12. The Witness Of The Epistle To The Hebrews
THE WITNESS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
T he Epistle to the Hebrews enters no claim to be the composition of one of our Lord's immediate followers. Neither does it represent the thought of a period antedating the composition of the Epistles of Paul. It synchronizes in its date rather with that of the later half of these Epistles (c.
A. D. 64). It comes to us like its own Melchizedek, "without father, without mother, without genealogy," bearing its own independent witness to how
Jesus was thought and spoken of by the Christian community in the seventh decade of the first Christian century; or, at least, by a special and very interesting group of Christians living at that time, made up of those Jews who had seen in Jesus the promised Messiah and accepted Him as their longed-for Redeemer.
Prevalence of 'Christ'
In the designations it applies to our Lord in general, this Epistle reflects, of course, the usage of the first age of the Church, which has already been
observed in the other Epistles: but equally of course not without its own peculiarities. As in the Epistles of Paul, the most frequently occurring of the simple designations is 'Christ' (3:6, 14, 5:5, 6:1, 9:11, 14, 24, 28, 11:26).
The simple 'Jesus,' however, is employed relatively much more frequently than in Paul's letters (2:9, 3:1, 6:20, 7:22, 10:19, 12:2, 24, 13:12): it occurs almost as frequently, indeed, as 'Christ.' Neither is, however, a common title in Hebrews (nine and eight times respectively), nor is the compound title
'Jesus Christ,' which occurs three times (10:10, 13:8, 21), while 'Lord Jesus'
(13:20) and 'Jesus the Son of God' (4:14) each occurs once. The simple 'Lord' also is only occasionally applied to our Lord (1:10, 2:3, 7:14;
[12:14]); and no combinations of it with other designations occur at all, except, as we have already intimated, the phrase 'our Lord Jesus' is once met with (13:20). It is noticeable that in two of the three instances in which the term 'Lord' is employed of Christ (1:10, 2:3) it is used in order to throw into prominence His superangelic dignity. The peculiarity of Hebrews is manifested in the free use it makes of the two designations, 'the Son' (1:2, 5,
5, 8, 3:6, 5:5, 8, 7:28), or more fully the 'Son of God' (4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29), and 'the (or our) High Priest' (2:17, 3:1, 4:14, 15, 5:10, 6:20, 7:26, 8:1, 9:11) or simply 'priest' (5:6, 7:3, 11, [15], 17, 21; [8:4]; 10:21), which form respectively the favorite ontological and the favorite soteriological designations of Christ in this Epistle.
Recognition of Jesus' Humanity It is chiefly by means of and in connection with the title 'Son' that this
Epistle (in this, like the Epistles of John) gives expression to its conception of our Lord's person. There is no lack of recognition of the humanity of our
Lord. Indeed, nowhere else in the New Testament do we find the reality and the completeness of His humanity so fully expounded and so strongly
insisted upon. But it is the transcendent conception of Christ, which looks upon Him as 'the Son of God,' clothed with all the attributes of God, that gives its whole tone to the Epistle.4 The keynote is struck in the very opening verses, where our Lord is set as 'Son' in contrast not merely with the prophets, the greatest representatives of God on earth, but also with the angels, the highest of creatures. All these are servants of God: He is His
'Son,' through whom no doubt God works (1:2), but as one works through a fellow in whom He is reduplicated; and whom He addresses by the great names peculiar to Himself, 'God' (1:8) and—its equivalent here—'Lord'
(1:10, 2:2).
What 'the Son' is That it is what is called the metaphysical Sonship, which is here attributed to our Lord is obvious in itself and is put beyond all doubt by the description which is given of Him as 'Son.' In this description there are assigned to Him divine works, in eternity and in time: the creation of the world and the upholding of the universe. But the most striking element of it tells us rather what the 'Son' is than what He had done or is yet to do. He is, we are told, "the effulgence of God's glory and the very image of His substance"—which seems to be only a rich and suggestive way of saying, to put it briefly, that the 'Son,' as 'Son,' is just God's fellow. He is the repetition of God's glory: the reiteration of His substance. By the "glory of God" is meant here just the divine nature itself, apprehended in its splendor: and by its "effulgence" is meant not a reflection, but, so to speak, a reduplication of it. The 'Son' is just God over again in the glory of His majesty. Similarly by the "substance" of God is meant, not His bare essence, but His whole nature, with all its attributes; and by "the very image" is meant a correspondence as close as that which an impression gives back to a seal:
the 'Son' of God in no single trait in the least differs from God.7 In a word, what is given to us in the 'Son' is here declared to be God as 'Son' standing over against God as 'Father.'
His Deity It can cause no surprise, therefore, when the author declares that it was of the 'Son' that God was speaking in the Psalm (45:6), when He said, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." This is only to apply directly to the 'Son' the name which is in the whole discussion implied to be His: for undoubtedly the very point of the whole argument is to the effect that Jesus
Christ as the 'Son of God' stands infinitely above every creature just because He is 'God' Himself. We may leave undecided the question whether or no the doxology at the close of the Epistle is to be referred to Christ, treated here as the God He is recognized throughout the Epistle as being.
Certainly there is no reason why this author should not have ascribed "eternal glory" to the Being he had described as in His very nature "the effulgence of the divine glory," and for that very reason it may be a matter of indifference to us whether he has done so or not. Nor is much added to this picture of the divine Christ by his designation of Him, without qualification, as 'the Firstborn' (1:6), or by his noticing that God has
"appointed Him Heir of all things" (1:2). 'Firstborn' and 'Heir' are little more than specially honorific ways of saying 'Son.' God's 'Firstborn' as such takes rank above all other existing beings: even all of the angels shall do Him reverence. God's 'Firstborn' is also naturally God's 'Heir,' an heir whose inheritance embraces the universe, and whose tenure stretches to eternity.
All these declarations are bound very closely together in their common relation to the fundamental conception of our Lord's divine Sonship; and constitute items by the mention of which the contents of the idea of Sonship
are developed. The statements of the opening verses of the Epistle seem to be arranged in a sort of climax by means of which the glory of the New
Covenant, revealed in the 'Son,' is more and more enhanced. The glory of the New Covenant is that it has been introduced by God the 'Son'—that 'Son' who, despite His lowly manifestation on earth, has been appointed heir of all things,—that is, Lord of all: by whom, indeed, the worlds were made in the depths of eternity,—that is, who is the eternal Creator of all that is: who, in fact, is in Himself the effulgence of God's glory and the impress of His substance—that is to say, all that God is: and by whom, because He is all that God is, the universe is held in being.
Soteriological Titles It is particularly noticeable that at this precise point a mention of Christ's propitiatory work is introduced. This 'Son of God,' whose dignity has been thus expounded, "made purification of sins." The soteriological interest is present, therefore, even in this ontological passage, and it is the soteriological interest, indeed, which gives its importance to this ontological discussion in the eyes of the writer. The soteriological titles by which he designates our Lord are therefore naturally as rich as the ontological ones.
He is 'the Mediator of the New Covenant' (8:6, 9:15, 12:24): He is the Ground of eternal Salvation (5:9): He is 'the Author of Salvation' (2:10, cf.
Acts 3:15, 5:31): He is 'the Author and Perfecter of our Faith' (12:2): He is our Forerunner into that which is within the veil (6:20): He is 'the Apostle and High Priest of our Confession' (3:1): He is 'the Great Shepherd of the Sheep' (13:20): and, above all (for this is a favorite conception of this
Epistle), He is our 'Priest' (5:6, 7:3, 11, [15], 17, 21; [8:4]; 10:21) or more specifically our 'High Priest' ([2:17]; 3:1, 4:14, 15, 5:10, 6:20, 7:26, 8:1,
9:11). All these are great designations: and we see at a glance that they
reflect in their substance the high estimate put upon our Lord's person as the 'Son of God.' It is only because He is the 'Son of God' that He may be fitly described in His saving work by these high designations. It is also at once observable that the Messanic conception underlies and gives form to them all. If Jesus is conceived by the writer of this Epistle in His person fundamentally as the eternal 'Son of God'; He is equally conceived in His work as fundamentally the Messiah appointed of God to inaugurate the new order of things and to bring His people safely into the experience of the promised salvation. As 'Mediator of the New Covenant' He gives His life for the redemption of His people, establishing new relations between them and God by means of His blood. As the 'Originator of Salvation,' He tasted death for every man, receiving in Himself the penalties due to them, not to Him. As 'Author and Perfecter of our faith' He endured the cross, despising the shame that He might be not merely our example, but our Saviour. As 'the Great Shepherd' He laid down His life for His sheep. As 'the Apostle and High Priest' He is the One appointed by God to make sacrifice of Himself for the sins of the people,—for every High Priest must needs have somewhat to offer, and this 'our High Priest' has through His own blood obtained eternal redemption for us.
Christ our 'Priest'
We see that the red thread of redemption in blood is woven into all the allusions to the saving work of the 'Son of God.' And we see that the chief vehicle in this Epistle for the expression of this high teaching is the representation of our Lord's work as priestly in its nature, and the proclamation of Him as 'the great High Priest.' The interest of this grows out of the circumstance that here at last in the New Testament the conception of Messiah as Priest comes to its rights. In their absorption in
the conception of Messiah as King the Jews gave scanty hospitality to the rich suggestions of the Old Testament of other aspects in which His office and work might be contemplated. It was characteristic of Christianity, under the illumination thrown back upon the promise by its fulfillment, to gather these neglected aspects together and note their fulfillment in Christ. Among them was the conception of Messiah as a priest performing the priestly work of propitiation. There seems to be little trace of the currency of such a conception among the Jews. There is also little use made of it in other books of the New Testament. But in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is given its full exposition; strikingly illustrated from the same Psalm which declares the Messiah David's Lord not less than David's son,—"Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek"; and made the vehicle for the inculcation of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity—the propitiatory death of Jesus, the reconciliation of God by His sacrifice of Himself, and His eternal intercession for His people. This is the great contribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews to the apprehension of the nature of our Lord's work.