The Epistle to the Hebrews

Resource Manager · November 2, 2010

The Epistle to the Hebrews

A Commentary

W.H. Boulton

1924

INTRODUCTION

Authenticity—Authorship—Characteristics of the epistle.

ALTHOUGH the Epistle to the Hebrews occupies but a small space in the Bible, it is so full of matters that deserve careful study that its lessons cannot be exhausted. It contains many of the “deep things” of the Truth. It is a standing illustration of the principles upon which the typical things of the tabernacle, and the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic ritual, are to be interpreted. A consideration of its teaching will enable us to appreciate the Apostle’s statement that the Jew had “the form of knowledge and of the Truth in the law” (Rom. 2:20).

Of the authenticity of the book little need be said. In the earliest writing of Christian origin outside the New Testament there are unmistakable quotations from the epistle, although it is not expressly mentioned. The following may be taken as an illustration:

By him would God have us taste the knowledge of immortality, who, being the brightness of His glory, is by so much greater than the angels as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For so, it is written, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to His Son, thus saith the Lord: “Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten thee.” “Ask of Me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.” And again He saith unto him, “Sit thou on My right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (The Apostolic Fathers: First Epistle of Clement, chap. 36.)

In later writers there are fairly frequent references to, or quotations from, the epistle, and its place in the canon of Scripture cannot seriously be disputed. Yet after all the book itself is its best witness, for nothing but inspiration could account for its wonderful setting-forth of the subjects of which it treats.

The book is anonymous. In view of the character of its contents, it is not surprising that many attempts should have been made to ascertain from whom it emanated; and although we may well conclude that the fact of its anonymity renders the question of authorship immaterial, it is only natural that we should like to know the origin of such a treatise. It has been ascribed to Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Luke, Timothy, and Titus. Some of these can only be regarded as mere guesses, for where no other writing of an individual is known, and there is no real tradition that he wrote such an epistle, it is quite valueless to suggest that such a one was the author in question.

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

So far as the Western section of the Christian world is concerned, the early tradition seems to be against the idea that Paul was the writer, whereas in the East it was generally attributed to him. Modern criticism has practically unanimously decided against the possibility of Paul being the writer. No one who is acquainted with the vagaries of critical conclusions will attach undue weight to this fact; indeed for some reasons it would rather lead us to consider the traditional view of the East to be correct. That Paul’s name should not be mentioned is not surprising. He was not likely to meet with a kindly reception from the Jews; even Jewish Christians were inclined to be suspicious of him on account of what they understood to be his attitude towards the Law. And yet this very fact may be a reason why he should have addressed such a communication to them, for the main thesis is to prove that the writings so highly prized by them contained within them the best of proofs that in Christ the Law was both fulfilled and abrogated. The argument that Jesus was superior to angels, to Moses (through whom the Law came) and to Aaron (the first High Priest under the Law), is just what we might imagine Paul using to convince his fellow-countrymen of the irrefutable grounds upon which Christianity rested.

There is one consideration bearing upon the question of authorship which is worthy of note. In his second epistle Peter makes a reference to Paul and his writings as follows:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3, 15 and 16.)

This epistle was addressed to Jews (comp. 1 Pet. 1, 1, and 2 Pet. 3, 1). To them, Peter declares, Paul had written, had spoken of the longsuffering of the Lord, and referred to things “hard to be understood.” It is true the word “longsuffering” does not occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews in relation to God, but the idea is clearly to be seen there. Indeed, the whole argument of the epistle is an indication of the long suffering of God, who purposes to achieve the salvation of His people notwithstanding the constant failure of Israel to attain unto His righteousness. We read, for example, that some must enter into rest (chap. 4:6), that the Lord will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, being merciful to their unrighteousness, and remembering their iniquities no more (chap. 8:8-12). As regards “things hard to be understood,” it reads like an echo of the language in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where in reference to Melchizedek it is said, “Of whom we have many things to say and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing.” The epistle contains many such matters; no other epistle could be adduced to which the statement could more fitly be applied.

Thus, although it is possible to question the personality of the author, it may be concluded that in all probability, even if we do not speak more definitely, the epistle came from the pen of the apostle Paul.¹

When we examine the epistle itself we find it to be unique. It is argumentative beyond any other, and its principal theme is “betterness.” The constant use of the words “therefore” and “wherefore” is indicative of its argumentative character. The betterness argument is shown by the following expressions: “Having become by so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they” (chap. 1:4). “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you” (chap. 6:9). “Without any dispute the less is blessed of the better” (chap. 7:7). “A bringing in thereupon of a better hope” (verse 19). “By so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant” (verse 22). “But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises” (chap. 8:6), “It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these “ (chap. 9:23). “For ye both had compassion on them that were in bonds and took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions, knowing that ye yourselves have a better possession and an abiding one” (chap. 10:34). “But now they desire a better country, that is a heavenly” (chap. 11:16). “Others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection” (verse 35). “God having provided some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (verse 40). “Ye are come ... to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel” (chap. 12:24).

The constant reiteration of the word is striking and arrests attention. Around it the argument turns. Generally the comparison is between the Mosaic and the new, or everlasting, covenant, the object being to show that in every respect the latter is the better-better in its hopes and rewards, better in its sacrifices, its Mediator, its priesthood, and its channels of communication, even though the former covenant was made known by angels (chap. 2, 2). The same idea is also suggested by the use of such expressions as “how much more” and “how much also.”

In addition to the general argument relative to the betterness of the new covenant, a section of the epistle is taken up with the argument that in Christ the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic covenant find fulfilment, and that by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, the necessity for further sacrifices was removed. The force of this argument, if proved, upon the relative claims of the two covenants, and also on the main thesis of the epistle, is obvious.

-------

¹For an interesting and instructive vindication of the Pauline authorship of the epistle, the reader is referred to an article by W. J. Y. in the Christadelphian for 1911, pp. 445 and 494.

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

CHAPTER I

God hath spoken—God’s Son—The heir of all things—The maker of the worlds—The effulgence of God’s glory—The impress of His substance—The upholder of all things—Purification for sins—Names in the Scriptures—The name “ Jesus”—The Memorial Name and Immanuel—The order of the argument—The priesthood—Who are the angels?—The supremacy of Jesus—The Sonship of Christ—Worshipped by angels—Sonship and kingship—Heavens and earth—The heavens and earth of Zion—The millennial age an intermediate state—The eternal beyond—The right hand of the Father—The work of angels.

THE opening verse of the epistle, one of the most impressive statements in the Scriptures, is in strict accord with the argument to be maintained.

God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets, by divers portions and in divers manners, hath in the end of these days spoken unto us in His Son. (Heb. 1:1.)

Before considering the comparison here suggested, it is worth staying to consider the meaning of such a declaration. In these brief words we have expressed one of the greatest of all facts, one which changes the prospect of the future from grave anxiety, if not of black despair, to bright and rosy hope. God hath spoken! Do we realise all that this means? Try to imagine the world without a revelation from God. Suppose God had never spoken to man since the fall. The perplexity and failing hearts which Christ foretold should be characteristic of the last days would be infinitely increased, for every attempt to realise the future, both in relation to individuals and communities, would only result in unanswered questions. Hopeless and helpless indeed would be man’s lot. The ameliorating influences of the Bible, even though it be little esteemed and misunderstood, would be absent. It is impossible to realise what would be the condition of the world without the Bible. For centuries it has been as the breath of life to the world, and all the best that has ever been accomplished in the past or the present is almost entirely due, directly or indirectly, to its influence. Twentieth-century intellectualism may refuse to recognise the fact. Higher criticism has for years been doing its best, or rather its worst, to destroy all real belief in it. Yet the great truth remains, the Scriptures are with us, they tower above all other literature, and nothing will explain their place in the world and their influence upon mankind save the great truth enunciated in these opening words—God hath spoken. Thanks be to Him, it is really true that “men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16, A.V.).

It is not part of the purpose before us to prove this, but there can be no question that a close and careful study of the Epistle to the Hebrews will furnish us with convincing proof of its inspiration. When all is said and done, it always remains that the Bible is its own best witness.

The statement which we have just reviewed introduces at once the main theme that is to be before us. There is an implied comparison between the revelations of the past and the declaration of the mind of God in and through His Son. Christ being the manifestation of the eternal God, the Word made flesh, there was in him a focussing of all that had gone before, and his sayings were an authoritative setting-forth of the word of the Lord. “He taught them as one having authority.” “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time ... but I say unto you!”

Before entering upon the first comparison which is set up, we are arrested by the language in which the writer introduces the person of the Son of God. He described as:

A son, whom He appointed heir of all things through whom also He made the worlds [margin, ages], who being the effulgence of His glory, and the very image [margin, impress] of His substance, and upholding all things by the word of His power when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; having become by so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. (Heb. 1:2-4).

Some of these expressions constitute difficulties to many, and deserve, therefore, some attention in order that their true meaning may be brought out.

That Jesus was a son of God needs no comment. He was a son not by adoption but by begettal (Luke 1:35). He was consequently “the only begotten of the Father,” God’s “beloved son.”

The issue between Christianity and Judaism was joined in this declaration. It indicated that Jesus of Nazareth was greater than any who had appeared before him. The angels were ministers, Jesus was a son. The Jew outside the Christian community might object to such a claim, yet his own Scriptures plainly taught that such a person should appear. Of the promised seed of David it had been said, “I will be his Father, and he shall be My son” (2 Sam. 7:14). He was to be the son of Yahweh’s handmaid (Psa. 86:16). “Thou art My son; this day have I begotten thee” (Psa. 2:7). Such passages require that the Messiah should be the Son of God in no adoptive sense, but by miraculous intervention in the raising-up the son of His handmaid. The unbelief of the Jew in such a possibility was not justified. To those who did believe the fact of the Divine Sonship of Jesus of Nazareth prepared the way for all that was to follow in the course of the argument.

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

This Son had been appointed “the heir of all things”; through him God made the ages. The language used reminds the careful reader of the language of the Apostle Paul in his letters to the Colossians and Ephesians.¹

There the Son is described as the firstborn from the dead, the beginning, the head of the Church, in whom was to be summed up all things, and to whom all things” were to be put in subjection. Whatsoever God has promised concerning the future is summed up in him. It is by reason of this that he is the “Heir of all things,” for “How many soever be the promises of God, in him is the Yea, wherefore also through him is the Amen” (2 Cor. 1:20). The application of the term “all things” will be found later in the comments on the phrase “the upholder of all things.”

The reference to “all things” of which the Son is the heir helps to an understanding of the next reference to him as the maker of the worlds. The margin supplies the alternative “ages,” the word in the Greek being aionas. Adopting this rendering, the term “made” seems out of place. The word so translated is poieo, which has a very wide application in its usage, including that of causation. The ages are leading up to an age when the Son will be manifested not merely as the heir, but as the inheritor of all the things which have been promised to him. That age and all that appertains to it will be possible because of his place in the purpose of God, especially his sacrificial death and his resurrection.

They will therefore be constituted on the basis of his work, and he is therefore the “maker of the ages.”

This Son, Jesus the Christ, is the effulgence of God’s glory. The idea of effulgence is a reflection. In the original the word is compounded of two words meaning “from,” and “to shine,” or “to view in the clearest light,” “see distinctly,” “discern.” There seems to be an adaptation of the language of Ezekiel in describing the cherubim and the glory of the Lord which is to enter the temple of the age to come particularly of his statement that “the glory of the Lord mounted up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord’s glory” (Ezek. 10:4).

The glory of the Lord may be manifested in many ways. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psa. 19:1) because they show forth, by their beauty, order, and regularity, the power and greatness of God. Saints, by walking in His fear, should cause men to glorify God (Matt. 5:16), so that their righteous actions are the glory of God, because those actions indicate the influence of His Word. This is the sense to be apprehended in the promise that “all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord” (Num. 14:21). With this meaning in view it will readily be understood how Jesus of Nazareth was the effulgence of God’s glory, both in the reflective sense, and in the other and higher sense that from him shone forth the glory of God, for God was in him, and the works which he did were those of the Father. The thought is expressed by Paul elsewhere when he refers to—

The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God ... it is God that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor. 4:4 and 6.)

In Jesus Christ we view the glory of God, for “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

This leads quite naturally to the other portion of the reference, “the very image of His substance,” or, adopting the marginal rendering, “the impress of His substance.” The Son bears an exact impress of the Father. The Greek for “impress” is charakter. It is associated with the engraver, who engraves that which he desires to impress upon the substance; by extension the word became applied to the figure thus impressed.

It is applied to “any fixed and sharply-marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognised and distinguished.”²

Thus the character of God finds expression in the person of Jesus Christ. A member of our race, he exhibits to us what, in character, the Father is. Substance is, in the original, hypostasis, and the application of this word constitutes somewhat of a difficulty in the passage. Amongst the meanings of the word may be mentioned—a standing under; anything set under, a support; the base or foundation; the groundwork or subject matter of a speech (metaphor); firmness, steadiness; a resolution, purpose; subsistence, reality, real being; nature.³ The idea left upon the mind by these definitions in applying the term to Jesus Christ is that the fundamental firmness, the reality, the resolution and purpose of God are impressed upon and are expressed by him, and the combination of the two words, charakter and hypostasis, indicate that they were so impressed upon him as by an engraver, whereby he was able to illustrate to the children of men the character and purpose of the Deity, giving in his person an actual manifestation of what was otherwise only declared concerning God.

-------
¹ 1 Colos. 1:15-18; Eph. 1:9-11, 23.
² Alford on Heb. 1:3. 15
³ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon.

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

He is also said to be the upholder of all things by the word of his power. Orthodox commentators give this a very wide application, rendering “all things” as “the universe.” Such a translation or interpretation goes far beyond what the Scriptures warrant. It would, for example, imply that God purposed, as it were, to abdicate from His position as Sustainer and Ruler of His universal creation. The idea is too absurd to be entertained for an instant. The things of which Christ is heir are well defined in the Scriptures. They include all that is necessary for the fulfilment of the Divine purpose that God shall be all in all. The land, the throne, the uttermost parts of the earth, the nations, are his. To enable him to effect the necessary change in the situation, all authority in heaven and in earth has been committed unto him, but to extend such a promise to make him the heir, or upholder, of the universe is to go far beyond what the promises in relation to him require. On the same principle that his heirship of all things is necessarily limited to the things promised, so the all things which he upholds by the word of his power are limited to those with which he is concerned in the purpose of the Father.

When the promises are fulfilled and Christ delivers up the Kingdom to the Father, and God is all in all, it will be seen that that all depended upon him. He was the sacrifice, the priest, and the mediator. All his co-rulers will be “in him” through the means appointed by the Father. During the millennial reign he will be the king, dispensing the covenant blessings to all who live under his beneficent sway, finally bringing the whole into subjection to him and his Father. Whatever process may be instituted to effect this, it will certainly be in and through him, and thus when all is fulfilled God will have gathered together in one all things in Christ.

Finally, so far as these introductory comments of the Apostle are concerned, the Son made “purification of sins,” and “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” In the former of these sayings we are introduced to the essential feature of the mission of Jesus of Nazareth—God’s Son. The sense of the expression is to make clean by a washing off, or away, sins. There is an anticipation here of the whole argument which is to follow. It was intended to show that what could not be done by the law had been accomplished in Christ. In other words it had been declared elsewhere that “what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh” God did by “sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). The blood of bulls and goats offered continually under the Law could not take away sin (Heb. 10:4), whereas, as every believer of the Truth knew, Christ was the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. Comment on this may be deferred until the matter is reached in the detailed argument. The same will apply to the reference to Christ sitting at the right hand of God. It is the subject of proof a little later on, and therefore will be best dealt with when the argument is reached.

The Son of God who made purification of sins had thereby inherited a more excellent name than the angels. The consideration of this statement opens up some of the most interesting phases of the Divine revelation.

In the Scriptures the name which is borne by a man or an angel, or adopted by God Himself, is of much more importance than it is amongst ourselves. It is a matter of very little moment what name a man bears nowadays; it is merely a convenient means of designating him.: In the Bible it is often otherwise. There, names are often descriptive of the mission of the individual, his character, or his place in the purpose of God. The various names attributed to the Deity are of this descriptive character. El, strength or might; El Shaddai, the strength of the mighty ones; Yahweh, He who shall be; are familiar illustrations of this. Among the names of men we have Abraham, the father of a multitude; Jacob, Supplanter, changed to Israel, a prince with God; David, beloved; Isaiah, salvation of Yahweh; Ezekiel, God will strengthen; Peter, a rock.

So far as the angels are concerned very few names are recorded. Two familiar ones that are mentioned are of the descriptive kind, but they do not tell us much about those who bear them. Gabriel means a man (or warrior) of God, being compounded of geber, a valiant man or warrior, and El, God, whilst Michael means Who like God. Both names are evidently expressive, but they are not sufficiently definitive to give any particular indication of the positions of those to whom they apply, and they do not teach us much about them.

The name Jesus was not the choice of either Joseph or Mary, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for it is he that shall save his people from their sins,” said the angel to Joseph when referring to his birth. No doubt the angel used the Hebrew form of the name, Joshua. This name is a combination of Yah (a shortened form of Yahweh) and yasha, to be open, wide, or free, to be saved, to free or succour. The name is thus the equivalent of “God will save.” It might be argued that this could not be the name intended in the argument of the epistle because it is there said that the more excellent name had been obtained by inheritance, “he hath inherited a more excellent name than they,” whereas this name was given before the child was born. But the name was prophetic; “for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.” It was given because it was foreseen that he would be faithful, and perfectly fulfil the mission entrusted to him; that he would conform to the definitely-appointed conditions which were necessary to enable him to be the Saviour of his people. Thus, although the name was given before his birth, it could rightly be said to be received by inheritance, or, as the word really implies, by allotment, or assignment; assigned to him because of his faithful adherence to his Father’s commands.

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

In this name of Jesus, then, we have the Memorial Name of God, and the idea of salvation. This in itself is not necessarily distinctive of Jesus as compared with angels. Their names also include the Name of God— but not His Memorial Name—and they have been associated with deliverance or salvation. Of one of them it was testified, “My Name is in him.” Their mission in the past has frequently been to deliver or save God’s people, and it is so even now, for “the angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them” (Psa. 34:7). But all the deliverances which are recorded in connection with the ministry of angels have been of a temporal character, bounded by the limits of human life, such as the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, shutting the mouths of lions, protecting from fire, and so forth. These examples of deliverance may have had a relation to a future redemption, yet the greatest work recorded of an angel would not have made redemption possible for anyone apart from the mission of Jesus. The salvation which he will give is one from sin and death, it will bring eternal life and a participation in the Divine nature to all who eventually benefit thereby. Thus he declares, “I was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of hades” (Rev. 1:18). “For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in himself” (John 5:26).

“Because I live ye shall live also” (John 14:19). “My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish” (John 10:27 and 28). “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth on me though he die yet shall he live” (John 11:25). Hence the name of Jesus, as a Saviour, is transcendantly great, and his mission as expressed in his name is far beyond that of the angels.

There is another item of this phase of the name of Jesus which must not be lost sight of in this connection. Jesus is the embodiment of the Memorial Name of the Deity, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, I will be who I will be (Exod. 3:14 and 15, margin). When that name was first proclaimed as a memorial nothing was said as to its future development, or the accomplishment of the purpose which was enshrined in it. Then it only indicated that God had a purpose which should certainly be; it implied that there should be some one or ones in and through whom it should be realised. The prophets gradually unfolded more of the meaning to be attached to it, but it was not until the birth of Jesus of Nazareth that it became apparent how the Memorial Name should take, if it may be so expressed, a concrete form among men. With his birth a great step was taken towards its fulfilment, for he was Immanuel, God with us (Matt. 1:23), God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). His claims were most remarkable, so wonderful that he must be held to be either the greatest religious impostor the world has ever seen, or the supreme person he claimed to be, one who had by inheritance obtained a name more excellent than any of the angels had ever attained. Listen to a few of his claims. “Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me” (John 14:10 and 11). “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (verse 9). Apostolic references are to the same effect. “All things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses” (2 Cor. 5:18 and 19). In the last message to the servants of God the same thing is still emphasised. “I am the First, and the Last, and the Living One” (Rev. 1:17). “Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me to render to each man according as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 22:12 and 13). “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14). This latter quotation is suggestive of the Elohim of Amen referred to in Isa. 65, translated in our version “the God of truth.”

If Jesus were nothing more than man, such claims and statements would be inexplicable. They condemn Unitarianism and kindred theories, for even the extreme upholders of such views are not prepared to say that Jesus was an impostor. At the same time they are equally subversive of the doctrine of trinitarianism, a doctrine which one of its supporters has declared to be “made up of a number of propositions, each of which, if maintained to the exclusion of the rest, is a heresy.”¹ A doctrine which requires a whole string of heretical statements to express it may well be called, as defined in its official creed, “incomprehensible”; it contrasts most disadvantageously with the simple, yet deep, doctrine which is involved in the name Immanuel. The latter is full of beauty and harmony, the former is confusion which becomes worse confounded the more it is explained. As the Son of the Eternal, the only begotten of the Father, the Word made flesh, Jesus was the manifestation of the Father who dwelt in him; a totally different idea from the theory which makes him the second person of a coequal trinity, the eternal Son of an eternal Father, an idea so amazingly self-contradictory that one wonders how its expounders fail to see its ridiculous character.

When the truth upon this subject is believed, the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews as to the superiority of Jesus over angels is perceived in its fulness, and we realise that Jesus has obtained a more excellent name than they. When all that follows from it is considered in connection with the finality of the purpose of God in Christ Jesus, it is easily understood that even angels and authorities and powers have been made subject to him (1 Pet. 3:22). It should be noted that the writer distinctly says that Christ became better than the angels, implying that there was a time when this was not the case. Such an idea is foreign to orthodox religion, but it is in accord with the truth that Jesus was “made a little lower than the angels.” Having been “made perfect through sufferings,” he became so much better than the angels because of his faithfulness in the mission of making purification of sins.

Hitherto the epistle has been taken up with a series of declarations. Inspiration might well have stopped here and left us to fashion our beliefs accordingly. But God does not act in this way. “Come now and let us reason together” is a Divine invitation. God does not ask for blind faith, or credulity; He appeals to reason, He gives reasons, and so we now enter upon a long argumentative section, the outcome of which will be found to justify all the great things which have been said of the Son in the four opening verses.

-------

¹ Newman. The Development of Christian Doctrine

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

When we examine the course of the argument, we might at first think that the order of the comparisons had been badly chosen. The usual method of comparison, when we are endeavouring to illustrate the superlative position of one person or thing in contrast with others, is to start with the lowest comparison and work by successive stages to the highest. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the order of the comparisons is (a) angels, (b) Moses, including a reference to Joshua, (c.) the high priests. Now it would certainly seem that if the argument could be sustained which showed that the Son was superior to angels, all else would be unnecessary, and that his superiority to Moses and the high priests must follow as a matter of course. But that is only so on a casual view of the matter, divorced from the argument as a whole. When the theme of the epistle is considered, the order adopted is seen to be in strict accord with the object in view. That object is to prove the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old.

Now to the Jew the supreme representative of the Mosaic system—the Old Covenant—was the high priest. True the law had been given “by the dispensation of angels,” had been “spoken by angels,” and “ordained by angels in the hands of a mediator.” True that mediator was Moses, with whom God had spoken face to face. Both of these agencies, however, were in the past. The work of angels in relation to the Law had been an initial one only; the mission of Moses had been confined to the forty years which intervened between his commission at Horeb and his death. But the priesthood was always with them. In every age the high priest was the representative of the Law in all its majesty and the richness of its ritual. Year by year he entered into the holy of holies, made atonement for Israel, and came forth to pronounce a blessing on the people. Hence it is a strictly logical method that compares the Son first with angels, then with Moses, and finally with the high priests. By thus establishing the superiority of Jesus over the high priest, it showed to the Jew who appreciated the argument that to comply with the Law and its ritual, and to trust to the mediation of the Aaronic priesthood, was to “turn to the weak and beggarly elements,” because they were part of an inferior system which was superseded in Christ.

Following the order indicated, we have first of all to consider in what respects Jesus, the Son of God, was superior to angels. In making this comparison, it may be a surprise to some to find how scanty is the information which we possess concerning these wonderful beings. Of their origin we are told nothing, nor is anything recorded as to why they have been placed in their present exalted position. They are anterior to man, of course; they are evidently the beings indicated in God’s question to Job:

“Whereupon were the foundations thereof [the earth] fastened?

Or who laid the corner-stone thereof when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:6 and 7).

We may safely infer that they have passed through a period of probation, for it is no presumption to believe that the Scriptural principle of “probation before exaltation” is of universal application. Automatic righteousness is an idea that will never appeal to a truly devout mind. This inference is strengthened by their own statement when Adam and Eve had sinned: “Behold the man is become as one of us to know good and evil,” for such a saying obviously suggests that they had acquired their knowledge by an experimental process, in which they had chosen the good and overcome the evil, on account of which they had been exalted to the spirit nature which they now possess. They are strong, immortal, the executors of God’s behests, the protectors of His saints; they are, though unseen and - unheeded, manipulating human affairs so that they may progress towards the consummation which God has purposed and revealed. Above all, they are implicitly obedient to His decrees. These are points which may be gathered from the Scriptures concerning them. Beyond these we know very little. No doubt the reason for the scarcity of information regarding the angels is that such knowledge is not in any way necessary for the purpose for which the Bible has been given. It is a book for the human race. It reveals all that is necessary for us to know concerning ourselves, our origin and destiny, and of the purpose of God in relation to the earth. Consequently, angels are only referred to when it is necessary to do so because of the part which they have played, or are to play, in connection with these matters. Under the name, or title, of Elohim¹ (almost always translated God) they are referred to in the record of the creation. From this it is evident that they are of mighty strength; at the same time it has to be recognised that their power is not inherent, but is derived from the Deity, the Supreme, the Almighty First Cause—El Shaddai. The following quotation aptly illustrates the relationship:

As we have seen, Moses and the prophets teach one self-existent, supreme fountain of Power, EL, who is Spirit, and self-named I Shall Be, or Yahweh: that this one Yahweh-Spirit Power is “God” in the highest sense, and constitutes the “Godhead,” or Father in heaven; that He is the Springhead of many streams, or rivers of Spirit, which assume organic forms according to the will of the Yahweh-Spirit Power, and that when formed after the model, archetype, or pattern, presented in His own hypostasis, or substance, they become Spirit-Elohim, or Sons of God; and are Spirit, because “born of the Spirit”—emanations of the formative Spirit being ex autou, out of, Him. The Spirit-Elohim was also “God”; nevertheless they are created. They are formed and made out of and by that which is uncreated. They are Spirit-forms, the substance of which (spirit) is eternal: while the forms are from a beginning. Each one is a God in the sense of partaking of the Divine Nature, and being therefore a Son of God.²

-------

¹ That the Hebrew elohim may be applied to angels is recognised by it being so translated in Psalm 8:5, a translation which is fully justified by the fact that in a quotation of this verse in the epistle now before us, the Greek is angelos—angels, and by a comparison of the following texts: Exod. 3:4, with Acts 7:35; Psalm 97:7, with Heb. 1:6.

² Phanerosis, p. 23. See also The Names and Titles of the Deity.

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

We thus conclude that they are created beings, but the highest form of such intelligencies, the supreme manifestations, so far as the Old Testament carries us, of the wisdom and power of God.

Such are the beings than whom Jesus is declared to be better, and the reasons for this superiority are set out in considerable detail in the first and second chapters of the epistle. These reasons may be set out as follows:

That Jesus was the only begotten of the Father —the Eternal.
That angels are to worship him.
That certain promises had been made concerning him, having special relation to a throne.
That he has been exalted to the Father’s right hand.
That the world to come has, prospectively, been put in subjection under him.
That he is the author of eternal salvation to many brethren, having made reconciliation for sins.

Taking up the points of comparison as just outlined, we note a. that Jesus is better than the angels because he is the only begotten Son of God. The argument in the epistle is—

For unto which of the angels said He at any time,

Thou art My Son,

This day have I begotten thee? and again,

I will be to him a Father,

And he shall be to Me a Son?

¹

The form in which the question is put involves that the answer is to be in the negative. Whatever the origin of the angels may have been, it was not that of direct Sonship by begettal. This fact singles out Jesus from amongst them, and places him altogether above them, for the relationship of a father to a son is essentially closer than that which exists between Creator and created. There is a personal relationship and association introduced that our own natural instincts enable us to appreciate. The Divine origin of Jesus of Nazareth is an integral portion of the One Faith, and this particular section of the epistle is a most damaging argument against the assertions of Unitarians and other supporters of Josephite theories in regard to the birth of Jesus. From the earliest times this phase of the Truth has been set forth, both by statement and type. The doctrine reaches back as far as the Garden of Eden, when it was foretold that “the seed of the woman” should bruise the sin-power in the head. This promise being coupled with the slaying of animals, whereby coats of skins were provided as a covering for our first parents, gave the first adumbration of the sacrificial element of the mission of the woman’s seed.

In Mosaic times the direction, “If thou make Me an altar of stone thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it thou hast polluted it” (Exod. 20:25), expresses the same truth in type. The prophets also pointed to this Divine origin of the Messiah. “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14), “which is, being interpreted, God with us” (Matt. 1:23). “But thou, Bethlehem-Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth” (Mic. 5:2 and 3). The Psalmist, too, refers to him as “the son of Yahweh’s handmaid,” whilst Daniel referred to him under the figure of a stone cut out of the mountains without hands.

These predictions and shadowy representations are explained by the New Testament history. “Fear not,” said the angel to Joseph, “to take unto thee Mary, thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:20). Previously, in response to Mary’s question, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? “the angel Gabriel had said, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). How this fact is emphasised in subsequent pages it is scarcely necessary to illustrate. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father) full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). “The only begotten Son” (verse 18). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). “The only begotten Son of God” (verse 18). “God hath sent His only begotten Son into the world” (1 John 4:9).

-------

¹ It may be pointed out that both in the Hebrew of the psalm and in the Greek of the epistle the “I” is emphatic: “I and no other” (Alford).

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

Thus prophecy, type, and historical realisation, all converge in this fact and indicate the superiority of Jesus to the angels, for “unto which of the angels said He at any time: Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee? “The first of the reasons for the superiority of Jesus may therefore be considered as conclusively proved.

Not only is it clear that the Messiah must be greater than angels because he is the Son of God in a way which cannot be predicated of any other being, it is also proved by the fact that b. angels are to worship him. The statement upon which this argument is founded is in the Psalms.

Ashamed be they that serve graven images; That boast themselves of idols: Worship Him, all ye gods. (Psa. 97: 7.)

It should be noted that in the Revised Version it is clearly indicated that the time when this shall apply is at the second coming of Christ. “And when He again bringeth in (or shall have brought in) the firstborn into the world, He saith: And let all the angels of God worship him” (Heb. 1:6). It is from the standpoint of the kingdom that the statement is made, the time when the Messiahship of Jesus will be fully revealed, and he will have been manifested as prophet, priest, and king.

The position in which the quotation is found in the Psalms is instructive. The kingship of Christ is the outcome of the promise to David that of his seed one should be raised up to occupy his throne for ever. In the eighty-ninth Psalm this covenanted promise is dealt with at considerable length, and the eternity of the days of Messiah’s throne is forcibly expressed. “As the days of heaven” (verse 29), “as the sun before Me” (verse 36). But later on the Psalmist shows how the kingdom of David should end, and the crown be profaned and cast to the ground. He then asks:

What man is he that shall live, and not see death? That shall deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? (Verse 48.)

The question remains unanswered in the Psalm, but in those which follow, and which constitute the fourth book of the Psalms, an answer is supplied by a wealth of references, the explanation of which turns upon the doctrine to be dealt with in section c.. The following are examples, the force of which will be increased if it is borne in mind that the ninetieth Psalm opens with a declaration of the eternity of God, who is “from everlasting to everlasting.”

Say among the nations Yahweh reigneth ... For He cometh to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with His truth. (Psa. 96:10-13.)

Yahweh reigneth; let the earth rejoice; Let the multitude of the isles be glad ... Worship Him, all ye gods. (Psa. 97:1 and 7.)

Make a joyful noise before the King, Yahweh ... For He cometh to judge the earth. (Psa. 98:6 and 9.)

Yahweh reigneth, let the peoples tremble; He sitteth between the cherubim; let the earth be moved. Yahweh is great in Zion; and He is high above the peoples. (Psa. 99:1 and 2.)

All these passages associate rulership in the future with Yahweh Himself. Yet as the essential Deity, the Source and Sustainer of all things, it cannot be imagined that He will leave His position of Controller of the universe to become a King in Zion. By the whole consensus of Scripture teaching, we know that the kingship of the future, centred in Zion, is invested in Jesus, who, on the principles already enunciated, is the embodiment of the Yahweh Name. It is in him the prophecies associated with that name will be fulfilled. Hence it can be recorded, “Let all the angels of God worship him,” and, as the object of worship must be greater than the worshipper, the superiority of Jesus to the angels is once more vindicated.

It might be pointed out that in the Psalm the reading is “worship Him, all ye gods,” whereas in the epistle we read, “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” The explanation of the difference lies in the fact that the Hebrew Elohim, rendered “gods” in this instance, is applicable to the angels, God’s ministers “who excel in strength.” Elohim signifies mighty ones, who derive their strength from El—God Himself. The word elohim may therefore be fitly represented in the Greek or English by angelos or angels. (See p. 29.)

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

Passing to the next argument, we have to consider how c. that Jesus is better than the angels because there are certain promises concerning him which have special relation to a throne. The language of the epistle in this respect is as follows:

Of the Son he saith:

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:

And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of

Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated

iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath

anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

(Heb. 1: 8 and 9.)

It is both interesting and important to notice the intimate connection between this and that phase of the argument which concerns the Sonship of Christ. In the promise which links kingship with the house of David this fact is brought out very clearly.

When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shalt proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his Father and he shall be My son. (2 Sam. 7:12-14.)

In the Psalms the same connection is made.

Yet have I set My king

Upon My holy hill of Zion.

I will tell of the decree:

The Lord said unto me, thou art My Son;

This day have I begotten thee. (Psa. 2: 6 and 7.)

He shall cry unto Me, Thou art my Father, . My God, and the rock of my salvation. I also will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. (Psa. 89:26 and 27.)

The passages quoted in a previous section associate Immanuel, the virgin’s son, with the land of Judah, which is spoken of as “Thy land, O Immanuel,” and with rulership in Israel (Isa. 8:8; Mic. 5:2). The section of the prophecy of Isaiah from which the quotation is made continues to the ninth chapter, and includes the well-known words:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness from henceforth, even for ever. (Isa. 9:6 and 7.)

This close connection between the Divine Sonship and the kingship of the Messiah was well understood in the days of Jesus of Nazareth. When Peter recognised that Jesus was the Messiah, his words were, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), and when Nathaniel was convinced of the same truth by what he heard, he exclaimed, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art king of Israel” (John 1:49). The same connection is apparent in the words of the angel to Mary, for when the miraculous character of the birth of Jesus was told to Mary, the angel had already said concerning the child that was to be born, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32).

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

The quotation which forms the basis of the argument in this phase is taken from Psalm 45. This Psalm furnishes a remarkable example of the place which these matters occupied in the inspired mind of the Psalmist.

My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter;

I speak the things which I have made touching the King;

My tongue is the pen of a ready writer. (Verse 1.)

The idea of the word “overfloweth” is really boiling or bubbling up. Like a perennial spring, or boiling water, which is constantly in motion; so there was continually welling up in his mind the glowing anticipations concerning the future of the Messiah. And so the “ready writer” proceeds:

Thou art fairer than the children of men; Grace is poured into thy lips: Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, Thy glory and thy majesty; And in thy majesty ride on prosperously, Because of truth and meekness and righteousness; And thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness: Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Verses 2-7.)

On these premises it was clear that the Messiah was related to a throne, and as the Hebrew Christians necessarily believed in the Messiahship of Jesus, his superiority over angels was evident.

Before passing to the rest of the reasons for the superiority of Jesus, it will be well to note an incidental reference in the first chapter of the Hebrews which forms a part of the argument, but is not so closely connected with the detailed reasons as to call for attention under any one of the headings set out. The quotation is as under—

Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands: They shall perish: but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment: And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail. Heb. 1:10-12.)

¹

The quotation is from Psalm 102. A reference to this Psalm will show that it was a prayer to God for deliverance. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the quotation has been looked upon as evidence in support of the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ, for if the Psalmist prayed to him it must follow that he was then in existence. As this doctrine is opposed to the first principles of the oracles of God, such an application of the verses cannot be correct, and it becomes a matter of some importance to examine the language used, so that we may be able to appreciate the place of the quotation in the argument.

Has been suggested; it views the latter part of Psalm 102 as a dialogue between Messiah and the Father, somewhat as follows:

Messiah:

I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days.

The Father:

Thy years are throughout all generations.

Messiah:

Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are

the work of Thy hands.

The Father:

They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall have no end.

Whilst this meets the difficulty of the Psalm, and is in accord with the structure of some of the Psalms, it does not appear to harmonise with the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is, however, submitted for the consideration of the reader as a possible explanation of the passage.

-------

¹ An alternative explanation of this admittedly difficult passage

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

It is to be noted, first of all, that the terms “heavens” and “earth” do not necessarily refer to the heavens in which the starry orbs revolve and the globe on which we live. Frequently in the Scriptures they are used in a figurative sense. Thus Isaiah exclaims: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth,” which he later parallels by, “Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom, give ear to the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah” (Isa. 1:2 and 10). Jeremiah, too, in a very expressive way, said, “O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord” (Jer. 22:29). It is evident that in these instances the words are used in a figurative sense. The basis of this use is found in the relationship that exists between the heavens and the earth. The former are exalted and are over the earth. Hence they became naturally associated in their figurative application with those who rule. In the very opening chapter of the Bible, language is found which fits in with this idea. Referring to the preparation of the sun and moon, which occupy their places in the heavens, it is said that God made “the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night” (Gen. 1:16). It is in this sense that the words “heavens” and “earth” are used in the passage before us, the heavens referring to the rulers, and the earth to the ruled, of the particular constitution which may be in view.

If we read through the Psalm, it will be seen that it has to do with future developments in relation to Israel and Jerusalem.

Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion; For it is time to have pity upon her, yea, the set time is come

For the Lord hath built up Zion, He hath appeared in His glory;

That men may declare the name of the Lord in Zion,

And His praise in Jerusalem:

When the peoples are gathered together.

And the kingdoms to serve the Lord.

(Psa. 102:13, 16, 21, 22.)

We may thus conclude that the standpoint of the Psalm is the Kingdom of God, from which it may be inferred that the heavens and the earth of that Kingdom are those which are referred to. A similar use of the terms will be found in the prophets.

Who art thou, that thou art afraid of man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass; and hast forgotten the Lord, thy maker, that stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth; and fearest continually all the day because of the fury of the oppressor, when he maketh ready to destroy? ... I have put My words in thy mouth, and have covered thee in the shadow of Mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. (Isa. 51:12-16.)

Or again:

Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. (Isa. 65:17 and 18.)

In these quotations the heavens and earth are connected with Zion, on a principle already set forth. These heavens and earth are to be founded by the Messiah, who, as “the Name of Yahweh,” will act for Him, the works being those of God Himself accomplished through Christ. Israel’s heavens and earth have always occupied a foremost place in the Divine programme; the new heavens and earth of the future to be founded by the Son of God will be even more important. They will, indeed, be heavens which will “declare the glory of God.”

In them hath He set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, And his circuit unto the ends of it: And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. (Psa. 19:4-6.)

But important and fixed as these heavens are, they will not be permanent. The millennial reign of Jesus Christ in these new heavens, ruling over the new earth, is only an intermediate state, a bridge between the time when the world’s population is only mortal, and another time when it will be peopled solely by immortals. These intermediate heavens and earth will be Israelitish in character, being founded upon promises made to the fathers of that race in relation to both the land and the throne. The truly permanent constitution of things which is to follow will know no distinction between Jew and Gentile, for in them God will be all in all. Until that finality is reached the earth will continue to be the scene of change, hence the millennial heavens and earth shall wax old and be changed, whereas of the Son, whose they will be, it is declared, “Thy years shall not fail.”

There is an interesting reference to these things in Eureka.

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

In the “Former Earth,” which passes away, there is sin, and generation, and death; and because of the existence of sin, and flesh and blood, and death, there are mediatorship, and priesthood, and ruling with an iron rod, in the “Former Heaven.” These things are not to continue permanently. Sin, which is the transgression of law, must be wholly and finally suppressed; flesh and blood must be exterminated from the earth; disease and death, which are “the wages of sin,” abolished; mediatorship and priesthood, necessary in the offering to the Deity of gifts and sacrifices for the sins of the erring and the ignorant (Heb. 5:1 and 2), “delivered up to the Father”; and religion, which is a divinely-appointed remedy for an existing breach between the creature and the Creator, superseded, as having answered its purpose, and being therefore no longer necessary. All these things pertaining to the former, or Millennial, Heaven and Earth, John saw had “passed away.” In the final annihilation of the Devil by the judicial fire of the Deity, in the destruction of the post-millennial Gog and Magog rebellion against the government of the Saints, the bruising of the Serpent’s Head by the Woman’s Seed, is consummated. Henceforth, the earth, not burnt up, but perfected, and rendered the paradisaic arena of all the unutterable joys and beauties and ecstatic things beheld and heard of Paul, becomes a fitting habitation of Deity in unmediatorial intimacy with the humblest of mankind; for then the Father will be “the all things in all men.” … Such is the consummation of the Divine purpose in the creation of the heavens and the earth.¹

Viewing the purpose of God as a whole, and apprehending to some extent the fact that the Millennial Age is to be succeeded by an eternity when the earth shall be a place where God shall be all in all, one vast glorified unity with the Father, one can appreciate the force of the exhortation which follows in the second chapter, and which will be noted in due course.

The next argument that we have to follow is d. that Jesus is better than the angels because he has been exalted to the Father’s right hand. This is set forth in the words, “But to which of the angels said He at any time: Sit thou on My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?”

The right hand is well understood as a position of honour. When Jacob’s last son was born, Rachel called him Benoni (the son of my sorrow), but Jacob changed it to Benjamin (the son of my right hand), evidently on account of the affection he felt for him as the child of his dearly-loved Rachel. So, too, when he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, he placed his right hand upon the head of the younger, indicating thereby the priority of the blessing he was to pronounce upon him. As the effective hand in manual operations it became associated with the idea of effectiveness, and in relation to the Deity it would suggest omnipotence.

Thus in Moses’ song of deliverance it is declared:

Thy right hand, O Lord, is glorious in power, Thy right hand, O Lord, dasheth in pieces the enemy. (Exod. 15:6.)

It was God’s right hand and arm that gave Israel possession of the land of Canaan.

They gat not the land in possession by their own sword, Neither did their own arm save them:

But Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance Because Thou hadst a favour unto them. (Psa. 44:3.)

Looking to the future, the Psalmist also says:

Let Thy hand be upon the man of Thy right hand, Upon the Son of Man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself. (Psa. 80:17.)

This is “the man” to whom the writer of the epistle refers in the argument set out above. He has in mind the words of the Psalm, “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at My right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psa. 110:1).

It will be observed that this phase of the superiority of Jesus is intimately bound up with the point dealt with in section c., the promise which relates to a throne. It is also connected with a matter to be referred to later: the superiority of Jesus to the priesthood under the Law, for “the man of God’s right hand” is to rule in the midst of his enemies, and be a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Such a combination of ideas indicates the supremacy to which Jesus of Nazareth has attained.

A work of the angels as defined in this chapter is particularly interesting. They are defined as “ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14). Had not such a statement been found in the Scriptures, who would have imagined that these exalted beings were deputed to such a service? Yet such is the case. The Psalmist records the same fact in other words when he declares that—

The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him And delivereth them. (Psa. 34:7.)

Angelic ministrations are unseen, but they are real; they form a part of “the ways of Providence” in relation to the children of God. Such a thought cannot but be helpful to all who are the subjects of this service. Who can be effectively against such persons? Trials and Difficulties may seem insurmountable, but with such assistance nothing is impossible.

-------

¹ Eureka, vol. 3, pp. 680 and 681.

Resource Manager · December 12, 2010

CHAPTER II

The world to come—Its subjection to Christ—Lower than the angels— Reconciliation for sins—Sin and sins—The origin of sin—Jesus and the sin nature—”My brethren” —Taking hold the seeds of Abraham.

HERE for a moment we have to pause in the argument to note the writer’s statement as to what the angels are, and the searching application which he makes of the argument so far as it has gone. The angels, who are spirits, and ministers (Heb. 1:7, margin), are sent forth “as ministering spirits” “to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation.” Such a thought may well cause a pause in argument. If the Scriptures had not laid down clearly that this was the case, who would have presumed to entertain such an idea? No one! Yet the Scriptures go even further in reference to these wondrous beings, for the saints are to judge angels (1 Cor. 6:3).

The application in view is made as follows:

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away from them. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward: how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard: God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will. (Heb. 2:1-4.)

The “word spoken by angels” was the Law associated with the first covenant. That Law was “ordained by angels” (Acts 7:53), or as the Authorised Version expresses it, it was received “by the disposition of angels.” Its stringency is well known. It hemmed men round on every side. “Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this Law to do them” (Deut. 27:26); hence “every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward.” If that had been the case in regard to the Law, it was needful to be doubly careful in regard to the word spoken by the Lord Jesus, who was superior to angels, testified to, as it was, by the signs performed by him and his followers who continued the ministry. The symbol used in the application is that of a boat which has slipped its moorings. In such an event the boat was lost; it must flow with the tide until disaster overwhelmed it. Hence it is for us to see that we are fast moored to the word spoken by the Lord, both as a thing believed and as a rule of conduct, “Stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.” If we continue so doing, we shall attain unto “so great salvation,” as it is described, a salvation preached by the. Lord, confirmed by those who heard him, and vividly portrayed in the wonderful symbols in the Apocalypse.

We may now resume the argument for the superiority of Jesus above the angels, as it is continued in the second chapter of the epistle. The first to be noted there is e. that the world to come has been prospectively put in subjection under him.

This reason is, of course, closely related to that which concerns the throne, but extends it much further than the original promises to David necessarily implied. The Davidic covenant only involves the occupancy of his throne over Israel, in Jerusalem, by his seed. The subjection of the world to come involves universal kingship. In the Greek the word for “world” is oikoumene, “the habitable.” This comes from oikeo, to occupy a house, or to reside; conveying therefore the idea of something which is inhabited. In its usage oikoumene was applied to the Greek portion of the earth; later it was used to designate the Roman Empire (the world of the Emperor), and also the whole world. In this case it may be given the widest interpretation, and be applied to the subjection of the whole earth to Christ, in the constitution of the Millennial Age. It will be noticed that the reference is to “the world to come of which we speak.” It is therefore “a world” connected with the things already mentioned in reference to “the sceptre of the kingdom,” the throne, and the Father’s declaration, “This day have I begotten thee.” This declaration occurs in a Psalm which guarantees to the Only Begotten of the Father “the uttermost parts of the earth” as his possession.

Such an application is implied by the language of the Psalm on which the Apostle’s argument is based.

What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that Thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels: Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, And didst set him over the works of Thy hands: Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet. (Heb. 2:6-8.)

The Psalm from which the quotation is taken is introduced and ended by the words, “O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is Thy name in all the earth” (Psalm 8:1 and 9). That we are justified in making the widest possible application of the “all things,” and the “world to come,” is evidenced by the argument which follows. “For in that He subjected all things unto him, He left nothing that is not subject to him” (Heb. 2:8). Universal dominion, “from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth,” is the only possible fulfilment of such a statement.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

But is it justifiable to apply this Psalm to Jesus? Had we been left with the Psalm alone we might have hesitated to make such an application, for there is nothing to suggest it in the language used. In the light of New Testament references, however, there is no room to question the appropriateness of it. Not only have we the instance now before us, it is also found in the following cases. When Jesus was about to enter the city of Jerusalem, and the people welcomed him as their Messiah, the Pharisees cavilled at it. In reply he said, quoting from this same Psalm, “Yea, did ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” (Matt. 21:16). Paul’s references to the reign of Christ also imply the same application of the Psalm. “He put all things in subjection under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:27). “Christ ... far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and He put all things in subjection under his feet” (Eph. 1:19-22). Such language is evidently suggested by the Psalm.

There is one point in this quotation that needs a little attention. David had said, “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels.” It seems somewhat strange that such a passage should be introduced in the course of an argument, the design of which was to prove that Jesus is superior to angels.. It would almost seem that the writer was caught tripping in his argument, giving the enemy an opportunity to take advantage of the weakness. There is no mistake; the argument is perfectly sound. The inferiority implied by being “a little lower than the angels” was a temporary one, and it was part of a purpose which in the end was to give the Son “a name which is above every name.” He was made lower than the angels “for the suffering of death.” Angels cannot die (Luke 20:36). To suffer death it was necessary for Jesus to be of a lower nature. God’s plan required that he should be of the Adamic nature, as we shall see later, but having died, he is now “crowned with glory and honour,” to realise in due time the universal supremacy involved by the promised subjection to him of the world to come. The ground of that coming exaltation is found in the final argument of this section of the epistle.

That argument is, f. that Jesus is better than the angels because he is the author of salvation to many brethren, having made reconciliation for the sins of his people.

No angel could have accomplished this work. Two things stood in the way. In the first place, as already pointed out, angels could not die, and death was essential to effect reconciliation. All the Old Testament types illustrate this. In the second place, the angels have no connection with the race that needs the reconciliation. Neither of these disabilities stood in the way of Jesus of Nazareth. He could, and did, die, and he was “all of one” with those he came to save.

The consideration of this section opens up some very important elements of the Truth. It involves questions which have been the cause of much controversy, and which are still the subject of considerable misconception in some quarters. They concern the introduction of sin, the constitution of the sin nature, and the Divine plan for the removal of sins, and the ending of the sin nature.

Sin was no part of the creation of God. When creation was complete, it is declared that “God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). The physical constitution of our first parents was included in the “everything” of which this was affirmed. It is safe to affirm that sin, using the word both in its active application as transgression, and in the other, or physical, sense of sin in the flesh, did not then exist, for in no sense could it be said that sin, either in act or nature, is a good thing, notwithstanding the contentions of those who advocate what are aptly termed “clean-flesh” theories. Some have questioned the appropriateness of speaking of sin in reference to nature, claiming that it can only refer to transgression. They quote “Sin is the transgression of the law.” This is simply to quote one Scriptural definition against other Scriptural doctrines. No one can read the Epistle to the Romans carefully, and accept its teaching candidly, without realising that sin is used in reference to something else than action. It is clearly used to define that which is the cause of sin in action. Let us review a few of these sayings. “Sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandments all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead.” “Sin finding occasion, through the commandment, beguiled me, and through it slew me.” “Sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me ... that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful.” “So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.” “The law of sin which is in my members.” (Rom. 7.¹)

There is no avoiding the teaching of these quotations and its bearing upon the subject in hand. Sin, as a physical evil in the flesh, termed “lust” by James (chap. 1:14), leads to sinful actions. And yet all was once very good, including the nature of man. Why the change? Because “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin” (Rom. 5:12). By that fact “sin in the flesh” came into existence, became a part of the physical constitution of mankind, and has so remained, for “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one” (Job. 14:4). The truth is further evidenced by considering the matter of temptation. When man was in his “very good “condition, it was needful for an outside agent to be employed as a tempter. Until the serpent questioned, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree [margin, all the trees] of the garden?” the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil had not exercised any fascination over the minds of Adam and Eve. Yet, it was there, “a delight to the eyes,” beautiful like all the rest of the creation. It was the serpent’s question, and his subsequent he, that led to sin in Eden. No such outside source is needed now.” Out of the heart of men evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness” (Mark 7:21 and 22).” Each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” (Jas. 1:14), whereas Eve was beguiled by the serpent, and the woman gave to the man. Then the temptation came from without, now it is from within; for the natural tendency is to sin.

-------

¹ This subject is further discussed in relation to chapter x. See pp. 181 and 182.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

It is necessary to call attention to these elementary facts, because the argument of the epistle cannot be followed aright unless they are discerned. Apart from them it would not be possible to see how Jesus, “by the grace of God, should taste death for ¹ every man.” Some difficulty may be experienced in regard to this, and a plausible argument advanced for universalism. It is necessary to note the general idea of the passage. As will be seen later, it is the community of Christ with men that is in view, and the results which arise therefrom consequent on his death. He was “the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world,” the propitiation for the whole world. His sacrifice is sufficient for this, and will ultimately effect it. Yet it is not true to suggest that every man will obtain the benefits accruing thereby. God’s offer of salvation is conditional, and if the terms of the offer are not complied with, the efficacy of the offering will not be realised.

The participation of Jesus in human nature was essential. The “author of salvation” had to be “made perfect through sufferings”—another stumblingblock for all believers of trinitarian and kindred doctrines, for how could one who was already Divine be made perfect? Yet the Old Testament provided for such a fact, for he and those he was to redeem were “brethren,” “for he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb. 2:11), in support of which assertion the Psalms were once again appealed to. In this instance it was an unquestionably Messianic Psalm.

I will declare Thy name unto my brethren:

In the midst of the congregation will I praise Thee.

(Psa. 22:22.)

Every reader of this Psalm who believed in Jesus, and for such only was the epistle written, recognised its applicability to him who cried, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” Whose hands and feet were pierced, and for whose garments lots were cast (verses 1:16, and 18). Being then a “brother” of those he came to redeem, he could be made “perfect through sufferings” thereby finally to bring many “sons” into glory. The addition of Sonship to brotherhood is also based upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament (Isa. 8:18, and Heb. 2:13), and is an indication of the wealth of allusions to Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The statement to which these considerations are intended to lead in the argument before us is:

Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Heb. 2:14 and 15.)

These verses imply that whatever the physical constitution of “the children” may be, that was the nature of which “he” partook in order that he might bring to naught, or destroy (Authorised Version), the devil— sin in the flesh.² Thinking to honour “the author of salvation,” orthodox theologians contend that he was of a different nature from all mankind. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, so illogically repudiated by Protestants, is the necessary and unavoidable outcome of any such theory.³ If that doctrine be rejected, as it must be, the whole idea is folly, for Job’s question stands for ever in the way: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” As a matter of fact, so far from honouring the Son by such a theory, they take from him his highest claim to the love and admiration of men. Viewed as a superior being of a superhuman nature, his contest with sin was, at all events, comparatively easy. But as one “born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal. 4:4), made in the likeness of sinful flesh, like unto his brethren, tempted in all points like them, his contest was real. Viewed in this light, Jesus stands out grand and peerless: an example, as well as a sacrifice, for the sons of men who will follow his steps.

That Jesus should have been of the condemned sin-stricken nature of his “brethren” was a necessity, for God must be manifested, or vindicated, as just in being the justifier of those who believe in Jesus. Any other hypothesis would involve substitution, and that is an idea totally subversive of the Truth. It was needful that sin should be condemned in the flesh that the righteousness of God might be declared; hence it is recorded, “For the death that he died he died unto sin once” (Rom. 6:10), he “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26), whereas now “in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.”

In the epistle the reason for this fact is set forth as follows:

For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham. Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Heb. 2:16-18.)

As this is a most important element of the argument, it is desirable to note various renderings of this passage. Compared with the Authorised Version, the principal alteration (other than the omission of the italicised words) is in the tense, which the Authorised Version places in the past, though it supplies the present in the margin, thus making the two renderings agree in fact while differing in words. Reference may be made to the undermentioned alternative renderings.

-------

¹ It is worthy of note that the Greek used here is huper, on behalf of, not a substitute for.

² That the devil and sin in the flesh are parallel ideas in this passage will be evident by a comparison of the passages in which devil and sin in the flesh, or sin (in its application to nature), are referred to.

³ For the benefit of any possible Roman Catholic readers, it may be pointed out that they are equally as illogical in their beliefs as their Protestant contemporaries. At some stage it has to be contended that an unclean thing brought forth a clean thing, and it matters little at what place in the genealogical line this impossible supposition is placed.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

Besides, he does not in any way take hold of angels, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham; hence he was obliged to be assimilated to his brethren in all things, etc. (Emphatic Diaglot.)

The Diaglot also gives the following alternative rendering:

For truly it (i.e., the fear of death, or death itself) does not lay hold of (or seize on) angels, but of the seed of Abraham it does lay hold.

Hence he was obliged, etc. Moreover, by no means doth he take hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. Hence it was necessary he

should be made like his brethren in all things, etc. (Macknight.)

For, doubtless of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold, wherefore it did behove him in all things to be made like to his brethren.

(Young’s Literal Translation.)

From these translations one point emerges clearly, and that is that the tense of the Authorised Version is not correct, and that in endeavouring to apply the meaning of the passage in regard to “taking hold” of the seed of Abraham, we must not look for any completed action in the past, but to something which is either present or continuous. A close attention to the whole passage will indicate that the latter is the true construction. The principal point to be first decided is, Who is the “he” or “it” of the earlier portion of the passage? If this can be definitely fixed, the explanation will be simple; until it is decided, difficulty is sure to arise.

The Authorised Version implies that “he” means Jesus, and the usual commentator makes this application, contending that the term “takes hold” has the idea of assisting. That the Greek word ¹ can be used in this sense must be admitted, but from an examination of the occasions where it occurs, it is evident that this was not the usual idea intended to be conveyed, for it has far more frequently an adverse meaning. Among the definitions given by Liddell and Scott are, “to take, or get besides; to lay hold of, seize, attack, as an illness; to overtake, surprise,” and it is in this sense that it is generally used in the Scriptures. We shall best get at what is intended by following the argument carefully. It runs somewhat as follows: There is something, or someone, which takes hold of the seed of Abraham, but which does not take hold of angels. Because of this it behoved Jesus (for all agree in the application of this verse) to be made of flesh and blood nature, like unto the seed of Abraham, that he might destroy that which caused death, i.e. the devil. Put thus, the matter is certainly more clear, and the true answer is suggested. Diabolos, the devil, or sin in the flesh, does not take hold of angels. Diabolos has “the power of death,” and as we have already seen, angels cannot die. But it does take hold of the seed of Abraham, for they are “partakers of flesh and blood,” in which “dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18). Left alone they must die, and perish for ever. It needed to be taken away, and it was for that very purpose that Jesus was born, a member of the human race, “like unto his brethren,” that sin might be condemned and they who had “the fear of death “ be delivered from the bondage in which they were held, ² and ultimately be made partakers of the Divine nature.

At the risk of appearing to labour the point, the error of the popular application of the “he” in verse 16 to Jesus Christ may be indicated by looking at the difficulty of such an interpretation. If it were intended to be so applied the language would need to be amended. It would need to be read that, as he purposed to take hold of, or assist, the seed of Abraham, it behoved him to be made like unto them; that is to say, it would need a future tense to be read into verse 16, and it would also imply the erroneous doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ. But the language used does nothing of the kind. The “taking hold” was already in operation and would continue in operation, and because of this, because “the children are sharers in flesh and blood,” he partook of the same to effect, finally, their deliverance.

Since the time when “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin,” the possession of sin in the flesh has necessitated the disappearance of every generation of the race into the dust of death. That was, and is, the position, and therefore Jesus was made a partaker of flesh and blood that he might make propitiation, or reconciliation, for the sins of the people. That reconciliation or atonement has been made because he was able to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, having been made perfect through sufferings, whereby he has been made the “author of salvation” to many “sons” whom he will bring unto glory. This was a work which angels could not do by reason of the fact that they were not associated with the human race.

The outcome of these facts in relation to Jesus enabled him to become “a merciful and faithful high priest.” This phase, however, follows later, and can wait until that contrast is before us. Here we leave the first argument of the epistle—that Jesus is better than angels. We have seen the reasons for this fact, and as a result can enter into the spirit of apostolic references to Jesus which declare that he has a name which is above every name, a name at which every knee shall bow, that he in all things may have the pre-eminence, for he, of God, is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.

-------

¹ Epilambanomai.

² It may be objected to this argument that reference is only made to the seed of Abraham, and that if the meaning were as suggested the reference should be wider, and made to apply to all the human race. The answer is that the Apostle is dealing with the salvation of “many sons,” whom he calls “brethren,” and who were to be related to the salvation in view by being incorporated into the covenant with Abraham to which so much attention is given later in the epistle. All else are ignored, and the argument is complete.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

CHAPTER III

A prophet like unto Moses—Parallels and contrasts—The house of God—The Establisher of the house—A servant and a Son—Unbelief and its effects.

ALTHOUGH in the last stage of the argument to prove the superiority of Jesus above angels we have been led to contemplate him as a high priest, another item falls to be noticed before the priesthood of Christ is enlarged upon in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is fitting that the order should be so, as the comparison of Jesus with the high priest forms the crown of the argument.

Evidently the mention of the high priest at the end of chapter 2 gave rise to the next idea, for we read:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, even Jesus; who was faithful to Him that appointed him, as also was Moses in all his house. (Heb. 3:1 and 2.)

The reference to Moses commences a chain of reasoning the purpose of which was to show that Jesus was superior to Moses.. That such a comparison should be made by one who desired to establish the supremacy of the Christian religion over the Mosaic Law was inevitable; the language of Moses himself invited it. He had declared to Israel:

The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. ... The Lord said unto me ... I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him. (Deut. 18:15-19.)

Moses, then, was a type of the Prophet who should come, and as every antitype must be greater than the type, it follows from Moses’ own prediction that Messiah must be the greater of the two. Israel might deny the application of the argument to Jesus of Nazareth: they do so to-day, but the fact underlying the argument remains as an unquestionable truth, and if Jesus be the Messiah his superiority is certain. It would therefore be folly to forsake the teachings of Christ for the “weak and beggarly elements” of the Mosaic Law.

That Jesus answers to the requirements of the prophecy will be apparent to anyone who compares the careers and missions of the two. From the earliest period of the life of Moses the parallels between him and Christ are manifest: his escape from death as an infant, his rejection by his own people, his mediation, his self-abnegation, his work as a law-giver and prophet; in all these he pointed forward to One who was to come. It matters not which of these things we consider, in every comparison Jesus is the greater.

In the circumstances of his birth and salvation from an early death everything in the case of Moses was natural and called for only the providential working of God. In the case of Jesus, his birth was miraculous and his deliverance was effected on warning and advice given by angelic ministrants.
In his upbringing and education Moses was learned in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” Divine wisdom implanted by the Spirit of God marked the career of the Son of God.
At the age of forty years he was rejected by his own people. Even in rejection the “greater” feature is manifested. Moses fled from Egypt and was for forty years in Midian. Jesus remained among his enemies and, being “despised and rejected of men,” was crucified.
Forty years afterwards, commissioned by God, Moses returned to Egypt and finally effected the deliverance of Israel therefrom. Jesus will return to the scene of his rejection to effect a far greater deliverance for Israel, comprehending in the case of “Israel after the Spirit” deliverance from sin and death, and a participation in the Divine nature. It is significant that in this deliverance there will be also a triumph over a system which “spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.”
As a leader of the people Moses manifested the power of God by wonders and signs. Jesus did this far more frequently, and will do so on a far greater scale when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,” and they “that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.”
In no phase of his career is the position of Moses more marked than in his mission as a law-giver, for the Law itself is best known as “the Law of Moses.” But that law was for the guidance of one nation, living in a comparatively small territory, and its rewards and punishments were bounded by the present life. It could give no participation in a life beyond. The Law of Christ has permeated the world. The issues of obedience are not confined to the life that now is, they involve the eternal destinies of all to whom they apply.
The same comparison, with the same result, appears in their offices as mediators. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant—that of the Law. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, which relates all who enter into its bonds to the eternal things of God’s purpose. This will be elaborated later.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

The foregoing considerations, which are by no means exhaustive, show the superiority of Jesus over Moses. Others could be suggested, but these are sufficient to prove the point. We may now see how it is established in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The section in which it is discussed is introduced by an exhortation: “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, even Jesus” (Heb. 3:1). This is an invitation to consider Jesus as an antitype of both Moses and Aaron. An apostle is one sent. Moses was “sent” unto Pharaoh that he might bring the children of Israel out of Egypt (Exod. 3:10). Jesus was “sent” (John 12:49) to proclaim the words of God and to deliver His people from the bondage of sin. In due time he will be sent again to effect “the restoration of all things whereof God spake by the mouth of His holy prophets” (Acts 3:20 and 21), and in connection therewith to secure the final salvation of the people of God.

In following the reasons for the superiority of Jesus as an apostle, when compared with Moses, we may first enumerate them as in the case of the previous argument. They are:

That Jesus as the “establisher” of the house of God is necessarily greater than Moses, who will be a part of the house.
That whilst Moses was a servant in the house of God, Jesus was a Son.
That Israel who came out of Egypt with Moses failed to attain the promised rest, but it must needs be that some shall enter into God’s rest (the keeping of a sabbath).

Taking these in the order named, we note first a. That Jesus was the “establisher” of the house of God of which Moses will be a part, and that consequently Jesus is worthy of more honour than Moses.

Before looking at the argument, it is necessary first of all to see the proper application of the expression “his house” as it occurs in the passage. A cursory reading would probably suggest that it was a reference to the house of Christ. But this is quite foreign to the argument, and also to the general usage of the term “house” in a metaphorical sense in the Scriptures. The margin of the Revised Version contains a note “that is, God’s house, see Num. 7:8 (This passage is referred to below.) The house of God is alluded to elsewhere in the New Testament. “That thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). “Having a great priest over the house of God” (Heb. 10:21). “The time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God” (1 Pet. 4:17). This house is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). The house of God is, therefore, the community of believers of any and every age and race, each unit of whom is a “lively stone” occupying a place in the building.

Of this house Jesus is the “establisher.” The point is not well brought out in either the Authorised or the Revised Version. In the former it is expressed, “He who hath builded the house hath more glory than the house.” The latter expresses it: “He hath been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by so much as he that built the house hath more honour than the house” (Heb. 3:3). The word which is here represented by built is kataskeuazo. It includes more than building, for it covers—to prepare, furnish, or equip; to build a house and furnish it. In the Scriptures it is rendered build (Heb. 3:3 and 4), make (Heb. 9:2), ordain (Heb. 9:6), prepare (Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:17; 7:27; Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20). An examination of these passages will show the meaning to be attached to the word in its Scriptural usage, and will emphasise the fact that it covers the whole process of preparing, building, and furnishing the house. This was not a part of the mission of Moses. The law which is associated with him did not lead to this. It was added to the original covenant (Gal. 3:19), it came in alongside that trespasses might abound (Rom. 5:20). On the other hand, the whole mission of Christ is to establish the house of God. Of it he is “the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:20 and 21). When that temple is finally manifested in the earth Christ will be recognised as the Son “over” it, or, to adopt another figure, he will be the husband (i.e. the house band) of the church— the church of the living God, which is the house of God. In that glorified church of the firstborn Moses will occupy a place as a stone or a pillar, and therefore subordinate to the Son.

In this house of God Moses was a servant. This leads us to the second of the reasons, viz. b. That whilst Moses was a servant in the house of God, Jesus was a Son. The point of the contrast between him and Jesus is thus expressed:

And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant for a testimony of those things which were afterwards to be spoken: but Christ as a Son over his house. (Heb. 3:5 and 6.)

It is significant that the expression upon which the argument before us is based relates to an occasion when circumstances required that the exaltation of Moses should be emphasised as much as possible. It arose out of the sedition of Aaron and Miriam, when they spake against Moses, and God intervened to vindicate him.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

Hear now My words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make Myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all Mine house; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses? (Num. 7:6-8.)

My servant Moses! It should be pointed out that the word used is not that which signifies bond service, but a free and honourable service. It is not used elsewhere. It had already been proved in the course of the previous argument that Jesus was a Son, the only begotten of the Father. A son is necessarily of greater standing in the house than any servant, and thus Jesus as the Son was superior to Moses in whom -the Jew boasted.

Out of these considerations there arises an exhortation which is as applicable to-day as it was to the Hebrew brethren of the first century—”Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end? “IF! This small word is very arresting as it occurs here. It has been said that the house of God is the community of believers. The “if” reminds us that it is a matter of continued belief, not of one individual act of believing. “Rooted and grounded” is another apostolic expression appropriate to the subject. A writer has said “belief is life-giving.” It is so because actions spring out of beliefs; consequently if belief wanes, actions will do the same, and there will be a failure to “endure unto the end.”

This conclusion is enforced by reference to events in the history of Israel, out of which reference the third reason which remains to be considered arises. Before dealing with it we may look at the illustration from the past which is used to enforce the exhortation in hand. It refers to Israel’s failure in the past. Quoting from the Psalms, it is said:

To-day if ye shall hear his voice,

Harden not your hearts as in the provocation,

Like as in the day of temptation in the wilderness

Wherewith your fathers tempted Me by proving Me,

And saw My works forty years.

Wherefore I was displeased with this generation

And said, They do alway err in their heart:

But they did not know My ways:

As I sware in My wrath,

They shall not enter into My rest.

(Heb. 3:7-11.)

What was the cause of the abject failure of Israel? The answer is supplied in the phrase, “An evil heart of unbelief.” This is the natural possession of all men. All history testifies to the fact. Even the incidents of the Exodus, from the plagues in Egypt to the wonders and terrors at Sinai, did not prevent the manifestation of that unbelief in Israel then, neither did the wondrous works of the Messiah prevent the same manifestation in his days. Well may the writer add, “Take heed!” and “Exhort one another daily.” The events of the past are recorded for the instruction of the present. This instruction was never more needed than it is to-day, when the whole tendency of the age is against belief in God and His Word. The whole passage (Heb. 3:7-19) is a strong exhortation to continued belief and confidence in God, and a warning against the “deceitfulness of sin” and the evils of unbelief.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

CHAPTER IV

God’s promised rest—Israel’s failure—The rest that remains—The Sabbath as a sign—An exhortation—The application.

ARISING out of this exhortation we have the third point of the contrast, viz. c. That Israel who came out of Egypt with Moses failed to attain the promised rest, but it must needs be that some shall enter into God’s rest.

The fourth chapter opens by linking the warning of the past and the privileges and duties of the present. The promise of entering into rest is there associated with the proclamation of the gospel. However strange such a combination may seem to minds imbued with the theories of orthodox religion, it is an association which the Truth explains. The gospel preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8), to Israel in the wilderness, and by Jesus and the Apostles had to do with the inheritance of the land. It was also concerned with the millennial rest to be realised after the six thousand years of sin and travail. This is the necessary background which must be kept in mind to enable the argument to be followed. The proclamation in the wilderness failed to fit Israel to enter upon the rest. Under the New Covenant some must enter into the antitypical Sabbath rest. Therefore, he through whom that rest will be attained must be greater than Moses and Joshua, the leaders of the past.

In this argument we are concerned with the results of the two missions. The object for which Israel had been brought out of Egypt was that they might be established in the land of Canaan as the Kingdom of God. They were a people whom He had chosen to be a peculiar treasure, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation (Exod. 19:5 and 6), who were to dwell in the land which He claimed as His own (Lev. 25:23), under laws which He had declared to them. That was the object; the realisation fell far short of it. Instead of journeying direct from Egypt to Canaan, as they might have done, they wandered in the wilderness for forty years. Unfaithfulness was the cause of this difference between the possible and the actual; there was “an evil heart of unbelief” in the people which caused them to “fa11 away from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). At the end of those forty years Moses, in his last address to the children of Israel, used the expression which furnishes the point of the Apostle’s argument in what remains of the contrast between Moses and Christ. “For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord thy God giveth thee” (Deut. 12:9). Referring to the incidents of the Exodus the Psalmist says:

Forty years long was I grieved with that generation,And said, It is a people that do err in their heart,

And they have not known My ways: Wherefore I sware in My wrath, That they should not enter into My rest.

(Psa. 95:10 and 11.)

The “rest” which is here referred to was one which is associated with God, for he calls it “My rest.” It is also associated with Zion and the temple. David referred to this “rest” and connected it with the temple. “As for me, it was in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God” (1 Chron. 28:2). At the dedication of the temple, at the conclusion of the prayer, Solomon said: “Now, therefore, arise, O Lord God, into Thy resting-place, Thou and the ark of Thy strength: let Thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let Thy saints rejoice in goodness” (2 Chron. 6:41). In the Psalms similar references occur.

Arise, O Lord, into Thy resting-place; Thou and the ark of Thy strength.

For the Lord hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation.

This is My resting-place for ever: Here will I dwell: for I have desired it.

(Psa. 132:8-14.)

In the past there had been no fulfilment of the purpose thus declared. The most that can be said of the past is that the incidents of Israel’s history were typical of things to come. The foregoing quotation from the Psalms sufficiently indicates this. So does the usage of the word “rest” by Isaiah. “Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool: what manner of house will ye build unto Me? and what place shall be My rest?” (Isa. 66:1). The temple of Solomon was standing when this was spoken; in it God had been manifested to Israel upon the mercy seat sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices. Yet His “rest” had not been established, otherwise there would have been no point in the questions spoken through Isaiah. How could it be so when the history of the people in the wilderness and in the land had generally been that of a stiff-necked and hardhearted nation, usually perverting God’s laws and rejecting His messengers? And this is the point in relation to the respective missions of Moses and Jesus. Viewing the work of Joshua as a continuation of that of Moses, it is said, “For if Joshua had given them rest He would not have spoken afterward of another day” (Heb. 4:8). Nevertheless prophet and psalmist had spoken of another day and of an entering into rest. Disobedient Israel had failed. The rest had not been attained. Consequently as God’s purposes cannot fail there must yet be a rest provided for the people of God. We can now appreciate the point of the quotation. A “rest” formed an essential feature of the purpose of God, symbolised from the beginning by the fact that at the end of the creative period God “rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it, because that in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” (Gen. 2:2 and 3). Israel had been led from Egypt to Canaan by Moses, the objective being a “rest.” They had not attained thereto, Moses himself being witness, as we have seen. Neither had his successor, Joshua, led them into such a rest. He had been a successful leader, and accomplished the conquest of the land, but his labours left much unsettled, and the disturbed period of the Judges followed. But as God’s purpose cannot fail, and His word shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish that which He pleases, and prosper in the thing whereto He sends it, that “rest” must finally be established. Consequently, although Moses and Joshua had failed to accomplish the purpose, someone must do so, and who could that be save the Messiah for whom Israel looked, “great David’s greater son,” the “greater than Solomon,” who building the temple of the Lord (Zech. 6:13) shall provide the place where God shall “dwell” or “rest”? It is of this place that God speaks through Ezekiel in connection with the temple which is to be a house of prayer for all peoples: “Son of man, the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the house of Israel shall no more defile My holy name” (Ezek. 43:7). Unless the Prophets were false, this must be accomplished, consequently the mission of the Messiah was to effect, on a higher plane, that which Moses and Joshua failed to realise. The conclusion might be distasteful to the Jew when applied to Jesus of Nazareth; it could not be disputed when applied as a proposition apart from any personal identification. It was thus shown by an unanswerable process of reasoning that, provided Jesus of Nazareth be the Messiah—and this could be abundantly proved—it must be recognised that he was worthy of more glory than Moses.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

In further speaking of the rest that is coming, reference is made to the type contained in the records of creation. There had been six days of work and one of rest. That day of rest was incorporated into the Mosaic Law: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work: but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God ... for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it” (Exod. 20:8-11). The Mosaic Law contained much that was typical of that which was to come; it contained the form of knowledge and of the truth; it was a shadow of good things to come. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to assume that the seventh-day rest was also a type. It is in fact plainly declared to be so by Paul himself: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon, or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come” (Col. 2:16 and 17). The application, although never specifically made in the Scriptures, can only relate to the opinion widely held in past times that human life on earth in its present mortal state was to be measured by seven thousand years, each thousand years being the antitype of one day. The final revelation of the purpose of God contained in the Apocalypse endorses such a view when it records that the saints who “rest from their labours” (chap. 14:13) “live and reign with Christ a thousand years” (chap. 20:4).

In this “day” when Christ shall reign over all the earth there will be a millennial rest for the people of God—the keeping of a sabbath. “There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9), not a rest of idleness—that would be no great attraction—but a rest from all that is associated with the evil state of the six days of labour, compassed by sin and evil.

The exhortation connected with this hope is powerful. “Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience.” “Some must enter.” It is for us to strive that we may be among the some! The contrast between the experiences of Israel and the promised rest that remains for the people of God also enforces the concluding words of the section.

For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. (Heb. 4:12 and 13.)

Comment is unnecessary; experience of the operations of that word of God is the best help to an understanding of the passage. A personal application can be made by all, and an appreciation of the active character of the Word will unquestionably result. If we could always remember that “all things are naked and laid open” to God much would be altered in our lives, and the character developed would be so much the better.

The concluding portion of this chapter forms an introduction to the matters which follow in the next. It is really a portion of the exhortation which precedes it, and is an interesting illustration of the way in which the writer naturally passes from one phase to another. It links up with the close of the second chapter, where reference was made to “a merciful and faithful high priest” who made “reconciliation for the sins of his people.”

Having then a great high priest who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:14 and 15.)

It is not necessary to comment on these verses; they are easily applied, and the idea they contain will be found to be incorporated into the argument which follows. They associate the Son of God with priesthood, an association based upon the reasoning already advanced, in which Sonship and kingship were seen to be involved by the second Psalm, whilst the 110th, clearly Messianic in character, establishes priesthood with the Lord’s anointed.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

CHAPTER V

Priesthood—Patriarchal times—The choice of Aaron—The Levites— The qualifications of a priest—The priestly qualifications of Christ— The call to priesthood—The passing of the Aaronic priesthood—A digression—First principles.

WE have now to consider the last of the three comparisons to which reference has been made, that which concerns the superiority of Jesus over the high priests of the Mosaic constitution. As was pointed out previously, this is the highest comparison that could be made in the argument for the supremacy of Jesus over the various personalities who were connected with the giving and administration of the Law. In every age the high priest was the chief figure in the religious life of the Jews under the Law; apart from him the services must have ceased, for he alone could officiate in that greatest of all the Mosaic rites, the presentation of the sacrificial blood in the Most Holy place on the Day of Atonement. Hence, to complete the argument, it was necessary to show that in the new, Christian, dispensation there was a high priest not merely equal to, but in every respect far above, the priests with whom Israel were familiar in the temple services.

Although priesthood occupies a prominent place in the various religions of antiquity, it is somewhat singular that very few references to priests are found in the Scriptures before the institution of the Law at Sinai. The universal recognition of priesthood, however, is a clear indication that it must have existed in primitive times; the fact that it was used in connection with false religions and for bad ends does not imply that it was of human origin, any more than does the fact that religion was mostly corrupt involve the idea that originally it was the product of human imagination. It was a Divine institution, thwarted and perverted by mankind for selfish and pernicious ends. It originated in consequence of sin, and will remain in operation so long as sin continues. In man’s state of innocency priesthood was not necessary, and communion between God and man did not depend upon any priestly mediator. The entrance of sin changed this, and with the institution of sacrifice as the basis of acceptable approach to God there was a necessity for provision to be made, sooner or later, for a particular individual or class of individuals to perform the necessary ceremonies. In the chapters of the Bible which relate the history of antediluvian men no reference is made to a priest. It is possible that in this period every man offered his own sacrifice; Cain and Abel are instances in point, and may illustrate the recognised practice of that age.

The first reference to a priest occurs in the records of patriarchal times. Melchizedek is the priest in question, and it is very suggestive when we bear in mind the use which is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews of his priesthood in relation to that of Christ.

In the history of the patriarchs there is no mention of any order or line of men who acted as priests; it would rather appear that this was the prerogative of the head of the family, or the firstborn thereof. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob each built altars and called upon the Name of the Lord. If the suggestion as to the firstborn be correct, it will explain a reference to Esau as “a profane person,” “who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright” (Heb. 12:16). The word in the Greek here is bebelos. Parkhurst defines the word for profane as from be, denoting privation or separation, and belos, a threshold or pavement, particularly of a temple or consecrated enclosure, so that bebelos will properly denote one who either is, or ought to be, debarred from the threshold or entrance of a temple, as the Latin profanus likewise is strictly one who stands procul à or pro fano, at a distance from or before the temple or consecrated enclosure. The use of the term would therefore imply that, by reason of Esau despising his birthright, he cut himself off, not only from the birthright and the Abrahamic promises with which it was connected, but also from the right to approach the Deity as the offerer of sacrifice on behalf of the family.

The inference drawn in regard to the priestly position of the firstborn finds support in the incidents connected with the selection of a particular tribe to serve in the tabernacle in the time of Moses. Before the institution of the Aaronic priesthood and the separation of the tribe of Levi, recognised priests were to be found among the children of Israel. Thus at the giving of the Law, Moses was commanded, “Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish. And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them” (Exod. 19:21 and 22, also 24). It was after this that the further command was given: “And bring thou near unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto Me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons” (Exod. 28:1). From this time the priesthood was confined to that family, and no one who was not of the seed of Aaron was allowed to approach near to offer incense before the Lord (Num. 16:40).

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

Shortly after the selection of the family of Aaron to act as priests, the tribe of Levi was set apart to attend to the services connected with the religious life of Israel. In relation to this choice of the Levites it is written:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel; and the Levites shall be Mine, for all the firstborn are Mine; on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I hallowed unto Me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast; Mine they shall be; I am the Lord. (Num. 3:11-13.)

Seeing that from this time forth the service of the tabernacle was confined to members of the tribe of Levi, that the priests must be of a particular family of that tribe, and that the tribe was taken “instead of all the firstborn,” it is obvious that in the past the duties which they were to perform must have been carried out, so far as they were applicable before the building of the tabernacle, by the firstborn of the nation.

It did not follow that because a man was of the family of Aaron he could become a priest in Israel. Certain conditions were imposed, and unless these were complied with no one was permitted to participate in the higher services of the law. Definite commands of a stringent character were given concerning his family life, and physical blemishes (disqualified from the right to minister in the priestly office.

Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or is scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire; he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not My sanctuaries; for I am the Lord which sanctify them. (Lev. 21:17-23.)

The reiteration of the word “blemish” is impressive, and finds its chief importance in the antitype of the high priest—Jesus—the apostle and high priest of our profession—holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

The head of the Aaronic family was the high priest, Aaron himself being the first of the order. He occupied the supreme position in Israel’s religious arrangements. In a very real sense he represented in his person the whole ritual of the Law, and in every age he was to the faithful Israelite the supreme representative of his religion.

This brief statement in relation to priesthood will show the importance of the arguments we are now to consider. Sin was an insuperable barrier to salvation; sacrifice was the only appointed means of providing an atonement for the sinner; none but the priests could offer sacrifice; hence the priesthood was an absolutely indispensable element of the national economy. It will thus be seen how in this section of the epistle we reach the crisis of the argument in its personal comparisons.

Before proceeding to examine the comparisons whereby the superiority of Jesus over the high priest is established, we may stay to notice the section which introduces this phase of the matter. It assumes the priesthood of Christ and refers to the objects of the priestly institution which it was necessary should be exhibited in him. He is referred to as “a great high priest who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God.” The essentials for this position are then set out in order so that the application to Jesus may be made plain.

The readers of the epistle who were conversant with the main principles of the truth concerning Jesus of Nazareth would recognise the truth propounded in the statement at the end of the fourth chapter, that he was “touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” and had been “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). They would also recognise that such a fact enabled them to come boldly to the throne of grace for needful mercy and help. They might not, however, be able to so clearly discern how these requirements were involved in the priesthood of old. This is thus expressed:

For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can bear gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity; and by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. (Heb. 5:1-3.)

As regards the opening section of this passage no comment is needed; the matters already discussed in relation to the institution of a priesthood sufficiently illustrate the point. He is taken from among men because it was men who needed a way whereby they might approach God. Angels could not do this on their behalf; the necessary connection between the priest and the worshipper—that of a common necessity —was lacking. The priests of the Aaronic family could do so because they had this connection. It has been seen already that Jesus had it also (Heb. 2:14). This connection made the second count of the argument follow logically. He could be compassionate towards the ignorant and erring because he had been compassed with infirmity. The terms are important. “Ignorant” and “erring” do not include presumptuous sinners. For those referred to he was a merciful and faithful high priest, because having been made like unto his brethren he knew the power of temptation.

Resource Manager · February 27, 2011

Being compassed with infirmity, the high priest of old was bound to offer for sins on his own behalf. Many have stumbled at the application of this portion of the parallel to Jesus, and have contended that it cannot be applied to him. Nevertheless the comparison is made and must be provided for. Later in the epistle it is stated of him that he needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself (Heb. 7:27). This he did once for all! There is only one way of giving these words their evident meaning. As one who never transgressed his Father’s commandments, he needed no sacrifice to put away personal sins. How then can application be explained? He was a “whole burnt-offering” in which the complete consumption of sin’s flesh was declared. Therein it was shown that human nature is not fit for the Kingdom of God. It is “the flesh,” “a body of death.” It has to be put away, and this Jesus did once for all when he” put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26).

From what has been said concerning the origin of priesthood it is apparent that no man could take the honour unto himself—it needed a call from God (Heb. 5:4). So far as this point is concerned, both orders of priesthood could lay claim to the same advantage.

Aaron and his house were not priests by their own desire; they were “called” to the position by God, as already shown. This point is clearly brought out in connection with the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. They had charged Moses and Aaron, saying: “Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them,” to which Moses replied to Korah: “Seemeth it a small thing to you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel to bring you near to Himself ... seek ye the priesthood also?” In the end God vindicated the position of the house of Aaron, for the fire of the Lord burst forth and consumed two hundred and fifty of the associates of Korah, whilst Moses was commanded to make of the censers which they had used, broad plates for the altar, “to be a memorial unto the children of Israel, to the end that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to burn incense before the Lord; that he be not as Korah and his company” (Num. 16).

In the later history of Israel King Uzziah aspired to act as a priest. He went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense, but was withstood by the priests, who said: “It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn incense.” This attempt to usurp the priesthood to which he had not been called was disastrous to Uzziah, for he was stricken with leprosy. These incidents emphasise the lesson that “no man [legitimately] taketh this honour unto himself, but when he is called of God.”

Apart from some definite proof to the contrary, the Jew might reasonably conclude that the very necessity of the institution of priesthood required its permanent continuance so long as sin existed. That thought is met by the argument which follows. It turns upon a prophecy which in itself contained all that was necessary to disprove the Jews’ idea. That prophecy, found in a Psalm which has already been before us, clearly involves the coming of a priest who would be of another line than that of Aaron. In establishing the Divine Sonship of the Messiah, the only begotten of the Father, reference has been made to the words of David concerning his Lord who was to rule out of Zion, and whose people should be willing in the day of his power (Psalm 110). Every Jew would recognise this as a Messianic prediction. The fact was in itself sufficient to silence the enemies of Jesus when he asked them: “David therefore calleth him Lord, and how is he his son?” The Davidic descent of the Messiah was unquestionable; the Prophets teem with indications of the fact; yet the Psalm continued:

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.

(Psa. 110:4.)

In view of his descent from David, the Messiah could not be a priest of the line of Aaron. It was therefore apparent from this first phase of the consideration that the Law could not be of perpetual application, but must give place to some other system which, being directly associated with the Messiah, must be superior to the Aaronic. This is the point of the argument of chapter 7, which we shall consider later.

Before we pass to the consideration of the arguments by which the superiority of the “great high priest” of our profession over the Aaronic priesthood is established, we have to note a statement concerning Jesus which is most helpful to whose who feel the evils of the flesh in their efforts to follow his steps day by day.

Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation; named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Heb. 5:7-10.)

When it is recognised that Jesus was “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4), a partaker of flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), we understand how he needed to be saved “out of” death, as the Greek implies. When it is further recognised what the flesh really is, we understand how even Jesus learned by suffering and was afterwards made perfect. The full application of these facts will become clearer as we proceed with the argument.

The Epistle to the Hebrews

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites