When in polemic discussion with Social Trinitarians the book of Hebrews, chapter one, is often presented by these Pluralists as a proof for plural rational persons in the Godhead. Although I have written on most all the passages of holy Scripture concerning Christology (including this one) it seems that not enough attention has been given to this section of Scripture by those of us who hold to a Modalistic view of the Godhead. With that in mind I feel as though a more exhaustive investigation of this text should be undertaken. Therefore, what follows is my exegesis of The Prologue (first four verses) to the Book of Hebrews.
First, we should notice that verses 1-4 are one sentence in the Greek and is the prologue to the book. Here, the major themes of the book are introduced. These verses also take the form of the introduction to a sermon.
V1.
Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν
τοῖς προφήταις (God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,)
V1. God (ὁ θεὸς ). God with the article, thus, the autotheos, namely, the Father. Throughout the New Testament the term "God" designates the Father, but especially when Theos (ὁ θεὸς ) carries the article as here. That Theos (θεὸς), here, designates the Father is emphasized by the mentioning of this God’s Son in verse two.
long ago (πάλαι). In the times of the Old Testament.
spoke to the fathers (λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις). Here, the "fathers" referenced by the Author are the forefathers of the Hebrews, unto whom the book of Hebrews is written.
in many portions, in many ways (Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως ). In the many epochs of Israel's history (in their covenants and dispensations) and in various manners, both spoken and written, instructions as well as the prophets’ very lives being object lessons to the nation. As to the latter manner, one would think of Hosea's marriage to Homer (Hosea 1: 2), and Isaiah being instructed by God not to wear clothing for a period of three years (Isaiah 20: 2-3).
James Hastings wrote: "The first truth which the author of this epistle emphasizes is that God has spoken. God has been speaking to our world. Human nature has suffered many degradation's, but it has never utterly lost the capacity of seeing the presence and hearing the voice of the Father in heaven. And although the capacity [has been] abused, degraded, [it has] never [been] quite destroyed, God has ever been making His appeal. Now He has flashed forth His glory in the pomp of the sunset, and made the majesty of silent stars to speak His greatness. Now, He has called forth, from His solitude which none could penetrate, a holy man into whose very spirit He has inwrought His mind and heart, and has sent him to utter His thoughts and manifest His name. And now He has wrought in the very eyes of the people, vindicated the right and crushing the wrong, making paths through trackless waste and solid walls of mobile waters, lifting a veil here and speaking a tone there. But everywhere and at all times and in all ways it has been the same God, revealing His life, declaring His will, manifesting His glory, calling to His children. The light was ever adapt to the eye, the revelation to the capacity, the idea to the spirit. Bit by bit the veil has been lifted, the disclosure made, the glory flashed out, that men might be prepared for the complete vision. The final discovery, the full manifestation.”
V2. ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι' οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας: (in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.).
V2. In these last days (ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν ). Here, the “last days”, from the Author of Hebrews’ point of view has the last days of the Jewish economy in mind: beginning with the advent of Jesus’ baptism. For Christians reading this text today the “last days” means the entire Gospel dispensation extending from the first to the second advent of Christ.
has spoken to us in His Son (ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ,). Of note here is the following: First, there is no Greek word for “his" in the text, it has been correctly added by the translators. Second, the Greek “ἐν” is used with two cases (locative and instrumental); here it is instrumental and identifies the means or instrument by which the Father is speaking. Thus, the Son is the Father's "instrument" of revelation. Third, another point that is very important is the Author’s implication that it was God the Father only that spoke through and by the prophets in Old Testament times. When we say "God the Father only" it is stressed that at no time did the Son of God speak through the prophets of the Old Testament as some Pluralists insist. The writer to the Hebrews takes care to point out that it was the Father who spoke through the Old Testament prophets. Now, he says, the same Father is speaking through His Son in these last days. From this text it is intimated that no heavenly person of deity has EVER spoken, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament, but the Father: it was the Father speaking in the old times through the prophets and it remains the Father that is speaking through the Son in the last days (John 7:16; 8:26; 12:49; 14:10, 24; 17:18). Fourth, Vincent stresses that the “prophets” with the article defines a definite class. Fifth, we would point out, however, that although υἱῷ (Son) is without the article it is not referencing a class (such as: one who is a son, or, one who has the quality of a son) but references the Son of God. Sixth, this is a classic example of a Greek noun not having the article but still being definite. (The Pluralists should give this text special notice because it militates against the manner in which they wish to translate John 1:1c καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (and Theos [God] was the word). I.e. because Theos does not have the article and logos does, the Pluralists like to say that logos is the subject and Theos is qualitative. Therefore, they reverse John’s word order to “And the Word was God.” Meaning: The Word was divine. But Hebrews 1:2, has spoken to us in His Son (ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ,) demonstrates the error of this approach.)
whom he appointed heir of all things (ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων). The reference, here, is to the human Christ who is seated upon the Father’s throne (Hebrews 1:4; Revelation 3:21; 22:1-4; Ephesians 5:27). This is the first of seven propositions made about Christ in this the first sentence of the book.
through whom also He made the world (KJV, worlds) ( δι' οὗ καὶ
ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας:). (This is the second proposition concerning Christ in this text.) First, we should mention how the Pluralists’ doctrine of Logos Christology understands this phrase and demonstrate why it is the wrong understanding. Logos Christology sees the Son of God as the intermediary between God the Father and the created universe: the cosmos. God, Logos Christology states, is too transcendent to come into personal contact with matter. So, since His universe is made up of matter, His logos (or Word), which is seen as a distinct rational individual, was given the task of actual hands-on creation in behalf of Father God. (This idea comes into Christianity from platonic thought. The biblical Father was Plato's First Principle, the Logos (Word) was his Second Principle. By the third century A.D. this Hellenic concept had hijacked the creation story and re-identified the Hebrew Messiah. This, however, is an unbiblical re-interpretation of holy Scripture, because it presents to the world a creator other than Father God (Isaiah 44:24) and places another god-person with the Father before creation (see Deuteronomy 32:39), who was also god – albeit, a lesser one. Here, man's propensity to multiply gods is seen in technicolor; and especially so, when the personifications of wisdom and understanding (see Proverbs 3:19) are brought into the Pluralists’ pantheon of god-persons as the Son and Holy Spirit.
It is true, the Author to the Hebrews states that the worlds were made by (Greek, δι’-dia) the Son. Our task, as Bible students, is to interpret this statement in such a manner that does no violence to Old Testament monotheism and that preserve the integrity of the Creator God.
The text tells us that Father God, who is introduced in verse 1, created δι’ (dia - by) the Son. Here, the Greek word δι’ is the preposition modifying the noun which is in the genitive case. Thus, δι’ means “by" (instrumental). (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburg 1901, pages 133 and 134.) We know, then, that the Father created "by" the Son, or, with the Son in view. Although the Son is prophetically referenced in the Old Testament, He did not actually have existence until the incarnation. And yet, in the mind and foreknowledge of the Father He had existence, and was crucified for the fallen creation before God ever said "Let there be." Thus, our Author is saying that the Father created through/by the Son just as a master carpenter would build a house through/by a set of blueprints that were conceived of in the mind and forethought of the architect. This becomes even more evident when the English reader discovers that "the world" (in NASB), or, "the world(s)” (KJV) which the Father created through/by the Son is the Greek word αἰῶνας (aiōnas): ages. The idea, here, is not so much the physical universe as it is the epochs of time with their pre-ordained covenants, systems, etc. Thus, all temporal existence was predicated on the Son of God that was to come, but did not yet exist outside the mind and intentions of the Father, yet, must exist for creation to be a justifiable event. For, how could an omniscient God be justified in creating a universe populated with sentient beings, since He knew beforehand of the fall, if He had not already provided the redemption? So, Father God created with the Son (and all He meant to accomplish through that Son’s existence) in view.
When Jesus prayed "Father glorify thou me with your own self with the glory I had with you before the world was in,” it was the glory the Son held in the mind and forethought of the Father as the redeemer of fallen creation, for which he prayed (John 17: 5).
V3.
ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ,
φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, (And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, ).
V3. who being [the] radiance of the glory (ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς
δόξης). The word radiance (ἀπαύγασμα) means outshining—not reflection. The idea of ἀπαύγασμα (St’s #G541) is that Jesus emits the brightness of the glory of God as a self possessed quality and not as reflection of that glory. The significance is effulgence or radiance (as distinguished from refulgence or reflection) (Kurts, Cremer as referenced by Thayer). This speaks of the deity which is incarnated in the Son of God as being the actual autotheos. Jesus said of Himself that He proceeded forth from the Father (John 8: 42). Moreover, when the apostle Phillip asked to see the Father; Jesus replied to Philip, "He that has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Surely, just as the ray radiates from the sun and is not a reflection, so also does Jesus radiate from the Father and is the Father in another way of being. To agree with Karl Barth: the Father is the God who is far, the Son is that self same God who is near. Not another who reflects the source; Jesus is the source who stepped into His world through the matrix of a woman's womb, clothing Himself with flesh as He passed through.
and the exact representation (image, KJV) of His essence (person, KJV) (καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). (The third proposition concerning Christ in the text.) The Greek, χαρακτὴρ (charaktâr St’s #G5481), is properly the instrument used in engraving or carving (Thayer). Also, a stamp or die. Thus, here, translated "exact representation" (in NASB); and the "expressed image” (KJV). In modern times we should think in terms of a photograph. The writer to the Hebrews is here stating that Jesus was a facsimile of God’s ὑποστάσεως (hypostasis, St’s #G5287). The KJV reads "person," the NASB reads "nature"; the RV reads "substance" which we think the best English rendering. In theology we would say that the substance of a thing is that which is fundamental and has actual existence, standing alone, depending on no other thing for existence. So, then, our author is stating that the Son of God "Jesus" was/is the exact expression of deity. There can hardly be a clearer declaration of the Godhead of Jesus of Nazareth.
upholds all things by the word of his power (φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ
ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ). (Fourth proposition of this text concerning Christ). φέρων (pherōn, St’s #G5342): upholding, bearing up, sustaining. This verb is in the perfect tense and speaks of continued action. Christ is continuing to sustain all things (τὰ πάντα) by the ῥήματι (rhâmai), which is His spoken word. There is something more than the logos being referenced here. Rhâma (Rhema) is that word spoken by the living voice. Without a doubt, the spoken word of God uttered at the creation is in view here; the power (δυνάμεως, dunameōs) of the uttered voice of God which brought the universe forth from nothing is the same power that sustains the created. Scientist, such as Einstein, have affirmed that all matter is in a state of decay (Second Law of Thermodynamics) and yet, the word of God states that God’s universe is eternal (Psalms 148: 3–6). So, then, militating against the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the "decree" of the Almighty: the Rhema of God that sustains all things visible and invisible. Now, the undeniable truth presented by φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ (sustaining all things by the power of His spoken word), is that this Rhema is spoken by the One we know in the incarnation as Jesus, but Who, in His pre-existence, spoke the worlds into existence, and even now upholds/sustains those same worlds by His spoken word – still.
when he had made purification of sins, (καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν
ποιησάμενος ). (This is the fifth proposition made concerning Christ in the prologue.) καθαρισμὸν (St’s #G2512), a word that is used 7 times in the New Testament (Mark 1:44; Luke 2:22; 5:14; John 2:6; 3:25; here; 1 Peter 1:9) and always means purification or cleansing. The Received Text from which the KJV is translated has an added dimension when it reads δι’ εαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν … “through himself cleansing …”: Jesus was much more than a perfect man who had come to show us how to live, He was the perfect Lamb (without spot or blemish) who had come to purify from sin (by the shedding of His sinless blood) all those who would believe upon His name. This He did by Himself. He walked the path to Calvary alone, He suffered the cross alone. We hear the voice of his loneliness "let this cup pass from me” and “My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" Here, for all the world to see, and hear, is the human Christ apart from His deity, redeeming a fallen creation alone, by Himself: Mary's son, the Carpenter from Nazareth. There was no God visible on the cross that day, as the blood puddled at the base of the timber: only our Kinsman Redeemer. And yet (when it comes to Jesus, there seems to always be an "and yet") the blood that was shed that day was the blood of two contracting parties, God and man, which facilitated an actual blood covenant. But even more profound is that this solitary life has existence on two planes and is the federal head of earth and heaven: the God-man.
He sit down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (ἐκάθισεν ἐν
δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς). (This is the sixth proposition make concerning Christ in the prologue.) Literally: “He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high.” The picture of Christ being seated indicates the finished character of His once-for-all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:10, 12). The position on the "right" of Majesty is not to be understood as a literal position to the right hand of God. This is a Hebrew idiom that references the glorification of Christ to the throne of His Father (Revelation 3:21), thereby, becoming the power and glory of God. Paul describes this as dwelling in light unapproachable (1 Timothy 6:16). The apostle Paul, also, elaborates on the right hand of God in his letter to the Ephesians: "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him on his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. (Ephesians 1:19-21, KJV).
Unless some misguided mind would think in terms that is too literal – that is, of a literal righthand position, we would ask: How far, I mean, to what distance one must go to be at the right hand of Omni-presence? Really ! Also, if a literal "right hand" position is being referenced it would demand that God literally have a right hand, if the Father has a literal right hand it would follow (Would it not?) that He also has a right knee. If we reasoned in such a literal vein, we arrive at the unthinkable event of the Father humbling Himself before the Son, because the scripture states that every knee in heaven will bow to Jesus the Christ (Philippians 2:10,… At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth,). If this seems absurd reasoning it is so only because two god-persons is absurd in the extreme.
V4 τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ' αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα. (having become so much better than the angels, to the extent that He has inherited a more excellent name than they.).
V4. Having become ( γενόμενος). (St’s G#1096). Though Christ has been presented as the human version of the glory of Yahweh (v3), it is the human Christ that v3 says is exalted to the right hand position of power and favor, that is here presented as “having become” (γενόμενος: aorist tense, participle mood, middle voice) better than the angels. The human Christ, by being obedient to the Spirit was raised, by Himself (see John 2:19ff, where Jesus stated that He would raise Himself from the dead) to a position greater than the Angels of God.
better (κρείττων). (St’s G#2909). More excellent (Thayer).
than the angels (τῶν ἀγγέλων). In the incarnation the Creator became wedded to His creation when He took on human flesh, soul and spirit in the womb of Mary. The human Christ was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4). Although perfect and without sin yet a little lower than the angels (see vv6-8; Psalms 8:4-5 cf Luke 2:52). Now, our Author is assuring his readers that as a result of the resurrection and glorification of Christ he has "become" ( γενόμενος) better (κρείττων) than the Angels. By this text, those who wrongly identified Jesus with the Angels, and even say He is Michael or Gabriel, are refuted. By γενόμενος being in the middle voice it is indicated that the 'becoming" was an action performed by Christ on Himself; thus, demonstrating His identity as the autotheos, as to His deity.
He has inherited a more excellent name than they (ὅσῳ διαφορώ-τερον παρ' αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα). (This is the seventh proposition made concerning Christ in the prologue.) Our Author has told us in v2 that the Son was appointed to be the heir of all things. Here, we are told that the Son had inherited a more excellent name than the Angels. While the Pluralists like to say this is the name "Son," I do not think that correct. The Christ was not named “Son”; that is the title of an office He possesses. But when He was conceived the Angel announced that His name would be "Jesus." The Angel was clear as to why He was so named: "For he shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Now, just as a son inherits the fathers name, so, too, the Son of Mary. The God of the Old Testament’s name is Yahweh. When that One and Only God stepped into our world by undergoing generation, and in affect became His own Son, the name He inherited was Yeshua (Jesus, in English), meaning: Yahweh Savior. It is not for nothing that the Greek text reads ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον … ὄνομα - “a more excellent name.” The sense: Christ has become better than the Angels "by so much… as" (Thayer) he has inherited the better name. We cannot ignore the "name" by which we are saved (Acts 4:12) and into which we are water baptized (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38 etc.). When we, of the Modalist faith argue for the name "Jesus", the Pluralists argue for the more excellent name being "Son." By the way the Pluralists’ content for the name "Son" one would think the Angel told Joseph, "She (Mary) shall bring forth a Jesus, and you shall call His name Son" instead of "She (Mary) shall bring forth a Son, and you should call His name Jesus" (Matthew 1: 21): which is what the Angel actually said. Hebraically, one's name is much more than the syllables that formed the sound of it: it is the essence of the name and all it implies. Thus, the Son of Mary inheriting more than the phonics of a name – He inherited the very essence of Yahweh-becoming-Savior — which is the meaning of His more excellent name.
Apostolically Speaking
☩ Jerry L Hayes
Read more on this topic:
Be sure to read the other parts of this essay at the following links:
Hebrews Chapter One, Part II, vv5-7
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-ii.html
Hebrews Chapter One, Part III, vv8-9
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-iii.html
Hebrews Chapter One, Part IV
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-iv.html
View a video where Bishop Hayes is teaching from this passage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os8lIeqeDjE&t=154s
No comments:
Post a Comment