My Response to the Question Concerning Heb. 1:3-4
The question that my professor asked was this..."In v. 4, what is the name which Christ inherited?" Here's my response.
After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb. 1:3-4)
I included the last part of v. 3 because I think that the content of this particular verse gives us some clues into how we should interpret the statement that Christ’s name is more excellent than the angels. I don’t claim to completely understand this verse but I think that I have come away with a number of specific conclusions after studying this verse, its surrounding context, and other verses which might help us understand it better.First, as we learned in class, the author of the book is preparing his audience for a pretty dense teaching about Christ’s High Priesthood. Instead of immediately beginning by teaching about Christ’s priesthood, the author instead begins with certain theological concepts which would have been more familiar to the audience. The reason he does this is becuase the idea of Christ’s High Priestly Office might have been novel to the hearers. So, instead of beginning the “word of exhortation” by teaching about Christ’s High Priesthood, he sets forth the more familiar idea of Christ’s eternal Sonship. This is clearly seen in the heavy emphasis upon God’s speech, his word, his declaration that Christ was indeed superior to the angels because he is the Son of God.-(v. 5) For to which of the angels did God ever say,”You are my Son,today I have begotten you”?
-(v. 6) he says,”Let all God’s angels worship him.”
-(v.7) Of the angels he says…
-(v.8,9) But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed youwith the oil of gladness beyond your companions
-(v.13) And to which of the angels has he ever said…
As we learned today in class, the heavy emphasis upon God’s declarative word relating to Christ’s eternal Sonship is significantly important. Therefore, in light of the fact that v. 4 finds itself in a section where Christ’s Sonship is continually emphasized, and that God is seen declaring Christ the Son of God, we can conclude that the “name” which is superior is “Son of God.” In the ressurection of Christ, God declared in a very visible way the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. Yet at the same time, I think that this passage has many more implications than merely that of Jesus’ Sonship. Look at the end of v. 3. The writer says that after making purification for sins Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. In order to properly understand the statement that Christ, “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High”, it is important to be familiar with the Davidic Covenant, the New Testament’s revelation on the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, and the significance of the ressurection and the phrase “right hand of God” as it relates to Christ’s Kingship. First, 2 Sam. 7 contains the sum and substance of God’s covenant with David. It reads,
"
The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.”
The sum and substance of God’s covenant with David is this: Out of David’s offspring will come forth a King. This descendent’s kingship would be different from any other king in that his reign would be everlasting and God would personally see to it that this kingdom would flourish forever. Has this covenant been fulfilled? I have to tread on eggshells here because I am an amillenialist attending a very dispensational, pre-millenial institution. Yet I recognize that many people here do in fact believe that the Davidic Covenant has been fulfilled and that Christ is now presently reigning within the hearts of believers. I know that many students in this Hebrews class will consider themselves dispensational and would believe that Christ’s reign will not be inagurated until the “Millenium” so please understand that it is not my desire to debate with you on this issue as we come from an entirely different set of pre-suppositions. These next few comments are written with the hope that this won’t become an issue of division and argument, as this blog shouldn’t be a platform for aruging dispensationalism and Reformed Theology. Having said that, I firmly believe that the Davidic Covenant, described above, has been fulfilled with the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus. Why do I believe this? And what does this have to do with Heb. 1:4. Here’s what I think. First, we must examine the New Testament evidence concerning the Davidic Covenant and it’s fulfillment. The very first verse of the New Testament sheds light on the Davidic Covenant and its fulfillment. “Matt. 1:1-A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” Jesus is the very descendent of David who would fulfill the covenant made hundreds of years before with David. Regardless of when this covenant is fulfilled, it is signficant that Matthew immediately labels Christ “the Son of David.” There are a number of texts in the gospels where Christ himself and others (like John the Baptist) proclaim that the Kingdom of God had come. Then we turn to Acts 2 perhaps the most theologically rich passage in the New Testament with regards to the Davidic Covenant.
Acts 2:29-35 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said” ‘The Lord said to my Lord:“Sit at my right hand35until I make your enemiesa footstool for your feet.”
I can’t adequately describe how important this text is for our understanding of the kingdom. Note first v. 29 where Peter mentions God’s covenant with David. He then proceeds to tell the congregation that Jesus Christ is indeed the promised Messiah who would sit on David’s throne. (v. 31) Look at v. 30 and 31 together. Peter reveals an intimate and inseparable connection between Christ’s ressurection and His Kingship. Verse 30 says concerning David,
But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Simple: God promised that God would place one of David’s descendents on the throne. This descendent who would sit on the throne is Jesus Christ Himself. Now look at v. 31:
Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.
When David foresaw the coronation of the King he looked to what? The Future Millenial Kingdom maybe? Absolutely Not! Instead,He looked forward to “the ressurection!” Peter intimately connects Christ’s ressurection with His office as King. The ressurection event and the Kingship of Jesus cannot be separated as Peter masterfully teaches. In light of this truth, look at what Peter says regarding “the right hand of God.”
(v.33) Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
The author then quotes the very same verse in Psalms (Ps. 110:1) that the writer of Hebrews quotes in the first chapter. My point is this: Peter inseparably connects Christ’s Kingship with his ressurection to the right hand of God. In light of this truth, the assertion in Heb. 1:3 becomes clearer. If Jesus was proclaimed the Messainic King who was prophesied about in 2 Sam 7 BY his ressurection, then it obviously reveals that Christ’s name, in conjunction with his ressurection and Kingship, also has reference to the title of King. The right hand of God cannot be separated from Jesus’ office of King. The fact that Jesus “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High”, reveals that at that point of time, he was declared to be both 1) the Son of God and 2) the prophesied Messainic King in fulfillment of the covenant made with David. It is my contention that the writer of Hebrews has in mind Jesus’ office of King in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant as well as his position of Son. I firmly beieve that Christ is our reigning King and that this very verse in Hebrews re-inforces that beautiful truth.-Semper Reformanda
After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb. 1:3-4)
I included the last part of v. 3 because I think that the content of this particular verse gives us some clues into how we should interpret the statement that Christ’s name is more excellent than the angels. I don’t claim to completely understand this verse but I think that I have come away with a number of specific conclusions after studying this verse, its surrounding context, and other verses which might help us understand it better.First, as we learned in class, the author of the book is preparing his audience for a pretty dense teaching about Christ’s High Priesthood. Instead of immediately beginning by teaching about Christ’s priesthood, the author instead begins with certain theological concepts which would have been more familiar to the audience. The reason he does this is becuase the idea of Christ’s High Priestly Office might have been novel to the hearers. So, instead of beginning the “word of exhortation” by teaching about Christ’s High Priesthood, he sets forth the more familiar idea of Christ’s eternal Sonship. This is clearly seen in the heavy emphasis upon God’s speech, his word, his declaration that Christ was indeed superior to the angels because he is the Son of God.-(v. 5) For to which of the angels did God ever say,”You are my Son,today I have begotten you”?
-(v. 6) he says,”Let all God’s angels worship him.”
-(v.7) Of the angels he says…
-(v.8,9) But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed youwith the oil of gladness beyond your companions
-(v.13) And to which of the angels has he ever said…
As we learned today in class, the heavy emphasis upon God’s declarative word relating to Christ’s eternal Sonship is significantly important. Therefore, in light of the fact that v. 4 finds itself in a section where Christ’s Sonship is continually emphasized, and that God is seen declaring Christ the Son of God, we can conclude that the “name” which is superior is “Son of God.” In the ressurection of Christ, God declared in a very visible way the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. Yet at the same time, I think that this passage has many more implications than merely that of Jesus’ Sonship. Look at the end of v. 3. The writer says that after making purification for sins Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. In order to properly understand the statement that Christ, “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High”, it is important to be familiar with the Davidic Covenant, the New Testament’s revelation on the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, and the significance of the ressurection and the phrase “right hand of God” as it relates to Christ’s Kingship. First, 2 Sam. 7 contains the sum and substance of God’s covenant with David. It reads,
"
The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.”
The sum and substance of God’s covenant with David is this: Out of David’s offspring will come forth a King. This descendent’s kingship would be different from any other king in that his reign would be everlasting and God would personally see to it that this kingdom would flourish forever. Has this covenant been fulfilled? I have to tread on eggshells here because I am an amillenialist attending a very dispensational, pre-millenial institution. Yet I recognize that many people here do in fact believe that the Davidic Covenant has been fulfilled and that Christ is now presently reigning within the hearts of believers. I know that many students in this Hebrews class will consider themselves dispensational and would believe that Christ’s reign will not be inagurated until the “Millenium” so please understand that it is not my desire to debate with you on this issue as we come from an entirely different set of pre-suppositions. These next few comments are written with the hope that this won’t become an issue of division and argument, as this blog shouldn’t be a platform for aruging dispensationalism and Reformed Theology. Having said that, I firmly believe that the Davidic Covenant, described above, has been fulfilled with the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus. Why do I believe this? And what does this have to do with Heb. 1:4. Here’s what I think. First, we must examine the New Testament evidence concerning the Davidic Covenant and it’s fulfillment. The very first verse of the New Testament sheds light on the Davidic Covenant and its fulfillment. “Matt. 1:1-A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” Jesus is the very descendent of David who would fulfill the covenant made hundreds of years before with David. Regardless of when this covenant is fulfilled, it is signficant that Matthew immediately labels Christ “the Son of David.” There are a number of texts in the gospels where Christ himself and others (like John the Baptist) proclaim that the Kingdom of God had come. Then we turn to Acts 2 perhaps the most theologically rich passage in the New Testament with regards to the Davidic Covenant.
Acts 2:29-35 “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said” ‘The Lord said to my Lord:“Sit at my right hand35until I make your enemiesa footstool for your feet.”
I can’t adequately describe how important this text is for our understanding of the kingdom. Note first v. 29 where Peter mentions God’s covenant with David. He then proceeds to tell the congregation that Jesus Christ is indeed the promised Messiah who would sit on David’s throne. (v. 31) Look at v. 30 and 31 together. Peter reveals an intimate and inseparable connection between Christ’s ressurection and His Kingship. Verse 30 says concerning David,
But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Simple: God promised that God would place one of David’s descendents on the throne. This descendent who would sit on the throne is Jesus Christ Himself. Now look at v. 31:
Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.
When David foresaw the coronation of the King he looked to what? The Future Millenial Kingdom maybe? Absolutely Not! Instead,He looked forward to “the ressurection!” Peter intimately connects Christ’s ressurection with His office as King. The ressurection event and the Kingship of Jesus cannot be separated as Peter masterfully teaches. In light of this truth, look at what Peter says regarding “the right hand of God.”
(v.33) Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
The author then quotes the very same verse in Psalms (Ps. 110:1) that the writer of Hebrews quotes in the first chapter. My point is this: Peter inseparably connects Christ’s Kingship with his ressurection to the right hand of God. In light of this truth, the assertion in Heb. 1:3 becomes clearer. If Jesus was proclaimed the Messainic King who was prophesied about in 2 Sam 7 BY his ressurection, then it obviously reveals that Christ’s name, in conjunction with his ressurection and Kingship, also has reference to the title of King. The right hand of God cannot be separated from Jesus’ office of King. The fact that Jesus “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High”, reveals that at that point of time, he was declared to be both 1) the Son of God and 2) the prophesied Messainic King in fulfillment of the covenant made with David. It is my contention that the writer of Hebrews has in mind Jesus’ office of King in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant as well as his position of Son. I firmly beieve that Christ is our reigning King and that this very verse in Hebrews re-inforces that beautiful truth.-Semper Reformanda
posted by ReformedVictorious at 8:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home