(avg. read time: 8–16 mins.)
1:5 For to who of the angels did he ever say, “You are my son, today I have begotten you”? And again, “I will be to him a Father, and he will be to me a Son”?
1:6 And again, when he brings in/forth the firstborn of the world, he says, “And let all you angels of God worship him.”
1:7 And [Even] to the angels he/it says, “The one who made his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire,”
1:8 but to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness [hapax] is the scepter of your kingdom.
1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, for this reason God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions,”
1:10 and, “You in the beginning, Lord, established/founded the earth, and the works of your hands are the heavens,
1:11 they will perish, but you remain, and all will wear out/become obsolete like a garment,
1:12 like a cloak you roll them up, even like a garment and they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never fail.”
1:13 But to who of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make/place your enemies as a footstool for your feet?”
1:14 Are they not all ministering [hapax] spirits sent out for service for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation?
2:1 For this reason it is necessary for us to pay even greater attention to what has been heard, lest we drift away [hapax].
2:2 For if/since the word spoken through angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received its due penalty,
2:3 how can we escape having neglected/if we neglect so great a salvation? Whatever was received at first to be spoken by the Lord, as was confirmed to us by the ones who heard him,
2:4 God also testifies in unison with signs, wonders, various powerful deeds, and by the distributions of the Holy Spirit according to his will.
As I noted in Part 1, I intended to save addressing more extensively the author’s use of the OT for this post. On the basic level, the author uses the OT by quotation, allusion, summary, reference to names/topics, recounting narratives, and echoing it, specifically the LXX most of the time. It is undeniable that this text is thoroughly saturated in Scripture. Hebrews generally follows the LXX as we have it today, but there is more to the picture than this simple statement. In my preliminary study of the cases where I could definitely count a quotation—a conservative fifty-six verses (counting repetitions)—twenty-four verses were exact matches for the LXX, small additions were introduced in one instance to the LXX, word order differed in six verses but otherwise followed the LXX in the words used, one verse involved a line being omitted compared to an LXX quotation, fourteen verses had slight variations from the LXX besides the conditions mentioned above, and ten verses did not follow the LXX as we have it in any meaningful way. In those cases where there are variations, it could be that the author had access to another Greek translation than the LXX/OG we have today, that he is relying on memory, or that he is translating the text himself. I hope to expand this study in the future to explore to what extent the uses of Scripture better match the MT, other versions of the Greek OT, or other versions of the text used in OT textual criticism as much if not more than the LXX.
In any case, at this basic level, we already see that the author of Hebrews has significant versatility in his use of the OT. But there is also versatility on the methodological level of interpretation, as we will see as we examine the individual uses of the OT. Three prominent features are worth noting at this point. First, the author uses typology in the key portion of his argument in chs. 7–10. This is a method of interpretation that sees mimesis operating in two directions in that it understands a person/people, event, or institution through the analogous correspondence to an earlier or later one (depending on what the interpreter is referencing). It depends on a theory of unification that understands the earlier type and the later fulfilling anti-type (the “true/full reality” to which the type points) in light of each other in order to place them in a singular worldview narrative. Second, the author uses an overarching interpretive lens of prophecy to interpret Scripture because of the aforementioned eschatological framework in which the author sees himself and his audience as being in the climactic days of salvation history because of the Christ event, but he thinks that other promises remain to be fulfilled. This framework manifests most often in the emphasis on Jesus’s exaltation, which is an eschatological event that has already taken place but also implies the hope for the kingdom that has yet to be consummated (1:3, 13; 2:5–9; 7:26; 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2, 25–29). It also manifests in the promise of the coming world (2:5–18), the promise of God’s rest (3:7—4:11), the anticipated city with foundations (that is, the future Zion; 11:8–16; 12:18–24; 13:10–16), and of course the belief that Jesus will appear once more, this time to consummate the salvation of those who wait for him (9:28). There are other more implicit appearances of eschatological themes such as resurrection and the final judgment that I will note as I have occasion. Third, particularly with the Psalms (by far the most quoted book in Hebrews) and especially in chapter 1, the author engages in the practice of prosopological exegesis (cf. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 36.1–2; Irenaeus, Epid., 49–50; Origen, Comm. Rom. 2.11.2). That is, he understands many texts as direct divine speech, with the human authors therefore acting as prophets and conveying God’s (or sometimes Christ’s or the Spirit’s) own speech as first-person speech (1:5–14; 2:11–13; 3:7–11; 4:3, 7; 5:5–6; 7:17, 20–22; 10:5–10). With these points in mind, let us now turn to the use of the OT in the first chapter specifically.
Of course, in the case of the first quote of the OT—the LXX of Ps 2:7—the psalm itself rather directly states that it is mediating God’s own speech. In the original context, this is the decree of the Lord spoken to the king (since this psalm is a coronation psalm) declaring the king to be his son. But the kings were only shadows of the one to whom this speech was ultimately directed, for Jesus is God’s Son in a unique sense, a sense which makes him exalted above the angels in a way that the kings of Israel and Judah were not. Furthermore, while “today” referred to the day of coronation in the original context, it is a prophetic “today” looking forward to the enthronement of Jesus in acknowledgment of who he always was. Jesus fulfills this text in a unique sense, and it applies to him in a unique sense because he is the Son of God in a unique sense because God is Father to Jesus in a unique sense, which the gospel narrative attest to.
The second quote is similar as it draws from the LXX of 2 Sam 7:14. Once more, this was originally a text spoken to David about his future son Solomon who would be to God a son in the sense of becoming king. In later times, it would become a key passage that formed a basis for the expectation for a Davidic Messiah, the one who would be an even greater Son of David than Solomon. Then Jesus fulfilled this text even more than Solomon as he was both Son of David and Son of God in a unique sense as he uniquely united both divine and human natures. The difference here is that, unlike in the last text when God is speaking directly to the Son, God is speaking of the Son in the third person here. It is also important to note that, since the following text refers to a circumstance of the Incarnation, these two declarations of Sonship are understood to apply to Jesus before the Incarnation. It is also possible that the future tense of the second declaration has in mind the demonstration of Jesus’s Sonship in his incarnate life and climactically in his post-resurrection exaltation.
This condition occurs again in the quotation of the LXX Deut 32:43, where the text is taken as God speaking to the angels about the Son. In the original context, this is Moses speaking near the end of the Song of Moses invoking the angels to worship God. But via prosopological exegesis, the author interprets this text as being appropriate for establishing the superiority of the Son over angels as God instructs them to worship him. As it is clear that God shares the worship from his people with no one else (cf. Deut 32:39), this is clearly establishing the equality of the Son with God the Father in terms of being worthy of worship. Indeed, since Jesus is the embodiment of God’s faithfulness and the executor of his will, the larger context of this text makes clear that this text appropriately applies to him, even if the original audience might not have perceived of this text as conveying differentiation within the Godhead.
The next quote from Ps 104:4 (LXX: 103:4) is not so clearly direct divine speech. It is not clear that the subject of the verb “says” has changed from God to Scripture, but it is also not clear that God is speaking to the angels here. It is certainly possible that the author means to indicate the latter; it is simply that the grammar of the passage makes this attribution awkward in this context. But in any case, the point is that the angels of God were made to be his ministers, beings who are spirits and flaming fires. This text is used to establish the subordination/inferiority of angels.
In any case, the contrasting quote in vv. 8–9—Ps 45:6–7 (LXX: 44:7–8)—is addressed to the Son, the one who possesses the divine throne that lasts forever. Furthermore, the scepter of his kingdom is the scepter of uprightness, fitting of Christ’s role as the executor of God’s will, the perfect representative of his Father and his kingdom. At the same time, even as the Son is referred to as God, God (the Father) is also the one who anoints the king who is his Son with blessing (lit. the oil of gladness) beyond the Son’s companions (which in this context the author could see as a reference to the angels). There is an important sense in which Jesus shares in the divine identity, but also an important sense in which he is distinguished from the Father.
Likewise, the quote from the unidentified speaker of Ps 102:25–27 (LXX: 101:26–28)—which is mostly similar to the LXX except for word order and an addition of two words in Greek (“like a garment”) that is a textual variant in many manuscripts—places the Son in the position of the Lord. In this case, the Son is described as the Creator—which the author has stated elsewhere before the Scripture citations—and Eternal One. Not only does this place Jesus in a superior position to the angels, but in describing how he does not change, it reiterates the point that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s faithfulness. Because God is unchanging, he is eternally reliable and trustworthy, his promises do not and shall not fail. Jesus is described in these same terms because, as God Incarnate, he embodies the irrevocable and inexorable faithful love of God.
The final text of this phase of the argument is Ps 110:1 (LXX: 109:1), the most commonly cited and (possibly) alluded text in the NT (Matt 22:44 // Mark 12:36 // Luke 20:42–43; 26:64 // 14:62 // 22:69; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33–35; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:27; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22), which also stands behind the imagery of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God in 1:3. Once again, this text is taken as direct speech from the God the Father to the Son, giving him the position at his right hand that he has never given to any of the angels and promising to him to put all of his enemies under his feet as a footstool. In contrast to this ruling position that he has on equal footing with God, the angels are ministering spirits sent out for serving the one who are to inherit salvation, the ones over whom Jesus is Lord.
To summarize, Christ is presented as the supreme speech-act of God, the one to whom all of salvation history—all of the previous speech and action of God—has been building. The author demonstrates this with Scripture citations interpreted prosopologically as direct divine speech either to the Son or to the angels (in one case about the Son). The very method of arguing contributes to the author’s point since these same Scriptures testified beforehand to the Christ who has now already come and will come again. This Christ is the one who has been identified as God’s Son in a unique way, the one who sits and reigns at his right hand, the executor of God’s will, and the embodiment of God’s unchanging, irrevocable, and inexorable faithful love. He is the one through whom God made the ages and he is also the one who fulfilled God’s purposes for the ages. He is also the supreme revelation of God to the world that God created, being the radiance of God’s glory and the imprint of God’s being, in some ways identical to the Father insofar as both are one God and in some ways distinguishable from one another insofar as one is the Son and the other is the Father. The Son shares in the unique divine identity of the Father. The Son reigns with the Father. The Son is worthy of worship that belongs to God alone. The Son creates with the Father. The Son shares in the kingdom reign of his Father. The Son is eternal and unchanging and the enactor of God’s unchanging will.
What then about the Father? I draw attention to this aspect of theology because it has received far less attention in the face of the unique Christology of Hebrews. It is important to attend to the theology proper/paterology of the book precisely because at every juncture here the author is linking the Son to the Father, whether it is in terms of overlapping identification, mediation of revelation, or otherwise identifying the Father as the “source” of the Son. I have written more extensively on this subject here and here. Here, we will simply summarize what we see in ch. 1. The God who is the Father of Jesus is the same God who has spoken for a long time through the Scriptures in anticipation of when the Scriptures would come to climax and fruition through the coming of the Son, his supreme speech-act in flesh. Through all the diverse means, texts, and personalities God has communicated up to this point, the purpose was to prepare the way for the Son, in whom all of his promises have their “Yes”, as Paul would say (2 Cor 1:20–21). By speaking through the Son at this time, God has announced that these are the last days prior to the consummation of all of the most glorious promises. Whatever span of time may pass between the first coming and second coming of Christ, the Father has shown in the person of Jesus that his loving faithfulness to what he has done and what he has promised is irrevocable and inexorable. As he has done and as he has promised to the ancestors, so he has done in Jesus and so he will do even more when Jesus comes again, for Jesus is God-in-person, even as he is the agent of the Father. It is the Father’s wisdom that is embodied in Jesus. It is the Father’s glory that is radiated in Jesus. It is the Father’s being that is the source of the imprint of Jesus. It is the Father to whom Jesus points in everything that he does and everything that he is. It is the Father’s throne in which he shares and the Father’s will which he carries out. It is from the Father that the direction of creation and salvation history come. It is the Father’s salvific power that the Son enacts through his death, resurrection, and exaltation. I hope in the future to unpack all of these points more fully, but this will need to suffice for now.
Now I move on to chapter 2, which serves as a nice complement to chapter 1’s focus on Christ’s exaltation in divinity. Chapter 2 focuses more on the human nature of Jesus and his accomplishments in the incarnation and thus provides a balanced Christology that would prove essential to the development of Christology in the early Church. But the overarching point remains once again that Jesus is the executor of God’s plan to save humans, who were created in God’s image for the purpose of being God’s viceregents in creation.
The author begins by noting that the covenant and gospel as announced through Christ requires even greater attention. After all, we see here another reason for the contrast of Christ with the angels. By implication of the foregoing and forthcoming argument, the angels were the initial messengers of the old covenant and if their word was steadfast and true and if anyone who fell afoul of it was justly punished, then surely these things are all the truer of the message, the gospel, of Christ, through which a greater salvation is received. Indeed, what the audience has heard was what was spoken by the Lord himself and this is confirmed by the ones who heard the Lord themselves (i.e., the apostles). What is more, God himself has confirmed what was spoken by the Lord and confirmed by the apostles, testifying in unison (συνεπιμαρτυρέω) with them by means of signs, wonders, and various deeds of power (names for deeds that would likely be collectively categorized today as “miracles”). Just as the gospel establishes continuity with Jesus’s proclamation and deeds, these works of God established continuity between Jesus and the Church that followed after him. These works are signs insofar as they point to the deeper reality to which they testify: the God who is behind these great works and the truth of Jesus whom they proclaim as Lord. These works are wonders insofar as they are beyond the normal capacities of the world and inspire wonder at the glory of God shown in these works. These works are deeds of power in that they are demonstrations of the miraculous power of God to accomplish his will in righting the disorders of creation and in overcoming the obstacles of fallen creation. Furthermore, God has testified through the distributions (i.e., gifts) of the Holy Spirit, dispensed according to his will (as Paul would add, for the edification of the Body). In short, the author is providing superabundant testimony to the truth of what they have heard proclaimed as the gospel and of its superiority over even the words proclaimed through angels in the form of the old covenant.