The Christadelphian 1911, W.H. Boulton

“The Epistle to the Hebrews IV”

The Son and the Father—Changing Heavens and Earth—The World to Come—The Captain of Salvation—The Problem of Sin and its Removal

Two more points still remain to be considered in reviewing the reasons assigned for the superiority of Jesus over the angels. In view, however, of the construction of the argument in the epistle it may be well to break off the continuity to note one or two expressions in the first chapter to which attention has not yet been directed. What has been said already, however, will help to make their application manifest. In introducing the subject it is written, quoting the Revised Version, God “hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who, being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification for sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high” (Heb. 1:2, 3).

These verses are popularly supposed to be a justification of the trinitarian doctrine concerning the relations subsisting between the Father and the Son. It is needless to say, in these pages, that they do nothing of the kind. The idea of the Trinitarian “Father” appointing a coequal and co-eternal son to be the “heir” of all things is quite out of harmony with the basis of their whole belief. Their “son” has equal rights with the “Father,” the Son of whom the epistle to the Hebrews speaks is subordinate to the Father. But it is not sufficient to dismiss a false exposition; truth is only effectively served by showing, or at any rate endeavouring to show, the proper meaning of the phrases which are used. When we ask what are the “all things” to which Jesus has been appointed “heir,” the unfolding of the argument supplies the answer. Reference has frequently been made to the throne of which he is heir as the “seed of David”; it is likewise involved in the promises to the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29—for if we are “heirs according to the promise” it is only by reason of being in him who is “the heir”—Matt. 21:38), and both these are involved in the definition of the subject matter as supplied in the epistle: “For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak?” This “world to come” will witness Christ not as the “heir” merely, but as the actual possessor of the covenanted things; moreover, as they will only be realised as a result of his own past experiences, for he was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, those ages which are associated with the world to come are said to have been made by (or through) him.

The following expressions, “the brightness of his glory,” and “the express image of his substance,” are the subject of reference in Eureka, and a few sentences therefrom will illustrate the principle of interpretation which must apply.

“We learn from the Bible that the Deity it reveals has both body and parts. Paul teaches us this in declaring that the resurrected and anointed Jesus is the apaugasma, or reflection of the glory, and karakter or peculiar nature of the hypostasis, or substance of the Theos. In other words, he partakes of the divine nature; so that what he now is, the Deity hath always been” (Vol. I., p. 95). “The anointed Jesus is now the apaugasma, or reflected splendour, of the glory of the Father; and the karakter, or exact likeness of his hypostasis or substance. He is, therefore, the ‘image of the invisible Deity,’ and occupies the rank of ‘firstborn,’ or chief, ‘of every creature.’ Because of this he is the impersonation or embodiment of the Father’s Name” (Vol. III., p. 382).

It will be gathered from these comments that the description of Jesus anointed in Heb. 1:3 relates to present, and not remote past things, and consequently has no support for orthodox misrepresentations concerning a second person of a trinity. This point is emphasised by the further statement “being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they,” which clearly indicates a commencement subsequent to his probation which only terminated when “he had by himself purged our sins.”

Another passage which presents some difficulty is that in verses 10 to 12: “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands: they shall perish but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed: but thou art the same and thy years shall not fail.” The quotation is from Psalm 102. It is clear from the opening verses of this Psalm that it was a prayer to God for deliverance, and it is not surprising that the quotation in the epistle to the Hebrews is often used in support of orthodox ideas concerning the pre-existence of Christ. The fact remains, however, that this popular doctrine is quite opposed to the specific teaching of the Bible, and consequently cannot be correct. What then is the explanation of the passage, and how is it to be applied? In the first place the explanation has reference to the principle, already alluded to, of God-manifestation, in the fact that God was manifested in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who was Immanuel, God with us. It is because of this that many passages in the Old Testament that appear to apply unquestionably to God Himself actually apply to Jesus Christ. One example will suffice to indicate this usage. “The Lord (Yahweh) shall be king over all the earth” (Zech. 14:9).

It will further be noticed that the Psalm from which the quotation is made has reference to “the world to come whereof we speak,” that is to the worlds or ages which were made or constituted by or through the Son. “Thou shalt arise and have mercy upon Zion, for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come . . . When the Lord shall build up Zion he shall appear in his glory” (verses 13, 16). These verses indicate to us what are the heavens and the earth to which the Psalm subsequently alludes; they are those of Zion. Similar uses of the terms are to be found in the prophets. “Who art thou that forgettest the Lord thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth . . . and I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens and lay the foundation of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people” (Isa. 51:13, 16). “For behold I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create, for behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing and her people a joy” (Isa. 65:17, 18).

These, then, are the heavens and the earth which are to be founded by the Messiah. Israel’s heavens and earth have already had an important place in the working out of the purpose of God; these new heavens and earth whose foundations are to be laid by the Son of God will have a still more important place in the divine programme. But, important as they will be, they are not permanent. The millennial reign of Jesus Christ, in which these heavens and earth are to be manifested, is only an intermediate state, bridging between the period when the earth’s population is entirely mortal, and the time when it will be peopled by immortals. Further, the heavens of the Messiah’s age are Israelitish in character, having their foundation in the promises made to the fathers. The permanent constitution of things will show no difference between Jew and Gentile, for God will be all in all. Until that finality is reached, the earth must be the scene of change; hence the millennial heavens and earth shall wax old and be changed, whereas of the Son, whose they are, it is declared, “thy years shall not fail.”

It is of these final heavens and earth which succeed the millennial that the Apocalypse speaks: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away, and there was no more sea.” Dr. Thomas’ exposition of this passage will prove interesting reading as illustrating the passage before us. The following extracts will indicate the interpretation he gives:—“The reason why a new heaven and new earth are introduced, is because the former heaven and the former earth had passed away. The millennial constitution of the world, as may be perceived from Isaiah 65., is not perfect. It will be a great advance upon both the old Mosaic and the times of the Gentiles; but it will fall far short of the constitution and order of things beyond the thousand years. . . . This third heaven (2 Cor. 13.), or paradise in full manifestation, is John’s new heaven and new earth, in which there is no more sea.” In the former earth, which passes away, there is sin, generation, and death; and because of the existence of sin and flesh and blood and death, there are mediatorship and priesthood and ruling with an iron rod in the former heaven. . . . In the final annihilation of the devil by judicial fire of the Deity, in the destruction of the post-millennial God and Magog rebellion against the government of the saints, the bruising of the serpent’s head by the woman’s seed is consummated. Henceforth the earth, not burnt up but perfected and rendered the paradisaic arena of the unutterable joys and beauties and ecstatic things beheld and heard of Paul, becomes a fitting habitation of Deity in unmediatorial intimacy with the humblest of mankind; for then the Father will be all things in all men” (Eureka, vol. iii., pp. 680, 681).

A review of the whole problem of the Divine purpose enables us to see the true application of the Psalmist’s words, and lends additional emphasis to the arguments in the Hebrews concerning the superiority of Jesus above the angels, for all the wondrous developments and entrancing glories of that future are inseparably connected with him and his work, past, present, and future. No wonder the exhortation should be added, “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard lest at any time we should let them slip” (R.V., drift away from them). No wonder, too, that it should be spoken of as “so great salvation.”

Returning now to the main argument, we have to notice that

F.—Jesus is better than the angels because the world to come has, prospectively, been put in subjection under him.

This phase is closely related to that which concerns the throne, but extends it further than the original promises relative to the throne necessarily imply. The Davidic promise only involves as a necessity for its fulfilment the occupation of his throne over Israel by his seed. The subjection of the world to come involves the universal kingship of that seed. This is clearly implied by the Psalm from which the quotation is taken, although if we had no New Testament indications on the subject it might be questioned whether that Psalm referred to Jesus at all. It reads: “What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: thou hast put all things under his feet. . . . . O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!” The comment upon these verses in the epistle self-evidently fits the language. “For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him”—a universal dominion is the only possible fulfilment of such a statement.

But is the application to Jesus a justifiable one? If New Testament indications are heeded the answer is clearly in the affirmative. Not only is the Psalm so used in Hebrews, but in the following quotations also: “Jesus said unto them, Yea, have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise” (Matt. 21:16, quoted from Psa. 8:2). “Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet” (Eph. 1:21–22). “For he hath put all things under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:27).

There is one point in this appeal to the Psalms that invites attention. David had said, “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels.” (The word in the Hebrew is elohim.) Why then should it be quoted in an argument, the sole aim of which is to establish his superiority to angels? Because that inferiority was but a temporary one. He was “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.” Angels could not die (Luke 20:36); hence for Jesus to die he must be in a lower nature, i.e., the Adamic: having died he is now “crowned with glory and honour,” to realise in due time that universal supremacy involved in the subjection to him of the world to come.

The ground of that coming exaltation, in fact the ground for all that we have been considering, is furnished in the final consideration of this section of the epistle:

G.—Jesus is better than the angels because he is the Captain of salvation to many brethren, having made reconciliation for the sins of the people.

This was the object for which he “tasted death for every man,” and, as we have already noted, the reason why he was made “a little lower than the angels.” No angel could have accomplished this. Two things stood in the way. In the first place, death was impossible to them; secondly, they had no connection with the race that needed salvation. Both these disabilities are absent in the case of Jesus. He could, and did, die; and he was “all of one” with those whom he came to sanctify by his life and death.

A proper consideration of this section opens up some very important elements of the truth; questions which have been the cause of much controversy in the past, and which are still the subject of misconception and discussion in certain quarters even to-day. They concern the introduction of sin, the constitution of the sin-nature and the divine plan, beautiful and harmonious, for the removal of sin and the ending of the sin-nature. Sin was no part of the creation of God. Viewing all His works, after man appeared upon the scene, the Creator declared that all was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). The physical constitution of our first parents was evidently included in the “everything” of which this was affirmed. It is safe then to say that sin, using the word both in its active application as transgression of the law, and in its other, or physical, sense of “sin in the flesh,” did not then exist, for it is very evident that the Bible never refers to sin in the flesh as a very good thing, but quite the reverse. This is obvious to any reader of Paul’s argument in the Romans. “Sin,” which, says Paul, “dwelleth in me,” “wrought in me all manner of concupiscence,” it “deceived,” “worked death,” “slew.” Viewing it in its inevitable tendency he says, “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18). Note the contrast. Once “very good,” now “no good thing.” Why the change? Because “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12), and thereby that which is spoken of as “sin in the flesh” became part of the constitution of mankind, and has remained so ever onward, for “who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one” (Job. 14:4). This is seen in the way in which man was tempted. An outside suggestion was needed in the Garden of Eden. Until the serpent questioned, “Yea, hath God said,” the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, exercised no fascination over the minds of Adam and Eve. It is far otherwise now; “from within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness (Mark 7:21, 22). “Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust” (Jas. 1:14), whereas Eve was “beguiled” by the serpent, and the woman gave to the man. The source of the temptation was then external, now it is from within, for the natural inclination is to sin.

It is necessary to draw attention to these facts because the argument of the epistle requires them to be discerned, and unfortunately they are not always apprehended as clearly as they should be. If they are understood the statement to which they are designed to lead will be easy to accept. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14, 15). The verses imply that whatever the physical constitution of the “children” may be, a physical constitution in which dwells “no good thing,” that was the nature of which “he” took part in order that he might destroy the devil—sin in the flesh. Popular religion stumbles completely over this; so, alas, do some who should know better. Thinking, so we may suppose, to honour the “captain of salvation,” orthodoxy contends that he was of a different nature from all mankind. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is the necessary and unavoidable outcome of any such theory; unless that be adopted, the whole idea is folly, for Job’s question stands for ever in the way: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” As a matter of fact, instead of honouring the Son by such a theory, they are taking from him his highest claim to their regard and admiration. Viewed as a superior being of super-human nature his contest with sin was, at all events, comparatively easy. As one made of a woman (Gal. 4:4), in all things made like unto his brethren, tempted in all points like them, his contest was real, and being, in spite thereof, without sin, Jesus stands out truly grand and peerless; an example, as well as a sacrifice, for the sons of men who choose to follow in his steps.

That Jesus should have been of the condemned, sin-stricken nature was a necessity of the case, for God must be manifested as just in being also the justifier of those who believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:28). Any other hypothesis would involve substitution, and of this the Bible knows nothing; it is one of the fictions of current religious teaching. Sin had to be condemned in the flesh that the righteousness of God might be declared; hence it is recorded “for in that he died he died unto sin once,” and “he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” and now “in that he liveth he liveth unto God.” The reason for this is set forth in the following way: “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” The italicised words indicate those supplied by the translators. The margin is undoubtedly nearer the original. “He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.” Considerable divergence of opinion prevails concerning the “he” of this passage. The versions differ in construction, and in their differences lean to the various views that may be adopted. The Authorised Version certainly suggests Jesus; the Revised is very similar to the margin of the A.V., and the American Version is still more definite in the same direction. “For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham.” The Diaglott renders “Besides he does not in any way take hold of angels, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham,” but inserts a footnote: “Or, For truly it does not lay hold of (or seize on) angels, but of the seed of Abraham it does lay hold.” Young’s literal translation reads: “For doubtless of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold.”

From these various translations one point emerges clearly, and that is that the tense of the A.V. does not correctly represent the original, which is not in the past but in the present tense—a somewhat important consideration in an exposition of the passage. To “lay hold” is used in the sense of assisting and also of hindering, so that this in itself is not conclusive. It seems, however, clear, although, as already admitted, difference of opinion prevails upon the matter, that the argument runs thus: There is something which takes hold of the seed of Abraham but which does not take hold of angels, and that therefore it behoved Jesus to be made like unto his brethren of that seed. If this be so, the only question remaining is, What is the “it”? Only two answers can be given, and these are really so closely allied that the reasoning of the passage is not affected. It is either the devil (verse 14) or the fear of death (verse 15), and if there were no devil there would certainly be no fear of death, for until sin in the flesh came into existence through the first sin, Adam was not related to death in any way, for death came by sin as Paul so emphatically declares. Since then the possession of sin in the flesh has necessitated the disappearance of every generation of the race into the dust of death. That was, and is, the position, and therefore Jesus was a partaker of flesh and blood (the flesh—1 John 4:2, 3) that he might make reconciliation or atonement. That atonement has been made because he was able to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, as before quoted, having been made perfect through sufferings, and he has thereby become the “captain of salvation” who shall bring “many sons unto glory.”

Here we take leave of the first phase of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the betterness of Jesus when compared with angels. We have endeavoured to follow seven reasons therefor (truly a suggestive number), and as a result can scarcely fail to enter into the spirit of the apostolic references to Jesus which declare that he has a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and that in all things he might have the pre-eminence, for he, of God, is made unto us, wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. Looking at Jesus as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, recognising in him Emmanuel, the Arm of the Lord sent forth for salvation, we can but say Amen to Paul’s enthusiastic outburst, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out! . . . For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever.”

W. H. B.