Jesus, Jehovah and Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12?

Hello Colin,

I have taken note of your responses (below). I have focused on the main thrust of the points you make.
"Message 4 - posted by Colinscouser (U5770274) **, Yesterday
LUR

Yes, Hebrews 1:10-12 contributes towards the understanding that the New Testament identifies Jesus with YHWH. (In fact there are far more verses that do this than perhaps you imagine.)

You want to set this in context. So for context we could start with Hebrews 1:8 in which the Father addresses the Son as "O God". Yes indeed.

This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God". And, for the avoidance of doubt, my understanding is that "O God" is grammatically correct. So that is part of the context for Hebrews 1:10-12. Context as you say is important.

[AND HERE IT COMES...]

In a small number of cases, it seems to be likely that a New Testament author is consciously changing the referent of the Old Testament passage from Jehovah . . . to Jesus Christ. . . . In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus. . . . " (pp. 171-173)"




Reply,



When you quote Prof. BeDuhn saying,


"In a small number of cases, it seems to be likely that a New Testament author is consciously changing the referent of the Old Testament passage from Jehovah . . . to Jesus Christ. . . . In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus. . . . " (pp. 171-173)"

The reason I posted "Jesus, Jehovah and Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12." is because it deals specifically with what you claim Prof. BeDuhn is inferring.

Prof. BeDuhn stops there because he does not want to be involved in theology, but nevertheless, he is giving an opinion "it seems to be" which could be construed as bordering into the field of theology, of which he is trying to keep clear and remain within the bounds of a tranlator


"...In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus..."

Prof. BeDuhn is on the right track, for the Apostle Paul refers to this "referent...". It could be that Prof. BeDuhn knows what Paul is inferring and he knows what Jehovah's Witnesses are inferring also, but, seeing his present work is about translation issues, he does not wish to be involved in the field of theology and its exegesis.


YHWH-JHVH in the Greek NT

"For a stronger support of this argument there are the words of the professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the Septuagint Version that the New Testament Church used and quoted, contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14."

And this is what the NWT does in its NT

"...the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14."


"Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the quotations from the OT made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted, for example the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of Andrè Chouraqui, of Johann Jakob Stolz, of Hermann Heinfetter,in Efik, Ewe, Malgascio and Alghonchin languages."

Prof. BeDuhn may not agree with the NWT translators replacing 'kyrios' (lord) with Jehovah in the NT (in certain parts...), but consider this, would he argue with the many scholars/translators (above and many more...(the above are just a few samples)) who argue otherwise in their respective translations, sevaral of whom I might point out, themselves Trinitarian!

From Greek back to Hebrew

Supposing a student who is fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek...wanted to translate his Greek NT in to Hebrew. Our student knows that the Greek NT has many direct quotations from the Hebrew OT, which (OT) contained God's name in the form of the Tetragrammaton. Now, in order not to violate the Hebrew text and remain faithful to it, does our student take the Greek word 'Kyrios-lord' and translate it into the Hebrew 'Adonai-lord', in the place where the Hebrew text (from where the quotation is taken from) it has the tetragrammaton? NO! He does not. Our student knows that in the particular place in the Hebrew OT where he wants to put his translation, he cannot justifiably put 'kyrios-lord', because his Hebrew OT does not allow for it as in that place the Tetragram occurs not a surrogate of it, he would be corrupting the text and altering its meaning, resulting in ambiguity (See Ps 110:1 KJV).

Now look at it the other way round. Suppose our budding student wanted to translate the Hebrew OT where the Tetragram appears nearly 7,000 times into Koine Greek, with direct quotations from the Hebrew OT. Would he remain faithful to the Hebrew text when quoting it, or would he alter the quoted text by putting in not the Tetragram, but a substitute? He would, if he wanted to remain faithful to the Hebrew text put into the Greek NT (the quotations from the Hebrew OT) the Tetragram (YHWH-JHVH).


Those who criticize the NWT editors

Those who criticize the NWT editors for inserting the Tetragram-Jehovah into the English NT at the relevant places, seem to miss the point of the above in the illustration of our student. This includes Prof. BeDuhn, but the Prof. does acknowledge that the NWT has a legal right to insert it (Jehovah) in many places, but argues against others. All the NWT editors have done (like other translators) is what our student would have done, in order to remain as faithful as possible to the Hebrew and Greek texts, thus removing any ambiguity as to who is being referred to- is it Jesus or Jehovah, is it Jehovah or is it Jesus. Ps 110:1 in the KJV is a very good example of ambuguity and confusion.



Prof. BeDuhn acknowledges that the OT was interferred with when it came to the Divine Name - Jehovah (p. 170.) 'Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in the English Translations of the New Testament.'






Please read first C&P to your browser (important):


http://www.yhwh-jehovah-inthent.blogspot.com/



Baically as I understand it, you believe Jesus is Jehovah because you think or believe that the NT says he is. Also, you as well as others use Prof. Jason BeDuhn as support for your belief that Jesus is Jehovah!

First it must be noted that when Prof. BeDuhn reached his conclusions regarding the 9 translations he compared, (KJV, NASB, NWT, NAB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, LB and AB) he concluded that the NWT "is one of the most accurate English translations of the NT currently available". And that when it came to the OT regarding God's name 'Jehovah' what were his conclusions?

"In this case, the NW is the only accurate translation of the 9..."


Prof. BeDuhn makes an astute observation (p. 170.) in that the removal of the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah) caused the biblical text to be "modified". This is a polite way of saying that the Hebrew text was corrupted, changed to suit the religious leaders of the day and eventually obscured Jehovah God's name, and made it a crime for even the common people to pronounce God's name (Christendom acts similarly). We believe that the NT suffered the same eventual fate as the OT when it came to God's name. Perhaps the thousands of 'variant' NT readings (manuscripts) also lends credence to this, as many of these manuscripts suffered alterations to suit the theologies of vying sects (the foretold apostasy-Montanists, Donatists, Novatians, Marcionites, Gnostics, Catholics, and many, many more) one and all claiming to be 'Orthodox'. One eventually became the biggest of the groups/parties/sects who eventually had the most members and converts and eventually won out and became the Catholics party. The rest were eventually supressed, persecuted and hunted down with the aid of the political state...





It would seem that Prof. BeDuhn rates the NWT as a very good translation in comparison. He has of course his conditional criticism with the Tetragram (YHWH/JHVH-Jehovah) being in the NWT NT. I use the word 'conditional' because Prof. BeDuhn (even though he has his criticisms) says on page 174:

"If the exact preservation of OT passages when they are quoted in the NT is a principle to which NW editors want to give priority, then the seventyeight verses listed in the table above is where they can put "Jehovah" in their NT text according to that principle".

Prof. BeDuhn may not agree with the NWT "editors" in putting "Jehovah" in all the places they have in the NT, but he recognises their legitamicy in doing so in dozens of places where the NT writers make 'direct' quotes from the OT containing God's name.

Prof. BeDuhn also wonders why the NWT editors have not put the tetrgram in places (NT) where they ought to have a legitimate right to do so!

At the very least Prof. BeDuhn recognises that at least the NWT editors have a legal case for inserting the Tetragram in certain places in the NT, where direct quotes are made from the OT containing God's unique name. Prof. BeDuhn notes in part of his conclusion (p. 176.) that the ambiguous word 'lord' is generic and not only applies to God, but to Jesus and others in the NT.

This generic title 'lord' is ambiguous and leads to confusion as to which 'lord' is being talked about and leaves the reader uncertain as to whom the passage refers. Prof. BeDuhn points out that these are reasonable points, though matters of interpretation, but, non the less, reasonable points.

It must also be pointed out that, although Prof. BeDuhn may criticise the NWT for inserting the tetragrammaton in the NT (in certain places) there are other translators/scholars who would argue against him, and even though these translators works are themselves translations (from the koine Greek in to various languages) they recognise, as do the NWT translators that the NT writers included the Tetragrammaton in their writings.





I'm sure Prof. BeDuhn and others have come across this:

Did the early Christians use the TETRAGRAMMATON in their writtings of the NT?


The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.

The first part of this Jewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:

"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them together with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". -From the English translation of Dr. H. Freedman.

The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."

So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues reasoning that here "Minim" is referred to Hebrew Christians.

And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their writings.

Because of all we have said there are valid reasons to assert that the writers of the New Testament reported the Tetragrammaton in their divinely inspired work.











Quote,

"So yes, De Buhn (BeDuhn)supports the view that the New Testament is saying that YHWH is Jesus. As I and others have said before, and de Buhn agrees, the New Testament applies YHWH quotes from the Old Testament to Jesus." (un-quote)

The reply below shows how Trinitarians completely misunderstand and misapply and twist the scriptures.


So does "...the New Testament applies YHWH quotes from the Old Testament to Jesus." meaning that Jesus is actually Jehovah? It also shows that Trinitarians are making Prof. BeDuhn read how they (Trinitarians) want him to read.




The Application of Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son of God at Hebrews 1:10-12

Texts are from the NWT.

The words of Psalm 102:25-27 read:

"Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth itself. And the heavens are the work of your hands. They themselves will perish. but you yourself will keep standing; And just like a garment they will all of them wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn. But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed."

These words are, as the context reveals, directed to the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah God. However, in the New Testament, in Hebrews 1:10-12, Paul applies these words to Jesus Christ.


Because of this, some Trinitarians have concluded that:

1) Jesus is the Creator and 2) he (Jesus) is "Jehovah of the Old Testament," the One to whom these words were originally addressed.

Is this what the author of Hebrews was teaching?

A careful examination of Hebrews 1 as well as other, related verses will reveal the truth of the matter.
Is Jesus the Creator?

It will be shown that in 1 Corinthians 8:6 the apostle Paul makes a careful distinction between the "one God" (the Father) as the one "out of whom all things are," and Jesus Christ as the one "through (di, a contraction of dia) whom" all things came into being.


Hebrews 1 begins by giving reasons why we should "pay more than the usual attention to the things heard" through God's Son. (Heb 2:1; see also, John 7:16, 17; 12:49, 50) In verses 1 and 2 we are told:

"God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."

Seeing things in context

Clearly, then, in context Hebrews 1:10-12 could not be teaching that Jesus is the Creator, for here, in the opening words to the Hebrews, it is clearly stated that God made all things "through" His Son.

Heb. 1:3.

"He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places."

Since Jesus' role in creation has already been discussed in(Heb 1:3), it is not likely that in verses 10-12 the author would return to the same point he has explained earlier. It could be that these verses from Psalm 102 are appropriately applied to the Son of God in view of his being the preexistent Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8. There he is described as a "master worker" alongside his Creator, Jehovah.3 (Pr 8:22-31)

*B. W. Bacon acknowledges, "The passage could be made to prove the doctrine that the Messiah is none other than the preexistent Wisdom of Prov 8, 22-31, 'through whom' according to our author [the author of Hebrews], v.2, God 'made the worlds.

* Benjamin Wisner Bacon, "Heb 1.10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps 102, 23." ZA'W 3 (1902). 285. Compare F. F. Bruce. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 63, note 103.

The heavens and the earth as 'the work of Christ's hands?'

It would certainly be appropriate to refer to the heavens and the earth as 'the work of Christ's hands' in a secondary sense in view of his being the mediator/agent of the creative acts of Jehovah God. Indeed, as the "master craftsman" Jesus was very much involved in Jehovah's works. (Pr 8:30, Jerusalem Bible) Still, there seems to be another reason why Paul applies verses 25-27 of the 102nd Psalm to God's beloved Son.


The Immortal Son


Is it to prove that Jesus Christ is 'Jehovah of the Old Testament' that the author of Hebrews makes such an application of Psalm 102?
Again, those who embrace the doctrine of the Trinity would likely answer.


"Yes (say trinitarians), the fact that a verse was originally applied to God, and later applied to Jesus, proves that he is Jehovah of the Old Testament."


Faulty reasoning


Using this type of reasoning one might feel justified in concluding that Solomon was Jesus Christ! Why? Because in the verses just previous to Hebrews 1:10-12 Paul wrote:


"8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.” (Heb. 1:8,9)


As we have already discussed the translation "God is your throne," it is simply being pointed out that these words were originally addressed to Solomon in Psalm 45:6-7, but here in Hebrews 1:8-9 they are applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. The book Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 414, adds more to the point:



Jesus and Solomon


'It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is "greater than Solomon" and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.'

So, when a description/title... is applied to the Father and also, this same description is applied to the son, it does not mean that they are the same person, because of the same description being applied to both! The above demonstrates that!


Nebuchanezzar and Christ

Also the scriptures tell us that Nebuchanezzar is called 'King of kings', but so is Christ, but we would not conclude that Nebudchadnezzar and Christ are the same person because the share the same title...

Ezekiel is called 'son of man', so is Jesus, but we would not say that Ezekiel is Christ because the 'son of man' is applied to both of them!


Concepts and ideas

Paul no more intended to identify Jesus with Jehovah than he intended to identify Solomon with Jesus. He did, however, apply certain concepts and ideas expressed in those verses which were originally applied to Jehovah God and Solomon, to the Son of God.


God is the source

The application of Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus at Hebrews 1:8-9 shows that God is the source of Jesus' royal office and authority. Because Jesus "loved righteousness and hated lawlessness," Jehovah "anointed him with the oil of exultation."


Jehovah was both the source of:

Paul's words are, "God, your God (God of you)," when referring to the One who anointed Jesus. Yes, Jehovah was both the source of Solomon' royal authority as well as his God.

The same is true of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jehovah is the source of his authority and is also his God (compare Da 7:13,14; Mt 28:18; Php 2:9,10: Rev 3:2,12).

Paul next applies Psalm 102:25-27 to Jesus in the following words, as recorded at Hebrews 1:10-12: You at the beginning, 0 Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed,

but you are the same, and your years will never run out
(emphasis added).

The emphasized portion of the above helps us to appreciate the point Paul is making.


His understanding that God made all things "through" his Son makes the application of this Psalm to Jesus even more appropriate, as was noted earlier. Yet, the thrust of his message is to highlight Jesus' immortality (deathlessness) since his resurrection by God. (Ro 6:9; Ga 1:1)

Jesus will "remain continually," unlike the creation that he was instrumental in bringing forth, which, if left on its own without Jehovah's power to "keep it standing" (Ps 148:1-6), would certainly "perish." 8 God's Son is now "living forever and ever," and his "years will never run out."—Heb 1:12; Rev 1:18; compare Heb 7:16, 25.


Jesus not a god man

Yes, the Lord Jesus, who, while on earth was "made lower than the angels" (which shows that he was not a God-man while on earth), has since his resurrection from the dead been elevated to a "superior position," having become "better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Php 2:9; Heb 1:4, 2:9)


He is also better in that he is now immortal, thus like his heavenly Father, as expressed in Psalm 102:25-27, which is now also applicable to Christ. Yet, even though he has obtained such a lofty position, he is still not the equal of his Father, Jehovah.—1 Co 11:3.


Jehovah is the "Most High" and Jesus Christ is his only-begotten Son. (Ps 83:18; Lu 1:32; Joh 3:16) Jesus is not identified as Jehovah in Hebrews 1:10-12. Jehovah is his God. The prophets knew this; the apostles knew this; and, more important, Jesus himself knew this.—Mic 5:4; Joh 20:17; Eph 1:3, 17; IPe 1:3; Heb 1:9; Rev 3:2, 12.


The above is ample proof that Trinitarians have been duped by their repective religious leaders, into believing that Jesus is is own Father Jehovah!

They have been mislead by Christendon's leaders who have tried their best, in any way possible to exponge Jehovah's Name from their bible translations.

The Trinitarians I have come across on this BBC board have consistently refused to recognise that the Trinity is just a readjustment of ancient pagan attributes, from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece and Rome!

So, when I come across 'dogmatic' statements like:

"LUR

Yes, Hebrews 1:10-12 contributes towards the understanding that the New Testament identifies Jesus with YHWH. (In fact there are far more verses that do this than perhaps you imagine.)

You want to set this in context. So for context we could start with Hebrews 1:8 in which the Father addresses the Son as "O God". Yes indeed.

This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God". And, for the avoidance of doubt, my understanding is that "O God" is grammatically correct. So that is part of the context for Hebrews 1:10-12. Context as you say is important."

The partial statement from above:


"...This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God"..."


"..."My God"..."O God"


The above has been shown to be way off track contextually, mis-applied, mis-understood and twisted to suit Trinitarian theology and not biblical context (see above Solomon and Christ, Nebudchanezzar and Christ, Ezekiel (son of man) and Christ...).

It can be argued that if Jesus is Jehovah, then so is Solomon, so is Nebudchadnezzar and Ezekiel and others...! What applies to one, must apply to the others...! There are no cases for special Trinitarian pleading!

The Trinity has more akin to Egyptian...Greek and Oriental Philosophy than the Bible.


letusreason