Hebrews 1: 1 – 14
Law And Order
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 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” ? 6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” 7 And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” 10 And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; 12 Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.” 13 But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
I was thinking of naming this chapter – ‘Who Are You Talking To And Who Are We Talking About?. But it is too long. I picked the term ‘Law And Order’ because we see how like a great lawyer a truth is wonderfully laid out about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by listing proof statements from Scripture.
So, before we dive into this chapter let me ask you a question, ‘Have you ever heard of the term – ‘Occam's Razor?’
Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
In the only form that takes its own advice.- "Keep things simple!"
For me I place the term as – ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’
So, I forsake all the so called experts who go to great lengths to argue their positions. To me it isn’t that important.
There are many experts who argue that the Jews today are not Jews so the letter to the Hebrews is to Christian Believers. The writer of this book is not identified so we cannot say it is Paul who wrote it. Let me say up front as we study this book that the intended recipients are to Jewish people and for all Christian believers. As you know all the Epistles were to be circulated throughout all churches. In addition, I believe it was the apostle Paul who wrote it. As we go through this book I will list my reasons of why I state these two positions.
The actual letter gives no indication of authorship, but we know that this letter was written well before 90 AD because it was cited in Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians (c.96 AD) as the equivalent of Scripture, but never as by Paul, even though he regularly cites Paul and names him. This demonstrates that it was known to have been written by an Apostolic man, someone whose words could be seen as the very words of God, and someone well known to ‘our brother Timothy’ (13.23) who was still alive. The latter reference suggests that, if not Paul himself, he probably moved in Paul’s circle.
Like we see in the book of 1 John it has no introduction [written by the apostle John], but moves at once into its theme. The writer does not feel a need to cite his authority to write. Interestingly it ends with a typical Pauline ending, ‘Grace be with you all, Amen’, as though Paul, or someone who followed his example, had taken pen in hand to sign off (see 2 Thessalonians 3:17, 18), a practice not found in any other New Testament letters other than Paul’s.
Wherever Paul went he upset almost all of the Jews. Yet his heart is toward them that they should not fight the proof that Jesus Christ Is indeed the Messiah like he did. I believe in my position because of what Paul writes in the book of Romans chapter 10, 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
Paul had become enemy number 1 to the Jews. Yet, he loved them and wanted them to recognize as he came to find out that Jesus Christ Is indeed the Messiah. So, if he penned the letter with his name to the Hebrews it most likely would not be read but rather thrown away or burnt.
Right now I am studying the life and works of Mark Twain. Yet the man who wrote so many interesting books is really Samuel Langhorne Clemens. How did Samuel Clemens choose the pseudonym Mark Twain? What significance is there to the name?
Twain used different pen names (pseudonyms or "noms de plume") before deciding on "Mark Twain". He signed humorous and imaginative sketches "Josh" until 1863. Additionally, he used the pen name "Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass" for a series of humorous letters.
He maintained that his primary pen name came from his years working on Mississippi riverboats, where two fathoms, a depth indicating "safe water" for the boat to float over, was measured on the sounding line. A fathom is a maritime unit of depth, equivalent to two yards (1.8 m); "twain" is an archaic term for "two". The river boatman's cry was "mark twain" or, more fully, "by the mark twain", meaning "according to the mark [on the line], [the depth is] two [fathoms]", that is, "there are 12 feet (3.7 m) of water under the boat and it is safe to pass".
Twain claimed that his famous pen name was not entirely his invention. In Life on the Mississippi, he wrote:
Captain Isaiah Sellers was not of literary turn or capacity, but he used to jot down brief paragraphs of plain practical information about the river, and sign them "MARK TWAIN," and give them to the New Orleans Picayune newspaper.
If you are an avid book reader you will come across many individuals that want to get something in the public’s hands but do not want to use their real names.
The book of Hebrews begins immediately with the emphasis that God has over the ages spoken to the world through the prophets, and then goes on to describe God’s final revelation of Himself through One Who Was, unlike them, a Son, One Whom He describes as a full and true portrayal of God’s glory and power, a royal figure (He sits at God’s right hand), and a High Priest (He makes purification for sins).
This One Is shown to be greater than the angels, greater than Moses, greater than Joshua, and greater than Aaron, the earthly High Priest and as introducing a greater deliverance than all. Thus He is greater than all whom the Jews saw as great in their great previous deliverance at the Exodus. He Is the new Deliverer. He Is seen as having through the sacrifice of Himself replaced the sacrificial system, which had merely pointed ahead to His coming, making by the sacrifice of Himself a means by which those who are His can be sanctified and perfected, and providing for them a way into the presence of God.
Gentile Believers do not need to be persuaded as the Jews have to base on their ingrained beliefs.
Thus Jews and the rest of us must recognize that there is now acceptance with God by no other way.
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets
God has spoken in the past - ‘in many ways’.’ These words, which cover every aspect of Old Testament prophecy and teaching, emphasize the variety of God’s divine activity through the centuries.
For God has not in the past left Himself without a witness. He has spoken through many prophets, in many and varied ways, so that those who came after them [that’s us] had a growing source of material on which to draw. It was an enterprise worthy of God. And these were the Scriptures, deeply revered by men.
But now God has spoken in a greater and even more wonderful way, for He has spoken by sending to us One Who Is, in relation to God, of the nature of Sonship, One Who Is true ‘Son’, One Who Is of the nature of God Himself. He Is The One to Whom these Scriptures have been pointing.
This Son Is the fulfillment of all of which these prophets spoke. For it is now the authors intention to draw from those Scriptures in order to demonstrate that Who He Is, and what He came to do, sums up the whole of their message. They were but the dawning. He Is the Son. No longer need men seek to wrestle with what they say, puzzling over them, seeking to draw from them hidden meanings. No longer should they look to old institutions which were preparatory but have now been replaced. For they only provided a temporary measure, as they themselves revealed by their stress on what was coming. They looked ahead to what was to be, always in some way lacking, never finding total fulfillment.
Here now was their fulfillment in God’s true Son, Jesus Christ. The shadows had been replaced by the reality. And from now on those Scriptures must be read in that light. For He has come as the full revelation of God, the outshining of His glory, and those Scriptures therefore can no longer be read as though they stood by themselves. They must now be seen as heralds of His coming, and interpreted in those terms. They must be read in the light of Who He Is. His very presence must illuminate every hidden message and explain every hidden thought, bringing to light their hidden depths and establishing that which is truly permanent.
Indeed now that He has come there is nowhere else to look. All else is but a pale reflection of the real thing. He alone Is the fulfillment of the Scriptures deepest meaning. For all must recognize that God has spoken through One Who Is His Son, One for Whom those very Scriptures prepared. And as such He Is the One Who has fulfilled, and has thus brought to final realization, all to which those Scriptures point. And only in Him can they now have any meaning. +
We must not overlook the pride that the Jews, and those who sought to their ancient Scriptures, had in those Scriptures. They saw them as containing ancient knowledge from the past which bore the stamp of God’s inspiration, and were a source of light in a dark world. They were treasured and carefully preserved and exalted to the heavens. When men were everywhere searching for truth, they were confident that here was that truth, if only one knew how to interpret it. And men had been, and still were, busy interpreting them, and were willing to die for them.
The aulthor, who I believe is Paul, does not deny this, as he indicates here. Indeed he too honors those Scriptures, and their diversity, and their wide coverage of divine wisdom. Through them ‘God has spoken’. But his emphasis is on the fact that they point to Someone even Greater Who has now come. The Scriptures are truly God’s inspired revelation, but in the end their purpose has been to point to One Who Was to come. And now He has come they must be interpreted in that light.
So this first verse is not intended to diminish those Scriptures in any way. Rather it is to give them due honor, as the vehicle which has prepared for the Coming One. But it is also to emphasize that a greater revelation than they are is here. In Him God’s final word to man has arrived.
And now Paul will go on to draw on those Scriptures in order to explain and amplify the one final way that God has now chosen to use, the manifestation of Himself through His Son! For He alone Is the full manifestation of God and has brought His unique means of salvation. As he will reveal, the whole of Old Testament prophecy, including Moses and what we see as salvation history, is now to be seen as summed up in Christ. He Is the whole of which all that was before revealed was a part.
So these words emphasize that God had built up through the centuries, in what we call ‘the Scriptures’, a multiplicity of different records, written at different times, and in various stages, and at distinct times in history, as a progressive revelation which had built up into a huge amount of different kinds and expressions of knowledge, but all pointing forward in the end to the One Who has now come, Who has summed it all up in Himself. They were God’s servants; He is ‘the Son’.
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
And now that time has come. At ‘the end of these days’ He has now spoken through One Who Is ‘Son’. The new point is - away with all partial understanding of God. He has revealed Himself through One Who Is the very representation of Himself. He has revealed Himself through His Son. And no one better represents a father than his son. That is why He can be described as ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Colossians 1.15) for He Is His full manifestation.
We are now, he writes, at ‘the end of these days’, the end of the days of preparation, the end of the days of continuing revelation. Called elsewhere ‘the last days’ (Acts 2.17), ‘the end of the times’ (1 Peter 1.20), ‘the end of the ages’ (1 Corinthians 10.11; Hebrews 9.26-28), this was the time to which God had been building up, the time when He would send into the world His own Son to bring about redemption, the end to which all the prophets had looked. The word ‘Son’ is without the article, not in order to mean ‘a son’ but in order to stress the nature of the One coming. He has come as ‘One Who Is Son’. He is truly ‘Son’, of the same nature and being as ‘the Father’.
The question is regularly raised as to whether Christ saw the title ‘the Son’, and His reference to Himself as ‘the Son of God’, as first applying to Him when He came from God and was born into the world, with the Father likewise then coming to be seen as ‘the Father’ in that unique sense, or whether it can be related back, in terms of its New Testament use, to the very beginning.
We must emphasize that the question relates to the use of the title not to the significance behind it. The fact that the One Who came as Jesus was a coequal member of the Godhead must be decided on other bases than the use of terminology, although the use of terminology may relate to it. For the terminology was used in order to convey ideas.
Certainly in these verses it would seem that the One Who Is ‘Son’ is being depicted as Creator in ‘the beginning’, and even as appointed as heir before the beginning. And the whole idea here is to relate the One who came to the One from Whom He came, as being of the same nature, essence and being. For the idea of ‘Sonship’ here is precisely in order to do that. It is not the fact that He has come representing Himself as the Son that is of prime importance, but that He is ‘Son’, of the same nature and essence.
It is of interest in this connection that the writer in Hebrews does not speak of ‘the Father’, except when impelled to because it was in a quotation from Scripture that he wished to use (verse 5), the reason being that it was not an idea that he was seeking to convey. He nowhere emphasizes the fact of God as Father. He speaks simply of ‘God’, as the glorious One, the transcendent One, the consuming fire. Thus his use of ‘Son’ stands alone in all His glory.
The same idea of Jesus as Son from the beginning may be also said to apply to John 1.18. ‘No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son Who Is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (made Him known).’ The idea of Him as the One Who ‘Is in the bosom of the Father’, coming to declare Him, suggests ‘eternal Sonship’. And even if we accept the alternative rendering ‘God only begotten’, the thought is similar.
The very fact that ‘God is love’ demands that there ever be a lover and a beloved, that there was and is always One available to be eternally loved. It must in itself be seen as requiring a plurality within God. Love could only be if there was One to be loved. But that is a totally different question from the idea of the love between ‘Father and Son’, in contrast with love within the unity of the Godhead. ‘Father and Son’ was an idea which would not exist before the creation of the world because the language and concept is based on human relationships. Until humanity existed there were no grounds for thinking in terms of a son being born.
There is no hint of such among the angels, who neither marry nor are given in marriage, and thus presumably do not produce children. So it is only with regard to man that the concept of ‘Father and Son’ gains meaning, and we may see the terminological distinction made in the Godhead by these words as being made in order to help us to understand and appreciate relationships within the Godhead, not as describing the essential nature of God
We may see therefore that God represented Himself as ‘Father/Son’ in order for man to begin to understand Him. It was a way by which He could bring home to man that these two ‘persona’, inter-personalities, within the Godhead, were of the same nature, being and essence. But it also conveyed the idea of the One as coming forth from God, and as continually looking to God as a son would look to his father. (For in human understanding a son would not send his father. It was the father who was supreme. He would send the son). The same applies to the Holy Spirit. It was because He came to act in the world that His relationship with the Godhead had to be defined in the terms used. But all three were still of the essential nature of God.
All the titles and descriptions are thus to be seen as ‘pictures’ describing the indescribable so as to illuminate men, and must be taken as such and not be pressed beyond what is elsewhere revealed. The fact that in His eternal existence as seen by men Jesus is described as ‘the Son’ does not mean that He was as such at some stage ‘born’ as a son, as a human child is born. It is a declaration of like nature, of relationship - For He Is revealed as eternal. That is until, of course, He was born into the world. Thus it is saying that, in the dealings of the Godhead with the world of men, ‘Son’ conveys something of the significance of what He essentially Is, as being of one nature and being with the Father, and yet as having a part in God’s dealings which would be in an outwardly subsidiary role as ‘the Sent One’.
The only question therefore is whether it is applied back in Scripture as referring to ‘before the beginning’ (but put in terms we can understand), in order to indicate the loving relationship within the Godhead in eternity, while at the same time recognizing how that relationship would develop in terms of redemption, or whether it should only be referred to the incarnation. The Scriptures indicate that it refers to both.
However, this in itself warns us against over pressing the idea. ‘The Son’ is a human term and a human idea which is intended to help us, in terms of our own relationships, to appreciate that the Father and the Son are of one nature and being, while at the same time being a two in an eternal interpersonal relationship, and a three with the Holy Spirit. And as stressing the subsidiary in position that the One Who Is seen as ‘the Son’ took up in the course of the plan to redeem man. It was He Who ‘came forth’ from the Godhead, while declaring His total dependence on, and oneness with, the Godhead. ‘Father and Son’ was seen as a fitting way to describe this relationship. But both the ‘begetting’ of ‘the Son’ and the ‘procession’ of the Holy Spirit are to be seen as ways of describing how God Is seen as He comes into relationship with man, not as they are in ‘themselves’. They do not with full accuracy describe the essence of the Godhead which was essentially a tri-unity.
Eternally the Son’s relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit is not to be seen as essentially any different from the Holy Spirit’s relationship with the Father and the Son; and the Father’s relationship with both is similarly not to be seen to be as essentially different. It is only as seen in their relationship with man and with creation that they are seen as different, and to have an order of priority, which results from the fact that Son and Spirit personally came into the world, while ‘the Father’ continually represents the triune Godhead in Heaven.
Who Is this One Who has come? He is not only ‘Son’, but both Son and Heir. Before time began He was ‘appointed heir of all things.’ Everything has been promised to Him, whether in heaven or earth. He is destined to receive ‘all things’, everything that exists, an assurance which will come to its climax at His final coming. Nothing will be excluded, except the One Who will subject all things to Him (1 Corinthians 15.27), the One Who Is The Ultimate Holy Being.
We note that this appointment seemingly comes before the creation of the world; otherwise we would expect the clauses to be the other way round. It was in the eternal reaches of heaven, before creation ever was that in the counsel of God this appointment was made. For nothing that was to come would take God by surprise. It was all known and purposed beforehand. Just as Jesus was ‘delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’ (Acts 2.23; 1 Peter 1.20), so did He first come in that counsel and foreknowledge in order to be delivered up, and so was His appointment as heir one that was from eternity (Ephesians 1.4; 2 Timothy 1.9).
We note here the use of the term ‘heir’. It must be interpreted correctly. It is a reminder that, when we are describing eternal things, earthly terminology has to be considered carefully. For God would not either die or retire. Just as with the term ‘son’, where we must not ask ‘when was he born’, for He ‘was’ in the beginning from all eternity (John 1.1-3), so when He is called ‘heir’ we must recognize what it is saying, that all will be His, but not that the Godhead as a whole will cease to be over all.
‘Through whom also He made the worlds.’ The word for ‘worlds’ actually originally first meant ‘ages’. But it came to mean ‘that which contained the ages’, that is the physical world (compare Hebrews 11.3 where this is specific and crystal clear). Only the context in each can therefore tell us what is being indicated in that particular context.
So the One Who was appointed ‘heir of all things’ (of the whole universe in totality) was also the One through Whom God made the worlds. They were destined for Him and He then made them. It is telling us that it was through Jesus Christ, for Whom they were destined, that He created all things and all ages. He Was The Word Who spoke and it was done, and He did so in the course of His appointment as heir of all things, to give Him the more of which He would be heir. He was to be heir of both Heaven and earth. We note then that His creative act was subsidiary to His Appointment over all things, for that included all heavenly worlds as well as creation.
But why should He be heir? Was not all His from the beginning? Yes, indeed it was, as Lord and as Creator. But by the rebellion of angels and of men it had in a sense been wrested from Him. His gift of freewill had resulted in the sin of angels and of men. The establishment of morality, the ‘making and willing with determination’ of the ‘right’ choice in all freewill decisions, necessary if beings were to be truly themselves, had resulted in immorality and rebellion, in ‘knowing (by experience) good and evil’, because angels and men deliberately chose wrongly. And therefore the position had now to be restored, by the deliverance wrought by Him, through sacrifice, of those whom God chose and effectually called from among those who sinned, of His ‘elect’ (1 Peter 1.1-2), and the destruction of those who had rebelled and who refused to yield.
He could, of course, have destroyed all who failed instantly. But then His purposes to establish freewill ‘Universe’ would have failed, and there would be none to enjoy it. Thus it was necessary for the process to carry through so that that end might be achieved for the good of all who responded.
3 Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high
He ‘is’ the ‘outshining’ of the glory of God, the ‘effulgence of his glory’. Thus could John say, ‘we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Son of the Father’ (John 1.14). The word used here means to ‘emit brightness’, to ‘illuminate’. So its meaning here is of the outshining of light from an original light body, and thus as being of the same nature as the light body
‘And the exact representation of His substance’ (comes from charassô, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It was first used of the tool that did the marking, then of the mark or impress which it made, the exact reproduction. It was used of the ‘stamped out image’ on coins, and of the impression that was reproduced by seals and dies. It thus indicates an exact representation.
Look at the statement again, ‘And upholding (‘bearing’) all things by the word of his power.’ He not only fully represents and reveals God, He fulfils His responsibility to creation. By His powerful word, His creative and active word, He upholds all things. In Him all things consist (hold together) - Colossians 1.17. He did not just create and leave it to function on its own; He continued His activity in maintaining its functioning. It should be noted that the impression given is that this process continued even while He was on earth revealing the fullness of God. The thought of ‘bearing’ is not that of carrying a weight, but of moving all things forward so that the world does not go into decline.
And this One Who was of the nature of an only Son, appointed the heir of all things, creator of the world, the outshining of God’s glory and the exact reproduction of what He is, ‘Himself made purification of sins’. We later discover that this was by the sacrifice and offering of Himself (10.10). He suffered the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God (1 Peter 3.18). He was indeed both priest and sacrifice.
And having accomplished purification of sin He ‘sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high’. His work of atonement accomplished once for all, He took His seat of authority and power, receiving again the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5). He became the One Who sat on the throne, the Lamb ‘in the midst’ of the throne (Revelation 5.6). The ‘right hand’ simply indicates the hand of power, the ruling hand. The earthly language represents the fact that having accomplished His saving work He rejoined His Father in exercising His absolute power and authority (Revelation 3.21). The fact that He sat down indicates that His work, including His priestly work, was now complete. He has returned to His rightful glory (John 17.5).
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Furthermore in His exaltation He, ‘as man’, ‘has become’ superior to the angelic realm. He has received superiority in status and power above the angels as a result, being raised far above all (Ephesians 1.19-22), something which will now be shown from Scripture. This was important. The Jews saw the Law as having been ministered by angels (2.2; Galatians 3.19), and as therefore superior. They saw it as something which gave it its supernatural aura (see also Deuteronomy 33.2; Psalm 68.17; Acts 7.53).
Angels had an important place among both orthodox (e.g. the Pharisees) and unorthodox (the Essenes, etc.) Jews, as well as in the Gentile world (Colossians 2.18). They were seen as intermediaries and mediators, maintaining the separation of the awesome holiness of God from men. They were those through whom God acted because He Himself was unapproachable. Others considered that there were hierarchies of them between God as pure spirit, and man as unworthy flesh, a descending order with a gradual lessening of deity as the lower ‘angels’ became less spirit-like. Through them men received ‘knowledge’ about God. Their mediation was seen as essential so that they had even been introduced into the idea of God’s dealings with Moses. In their view it had to be so. Thus the thought that Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) was in direct touch with God and reigned with Him as Representative Man was awesome. It was a revelation of the fact that even in His Manhood He was superior to the angels. Who then, the writer will ask, could sensibly and rightly seek to come to God through angels, when a greater than the angels, Who Is directly approachable, Is here?
Jesus Christ Is already seen in His essential deity to be superior is first confirmed by the fact that the One Who came Is called ‘Son’, that is, among other things, the One Who Is over the house instead of just being in it (3.6), the One Who has unique rights of intimate relationship. However, we now see Him as also ‘having become so’ in His manhood as a result of inheriting a ‘more excellent’ name. He will then go on to describe other indications of His superiority to the angels from Scripture.
‘Having become.’ Note the contrast with ‘being’ (1.3a). What is described in verse 3 is His essential being, what is described here is what He ‘became’ as man in the purposes of God, ‘so much better than the angels’.
‘As he has inherited (come into possession of) a more excellent name than they.’ And this is because He ‘has inherited’, perfect tense, ‘has inherited and still possesses’, ‘a more excellent name.’ In view of the following quotations where it is continually mentioned, it would appear that that more excellent name is the title ‘Son’. Although it may be that we should not lay the emphasis on a particular name, but on the significance of ‘name’ which indicates status. Thus the more excellent name also has in mind His exaltation in His manhood as ‘Lord and Christ’ (Yahweh and Messiah) which go with the idea of His ‘Sonship’ (Acts 2.34-36; Philippians 2.9-11). For ‘the name’ refers to what a person actually is. As the appointed heir of all things (verse 2) He Who was already the outshining of the glory of God has now ‘inherited’ in His manhood that exalted status as the Son, the anointed Christ, the receiving Heir. He receives in practice what was already His.
So in these verses look at the wisdom that has lain bare the full truth about Jesus Christ;
. His eternal Being (verse 2)
. His being able fully to reveal the Father (verse 2)
. His being appointed before time began to bring the world to Himself (verse 3)
. His creative and sustaining power and activity (verse 3)
. His becoming man and dying for our sin (verse 3)
. His rising and being exalted in His manhood by taking His seat at ‘at God’s right hand’ (verse 3)
. His receipt as man of the name of ‘Son’ as both ‘Lord’ (Yahweh) and ‘Christ’ (Messiah) (verse 4).
Now having revealed the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ as ‘the Son’, we learn how He Is contrasted with all heavenly beings, although already having revealed Him as Superior to the angels in His being stated by God to be ‘My Son’. He does this by means of seven quotations from the Scriptures.
5 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” ?
Angels are only ever seen singly when on direct service for God as His messengers. Otherwise they are always seen in plurality. As a class angels can be called ‘sons of the Elohim (heavenly beings/God)’ (Psalm 29.1), but ‘son’ in the singular is never used of an angel. Whereas, says the writer, the Christ (Messiah) is addressed as God’s Son in both Psalm 2.7 and 2 Samuel 7.14.
Thus to no angel has He ever spoken in terms of true Sonship. When they were thought of as ‘sons of the Elohim’ it was their supernatural nature that was in mind, not their divinity. The idea was that they had the likeness of the ‘Elohim’, the heavenly.
“My son you are. This day have I begotten you?” Note the emphasis on ‘son’. Literally it is ‘Son to me you are.’ This quotation is taken from Psalm 2 which is a psalm declaring the choice and anointing of the house of David to be ‘God’s anointed’, God’s ‘chosen and set apart one’ forever, so as to bring about world subjugation to God and final judgment, and calling on all to respond to Him.
Initially it may well have been used as a coronation Psalm, with ‘begotten’ carrying the significance of adoption by God at the crowning of each king, but the whole Psalm was intended to be a constant reminder of God’s promise of their final worldwide dominion, clearly to be fulfilled in a super-king. It was a true ‘Messianic’ psalm from the beginning, with a vision of the ‘Messianic’ future, for it spoke of the Davidic kingship in terms beyond the ordinary as ‘The Anointed’ of Yahweh for the purpose of total worldwide domination. This was His purpose in ‘begetting’ the house of David, as represented in each king, until the One came in the future Who would finally achieve the dream.
Once the house of David ceased to be relevant after the time of Zerubbabel, and even before, thoughts moved forward to the necessary coming of a greater David (so that God’s promise would not fail) who would bring in God’s everlasting kingship (Isaiah 9.6; Ezekiel 37.24-28). These developed into the explicit idea of a coming ‘Messiah’ (Anointed One) which was already intrinsic in the Psalm. Thus the psalm undoubtedly has ‘Messianic’ reference, (Acts 13.33), depicting the eternal kingship of the house of David, and in the end, by necessity, the coming of an eternal king Who Is to be ‘God’s Son’.
The main point is that He Is there emphatically called ‘my Son’, which links with begetting by God. And it Is Jesus, Who, being of the house of David, and because He was recognized as ‘The Christ’ [The Anointed], that depicts as finally fulfilling this role. He must necessarily then be greater than the angels.
These words were spoken after David had determined to build a Temple for Yahweh and God had come back with the reply that He did not want a temple, only a tent, but that in view of David’s faithfulness He would build for David an everlasting house, a living house of successive kings so that his throne would be established for ever. And this would begin with his son.
Yahweh then promised that He would be his father and would adopt him as His son (2 Samuel 7.5-16). And this relationship, along with the right to the throne, would then go on forever in his descendants (verse 16). It would therefore also apply to the final everlasting king (Ezekiel 37.25). Intrinsic within the promises is potential for the kings who follow David to have a special relationship with God as appointed by Him, with recognition of a greater Messianic fulfillment.
Again, once the Davidic house faded this became firmly attached to the necessary idea of a future coming king (which is intrinsic in the words) which eventually resulted in the words specifically being applied to The Messiah. Thus, God promised to the Messiah that He would be His Father, and He would be His Son.
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
The idea of Sonship (and heir ship - verse 2) continues under another title, the firstborn. ‘When He again brings in the firstborn into the inhabited earth ’. The firstborn is another title for the unique son. Israel had been His son, even His firstborn (Exodus 4.22), but had then come to be represented by the King whom they saw as ‘the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Yahweh’ (Lamentations 4.20), so that the Davidic king is described as God’s ‘firstborn’ in Psalm 89.27. There the idea is of high favor and honor, which is very much in mind there. The idea behind the use of ‘firstborn’ (of a king) is of prestige and authority. Colossians links the title to creation indicating the One Who Is the pre-existent non-created source Who Has authority over creation (Colossians 1.15), ‘pre-born’ not created, and to the resurrection (the new creation) indicating the One Who as the initial Resurrected One, raised in honor and power, Is the Giver of life to God’s people (Colossians 1.18), and thus He Is the Firstborn twice over. All contain the thought of authority and power and relationship.
The idea of the firstborn also contains within it that the firstborn is the heir. This ties it in here with verse 2 where He is declared to be the heir of all things. So as the Firstborn He Is The One Who was before all things, the One for Whom all things are destined, and the One Who was raised as the Source of all true life.
Please note the word ‘Again.’ The natural reading is to take it as ‘again brings’. It indicates a second ‘bringing into the world’ of the Firstborn (‘again brings’), thus looking to His second coming.
“And let all the angels of God worship him.” This could be a paraphrase of Psalm 97.7 where we read, ‘Worship Him all you heavenly beings. But the almost (but not identical) exact phrase may be seen in Deuteronomy 32.43, ‘Rejoice, you heavens, with him, and let all the sons of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles, with his people, and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in him.’ This is spoken of the Lord Who comes to judge His people (Deuteronomy 32.36), and would therefore naturally be applied to Him Who Is called Lord, and to Whom judgment has been committed (John 5.22, 27).
But the important point here is that all angels will pay Him homage, confirming that He Is to be superior to the angels at the second coming (Mark 13.26-27 and often in the Gospels) as He Was at the first
The angels in their anonymous tasks are sandwiched within the authority and power of the Son as He fulfils His destiny, in order to indicate the secondary and derived nature of their authority and power.
7 And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.”
First we are give a quotation to demonstrate what the angels are. They are powerful. They are made winds and a flame of fire (Psalm 104.4; 148.8), but they do not represent God directly.
Please take note that they are said to be ‘made’ not ‘begotten’. Then that they have specifically allocated functions and do God’s will.
‘Winds’ refers to invisible but powerful activity, ‘a flame of fire’ to glory and judgment.
It may also be that we are to see them as carrying on their ministry through natural forces which are transitory and not lasting, affecting the world but not permanently transforming it. (The movement between spiritual activity and physical activity is not always made plain. The two were seen as going closely together). Certainly when connected with their attendance on Yahweh these descriptions are often connected with storm phenomena. Thus they are described in terms of created things, not as creating.
Their tasks, however, are many and varied as required, but like wind and fire they reveal no permanence. Like winds and fiery flames they arise and then disappear. They are here today and gone tomorrow. They are servants who do God’s will.
And yet that does not indicate that they must be looked on lightly. While invisible they are effective, and even devastating. They can make an impact in the world. We must not underestimate or dismiss them as unimportant. Their activity is, for example, indicated in Daniel 10. And we can indeed compare all the Psalms where such phenomena signal the approach of God Himself accompanied by His attendants. But in the end, however great, that is all they are, servants of Yahweh.
8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
This quotation parallels ideas in the first. There He was crowned; here He has his everlasting throne. There He became God’s Anointed. Here He is anointed as supreme ruler. And central to the idea is His perfect righteousness and uprightness.
Please notice again the statement, ‘But of the Son.’ There is a direct contrast here of ‘the Son’ with the angels. His Supreme Greatness Is emphasized in that He Who Is The Son, The Messiah, Is either called ‘God’, or has ‘God as His throne’ (Psalm 45.6-7). If we translate in the first way it was originally a courtesy title, flattering the Davidic king as being almost like one of the Elohim (heavenly beings), or indicating his unique position as God’s prime representative and adopted son, and the description is kept in its rightful place by referring almost immediately to ‘your God’. In that case the writer has no hesitation in seeing it as an unconscious prophecy (John 11.51) concerning the greatest of the Davidic kings, and of the Messiah. The One Who Is Son Is described as ‘God’, as One Who will sit on an eternal throne. As such He will reign under the Heavenly Rule of God.
However the equally possible translation ‘your throne is God’ We read in Psalm 18.2, ‘You are my rock’ so that they could equally well have said a parallel, ‘My rock is God’ would equally indicate the Son’s unique status. It could be seen as the equivalent of sitting at God’s right hand (verse 13), but even more so, as sitting in God’s hand, so that God is giving full support to Him in his rule. He acts totally as God’s viceroy, and is seated in God as the one who is in God’s hand. In the initial Psalm it might indicate the divinity, the heavenly status, of the king’s throne as indicating that he is the favorite of Yahweh.
The sign of His kingly office will be uprightness, which will be the symbol of what distinguishes His kingdom, for his throne is God. That would mean that we have the parallels, ‘his throne Is God’ and ‘his scepter is uprightness’. Look at how great our Precious Holy Spirit describes in direct contrast to the winds and flames of fire, where they but act as servants and ministers.
It is because of His truly righteous rule, and especially because of His love for righteousness and hatred of iniquity, that ‘God His God’ (the equivalent of ‘Yahweh your God’), has anointed Him with the oil of gladness, the special anointing that makes glad the heart because it is the anointing of the supreme king.
Who are the companions or fellows? This probably signifies other kings. But it possibly has in mind here both the whole of mankind and of the angels as his ‘fellows’ over whom He is set. So again He is set above the angels. So His deep love and concern for righteousness is what has set Him apart from all others. It is seen to exceed that of all, even that of the angels, of kings and of his fellow-men. He is uniquely the King of Righteousness, the Righteous One (7.2; 1 Peter 3.18), the One Who Is ‘apart from sin’ (9.28).
” 10 And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; 12 Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.”
This next quotation is taken from Psalm 102.25-27. Having described His supremacy over all rulers and powers, the writer now stresses His supremacy over creation. If ‘God’ can be seen as a suitable address for ‘the One Who is Son’ (verse 8), so certainly can ‘Lord’, a regular ascription by the writer to Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2.3; 7.14; 13.20). The Psalm is here quoted as having in mind the Son’s upholding of all things by His powerful word (verse 3). Once He withdraws His word they perish and He ‘rolls them up’- For He is here seen as Lord of creation, and controller of its destiny. Both heavens and earth will be taken off like a cloak and rolled up, or stripped off like used clothes and changed, while He remains the same and goes on forever, never growing old, and having no beginning or end. As such He is superior to the angels, who while they could devastate the earth with wind and fire, were unable either to create the earth or to affect its final destiny. (And once the world ceased there would be no more wind and fire for them to control).
We note also that in the fifth quotation reference was made to His enduring throne. Here in the sixth reference is made to His own enduring. He Is the Enduring One.
In the original Psalm the One addressed Is Yahweh. But the writer has already made clear that Jesus Is the outshining of Yahweh, and the express image of what He Is. And Paul also makes clear that Jesus bears the name of Yahweh (Philippians 2.9-11). So that as Jesus Is constantly called ‘Lord’ (Yahweh) regularly in the New Testament, and therefore in the early church, and Is regularly depicted as the Creator in the New Testament (1.2; John 1.3; Colossians 1.16), this action with regard to creation can be assigned to The Son. The author of the book of Hebrews has no difficulty in applying the words to Him.
13 But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ?
Take a look at how this is the seventh quotation used in this chapter, a number seen as the number of divine perfection. The sevenfold witness is thus seen as divinely decisive. This quote is taken from Psalm 110.1 and refers to God’s king being told by God to take His seat at God’s right hand while God makes His enemies His footstool. The placing of the foot on a conquered king’s neck may well have been an evidence of his submission, but the thought may simply be to picture submission. To which of the angels, the writer asks, did God ever say that? So do we have the sevenfold witness to the superiority of Christ over the angels.
To ‘sit’ in the presence of God was the Davidic king’s prerogative (2 Samuel 7.18; Ezekiel 44.3). It was in itself a clear indication that He enjoyed God’s favor and was God’s viceroy. To have all enemies (here both of heaven and earth) His footstool is an indication of His guaranteed final triumph.
14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
What the angels are is now made clear. They are spirits who serve God, who are sent by Him to do service for those who are to inherit salvation, that is, for those who are His, and destined for final salvation, God’s elect, in order to keep them and help them as they walk in God’s ways. Rather than being Lord over God’s people the good angels are His servants and theirs. This is noble service indeed, but not enjoying the same dignity as the status of the Son, Who is made Lord of all.
We must beware of reading too much into the words in this verse. The task of angels has been defined in verse 7 as to be that of being like winds and flames of fire, and it is as such that they serve the heirs of salvation. This would seem to point to invisible yet physical help, rather than to spiritual sustenance. Elsewhere specifically seeking to angels is frowned on (Colossians 2.18), and there is nowhere a suggestion that we look to the angels for help. They are not at man’s bidding, but at God’s. We may, however, draw lessons from past angelic activity which involves their going invisibly before God’s people as they obey God (Exodus 23.20, 23 compare Numbers 20.16), protection (Psalm 91.11; Daniel 6.22), deliverance (Acts 12.7), and strengthening (Luke 22.43), as well as occasional judgment (2 Samuel 24.16, 17; Acts 12.23), and acting as God’s messengers (often). And Revelation makes clear the powerful background activity of angels- but all solely as God wills. We should be looking to the Son, not to angels.
