The
epistle to the Hebrews compares what God achieved in Jesus to the provisional
and partial revelation of the Mosaic legislation to demonstrate the finality of
the revelation given in Jesus Christ. For example, the Author shows the superiority
of the Son’s word, ministry, priesthood, and sacrifice over the services,
priesthood, and sacrifices of the Levitical system. He does not denigrate God’s
past revelations but stresses how much the new revelation surpasses all that
preceded it; what was incomplete is now made complete in Jesus.
The
letter is addressed to a Christian congregation near the city of Rome (Hebrews
13:24-25), one that was experiencing pressure from outsiders. Some members
are contemplating a return to local synagogues to avoid persecution (2:15,
10:25-34, 12:4).
The
Author's purpose is pastoral, not theological; he seeks to encourage believers
to remain in the congregation despite persecution. A return to the synagogue,
in the end, means apostasy (Hebrews 2:1-3, 3:6, 12-14, 4:1, 11-13, 6:1-12,
10:26-31, 10:35-39, 12:3-17, 1 3:9).
(Hebrews 1:1-3) – “In many parts and in many ways
of old God spoke to the fathers in the prophets, Upon the last of these days He
spoke to us in a Son, Whom he appointed heir of all things, Through whom also
he made the ages; Who being an eradiated brightness of the glory and an exact
impress of his essence, also bearing up all things by the utterance of his
power, Having achieved purification of sins, he sat down on the right hand of
the majesty in high places, Having become so much better than the angels, as
much as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.”
The
Author begins by presenting his main proposition: the final, full, and superior
Word of God has been spoken in the Son at the start of the “last days.”
The new “sonly” word marks the commencement of the messianic age, the era of
fulfillment.
The
Greek sentence begins with two adverbs, polumerōs and polutropōs.
Both are words compounded with the adjective polus or “much,
many.” Polumerōs combines it with meros or
“part”; polutropōs with tropos or “manner.”
Together, they stress different aspects of God’s past revelation; it was
partial (“in many parts”) and given in different “ways.” The latter
presumably includes prophecies, visions, dreams, and other forms of inspired
communication.
God
did speak before but only partially so, here a little, there a little. Three
contrasts are presented to demonstrate this:
1. God spoke “of old” but now has spoken, “upon these last days.”
2. God spoke to
“the fathers” (ancient Israel) but now speaks
“to us,” the church.
3. God spoke “in the prophets” but now “in a Son.”
The
prophetic words of the past were promissory, preparatory, incomplete; they did
not reveal fully what God intended. A more complete revelation was needed. As
the letter will go on to argue, the old system failed to achieve the
purification of sins.
The
past Word was correct but partial, but His ultimate Word is now expressed in
His Son. “The last days” provides the time key for this new Word.
This period began with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (cp. Acts
2:17; Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10); his exaltation to God’s right hand ushered
in the time of fulfillment.
In
the Greek sentence, there is no definite article with the word “son”; omitting
the article lays stress on the class or status of “son” rather than on his
individual identity. The word God now speaks is by means of one who is a son,
in contrast to prophets, priests, and angels.
A
son is in the closest relationship to a father and that closeness emphasizes
the elevated status of Jesus. The Son is superior even to Moses. Consequently,
the Word spoken in him is vastly superior to all others. His word is not just
one among other inspired words but one with finality and absolute
authority.
The
Son in whom God now speaks is the same one whom He “appointed heir of all
things,” an allusion to Psalm 2:8-10. Yahweh promised to give
the Son “the nations as an inheritance.” But the Author now expands that
original promise to make the Son “heir of all things” (note similarly
in Hebrews 2:5-10; the Son is to inherit the “coming world”).
This
son is the eradiated brightness of the glory and the exact impress of God’s
very essence. Not only does he hold an elevated position, but he reflects the
very glory of God. This is not abstract or metaphysical speculation about the
nature of Christ but points to the surpassing greatness of the position he now
holds because of his obedient death (“having achieved purification of sins,
he was appointed heir”).
The
reference to “purification of sins” anticipates the Author’s later
discussion of Christ’s superior priesthood and the permanent results of his
sacrifice. As a result, the Son “sat down on the right hand of majesty.”
The high priest under the Levitical system entered the sanctuary only on the
annual Day of Atonement and never “sat down” or remained within it. In
contrast, Jesus entered the true sanctuary “once for all” and “sat
down,” which points to the completeness of his priestly act and his
exaltation to reign at God’s right hand.
The
Word spoken in the Son is superior to past revelations in two ways. First, it
is the last and final word in a long sequence of Divine revelations. Second,
the Son himself is the consummation of the past partial revelations, “the
perfecter of our faith.” The author’s goal is to exhort believers to
hold fast to the vastly superior “word” now found in the Son. This full and
final word surpasses God’s past revelations, whether disclosed by prophets,
priests, angels or Moses.
This
narrative raises questions about attempts to return to Judaism or to remold the
Christian faith into something more akin to a Torah-observant
lifestyle. Since God’s earlier revelation given at Sinai was only partial, it
makes no sense to regress to what was, in the end, preparatory now that the complete
“word” has been spoken. The Law that was given at Sinai was NOT God's final word.
Only
in His Son is God’s final revelation found; not in the regulations of the Torah,
animal sacrifices, circumcision, the phases of the moon, or the observation of
annual holy days. The Son came to fulfill God’s promises, not to renew the
incomplete Levitical system.
What
preceded the Word spoken in the Son was preparatory and promissory, not final.
As Paul put it, the old system constituted “shadow,” but the substance
to which it pointed is available freely in Jesus.
This
is the choice Christians face when they contemplate dialing back Christianity
into one form of Judaism or another. Pouring new wine into old wineskins will
never produce the desired results. Why chase after shadows when the substance
that casts them stands in our midst?
No comments:
Post a Comment
We encourage free discussions on the commenting system provided by the Google Blogger platform, with the stipulation that conversations remain civil. Comments voicing dissenting views are encouraged.