Hebrews 1:5-6
We return to our study of Hebrews. You can turn to Hebrews chapter 1, verses 5 to 14, and I will read the section. We’ll make some observations and then tackle a couple verses. The thesis of this opening section is in verse 4, Hebrews 1:4, which says that, “The son has become as much better than the angels as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.”
And the pastor then turns to defend that with Scripture in verses 5 through 14. “So having become as much better than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.” Here’s the proof, “For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU’? Or again, ‘I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME’? And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.’
“And of the angels He says, ‘WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS FLAMING FIRE.’ But of the Son He says, ‘YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE SCEPTER OF UPRIGHTNESS IS THE SCEPTER OF YOUR KINGDOM. YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR CAMPANIONS’ And, YOU LORD, IN THE BEGNNNING FOUNDED THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
“‘THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY WILL WEAR OUT LIKE A GARMENT, AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.’ But to which of the angels has He ever said, ‘SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES AS A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET’? Are not all ministering spirits, sent to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?”
I want to start, as I said, by making some broad observations just about this whole section before we narrow our focus to the two verses, verses 5 and 6 that open this section. So basically, three things, I’m going to say two of them are observations, and then we get into the actual flow of the text.
But first, consider the author’s tactical approach and what it reveals about the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture. Remember, this pastor is building a case to address a particular problem that is facing this congregation. I’m just going to assume and not try to prove anymore what I think is to be the situation. These are house churches in Rome, and he’s pastor of one of these congregations in Rome.
These are mostly Jewish Christians from a Jewish ethnicity, Jewish background, but they’re Christians, and he is writing and addressing them as they are facing a more severe Neronian persecution. So he’s building this case to address the problem they’re facing. And the Christians in his congregation are starting to succumb to some fear. Many of these Christians had been faithful. They had been marked by loving sacrifice in a previous persecution that they’d lived through under Claudius, being expelled from Rome, losing property and all that.
He speaks about their faithfulness and their loving sacrifice in Hebrews 10:32 to 34. Now here they are being tempted to cave to social, political, cultural pressures that they’re facing in a very real way. And there is a danger element as well. Legendary in the days of the Neronian persecution. But even if some of these Christians avoided death in the Colosseum by gladiatorial games or other barbaric means, they still face suffering.
They still faced a suffering and a persecution that most of us, I would say, have never really faced, not on this level: Loss of home, loss of property, loss of jobs, loss of businesses, exclusion from the trade guilds, loss of business relationships, family relationships. All of that was hanging in the balance, as they faced greater and greater levels of persecution.
So they had a temptation to return back to their former synagogues and return back to the joys that they remembered; joys of family worship with former Jewish friends, extended Jewish family, that all that was a very, very strong pull and a draw for them to leave the Christian congregation and go back to a Jewish congregation, a synagogue.
As some of you might imagine, those of you who have been blessed with some close, affectionate family relationships and family background, you can understand the temptation, especially in times of difficulty and trial. So against all these apprehensions and the anxieties, that they were facing, very real fears about danger and loss, against all of their natural impulses and all their affections, what does the pastor leverage as he calls his congregation to stay put, go nowhere? Scripture, Scripture, that’s his one argument.
Is Scripture, that which God has spoken first to the fathers and the prophets, but supremely, what’s been spoken in and through his son and in the testimony about his son, the apostles and the prophets in the New Testament. The pastor starts and ends with Scripture, and he starts building his case for the most supreme authority, citing the person and the position of the son as the voice that they all must hear, listen to, heed, respond to, and obey.
He just puts the authority before them, and he counts on Scripture as being sufficient for him. He puts it before them and he leaves it to them to wrestle with the Word of God. There are seven biblical references in this section, verses 5 to 14. We call them Old Testament references; for them, they just call it Scripture. He cited passages as we notice here, from the Law, the prophets, and the writings or the Psalms. And there is one passage from the Law, Deuteronomy 32:43, one passage from the prophets, 2 Samuel 7:14, the Davidic Covenant, and then five texts from the Psalms.
One commentator says this, and he’s kind of representing pretty much all the commentators I read. He says this, he says, “All these quotations were carefully chosen and arranged to substantiate and clarify Hebrews 1:2 to 4 and to prepare for the following arguments.”
So all these texts are chosen specifically. He’s not just randomly throwing them in there. He’s been very selective and very thoughtful and intentional about the Scriptures that he uses to substantiate and clarify what he said in the opening section, verses 2 to 4, but also to prepare for the following argument, which is: we need to pay attention to what we’ve heard in Christ.
So for example, we see in verse 5, the opening quotation comes from Psalm 2, verse 7, but he quotes Psalm 2, verse 7, in verse 5, and he’s supporting that opening assertion in verse 2. “In these last days He’s spoken to us in His Son.” And now he intends to prove that, to justify it, that yes, I have reason for calling and referring to Christ as the son as I mentioned him to you, and now I’m going to prove it from Scripture, Psalm 2, verse 7.
Just as another example, the final biblical quotation in verse 13 in this section comes from Psalm 110, verse 1, and that supports the final clause in verse 3, which says, “He sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high.” And so he quotes from Psalm 110:1, to show where he’s getting that, how it’s justified. So by quoting Scripture to support his bold opening in verses 1 to 4, the pastor is also advancing an argument.
He’s building a case, and he’s giving his argument weight by demonstrating its historical, biblical and theological continuity. Yes, Christ is the final revelation of God, and yet he is not an aberrant revelation of God, as if everything else is gone and forgotten and to be set aside.
No, this revelation of the son, in the progress of revelation, is the pinnacle in the culminating point of revelation, and it’s consistent with everything else God has said. It just shines with more clarity, everything that’s written in the Old Testament is progressively revealed to greater and greater points of clarity and brightness until it lands on the son and everything points to him.
Here’s a quick question, because when we get into a disagreement with somebody over doctrine or over practice, or maybe we have a friendly debate with another Christian about some point of doctrine or practice, we tend to be a bit suspicious of proof texting, don’t we? So why do you think that is? Why are we suspicious of proof texting? Which is kind of what the author of Hebrews is doing right here, isn’t he?
Why do you think it is that we are suspicious of proof testing? First of all, what is proof texting? So proof texting, proving your point from a text of Scripture. The text needs to be interpreted in its context. And if you’re going to use a proof text from Scripture, what you’re saying, to prove your point, from the Bible, ought to be plain and obvious to the person with whom you’re disagreeing or debating, right? They ought to see that it’s harmonious with what the context around it says and really with the rest of Scripture.
Our author here has a point, and he has something he’s trying to persuade them of. So that, in and of itself, isn’t wrong. He’s using Scripture, compiling Scripture to back up his point and push them over the edge and persuade them that’s not wrong. What is wrong, is when somebody has an agenda for something that really doesn’t fit scripture, and then they’re trying to use scripture to cover over their sloppy thinking, their false reasoning, their sinful reasoning, that’s what we’re taking exception with.
So what is a legitimate form of proof texting? It is saying that we need to interpret a text in its context and that actually proves to be very, very useful. It is legitimate to use scriptures to demonstrate our point. What other authority is there to appeal to? Not mine, not yours personally. It’s not our intellect that we’re trying to win them to; no, we’re trying to win them to submission to God. And so why not let God have his say? That’s a good thing to do.
So that’s the author’s tactical approach is to proof text, but in a legitimate way. He has an agenda. He has a point that he wants to persuade them of, and it’s the superiority of Christ over all other lesser authorities that would bind the conscience. He wants to free them from that and bind them to Christ, and he wants them to be blessed in following Christ.
And so that’s his tactical approach, is to use Scripture as the authority and he sees it as sufficient. And I hope you do too. And if somebody comes to you taking some exception with something you think theologically, a way you speak or a way you live or whatever, and they, out of loving concern, they try to bring something to your attention and they use the Word of God to demonstrate their point. I hope that you will not be proud, but be humble and consider the text of Scripture.
Yeah, maybe the person who’s talking to you could have some points of improvement in tone or maybe the clumsiness of their argument. And maybe sometimes people come across as ham fisted. We’re all growing. We’re all learning to interact with each other biblically. But man, when someone brings the text of Scripture, the proof of Scripture, if it’s legit, if it’s in context, if it’s in the harmonious, with the rest of the theology of the Bible, you need to hear that as God’s voice, because it is. And you need to listen. You need to listen to what is authoritative.
Consider the author’s tactical approach and what it reveals about the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture.” Travis Allen
Second point of observation is to observe the author’s topical arrangement of the material here, he doesn’t just grab a bunch of really good verses and just throw them in there haphazardly, you know, shaking them up in a shaker and then just pouring them out and here they are. He goes to effort to make his argument, to make his argument the most acceptable to his audience, and you could even say it’s beautiful in the way he presents his case. It’s enjoyable to read. It’s interesting.
There are three divisions in this section, verses 5 to 14. The first is verses 5 to 6; the second largest section is verses 7 to 12; the third section is in verses 13 and 14. So 5 and 6 that’s a section, 7 to 12, that’s a second section, and then 13 to 14, a third section.
Commentator Gareth Cockerel provides some helpful observations about the arrangement, and he notes the parallels, especially that exist between the first and the third sections. Notice how the pastor introduces both 5 and 13 with a rhetorical question about the angels in verse 5. ‘For to which of the angels did he ever say?’ And then in verse 13, but ‘to which of the angels has he ever said?’ All right, they’re parallel. And those rhetorical questions arrest the attention. He’s not asking for an answer. The answer is obvious, but it’s rhetorical and it grabs the attention.
So from this opening rhetorical question about the angels, the pastor moves forward from there with an assertion about the supremacy of the son, which you can see in verse 5 and in verse 13. And then he moves back to a contrasting point about the angels in verse 6 and verse 14. Okay, so you see the parallelism there in those two sections.
The angels, though, they’re mighty in stature and in power, they’re great in their gifts. They attain to the highest heights of service to God. The pastor is, in a sense, using these angels as foils to highlight the son’s absolute supremacy. And by foil, I don’t mean he’s making fools of them. They’re a foil in the sense that they provide a contrast to draw out the character in the son or the nature of the son or the work of the son that he wants to highlight in contrast to the angels.
So just a quick example. Notice the contrast in verses 5 and 6, and then again in verses 13 and 14 between the relative natures of the son and the angels and the relative positions of the son and the angels. But it’s set in contrasting parallelism. So he starts with nature, then position, in verses 5 and 6, and he flips that around and finishes with the position and then the nature in verses 13 to 14.
So just to trace this out, verse 5, the pastor is asserting the nature of the son, because he is related to the father as a son. That’s his nature. And then verse 6, the pastor shows the position of the angels who are bowing before the firstborn, their falling prostate before him in worship.
Now come into verses 13 to 14, notice a contrasting parallel in verses 13 to 14. Verse 13, the pastor asserts the position of the son; before it was the nature of the son, now it’s the position of the son. He sits at the father’s right hand. The position is enthronement, which shows he’s the father’s equal.
But then in verse 14, now he speaks not of the position of the angels like he did before. Now he speaks of the nature of the angels, they’re ministering spirits sent out to serve those who inherit salvation. So verses 5 and 6, nature of the son, then position of the angels. Verse 13 and 14, flipped around, position of the son, nature of the angels.
Again, he arranges this, making an argument, and he’s demonstrating this fittingness, this beauty, this parallel structure which helps us to remember his points. It grabs the attention, it’s pleasing to the mind, it’s settling to the heart. The middle section, verses 7 to 12, is dominated by God’s declarations about the son, both his character and his nature.
But there’s an excellence in arrangement that grabs the attention, holds the attention, and I don’t want to intimidate anyone in making this kind of little applicational point, but isn’t it a refreshing feature when someone talks to you or they write to you, when maybe in preaching, teaching, writing, any form of persuasion, which all of us are called to do, by the way, Great Commission, we’re called to make disciples, by evangelizing and discipling.
So we are influencers in that sense, but isn’t it refreshing and pleasing when someone puts the time and the effort into studying and preparing to make the argument interesting? This finds biblical support, I think in Proverbs 15 verse 2, which says, “The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, but the mouth of the fool spouts folly.” The fool just lets it fly.
It’s the tongue of the wise that tries to make knowledge acceptable. Other ways to translate the word acceptable. It’s the basic Hebrew word, ṭôḇ, which means good. It could be saying, to make knowledge attractive, or to commend knowledge, or use knowledge aright or correctly, or even to adorn knowledge.
So it’s taking facts, true facts, but then it’s using them in such a way that lifts the level to make it pleasing to hear and easy to understand and even beautiful to hear. That’s something that this pastor is modeling in verses 5 to 14 for us, and he does it through the entirety of Hebrews. And it’s really what Scripture does all over the place and we should pay attention to that.
We should not just let our words fly, but we should be thoughtful about our thinking and our speaking and our reasoning and our persuading, how we can persuade people. And we’re all growing in this. I mean, I am far, far from feeling a comfort level with that. I’m still pursuing that myself. So it’s something we do for our whole Christian life and may God give us help in that.
Now, having said that, we can say this, that more important even than our desire to adorn knowledge or make knowledge acceptable, we need to make sure that what we’re adorning is true, that it’s according to God’s Word, that it’s real revelation that we actually are using the right proof text to make our point, that it’s accurately interpreted, that it’s harmonious with Scripture, because if we’re not saying something that’s substantially true and valid, you can put lipstick on a pig, but on closer inspection, it’s still a pig.
So let’s make sure we get the truth right and adorn the truth, have substance in what we say even as we pray and ask the Lord to help us be persuasive in presenting his truth to other people, right?
Third, here’s where we get into our outline, and we’re going to get into a couple verses here. Let’s observe the author’s systematic approach and how he is building his argument logically and making his points persuasive. We’re going to pay attention, close attention to the pastor’s topical arrangement, but I’m going to lay aside just his arrangement and his parallelism and those kind of things.
And I’m just going to lay this out kind of systematically, the way the author has developed his thoughts. So he starts in verse 5 and he’s proving that the son is the begotten one and then in verse 6 he is the preeminent one. In verses 7 to 9, he is the anointed one. In verses 10 to 12, he is the eternal one. And finally in verses 13 and 14, the son is the exalted one. So the begotten one, the preeminent one, the anointed one, the eternal one, and the exalted one.
Those are the arguments. So we’ll start moving through the points, number one: The begotten one, the begotten one, verse 5. He chooses two texts of Scripture to prove Christ’s sonship, and he backs up his original assertion of verse 2 using Psalm 2 verse 7 and then 2 Samuel 7 verse 14.
So Psalm 2 verse 7, “To which of the angels did He ever say, ‘YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU’? Can you think of any times in Scripture that the Bible refers to angels as sons of God? In Genesis 6 verse 2, in Genesis 6, verse 4, angels there are called sons of God, right? I guess that depends on the interpretation you take. I take it as angels.
Job 1, verse 6, the sons of God were appearing before God in heaven. Job 2, verse 1, Job 38, verse 7, angels are all in those places referred to as sons of God, and always in the plural. And when it refers to angels in the plural as sons of God, plural, it’s referring to the angels as a class of beings. Okay?
The pastor here is being precise in his language, which serious students of the truth can appreciate that precision. He says, “to which of the angels?” So there’s the angels as a class. But then he wants to isolate: Is there one Angel? Just one? To which one of them then, singular? Does God ever speak this way?
He’s calling us, just in the rhetorical question, to think through the Scriptures. Search the Scriptures and see if there’s an instance, just one instance, where God singles out an angel and dignifies his nature with the term son, singular. You’re free to look for yourself. I can save you the time and the trouble of searching.
The pastor does as well because his question is meant to be taken rhetorically. There is no such place in Scripture where God calls an angel a son. It does not exist. You will look in vain to find it. So to whom does this honor belong? There’s only one, Psalm 2, verse 7. The honor goes to the unique, only begotten Son of God.
Now at this point we come to a significant interpretive issue, and I’m not going to belabor it, but I am going to kind of review it with you. The interpretive question has to do with the timing of this proclamation of begottenness; whether the pastor is referring to the sonship of Christ’s eternal nature or is he referring to the sonship of Christ’s incarnational title?
Put it another way, is this about his eternal sonship, that he has son from before the ages? Or is this about his incarnational sonship that he’s called a son because of the role that he takes up in being our mediator? Give you a few things to chew on. First, I’m going to give you arguments for both views.
First in favor of the incarnational sonship view. The word today is a time reference. Today doesn’t exist prior to there being days. So the incarnational view is that today is a time reference. There’s a a divergent of opinion then on which day it’s referring to as a referring to the son’s incarnation.
Maybe another point in his incarnational ministry. So for example, today could refer to the incarnation since, as some say, in verse 6, that refers to his second coming, when he again brings the firstborn into the world. So again, meaning like a second time bringing the son into the world.
So again, after he already brought him into the world in verse 5. So the father son relationship of Christ to God is referenced, but it’s referring to the second coming or today could refer to the resurrection when he was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, Romans 1:4.
Paul seemed to make this exact point in Acts 13:33, when he said God raised Jesus up from the dead as is written in the second Psalm, “You are My Son today I have begotten You.” So does today refer to incarnational sonship? Maybe referring to his incarnation, maybe referring to the second coming?
He wants them to be blessed in following Christ, so his tactical approach, is to use Scripture as the authority and he sees it as sufficient.” Travis Allen
Maybe referring to the resurrection from the dead, or even his resurrection and his ascension and his exaltation, which the author does cite in verse 13. In each case, today is a time reference which takes today as a day at its plainest sense. Okay. That’s all arguments for the incarnational view, sonship.
In favor of the eternal sonship view. The author is saying the father has eternally begotten the son. Several arguments in favor of this. The term begotten, gennao, the verb there is in the text. The introduction identifies the son as the radiance of his glory, the exact representation of his nature, that’s all pre-temporal, that’s his identity, his characters’ nature before time began.
Or the statement in verse 6, bringing the firstborn into the world, does not mean second coming, but it means the firstborn pre-existed as the son. He can’t be called the firstborn being brought into the world in an incarnational sense, if he didn’t already exist that way.
So in this case, today is not to be taken literally as it refers to this day or that day, but instead today is a figurative reference to the timeless decree of God from eternity, which can be seen in one single eternal day. Then based on that eternal decree of sonship, there are several today’s that follow in the Life and Times of the Messiah.
So the today of his incarnation, the today of his resurrection, the today of his exaltation, et cetera, et cetera. So which is it: eternal sonship or is it incarnational sonship? I’m going to take the side of the eternal sonship side. I do believe that he’s insisting the sonship of the son is eternal, and from that sonship then springs forth the sonship that’s revealed in his incarnation.
It’s declared in power at his resurrection, sealed at his exaltation. It was proclaimed at his baptism, his transfiguration, but it’s his pre-temporal identity as the only and the eternally begotten son of the father. It’s from that, the rest of these points flow: his preeminence, his anointing based on his eternality, and his immutability in verses 10 to 12, and all resolving in his exaltation in verses 13 to 14.
Now to this irrefutable evidence of the son’s sonship, the pastor adds one more proof text just to make sure there is no debate and it’s 2 Samuel 7:14, the Davidic Covenant, which does have to do with the incarnation of the son. Again, “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.” That is a reference to the Davidic Covenant, 2 Samuel 7:14, and it has an immediate referent, which is David’s son Solomon.
In light of Solomon’s failure to measure up, he was eclipsed by David’s greater son, Jesus of Nazareth. Now you can turn to 2 Samuel 7:12 and following, this is God speaking to David, commending him for his desire to build a house for him, a temple. He says you’re not the man to do that. You’re a man of bloodshed, a man of war.
I’m going to have a man of peace, a king of peace, king of šālôm, Solomon, that’s what his name means. I’m going to have him build the temple. You prepare; he’ll build. So he says in 2 Samuel 7 verse 12. “‘When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up one of your seed after you, who will come forth from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
“‘He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me;” and “when he commits iniquity, I will reprove him with the rod of men and the strikes from the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not be removed from him, as I removed it from Saul, when I removed him from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; and your throne shall be established forever.’”
We hear that language coming out in Luke chapter 1 when Gabriel visited Mary. We hear this language, this sonship language again of the incarnation and the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. But when we scroll through the kings of history in human history, we realized that no one really measures up to the standard of righteousness that God requires of his king.
David, great king, he didn’t please the Lord in all things, especially in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, his wife. Solomon too, he was a great king, but he didn’t please the Lord in all things, and especially as it concerned the foreign wives that he amassed who led him into a terrible idolatry and horrid things happened there.
The one king who stands apart, whom this pastor is pleased to point to in verses 8 and 9, and his righteous character is the Messianic king. And of course, he pleases the Lord God because his incarnational sonship is predicated on this eternal sonship, a decreed relationship that springs forth from an ontological reality. It’s who he is, his ontology, he is God, he is the essence of God.
So the first person of the Trinity is related to the second person of the Trinity, as the father is unbegotten and the son is the only begotten of the father, and those two persons share eternally, the one divine essence. So that ontology of sonship between the father and the son, then leads to the incarnational work of the son and his identity.
So the second point, he is number two: the preeminent one. The verse 6, he is the preeminent one. Now this begins with the incarnation of the son, but the pastor immediately takes us back to divine preeminence in verse 6, the legacy standard Bible says, “When He again brings the firstborn into the world.” The placement of that adverb, again, makes it sound like this is the second coming.
This isn’t referring to the second coming. It’s not like so he again brings the first son in the he already brought the son the firstborn into the world, and now he brings him in again. That’s not what he’s saying. This is talking about the first advent of Christ and specifically referring to his incarnation. The error is in making the adverb, again, modify, he brings, instead of merely indicating the author’s just given it another proof text.
Here again is another one, so it is. “And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world,” he says, ‘and let all the angels of God worship him.’” So it’s clear the firstborn is already there. There’s a firstborn, a preeminent one, already in existence, prior to all creation, prior to time, prior to anything except God being there. And we know that from Colossians.
Colossians 1:15, “He’s the image of the invisible God.” He’s the firstborn, the preeminent one of all creation. Same word, prōtotokos, preeminent used there and here. This is a pre-temporal pre-creation view into eternity and his preeminence predates the incarnation, which is when the father brings the firstborn into the world.
The term for world here is not cosmos, but oikoumenē. Oikoumenē: oikos, the word house and then mene, it’s meno, a continuance of the house. So it’s referring to the economy, and we get our word economy from oikoumenē. He’s referring here to this specifically to the inhabited world, not to the economic world of humanity which is always bustling with activity and industry, enterprise, raising families, building, building, sowing, reaping and all the rest. And this is the world into which he’s bringing the firstborn into. Prior to the industry of man, the hustling and bustling prior to the creation itself exists the preeminent one.
So “when the fullness of time came,” Galatians 4:4, “God sent forth his Son born of a woman.” And when that time came is when he brings the firstborn into the world. And he says, “let all the angels of God worship him.” Anyone remember when that happened? The shepherds? When the angels came and appeared before the shepherds as they were shepherding their flocks by night.
It happened at Christmas time. Luke 2:13, “Suddenly there appeared with the Angel Gabriel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace among men with whom he’s pleased.’” They’re preaching the gospel of the son right there.
The angels knew better than to praise God and worship at the feet of any mere human being. John, the Apostle John, had once been overcome with bewilderment. Actually, twice, he mistakenly bowed at the feet of an angel who was speaking to him in Revelation 19:10 and Revelation 22:9.
He’s just in awe of angelic majesty. He’s overwhelmed with the revelation he’s receiving. He bows down before the angel; he’s speaking to him. And that Angel immediately rebuked him and says do not do that. I’m a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren.
No holy angel is going to make the mistake of bowing before a mere creature. They’re not going to commit that error. They’re not going to worship a fellow creature. Angelic worship of the son is proof positive of the son’s divine preeminence. They worshipped him at the advent of his incarnation, and that’s what the author’s referring to here.
But just to drive home the pastor’s point, why is he bringing all this out? He’s trying to say that the son is greater than the angels and the son is greater than all men, all creatures, all creation. He doesn’t change. He is preeminent.
He is God of very God, second person of the Trinity, and he is incarnated in Jesus Christ. And he comes bringing a word that’s better than the law of Moses. It’s better than the law that was administered by angels, brought to Israel by angels; their involvement we’ll get to that another time.
And so the author comes in chapter 2, verses 1 through 3 says, “For this reason we must pay closer attention, much closer attention to what we’ve heard, lest we drift away. But the word spoken through angels proved unalterable in every trespass and disobedience received a just penalty, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?”
Don’t go back to the synagogues; stay in your church. Don’t cave to pressure. Wherever the pressure is coming from, don’t cave to it. “Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your work in the Lord is not in vain.” Bow with me for a word of prayer.
Our Father, we want to thank you for making it so clear that your son is the one worth listening to. We also thank you for how this argument, and, is arranged, how persuasive the pastor is and putting forth his points and proving the son’s superiority over angels, over men, over everything.
We do pray that we would absorb the lessons here, that we have to learn that we would rejoice in the son because he is our savior and he is the head of the body of the church, and we are in him, members of his body, each one of us directly connected to our head and all of us corporately connected as well. We thank you for the goodness you’ve shown to us in Christ. We thank you for forgiven sin. We thank you for a clear conscience, for righteousness covering us like a garment. We thank you that we are reconciled to you in Christ. It’s in his name we pray. Amen.