. As we’ve seen, there is no good reason to think that v. 10 is a continuation of the same argument being made in verses 8-9. Verse 10 begins a new scripture-based argument in support of the truth that Christ became superior to the messengers (and not, as Arians believe, that Christ has always been superior to the messengers).

Now, it would seem that Stephen doesn’t agree with the fact that the truth that’s being affirmed in Heb. 1:12 (and in Psalm 102:27) is that Yahweh can’t die. But how does he get around what’s being said? How does he reconcile the affirmation of Heb. 1:12/Psalm 102:27 with the fact that Christ died? As far as I can tell, he doesn’t. Here’s what he writes:

No way we’re talking about Christ’s imperceptible glory in the celestials. That would be nuts. The Son, as Knoch writes in his commentary, and Paul writes in Philippians 2:5-8, becomes a different form, but His spirit absolutely doesn’t change, and never will.

Notwithstanding Stephen’s sarcasm, I think it is in fact “nuts” to interpret Hebrews 1:10-12 as a reference to “Christ’s imperceptible glory in the celestials” (it’s in v. 13 – not verses 10-12 – that the author quotes a passage in which Christ’s celestial position is affirmed). The Arian (and Christian) interpretation of Heb. 1:10-12 gets even “nuttier” when we take into account what’s being said in v. 12. Aside from the fact that Christ died (his “years defaulted”), it’s as false as false can be to say that Christ has never changed.

According to the Arian view, Christ underwent what is arguably one of the greatest changes that a created being could undergo (from being a celestial, non-human being to becoming a mortal human). And according to both the Arian and non-Arian view, Christ then underwent further developmental changes/growth. In addition to the physical changes Christ underwent, we’re also told that Jesus “progressed in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). We also read that Christ later “learned obedience from that which He suffered,” and was thereby “perfected” (Heb. 5:8-9). And finally, Christ not only died (which is itself a radical change) but was subsequently roused incorruptible by God, and now exists as a celestial being. This makes Christ the first human to undergo the vivifying change that, for those in the body of Christ, will occur “at the last trump” (1 Cor. 15:51-53).

Stephen argues (at least, implicitly) that Christ has never changed because “His spirit absolutely doesn’t change, and never will.” But this argument only exposes the error of the Arian interpretation of Heb. 1:12. The sameness of the one being addressed in Psalm 102:27 and Heb. 1:12 is being contrasted with the kind of change that the heavens will undergo when they perish and are created anew (2 Pet. 3:10-13). This future change is actually similar to the kind of change that Christ himself underwent when he died and was subsequently roused with an incorruptible, celestial body. But according to the kind of dubious reasoning that Stephen’s using here, one could argue that Christ never died (for Christ’s spirit didn’t die, and never will)! But there’s nothing sound about such reasoning. For the fact is that Christ is not his spirit, and what is true of Christ’s spirit is not necessarily true of Christ himself.

If the words “Yet Thou art the same” are referring to Christ rather than to Yahweh (as the Arian believes), then they’re necessarily referring to Christ himself (i.e., they’re referring to Christ as a living, sentient being, and not to the part of Christ that continued to exist after he died). And when Christ both died (became lifeless) and was subsequently roused by God with an incorruptible body, he underwent changes that Yahweh himself – i.e., the one who’s actually being addressed in Psalm 102 (and thus in Heb. 1:10-12) – is inherently and absolutely incapable of undergoing.

Stephen thinks that the Arian understanding of Col. 1:15-17 (which, as we’ve seen, is erroneous) can be “transposed” onto Psalm 102 (such that one can “read into” Psalm 102 that which the Arian thinks is being revealed in Col. 1:15-17). Stephen writes,

Now, I don't know if you agree, but having an encyclopedic knowledge of a bunch of passages from Psalms is not necessary to grasp Hebrews. It's helpful to know the quote, sure, as in this case it clarifies that the astute member of Christ's body can transpose the knowledge of Colossians 1:15-17 into the Old Testament in a more useful and practical way, now, but does not share with us the idea that we must use Psalms to change Hebrews.

The Hebraist’s appeal to and quotation of verses from the Hebrew Scriptures presupposes that he believed the Jewish believers to whom he wrote his letter (i.e., the original recipients of the letter) were familiar enough with the passages quoted to understand why he quoted them. Stephen is underestimating the extent to which the Jewish people of the first century were, generally speaking, familiar with their own Scriptures (or, at the very least, would’ve been able to acquire the necessary information concerning the verses quoted to understand why they were being quoted). Moreover, whereas Stephen thinks that I’m using the “Psalms to change Hebrews,” the reality is that I’m allowing the verses from the Hebrew Scripture quoted by the inspired author to inform my understanding of what the inspired writer wrote.

In response to my statement that “the person being addressed throughout the entirety of [Psalm 102] is Yahweh himself seems clear from even a cursory reading of Psalm 102 (see Psalm 102:1-2 and 12-24),” Stephen responded as follows:

Really? Because Habbakuk 2:4 certainly wasn’t referencing the body of Christ, and yet Paul quotes it in Romans 1:17. Isaiah 43:6 certainly wasn’t referencing the body of Christ, and yet Paul quotes it in 2 Corinthians 6:16. Could it possibly be that the New Testament writers are taking liberties to get their points across?

Whereas Stephen’s interpretation of Hebrews 1:10-12 changes the meaning of Psalm 102 (for Psalm 102 is clearly referring exclusively to Yahweh), Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 in Rom. 1:17 (and his application of it to those in the body of Christ) doesn’t change the original meaning of Habakkuk 2:4.

With regard to Paul’s use of/allusion to certain verses from the Hebrews Scriptures in 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 (such as Lev. 26:11-12, Isaiah 52:11, 43:6, Jer. 31:9 and Hosea 1:9-10), I’ve written on this subject elsewhere on my blog (see the last section of the following article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/09/has-gods-purpose-for-israel-already.html). Paul was in no way reinterpreting the verses from the Hebrew Scriptures to which he was alluding. The verses referenced/alluded to by Paul still mean exactly what they meant when they were first written. And the same can be said for Psalm 102. The Hebraist was not reinterpreting these verses to mean something that they didn’t mean when they were first written. The one being addressed by the psalmist is Yahweh (not Christ), and it is Yahweh – not Christ – who is the “Lord” referred to in Heb. 1:10.

In support of his view that Christ (rather than Yahweh) is being addressed in this citation from Psalm 102, Stephen appeals to the fact that the title “Lord” is used:

The Lord is actually name dropped here to display Master, as in, Head, as in, Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Hebrews. If you read Psalm 102:25, you won’t see “Lord” titled anywhere in there. This is to highlight that the Hebraist is modifying the verse. This isn’t for us to do, but for God to do. He’s smarter than us, so He can.

Contrary to Stephen’s assertion, there is no “name dropping” taking place here. The name “Yahweh” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Greek Scriptures. Every time that a verse from the Hebrew Scriptures in which the name “Yahweh” occurs is quoted in the Greek Scriptures, the title “Lord” (without the article “the”) is used in place of the divine name (see, for example, Matt. 3:3, 4:7, 10; 22:37, 44; 23:39). In fact, there are several more examples of this from the letter to the Hebrews itself (Heb. 7:21, 8:8-11, Heb. 10:30, 12:5-6, 13:6).

So we have no reason whatsoever to think that, when the Hebraist quoted Psalm 102, the one referred to as “Lord” is someone other than Yahweh himself. The use of the title “Lord” in the Hebraist’s citation from Psalm 102 is in accord with every other quotation of a verse from the Hebrew Scriptures in which the name “Yahweh” occurs in the original text (it’s also in accord with how Psalm 102 reads in the LXX). So the title “Lord” (instead of “Yahweh”) is exactly what we’d expect to read in Heb. 1:12 if the Hebraist was quoting from Psalm 102.

[i] The Hebraist’s reliance on the LXX is particularly evident in a few key passages where the Greek wording significantly differs from the original Hebrew text. For example, in v. 6 the author quotes from Deuteronomy 32:43 (“And worship Him, all the messengers of God!”). This specific phrase is present in the LXX but absent from the Hebrew text.

That Happy Expectation

Monday, July 27, 2026

An Antidote to Arianism: Part twelve

No comments:

Post a Comment