THE SON—GREATER THAN MOSES
"Moses indeed was faithful in all His House as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken; but Christ as a Son, over His House." HEBREWS 3:5-6a
God had spoken to His ancient people through Moses. The authority of the message through Moses had been undoubted. It was the conviction that God had spoken through him which had created and kept the nation through all the running centuries. It is perfectly natural, therefore, that Moses was held in great veneration. As an instance of that veneration it may be stated that some of the old Rabbis declared that there were fifty gates to wisdom, and that Moses held the key to all except one. It was of course, merely a rabbinical saying, but it reveals the veneration in which he was held.
The writer of this letter is careful not to undermine the authority of Moses, or to minimize it in any way. His argument is intended to show that those who hear the speech of the Son hear something which has yet greater authority than Moses, because it is a final message.
The section dealing with this matter commences with a call:
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, even Jesus."
The "Wherefore" of the call refers to all that had already been written. Because of the superiority of the Son to angels, and because He had been made lower than the angels, in order to rise to a yet fuller authority, and open the way for others to follow Him, we are called upon to
"Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, even Jesus."
The word "Consider" is an arresting and significant one. Towards the end of the letter we shall find it occurs again in another application. The word calls for careful attention with serious thought, such now to be occupied with Jesus as the "Apostle and High Priest of our confession." The word "Apostle" is used here in its simplest sense, as referring to One set apart and sent by God; and the word "High Priest" refers to One mediating between God and man by Divine appointment.
Having uttered the call, the writer proceeded to deal with the superiority of the Son to Moses. In order to understand his teaching it is necessary that we have a clear view of the background of the argument, and of the authority and greatness of Moses. Let it at once be emphasized anew that the argument does not compare Jesus as the One Who did not fail with Moses as one who did fail; but rather as One Who essentially was greater even than the one who was great in his service. It is quite true that at certain points Moses failed as the records reveal. No reference, however, here is made to failure, but rather to fidelity. Over against his fidelity, however, the writer shows that the speech of the Son is greater as to final authority than anything Moses, even in his faithfulness, had ever said.
When I speak of the background I refer to the fact that in this brief passage in which the writer is fixing attention upon Moses and upon Jesus, he has an outlook upon something with which both Moses and Jesus had relationship. The inclusive outlook is revealed in the recurrence in the passage seven times over of the word "house." If we glance down the paragraph we shall find that the word "house" is preceded by the pronoun "His" three times, and "Whose" once. These pronouns do not refer to Moses, but to God. Attention is drawn to this fact in the margin of the Revised Version. The background, then, of the whole argument is that of the House of God, in which Moses was a servant, and Jesus a Son. This House is referred to as being built, the exact meaning of the word there being established, or equipped, which, of course, postulates an act of building also. The idea, then, is that of a House built, established, equipped.
What, then, is the House of God thus referred to? We call to mind how in school days, when considering the history of America as well as England, we became familiar with the terms, House of Representatives, House of Plantagenet, House of Tudor, House of Stuart, and so on. The reference was in each case to ruling representatives and kings, but included the idea of the realm over which they reigned. The term, then, "the House of God," refers to the Divine Kingship, and the economy or order resulting from its exercise. This repeated reference to the House of God has that in mind; the government of God, and all that results therefrom. The writer is conscious of the sovereignty of God, and of the results of that sovereignty in the order established by all such as are submitted thereto.
This, then, is the background, the unifying and inclusive outlook. In that House Moses served, while over it Jesus rules as Son. This complete vision, therefore, is that of the persistent reign of God, including Hebraism and Christianity, not antagonistic to each other, but constituting two stages in the building up of the Divine order to finally arrive at the Kingdom of God. In our Bible we have what we speak of as the Old Testament and the New Testament; and we think of the Mosaic dispensation and the Christian dispensation as separated from each other; but they both are preliminary parts to the eventual whole of the Kingdom. While that is true in a sense, the larger truth is that of the one Kingdom, or House of God, spanning human history and including both dispensations.
In that whole, Moses is seen in his greatness as the servant of God. Here once more we are halted by a word. In our New Testament we have two different words which are both rendered "servant." One is doulos, and the other diakonos; doulos strictly meaning a bond-servant, and the other a servant who runs on errands. Neither of these words is employed by the writer of the letter to describe Moses. The word used here is therapon, which signifies one who renders voluntary service inspired by affection. Doulos might have been used, for Moses was certainly in a sense a bond-servant of Jehovah. Diakonos certainly might have been used, for he was ever running on the errands of God. Nevertheless the writer deliberately chooses a word which lifts service on to a higher level than can be suggested by either of the other words. Thus the very word employed emphasizes the greatness of Moses.
Moreover, he is distinctly referred to as one appointed by God, and it is declared that he was faithful in all the House of God. This faithfulness, moreover, was by the writer declared to be in order to:
"A testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken."
In this final declaration there is a recognition of the fact that the service of Moses was not in itself final, but preliminary, leading on to something more yet to be said.
When we look back at the history of Moses we see how he served in the House of God. That service was rendered in the building of the Tabernacle according to the pattern given. In that Tabernacle every detail was symbolic, and intended so to be. Everything was a testimony of those things to be spoken afterwards. God spoke through His servant Moses in His House in all the ceremonial ritual, so full of ornate splendor.
And yet again, Moses was the faithful servant in his reception of the law, and his interpretation of it to the people. As Moses had said:
"Jehovah, thy God, hath spoken all these words,"
Referring to the ten words of the Decalogue; and equally to all the interpretation of those words found in the laws given to the people, in detail. Thus Moses stands out in all his greatness, a greatness which is recognized by this writer.
With this recognition the writer puts Christ into sharp contrast with Moses as he speaks of Him as being "a Son over His own House." Moses and Jesus were appointed by God. Both were faithful; Moses as a servant voluntarily, and love-inspired; Jesus as also a Servant faithful, but as a Son in authority.
Being thus a Son, He is also the Builder of the House, and this applies to all that in which Moses served, as well as to all that which issued from the Advent of the Son in human history. In every process of the past, in which the greatness of Moses was manifested as he served, the Son Himself was the Builder.
And not the Builder only, but the Ruler. In his building and in His rule, the economy of God was carried forward until it finds its manifestation in the new economy which historically and manifestly is that of the Son. This is evident in the words of the writer:
"Whose House are we, if we hold fast our boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end."
Thus the whole Divine movement in history is seen, the period in which Moses served, as it merged into what we may describe as the distinctly Christian period, composed of
"Holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling,"
The House of God today, which is the Church of God.
The Son, superior to angels, made lower than the angels for the suffering of death, is seen at last in the full and final authority of His relationship to God. Because of this fact, Moses, great as he was, is entirely superseded. That does not mean that anything that fell from the lips of Moses, either in material symbolism or in interpretation of the law, was abrogated. Our Lord Himself, with great definiteness, declared:
"I came not to destroy, but to fulfill the law and the prophets."
What is intended is that through the Son, everything symbolized in the ritual, and everything demanded in the law finds fulfillment.
We may then, in conclusion, observe the comparisons between what Moses had said authoritatively as a servant, and what the Son has said in full and final authority as the Builder and Ruler of the House of God. The comparison is between Moses and Jesus in the method of the Divine approach to man.
Everything is summarized in the Prologue of the Gospel according to John in words full of majesty, and characterized by simplicity:
"The law came through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
The writer does not suggest that there was nothing of grace in the Mosaic economy, but rather that it was not clearly manifest. Neither does he suggest that there is nothing of law in the economy of the Son, for the word "truth" includes all of law.
Included within this comparison is that of the ethical demands of Moses and of Jesus. The laws which came from God through Moses were laws of conduct. In the enunciation of law from the lips of the Son on the Mount of Beatitudes, conduct was certainly referred to; but all the demands were demands on character. The laws of Moses were laws conditioning the doing of things. The laws of Jesus demanded being, or a condition of heart:
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
To face the ethical demands of Jesus, apart from His saving grace, is to be filled with a sense of unutterable failure.
Thus we reach the final thought of comparison: that of the approach of God to man through Moses, and the approach of God to man through Jesus. The difference may be discovered by the reading of the Exodus 20 in close connection with Matthew 27, which, of course, simply means the comparison between Sinai and Calvary.
Through Moses, God spoke to men in thunder, in cloud, in lightning, in the terror of tempest, and earthquake. Through Jesus He spoke through a broken, bruised and dying Man Who was infinitely more than Man. By Sinai came the law. By Calvary came the flowing of the river of grace.
The speech then of the Son is proved final as we contemplate the superb greatness of Moses as a servant, marked by fidelity; and then turn our eyes to the One Who, as Son, is at once Builder of the House, and Ruler of the House. Through Him God today speaks to man.
No comments:
Post a Comment