READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, CHAPTER 1
[p. 112] READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, CHAPTER 1
We might take up the first three chapters this morning. We ought to have some definite idea of the division of the epistle. The first great idea is the Apostle, then the Priest and Minister of the holy places, and then the holiest.
Would you say the apostle is entirely in connection with the new order?
In point of fact; first of all in the epistle the question of responsibility is seen as settled, and the Son is introduced, sins are purged, and He is at the very centre of the new order of things, “the world to come”, Hebrews 2:5.
In view of the holiest — that is the end, is it not? The holiest belongs to the world to come. I do not think the holiest belongs to this world. It is part of the order of the world to come, not exactly of heaven now; it will have its place in heaven. It is important to see that the connection of the holiest is with the world to come, it is not part of this world. The idea of it is taken from the tabernacle; the tabernacle was never a pattern of the existing but of another order of things.
A pattern of heavenly things?
A pattern of things in the heavens, not exactly of heavenly things; we get heavenly things now; I do not think we have yet got things in the heavens.
Are there two things referred to in chapter 9:23? Heavenly things are christianity, things in heaven are things in heaven. The Lord says in John 3: “If I tell you of heavenly things”.
Yes, I think so: the difficulty is in seeing that we have heavenly things brought down to us. We have [p. 113] that here with the introduction of the Son, and of necessity you must have this new order.
Therefore you get the holiest in Him.
As we get outside of present things, we get into the holiest.
Quite so. In chapter 1, it is the greatness of the Speaker, the One in whom the eternal throne is established; in chapter 2, the divine counsel in Man, and the world to come; and chapter 3, God’s house, outside this world, it is moral.
What is the name He inherits?
The idea of name is that which God is pleased to set forth in a Man; that is His name. Whatever God is pleased to set forth in Christ, that is His name, but before ever the name is introduced you get the greatness of His Person, the Person is greater than the name He inherits. Name is renown, “They shall call his name Emmanuel”. I do not suppose that the Lord when here ever did anything to prove that He was God, but He did a great many things to prove that God was here in Him.
That is a very important observation, the Lord did a great many things to prove God was there, etc.
It is the whole thing, “They shall call his name Emmanuel”, Matthew 1:23. God with us was to be set forth, and there was the complete setting forth of God. That is the character of Matthew. The Lord Jesus had veiled His glory. In becoming a Man He became the vessel in which God was set forth. His object was to set God forth, not Himself. He says, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true”, John 5:31. It was a just conclusion arrived at, “That God hath visited his people”, Luke 7:16.
Now you get the introduction, it is the Person in whom God has spoken.
Really the glory of the Son was not declared till resurrection.
The contrast between chapter 1 and chapter 2 is,
[p. 114] that the first gives us what is for God and the second what is for man. The name inherited represents everything that is for God. It was now God speaking, not as by the prophets, but in the Son. There cannot be anything more blessed than God making known what was in His own heart and His counsel in a Man. That Man was the Son. Another thing follows, viz., that you cannot have any more communications, no one can speak after the. Son; it is the last word you can have from God, the Son speaks after the prophets, but no one after the Son.
“At the end of these days” (Hebrews 1:2) “last days” refers to. Messiah’s days, does it not?
Not Messiah’s days; as a matter of dispensation, the day of the law is not over yet. The Jews divided time into two parts, the day of the law and Messiah’s day. The day of the law is not strictly over. There is a kind of parenthesis now. Messiah’s day is not yet introduced. The passage refers to the last of those days, days of the law. We are brought into the blessing of the parenthesis, the blessing of heavenly things. Christ left things outwardly pretty much as they were. He did not touch Moses’ seat. He says to His disciples (Matthew 23), “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works”, Matthew 23:3.
The fact of the Holy Spirit being here and speaking, connects us with another day and order.
The world to come is not put under angels; what he says is this, “We see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, ... crowned with glory and honour”, Hebrews 2:8. He is in that place for us. In Ephesians 1 He is given to be Head over all things.
In Ephesians it is counsel, the actuality has not come. In principle it has come, it has come for us; if exalted, all things are put under Him. We see Jesus crowned: we see the top but not the bottom. It is not yet manifested so as to be seen, but really for God [p. 115] it is effected; it is not so important for us to see all put under Him, as it is to see Him crowned with glory. All things will come to pass in due time, but that is not so much the point for us. I think that it is a most blessed point to see Him, seating Himself on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, Hebrews 8:1. He is at the centre of the counsels of God. God’s end has been reached in that way, and it shows the dignity of His Person, too. What is important in chapter 1 is that everything is cleared for God; I do not think people will rightly understand what belongs to them unless they understand that. All the rest is detail.
What is the force of inheriting a name?
Taking up different things spoken of in the Old Testament, and thus showing that these things are all centred in the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”, Hebrews 1:8. “Thou remainest”, Hebrews 1:11. “Let all the angels of God worship him”, Hebrews 1:6. It is what is set forth in Him.
Is it the writer addressing the Lord in verse 10? There is no ‘Lord’ in Psalm 102:25. There the psalmist is speaking of God, here it seems to address the Lord.
The Septuagint has Lord; it is a quotation from it. It is adopted by the New Testament writers where it substantially expresses the truth.
I think the point is that when all created things pass away, He remains. He changes everything, but Himself remains the same.
I thought the writer made that quotation as showing the name of Deity as applied to the Lord. He is the Same, the immutable One.
Well, yes, it does, but that is not the point. The name with which the chapter opens, “The Son”, is greater than all He inherits. All would admit that a person must be greater than any name he could inherit. In the psalm, “Thou art the Same” (Psalm 102:27) is in contrast with the One cut off in the midst of His days. Here it [p. 116] is in contrast with the passing away of all things; they will all fulfil their purpose.
Speaking of the ways of God, He abides till all is finished and over.
I think the idea of the whole chapter, is what there is before God, what God has established for Himself in the Son, the setting up of God’s throne.
Thus we get that which applies to Him from eternity distinguishing His Person, and that which applies to Him as born in time.
All that is predicated of Him as born in time; He inherits the moment He becomes Man; all is going to be set up in Him as Man, and it is not simply the glory of the Man but the glory of the Son in manhood.
I think they are things, which for God’s glory, are set forth in Him. It is what God intends to set forth in a Man, only the One who takes up these things is the Son; no man could take them up or be competent to hold them, but the Son.
That is, I suppose, He is behind all that which is external? The first four verses give us the text for the whole epistle.
They give character to the whole.
You say ‘predicated of Him as born in time’; is it not resurrection?
They are predicated of Him as born in time; the difficulty is this, that if all were not taken up in resurrection, Christ would be totally alone, we could have no part with Him otherwise.
We are not brought in in this chapter, but in the next, because there it is a question of us. First-begotten brought into the world (verse 6); it is predicated of Him personally.
Bringing in the first-begotten into the world is looked at as a whole.
It is not the place, so much as the Person who takes it.
Yes, death and resurrection come in for us.
[p. 117] The first and second coming are looked at as one whole.
“Annulled death, and brought to light life and in-corruptibility by the glad tidings”, 2 Timothy 1: 10.
It was for us, not for Himself; He did not want it. Take Psalm 45, “My heart is inditing a good matter”. It really is the grace and beauty of the Person, “Grace is poured into thy lips” and, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”. It is what attaches to Him. Then again Psalm 102 is the divine answer to His humiliation; He was cut off in the midst of His days. The divine answer is, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning” (Hebrews 1:10), etc.
What is the idea of the “expression of his substance”, Hebrews 1:3?
I think Christ is naturally the exact expression of divine substance.
It is essential being, not person; all that is moral; the essential being of God is naturally expressed in Christ. You can have no other idea or expression of it but in the Son. Becoming a Man, He becomes the Logos. It is different from being the brightness of His glory; glory is effulgence. If God sees fit to come out and display Himself, Christ is the effulgence of God. It shines out in Christ; but He is the exact expression of His substance, that is a deeper thing. Glory is rather more display.
The note in the New Translation says effulgence is ‘that which fully presents the glory which is in something else’.
Exactly: if God sees fit to let us know what His glory is, He comes out as the Son.
I suppose that we have here the glory of the Person who takes us into the holiest?
Yes, but then you have gone on to the Priest. This is the coming out. The Lord was all this before He did any work whatever, it all belonged to Him. I think the first two chapters lay the basis of the epistle;
[p. 118] in the second you get what you do not in the first. You get the counsel of God in the complete subjugation of evil; one great idea connected with the Son of man is the complete subjugation of evil. All things are put under His feet; that establishes God’s purpose, but also involves the subjugation of evil. This is necessary to the first, man exalted but evil subjugated. It is by the seed of the woman; man was not the seed of the woman, but the Son of man is; the seed of the woman was to bruise the head of the serpent. It is Christ’s supremacy as Man. There are certain great things involved in that; one is, “bringing many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2:10) and the other the subjugation of evil.
In that connection the genealogy in Luke 3 is traced back to Adam.
That is to bring Him in as Son of man. It is the purpose of God that as Satan brought in evil through man, so God brings in the subjugation of evil by man. That is the real meaning of Psalm 8. The importance of man is inexplicable except to those in the secret; the regard God has to the Son of man is wonderful; then the secret comes out that it is the divine way for the overthrow of evil. Man is the being in whom the whole question of good and evil is solved.
God in His purpose had man in view. The Hebrews who had a tendency to go back were in danger of losing all this; would not that explain the way he unfolds these things?
The highest thought the Jews had was of the Messiah, they had no idea beyond that. The Spirit of God takes up two things, neither exactly Messiah: in chapter 1, “The Son”, in the second, “The Son of man”. Christ is both, but neither one nor the other is exactly the idea of Messiah.
They did not know the glory of their own religion. You see the mind of the disciples when they said: “We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel”, Luke 24:21. They did not go beyond that. Did not their own scriptures point to Him as the Son?
Yes, this is what the writer brings out here, only putting things on a greater platform. God had spoken in the Son, and everything is put under the Son of man; it is universal, nothing is left out. These Hebrews afford a practical evidence of the danger of leaving out God’s purpose in christianity. If we do not go on we go back. I really think very few people enter into God’s purpose. I do not think they have much idea beyond being saved. The immensity of God’s purpose is poorly entered into by us.
Did you remark on how far the apostleship goes in chapter 1?
There is not apostleship strictly until you come to chapter 3. The contrast there is with Moses. In chapters 1 and 2 the contrast is with angels.
Why is there so much stress laid upon angels?
The Jew gloried in the law given by the disposition of angels. An angel is a most exalted creature of God.
You have said that in chapter 1 we have the Lord viewed as setting God forth, and in chapter 2 as leading men in?
In connection with the Son of man you get the revelation of God’s purpose to bring many sons to glory. He brings that to light. It is not exactly, if I may use the expression, when all things are subjected to the Son of man that that is done, but it is while His rights as Son of man are in abeyance, though we see Jesus crowned with glory and honour.
Did not the place angels had, imply distance between God and man?
Very likely; I had not thought of it. Now there is to be no distance. God has come out.
You do not think brought to the holiest is brought to glory? Or does the holiest anticipate the glory?
No, the holiest does not; in one sense the holiest [p. 120] belongs to the world to come. The world to come becomes the display of God’s glory evident and manifest; it is the establishment of what is of Himself. That is what is anticipated here, “the world to come of which we speak”, Hebrews 2:5. You have the light of the world to come if you see Jesus crowned with glory. The writer later on says we have come to these things; chapter 12:22. When God’s throne is established, His purpose effected, and evil subjugated, we get the display of His glory. But, so far as the complete revelation of glory is concerned, only in the heavenly sphere.
The revelation holds good for everybody, but the capacity to enter in is a very different thing. It is through the medium of the church for those on earth. Everything is to be put in touch with God. The church with God, Israel and the nations with the heavenly city. All know the Father, but all will not be able to enter into that revelation. God cannot draw back on His side. Everything on our side depends upon the capacity given for entering in; what constitutes the sanctuary is God coming out, but there is another thing, you can go in, but you cannot go in apart from Christ.
There are two things then quite distinct — God coming out and our going in?
Yes, and the coming out stands good for the whole universe; every family is named of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they have not the same capacity for going in.
Will Israel have the Spirit of adoption?
No, not as we have; they will enjoy God according to the capacity given them. In certain things the whole heavenly company is looked upon as one. I think the twenty-four elders in Revelation represent the whole heavenly company. I do not think that alters the fact that the church has its own peculiar place, which is not the subject of that book. You get the church in [p. 121] the end, however, as the heavenly city, the bride, the Lamb’s wife. So far as God’s coming out was concerned, it was complete in the Lord’s Person on earth, but you must have the veil rent.
Christ on earth was the holiest in His own Person, but it was as closed until the veil was rent.
I think there was in Christ that which was outside in touch with man, but there was the inner garment. He was the holiest, but there was no way in; I mean there was no communication as yet.
Do we not see the church in the man child of Revelation 12:5?
We can see it spiritually; you feel it must be so, but there are many things the spiritual eye can see, but which are not on the surface, and we cannot be too simple in dealing with Scripture. There is a difference between what is taught in a passage and what underlies it.
I thought it was the veil, not the holiest, that set forth Christ.
What of the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat then? They typify Christ.
What is the meaning of made “perfect through sufferings”, Hebrews 2:10?
He is installed through sufferings. Crowned with glory and honour, He has reached that place through sufferings. He is installed through sufferings, not initiated, that would not do; initiated means that one is instructed in mysteries, that could not apply to the Lord.
Is it akin to learning obedience through sufferings? Yes, quite so. He is installed in the place according to the purpose of God, He has gone through sufferings to reach it. I think you can see the object of it. He takes that place in relation to us. We pass through sufferings and trials and He too went through them. There is a suitability to us in it.
What is the thought in “Leader of their salvation”, Hebrews 2:10?
[p. 122] He is the first to go in. He suffered in order to succour and to sympathise, He is to be pre-eminent in all things.
Is it not also, as saving? God’s purpose was to bring many sons to glory; He must go that way.
That is all true; there is complete identification with those who are the heirs of salvation. The Sanctifier and sanctified “are all of one”, Hebrews 2:11. An important point is that chapter 10 takes up again the thought in chapter 2. The thought there is that God is bringing many sons to glory; in the recognition of that, Christ is not ashamed to call them brethren. The identification is seen in the quotation from Psalm 22. The idea of sanctification appears again in chapter 10; when you come to that, you will see how we are sanctified. The idea here is akin: there it is to show how the purpose of God is carried out.
The will and purpose of God are brought out in that way.
It is put abstractly in chapter 2. It is the connection with the divine purpose there, and a very definite application in chapter 10.
“Will I sing praise unto thee”, Hebrews 2:12. Is that present or future?
It is quoted from Psalm 22. It is the praise the Lord took up in resurrection.
Do you connect that with the holiest?
How could it be other than the holiest, where Christ is?
Is it not Christ singing praises to God in His own knowledge of the Father?
Where Christ is there must be the whole light of God. It is really the presence of God, He brings it. There are two sides, what He brings and what He conducts us into. If He is in the midst, that is the holiest.
What connection has that “Will I sing praise” with the future remnant of Israel?
[p. 123] The Lord says afterwards, I will praise Thee in the great congregation; that refers to Israel and will have its application in the future. He takes His place in the midst of Israel, and He also praises God among the gentiles.
I thought the great congregation took in the gentiles? No, it is Israel; it is distinct in a sense from the priestly company, the sphere is enlarged. We see the place that Christ takes in every circle, the assembly, Israel, and the gentiles.
Then verse 12 has no reference to the remnant by and by?
No, it applies, I imagine, to the remnant of the present, Mary Magdalene and the disciples in John 20 — to the place Christ took with the remnant when He arose. The New Testament shows how we come in to what was proper to the remnant. The remnant became the heavenly band.
How does Christ praise as distinct from us? With respect to Him as leader, I mean?
You need to understand how Christ identifies Himself with us, He is on God’s side to declare the Father, and He is also identified with us. The Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one. We can understand Him better on God’s side than on ours because we are such poor things.
If He identifies Himself with our praise, we ought to think of our identification with Him.
You find the same thing in the cakes upon the hands of Aaron and his sons; Leviticus 8:27. I think we should find a great difference if we were conscious of that.
Do you believe that Christ has pleasure in your company?
There are some kind of praises that Christ can hardly lead.
You see it in the association of the Lord with the disciples; they hung on Him and He supported [p. 124] them. The Lord had the greatest pleasure in that little company.
He said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”, Luke 22:15. If this were realised, it would give character to the breaking of bread.
It would give character to the assembly. It is most wonderful that the Lord should have pleasure in our company. If He had not been a man upon earth you could not have understood it, you could not understand it from doctrine, but only from fact. The Lord did not go among angels to find companions.
Then what you get is this, that all evil is completely met in power. There are two great things: Christ has tasted death for everything, and through death destroyed him that had the power of death. He has met all in that sense.
Before Christ praises in the great congregation, what will the remnant have? In what way will they be connected with Him?
I do not think there will be any public connection until He praises in the great congregation. He will support them as Priest, but the great principle is that they believe in Him when they see Him. You could not speak of singing or praising during that period. Chapter 9 refers to the priest coming out to the people. “Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation”, Hebrews 9:28.
“Behold I and the children which God hath given me” (Hebrews 2:13) is an expression of the Lord’s delight in the children. All is on the principle of identification; the children are with Him. It is in the time of His rejection; and so, too, the quotation, “I will put my trust in him” (Hebrews 2:13) is on the same line. It shows the way in which He completely identifies Himself with the objects of God’s purpose, the sanctified company.
When Moses and the children of Israel sang the song of deliverance, is there any analogy in that to what we have now? “In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee”, Hebrews 2:12.
No, I do not think so. I think that is very much more like Christ in the midst of the great congregation. They sing the song of Moses and of the Lamb in Revelation 15. It is not the present time.
Chapter 3 is a contrast to Moses. God’s house is spoken of and you have the Apostle. Moses is referred to as the one who set up God’s house, that is as apostle, but then a contrast comes in. Christ is Son over God’s house. Moses was servant in it. You get the house, Christ as Son over it, and the Holy Spirit speaking there.
Is the Apostle and Son the same thought?
The Son is Apostle. The apostle is the one who set up the economy, the builder; only Moses was not exactly a builder, but Christ is, He built all things. The idea of the house of God which the tabernacle typified was the universe; that is properly God’s house. Christ is over the whole system of blessing. ‘The centre Thou and Sun’. He is Head over it all also. “Whose house are we” (Hebrews 3:6), is, as far as it goes now, God’s house. Christ is over it as Son, and the Holy Spirit speaks, “Wherefore as the Holy Spirit saith”, Hebrews 3:7. The Holy Spirit speaks in connection with the Son.
Why does it say “Consider the Apostle and High Priest ... Jesus”, Hebrews 3:1? Why the personal name?
Because it is a personal office in that sense. It is in connection with Him as Man. He takes up the place of both Moses and Aaron. We have to consider Him in these two ways, as Apostle and Priest. The apostle inaugurates, the priest carries on what is inaugurated. Aaron did not set up the system, he carried it on. Moses had nothing to do with the ordering of the sanctuary, when once it was set up Aaron was the minister. The system is introduced by Christ, but He is the Aaron also.
The Holy Spirit says, “Hear his voice”, Hebrews 3:7. Is that the voice of the Son?
It is God’s voice, in a sense, giving present application to the Scriptures; you are bound to listen to the Scriptures in the house. All the New Testament is the Son’s voice, but here the Old Testament scriptures are referred to. In the first two chapters you get the attitude of Christ, first from God to man, second from man God-ward; we have to consider Him in these two ways. Hebrews is our Leviticus, not quite Numbers, though that is referred to in the end of chapter 3. It lays down the order of our approach to God. Leviticus was the setting up of the tabernacle system. The offerings had to be offered by Moses first; after that, we have the way in which Aaron and his sons approach. The Lord speaks out of the tabernacle after it was set up. The system was not inaugurated by Aaron. Properly, the first thing is the ordering of everything, then the consecration of the priests; that was the work of Moses; then Aaron and his sons come in, and you have the great day of atonement. Moses did not have much part in that. But the fact is you cannot work out christianity from Leviticus; it is only a shadow; people who have tried to do it have made a mess. A man makes a model of the tabernacle and tries to fit everything in with christianity. You cannot do it, all is spoilt. It is not the image of things, only a shadow. If you make a model, you make a model of what characterised the time when the way into the holiest was not made manifest. The divine description of the detail of the tabernacle began with the ark of the covenant, not with the brazen altar, that is the divine way. What characterises the present time is not merely that man has gone in but God has come out. Nothing is more feeble than to attempt to work out christianity from Leviticus. You must begin with the ark, that is what you get in Romans 3. When you know christianity, then you [p. 127] get a great deal of help as to detail in Leviticus. J.N.D. was once asked whether he could preach the gospel from it, and he said, ‘Yes, by putting it into it’, and so he could from any text.
Another thing has come to pass, viz., that the Holy Spirit is here, the Holy Spirit speaks. It is very much more serious to disregard Scripture now than in that day. There is always an effort to divert our minds from what God says today, it is, Let us listen to what God said in some other day. In christendom there is no conception of God’s house and the fact of the Holy Spirit dwelling here. No one can learn it who has not the Holy Spirit; until that is the case you cannot understand even the words. In christianity you know the words by the things spoken of; if you have not the things you do not understand the words. The house is where God is speaking today, which makes everything very serious. What revolutionised most of us in our thoughts, was the apprehension of the fact that the Holy Spirit was here. It brought most of us out of system, there may have been other considerations, but that was the main fact, believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
I thought that was more the character of the temple?
The temple is more the shrine, it is brought in in Corinthians mainly in connection with holiness. In the temple every whit uttereth His glory; Psalm 29.
in Hebrews, we get the company among whom the Lord sings praises, why do we not get the Father’s name revealed?
The coming out of the Son must declare the Father’s name; it is involved if not stated. “I will declare thy name unto my brethren”, Hebrews 2:12. In the very fact of the Son having become man, God stands in connection with a man as Father. That is to me the declaration of the Father’s name. In resurrection the Lord says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father”, John 20:17. This is not taught in Hebrews, but it is involved in the fact of the Son having become man. It is assumed; the consecrated company are in that relationship. The capacity for enjoying the declaration varies. Every family is named of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but every family does not enter in, in the same measure. If Christ leads the praise, He must do it according to the truth of the revelation. But then the Lord is very pitiful. Still, it would be wholesome to ask ourselves sometimes whether we are in concert with Christ. It might be in a very small measure, and yet we might be in concert with Him. The fact is, that although it is not wrong to address praise to the Lord, ‘Lord Jesus, when I think of Thee’, (151:1) for instance — a hymn I am particularly fond of — yet that is not singing in concert with Him. The Father’s name was declared in the Son becoming a man. God is seen in the relationship of Father to a man.
“Your Father which is in heaven”, Matthew 5:13. Is that how saints understand the Father now?
No, not exactly, that is what marked that moment; Christ was here as Man, and God stood in that relationship to Him, and He associates the disciples with it; He regards them as associated with Him. I do not see how anyone can possibly understand the church, if he does not understand what Christ was here in the midst of His own; it shows His pleasure in their association. Mere teaching would not express what the Lord’s pleasure was, you must see it practically expressed.
How far does this section go?
It takes up warnings to the end of chapter 6 — that is parenthetical. In chapters 7 and 8 you have the greatness of the Priest and the sanctuary.
Why are these warnings brought in?
Because we are here on the footing of responsibility; we are recognised as responsible to hold fast.
We are God’s house “if we hold fast the confidence, etc”, Hebrews 3:6. You find, ‘if’ brought in, in that connection. That is the reason why the Priest is brought in (chapter 4), so that we may have grace to hold fast.
The tendency was to attach the Lord to an earthly system.
So it is with us, but that is only to go back, and leads to apostasy.