Original Meaning
The Climax of Divine Communication (1:1–2a)
THE
AUTHOR
BEGINS by presenting divine revelation in parallel contrasts between the “older” communication during the time of the prophets and the “newer” communication through the Son. He contrasts four areas: the era of the revelation, the recipients, the agents, and the ways in which the revelation was manifested.
|
|
Older Communication
|
Newer Communication
|
Era
|
in the past
|
in these last days
|
Recipients
|
to our forefathers
|
to us
|
Agents
|
through the prophets
|
by his Son
|
Ways
|
in various ways
|
in one way (implied)
|
The eras mentioned contrast two time frames. The time “in the past” (or “formerly”) refers to the time prior to the coming of Messiah, and correspondingly, the coming time was seen as initiating “the last days.” The author uses the adjective “these” (touton) in verse 2, expressing the Christian conviction that the last days have been initiated already.3
Divine revelation came “to our forefathers [i.e., those under the older covenants] through the prophets.” The latter phrase should not be understood as narrowly referring to those designated as the “major” and “minor” writing prophets of our Old Testament. Rather, the author considers all through whom God manifested his will as owning the prophetic mantel, although the manner of these prophesies varied considerably. As to the manner of the divine revelation, it was “at many times” (polymeros)—that is, it was temporally fragmented rather than in a complete package—and “in various ways” (polytropos), a word that suggests the diversity of forms of that revelation. The suggestion brings to mind Old Testament commands, exhortations, stories, visions, dreams, mighty acts, breathtaking theophanies, and a still small voice, to name a few.4
This older revelation was expansive but incomplete. By contrast, the revelation of these last days has come “to us,” the receptors of the Christian message. It constitutes God’s climactic communication to humanity and has been brought via God’s Son; that is, rather than being fragmentary and varied, it may be considered whole, focused in the person and work of Christ. The author included no article prior to the word “Son” (huio). Whereas in many languages this may suggest that Jesus is merely one son in a crowd of sons, the emphasis here is on the unique relationship of Jesus with the Father—one who relates to him as son.
5 Whereas the prophets of old were many, the bearer of God’s word for the last days was uniquely qualified for the responsibility. The author’s statement should not be understood as concentrating only on the teachings of Jesus, although the words of Christ are vitally important to him (2:3–4). Rather, the whole of the incarnation—person, words, and acts—should be understood as communicating God’s ultimate word to his new covenant people.
Bridging Contexts
WHAT,
THEN,
ARE the vehicles on which the meaning of this beautiful passage can be brought to our context today? In the process of bridging the contexts between the author’s message and contemporary culture we are confronted with a number of challenging dynamics. The passage is complex in the original language since the author presents us with one extended sentence in these four verses. How, then, are we to understand the organization of his ideas? Which ideas are focal for the author? What is he trying to accomplish through the introduction?
These questions raise a second important issue. In 1:1–4 we find no fewer than ten weighty topics, which span from heaven to earth and from eternity past to eternity future. The list of themes reads like part of the table of contents in a systematic theology textbook! How can we focus our application when we are confronted with so much substance in such a short space?
Finally, terminology used of the Son in this introduction, such as “radiance,” “representation,” and “having become superior,” is somewhat vague and carefully nuanced. It is, therefore, open to theological abuse by those who would do a surface reading without further probing the significance of the author’s language. How can we discern what the author is trying to say about Christ?
When presented with a complex passage, one finds help in returning to basic principles of interpretation. These provide stability and direction in sorting through the complexities confronting us. In “Bridging Contexts,” therefore, we need to consider how genre (i.e., the kind of literature with which we are dealing) impacts our understanding, and therefore our application, of the text. The grammatical structure of the text offers further assistance. Moreover, certain terminological and theological clarification may be found by considering the broader context of the book of Hebrews itself.
Focusing on the author’s central concerns. In the introduction, we reflected the critical judgment that Hebrews presents us with an early Christian sermon, crafted by a person whose experience of worship was oriented to the Greek-speaking synagogue and whose rhetorical abilities had been honed in the Greco-Roman educational institutions of the day. Both ancient Jewish homiletics and Greco-Roman oratory placed great emphasis on a work having an appropriate beginning, otherwise known as the exordium or proem.19 In that introduction the speaker presented the main topic(s) or text of his speech or sermon and sought to rivet the attention of the audience. Our author accomplishes both with admirable skill.
We need to recognize that this approach to crafting a sermon’s introduction has both similarities with and differences from sermon preparation today. The student in a seminary homiletics class will likely be taught to “grab the audience’s attention” through several means, including the reading of the passage to be preached and the use of a graphic illustration or a clear statement of the sermon’s main thesis. In this way the intention of a contemporary sermon’s introduction is the same as that of an introduction in an ancient speech or sermon—we want to make sure our listeners are tuned in before we get to the body of the message. However, most preachers today have not been taught to include stylistic devices and a tightly woven overview of the sermon’s main theological assertions, two dynamics evident in Hebrews 1:1–4. Therefore, we must alert ourselves to these aspects of this passage to catch the full impact the author intends for his introduction.
True to the form of well-executed oral presentations in his culture, the preacher of Hebrews weaves together a series of topics in his introduction that forms the core of his sermon. His purpose is to alert the reader to the foundational propositions of the book. When read in light of the rest of Hebrews, we find at least nine themes in the introduction that exercise considerable influence in the rest of the book. Four of these constitute overarching concerns for the whole sermon, and the five others are main topics for certain sections of this discourse. The four main concepts that govern the whole of Hebrews are:
• the term for “God” (theos), along with pronouns referring to God
• various designations and pronominal references to God’s Son, Jesus, along with his exaltation to the right hand of God
• terms related to “the word of God”
• references to the Christian community being addressed, used either of the book’s author or hearers, or both
(1) The main term used for God (theos) occurs sixty-eight times in Hebrews, being found in almost every unit. The uses of theos are flanked by numerous pronouns referring to God. Thus, we are on safe ground in asserting that Hebrews is “God-centered” from beginning to end.
(2) The author accesses a variety of designations to refer to Jesus, including “Son,” “firstborn,” “God,” “Jesus,” “high priest,” “Lord,” “Christ,” “Jesus Christ,” and “shepherd.” With these and supporting pronouns throughout Hebrews, the author keeps his hearers’ attention focused on the one first introduced in the book as “Son” (1:2). Critical to his Christological reflections is his quotation of, or allusions to, Psalm 110:1, the text he uses to spotlight the exaltation of Christ at key turning points in the book.20
(3) Another concept introduced in Hebrews 1:1–4 is “the word of God.” Often God is said to have “spoken” his “word.” This spoken word of God addresses either the Son or the hearers, who are to listen to his “voice.”
(4) The speaker constantly refers to himself, his hearers, or the community as a whole, especially in his exhortation sections.
In other words, the preacher may be said to weave the following threads through the entire sermon: God is communicator, his word is effective, his now exalted Son (both in his person and work) is the ultimate means of his communication, and the church group is the immediate recipient of that communication.21 So the opening statement in Hebrews introduces us to the heart of the book as a whole: God has something to say to the church, and that message focuses preeminently in the person and work of the exalted Son. These propositions must be central as we apply Hebrews 1:1–4.
Several other important elements in the introduction have a powerful impact on certain sections by supporting the four central themes explained above. They are topics related to the heavenly realm,22 “inheritance,”23 the “better than” motif,24 “sin”25 (either the act or purification), and “angels.”26 That these topics play a supporting role in the rest of the book, highlights both their importance to the book (thus the author’s inclusion of them in the introduction) and their subordination to the four main topics mentioned above. Thus, we must read these supporting topics within the larger framework of Hebrews, recognizing the role of each in the author’s overarching scheme.
At the same time, these must not be elevated to first place among the author’s concerns. For example, an outline of the book built around the “better than” motif, although communicating an important aspect of Hebrews, may obscure the author’s primary concern of God’s communication to the church through the Son. Even to focus on the purification of sin, one of the most important themes of Hebrews, as the central theme is misguided and misses the bigger picture. Therefore, in seeking to apply 1:1–4 we must focus on the heart of this passage and consider how we might apply these supporting themes at the points the author himself highlights in subsections of the sermon.
A well-crafted introduction was designed not only to show the main topics of a sermon, but also to capture the attention of the hearers. Our author accomplishes this objective by artistically presenting basic Christian belief. For example, in the first verse of the book this gifted preacher uses alliteration, employing five words which begin with the Greek letter “p”: polymeros kai polytropos palai ho theos lalesas tois patrasin en tois prophetais. As noted in the “Original Meaning” section, the first two verses also exhibit an effective use of parallelism, contrasting the older revelation with the newer given through the Son.27 The statements in verses 2–3 concerning the Son’s inheritance, his role in creation, and his exaltation all begin with relative pronouns: “who … through whom … who.” Some scholars have pointed to literary elements in the introduction as indicating the presence of an ancient Christian hymn, although others have attempted to refute this assertion.28 Whether the author melded into these verses a Christian hymn with which he was familiar or crafted a passage of eloquent prose himself, these verses are highly artistic and obviously have a specific purpose.
The author does not use his ability with stylistic flair to impress but to rivet the hearers’ attention and center it on God’s act of communication, especially heard in the person, works, and status of the Son. He accomplishes this objective by presenting a theological framework he shares with other early Christian writers.29 This framework presents Christ in his preexistence, incarnation, and exaltation. Here the author presents this theology in a chiastic structure30 (one built around distant parallels):
A God has appointed Christ as heir
|
enthronement
|
B Through him he created the world
|
cosmic action
|
C He is the radiance of God’s glory
|
relation to God
|
C′ He bears God’s stamp
|
relation to God
|
B′ He governs the universe
|
cosmic action
|
(having made purification for sins)
|
(incarnation)
|
A′ He sat down at God’s right hand
|
enthronement
|
As we attempt to apply Hebrews 1:1–4 to the contemporary church, we must come to grips with the Christology of early Christian doctrine as well as how to respond to that Christology and those who challenge it. The author’s crafting of this text challenges us to consider how theology might be communicated artistically and effectively to those in need of hearing “the Word of God through the Son” today.
The structure of Hebrews 1:1–4. A second interpretive guideline that aids in unraveling this complex text is the grammatical structure of the passage. We have already noted that these verses may be divided into two main movements, the first (1:1–2a) addressing the “Climax of Divine Communication,” and the second (1:2b–4) the “Person, Work, and Status of the Son.” As demonstrated in the Original Meaning section, the first of these movements sets God’s revelation in the premessianic age over against the revelation of “these last days” and does so by presenting the eras, recipients, agents, and manner of each.
Parallelism is a style through which the author communicates correspondences and contrasts between the two eras. This does not mean, however, that the two eras are merely successive periods in which God’s word was given to his people. Nor does it mean that revelation of the past era has been rendered insignificant by the present Christian era. The grammatical relationships in this passage suggest a dynamic relationship between the two periods of time. It is important to note the word translated “spoke” in verse 1 is a participle dependent on the main verb translated “he has spoken” in verse 2. The sense communicated by these words is “having spoken in the past … God spoke to us by his Son.” The participle may be interpreted as “circumstantial,” that is, providing circumstances surrounding the action of the main verb. Thus there exists a connection between the older revelation and the newer.
This relationship suggests a continuity alongside the discontinuity in God’s communication as we move from one age to the next. God is still the one speaking (continuity), but he now has communicated to us climactically by the agent of his Son (discontinuity). This revelation of the new age builds on, rather than does away with, the revelation of the old, as seen by the author’s extensive use of the Old Testament in the rest of the book as a witness to the Messiah.31 It would be a hermeneutical mistake to use this passage as a basis for rejecting the Old Testament.
As we have already suggested, the second movement of 1:1–4 highlights seven affirmations concerning the Son (1:2b–4). The first two—that the Son has been appointed heir and was the agent of creation—are expressed in relative clauses introduced by “whom” and “through whom” (hon and di’ hou respectively). At the heart of the third relative clause (introduced by hos) is the proclamation that the Son has sat down at the right hand of God, and the rest of the affirmations are subordinate to this clause, supporting the idea of the Son’s exaltation (lit. trans. follows).
|
|
Son
|
v. 2b
|
*whom he appointed heir of all things
and
* through whom he made the universe
|
v. 3
|
* who …
being the radiance of God’s glory
and
the exact representation of his being
sustaining all things by his powerful word
having provided purification for sins
… sat down at the right hand of the Majesty
|
v. 4
|
having become as much superior to the angels …
|
Thus, the grammatical structure of the passage highlights what we have already suggested as a key theme governing the entire discourse: the exaltation of the Son to the right hand of God.32 This constitutes a launching point as the author moves to his discussion of Christ’s superiority to the angels in 1:5–14 and plays a vital role at key turning points in Hebrews (1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2).33 The one seated at the right hand is the one who is the reflection of God’s glory and the representation of his being, the one bearing all things by his powerful word, the one who made purification of sins, and the one who is now preeminent over the angels. In moving the message of the passage to contemporary contexts, therefore, we must allow our focus in this second part of the book’s introduction to be drawn to the exaltation of Christ and ask what implications it has for us today.
Theological terminology and the broader context of Hebrews. Although the language used of God’s Son in 1:1–4 is powerfully figurative, it may seem vague to modern minds. This fact opens the way for theological missteps if the introduction is not read in light of its broader context. For example, someone might suggest that, since the Son is the “radiance” or “reflection” (a common translation of the term) of God’s glory and the “representation” of his being, he is inferior to God. Yet, as we noted in the Original Meaning section, the author consistently ascribes to the Son actions and a nature that identified him with God. The Son’s identification with God is further supported by the broader context. In 1:6 he receives worship from the angels and in 1:8 the Son is addressed with the designation “God” (theos): “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.”34
However, the erroneous proposition that the Son is indistinct from the Father might be drawn from the same statements. Since the “radiance” and the “glory” may be seen as the same, one might reason that no distinction can be made between the two. A heresy beginning in the second century and known as “modalistic monarchianism” made such a suggestion. The modalists submitted that there is one Godhead, which can be called by three different names, depending on the situation. The Father, Son, and Spirit, therefore, are merely successive revelations of the same person.35 Yet, both in the introduction and throughout Hebrews we find the Father and the Son referred to as distinct persons of the Godhead. The Father speaks to the Son (1:5); the Son has been made lower than the angels for a time (2:5–9); the Son proclaims the Father’s name (2:12); the Son was faithful in obedience to the Father (3:1–6); and so on.
Another part of 1:1–4 that can be misunderstood is the statement, “So he became as much superior to the angels.…” Does this mean that the Son was, by nature, inferior to the angels prior to the exaltation? Some forms of another early heresy, “dynamic monarchianism,” held that Jesus became divine only after the resurrection.36 Yet this position cannot be affirmed in light of both the introduction and the rest of the book of Hebrews. This passage is spatially oriented. That Jesus “became much superior” means that he went from earth back to heaven.37 As already noted, the book affirms the deity of the Son in his preexistence. No mere mortal, Jesus was there at the beginning of time to lay the foundations of the world (1:10–11).
Summary of “Bridging Contexts.” In our attempt to think through principles by which the message of Hebrews 1:1–4 might be applied accurately today, two central truths in this passage have risen to the surface. (1) The introduction to Hebrews boldly and artistically states that God is a communicator who has spoken to the church. This communication has progressed beyond, but has continuity with, the older covenant revelation in that God is still the one speaking and the Old Testament bears witness to the new era. (2) God has communicated ultimately in the person of his Son. This Son is proclaimed as one with, but distinct from, God the Father, having a nature, activity, and position that identify him with God. The person and work of the Son is brought to climax and focus in his exaltation to God’s right hand, a position of ultimate authority and honor in the universe.
Contemporary Significance
THEOLOGY
AS
THE
foundation for Christian practice. Some branches of the church have always placed great emphasis on practical, experiential Christianity. In recent decades groups such as the Navigators and Campus Crusade for Christ rightly have stressed “discipleship” and the need for application in the daily life of the believer. Since the early 1970s many mainline churches have joined this emphasis, teaching classes on such topics as “How to Have a Quiet Time,” “Scripture Memory,” “Marriage and the Family,” and “Sharing Christ in the Marketplace.” Too many of these groups, with nonmainline churches as well, have dropped offering “Basic Christian Doctrine” classes altogether. We want to know how Christianity affects our lives today and how it can help us make it though tomorrow.
In their devotional times, many Christians find themselves returning again and again to the “practical” sections of Scripture, like the book of James or those sections of Paul’s writings in which he deals with “real life” issues, such as marriage or money. This material can be applied readily to the nitty-gritty issues of living in contemporary culture. On the shelves of any Christian bookstore, one finds hundreds of Christian self-help books on a plethora of topics and only a handful dealing with theological issues.
At times we drift dangerously close to the backwaters of our culture’s pragmatism, going so far as to judge sermons on the basis of whether we were offered anything practical or relevant. If the truth taught in a Bible study, devotional time, or sermon does not have immediate implications, we do not embrace it. With our society we glorify “doers” above “thinkers.” Thus, the rock star or the football hero who may be immature and shallow theologically is elevated as a star witness to Christianity.
Warm-hearted, devotional, application-oriented Christianity should be encouraged. The Scriptures were written to change, mold, and direct the lives of God’s people. Yet grave danger lies in focusing on the so-called “practical” teachings of Christianity to the neglect of the “theological.” Theology and practice are both vitally important aspects of following Christ. Notice that in his introduction to the book, the author of Hebrews lays a foundation for his entire sermon with basic Christian doctrine. He uses dogma as a precursor to praxis.
At the same time, the author hints of his practical concerns by reminding his audience that the word of God is “to us,” a foreshadowing of his hortatory sections. He later follows with such exhortations as “encourage one another” (3:13; 10:25), “lay aside sin” (12:1–2), and get busy with relationships and right attitudes (e.g., 13:1–6). Therefore, the introduction to Hebrews challenges us at the point of seeing the powerful life and ministry tool offered in sound theology. Right theology lays an important foundation for a Christian life robustly lived. A neglect of theology, on the other hand, has detrimental effects on the church and individual Christian lives. In the mid-part of this century Dorothy Sayers wrote:
Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as bad press. We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine—dull dogma as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man—and the dogma is the drama.…
Christ, in His divine innocence, said to the woman of Samaria, “Ye worship ye know not what”—being apparently under the impression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshipping. He thus showed himself sadly out of touch with the twentieth-century mind, for the cry today is: “Away with the tedious complexities of dogma—let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!” The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular.38
Those who neglect theology may live a shallow, insipid form of Christianity that, in the end, neither affects life nor endures the test of time.
Another pitfall accompanying the neglect of theology consists of a drift into aberrations of orthodox Christianity. One watches in horror as sincere Christians express infatuation with books like Embraced by the Light, supposedly the account of a near-death experience, which is full of wrong-headed propositions about God and reality.39 Others base their prayer lives and “spiritual warfare” on “principles” learned in the fiction of Frank Peretti, or build material hopes around promises made by the vendors of the health-and-wealth gospel. These bear witness to Hebrews’ insistence on right thinking as essential for right living. Thus the task of theology is to keep us “on track” in the Christian life. The author of Hebrews presents it as foundational to perseverance in that life. Theology “is an act of repentant humility,” wrote Karl Barth, in which “the Church seeks again and again to examine itself critically.… It has to be a watchman so as to carefully observe that constant threatening and invasive error to which the life of the Church is in danger, because it is composed of fallible, erring, sinful people.”40
However, the demand for the right teaching and learning of theology cuts two ways. Remember that the author of Hebrews presents his opening thesis artistically. When members of our churches or students in our schools are intimidated by massive systematic theologies or are bored to tears over dry doctrinal lectures, we tend to write them off as “intellectually deficient” or “lacking theological depth.” Yet, some of the responsibility falls to those of us behind the pulpit and in front of the classroom. We must ask whether we are helping matters by our manner of presentation. Perhaps we erect barriers to the content through poor patterns of communication. The author of Hebrews has shown great skill and care in packaging his doctrine to get the attention of his hearers.
Perhaps to our lectures we could add poetry, drama, or music to communicate orthodox teachings of the faith. In the church I attend we sing a chorus, partially based on Hebrews 6:19–20, through which we praise our Lord with the words:
My hope is not in this life, nor this passing world’s reward
But my hope is in a life that will never fade
My hope is in You Jesus, risen King, ascended Lord
Even death itself could not hold you in the grave
And Jesus you’ve gone before us, and your faithfulness never fails
In the darkness you reassure us, you’re the anchor beyond the veil.
As we sing, we meditate on profound truths of the faith. One also thinks of majestic hymns such as “A Mighty Fortress” or “Great Is Thy Faithfulness.” Also, a great deal of theology, exclaimed C. S. Lewis, may be “sneaked in” via a good story, which he proved with the Chronicles of Narnia and other works. Some theologians may see these as trite or simplistic expressions of profound truths. Yet passages such as Hebrews 1:1–4 and Philippians 2:5–11 suggest the New Testament writers offered their readers basic theological truths, simply presented, but which presupposed a larger body of theology.
Biblical preaching. The topic of divine communication in the introduction of Hebrews also focuses attention on the issue of preaching—that is, preaching skillfully executed. The presupposition most basic to the activity of preaching is “God has spoken,” for ultimately it is the word of God, not our words, that has the power to change peoples’ lives.41 The author of Hebrews displays a conviction concerning the importance of preaching; for it is through this “word of exhortation” we call Hebrews that he asserts God’s climactic word through his Son.
Yet in some circles today, preaching is being challenged as an outdated mode of communication, and this challenge must be answered. Speaking of the importance of preaching to Christianity, John Stott writes:
Preaching is indispensable to Christianity. Without preaching a necessary part of its authenticity has been lost. For Christianity is, in its very essence, a religion of the Word of God. No attempt to understand Christianity can succeed which overlooks or denies the truth that the living God has taken the initiative to reveal himself savingly to fallen humanity; or that his self-revelation has been given by the most straightforward means of communication known to us, namely by a word and words; or that he calls upon those who have heard his Word to speak it to others.42
And of its relevance for our contemporary context Karl Barth states:
It is simply a truism, that there is nothing more important, more urgent, more helpful, more redemptive and more salutary, there is nothing, from the viewpoint of heaven and earth, more relevant to the real situation than the speaking and the hearing of the Word of God in the originative and regulative power of its truth.43
Therefore, the church of this or any century must give attention to the preached word as a primary instrument of change and spiritual development. Although the world may reject the activity as vain babbling, it is the preached word, as far as it is true to the revealed word, through which God manifests his power (1 Cor. 1:17–29). Thus God calls preachers to study in such a way that they accurately reflect the message of Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15–16).
The challenge of naturalism and relativism. Another area in which the introduction to Hebrews speaks to our contemporary context concerns certain philosophies that permeate Western culture and have made great inroads to the church itself. A fundamental aspect of modernity, and an aspect that still holds profound influence even as our culture is shifting to a postmodern orientation, is naturalism. Naturalism holds that nature constitutes the totality of reality. There is no “supernature” that stands outside the cause-and-effect natural processes of the universe. Therefore, all of your thoughts, all of your feelings, every event you ever experienced (including what you would classify as “religious experiences”), can all be attributed to nature.44
Thus, religion becomes a process “from the bottom up,” consisting of human reflections on a concept called “god.” That is, religion originates in the minds of people. There is no such thing as revelation, since there is no God standing above or outside of nature to act upon it. For some modern theologians and biblical critics, this philosophy is a basic assumption.
However, Hebrews boldly proclaims a perspective diametrically opposed to naturalism. God stands above the natural processes of this world (since he created them) and speaks to humanity. For Hebrews religion works “from the top down”; that is, God reveals his truth and his will. His revelation is coherent, consistent, and authoritative, and we are obliged both to listen to it and to obey it.
This brings us to the problem of relativism for the modern church. This “ism” is much more inherent to postmodernism, the philosophical climate that dominates Western culture as we move into the twenty-first century. Modernism, committed to the absence of anything supernatural, proposed that individual minds, guided by scientific investigation, were the means to arrive at truth and thus to obtain instruction for life.45 Postmodernism, on the other hand, suggests that “truth” and “reality” are merely perceptions dictated by one’s particular worldview. Since truth is merely a social construct, everyone’s “truth” (scientific or otherwise) becomes equally valid.46 Thus, acceptance (i.e., reckoning all views as equally valid) becomes the most important social norm. A letter to the editor in the local paper to which I subscribe clearly expressed this perspective. Speaking of his rejection of Christianity he wrote:
This does not condemn my soul. There are hundreds of millions of non-Christians in the world, and their gods are just as real and valid as Christianity’s. Perhaps those who cannot understand that simple truth are the ones in need of guidance and sympathy.
This perspective rests on the basic assumption that religion only has value as a social expression and that therefore, all religions are equally invalid as means of arriving at an ultimate, universal, normative Truth. Some currents in postmodernism, especially as expressed at the popular level, are more open to the supernatural than is thoroughgoing modernism. However, the “god” to which some postmodernists are open is a god both ill-defined and tolerant of all expressions of religion. S/he is the mother/father-god of the universe, who welcomes all her/his world children regardless of their belief systems. Since relativism offers no specific god, however, it also offers no specific help personally or socially.
Postmodernism leads, therefore, to devastating moral confusion.47 As the culture around us, and many within the church, bow to the relativism of postmodernity and as the culture plummets to deeper and deeper levels of social bewilderment and crisis, those who take seriously the biblical witness to the Son as the ultimate Word of God must stand with Hebrews in stating categorically, “God has spoken.” This proposition not only lays the foundation for Christian preaching but also offers hope for all modern people, providing them with a stable point of reference for life.
Modern views of Jesus. As we have seen, the Son of God, as a focal subject in Hebrews 1:1–4, is that Son who was preexistent, became incarnate, and was then exalted to the right hand of God. We might say that the contemporary Jesus has come a long way since Hebrews was written—a long way down to earth. This exaltation, according to some modern Jesus scholars, only occurred in the minds and theologizing of the early church. Thus, the exalted Jesus of the New Testament is being recast variously today as cynic philosopher, charismatic man of the spirit, an eschatological prophet, a prophet of social change, and a sage.48
The modern studies of Jesus have been popularized most by the “Jesus Seminar,” a group of seventy-four scholars who meet regularly to vote on the authenticity of the Gospels’ accounts concerning Jesus. Among their “findings”: Only eighteen percent of sayings ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are authentic, and Jesus did not really rise from the dead. The latter, not surprising (given the Seminar’s commitment to philosophical naturalism), directly contradicts a basic tenet inherent in the exaltation proclamation of Hebrews 1:3. Although the Seminar has been harshly criticized for poor methodology, outdated presuppositions, and neglect of work done among New Testament scholars outside their group,49 their media machine has given them a broad hearing in popular culture.
Earlier in this century G. Campbell Morgan suggested that when the church ceases to lift Christ to the height where all people can see him, it becomes useless and a fraud.50 The modern views of Jesus that attempt to make Christianity “fit” for modern perspectives actually undermine the heart of Christianity—that Jesus was vindicated as the Messiah, God’s Son, by his resurrection from the dead, and that he was exalted to the right hand of God as Lord of the universe—and the church’s ministry.
It is only the exalted Jesus who can make purification of sins, according to Hebrews (1:3; 8:1–2; 9:1–10:18), and provide us a way to draw near to God (4:14–16; 10:19–25). It is only the exalted Jesus who can offer help to us in our time of need (4:15–16), deliver us from death (2:14–15), and lead us to glory (2:10; 12:22–24). In short, it is only the exalted Jesus who is fit for our worship and attention and who can help us persevere in the Christian life. The problem with the insipid Jesus of the Jesus Seminar consists not in his humanity, but in that he is no more than human. As such he is unable to offer anything to modern people beyond the inspiration of his words and ideas—and precious few of these survive the Seminar’s “analysis.”
In his book Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity, Alister McGrath, formerly a theological liberal and now one of Evangelicalism’s strongest spokesmen, writes concerning his disillusionment with liberalism:
Yet the more I thought about the liberal project, and the more I wrestled with its agenda and approaches, the more I felt that it was academically vulnerable and spiritually inadequate. Its pastoral weaknesses became especially evident to me during a three-year period as a pastor in Nottingham (1980–1983), in which I came to realize that liberalism had little to offer in the midst of the harsh pastoral realities of unemployment, illness and death.51
By contrast, the Son of Hebrews 1:1–4 has much to offer humanity in general and the church in particular. As the preexistent One, who has paid for our sins and been exalted to the right hand of God, he is our true, present source of hope and help.
Original Meaning
The Climax of Divine Communication (1:1–2a)
THE
AUTHOR
BEGINS by presenting divine revelation in parallel contrasts between the “older” communication during the time of the prophets and the “newer” communication through the Son. He contrasts four areas: the era of the revelation, the recipients, the agents, and the ways in which the revelation was manifested.
|
|
Older Communication
|
Newer Communication
|
Era
|
in the past
|
in these last days
|
Recipients
|
to our forefathers
|
to us
|
Agents
|
through the prophets
|
by his Son
|
Ways
|
in various ways
|
in one way (implied)
|
The eras mentioned contrast two time frames. The time “in the past” (or “formerly”) refers to the time prior to the coming of Messiah, and correspondingly, the coming time was seen as initiating “the last days.” The author uses the adjective “these” (touton) in verse 2, expressing the Christian conviction that the last days have been initiated already.3
Divine revelation came “to our forefathers [i.e., those under the older covenants] through the prophets.” The latter phrase should not be understood as narrowly referring to those designated as the “major” and “minor” writing prophets of our Old Testament. Rather, the author considers all through whom God manifested his will as owning the prophetic mantel, although the manner of these prophesies varied considerably. As to the manner of the divine revelation, it was “at many times” (polymeros)—that is, it was temporally fragmented rather than in a complete package—and “in various ways” (polytropos), a word that suggests the diversity of forms of that revelation. The suggestion brings to mind Old Testament commands, exhortations, stories, visions, dreams, mighty acts, breathtaking theophanies, and a still small voice, to name a few.4
This older revelation was expansive but incomplete. By contrast, the revelation of these last days has come “to us,” the receptors of the Christian message. It constitutes God’s climactic communication to humanity and has been brought via God’s Son; that is, rather than being fragmentary and varied, it may be considered whole, focused in the person and work of Christ. The author included no article prior to the word “Son” (huio). Whereas in many languages this may suggest that Jesus is merely one son in a crowd of sons, the emphasis here is on the unique relationship of Jesus with the Father—one who relates to him as son.
5 Whereas the prophets of old were many, the bearer of God’s word for the last days was uniquely qualified for the responsibility. The author’s statement should not be understood as concentrating only on the teachings of Jesus, although the words of Christ are vitally important to him (2:3–4). Rather, the whole of the incarnation—person, words, and acts—should be understood as communicating God’s ultimate word to his new covenant people.
Bridging Contexts
WHAT,
THEN,
ARE the vehicles on which the meaning of this beautiful passage can be brought to our context today? In the process of bridging the contexts between the author’s message and contemporary culture we are confronted with a number of challenging dynamics. The passage is complex in the original language since the author presents us with one extended sentence in these four verses. How, then, are we to understand the organization of his ideas? Which ideas are focal for the author? What is he trying to accomplish through the introduction?
These questions raise a second important issue. In 1:1–4 we find no fewer than ten weighty topics, which span from heaven to earth and from eternity past to eternity future. The list of themes reads like part of the table of contents in a systematic theology textbook! How can we focus our application when we are confronted with so much substance in such a short space?
Finally, terminology used of the Son in this introduction, such as “radiance,” “representation,” and “having become superior,” is somewhat vague and carefully nuanced. It is, therefore, open to theological abuse by those who would do a surface reading without further probing the significance of the author’s language. How can we discern what the author is trying to say about Christ?
When presented with a complex passage, one finds help in returning to basic principles of interpretation. These provide stability and direction in sorting through the complexities confronting us. In “Bridging Contexts,” therefore, we need to consider how genre (i.e., the kind of literature with which we are dealing) impacts our understanding, and therefore our application, of the text. The grammatical structure of the text offers further assistance. Moreover, certain terminological and theological clarification may be found by considering the broader context of the book of Hebrews itself.
Focusing on the author’s central concerns. In the introduction, we reflected the critical judgment that Hebrews presents us with an early Christian sermon, crafted by a person whose experience of worship was oriented to the Greek-speaking synagogue and whose rhetorical abilities had been honed in the Greco-Roman educational institutions of the day. Both ancient Jewish homiletics and Greco-Roman oratory placed great emphasis on a work having an appropriate beginning, otherwise known as the exordium or proem.19 In that introduction the speaker presented the main topic(s) or text of his speech or sermon and sought to rivet the attention of the audience. Our author accomplishes both with admirable skill.
We need to recognize that this approach to crafting a sermon’s introduction has both similarities with and differences from sermon preparation today. The student in a seminary homiletics class will likely be taught to “grab the audience’s attention” through several means, including the reading of the passage to be preached and the use of a graphic illustration or a clear statement of the sermon’s main thesis. In this way the intention of a contemporary sermon’s introduction is the same as that of an introduction in an ancient speech or sermon—we want to make sure our listeners are tuned in before we get to the body of the message. However, most preachers today have not been taught to include stylistic devices and a tightly woven overview of the sermon’s main theological assertions, two dynamics evident in Hebrews 1:1–4. Therefore, we must alert ourselves to these aspects of this passage to catch the full impact the author intends for his introduction.
True to the form of well-executed oral presentations in his culture, the preacher of Hebrews weaves together a series of topics in his introduction that forms the core of his sermon. His purpose is to alert the reader to the foundational propositions of the book. When read in light of the rest of Hebrews, we find at least nine themes in the introduction that exercise considerable influence in the rest of the book. Four of these constitute overarching concerns for the whole sermon, and the five others are main topics for certain sections of this discourse. The four main concepts that govern the whole of Hebrews are:
• the term for “God” (theos), along with pronouns referring to God
• various designations and pronominal references to God’s Son, Jesus, along with his exaltation to the right hand of God
• terms related to “the word of God”
• references to the Christian community being addressed, used either of the book’s author or hearers, or both
(1) The main term used for God (theos) occurs sixty-eight times in Hebrews, being found in almost every unit. The uses of theos are flanked by numerous pronouns referring to God. Thus, we are on safe ground in asserting that Hebrews is “God-centered” from beginning to end.
(2) The author accesses a variety of designations to refer to Jesus, including “Son,” “firstborn,” “God,” “Jesus,” “high priest,” “Lord,” “Christ,” “Jesus Christ,” and “shepherd.” With these and supporting pronouns throughout Hebrews, the author keeps his hearers’ attention focused on the one first introduced in the book as “Son” (1:2). Critical to his Christological reflections is his quotation of, or allusions to, Psalm 110:1, the text he uses to spotlight the exaltation of Christ at key turning points in the book.20
(3) Another concept introduced in Hebrews 1:1–4 is “the word of God.” Often God is said to have “spoken” his “word.” This spoken word of God addresses either the Son or the hearers, who are to listen to his “voice.”
(4) The speaker constantly refers to himself, his hearers, or the community as a whole, especially in his exhortation sections.
In other words, the preacher may be said to weave the following threads through the entire sermon: God is communicator, his word is effective, his now exalted Son (both in his person and work) is the ultimate means of his communication, and the church group is the immediate recipient of that communication.21 So the opening statement in Hebrews introduces us to the heart of the book as a whole: God has something to say to the church, and that message focuses preeminently in the person and work of the exalted Son. These propositions must be central as we apply Hebrews 1:1–4.
Several other important elements in the introduction have a powerful impact on certain sections by supporting the four central themes explained above. They are topics related to the heavenly realm,22 “inheritance,”23 the “better than” motif,24 “sin”25 (either the act or purification), and “angels.”26 That these topics play a supporting role in the rest of the book, highlights both their importance to the book (thus the author’s inclusion of them in the introduction) and their subordination to the four main topics mentioned above. Thus, we must read these supporting topics within the larger framework of Hebrews, recognizing the role of each in the author’s overarching scheme.
At the same time, these must not be elevated to first place among the author’s concerns. For example, an outline of the book built around the “better than” motif, although communicating an important aspect of Hebrews, may obscure the author’s primary concern of God’s communication to the church through the Son. Even to focus on the purification of sin, one of the most important themes of Hebrews, as the central theme is misguided and misses the bigger picture. Therefore, in seeking to apply 1:1–4 we must focus on the heart of this passage and consider how we might apply these supporting themes at the points the author himself highlights in subsections of the sermon.
A well-crafted introduction was designed not only to show the main topics of a sermon, but also to capture the attention of the hearers. Our author accomplishes this objective by artistically presenting basic Christian belief. For example, in the first verse of the book this gifted preacher uses alliteration, employing five words which begin with the Greek letter “p”: polymeros kai polytropos palai ho theos lalesas tois patrasin en tois prophetais. As noted in the “Original Meaning” section, the first two verses also exhibit an effective use of parallelism, contrasting the older revelation with the newer given through the Son.27 The statements in verses 2–3 concerning the Son’s inheritance, his role in creation, and his exaltation all begin with relative pronouns: “who … through whom … who.” Some scholars have pointed to literary elements in the introduction as indicating the presence of an ancient Christian hymn, although others have attempted to refute this assertion.28 Whether the author melded into these verses a Christian hymn with which he was familiar or crafted a passage of eloquent prose himself, these verses are highly artistic and obviously have a specific purpose.
The author does not use his ability with stylistic flair to impress but to rivet the hearers’ attention and center it on God’s act of communication, especially heard in the person, works, and status of the Son. He accomplishes this objective by presenting a theological framework he shares with other early Christian writers.29 This framework presents Christ in his preexistence, incarnation, and exaltation. Here the author presents this theology in a chiastic structure30 (one built around distant parallels):
A God has appointed Christ as heir
|
enthronement
|
B Through him he created the world
|
cosmic action
|
C He is the radiance of God’s glory
|
relation to God
|
C′ He bears God’s stamp
|
relation to God
|
B′ He governs the universe
|
cosmic action
|
(having made purification for sins)
|
(incarnation)
|
A′ He sat down at God’s right hand
|
enthronement
|
As we attempt to apply Hebrews 1:1–4 to the contemporary church, we must come to grips with the Christology of early Christian doctrine as well as how to respond to that Christology and those who challenge it. The author’s crafting of this text challenges us to consider how theology might be communicated artistically and effectively to those in need of hearing “the Word of God through the Son” today.
The structure of Hebrews 1:1–4. A second interpretive guideline that aids in unraveling this complex text is the grammatical structure of the passage. We have already noted that these verses may be divided into two main movements, the first (1:1–2a) addressing the “Climax of Divine Communication,” and the second (1:2b–4) the “Person, Work, and Status of the Son.” As demonstrated in the Original Meaning section, the first of these movements sets God’s revelation in the premessianic age over against the revelation of “these last days” and does so by presenting the eras, recipients, agents, and manner of each.
Parallelism is a style through which the author communicates correspondences and contrasts between the two eras. This does not mean, however, that the two eras are merely successive periods in which God’s word was given to his people. Nor does it mean that revelation of the past era has been rendered insignificant by the present Christian era. The grammatical relationships in this passage suggest a dynamic relationship between the two periods of time. It is important to note the word translated “spoke” in verse 1 is a participle dependent on the main verb translated “he has spoken” in verse 2. The sense communicated by these words is “having spoken in the past … God spoke to us by his Son.” The participle may be interpreted as “circumstantial,” that is, providing circumstances surrounding the action of the main verb. Thus there exists a connection between the older revelation and the newer.
This relationship suggests a continuity alongside the discontinuity in God’s communication as we move from one age to the next. God is still the one speaking (continuity), but he now has communicated to us climactically by the agent of his Son (discontinuity). This revelation of the new age builds on, rather than does away with, the revelation of the old, as seen by the author’s extensive use of the Old Testament in the rest of the book as a witness to the Messiah.31 It would be a hermeneutical mistake to use this passage as a basis for rejecting the Old Testament.
As we have already suggested, the second movement of 1:1–4 highlights seven affirmations concerning the Son (1:2b–4). The first two—that the Son has been appointed heir and was the agent of creation—are expressed in relative clauses introduced by “whom” and “through whom” (hon and di’ hou respectively). At the heart of the third relative clause (introduced by hos) is the proclamation that the Son has sat down at the right hand of God, and the rest of the affirmations are subordinate to this clause, supporting the idea of the Son’s exaltation (lit. trans. follows).
|
|
Son
|
v. 2b
|
*whom he appointed heir of all things
and
* through whom he made the universe
|
v. 3
|
* who …
being the radiance of God’s glory
and
the exact representation of his being
sustaining all things by his powerful word
having provided purification for sins
… sat down at the right hand of the Majesty
|
v. 4
|
having become as much superior to the angels …
|
Thus, the grammatical structure of the passage highlights what we have already suggested as a key theme governing the entire discourse: the exaltation of the Son to the right hand of God.32 This constitutes a launching point as the author moves to his discussion of Christ’s superiority to the angels in 1:5–14 and plays a vital role at key turning points in Hebrews (1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2).33 The one seated at the right hand is the one who is the reflection of God’s glory and the representation of his being, the one bearing all things by his powerful word, the one who made purification of sins, and the one who is now preeminent over the angels. In moving the message of the passage to contemporary contexts, therefore, we must allow our focus in this second part of the book’s introduction to be drawn to the exaltation of Christ and ask what implications it has for us today.
Theological terminology and the broader context of Hebrews. Although the language used of God’s Son in 1:1–4 is powerfully figurative, it may seem vague to modern minds. This fact opens the way for theological missteps if the introduction is not read in light of its broader context. For example, someone might suggest that, since the Son is the “radiance” or “reflection” (a common translation of the term) of God’s glory and the “representation” of his being, he is inferior to God. Yet, as we noted in the Original Meaning section, the author consistently ascribes to the Son actions and a nature that identified him with God. The Son’s identification with God is further supported by the broader context. In 1:6 he receives worship from the angels and in 1:8 the Son is addressed with the designation “God” (theos): “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.”34
However, the erroneous proposition that the Son is indistinct from the Father might be drawn from the same statements. Since the “radiance” and the “glory” may be seen as the same, one might reason that no distinction can be made between the two. A heresy beginning in the second century and known as “modalistic monarchianism” made such a suggestion. The modalists submitted that there is one Godhead, which can be called by three different names, depending on the situation. The Father, Son, and Spirit, therefore, are merely successive revelations of the same person.35 Yet, both in the introduction and throughout Hebrews we find the Father and the Son referred to as distinct persons of the Godhead. The Father speaks to the Son (1:5); the Son has been made lower than the angels for a time (2:5–9); the Son proclaims the Father’s name (2:12); the Son was faithful in obedience to the Father (3:1–6); and so on.
Another part of 1:1–4 that can be misunderstood is the statement, “So he became as much superior to the angels.…” Does this mean that the Son was, by nature, inferior to the angels prior to the exaltation? Some forms of another early heresy, “dynamic monarchianism,” held that Jesus became divine only after the resurrection.36 Yet this position cannot be affirmed in light of both the introduction and the rest of the book of Hebrews. This passage is spatially oriented. That Jesus “became much superior” means that he went from earth back to heaven.37 As already noted, the book affirms the deity of the Son in his preexistence. No mere mortal, Jesus was there at the beginning of time to lay the foundations of the world (1:10–11).
Summary of “Bridging Contexts.” In our attempt to think through principles by which the message of Hebrews 1:1–4 might be applied accurately today, two central truths in this passage have risen to the surface. (1) The introduction to Hebrews boldly and artistically states that God is a communicator who has spoken to the church. This communication has progressed beyond, but has continuity with, the older covenant revelation in that God is still the one speaking and the Old Testament bears witness to the new era. (2) God has communicated ultimately in the person of his Son. This Son is proclaimed as one with, but distinct from, God the Father, having a nature, activity, and position that identify him with God. The person and work of the Son is brought to climax and focus in his exaltation to God’s right hand, a position of ultimate authority and honor in the universe.
Contemporary Significance
THEOLOGY
AS
THE
foundation for Christian practice. Some branches of the church have always placed great emphasis on practical, experiential Christianity. In recent decades groups such as the Navigators and Campus Crusade for Christ rightly have stressed “discipleship” and the need for application in the daily life of the believer. Since the early 1970s many mainline churches have joined this emphasis, teaching classes on such topics as “How to Have a Quiet Time,” “Scripture Memory,” “Marriage and the Family,” and “Sharing Christ in the Marketplace.” Too many of these groups, with nonmainline churches as well, have dropped offering “Basic Christian Doctrine” classes altogether. We want to know how Christianity affects our lives today and how it can help us make it though tomorrow.
In their devotional times, many Christians find themselves returning again and again to the “practical” sections of Scripture, like the book of James or those sections of Paul’s writings in which he deals with “real life” issues, such as marriage or money. This material can be applied readily to the nitty-gritty issues of living in contemporary culture. On the shelves of any Christian bookstore, one finds hundreds of Christian self-help books on a plethora of topics and only a handful dealing with theological issues.
At times we drift dangerously close to the backwaters of our culture’s pragmatism, going so far as to judge sermons on the basis of whether we were offered anything practical or relevant. If the truth taught in a Bible study, devotional time, or sermon does not have immediate implications, we do not embrace it. With our society we glorify “doers” above “thinkers.” Thus, the rock star or the football hero who may be immature and shallow theologically is elevated as a star witness to Christianity.
Warm-hearted, devotional, application-oriented Christianity should be encouraged. The Scriptures were written to change, mold, and direct the lives of God’s people. Yet grave danger lies in focusing on the so-called “practical” teachings of Christianity to the neglect of the “theological.” Theology and practice are both vitally important aspects of following Christ. Notice that in his introduction to the book, the author of Hebrews lays a foundation for his entire sermon with basic Christian doctrine. He uses dogma as a precursor to praxis.
At the same time, the author hints of his practical concerns by reminding his audience that the word of God is “to us,” a foreshadowing of his hortatory sections. He later follows with such exhortations as “encourage one another” (3:13; 10:25), “lay aside sin” (12:1–2), and get busy with relationships and right attitudes (e.g., 13:1–6). Therefore, the introduction to Hebrews challenges us at the point of seeing the powerful life and ministry tool offered in sound theology. Right theology lays an important foundation for a Christian life robustly lived. A neglect of theology, on the other hand, has detrimental effects on the church and individual Christian lives. In the mid-part of this century Dorothy Sayers wrote:
Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as bad press. We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine—dull dogma as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man—and the dogma is the drama.…
Christ, in His divine innocence, said to the woman of Samaria, “Ye worship ye know not what”—being apparently under the impression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshipping. He thus showed himself sadly out of touch with the twentieth-century mind, for the cry today is: “Away with the tedious complexities of dogma—let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!” The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular.38
Those who neglect theology may live a shallow, insipid form of Christianity that, in the end, neither affects life nor endures the test of time.
Another pitfall accompanying the neglect of theology consists of a drift into aberrations of orthodox Christianity. One watches in horror as sincere Christians express infatuation with books like Embraced by the Light, supposedly the account of a near-death experience, which is full of wrong-headed propositions about God and reality.39 Others base their prayer lives and “spiritual warfare” on “principles” learned in the fiction of Frank Peretti, or build material hopes around promises made by the vendors of the health-and-wealth gospel. These bear witness to Hebrews’ insistence on right thinking as essential for right living. Thus the task of theology is to keep us “on track” in the Christian life. The author of Hebrews presents it as foundational to perseverance in that life. Theology “is an act of repentant humility,” wrote Karl Barth, in which “the Church seeks again and again to examine itself critically.… It has to be a watchman so as to carefully observe that constant threatening and invasive error to which the life of the Church is in danger, because it is composed of fallible, erring, sinful people.”40
However, the demand for the right teaching and learning of theology cuts two ways. Remember that the author of Hebrews presents his opening thesis artistically. When members of our churches or students in our schools are intimidated by massive systematic theologies or are bored to tears over dry doctrinal lectures, we tend to write them off as “intellectually deficient” or “lacking theological depth.” Yet, some of the responsibility falls to those of us behind the pulpit and in front of the classroom. We must ask whether we are helping matters by our manner of presentation. Perhaps we erect barriers to the content through poor patterns of communication. The author of Hebrews has shown great skill and care in packaging his doctrine to get the attention of his hearers.
Perhaps to our lectures we could add poetry, drama, or music to communicate orthodox teachings of the faith. In the church I attend we sing a chorus, partially based on Hebrews 6:19–20, through which we praise our Lord with the words:
My hope is not in this life, nor this passing world’s reward
But my hope is in a life that will never fade
My hope is in You Jesus, risen King, ascended Lord
Even death itself could not hold you in the grave
And Jesus you’ve gone before us, and your faithfulness never fails
In the darkness you reassure us, you’re the anchor beyond the veil.
As we sing, we meditate on profound truths of the faith. One also thinks of majestic hymns such as “A Mighty Fortress” or “Great Is Thy Faithfulness.” Also, a great deal of theology, exclaimed C. S. Lewis, may be “sneaked in” via a good story, which he proved with the Chronicles of Narnia and other works. Some theologians may see these as trite or simplistic expressions of profound truths. Yet passages such as Hebrews 1:1–4 and Philippians 2:5–11 suggest the New Testament writers offered their readers basic theological truths, simply presented, but which presupposed a larger body of theology.
Biblical preaching. The topic of divine communication in the introduction of Hebrews also focuses attention on the issue of preaching—that is, preaching skillfully executed. The presupposition most basic to the activity of preaching is “God has spoken,” for ultimately it is the word of God, not our words, that has the power to change peoples’ lives.41 The author of Hebrews displays a conviction concerning the importance of preaching; for it is through this “word of exhortation” we call Hebrews that he asserts God’s climactic word through his Son.
Yet in some circles today, preaching is being challenged as an outdated mode of communication, and this challenge must be answered. Speaking of the importance of preaching to Christianity, John Stott writes:
Preaching is indispensable to Christianity. Without preaching a necessary part of its authenticity has been lost. For Christianity is, in its very essence, a religion of the Word of God. No attempt to understand Christianity can succeed which overlooks or denies the truth that the living God has taken the initiative to reveal himself savingly to fallen humanity; or that his self-revelation has been given by the most straightforward means of communication known to us, namely by a word and words; or that he calls upon those who have heard his Word to speak it to others.42
And of its relevance for our contemporary context Karl Barth states:
It is simply a truism, that there is nothing more important, more urgent, more helpful, more redemptive and more salutary, there is nothing, from the viewpoint of heaven and earth, more relevant to the real situation than the speaking and the hearing of the Word of God in the originative and regulative power of its truth.43
Therefore, the church of this or any century must give attention to the preached word as a primary instrument of change and spiritual development. Although the world may reject the activity as vain babbling, it is the preached word, as far as it is true to the revealed word, through which God manifests his power (1 Cor. 1:17–29). Thus God calls preachers to study in such a way that they accurately reflect the message of Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15–16).
The challenge of naturalism and relativism. Another area in which the introduction to Hebrews speaks to our contemporary context concerns certain philosophies that permeate Western culture and have made great inroads to the church itself. A fundamental aspect of modernity, and an aspect that still holds profound influence even as our culture is shifting to a postmodern orientation, is naturalism. Naturalism holds that nature constitutes the totality of reality. There is no “supernature” that stands outside the cause-and-effect natural processes of the universe. Therefore, all of your thoughts, all of your feelings, every event you ever experienced (including what you would classify as “religious experiences”), can all be attributed to nature.44
Thus, religion becomes a process “from the bottom up,” consisting of human reflections on a concept called “god.” That is, religion originates in the minds of people. There is no such thing as revelation, since there is no God standing above or outside of nature to act upon it. For some modern theologians and biblical critics, this philosophy is a basic assumption.
However, Hebrews boldly proclaims a perspective diametrically opposed to naturalism. God stands above the natural processes of this world (since he created them) and speaks to humanity. For Hebrews religion works “from the top down”; that is, God reveals his truth and his will. His revelation is coherent, consistent, and authoritative, and we are obliged both to listen to it and to obey it.
This brings us to the problem of relativism for the modern church. This “ism” is much more inherent to postmodernism, the philosophical climate that dominates Western culture as we move into the twenty-first century. Modernism, committed to the absence of anything supernatural, proposed that individual minds, guided by scientific investigation, were the means to arrive at truth and thus to obtain instruction for life.45 Postmodernism, on the other hand, suggests that “truth” and “reality” are merely perceptions dictated by one’s particular worldview. Since truth is merely a social construct, everyone’s “truth” (scientific or otherwise) becomes equally valid.46 Thus, acceptance (i.e., reckoning all views as equally valid) becomes the most important social norm. A letter to the editor in the local paper to which I subscribe clearly expressed this perspective. Speaking of his rejection of Christianity he wrote:
This does not condemn my soul. There are hundreds of millions of non-Christians in the world, and their gods are just as real and valid as Christianity’s. Perhaps those who cannot understand that simple truth are the ones in need of guidance and sympathy.
This perspective rests on the basic assumption that religion only has value as a social expression and that therefore, all religions are equally invalid as means of arriving at an ultimate, universal, normative Truth. Some currents in postmodernism, especially as expressed at the popular level, are more open to the supernatural than is thoroughgoing modernism. However, the “god” to which some postmodernists are open is a god both ill-defined and tolerant of all expressions of religion. S/he is the mother/father-god of the universe, who welcomes all her/his world children regardless of their belief systems. Since relativism offers no specific god, however, it also offers no specific help personally or socially.
Postmodernism leads, therefore, to devastating moral confusion.47 As the culture around us, and many within the church, bow to the relativism of postmodernity and as the culture plummets to deeper and deeper levels of social bewilderment and crisis, those who take seriously the biblical witness to the Son as the ultimate Word of God must stand with Hebrews in stating categorically, “God has spoken.” This proposition not only lays the foundation for Christian preaching but also offers hope for all modern people, providing them with a stable point of reference for life.
Modern views of Jesus. As we have seen, the Son of God, as a focal subject in Hebrews 1:1–4, is that Son who was preexistent, became incarnate, and was then exalted to the right hand of God. We might say that the contemporary Jesus has come a long way since Hebrews was written—a long way down to earth. This exaltation, according to some modern Jesus scholars, only occurred in the minds and theologizing of the early church. Thus, the exalted Jesus of the New Testament is being recast variously today as cynic philosopher, charismatic man of the spirit, an eschatological prophet, a prophet of social change, and a sage.48
The modern studies of Jesus have been popularized most by the “Jesus Seminar,” a group of seventy-four scholars who meet regularly to vote on the authenticity of the Gospels’ accounts concerning Jesus. Among their “findings”: Only eighteen percent of sayings ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are authentic, and Jesus did not really rise from the dead. The latter, not surprising (given the Seminar’s commitment to philosophical naturalism), directly contradicts a basic tenet inherent in the exaltation proclamation of Hebrews 1:3. Although the Seminar has been harshly criticized for poor methodology, outdated presuppositions, and neglect of work done among New Testament scholars outside their group,49 their media machine has given them a broad hearing in popular culture.
Earlier in this century G. Campbell Morgan suggested that when the church ceases to lift Christ to the height where all people can see him, it becomes useless and a fraud.50 The modern views of Jesus that attempt to make Christianity “fit” for modern perspectives actually undermine the heart of Christianity—that Jesus was vindicated as the Messiah, God’s Son, by his resurrection from the dead, and that he was exalted to the right hand of God as Lord of the universe—and the church’s ministry.
It is only the exalted Jesus who can make purification of sins, according to Hebrews (1:3; 8:1–2; 9:1–10:18), and provide us a way to draw near to God (4:14–16; 10:19–25). It is only the exalted Jesus who can offer help to us in our time of need (4:15–16), deliver us from death (2:14–15), and lead us to glory (2:10; 12:22–24). In short, it is only the exalted Jesus who is fit for our worship and attention and who can help us persevere in the Christian life. The problem with the insipid Jesus of the Jesus Seminar consists not in his humanity, but in that he is no more than human. As such he is unable to offer anything to modern people beyond the inspiration of his words and ideas—and precious few of these survive the Seminar’s “analysis.”
In his book Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity, Alister McGrath, formerly a theological liberal and now one of Evangelicalism’s strongest spokesmen, writes concerning his disillusionment with liberalism:
Yet the more I thought about the liberal project, and the more I wrestled with its agenda and approaches, the more I felt that it was academically vulnerable and spiritually inadequate. Its pastoral weaknesses became especially evident to me during a three-year period as a pastor in Nottingham (1980–1983), in which I came to realize that liberalism had little to offer in the midst of the harsh pastoral realities of unemployment, illness and death.51
By contrast, the Son of Hebrews 1:1–4 has much to offer humanity in general and the church in particular. As the preexistent One, who has paid for our sins and been exalted to the right hand of God, he is our true, present source of hope and help.