CHAPTER VIII

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

1. Character and Scope of the Epistle. The epistle to the Hebrews naturally serves, in the construction of New Testament Christology, as a transition from the doctrine of Paul to that of the writings of John. For its Alexandrian cast of thought is unmistakable, and its portraiture of the heavenly and preëxistent Christ is in striking harmony with that of Col. i, 13-18. The main argument of the doctrinal part of the epistle is to prove Christ superior to the angels, worthy of more glory than Moses or Joshua, superior as a high priest to Aaron, minister of a more perfect tabernacle than that of the Levitical priesthood, and mediator of a new and better covenant.

2. The Facts of the Incarnation. The incarnation and perfect humanity of Jesus are assumed or affirmed in numerous allusions, and the allusions show the author's familiarity with the life and teaching of the historical Christ as it had come to him by direct transmission from "them that heard" (ii, 3). Inasmuch as the saving mission of our Lord was for the redemption of mankind, it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, and therefore he became partaker of flesh and blood, was in all points tempted as other men are, and is not ashamed to call them brethren (ii, 11-18). He is called "the firstborn" of God (1, 6) which title is equivalent to Paul's phrase, the firstborn among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29).' He was a scion of the tribe of Judah (vii, 14), touched with sympathy for human infirmities (iv, 15), yet altogether sinless. His miracles, his agony in the garden, his learning obedience through suffering, his enduring the cross and despising its shame, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to "the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens," are all referred to in this epistle as familiar facts.

3. Various Designations of Christ. In connection with these familiar facts of his manifestation in the flesh we find in this epistle a series of most remarkable designations of Christ's person

1 The word rowτÓTOKO5, firstborn, in these texts, does not seem to be equivalent to 'the firstborn of all creation" in Col. i, 15, nor to "the firstborn from the dead" Col. i, 18, and Rev. i, 5. Still less is it the same as μovoyɛvhs, only-begotten, in the Johannine writings. It here denotes rather the rank of Jesus among his holy brethren, in "the church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven" (Heb. xii, 23). Comp. the use of the word in Psa. lxxxix, 27.

and work. In the first four verses, which announce the author's principal theme, we find at least seven distinctive propositions affirmed of Jesus as God's Son: (1) God appointed him heir of all things; (2) through him he made the worlds of time; (3) he is the effulgence of the glory of God; (4) he is the exact likeness of his substance; (5) he sustains all things by the word of his power; (6) he has made purification of sins; (7) he is now enthroned at the right hand of God. A little further on in the same chapter he is presented as an object of the worship of all the angels of God, and psalms are quoted in which it is assumed that he is addressed as God and Lord (vers. 8 and 10). He is also called "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession" (iii, 1). He is the supreme minister of the sanctuary of God in the heavens (viii, 2), the mediator of a new and better covenant than that of Sinai (viii, 6; ix, 15), the author and perfecter of our faith (xii, 2), the great shepherd of the sheep (xiii, 20). Taken altogether, these various designations present a most exalted doctrine of the Christ of God. He is declared at the very opening of the epistle to be the latest and highest medium of divine revelation; for God, who spoke in ancient time to the fathers of the Hebrew people, spoke in the last days of the old dispensation in the person of one who was above angel, prophet, and priest, and who inherited the more excellent name of soN, the constituted heir of all things and maker of the worlds.

4. Doctrine of Preëxistence. Among these designations of our Lord there are statements which seem even to go beyond Col. i, 13-18, in affirming the preexistence and supreme power of the Son. His agency in the creation of the world is to be understood here as in Col. i, 16, 1 Cor. viii, 6, and John i, 3, and the statement of Heb. xi, 3, that the world-ages "were framed by the word of God," moves in the same realm of thought, and has essential connection with the idea of "upholding all things by the word of his power," as expressed in Heb. i, 3. All this is in notable harmony with the statement of Col. i, 17, that the Son of God "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." The concept of preëxistence is also traceable in the assumption of Heb. iii, 3, that Jesus was the builder of the house of which Moses was but a part. It appears also in the typical illustration from Melchizedek, who is spoken of as "having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God" (vii, 3),' thus implying that

1 The Son of God is not said to be made like to Melchizedek, but the contrary; for the Son of God is more ancient, and is the archetype. Comp. viii, 5, where likewise heavenly things are set forth as more ancient than Levitical things. Bengel, Gnomon on Hebrews vii, 3.

Christ is himself the great archetypal model, made such "according to the power of an indissoluble life" (vii, 16). In xiii, 8, we read that "Jesus Christ is yesterday and today the same, and unto the ages," a simple affirmation of the unchangeableness of Christ in the past, the present, and the future; but it cannot be fairly claimed that exdés, yesterday, must mean the eternal past. The doctrine of preëxistence, however, is unmistakable in the epistle, and is assumed to be part of the gospel of salvation which was first taught by the Lord and afterwards confirmed by them that heard him. It is, perhaps, implied in the author's use of Psa. viii, 5; especially if we allow the temporal sense of ẞpaxú τ, and think of Jesus as "made for a little while lower than the angels" (Heb. ii, 7, 9). Thus the incarnation is conceived as a temporary manifestation of one who had existed from times eternal. in x, 5, 6, our author employs the Septuagint version of Psa. xl, 6, 7, in a way to suggest the same far-reaching thought. God prepared him a body in which he came to do the Father's will. Here is a concept of divine incarnation.

Also

5. Effulgence of Glory and Image of Substance. Deserving special attention are the words of Heb. i, 3: "Being the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance." It is apparent that the writer was influenced, in his selection of these words, by the language of the book of Wisdom vii, 25, 26, where it is said that wisdom "is a breath (árμís) of the power of God, and a clear effluence (ànóрpoia) of the glory of the Almighty; an effulgence (ȧпavуaσμа) of everlasting light, an unspotted mirror (σолтрov) of the working of God, and an image (ɛixwv) of his goodness." The Alexandrian cast of the epistle is nowhere more conspicuous than in this passage, and here it is obvious that the older apocryphal writing was made to serve the New Testament writer's purpose. The word ȧnavyaoμa has the same meaning in both books, and xaparτýp, very image, signifies nothing essentially different from εináv image. The exact import of ȧravyaoμa has been much disputed, and some of the best exegetes hesitate over the question whether we should explain it actively, a streaming forth, radiation, effulgence, or passively, as a result produced, reflected radiance, reflection, refulgence. This nice distinction is not, however, a matter of much importance in ascertaining the real doctrine of the text. Both meanings may be accepted as substantially true in describing Christ as a manifestation of the glory of God, for he is both the effulgence and refulgence of that glory, the active beaming forth and also the reflected brightness of the divine đóža. The other phrase, χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, very image of his substance, cannot be properly interpreted in any other sense than

that the Son is an exact representation of the essential being of God. The word xapakтýp denotes strictly the stamped impression which an instrument made for the purpose leaves visible upon the surface that is stamped. Such an impress must needs be the very image of that which produces the mark. The word nóσTaois (etymologically, what stands under, and so supports) indicates that which is the foundation and support of any thing or being; that without which it could not be what it is. Hence when applied to God it means the very nature, essence, or substance of the Deity. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the exact representation, the image, and likeness, of God's real nature. The phrase is, perhaps, a more striking way of expressing the same truth that inheres in the words image of God, in 2 Cor. iv, 4, and image of the invisible God, in Col. i, 15. As the "effulgence of his glory," the Son radiates forth into a visible manifestation the glory of his Father; as the "very image of his substance," he bears upon his person and character a perfect representation of the essential nature of God. The ȧnaúуaoua involves and suggests the everlasting source, the "eternal generation," so to speak, of the Son; the xapakтýp affirms the exact likeness, and with its following genitive, of his substance, indicates the coessential or consubstantial relationship of this only begotten Son to God. It may also be added that both the effulgence and the image of his substance are conceived, in true Alexandrian style, as eternally existent and coexistent, like the eternal Wisdom that is extolled in Prov. viii, 22-30, and in the Wisdom of Solomon, vii, 25, 26.

6. Question of Divine Titles Applied. It remains to notice briefly how divine titles are applied to Jesus Christ in this epistle. The most remarkable example is found in i, 8, in the quotation from Psa. xlv, 6: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." The grammatical construction of these words is ambiguous. The American Standard Revision presents the marginal reading: "Thy throne is God forever," and the marginal reading of the psalm is, "Thy throne is the throne of God." The nominative form of the word for God, both in the psalm and in the citation (¿ dɛó5, not deé, comp. Matt. xxvii, 46), seems to favor the marginal reading, which is a perfectly legitimate grammatical construction, and has the support of high Trinitarian authorities.' It should also be

1 Tischendorf's and Westcott and Hort's Greek texts adopt the nominative reading, and Dwight in his additions to Lünemann admits that this construction can hardly be denied. Westcott says: "It is scarcely possible that Elohim in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption, therefore, is against the belief that ó dɛós is a vocative in the LXX. Thus, on the whole, it seems best to adopt the rendering, God is thy throne (or thy throne is God); that is, thy Kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock." On the other side, Stuart, Alford, Moll, Bleek, Delitzsch, De Wette, and Ebrard construe ó ɛós here as a vocative.

observed that the language immediately following, both in the epistle and in the psalm, "Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee," is not compatible with a vocative construction; for it would be very strange to read, "Therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee." On the other hand, it must be conceded that the nominative of the Greek word dɛós may be and is used instead of the vocative, and the common version, "Thy throne, O God," is also perfectly grammatical. It may also be observed that the citation of Psa. cii, 25, and its direct application to Christ in Heb. i, 10, accords with the vocative construction in verse 8 of this same chapter. Such being the facts, all we can say of such a text when cited for purposes of doctrine is that it may refer either to Christ or to God.

A similar question arises in the doxology at the close of xiii, 21. To whom is the ascription of "the glory forever and ever" there applied, to Jesus Christ who is last mentioned in the context immediately preceding, or to "the God of peace," the first and main subject of the entire sentence, the God who brought again our Lord Jesus from the dead? This epistle regards the Son of God as entitled to the worship of all the angels of God (i, 6), and the language of 2 Pet. iii, 18, and Rev. i, 6, ascribes glory to Jesus Christ forever. So there is no question as to the propriety of ascribing such glory to our Lord as well as to our Father in heaven; the only issue here is the grammatical construction of the concluding words of the doxology. On this question interpreters are quite evenly divided,' and, therefore, no one can employ the text for dogmatic purposes as if it were incapable of more than one legitimate construction.

1 Bengel, Alford, Delitzsch, Dwight, and Westcott refer the doxology to the God of peace; Bleek, Tholuck, Stuart, and Lünemann refer it to Jesus Christ. See Westcott's Additional Note on the Apostolic Doxologies in his Commentary on this epistle, pp. 464, 465.