LIFE & GAME CHANGER 1 OF 16

THE SON—GOD'S FINAL WORD TO MAN

"God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by diverse portions and in diverse manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in His Son." HEBREWS 1:1-2a

The letter to the Hebrews has a special value today because there is abroad a very widespread conception of Christ which is lower than that of the New Testament. To illustrate what I mean by this, a recent writer has said:

"One of the best things we can say about human nature is this, that whenever a situation occurs which can only be solved by an individual 'laying down his life for his friends,' some heroic person is certain to come forth, sooner or later, and offer himself as the victim—a Curtius to leap into the gulf, a Socrates to drink the hemlock, a Christ to get himself crucified on Calvary."

I am not proposing to discuss that at any length, but at once say that to place Christ in that connection is to me little short of blasphemy. We may properly speak of "a Curtius," "a Socrates," but when we speak of "a Christ," our reference to Him is not only out of harmony with the New Testament presentation, but implicitly a contradic­tion of what it declares concerning the uniqueness of His Person.

When we turn to the letter to the Hebrews we have a presentation specially showing the separation, of Christ from all others, and the reason of this is His Being and His work. Twice over in the course of the letter the writer calls upon his readers to "Consider Him." In the earlier occasion he says:

"Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our con­fession";

and later on he says:

"Consider Him that hath endured such gainsaying of sinners."

What is proposed in the present series of articles is that we accept that challenge.

While it is self-evident that this letter or treatise was written to and for the Hebrews, its teaching is for all Christians. The writer was evidently highly conscious of the fact that the Hebrew people were created and chosen of God to be his instrument for reaching all nations; and while dealing with the great truth particu­larly from the standpoint of the Hebrew outlook, he was doing so in the interest of all those who were in the pur­pose of God. Therefore, while the letter is a Hebrew docu­ment, it is pre-eminently a human document; and so, while Christ is presented to us against the background of the Hebrew economy, He stands in the foreground clearly revealed as related to the purpose of God for humanity.

In the opening sentences of the book we are brought face to face with a philosophy, and a definite declaration. The philosophy is discovered in the assumptions of the writer which are clearly implicated, though not formally stated. The message is found in the declaration he makes on the basis of these assumptions.

The assumptions are two: first, God; and secondly, the fact that God speaks. The first assumption that of the fact of God is the assumption of the Biblical literature throughout. We cannot read the first sentence in Hebrews without being inevitably reminded of the first phrase in Genesis, "In the beginning God." Then and here, and indeed everywhere else, for the fact of God is recognized, referred to, without any argument.

The second assumption is that this God makes Him­self known to man—in other words, that He speaks. This at once necessarily presents- God as more than an Energy diffused, or an Idea formulated; rather as having intelligence, and making known His thought to men. Later in the letter itself the writer says:

"He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek after Him."

That statement follows the assumptions we have been re­ferring to, namely, the existence of God, and the fact that He does approach men, and make Himself known.

As to the declarations, they are that God has spoken to men in history in two ways. We remind ourselves again that the letter was addressed to Hebrews, and of course to Hebrew Christians. Necessarily its outlook is limited by that fact. We may halt for a moment and take a wider outlook. There is no doubt that God spoke to other people than the Hebrew, and in other forms, which will account for certain elements of truth to be discovered in every form of religious thought. Nevertheless we be­lieve that His utmost and central speech to all peoples came through the Hebrew people. From that standpoint, therefore, the writer, looking over human history, says:

"God; having of old time spoken unto the fathers,"

Thus referring to the whole of the past economy; and con­tinuing says:

"Hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in a Son."

If we survey the Old Testament literature, which gives us an account of what the writer refers to by the phrase, "of old time," we find that in His dealings with men, He is recorded as having spoken first through angels. No prophet or priest is found in Genesis. Then He spoke through leaders, Moses and Joshua. He never spoke to men directly as to His government through kings. Then came the prophets. We shall find all these referred to in the course of this letter. The argument of the writer passes in review these methods of the past—angels, leaders, priests, and prophets.

We may survey the letter by imagining a Hebrew Christian reading it, and finding an answer to the things he might be inclined to say if or when, perhaps, he was tempted to think that in passing from the splendid ritual of the Mosaic economy to the simplicity found in Christ, something vital was lost. He might say, for in­stance, The things of our religion were ministered by angels. Says the writer in reply, That is true, but the Son is greater than the angels. But, says the Hebrew Christian again, We had a great leader from God, Moses. That, says the writer, is equally true, but he was a servant in the house, and the Son is greater than the servant; and moreover, Moses, while leading the people out, was unable to lead them into possession. That being granted, says the Hebrew, Joshua led us into the land. He did, says the writer, but he could give you no rest. The Son not only leads out, but leads in, and gives rest. Continuing, the Hebrew might refer to the great priesthood and ritualistic system of the past. This, the writer replies in effect, is all true, and was divinely arranged, but it made nothing perfect; and the coming of the Son was the coming of the Priest with the better covenant, and the better worship. And yet once more, the Hebrew might say, We had pro­phets who spoke to us the Word of God. That is true is the argument of the letter writer, but all they said was partial. The Word of God through the Son is full and final. Thus it is seen that the opening declaration that God spoke in times past in diverse portions and manners is recognized throughout as being true. God certainly was making Himself and His way known to men through all the period. But at last, after the days of diversity and processional method, during which so much had been said, but the final word had not been uttered, He spoke in His Son.

The question arises in the mind as to the reason why God adopted this method of dealing with men. We may find help in words on another occasion, which our Lord Himself uttered to His disciples at the end of His ministry, namely:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

From these words we see that the Divine method is always characterized by a process and a progression. God had in the past things to say to men, but He only said them as a man was able to bear them. This continued until the time when God spoke to men in His Son; and the difference between the past and this, is the difference between the processional and the final. The finality of the speech of God to men through His Son is thus suggested in the opening sentences, and argued for through the whole of the writing. Here it should be said that while the speech of the Son was final, man has not finally appre­hended that speech. Still the method is as man is able to bear; but now the process under the guidance of the Spirit of truth is that of the interpretation of the final speech of God.

Now we turn to consider the One referred to as "the Son." In the opening paragraph we have a sevenfold description of "the Son." He is first "Heir of all things"; secondly, "through Whom He fashioned the ages"; thirdly, in Himself He is "the Effulgence" of the Divine glory; fourthly, He is "the very Image of His substance," that is of the essence of Deity; fifthly, He is spoken of as "upholding all things by the word of His power," a reference to the maintenance of the moral order; sixthly, He is revealed in redeeming activity, making "purification of sins"; finally, His administrative position is declared, "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High." That sevenfold description is completed by another statement, perfecting the octave of the revelation. We are told that soon He will come again into the economy, and that when He does so, all the angels shall worship Him. To accept this interpretation of the Son is never to be able to say, here "a Curtius," and there "a Socrates," and here "a Christ." This presentation of Him puts Him out of comparison with all others.

This Son is first declared to be appointed by God, "Heir of all things"; and in that connection the statement is made that through Him the ages have been fashioned, a declaration revealing Him as over-ruling all the move­ments in human history. Passing from these declarations concerning His position, the writer speaks of the essential fact of His Being, and declares that He is "the Effulgence" of the Divine glory—that is, the One through Whom there was an out-flowing of that glory into manifestation. That being so, continuing, He is described as "the very Image of His substance." The margin of the Revised Version suggests that we should substitute for the word "image" the word "impress." The idea plainly is that the under­lying mystery of Deity which cannot be grasped or finally interpreted by human intellect was seen in the Son. Returning from this sublime reference to His Being, the writer next says of Him, "upholding all things by the word of His power." This, reference, of course, may refer to the material order of the universe, as Paul says all things con­sist or hold together in Him; but I tend to the belief that the reference is rather to the word of moral authority.

Once more, in what is but a passing reference, the redeem­ing mystery of the Cross is recognized in the words, "when He had made purification of sins"; until finally it is de­clared that having done that, "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High."

This is the Christ; this is the Son; this is the One through Whom God has now spoken. Having thus described Him, the writer looking on says, "When He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world." Here is one of the sentences where the translators have rendered a Greek word by the word "world," and the Revisers suggest in the margin that instead of "world" we should read "the inhabited earth." I submit that it would be far better to transliterate the Greek word, and allow the sentence to read, "When He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the economy." That word "economy" was in common use in the time of our Lord, and of the writers of the New Testament as referring to the Roman Empire. Now, says this writer, the Son is coming again into the economy which He established, and when He comes, all angels will worship Him. This is the Son through Whom God has spoken, and is still speaking.

Let me conclude the present article by re-empha­sizing things said at its commencement. When God spoke to men in Christ He said everything He had to say, which means that He said everything man needs to hear for his earthly life. I am careful to put it in that way, because there are things not said in Christ during the present life.

Paul said in writing to the Corinthians, "Now we know in part," and the one thing certain is that in Christ we may know all we need to know for today. To that statement I should like to add that even in the ages to come we shall still find, as I believe, all our knowledge centered in Him, as it increases.

To return, however, to that limited idea, we ask, What are the things man needs to know? That is, what are the things essential for the well-being of human nature? I should answer that the first is authority. There is nothing the world needs today more than authority; but it must be an authority that carries the consent of the governed. Human methods have constantly been those of coercing men to do things without their own consent. This always ultimately breaks down. When God spoke in the Son He gave men the one King, Who, being known in Him­self, Whose words being rightly apprehended, man will find the authority to which he can yield himself with per­fect agreement.

This very finality of authority brings with it a sense of failure, and out of this arises the next element of human need. It is that of a Mediator or Arbiter, Who shall come between God and man, and act so as to bring about re­conciliation. This is perfectly provided in the Son.

Once more, having found the King Whose standards condemn us, and the Priest Whose redemption reconciles us, we now need a Prophet Who can lead us progressively and unfailingly along all the ways of life. That Prophet is found in the Son.

What a salvation He has brought to us. Are men going to accept this final Word from God?