Deeper Commentary
CHAPTER 1
1:1 I have suggested on
Heb. 13:22 that Hebrews was originally a transcript of a sermon
at the breaking of bread meeting at the Jerusalem church, turned into
written form, with a few practical comments appended to it at the very
end. This accounts for various stylistic features in the book which would
otherwise appear rather odd. The style and use of language is very clearly
Pauline; that is beyond serious denial. Paul's major concern was that
there was going to be a great falling away from the faith, and the initial
cause of this was the Judaizing campaign against him and his converts. The
large Christian church at Jerusalem, along with the other Palestinian
congregations, were under particular pressure to return to Judaism. And it
was against this background that Hebrews was written.
I noted throughout
commentary on Acts 7 that there are so many connections between
Stephen's speech and Hebrews. The Jerusalem church, to whom Hebrews was
primarily addressed, would have known Stephen well. Hebrews is full of
allusions to Stephen's speech, and my suggestion is that it was not
Stephen writing to his own church before his death, but rather Paul
expanding upon Stephen's speech. As the bitterly angry Saul, keenly
listening to Stephen and grasping his every allusion, he would have felt
the goads of Scripture sticking into his conscience. He remembered every
word, and after his conversion, he took Stephen's thoughts further.
Hebrews, I suggest, is his development of Stephen's words and ideas. The
historical characters mentioned by Stephen are also mentioned by Paul in
Hebrews 11. Paul draws his sermon in Hebrews towards a conclusion by
speaking of how we as Christians have come into association with "the city
of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of
angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborns, who are
enrolled in heaven; and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of
just men made perfect" (Heb. 12:22,23). It seems to me certain that Paul
had Stephen in mind at this point, a clearly 'just man', who had asked the
Lord Jesus in Heaven to receive his spirit, as one of "the spirits of just
men made perfect", and whose name as a martyr was for sure "enrolled in
Heaven". The anonymity of the letter would be appropriate, as Paul was
seen as a heretic and
persona non grata among many
of the Jewish Christians who were turning back to Judaism.
1:1
God, who at various times and in various ways- Polymeros...
polytropos is framed in such a way as to aid memorization, and
would be typical of a spoken address; see on 13:22 and 1 Thess. 2:1.
Spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets-
The Lord was “the word made flesh"; having spoken to us through the words
of the prophets, God now speaks to us in His Son (Heb. 1:1,2 RV). His
revelation in that sense hasn’t finished; it is ongoing. Right now, the
Lord Jesus speaks with a voice like many waters and a sword of flame-
according to John’s vision of the Lord’s post-resurrection glory.
In the first century, you usually began a letter with a preface, saying
who you were and to whom you were writing. The letter to the Hebrews has a
preface which speaks simply of the greatness of Christ (Heb. 1:1-3),
tackling the devaluing of the Lord Jesus and the role of Messiah generally
which was being done by the Judaizers. The higher critics speak of how the
preface has been lost or got detached. But no, the form of Heb. 1:1-3 is
indeed that of a preface. The point is that the greatness of Christ, of
which the letter speaks, is so great as to push both the author and
audience into irrelevancy and obscurity. It’s significant that the New
Testament writers speak so frequently of Jesus as simply “the Lord”. This
would’ve been strange to first century ears. Kings and pagan gods always
had their personal name added to the title ‘the Lord’- e.g. ‘the Lord
Sarapis’. To just speak of “the Lord” was unheard of. The way the New
Testament speaks like this indicates the utter primacy of the Lord Jesus
in the minds of believers, and the familiarity they had with speaking
about Him in such exalted terms.
1:2
Has in these last times spoken to us in the Son, whom He
appointed heir of all things, on account of whom also He structured the
ages- The immediate purpose of the exalted language appplied
to Jesus in Hebrews was to tackle the devaluing of Him by the Judaist
element within the church. Judaism understood the likes of David and Moses
to be far higher than Messiah, whoever He was (hence the Lord's argument
that David called Messiah his Lord, Lk. 20:44). This has of course led to
passages like Heb. 1:2 being misunderstood to believe that Jesus created
the earth. It could be argued that the prologue to Hebrews is based upon
the prologue to John's Gospel. The same ideas recur- the Word of God from
the beginning come to expression in Christ, "all things", glory, etc. Note
the similarity between "apart from him not one thing came into being" (Jn.
1:3) and Heb. 2:8, "not one thing is not left put under him". Jn. 1:3
stated that "all things" were created by the Word, i.e. the logos /
intention which God had of the Messiah. Heb. 1:2 clarifies this (because
of misunderstandings in the early church?) to define the "all things" as
all the ages of human history. These were framed by God with the Christ in
mind. Later in Hebrews we meet the same idea- Heb. 11:3 speaks of how the
ages were framed and then goes on to give examples of Old Testament
characters who displayed their faith and understanding of the future
Messiah.
It should be noted that the 'ages' which Christ was to be involved in
creating refer to "the world to come"- for Heb. 2:5 says that this passage
is speaking about "the world to come". Heb. 9:26 adds indirect support by
commenting that Christ died at the end of "the (singular) age"; the ages
[plural] to come are the eternity of God's Kingdom which is made
possible through His work. Thus the idea is not that He created the world,
but rather that through His work, the ages /to come/ were made possible
through Him. And therefore those ages before Him find their meaning in the
context of He who was to come and open the way to eternal ages.
We read of “the Son… by whom [Gk.
dia]
He [God] also made the worlds [Gk.
aion]”. 'Dia'
can mean ‘for whom / for the sake of / on account of'. It doesn’t
always mean that, as it’s a word of wide usage- but it very
often does mean ‘on account of’ and actually frequently it
cannot
mean ‘by’. There are stacks of examples listed in
Appendix 11 of The Real Christ.
Thus
in a creation context, we read that all things were created
dia, for the sake of, God’s pleasure (Rev. 4:11).
Significantly, when 2 Pet. 3:5 speaks of how the world was created “by”
the word of God, the word
dia isn’t used- instead
hoti, signifying ‘causation through’. This isn’t the word used
in Heb. 1:2 about the creation of the
aion on account of,
dia, the Son. Eve was created
dia Adam- she wasn’t created
by Adam, but
for the sake of Adam (1 Cor.
11:9). 1 Cor. 8:6 draws a helpful distinction between
ek [out of whom] and
dia- all things are
ek God, but
dia, on account of, Christ (1 Cor. 8:6). The context
of Heb. 1:2 features many examples of where
dia
clearly means ‘for the sake of’ rather than ‘by’. Just a little later we
read in Heb. 1:14 of how the Angels are “ministering spirits” who minister
dia, for the sake of, the believers. Because of [dia]
Christ’s righteousness, God exalted Him (Heb. 1:9). The Mosaic law was
“disannulled”
dia “the weakness and
unprofitableness thereof” (Heb. 7:18). The weakness of the law didn’t
disannul the law; the law was disannulled by God
for the sake
of the fact it was so weak. Levi paid tithes
dia
Abraham (Heb. 7:9), not
by Abraham, but
for the sake of the fact he was a descendant of Abraham. Jesus
was not an Angel
dia the suffering of death (Heb. 2:9). Clearly here
the word means ‘for the sake of’ rather than ‘by’. Jesus was born a man
for the reason that He could die. He was not an Angel who was
then made ‘not an Angel’
by the fact of death. That
makes no sense.
Note that
aion [AV "worlds"] is a
plural- if this verse means 'Jesus created the earth', then, did He create
multiple, plural 'earths'? That the word means 'the ages' or ‘an age’ is
again clear from seeing how else
'aion' is used. In almost
every case where the word
aion occurs in the New
Testament, it doesn’t mean ‘the physical planet earth’, but rather an age
or situation on the earth, rather than the physical planet. In Eph. 2:7 we
read of “the ages to come”- and it is the word
aion
again. The church will glorify Jesus “throughout all generations”, and
this is paralleled with the phrase ‘the
aion of the
aions’ [Eph. 3:21- AV “world without end”; the same parallel
occurs in Col. 1:26, “hid from
aions and from generations”]. Clearly
aion refers to periods of time rather than a physical planet.
Just a few verses after Heb. 1:2, we read that the son will reign ‘for the
aions and the
aions’, or in English “for ever and ever” (Heb. 1:8).
Surely the combined message is that the previous ages /
aions existed only for the sake of Christ, and He will rule
over all future
aions. There is the
aion to come [AV “the world to
come”, Heb. 6:5], and Christ will be a priest “for ever” [Gk. ‘for the
aion’, Heb. 5:6]. The
aion to come is the eternity
of God’s Kingdom. It will be, in somewhat hyperbolic language, an eternity
of eternities. Later in Hebrews we read that Jesus made His sacrifice for
sin “in the end of the world /
aion” (Heb. 9:26). If an
aion ended at the death of Jesus, then clearly the word
doesn’t refer to the physical planet- but rather to the age which then
ended. The Hebrew writer clinches this view of
aion in Heb. 11:3, where he
prefaces his outline of Bible history from Abel to the restoration from
Babylon by saying that the ages /
aion are framed by the word of
God. Response by faith to God’s word, seeing the invisible with the eye of
faith, occurred amongst the faithful in every
aion.
The
aion [AV “worlds”] were framed by the word of God. Consider
other uses of the word
aion where clearly it refers to the ages and not to a literal
planet (Mk. 4:19; Lk. 1:70; 16:8; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 2:6,8; 3:19; Gal. 1:4;
Eph. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:10).
The whole of history, with all its ages, and all that is to come, exists
solely for the sake of Christ. He is the One who gives meaning to history.
Further, if this verse means 'Jesus created the earth', then OK, question:
Genesis and many other passages say
God created. If this says
Jesus was the actual creator, then is Jesus directly equal to God? Also,
if Heb 1:2 is saying that
Jesus is the creator of earth,
the One through whom God did the job, then,
why
do we have to wait until Hebrews to know that? There's no indication in
Genesis or even in the whole Old Testament nor in the teaching of Jesus
that Jesus was the creator of earth on God's behalf. That's my problem
with the pre-existence idea- it's nowhere in the Old Testament. So would
believers have been held in ignorance of this fact for 4000 years? If so,
then, is it so important to covenant relationship with God? I am sure
David, Abraham etc. believed that
God and
not Messiah created the earth. If they'd have been
asked: 'Did
Messiah create the earth, or
God? Does Messiah now exist?', they'd have answered 'No' both times.
Surely?
It is argued by trinitarians that
dia
+ the genitive, as we have in Heb. 1:2, means that the ages were made by
the instrumentality of Christ. But
dia + genitive doesn't only
mean 'by whose instrumentality'. Moulton,
The Analytical
Greek Lexicon Revised , p. 90 explains the uses of
dia
with genitive:
"1. With a genitive, through
a. Used of place or medium through
b. Used of time, during in the course of; through
c. Used of immediate agency, causation, instrumentality, by means of,
by; of means or manner, through, by, with
d. Used of state or condition, in a state of".
Meaning (b) appears relevant to Heb. 1:2 because it is
dia Christ that the
aions (a time reference) were
created. This would require us to read in an ellipsis: "Through the
(period of the ministry of) the Son, God framed the ages". Or,
"Through(out) the Son, God framed the ages", i.e. all God's purpose
throughout the ages was framed with Christ in mind. Acts 3:18 uses
dia
+ genitive to explain how God had spoken of Christ "by" or throughout the
period of all His "holy prophets".
1:3
Who being the brightness of His glory and the exact image of His
person, upholds all things by the word of his power- Nearly
all the titles of Christ used in the letter to the Hebrews are taken from
Philo or the Jewish book of Wisdom. The writer to the Hebrews is seeking
to apply them in their correct and true sense to the Lord Jesus. This
explains why some titles are used which can easily be misunderstood by
those not appreciating this background. For example, Philo speaks of “the
impress of God’s seal”, and Hebrews applies this to the Lord Jesus. The
phrase has been misinterpreted by Trinitarians as meaning that Jesus is
therefore God; but this wasn’t at all the idea behind the title in Philo’s
writings, and neither was it when the letter to the Hebrews took up the
phrase and applied it to Jesus. This sort of thing goes on far more often
than we might think in the Bible- existing theological ideas are re-cast
and re-presented in their correct light, especially with reference to the
Lord Jesus. Arthur Gibson notes that “there is an important second level
within religious language: it is a reflection upon, a criticism of, a
correction of, or a more general formulation of, expressions which
previously occur”.
3 Enoch [also known as
The Hebrew Book Of Enoch]
spoke much of an Angel called Metatron, "the prince of the presence", "the
lesser Yahweh", who appeared as Yahweh to Moses in Ex. 23:21, sat on "the
throne of glory" etc (3 Enoch 10-14). Early Jewish Christianity appears to
have mistakenly reapplied these ideas to Jesus, resulting in the idea the
first of all Jesus was an Angel, and then coming to full term in the
doctrine of the Trinity. J. Danielou devotes the whole fourth chapter of
his survey of the development of Christian doctrine to the study of how
Jewish views of Angels actually led on to the Trinity. Paul's style was
not to baldly state that everything believed in by the Jews was wrong; he
recognized that the very nature of apostasy is in the mixing of the true
and the false. He speaks of how Jesus truly has been exalted and sits at
God's right hand (Rom. 8:34) and has been given God's Name, as the Angel
was in Exodus (Phil. 2:9-11); but his whole point is that whilst that may
indeed be common ground with the Jewish ideas, the truth is that Jesus is
not
an Angel. He came into physical existence through Mary ("made / born of a
woman", Gal. 4:4), and as the begotten Son of God has been exalted above
than any Angel. The language of Heb. 1:3-6 clearly alludes to the Metatron
myth and deconstructs it in very clear terms. For Jesus is described as
"being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image / pattern of his
substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had
made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
high; having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath
inherited a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels
said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and
again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son? And when he
again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the
angels of God worship him".
When he had accomplished the purification of sins- In
a sense, all sins were purged by the Lord's death. Sin, the 'devil' of
Heb. 2:14, was destroyed; He "made an end of sins" (Dan. 9:24). We can
easily forget the wonder of this; Peter uses the same word about those who
had forgotten their purging [s.w.] from their old sins (2 Pet. 1:9). They
lacked the spiritual vision to look back to the cross and perceive that
now, human sin is no longer a barrier between God and ourselves. The
Lord's blood is therefore of such power as to purify even our conscience
from the guilt of past sins (Heb. 9:14; Tit. 2:14). But this was all
achieved at a specific historical point- when the Lord died on the cross.
He then sat down on the right hand- In his time of
dying, Stephen saw the Lord Jesus
standing
at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55). But about 13 times in the New
Testament, the point is made that the Lord
sits there, unlike the Mosaic
priests who stood (Heb. 10:12). The Lord Jesus was passionately feeling
for Stephen; and He just as emotionally and passionately feels for us in
our struggles. This alone should lift us out of the mire of mediocrity.
Prayer will have meaning and power. It won’t just be the repetitious
conscience-salver it can descend into. Many of those 13 NT references to
the Lord being seated at the right hand of God are in Hebrews; and this
again encourages us to see Hebrews as Paul's deeper reflections upon
Stephen's speech. This would especially be the case if the Jews in the
council actually saw something of what Stephen saw.
Of the Majesty in Heaven- It is a majestic, glorious
theme of the Bible that God is revealed as a real being. It is also a
fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is
not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the
“image of His
person” (Heb. 1:3). The Greek word actually means His
“substance” (RV). Further, it becomes difficult to develop a personal,
living relationship with ‘God’, if ‘God’ is just a concept in our mind. It
is tragic that the majority of religions have this unreal, intangible
conception of God.
1:4
He thus became so much better than the angels, as he has
inherited a more excellent name than they- Judaism was
obsessed with Angels, reflecting the pagan notion that there were various
'spirits' controlling various aspects of life. This idea likewise entered
the Catholic and Orthodox churches. But the point is laboured here that
the Lord Jesus as begotten Son of God is far better than Angels. The more
excellent Name would appear from :5 to be connected to His Sonship. Angels
are also "sons of God" but not in the ultimate sense in which the Lord
Jesus was the only begotten Son. Angels too can bear and manifest the
Yahweh Name just as we can, but the Lord inherited that Name in a "more
excellent" sense than them; for He had achieved the characteristics of
that Name within His own personality. This all adds even more wonder to
the fact that by being "in Christ", all that is true of Him becomes true
of us; and we are co-heirs with Him, inheriting as He did (Rom. 8:17),
fully sharing in all His glorification.
1:5
For to which of the angels said He at any time: You are my Son,
this day have I begotten you? And again: I will be to him a Father and he
shall be to me a Son?- The "more excellent Name" which
the Lord inherited (:4) therefore appears to be "My Son". Now we can
understand why :2 strangely speaks in Greek of simply "by Son", not "His
Son". Rom. 1:4 says the same- He was "declared to be the Son of God with
power" by the resurrection. This is why Psalm 2, about the Lord's birth,
is applied to different points of His career. He was presented as God's
Son in the fullest sense when He received Divine nature at His
resurrection. Note that His Name now given is "Son" and not 'Yahweh'. And
this is why confession of faith in Jesus as "Son of God" is seen as the
essence of belief in Him.
Ps. 2:7 is applied to the Lord's
resurrection in Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:4. But the rest of Psalm 2 is quoted
about various points of the Lord's work; at His birth, death,
resurrection, return and at the time of the final rebellion against Him.
And the original application appears to be to David and then to Hezekiah.
Clearly it is not always so that if a verse is quoted in one context in
the New Testament, then the surrounding context of the original quotation
must refer to the same time. And it is likewise clear that the same
scripture can have multiple fulfilments; Psalm 2 is a classic cse of that.
The insistence upon context as the guiding light of interpretation is
often misplaced; because the mind behind the word of God does not work
according to the Greek influenced linear thinking of the European mind,
with its emphasis upon logical corrolary and linear progression and
development of thought and context.
James Dunn quotes Tertullian, Justin, Epiphanius and Clement as all
believing that the Lord Jesus was an Angel: "So too Jewish Christians of
the second and third centuries specifically affirmed that Christ was an
angel or archangel... Justin's identification of the angel of Yahweh with
the [supposedly] pre-existent Christ". It was this Jewish obsession with
Angels, and the desire to make Jesus understandable as an Angel, which led
to the idea that He personally pre-existed and was not quite human. And
hence the specific and repeated emphasis of the New Testament that the
Lord was
not an Angel but
because He was a man and
not an Angel He has been exalted far
above Angels (Phil. 2:9-11;
Col. 1:16; 2:8-10; Heb. 1; 1 Pet. 1:12; 3:22; Rev. 5:11-14). It's the same
with the idea of Melchizedek, whom the Qumran community and writings
understood as an Archangel. The commentary upon Melchizedek in Hebrews
stresses that he was a
man ("consider how great this
man was...", Heb. 7:4)- therefore
not
an Angel. He was a
foreshadowing of Christ, and
not Christ Himself. It would appear that the commentary upon Melchizedek
in Hebrews is actually full of indirect references to the Qumran claims
about Melchizedek being an Angel and somehow being the Messiah. Sadly, too
many trinitarians today have made the same mistake as the Jews- arguing
that Melchizedek was somehow Jesus personally. The Jews of Qumran were
quite obsessed with Angels- they also suggested that Gabriel was somehow
the pre-existent Messiah. Bearing that in mind, it would appear that the
descriptions of the Angel Gabriel announcing the conception and birth of
Jesus are almost purposefully designed to show that Gabriel and Jesus are
not the same but are two quite different persons (Mt. 1:20,24;
2:13,19; Lk. 1:11,19,26-38; 2:9).
Hebrews 1 can be a passage which appears to provide perhaps the
strongest support for both the ‘Jesus is God’ and ‘Jesus is not God’
schools. Meditating upon this one morning, I suddenly grasped what was
going on. The writer is in fact purposefully juxtaposing the language of
Christ’s humanity and subjection to the Father, with statements and
quotations which apply the language of God to Jesus. But the emphasis is
so repeatedly upon the fact that God did this to Jesus. God gave Jesus all
this glory. Consider the evidence: It is God who begat Jesus (Heb. 1:5),
God who told the Angels to worship Jesus (Heb. 1:6), it was “God, even
your God” who anointed Jesus, i.e. made Him Christ, the anointed one (Heb.
1:9); it was God who made Jesus sit at His right hand, and makes the
enemies of His Son come into subjection (Heb. 1:13); it was God who made /
created Jesus, God who crowned Jesus, God who set Jesus over creation
(Heb. 2:7), God who put all in subjection under Jesus (Heb. 2:8). And yet
interspersed between all this emphasis- for that’s what it is- upon the
superiority of the Father over the Son… we find Jesus addressed as “God”
(Heb. 1:8), and having Old Testament passages about God applied to Him
(Heb. 1:5,6). The juxtaposition is purposeful. It is to bring out how the
highly exalted position of Jesus was in fact granted to Him by ‘his God’,
the Father, who remains the single source and giver of all exaltation, and
who, to use the Lord’s very own words, “is greater than [Christ]” (Jn.
14:28).
1:6
And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world He says:
And let all the angels of God worship him- "Brings" is
strictly 'brings again' and refers to the resurrection, as noted on :5.
The quotation is not from the Masoretic Text but from the Septuagint of
Dt. 32:43 and perhaps Ps. 97:7. This indicates that the inspired writer
considered that material in the LXX which is not in the Hebrew text is
inspired by God and worthy of quotation as such. The context of both those
passages is hardly that of the Lord's resurrection; but as noted on :5,
the New Testament writers tend to quote without attention to context. Dt.
32:43 LXX is also quoted by Paul in Rom. 15:10. Another example of this
kind of thing would be how in Romans 3 there is a quotation from Ps.
14:1-7 LXX; but six of the quoted verses are not in the Hebrew text.
We might well wonder why Paul is quoting verses only found in the LXX
in order to prove that the Lord Jesus is greater than Angels; and why he
insists on quoting only from the LXX. It's as if he is making some kind of
point about the Septuagint. I suggested on 1:1 that Paul was appealing to
the Jerusalem Christians, in terms which recalled the witness of their
famous martyr Stephen. What brought about Stephen's demise was his
apparent backing of the Greek speaking Jews in the Jerusalem church. This
might explain why Paul is appealing specifically to them by quoting so
insistently from the Septuagint and even from passages which are only to
be found there and not in the Hebrew text.
1:7
And of the angels He says: Who makes His angels winds, and His
servants a flame a fire- The quotation from Ps. 103:4 LXX only
demonstrates the Lord's supremacy over Angels by stating that God makes
the Angels into winds / spirits and flames- we recall the Angel seen by
Samson's parents ascending in a flame of fire- whereas He has made His Son
to be a king with a sceptre. The Lord Jesus is able to rule and decide
issues on His own volition and agenda, rather than simply be sent as
Angels are sent to obey the Father's agenda.
1:8
But of the Son He said: Your throne, O Mighty One, is for ever
and ever, and the sceptre of your kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness-
See on :7. The Angels are sent out with temporary power to perform
specific tasks they are given to perform; whereas the Lord Jesus is an
eternal Kingdom, with a seceptre, i.e. ruling and issuing orders Himself
rather than taking them. Ps. 45:6,7 quoted here is clearly about Solomon
in its initial application, so it is fruitless to argue that "Mighty One"
refers only to God Himself. For it can be applied to human kings.
1:9
You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God,
your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows-
We should not see sin as something to be regretfully avoided
and denied; the Lord's example was of hating sin. And that hatred of sin
arose out of the depth of His love for righteousness. Being loved and
exalted above his brethren is a Joseph allusion. The idea of "your God"
anointing Messiah with joy above His "fellows" is all impossible to make
sense of within the standard Trinitarian paradigm. The connection between
anointing and joy is that there were traditionally expressions of joy and
praise when a man was anointed or chosen for some special task such as
rulership. David in writing this surely had his heart on the way that he
had been anointed above his brethren. And yet "fellows" is being
interpreted as referring to the Angels; the Lord Jesus was anointed above
them.
And yet the "fellows" of the Lord Jesus also have ourselves in view. The idea may be that the Angels are the Lord's "fellows" in that they are identified with us, whose guardian Angels they are. The same identity between believers and Angels is found in Revelation. The same word is used of how we are "partakers of Christ... of the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 3:1,14; 6:4; 12:8), because He likewise partook [s.w. shared / fellowshipped] our humanity (Heb. 2:14). "For we are all partakers in that one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17,21 s.w.). We too are anointed with the oil of the Spirit; but the Lord Jesus was anointed with it without measure. His gladness or joy is beyond anything we experience, because of the depth of His sufferings as the ultimate man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
1:10
And: You, Lord, in the beginning did lay the foundation of the
earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands- Heb. 1:10
appears to quote words about God (from Ps. 102:25) and apply them to
Jesus. To take a Psalm or Bible passage and apply it to someone on earth,
even a normal human, was quite common in first century literature (Oscar
Cullmann,
The Christology Of The New Testament (London: SCM, 1971) p.
234). It's rather like we may quote a well known phrase from Shakespeare
or a currently popular movie, and apply it to someone. It doesn't mean
that that person is to be equated with Romeo, Juliet, Othello, Hamlet,
Macbeth etc. By quoting the words about them, we're saying there are
similarities between the two people or situations; we're not claiming
they're identical. And seeing that the Son of God was functioning for His
Father, it's not surprising that words about God will be quoted about the
Lord Jesus.
In the same way as the Angels are so closely associated with their
charges that they are identified with them, so the Angels are described as
the things in the natural world which they have created. The quotation of
Ps. 102:26 in Heb. 1:10 can appear to pose major problems for belief in
the humanity of Christ and that the world will never be destroyed. The
context in Hebrews is again Christ's superiority over the Angels; however,
the context in Ps. 102 is of Christ on the cross thinking of the eternity
of God, how that "of old", "in the beginning" (clearly alluding back
to the beginning of the natural creation in Gen. 1), God created the
Heavens and earth by His Angel-hands. But "they shall perish... wax old
like a garment... as a vesture shalt thou change them" (Ps. 102:26). This
language is similar to that used elsewhere about the ending of the
Angel-oriented Mosaic Law (e. g. Heb. 8:13). Thus the literal Heavens and
earth will not perish, but the Angelic system that created them will do.
Thus both the natural creation and the Mosaic system are identified
exactly with the Angels that created them.
1:11
They shall perish, but You continue; and they all shall wear out
as does a garment- As noted on :10, the purpose of the
quotation is to demonstrate the Lord's superiority over Angels. One
approach is to understand the Hebraic way of stating that 'even X shall
happen to prove the greatness of Y'; e.g. heaven could pass away [X] but
the Lord's words would not [Y] (Mt. 24:35). This is not to say that X
shall literally happen; it is stated as a hyperbole, to demonstrate the
greatness of Y. And that may be the case here too. God's eternity is
contrasted with the [relative] passing of the Heavens, which were made by
Angels. "They shall perish" may not therefore mean they shall literally
perish.
The context of Ps. 102 is however pertinent. The "set time [had] come"
suggests that the Psalmist is writing maybe in captivity in Babylon as the
predicted 70 years of Judah’s captivity there came to a close, and he
looks forward to the promised restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. He
enthuses in :16 that "Yahweh has built up Zion"- although He had not then
done so (:13). The earlier part of the Psalm laments this. But the
Psalmist believed in God’s prophecies of doing so, and considered them as
good as already fulfilled. Faith is all about adopting God’s perspective,
seeing future promises as if they have already been fulfilled, thereby
enabling us to live the Kingdom life now in its essence. Then in Ps.
102:25 we read of how "Of old, You laid the foundation of the earth, the
heavens are the work of Your hands". The language of laying foundations is
nearly always used about the laying of the foundations of the new, rebuilt
temple at the time of return from exile (Ezra 3:10-12; 5:16; Is. 44:28;
Hag. 2:18; Zech. 4:9; 8:9); and this is the context of this Psalm (see on
:13 and :16). The ‘heavens and earth’ refer to Israel (Is. 1:2) and the
temple. Although they had ‘perished’ in the Babylonian invasion and
destruction of the first temple, God remained and would, the Psalmist
believed, install a new temple system (as outlined in Ez. 40-48). However,
this never quite happened as God intended due to Judah’s weakness, and so
these prophecies were reapplied to how the entire Jewish system based
around the temple and Law of Moses would ‘perish’ and God’s new temple
system based around the exalted Lord Jesus would come into existence (Heb.
1:10 and context).
1:12
And like a cloak You shall roll them up as a garment, and they
shall be changed; but You are the same and Your years are without end-
See on :10 and :11. The Jewish system would be rolled up (see on :11), as
a scroll that is not going to be read any more; the Law would end. But
Messiah would remain eternally. It was the Lord Jesus by His sacrifice
which changed the Jewish system. The same word is used of the Lord's
'changing' the customs delivered by Moses (Acts 6:14).
1:13
But of which of the angels has He said at any time: Sit on my
right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?-
Again the contrast is between the Lord being given a throne to sit on,
from whence He can direct and control; and the Angels who are servants,
sent forth to fulfil the will of Him that sits upon the throne (:14). See
on :3
He then sat down on the right hand. The footstool refers to
that which the King reigns over; we the enemies who were reconciled become
the Lord's footstool, and we are 'made' like this by the Father's will and
desire to glorify His Son in this unique way.
1:14
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service
for the sake of those that shall inherit salvation?- "All"
Angels are obedient servants; this of itself rules out any argument for
some Angels being sinful. Their 'sending forth' from the Heavenly throne
room has a literal aspect to it- see on Is. 37:36; Ex. 7:4. But in this
context the argument is that the Lord Jesus is the enthroned King, whereas
Angels are servants sent forth to serve us; and thus the Lord's supremacy
over Angels is established. Indeed it could be argued that the position
presented is that the Lord Jesus has been enthroned by the Father, and He
sends forth the Angels to do His service for the sake of our salvation.
The Lord Jesus is therefore the Lord of Angels.
The whole metaphor of inheritance appears to break down in that
you only receive an inheritance when someone dies. Metaphors all break
down at some point. But inheritance, being heirs of salvation, the
Kingdom, eternal life... is such a major Bible theme. The point is, the
Lord died. And we then received the inheritance. Just as in the natural,
we can squander that inheritance, as did the prodigal son. But we have
it...
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
