Chapter 1
2022 - Amazing to me that the other plan had me reading six full chapters of this intense book all in a single morning. I did like the chronological arrangement of the OT, but it just went entirely too rapidly through the NT. Will stick with this plan.
MSB Introduction to Hebrews, done the night before. 6 chapters is a lot on a Sunday morning!
The book's title, Hebrews, was taken from the traditional Greek title "To the Hebrews". However, there is nothing within the book that says to whom it is written. It was included when the NT books were formally brought together into one collection shortly after 100 A.D.
We really don't know who wrote the book. Dad thought Paul wrote it because...who else could have written such a book? Among those who may have written it are Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla, Aquila, and Clement of Rome. MSB says none of these are "clearly" supported. In 2:3, the writer includes himself among those people who had received confirmation of Christ's message from others, which appears to rule out someone like Paul as the writer, since he claimed that he had received such confirmation directly from God, rather than from men. Even the early church had various opinions as to author, with no real consensus. Best to accept the book as anonymous, but from the Holy Spirit, since it is in the NT. The book uses the present tense when referring to the Levitical priesthood and to the sacrificial system, indicating that those were still in place when the book was written. This dates it to sometime before 70 AD. Other references lead scholars to date the book to around 67-69 AD.
There are no references to Gentiles or Gentile problems, but the book teems with references to the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices. Likely, the intended audience was the Hebrews. Most of that audience was likely converted, but among them there were surely those who were attracted to Christianity, but who were having a difficult time letting go of 6000 years of tradition.
It is certain that Christians were facing a period of intense persecution at this time - and Jews were also, since 70 AD was very near - and it is possible that they were contemplating various strategies to deflect that persecution. "Demoting" Jesus to just an angel may have been one idea. MSB says that Qumran had already set this precedent by the time Hebrews was written.
Many possibilities exist for exactly where the audience was located. The main point seems to be that if they were in Judea or Galilee, they were probably the generation after the death of Jesus, as they had not personally been around when he was. (2:3,4). The recipients were not "new converts" as such, but on some doctrine, they still were on milk instead of solid food. So "behind" in their learning.
Since so much of the book discusses the rites and rituals of the Levitical priesthood, a good understanding of the book of Leviticus is needed to properly interpret the book. These awesome sentences as to the purpose of the Law:
"Israel's sin had continually interrupted God's fellowship with His chosen and covenant people, Israel. Therefore, He graciously and sovereignly established a system of sacrifices that symbolically represented the inner repentance of sinners and His divine forgiveness. However, the need for sacrifices never ended because the people and priests continued to sin. The need of all mankind was for a perfect priest and a perfect sacrifice that would once and for all actually remove sin. God's provision for that perfect priest and sacrifice in Christ is the central message of Hebrews."
Hebrews is a study in contrasts. The imperfect and incomplete provisions of the Old Covenant, and the better provisions of the New Covenant.
Under "Interpretive Challenges" MSB says we have to keep three recipient groups in mind as we read Hebrews. There were 1) believers, 2) unbelievers who were intellectually convinced of the gospel, and 3) unbelievers attracted by the gospel and the person of Christ but who had reached no final conviction about Him. If we don't keep in mind that these three groups are all "addressed" in Hebrews, we can get into interpretations inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.
The first group is characterized as suffering rejection and persecution by fellow Jews. They were immature Christians tempted to hold to the symbolic and spiritually powerless rituals of the Law. The second group believed the "basics" of the gospel, but had not truly trusted Jesus as savior. They were intellectually persuaded, but spiritually uncommitted. There are several specific references listed where this is the group being addressed: 2:1-3, 6:4-6, 10:26-29, 12:15-17. The third group has had some exposure to the gospel but were not yet convinced even intellectually. Chapter 9 is mostly written to them.
The most serious interpretive challenge is at 6:4-6. The phrase "once been enlightened" is often taken to refer to Christians, and the warnings that follow have been interpreted to mean there is always a danger of losing one's salvation. MSB says that in fact those addressed are NOT saved. No terms used exclusively for believers are applied to them. It is very possible that these had "gone forward" and made professions of faith, but had not exercised genuine saving faith. Same thing in 10:26. The reference is to apostate Christians, not believers.
I think it might be helpful to keep the outline of this book in mind as it is read.
So per the outline, we are going to see in today's reading that Jesus has a better name, and we will be introduced to Jesus being better than angels, firstly in that he is a greater messenger than the angels.
2025 - How prophets wrok:
From vs 1, they spoke to the fathers in many portions and in many ways. We cannot say that all prophecy must be interpreted "this way". There are many kinds of prophecies, delivered in countless ways. Sometimes in dreams, other times visions. Sometimes in words sometimes by walking around naked for two years. We have to dig deep to understand the prophets because what they said and did was uniquely designed by God for the time in which the prophets were active, but is also, in many cases, also meant for future readers. But not always. Never say always about prophets!
2025 - Also putting this definition here:
From vs 14 - Angels are ministering spirits sent to render service for the sake - for the benefit of, on behalf of - those who will be saved. This says nothing about them being agents of discipline sent by God to punish the unsaved. We should never see anything like that as their purpose.
Starts off with a biography of Jesus. This verse:
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, [Heb 1:2-3 ESV]
The phrase "exact imprint of his nature" is interesting. In the NASB it is translated "exact representation of his nature". KJV and NKJV say "express image of his person".
What are they all getting at with this phrase? MSB says the phrase is used only here in the NT. In extrabiblical literature, it was used for an engraving on wood, an etching in metal, a brand on animal hide, an impression in clay, and a stamped image on coins. Apparently an attempt to describe the separate unity of the Father and the Son. Maybe trying to get at the point that they both pre-existed creation, and so the writer mentions that it was through Christ that the world was created. I read that note from Ezekiel I think that only God creates, or only "a god" creates. God challenged idols to "create something" to prove they were gods.
(2022 - There are a lot of these challenges to false gods in Jeremiah also. False gods do not create. Only one creator. Creation by God and God alone is so vital in so many areas that we should be very careful about how we "accommodate" science into the process. So many try to say that God "set in motion" the processes from which all the species - and indeed from which man himself - arrived. And God could have done it that way...but the whole aim of that point of view seems to be to make unbelievers, and evolutionists, more comfortable with the concept of "creator-god" by making sure what we claim for him fits smoothly into our pre-existing beliefs about human origins. I have a real problem with that. The main problem I have is "death before sin". You could allegorize it all and say that death was spiritual separation from God and not physical death at all...but how could that be so? If you do this, then you can also say that hell itself is separation from God - that it is death in that sense, and not in the sense of eternal physical suffering and pain. It is a slippery slope. I don't have the answers to how it all fits together, but I know I do not believe that evolution gives rise to brand new species - nor did it ever - and I most certainly do believe that when the Bible says hell is a fire burning eternally it means flames and burning searing pain. Else the rich man and Lazarus means...what? If people live their whole lives "separated" from God and are not bothered, why would eternity the same way be a punishment? No. This is not what it means.)
2022 - I also printed out the J. Sidlow Baxter outline for Hebrews. He has three main points, 1-7 are about Jesus - the New and Better Deliverer, 8-10:18 is about Calvary - the New and better Covenant, and 10:19-13 are about Faith - the True and better principle.
2022 - The subpoint for the first two chapters i "Jesus the God-Man - better than angels. This corresponds pretty well with the outline above.
2022 - Also in vs 2, "he has spoken to us by his Son" as contrasted with His speaking to us by the prophets up until then. This writer is saying that the things Jesus' said while he was here are as much "the words of God" as the OT scrolls were. He is, at the very least, in this little phrase, making Jesus a prophet.
2022 - Where is the "picture" of Jesus sitting coming from? Is there an OT throne that shows this? A judgment where Jesus sits next to God? You can't just throw out things like this without references. MSB has no OT references to Christ seated or Messiah seated. Shouldn't this be a reference to the OT rather than an assertion by an anonymous author that such is the case? Hmm..in vss 8,9 the writer talks about "God's throne" being a reference to the throne of the Messiah in Psa 45:7. If you have a throne, you sit. But this doesn't make the Son's throne at the right hand of the Father's throne. I have a hard time with this being about the Son because, first, it is a love song written "to the king". And what about this verse: 9 daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir. [Psa 45:9 ESV]. Now that has to be about an earthly king, yet the writer applies it to the Son. And if I don't believe that, am I saying Hebrews is wrong? I surely do not want to say that!
Chapter 1 offers many "proof texts" that God is higher than angels. Angels are ministering spirits, Christ created all that is, and Christ will survive all these. They are transient, Christ is eternal. Intro said these OT quotes are almost all in Greek from the Septuagint, rather than from the Hebrew texts of those books. Perhaps all this is a response - as per the intro - to what the community at Qumran was saying about Jesus. We don't know if they truly believed and taught that Jesus was lower than the angels or if it was a way to avoid persecution by the Jews tagging on to Roman persecution. See tag "Jesus as creator".
2021 - Most of the quotes are from the Psalms. So whoever wrote this - and wrote it to the Jews - is using only OT scripture, since that's all that really existed at the time and all they would have believed anyway. I note also that Psa 45:7 here quoted calls the Messiah God, combining the two into one. Thinking through this, it starts off making "the Son" and the Messiah the same person. It has not as yet mentioned the name of Jesus. First we are going to establish some facts about the Messiah. And the first fact is that Messiah is higher than the angels. We do that by contrasting scripture - which the Hebrews would have considered as God's own words - about Messiah with scripture about angels. And the first quote is where it says the Messiah is God's own Son. It says "I have begotten you". This might well have been used back then to say that Christ was created at a later time than God. In fact, I'm sure it is still claimed to mean that. I can see Islam pointing to this and saying it is a corruption of the OT teaching of a monotheistic God. So what we say today is that this is about the relationship within the Trinity of what our human limitations describe as a father/son relationship. We would also say that the begotten part is about the incarnation, not about things that pre-existed creation. And the father/son part means that the son will be submissive to the father in his actions and choices. The son will not assert his will, but will do the father's will. You know, you could type all day about this, but at the end of the day, I am convinced that no human mind can comprehend the way the Trinity works. We can show that there is a Trinity - I have a good book on that - but the fact is that this is a supernatural relationship and we have no framework in which it will "fit". So I will stop trying to explain it to myself. Except...in response to the charge that Jesus was created, note the Psalm quoted in vs 10-12: The Son created all that is. The implication is that nothing was created until the Son created at the Father's bidding. But...how do we know Psalm 102 refers to the Son and not the Father? The MSB note in Psalm 102:25-27 says that it is the NT that applies this passage to the Son. There's really not anything in 102 that implies directly that it is about the Son and not about the Father. So Hebrews is making this claim, as part of the argument to the Hebrews about how they should see and understand the Son. As part of that, the writer of Hebrews is asserting that Psalm 102 is about that Son. In so doing, he is showing that the Son is eternal, with that being a characteristic of God and God alone, making the Son also God. The same but separate. And I am pushing on.
2022 - Isaiah 44-48 has MANY passages that make Jesus the creator of all things, rather than the Father. You have to read the prophecy, and see that it is about the second coming, and we know that refers to the second coming of Jesus. Therefore, the one who is to come was also the creator of all that is. You have to do a little reading to really get it. The name of the tag is "Jesus NOT Created". See also notes in Colossians 1 starting "Where did Paul get this idea", plus the creation tag and the "Jesus not created" tag.
2021-2, As I read this in light of the outline, I see that Jesus' name is not mentioned. The writer assumes that his audience knows that Jesus is - or claims to be - the Son of God, and they know that is what the church is teaching. If the book is dated correctly, Jesus as been gone for 30-40 years, so church doctrine and understanding is at a very early stage. So we start off trying to describe the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, as it was understood in the very early church. These first verses presume that the reader knew of Jesus' claim to be God. So these verses are telling us that Jesus was also different than God. The writer found this as difficult to do as we find it today. He went with "the radiance of the glory of God", and "the exact imprint of his nature". Both these are visual. The Son is so much the Father that it is impossible to distinguish between them - yet they are different.
Then in vs 4, the contrast between the Son and angels is introduced using Old Testament Scriptures. This may have been a refutation of a developing theory that Jesus was in fact an angel. So here is why that cannot be so.
First, God calls the Messiah his son, in two places. He never refers to angels as sons.
Second, angels are to worship the son. Why would they worship their equal? Rather, they worship the superior.
Third, angels are described as wind and fire, the Messiah as the anointed, beyond his companions.
Fourth, nowhere are angels credited with the ability to create. No angel ever produced something from nothing. Only God can do this. See above about this NT claim that it was the Son who did the creating.
Fifth, no angel is ever offered the seat next to God while God acts on his behalf.
Then the conclusion as to what angels really are and the reason for their creation: 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? [Heb 1:14 ESV] Angels are workers, executors of God's commands. Unlike God, no angel is an originator, creator, or lord. They exist only to serve. The Son - the Messiah - is qualitatively different, and better than angels.
2022 - Vss 10-12, quoted from Psa 102:26-27. I can see this Psalm as a Messianic Psalm. You have to be familiar with the prophecies in Isa and Jer to get that out of it, but this Psalm seems to be about the Millennial. Given that it is about Christ, here is another OT passage that makes Christ the one who created all that is. God did it through Christ, but it was Jesus who "executed" the plan. Tag this also as "Jesus as creator".
2023 - These verses:
10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, [Heb 1:10-11 ESV]. I have made much of those verses in Jeremiah where God says that if the heavens cease, or the sun stops rising and setting, then his promises to the Jews will stop. In this, I see why the James Webb is showing us that we have no concept of how the universe started outside the supernatural creation of a supernatural god. Now put with this that creation is also crying out for relief from the corruption of sin and the spilled blood of innocents. Creation is in fact deteriorating. How can we verify that? Because it is wearing out "like a garment". How does a garment "wear out"? It gets threadbare. The material at the point of greatest wear gets smoother and thinner. The colors fade. They accumulate dirt that cannot be removed. Duller, less bright, diluted...And isn't that what we see? If all the universe is retreating from us in all the directions there are, then the color fades with time. The "fabric" gets thinner. Perhaps even a rip or tear here and there. Interesting how this works. Might put it as a FB post the day after that earlier one...
Possible FB post.
2022 - Last but not least, in vs 13, is the answer to my question above about Jesus sitting at the Father's right hand. It says specifically so in this verse, quoted from Psa 110:1. I'm going to include it:
1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." [Psa 110:1 ESV]. Jesus himself quotes this Psalm to the Pharisees. How did I not remember this? This is also the Psalm that says Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. So chapter 1, when all is said and done, is a very compelling picture of the Messiah as greater than the angels.