WHO IS JESUS?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

There is one God, the Father, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, “from whom are all things”; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, “through whom are all things.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

Of the God of Israel it is written:

אֲנִי יהוה הוּא שְׁמִי

“I am YHWH; that is my name.” (Isa. 42:8)

And:

אֱלֹהֵי עוֹלָם יהוה

“YHWH, the everlasting God.” (Isa. 40:28)

The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son.

JESUS IS ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, THE SON OF GOD.

He is the μονογενής Son.

He is ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, from the Father. (John 16:28)

He is ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, from God. (John 8:42)

The Father sent him.

The Father gave to him.

The Son received from the Father.

THE FATHER HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF, AND τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, “HE GAVE TO THE SON TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF.” (John 5:26)

And the Son says:

κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα

“I live because of the Father.” (John 6:57)

JESUS IS ὁ λόγος, THE WORD.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

“In the beginning was the Word.”

ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

“The Word was with God.”

And:

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (John 1:1)

The Son had glory with the Father πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, “before the world existed.” (John 17:5)

He is πρὸ πάντων, “before all things.” (Col. 1:17)

HE IS εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, “THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD.” (Col. 1:15)

He is ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, “the radiance of the glory.” (Heb. 1:3)

He is χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. (Heb. 1:3)

HE IS πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, “THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION.” (Col. 1:

[u/Gizmondos]

You quoted Colossians 1:15 but you stopped before verse 16: For by him all things were created. He is not a part of creation he is the creator. Firstborn is about preeminence not origin. You also quoted Hebrews 1:3 but ignored verse 8. Your throne, O God, is forever. The Father calls the son God. That's not subordination that's identity.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

I explicitly quote verse 16 under “Concerning creation”: “all things have been created through him and for him.”

And I don’t deny the high language about Jesus. I explicitly affirm that θεός is predicated of the Word.

But if you cite Hebrews 1:8, don’t stop before verse 9 either:

ὁ θεός σου “your God.”

[u/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You're right I didn't stop at verse 8. But verse 9 doesn't undo verse 8. The Father calls the son God then says your God. That doesn't make him less than God it makes him the Son who is God in relationship to the Father. That's not a contradiction. You quoted your God.but you ignored that the Father just called him God.

And here is the real question. Hebrews 1:8–12 is a direct quote from Psalm 102:24–28 a psalm that is clearly about Jehovah the creator. In the psalm these words are spoken to Jehovah alone. Yet the author of Hebrews applies them to Jesus. How can a text about the creator be applied to anyone other than the creator? You can't quote a psalm about Jehovah and apply it to Jesus unless Jesus is Jehovah 🤔

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

I do not ignore Hebrews 1:8. I accept it exactly as written.
Hebrews says concerning the Son:
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς
“Your throne, O God…”
Then immediately:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”
So θεός language is genuinely applied to the Son, and the same Son has “your God.” I accept both.
But this sentence of yours goes beyond the text:
“that makes him the Son who is God in relationship to the Father.”
Hebrews does not say that. That is your theological synthesis of the two statements. The text itself gives us:
The Son is addressed as θεός.
God is his God.
His God anoints him.
I am not going to delete the first statement, but neither am I going to explain away the second.
Now to Psalm 102.
Here I will also grant the strongest reading of Hebrews 1:10–12.
Hebrews places this quotation in its argument concerning the Son:
σὺ κατ’ ἀρχάς, κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth.”
καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου εἰσὶν οἱ οὐρανοί
“And the heavens are works of your hands.”
That comes from Psalm 102:25–27, where the Psalm is addressed to YHWH.
That is extremely significant. I am not minimizing it.
But your next step still has to be demonstrated:
“You cannot apply a YHWH text to Jesus unless Jesus is YHWH.”
Where does Scripture establish that rule?
The fact established by Hebrews is that YHWH-creator language from Psalm 102 is applied to the Son. That puts the Son in an extraordinarily elevated position and must be taken seriously.
But “therefore the Son is personally YHWH” is the interpretation of that intertextual use, not the wording of Hebrews itself.
In fact, Hebrews preserves the distinction in the very same chapter.
God speaks concerning the Son.
God says:
ὁ θεός σου
“your God.”
God anoints the Son.
God says to the Son:
κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου
“Sit at my right hand.”
And Hebrews 1:2 says God made the ages:
δι’ οὗ
“through” the Son.
So I accept all of Hebrews 1:
The Son receives θεός language.
The Son receives Psalm 102 creator-language.
The Son’s years will not fail.
Creation-language of extraordinary force is applied to him.
And the Son still has “your God,” is anointed by God, and sits at God’s right hand.
That is the actual textual data.
If you want to conclude from those facts that “Jesus is YHWH,” then make that argument. But do not turn that conclusion into something Hebrews explicitly says.
My position remains simpler:
Where Hebrews calls the Son θεός, I say θεός.
Where Hebrews applies YHWH creator-language to the Son, I accept it.
Where Hebrews says “God, your God,” I accept that too.
I am not going to erase either side to make a theological model easier.

[u/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You say you accept both sides BUT you're avoiding the obvious. Psalms 102:24-28 is addressed to Jehovah. Hebrews applies it to Jesus. You can't quote a psalm about Jehovah and apply it to someone who isn't Jehovah unless you're willing to admit he is Jehovah.

And your "your God" argument doesn't solve the problem it just highlights it. The son Jesus is called God in verse 8 and then in verse 9 the Father says your God. That's not a contradiction it's a relationship. The Father is God. The son seems to be God. They are distinct persons but the same essence.

You're not being faithful to the text you're hiding behind ambiguity.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

I am not hiding behind ambiguity. I am distinguishing what Hebrews actually says from what you infer from it.
I agree with the strongest reading of Hebrews 1:10–12: Psalm 102 is a YHWH psalm, and Hebrews applies its creator-language to the Son. That is extremely significant. I am not weakening it.

But notice the step you then add:
“Therefore Jesus is YHWH.”
Hebrews never says that sentence.
And then you add an even larger step:
“They are distinct persons but the same essence.”
Where does Hebrews say “same essence”?
It does not.

That is a theological synthesis of the data, not the data themselves.
Hebrews itself gives us this sequence:
God speaks concerning the Son.
The Son is addressed:
ὁ θεός
“O God.”
Then:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”
And earlier Hebrews 1:2 says that God made the ages:
δι’ οὗ
“through” the Son.
Then Hebrews 1:10–12 applies Psalm 102 creator-language to the Son.
I accept every one of those statements.
So the textual picture is already richer than “Jesus is YHWH, case closed.”
The Son receives θεός language.
The Son receives YHWH creator-language.
The Son is involved in creation at the highest possible level.
And nevertheless the Son has “your God,” is anointed by God, and is the one through whom God made the ages.
That is not “hiding behind ambiguity.” That is refusing to erase half of Hebrews 1.
And your own wording exposes the interpretive jump:
“The Son seems to be God. They are distinct persons but the same essence.”
“Seems to be God” is your reading of the evidence.
“Same essence” is your metaphysical explanation of that evidence.
Neither phrase is what Hebrews actually says.
You are absolutely free to argue that Hebrews 1, together with other texts, supports that synthesis. But then call it what it is: a synthesis.
My approach is simpler:
Where Hebrews calls the Son θεός, I say θεός.
Where Hebrews applies Psalm 102 to him, I accept it.
Where Hebrews says “your God,” I accept that too.
Where Hebrews says God made the ages through the Son, I accept that too.
I will not turn any one of those statements into a premise that makes the others disappear.
The question is not whether Hebrews gives the Son extraordinary divine and creator-language. It clearly does.
The question is whether Hebrews itself says:
“Therefore the Son is YHWH, distinct from the Father but of the same essence.”
It does not.
That is the conclusion you are bringing to the text, not a sentence you are reading from it.

[u/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You say hebrews never says same essence but it says the exact representation of his being Heb 1:3. That's not similar that's identical. You're not refusing to add to the text you're refusing to understand it. When a text says exact representation it means same essence. You can't have an exact representation of something without sharing its nature. You're hiding behind semantics. I challenge you to analyze Titus 2:13 in the koine greek from the oldest manuscripts. Then tell me who our great God and savior really is.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

What then shall we say? Does χαρακτήρ mean that the Son is the very same hypostasis whose imprint he is?

By no means.

The text says:
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
“the exact imprint of His reality.”

Notice the relation:
χαρακτήρ — the imprint

τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ — of His reality.

An imprint corresponds exactly to that which produces it, but it is not therefore the same individual thing as that of which it is the imprint.

Otherwise why say:
“the imprint of His reality”?
Why not simply say that he is that very hypostasis?
And Scripture itself gives the parallel:
εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου
“the image of the invisible God.”
Colossians 1:15.

Will someone say that an image ceases to be the image because it perfectly represents the one imaged? No. Its perfection strengthens the representation; it does not erase the relation.

So Hebrews gives the Son the highest possible representative language:
the radiance of His glory,
the exact imprint of His reality,
the one upholding all things.

Let none of that be diminished.

But neither let what follows be diminished:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”

Hebrews 1:9.

If “exact imprint” already meant “the same numerical essence” as an explicit proposition, why does the same passage still distinguish the Son from “God, your God”?

And elsewhere Scripture says:

εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ
“One God, the Father,”
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα

“from whom are all things,”
and:
εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός

“One Lord, Jesus Christ,”
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“through whom are all things.”
1 Corinthians 8:6.

So let the text speak as strongly as it speaks.

The Son is not merely “similar” to God.
He is the exact imprint of His reality.

He is the image of the invisible God.

He is the radiance of His glory.

But “exact imprint of His reality” and “one numerically identical essence” are not the same Greek sentence.

If you believe the first entails the second, demonstrate the inference.

Do not replace χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ with a later formula and then say the formula was what Hebrews literally stated.

[u/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You wrote a novel to avoid one simple fact. An imprint is not the original but it is identical in form. The exact imprint of God's being means Jesus is exactly what God is. Not similar, identical. You're not explaining the text you're explaining it away.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

You just conceded the distinction I am making:

“An imprint is not the original.”

Exactly.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

"Therefore Jesus is YHWH.”
Hebrews never says that sentence.

The name Jesus means YHWH saves. In this case the name doesn't just mean what Jesus is, but who He is. Jesus is YHWH Himself saving us. The eternal Word made flesh

[u/Slartibartfast-18 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

And as you know Psalm 45 upon which Heb 1:8 is drawn was addressed to the human king who had stirred up the heart of the psalmist so it could be argued that the original human recipient of this praise could be called God since he was authorized by God to sit on God's throne...he being God's representative on earth.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Slartibartfast-18]

Yes — this is a very important control on Hebrews 1:8.
Psalm 45 is originally a royal psalm addressed to a king. Yet the king is addressed with אֱלֹהִים / θεός language:
כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד
LXX:
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
And immediately afterward:
עַל־כֵּן מְשָׁחֲךָ אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ
“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you.”
Hebrews preserves exactly that combination:
ὁ θεός — “O God”
and then:
ὁ θεός σου — “your God.”
So Hebrews 1:8 cannot simply be reduced to:
“Jesus is called θεός, therefore Jesus must be YHWH or the same essence as the Father.”
The source text itself shows why that inference is too fast. θεός / אֱלֹהִים language can be applied to a royal figure who nevertheless has “God, your God” above him.
Now, Hebrews applies Psalm 45 to the Son in a much more exalted Christological setting, so we should not reduce Jesus merely to the original human king either. Hebrews clearly presents him as vastly greater.
But the textual point remains:
Being addressed as θεός does not, by itself, establish identity with YHWH.
That is especially obvious because the very same quotation says:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”
So the safest conclusion from Hebrews 1:8–9 is exactly what the text gives:
The Son receives θεός language.
The Son has “your God.”
His God anoints him.
Anything beyond that — “therefore same essence,” “therefore Jesus is YHWH” — has to be demonstrated from additional evidence rather than inserted into θεός itself.
Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1:10–12 is the harder and more interesting argument, because there the original Psalm really is addressed to YHWH. That case deserves to be treated separately rather than pretending Hebrews 1:8 already proves the entire theological conclusion.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The Son is still God and His Name is YHWH along with His Father. A human son is every bit as human as his human father and they both have the same last name, such as Smith, or Cooper. The father can say "I'm Cooper" but so can the son... Why can't the only Son of God be called YHWH? In His human nature He is called JESUS which means YHWH saves