Archive for the ‘Hebrews Ch.1’ Category
A Look at Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 22
Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
We now turn to the final verse of the chapter however we stress in this last commentary that the argument of the writer does not end here. It carries on into chapter 2 and when one studies the entire letter with time and passion, there is much blessing that accompanies its examination. Here the writer now returns to speaking of the angels once again similarly to v.5 and is contrasting the angels with the Lord Jesus. This should come to no surprise taking into consideration the audience to which he is writing. He wants to take the time to emphasize the point he has been making since the beginning of the chapter.
The ministering work of these angelic beings is captured in the testimony of scripture and was quite admired by these Hebrew believers. They would not have forgotten their roots! Their labors of the angels consist of protection (2 Kings 6:15-17), deliverance (Acts 5:17-19; 12:6-9) and taking an individual to heaven (Luke 16:22).[1] The question that might come to mind is: why even mention this verse? The simplest reply we can give is that it keeps with the context to exhibit Christ’s superiority over the angels. The application here is to show the roles of both beings in that Christ is the one sitting on the throne as Prophet, Priest and King while the angels function as those who were sent forth as servants. It must be noted carefully that these angels are servants while the Lord Jesus Christ became a servant by His voluntarily taken on flesh.
Even though these angelic servants had historically displayed many tasks, the writer defines a particular work which is given to these servants in that they are to be ministers “for those who will inherit salvation”. There is particularity within this statement in that this labor they partake in is not for each and every individual who ever existed in history but to a specific group of people. They are those who have a future hope in the kingdom of the Lord! As genuine believers who are being sanctified in the Lord Jesus Christ, there should be a great comfort that comes to those who are the Lord’s people in that we have powerful servants ministering and watching over us even in our greatest afflictions. On our own accord we would fail miserably but the Lord who bought us with His own blood is the one who sees to our preservation and perseverance.
[1] Also see Exodus 23:20; 1 Kings 19:5; Psalm 91:11 and Mark 1:13
A Look at Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 21
But to which of the angels has He ever said: “ Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?
The argument in order to offer a distinction between the Son and the angels continues. His intent is to make certain the reader is has well understood the urging he has presented. The writer now draws from his previous thoughts in v. 5 when he stated For to which of the angels did He ever say then continuing with quotations from Psalm 2 and 2 Sam. 7. The emphasis here is to make a reiteration from the previous thoughts in vs. 5-7. This is quite popular in Hebrew thought along with the technique of repetition for emphasis. Once again we have in this case a question asked which must be answered in the negative sense.
The writer proceeds to once again consistently cite OT passages to substantiate his claims. This time around he quotes from the 110th Psalm which is a very well known Psalm since it is the most quoted Psalm in all of the New Testament scriptures. This passage is corresponding back to v.3 where the writer states that the Son sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high once again pointing to the enthronement of the king. The fact that anyone could ever sit on the throne of God was foreign to Jewish thinking since it brought the concept of equality with God. This is exactly what enraged the High Priest during the Lord’s mock trial.
Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. (Mark 14:62-63)
There has been some controversy surrounding the word till (Heos) where there seems to be a time of ending to His sitting on the throne. There have been those who would submit that Christ couldn’t be God since His reign on the throne will come to an end. To hold to this position in any logical terms would mean that one would have to ignore the previous 12 verses that demonstrate His divinity with clarity. Sadly this is the case, in our experience, with those who have a religion to defend. The earthly reign of Christ is in view here when He will leave the throne in heaven to make rule over the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 19:11-12; cf. Isaiah 63:1-3) What a glorious day this shall be!
A Study of Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 20
They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail
Nothing last forever is a slogan I have heard much in my life by those who feel the need to live their life in a careless fashion. Even though we feel their paradigm leads to the wasting away of the existence given to us by grace, we concede that there is much validity to the statement as well. We spoke of the heavens and the earth as a part of the creation of the Lord. The writer continues to quote the Psalmist and by doing so indicates much more concerning the heavens & earth (creation) in contrast to the uniqueness of Jehovah (creator).
The third argument for the uniqueness of Jehovah is found in that God is an unchanging God. This is what is called the doctrine of immutability. The writer within the Psalm argues from the standpoint of what is mutable and what is immutable. The first contrast in this case is found in the fact that the heavens will perish and they will be changed. The great prophet Isaiah agreed with the Psalmist in that All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down As the leaf falls from the vine, And as fruit falling from a fig tree (Isaiah 34:4). As for the Son however there is absolutely no alteration to His being since by nature these created things change but the Lord Jesus cannot change For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6) There should be a joyous moment that comes upon us when reading these words since the thought of a changing God would suggest an uncertainty of the fulfillment of the promises given to us as His people. The Lord is deserving of our praise and adoration since this is not the God of the bible and we can be certain that due to the precious attribute of immutability we can find hope in a world where hope is tremendously lacking.
We find in the statement that the “years” of Jehovah are “throughout all generations”. We have here a statement known as anthropomorphism[i] where God is defining His eternal nature.[ii] The text is appealing to a continuance in that from generation to generation and so forth, His years are. We find the Psalmist establishing this thought in other psalms as well in stating that Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting. (Psalm 93:2) and Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:2) Throughout time itself Jehovah simply exists and His entire nature is outside of our existence. If He bears the nature of eternity and is outside of time then there can be no variation of change. He does not grow old or see any sort of decay hence from start to finish He simply exists and is God. He abides for ever and ever; unchanged and unchangeable; eternally independent; independently eternal. He is, beyond any question, greater than His creatures and therefore greater than angels[iii] What a lovely contemplation that the one who bore our sins on Calvary so long ago is the same one whom the Psalmist could express His admiration in presenting His uniqueness only in the sum of three short verses
[i] Anthropomorphism is when God uses human terms about Himself when attempting to teach a truth regarding Himself. This is very similar to a parable when we use a common expression or story to reiterate a deeper truth.
[ii] See Micah 5:2; John 8:58; John 17:5, Colossians 1:17; Revelation 22:13
[iii] What The Bible Teaches: Hebrews, J. Flanigan, J. Ritchie, Page 35
A Look at Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 19
And:“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
The crescendo of the writer’s argument to these confused Hebrews who were in consideration of defecting back to their former religion is now upon us. These last four verses embellish and elucidate the previous passages. It is imperative that we take note of the opening term of this verse found in a little three letter word “and”. The term is a translation from the Greek kai which is used to demonstrate the continuation of the Father’s address of the Son. The flow of the address was initiated previously in v.8 with the expression “but to the Son He says”. The whole point of the term “And” is that the Father is not finished speaking of His Son!
The writer maintains the same line of argumentation by quoting from another Psalm; mainly the 102nd Psalm. We must emphasize the importance of understanding that this quote that is attributed to the Son is one of great importance. Scholar F.F. Bruce gives a brief description of the motives of God in this Psalm:
The Psalm, which begins “Hear my prayer, O Yahweh,” is truly described in its superscription as “a prayer of one afflicted, when he is faint, and pours out his complaint before Yahweh.” Both he and Zion, his city, have experienced the judgment of God, but he makes confident supplication for mercy and restoration for himself and Zion, that men and women may assemble there once more to give praise to God. He is oppressed by a sense of the brevity of his personal span of life, with which he contrasts the eternal being of God. IN comparison with his short life, heaven and earth are long-lived; yet heaven and earth must pass away. They had their beginning when God created them, and they will grow old and disappear one day; but the God who created them existed before they did, and he will survive their disappearance. As one man in his lifetimes outlives many successive suits of clothes, so God has seen and will yet see many successive material universe, but he himself is eternal and unchanging.[i]
The significance of recognizing that the God of the scriptures is a unique God is vital to our argument. Jehovah is a God that possesses characteristics that make Him God that no other being can possess no matter how exalted they might be. What makes Him God is found in the verses of the Psalm and here attributed to the Son.
The first unique trait of Jehovah is found in the exclusiveness of His name. Notice an often-missed expression “You, LORD” which, since it is quoting the OT Psalm, could be rendered “ You, Jehovah”[ii]. The most unique characteristic of God is found in His name, the name that was set apart as a token of expressing His being and Holiness. The Father applies to His Son the very name that is never used of a mere creature.
The second divine attribute is that of creatorship. This we have dealt with previously in verse 2. The expression sought to be articulated by the writer in based upon the word “Beginning” and should be taken as a parallel expression to that found in other portions of Holy scripture. God created “in the beginning” (Genesis 1:1) while the Father and Son were together (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1). The uniqueness of this attribute can be examined in the trial of the false gods found in Isaiah 40-48 which argues for the sole deity of Jehovah, the God of Israel especially in v.44:24.
[i] The Epistle to the Hebrews, F.F. Bruce, Eerdmans Publishing, Page 61-62
[ii] It should be noted that in the Psalm the writer refers to this portion as “You my God” which is paralleled with the term “You, LORD”.
A Study of Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 18
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You. With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.
The humble work of the Lord Jesus has always brought much awe to the hearts of those who have spent any time meditating on its totality. The thought of one who was exalted above all and fully God in Nature dwelling in the heavenly paradise leaving His Father and taking on the form of a man in all its weaknesses and dying such an extraordinary death to save undeserving sinners from the wrath of God is overwhelming indeed. To miss this is to fail in many fronts even to lack in the understanding of the Trinity.[i]
The text we will examine in v.9 has received some controversy throughout the years which is unfortunately nothing new however when we examine the true nature of the idiom presented by the writer; we feel there is much unwarranted speculation in this debate. There are those who have attempted to gather an argument against the deity of Christ in the preceding passages by stating that this text is a proof that in fact the Lord Jesus couldn’t have been God since He refers to the Father as His God. This type of argumentation is very weak in its approach since it does not take into consideration the willful subjection of the Son to the Father from a positional standpoint. The Son bowed the knee in obedience to fulfill perfectly what humanity had failed so often to do in always putting God ahead of Himself. The thought of the Son referring to the Father as “His God” is really not unnatural even in light of the equality of their nature. This has as its stem a reference back to His human nature and position (Philippians 2:6-8). One must wonder if the Father stating that the Son is God just a verses earlier stands to make the assertion that the Father cannot be God since the Son is referred to as God.
The anointing of the Son by the Father is continuing to reference the Kingship of the Lord Jesus. The anointing with oil is without any challenge referring to the OT crowning ceremony of the King of Israel (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:13) The reference here however seems to suggest a greater anointing than they since it is with the oil of gladness. The thought here is that of the satisfaction of the Father with the perfection of the work of His precious Son during His first advent which brought a sweet aroma to the Father and salvation to His elect. This anointing with the oil of gladness could certainly be corresponding with His resurrection. The Father placed His seal of approval and demonstrated His satisfaction of the work of the Son by raising Him from the dead.
The promulgators of controversy have placed a strange interpretation upon this verse in that it has been said that the Son has been placed in a position of honour even though His is equivalent with his “companions”. The identity of the “companions” is said to be referring to the angels however we feel that this interpretation fails in light of considering the point of this passage which is the anointing of a king. This has never been said of the angels in scripture. The writer, in speaking of the OT coronation ceremonies, is referencing the former kings that were anointed to rule over Israel. The thought here is not nature but position and quality of the kingdom that He will rule.
A.W. Pink gives an excellent summation of the previous three verses:
It is indeed striking to see how much was included in the ancient oracle concerning the Messiah which the Spirit here quoted from Psa. 45. Let us attempt to summarize the content of that remarkable prophecy. First, it establishes His Deity, for the Father Himself owns Him as “God”. Second, it shows us the exalted position He now occupies: He is on the throne, and there forever. Third, it makes mention of His Kingship, the royal “scepter” being wielded by Him. Fourth, it tells of the impartiality of His government and the excellency of His rule: His scepter is a “righteous” one. Fifth, it takes us back to the days of His flesh and makes known the perfections of His character and conduct here on earth: He “loved righteousness and hated iniquity.” Sixth, it reveals the place which He took when He made Himself of no reputation, as Man is subjection to God: “Thy God.” Seventh, it announces the reward He hath anointed thee”. Eight, it affirms He has the pre-eminence in all things, for He has been anointed with the oil of gladness “above His fellows”.[ii]
[i] The means by which I have explained the doctrine of the Trinity is based upon these three important points: (1) Within the being of the one true God, there are three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are co-eternal and co-equal in nature and are the one true God. (2) The three persons differentiate themselves only in a positional or functional aspect due to the willful subjection of the Son to the Father because of the eternal plan of Salvation. Difference in function does not mean inferiority in nature. (3) The Son possesses perfectly two natures, the nature of God and of man hence, in essence, function and possesses attributes of both natures
[ii] An Exposition of Hebrews, A.W. Pink, Baker Book House, Page 66-67
A Study of Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 17
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness
The realm of the human justice system has suffered tremendously over the years. Although many would see it as having gained much ground from a humanitarian perspective (and we certainly would agree) however there is much to be desired regarding its efficacy. Our slogan of “ it is better to let 100 guilty men go than wrongly convict an innocent man” has produced some remarkable injustices especially towards the victims and their families. Thankfully, this will not always be since He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31). The comforting thought that we should dwell upon in the study of the throne of Christ is that the one sitting upon it is the king of righteousness (Hebrews. 7:2) and His justice is one that is perfectly executed. There will be nothing imperfect in His judgment.
The writer parallels this throne to that of a scepter. The scepter, much like the throne, is an emblem of authority (Ester 5:2) and this particular scepter is in its very essence one of “righteousness”. The term for “scepter” would refer to a scepter that is totally straight without any curbs or slants. The scepter is one of justice in which all evil, seen or hidden, will be brought to light and judged by one who is fit to judge. All crimes that have occurred and victims that have been unfairly treated will finally be able to utter that they have received the justice they had demanded in this life. This is the righteousness that will be His kingdom. The scepter is also a symbol of His Kingship for which He shall rule over all things in the final things to come.
The phrase You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness is in the past tense. We believe this is referring back to his first coming since this expression was substantiated in His time on earth through His testimony. It should be noted that there are interchangeable terms used by the writer to reflect upon the nature of righteousness in that the one who loved righteousness is also the one who hated lawlessness. If we would for a moment examine this in a practical sense we would be right in saying that believers should examine themselves in that if they are professing to love the righteousness of their Saviour then there must be alongside this affection the hatred of all that is unrighteous. Oftentimes people associated the hatred of ungodliness as a form of judgment however this is not necessarily correct since it is not the act of judgment in question but the heart being repulsed by that which is wicked. This is oftentimes a natural thing in light of being “conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29)
A Study of Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 16
But to the Son He says:“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
We can almost feel the overwhelming excitement when the writer penned these next phrases. The contrast in regards to the Son to the angels begins with the small conjunction “but” (de) which is meant to bring about the thought of distinction. Jesus Christ the Son of God is no angel or archangel. Our great heavenly Father after having expressed Himself regarding His angelic creation now turns His attention towards a much better and greater being; mainly the Son. The entire focus of the next few verses will be on demonstrating the superiority of the Son to the angels in both being and function.
What the Father says regarding the Son is certainly one of the most blatantly clear evidences to the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ ever written in the New Testament or anywhere in scripture. The Father now makes reference to the grounds by which the Lord Jesus is contrasted to the angels. In His first statement to the angels He makes reference to their being and in v.8 parallels this by explaining the nature of the Lord Jesus in referring to Him as “God” (ho theos). 20th Century writer A.W. Pink writes:
This supplies us with one of the most emphatic and unequivocal proofs of the deity of Christ to be found in the scriptures. It is the Father Himself testifying to the Godhead of Him who was despised and rejected of men.[i]
But with such a clear statement how then are there so many in our generation past and present who still deny this glorious biblical truth? Much like any other passage of scripture there is an attempt to deny the plain meaning of this text. There are two different methods that are produced in their disagreement: firstly that the term “God” (Theos) shouldn’t be taken literally in this case and merely defined as a demi-god or secondly there are those in liberal circles who would challenge the translation of the text.
The first argument truly has no basis since when we examine the terminology used by the writer[ii] we must come to the conclusion that he is referring to full deity and not merely a likeness of God.[iii] The thought that Christ would have held a nature that is “in between” God and angels is not compelling since these Jews would have found great comfort in this. The reason for their console is because they could have held both views and escaped persecution however the writer makes it clear throughout the epistle that there couldn’t merely be a compromise and these believers were forces in a “all or nothing” situation.
The second argument however carries with it a little more weight. Some have translated the opening words of v.8 as “God is thy throne” instead of the traditional “thy throne, O’ God”. The difference is in how we interpret the writer’s intention when quoting the psalm. Some have come up with some strange arguments to hinder the traditional translation that we feel should be ignored.[iv] If the writer meant to use the nominative case then “God is thy throne” is the proper translation however if the vocative is used then the traditional translation should be rendered. Some scholars have expressed that there is some uncertainty as to how exactly the Greek should be deciphered[v] however we feel as many other scholars[vi], that the evidence for the vocative is stronger because of certain points.
- Stemming from the issues surrounding the LXX translation of Psalm 45:7 which seems to point to the vocative reading.[vii]
- The vocative seems much more natural due to the word order utilized by the writer.
- A study of the evidence relating to legein proV is more naturally rendered as “say to” than “spoken about”.
- The context has as it primary point to demonstrate the superiority of Christ over the angels which would be ineffective.
- When we look further at vs.10-12, the reading of “thy throne, O’ God” is more probable given that the writer uses the Psalm 102 to define God with His unique attributes.[viii]
The writer quotes from the very well known 46th Psalm, which would have certainly been recognizable to his audience. The 46th psalm was written for the marriage of Solomon to the daughter of the king of Egypt. When dealing with the terminology surrounding the throne we are venturing on the grounds of sovereignty and authority. Dr. R. Bowman Jr. writes:
The Psalm speaks in the immediate “horizon” about the Jerusalem king who also prefigured the Messiah, the ultimate descendant of David and the true eternal king. We should note that the Psalm does not identify the specific king, and the whole psalm may be interpreted messianically…the nuptial imagery that dominates the second half of the psalm (vv 8-15) is window dressing (likely occasioned by an actual wedding of the king) for a messianic vision of the future. The richest representatives of the nations of the world will attend to and bow before the Davidic king, and the peoples of the world will attend to him (note especially vv. 9-12, 17). Language about the king that would be hyperbolic in reference to any of Israel’s merely human kings ultimately applies to the Messiah. Thus, although none of those kings was literally God, Psalm 45 points forward to a coming king who really would be God[ix]
The thought of the throne of the Lord Jesus Christ isn’t a foreign idea conjured up by Christians. The Lord Jesus shall sit on the throne of His glory (Matthew 25:31) which is the same throne He shares with the Father and by which He will be worshipped by all creation (Revelation 22:1). It is truly fitting to read these words and meditate upon the great conquering authority of our God expressed mainly in these passages as the Father and the Son.
[i] An Exposition of Hebrews, A.W. Pink, Baker Book House, Page 58-59
[ii] The writer uses o qeoV with the definite article. There is no question that the writer’s words are meant to present pure deity and that which is the Father in nature.
[iii] This would have been the view of the early heresy that was challenging the church in its primitive years called gnosticism. Paul refutes this heresy in his letter to the Colossians by stating that “in Him all the fullness (pleroma) of deity dwells in bodily form” (2:9) which was a sharp rebuke to their belief system.
[iv] Some have attempted to argue for the traditional view from the analogy that Christ would have been sitting on God if the rendering “God is thy throne”. This is very poor argumentation especially when we see this type of peculiar language used in other areas of scripture (Psalm 90:1; 91:1-2,9)
[v] Robertson notes that “it is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in John 20:28 with the Messiah termed theos as is possible, John 1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood “God is they throne” or “thy throne O’ God”. Either makes good sense. -Word Pictures of the New Testament, A.T. Robertson, Broadman, Page 339
[vi] D. Wallace writes: “there are three synthatical possibilities for qeoV here: as a subject (“God is your throne), predicate nom. (your throne is God), and nom. For voc. ( as in the translation above). The S and PN translations can be lumped together and set off against the nom. For voc. approach. It is our view that the nom. For voc. view is to be preferred for the following reasons: (1) It is an overstatement to argue that if a writer wanted to address God he could have used the vocative qee, because no where in the NT is this done except in Matt 27:46. The articular nom. For voc. is the almost universal choice. (2) This is especially the case in quoting from the LXX (as in Heb. 1:8; cf. Heb 10:7), for the LXX is equally reticent to use the voc. form, most likely since Hebrew lacked such a form. (3) The accentuation in the Hebrew of Ps. 45:7 suggests that there should be a pause between “throne” and “God” (indicating that tradition took “God” as direct address). (4) This view takes seriously the men…de construction in vv7-8, while the S-PN view does not adequately handle these conjuctions. Specifically, if we read v.8 as “your throne is God” the de loses its adversative force, for such a statement could also be made of the angels, viz., that God reigns over them.— Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace, Zondervan, Page 59
[vii] Dr. Morey writes: “o qeoV is found sixty-three times in the vocative in the Psalms. Why then deny it here? Nowhere in Scripture is God ever said to be someone’s throne. The language “God is your throne” is rather odd and out of place in Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1. How does such a phrase prove that Jesus has a superior name and nature to the angels?– The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey, Christian Scholar’s press, Page 349
[viii] For a full treatment of the grammatical and synthaxical issues surrounding this text, see “Jesus as God” by Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, Pages 187-227
[ix] Putting Jesus in His place, R. Bowman jr. and Ed. Komoszewski, Kregel Publications, Page 149
A Study of Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 15
And of the angels He says:“ Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.”
The writer has just made a very remarkable and most likely shocking statement by declaring that the angels would worship the Son. The writer now advances in his argument by substantiating exactly why the angels would worship the Lord Jesus. He does so by presenting the contrast between the angels (v.7) and the Son (vs.8-12). This would have been important to the original readers since there needed to be justification for such a strong statement when they viewed the angels in such a high regard only second to Jehovah.
Jehovah here addresses firstly his angelic hosts in defining their nature and role in the span of spiritual things. He quotes from psalm 104 that is a psalm of praise and worship unto God and it should be noted that this quotation is most likely cited from the LXX[i]. This is important to remember when we examine further quotations in the verses ahead. The writer begins by acknowledging firstly their nature as “spirits” (pneuma), which is synonymous with the thought of “wind”and suffice it to say that the wind is quick, powerful and under the control of God so must we believe such can be said of the angels. There is also a contrast from the Son which stems from the fact that they are “spirits” and by nature He is eternal which we further examine when we will see vs.10-12[ii]
The second portion of this text deals with their function in that they are “ministers” or “servants”. Their existence is therefore one of servitude of God and in some cases in the care of mankind. The angels, unlike the Son, never have an opportunity to sit down since their work is never accomplished. There have been many interpretations of the term “flame of fire” yet if we pause for a moment and consider that we are speaking of the future in these particular texts, we will understand that it is speaking of the Son’s return. The Son will come to the fulfillment of His Kingship, the role of the angels in this particular period will be one of “flaming fire” which generally refers back to judgment (Gen. 19:13; Matthew 13:41-42) We indeed find it pertinent to note that this is exactly their role in the things to come since the Angels have been and are the executioners of God’s wrath (Revelation 8 & 9).
[i] LXX refers to the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the OT Hebrew.
[ii] Also see Micah 5:2
A Study of Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 14
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “ Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
There is always something to hope for when we are in Christ! The day when Christ will be “worshipped of angels” will be a day of comfort and joy to those who are His. The terminology of “firstborn” is utilized to reflect what was said regarding the name “Son”. It is used as a synonym to refer back to the glorious anointed of Jehovah. The expression when He again refers to His second coming with great power and glory.[i] It is a day that is always weighing on our hearts since it brings great excitement to us to think that one day He will demonstrate His victory to His foes and those who love Him will bow the knee to Him in love and worship (Philippians 2:9-11) together with the angels.
The term “firstborn” is from the Greek prototokos, which is derived from two words; mainly protos (first) and tiskos (begotten). Its meaning in scripture is twofold in that it can have the meaning of the one who is first to be born in a family hence derives its connotation from an order from older to younger. The other sense in which it is used and this we believe is the proper definition in this portion would be in a sense of rulership[ii]. There has been some opposition to this definition by those who would adhere to the inferiority of the Son to the Father by which they appeal to the text of Colossians 1:15 where the term is used as well. This is unfortunately faulty exegesis and mainly ignores contextual, historical and cultural study. The term “firstborn” is used for the Lord Jesus in both ways; firstly in Luke 2:7 we read that the Lord Jesus was Mary’s firstborn Son hence here we have the definition of a place within a family due to a birth. In the text of Colossians 1:15 the Lord Jesus is referred to as the “Firstborn of all creation” however the meaning is made apparent by v.16 with the little word “for” (hoti). The word “for” can be translated as “because”; it gives reason for the title “firstborn of all creation”. We might ask why is Jesus Christ the Firstborn of all creation? The reason Paul gives is simply that it is because “by Him all things are created”. Every thing that comes into existence does so by Him hence He has power and dominion over everything due to His creatorship.[iii] The reference here to firstborn is parallel to that found in the text of the letter to the Colossians. It should also be noted that the term “world” here is different than in v.2[iv] which would here in v.6 be insinuating the inhabited world which would have been the Roman Empire (Acts 17:6).
The topic of worship now comes to our attention in that we are presented with a wonderful truth that will be before us shortly in the final things. The worship of our Lord Jesus Christ is certainly a joyous consideration for the believing Christian as well as a burden upon those who would reject that the Lord Jesus is Jehovah the Son. The writer is quoting from the 97th Psalm where Jehovah demands the exclusive worship above all others even the “gods” that were idols. The term worship is one of exclusiveness and only directed towards God Himself (Deut. 34:14; Matthew 4:10). Even the most exalted beings such as angels could not receive the worship[v] that is given to God (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9). The writer however uses the language reserved for Jehovah and with great confidence applies it to our Lord Jesus. This powerful statement identifies the Son as Jehovah God since worship is unique to Jehovah! Obviously, there are those who have attempted to downplay this plain meaning of scripture by redefining the term “worship” to mean simply the act of “obeisance”[vi] and have even challenged the grammar by using reputable sources out of context[vii]. Their argument is that the Son is to be honoured however never worshipped. The Lord Jesus was worshipped on many occasions (Matt.2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9,17; Luke 24:52, Rev. 5:8) and if we examine the term “worship” in the scriptures we will see that it applies also to the Father in the same way as the Son (John 4:21-24; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:10).[viii] There is a significant importance in the worship of the Lord Jesus since it is clear that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (John 5:23) This is the same worship that the devil insisted upon when tempting the Lord however it is fitting to note that Satan never received it however the Lord Jesus certainly did (Matthew 28:17-18). There has also been different terminology used to illustrate the preciseness of our assertion that the Son is worshipped in the same manner as the Father.[ix] In the Second Advent we will have the most beautiful and lofty creatures of God expressing to the glorious Son the worship He so deserves and we will be gladly by their side joining in that worship.
[i] by its juxtaposition to the verb “bring in” is to be understood as being used with that verb. The order of the words in the Greek text is “Whenever and again he brings in.” When used with a verb in Hebrews, the word means “a second time.” (5:12, 6:1,2) The meaning therefore is, “when He a second time bringeth in the first-begotten into the world.” Reference being to the second advent of Messiah (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Hebrews, K. Wuest, Eerdmans, Page 46)
[ii] In Jewish culture the firstborn held a preeminent position within a family in that he received double the portion of his fathers things and was considered a ruler over them even before the death of his father. The term is used in the Old Testament in Genesis 41:51 where the sons of Joseph are named, the firstborn being Manasseh and the second born Ephraim however in Jeremiah 31:9 we read that Ephraim is the firstborn of all Israel. The reason for this title in Jeremiah is simply because Ephraim held a preeminent position among Israel. The term is also applied to David in the 90th Psalm however we are also told that he was the youngest son of Jesse.
[iii] It should be noted that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society has attempted to insert the term “other” between the words “all things” in order to defend their statement that the Lord Jesus Christ was created “first” by Jehovah and then He created everything else. There is no warrant to insert this word since there is absolutely no evidence from the Greek manuscripts we possess in order to substantiate this translation. It should also be noted that this would turn Paul’s argument against him since he is writing against Gnostics were one of the first threats to Christianity. They held 2 main views, that salvation came from knowledge, this is where we get the term “gnosis” and also they believed in something called dualism. Dualism meant that they separated flesh and spirit so that flesh was completely evil and Spirit was completely good. The Gnostics used to teach that God, being perfect spirit, couldn’t have directly created flesh since it’s pure evil. These Gnostics believed that God created other “godlike” creatures called ‘aeons” and where gathered in groups called “pleroma” which is a reference to “fullness”. They would go down the chain, a less and less pure being, until they created a material universe. These were the same Gnostics that believed that since the Lord Jesus was good then He could not have had a physical body, hence here we see the refutation of 1 John 4:2-3.The Watchtowers argument that the Lord Jesus created all “other” things goes entirely against the argument Paul was trying to present to the Colossian Church.
[iv] aionhV vs oikoumen
[v] Imperative first aorist active third plural of proskuneō, here in the full sense of worship, not mere reverence or courtesy. (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, A.T. Robertson, Broadman, Page 338)
[vi] It should be noted that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society’s 1961 ed. Of their translation the New World Translation read “Let all the angels of God worship Him” however in the newer ed. Of this translation the word “proskuneo” is translated “obeisance”.
[vii] I had participated in a debate with a member of the WBTS awhile back who quoted W.E. Vines to promote this translation. The text reads: to make obeisance, do reverence to” (from pros, “towards,” and kuneo, “to kiss”), however when we read the entire definition that Vines provided we see that there is only a fragment of the definition given: “to make obeisance, do reverence to” (from pros, “towards,” and kuneo, “to kiss”), is the most frequent word rendered “to worship.” It is used of an act of homage or reverence (a) to God, e.g., Matt. 4:10; John 4:21-24; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:10 (2nd part); 22:9; (b) to Christ, e.g., Matt. 2:2,8,11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9,17; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6, in a quotation from the Sept. of Deut. 32:43, referring to Christ’s Second Advent; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26; (d) to the Dragon, by men, Rev. 13:4; (e) to the Beast, his human instrument, Rev. 13:4,8,12; 14:9,11; (f) the image of the Beast, Rev. 13:15; 14:11; 16:2; (g) to demons, Rev. 9:20; (h) to idols, Acts 7:43.
[viii] What we are arguing is the usage of the term proskunhw. There are terms that seem similar like the bowing down before a king and so forth that could be taken as worship however the association of proskunhw with the Lord Jesus is certainly an identification of His deity since the term is related to a form of religious worship.
[ix] See Isaiah 45:23 & Philippians 2:10
A Look at Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 13
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are my Son, Today I have begotten You?” And again: “ I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?
Prior to even quoting the first text of scripture, the writer uses the style of writing similar to that of the apostle Paul with the imaginary objector. The question is to which of the angels did He ever say… The answer to the question is quite simply none! It answers itself in the negative! He quotes Psalm 2:7, which is a coronation Psalm used during the coronation ceremony for a new King. The Psalm is demonstrating the utter sovereignty and power of Jehovah over and above even the most powerful rulers of the earth. Men had attempted to align themselves together against God however the Lord laughs at their efforts. Even with their greatest endeavor, they could not stop God from installing His King mainly His Son who will rule over them. Hebrews is expressing likewise the absolute sovereignty and rulership of the Son over all nations. This is defined as His “inheritance”. The point of the Psalm and of Hebrews is not to show the inferiority of Jesus Christ but to demonstrate His superiority above all things since He is the ruler of all.
The angels are called the sons of God (Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) as well as Adam in Luke 3:38 however the language used to assert the relationship between the Father and the Son is far greater than that of angels (John 3:35, 5:20, 14:31). The term “today” has provoked some controversy in that some have asserted that the writer is referring to the Lord Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:11) however when we examine the language of Acts 13:33 we understand that Luke used the Psalm to speak of His resurrection. It does refer back slightly to His human nature however this is something that the Lord Jesus possesses after the resurrection as well while being the eternal High Priest (Heb. 5:5). The writer goes on to the heart of the reason why the Lord Jesus is vested with honour. Brethren writer Sydney Maxwell explains:
Hebrews 1:5 reminds us that He is greater than angels because of His eternal relationship to God. “Thou art my Son” is timeless; it is before and beyond time. “This day have I begotten thee” does not refer to the commencement of His Sonship, but to the communication of it, by the Father, in His resurrection…The word anastasis is translated a number of times as resurrection.[i]
It is not difficult to find confusion with regards to the term “begotten” since, as previously mentioned, we tend to attempt to read the scripture through the lenses of our 21st century culture rather than putting ourselves in the place of the recipients of this letter. When we seek to understand the language of the term “begotten” we must understand the bestowing of one as king. The term brings to mind the expression of dignity that comes with Kingship. The term “only-begotten” is the expression of a unique personification which is exalted in a position of honour.[ii]
The connection finally reaches its peak with the grand revelation of the unique relationship between the Father and the Son. The words expressed have truly given us a sense of the love there exists between the Father and the Son. This is the perfect example of what the love between a father and his son should be. We have here a parallel thought from the previous section in v.5, which continues with the expressive exaltation of the Son. This is communicated to us by the second quotation from the OT from 2 Samuel 7:14 where it is used as a reference to Solomon. It should be carefully noted however that many scholars believe the quote could also be in line with 1 Chronicles 17:13 where we read: I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. This would refer to the throne as being one that is of infinite value since the one sitting on it is the promised one whom shall always be the possessor of this majestic place of rulership.
[i] The Person of Christ, S. Maxwell, Gospel Tract Publications, Page 46
[ii] The term monogenes can be divided into two separate words, monos meaning unique, only, one of a kind and genes (gennos) which refers to a kind or a type. In the earlier days, it was thought that the genes was from ginnomai yet through research, scholars have come to the conclusion that the term would have been taken from the gennos. We must although when reading words in scripture that there is such a thing as terms having different meanings due to their context. Since there are many passages that refer to the Lord Jesus as being eternal, without a beginning, we must, in essence compare scripture as a whole in order to avoid any confusion. The key to understanding the passage is understanding the primary point of what John was trying to get across which wasn’t the origins of the Lord but his uniqueness, that He is the Only one of His kind. Examine Hebrews 11:17 where Isaac is called the only begotten son of Abraham however we know that by reading in Genesis about the sons of Abraham that Isaac wasn’t his only son but held a unique place in the family.
THE CHRONICLES OF THE ELECT 