HEBREWS
CHAPTER 1
The son is in the express image of the person of the Father—Christ
is the Only Begotten son and thus above the angels.
[ The purpose of this Espistle (Supposedly from Paul was written in order to convince the Jews of the truth of this proposition, the apostle
uses but three arguments: 1. Christ is superior to the angels. 2. He
is superior to Moses. 3. He is superior to Aaron. context
matters. Anytime we're reading any book of scripture, we
always need to start with, okay, who wrote it and when was this
written and what were the circumstances? Who's the audience?
What are they wrestling with that this text addresses? One is that it's not an epistle. Two, that it might not have been written by Paul ( I believe that Joseph Smith said that he did - I need to find that reference.), and three, was it written to the
Hebrews? it may
have been composed, and that date range could be as early as
the 60s AD, which would be right at the very end of Paul's
ministry. But possibly even reaching as far as the 80s or 90s AD,
which would've made it one of the later books written in the
One of the reasons why that date range of possibilities is so
important as a reader is because when you think the book was
written actually does determine to an extent how you're
reading the book. The whole issue being, of course, do you think
that the Jerusalem temple is still standing?
Which was destroyed in 70 AD, or was it not standing? Because
the whole book is trying to convince an audience that you no
longer need to rely on the sacrifices and the priestly mediation
of the Jerusalem temple because we have Jesus. If you think the
book is written while the temple is still standing, meaning in the
60s before 70 AD, then the way you're reading this book is the
author trying to convince this audience of Jesus followers that
you no longer need to feel a need to attend the Jerusalem
temple. You don't need to go to the living standing temple in
Jerusalem any longer. It's still there, but you don't need to feel
drawn to it anymore because now you have Jesus.
Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices. Jesus is the ultimate high priest, so
you don't need to feel drawn to that standing institution of the
Jerusalem temple. However, if you think that the book was
written after 70, after the temple was destroyed, then that's a
bit of a different argument that the author is making. Now, the
author would be saying to that audience, you don't need to feel
like you need to rebuild the Jerusalem temple because you have
Jesus. Post 70 Judaism is characterized by different voices in
different groups wondering, what do we do now that the
temple is destroyed? Do we rebuild? Do we move on without
the temple? If you think this book was written after 70, then
this would be one of those voices that would argue, you don't
need to rebuild the Jerusalem temple because we have Jesus.
He's your ultimate high priest making intercession for you right
now. He's your ultimate sacrifice making atonement. All of Pauls other letter have started in a much different way, they're usually written as
letters. This one's not. This one really does seem to be more of a
sermon. There's a few notes at the very end in chapter 13 that suggest
that it could be circulated, but it's not composed as a letter. It
seems to be a sermon or a homily given by a well-educated
Jewish Christian who's immersed in Jewish scripture and who is
trying to convince an audience to no longer rely on those
previous institutions because now we have Jesus, our ultimate
high priest and our ultimate sacrifice. ]
1 G
OD, who at
sundry times [ "polumerwv", from poluv, meaning many, and perov, meaning a part; hence we can say that he gave many parts or pieces of revelation at different times. The first thing that is done is to set up this theme of Jesus superseding the things of the past. ] and in
divers manners [ "polutropwv", from poluv, meaning many, and tropov, meaning a manner, turn, or form of speech; hence trope is a figure in rhetoric. Lambert Bos supposes these words to refer to that part of music which is denominated harmony, viz. that general consent or union of musical sounds which is made up of different parts; and, understood in this way, it may signify the agreement or harmony of all the Old Testament writers, who with one consent gave testimony to Jesus Christ, and the work of redemption by him. ] spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us
by his son,
[ The apostle Paul speaking of Jesus. It is very remarkable that the pronoun autou, his, is not found in the text; nor is it found in any MS. or version. We should not therefore supply the pronoun as our translators have done; but simply read en uiw, BY A soN, or IN A soN. This text suggests to the reader that although a God he submitted hiself to the law or mortality, that of being born to a mortal mother. None of this verse will make sense in relation to the theology of firstborn sons unless God and Jesus Christ are actually two separate beings. That they are actually father and son as the verses here in Hebrews indicate. So, God is speaking to the Hebrews through his Son, whom he hath appointed heir. So, God has made the Son a king. So, we’re getting all kinds of descriptions as to the Father and Son being separate here.
] whom
he [ Heavenly Father? ] hath appointed heir of all things, [ "appointed" or anointed(Ps. 45:6-8) appointing him as a heavenly king and granting him an inheritance. What did he appoint him heir to? He appointed him heir to all things. That’s quite a bit. That’s quite a large kingdom. The use of the word heir, H-E-I-R in this passage is really important. Why is Christ an heir? Why is he inheriting all that his father hath? Well, because as we’ve seen in the ancient world, this is the reward that’s bestowed upon those who conquered the sea serpent, which is something we’re told Christ did, as mentioned in Psalm 89, but which is also reflected in scriptures like Psalm 92 verse 15, which says, quote, the Lord is upright and there is no wickedness in him. To have no wickedness in him is a clear statement that he won his battle against Rahab(Satan) and because of that he was worthy to inherit all things a kingdom. In verse 4 we see that Paul links Christ’s inheritance with the new name that he is given as a result of the change in Christs nature as he overcame Satan(verse 3). Now none of this makes sense in relation to the theology of firstborn sons unless God(heavenly Father) and Jesus Christ are actually two separate beings. That they are actually father and son as the verses here say. Because right here Paul declares to the Hebrews that Jesus Christ by right of birth as the firstborn was quote appointed by his father or God, heir of all things. He was worthy of this birthright because he was the first begotten, the first born of God. And because he was righteous, he emulated God his father in every way. ] by whom also he [ Heavenly Father? ] made the worlds< [ Yes, it does say worlds, plural, more than one - many. Just as a side note here on a cosmic level then, if the adherence to the laws of heaven empowers God to form worlds, to bring about light, life and fertility. Then on a cosmic level, the dragon who rebelled against the laws of heaven, find his purpose in bringing about its cosmic opposite, which would be chaos, disorder, darkness, sickness,death, destruction, and desolation. Which in a nutshell is the second law of thermodynamics, the inexorable cosmic trend towards decay, degradation, degeneration, corruption, disintegration, and death. Only God can overcome that through adherence to the laws of heaven. ] ;
[ Jesus in his pre-mortal state participated in the Creation see also Col. 1:16. Under the direction of Heavenly Father. "qeov hn o logov." - "The Word was God." John 1:1. ]
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, [ "apaugasma thv doxhv" apaugasma could be interpreted as the splendour of the sun. Suggesting supreme glory. Paul tells us that Christ sits down, which refers to his enthronement next to his father, the majesty on high, the king on high. Then look closely so you don’t miss the reference to Christ’s name change. Speaking of Christ, verses three and four read, who, and this is talking about Christ, being the brightness of his glory, and his here refers to his father’s, his father’s glory, and the express image of his person. So in terms of corporeality, note how Paul uses the word person here, the express image of his person. Paul wants us to understand that Christ’s nature now exactly matches that of his father’s. His character is that of the Father - this is our goal as well. In addition; one’s nature is reflected in their countenance, in the glory that radiates from their body. Look again and see Speaking of how Christ resembles his father in every way, this verse reads, "who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person". Having conquered Satan, Christ’s nature now matched his father’s. ] , and the express image of his person, [ Elder Marion G. Romney has taught:
“Jesus in his mortal ministry, being, as Paul said, ‘the express image of his [Father’s] person’. Also see John 14:9 a weak translation in the KJV.
The original phrase was "carakthr thv upostasewv autou" meaning - The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. or in Otherwords, the intent is to say that the son is spiritually just like the Father, unlike typical mortals. A better translation would be "the exact representation of his nature" (New American Standard). The KJV reads as though Jesus looks superficially like the Father. That is not the intent of the Greek "hupostasis" which is translated to "person" in the KJV. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied. So we have Paul teaching us that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are virtually indistinguishable in terms of righteousness, glory, and image. ] and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand [ Christ takes his seat as a heavenly king on a throne next to his fathers. Again we have evidence that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father are two separate and distinct beings. God the Son sits on the right hand of God the Father in the heavens. You know, there’d be no need for God the Son to have his own throne in the heavens next to the Father’s throne, if they were one being. To sit down on a throne next to God the Father clearly indicates that God the Father and God the Son are two distinct beings here; two separate gods. ] of the Majesty on high; [ Heavenly Father. This is to say that God the Father enthroned Jesus right next to him and you aren’t enthroned unless you are a king. We are taught that Jesus is declared the king of kings and the lord of lords. This comes right out of Revelation chapter 17:14, for he is lord of lords and king of kings, which is just another way of saying that he is the king of all kings and the priest of all priests or the great high priest. ]
4
Being made so much better [ As Christ undertook the battles of this life and overcame them he was changed. This is an example for us that as we undertake our battles with the adversary no matter what, our nature will change. And if we come off conqueror, our father will give us a new name as well, one that will reflect our new spiritually powerful nature. ] than the angels, as
he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name [ God the Father having exalted Christ and given him a name which is above every name.(Philip 2:9) Okay, so did you catch the reference to Christ’s name change? In this verse, Paul tells us, quote, he, Christ, hath by inheritance, the inheritance that comes from conquering Satan, obtained a more excellent name. We know from the New Testament that after Christ completed this life, where he clearly conquered Satan, he ascended to heaven. And we know from the testaments of Matthew, Mark and Luke that three days after his death on the cross, Christ rose from the dead in a resurrected, incorruptible body of flesh and bone. It was in that body that Christ ascended to his father. In these verses, Paul tells us that Christ’s nature had changed. He now matched the nature of his father in every way. Paul also tells us in these verses that Christ was then enthroned as a heavenly king. And then Paul tells us that after he was enthroned, he was given a new name, a quote, more excellent name. A name that perfectly reflected his more excellent nature. We learn in Philippians 2:9 that it is God the Father who gave him his new name. Born in mortality as the literal son of God he inherited the qualities and characteristics of God - he was a God. "Æo logov sarx egeneto." - "The Word became flesh." John 1:14. ] than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,
Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? [ A formal statement that Jesus is the literal son of God - born of him Quoted from PS 2:7. ] And again,
I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son? [ This is a quotation of 2 Sam. 7:14, and again is blatantly messianic. It is a quotation of the Lord speaking to David in reference to him having a son who will construct the Lord's Temple. This was ultimately fulfilled by David's son solomon. While both David and solomon were of less than ideal character, they both served as types of messiah. In this case solomon in specific is chosen as a result of his sonship of David. See Ps. 72 for an idealized solomon being held up as a type of messiah. ]
6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, [ "Æotan de palin eisagagh ton prwtotokon eiv thn oikoumenhn?" more literal translation would be - "But when he bringeth again, or the second time, the first-born into the habitable world." ] he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith,
Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
[ The intent of the quotation is to establish that angels are ministering spirits. And, if they worship the first begotten of the Father, then they are ministering spirits to the son. The son is therefore higher up the authority ladder than are angels. The implied syllogism is:
Angels worship the first begotten of the Father,
Angels are ministering spirits,
------------------------------
Angels minister to the first begotten of the Father.
This is the more excellent inheritance the son has received, in that he is above the angels, as is stated in v. 4. ]
8 But unto the son
he saith, Thy throne,
O God,
is for ever and ever: a
sceptre [ A rod or staff which represented authority or government. Jesus is our great high priest, but he's not
going to be a high priest after the order of Levi. He's going to be
the high priest after a different order entirely called the order of
Melchizedek. Hebrews actually, at least in the early Christian
generations, gives us that vocabulary of there actually are
different orders of priesthood and the type of order that Jesus is
part of as our high priest is not the previous Levitical order from
the Pentateuch. This is an order that's entirely different and
later on in the chapter in the book, later on in our conversation
today, we'll actually look at how this author would articulate the
difference between those priesthood orders. ] of righteousness
is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,
even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth;
and the heavens are the works of thine hands: [ Thine not thy - implicitly appealing to the plural pronoun appearing in Gen. 1:26 when it states "let us make man in our image, after our likeness". There was more than just one individual involved in the Creation. The argument submits that both the Father and the son were involved, hence the plurality. ]
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up,
and they shall be changed: [ Note that it does not say they will be destroyed but changed or renewed. ] but thou art the same, [ A comparison here suggesting that God is always the same but we are the ones who must be changed to become like him. ] and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time,
Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? [ Quotes Ps. 110:1. This psalm is one that is blatantly messianic and was previously used as a proof text, cf. Luke 20:41-44, Acts 2:34. The argument is that only
the "lord" of David, which David is the paramount type of messiah, whom the Lord was speaking to in this psalm, will be exalted on the right hand of God.
No angels were ever granted such a thing, thus angels are below this "lord" of David. ]
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?