Hebrews 1:1-2 (Examine)
Today we want to look a little deeper at the passage through the questions that were brought up. Here are a few of those questions and some thoughts behind them...
1. Who was the author writing to?
Thoughts: This letter never identifies the recipient outright, so it is wise to look at the internal evidence for answers to that question. Hebrews quotes the Old Testament more than any other book in the New Testament. It details the Levitical system and emphasis "fathers" like Abraham and many other "witnesses" who were all important to Jewish folks. In verse one we find that God spoke through the prophets to the "fathers". This word is used to indicate descendants. The NIV says "our Fathers", while the NASB says "the fathers". Regardless, you can't read the book of Hebrews without coming to an obvious conclusion that it was written to Jewish Christians. that is why it was given the title "Hebrews" or more specifically "Letter to the Hebrews." Here is a link that will expand your perspective on the background information on the book of Hebrews.
2. Why does the author compare "in the past" to "in these last days"?
Thoughts: The author is emphasizing a change in the primary way that God speaks to His people. As a part of the old covenant ("in the past"), the word from God was spoken by many prophets and in many ways, but that is not the case presently. "In these last days" the emphasis is on one person with no mention of a variety of ways. He spoke to us by His Son!
3. What does the author mean by "in these last days"?
Thoughts: If I am trying to put myself into the perspective of the author, who was most certainly a Jewish believer who had extensive knowledge of the Old Testament and the Levitical system, I would think that "in these last days" is referring to the time before Jesus comes back. Jesus ascended and the angels declared that He was coming back in the same manner (Acts 1:11). The idea of the return of Jesus is referred to as the "blessed hope" (Titus 2:13). These literally are the last days, however, we don't know how long these last days will last.
4. Is what was spoken by the Son a replacement of what was spoken through the prophets?
Thoughts: Jesus never came to replace the law or the prophets, He was the fulfillment of them. Now that the Son has come, there is no longer a need for that which foreshadowed or spoke about His coming. He has fulfilled the Law by satisfying the demand of the law inorder to make purification for sin, and He has fulfilled the prophets by being the one to whom the prophesies was about. Not a replacement but a fulfillment... which makes Him greater!
5. How does the way God has spoken by His Son compared to the way God has spoken through his prophets?
Thoughts: I was intrigued by the differences in the translations, so I dug a little deeper. NIV translates "through" the prophets and "by" His Son. KJV translates "by" the prophets and "by" His Son. NASB translates "in" the prophets and "in" His Son. Both Dave and Chelsea made that observation. The preposition used in this passage is the same for prophets and His Son in the original language, so I don't think there is an emphasis denoting a difference using that preposition. The question is.... Is it "by" or "in". It is interesting that in the KJV that preposition is used 2782 times, and is translated "in" 1874 of those times. Why it is translated by here, I don't know, but based on other translations and the usual meaning of the word I believe "in" is the better word. I think of it as the dwelling place of truth. In the past truth dwelt in the words spoken by the prophets, but in these last days, it dwells in the words spoken by the Son and what has been revealed to the apostles by Jesus. Truth dwells in the person of Jesus.
Additional Thoughts: There is an emphasis on the Son in verse two that is intriguing. He was appointed heir of all things and He was involved in the making of the universe. You see His supremacy and His power! Can you imagine that the heir of all things and creator of the universe is the dwelling place of truth? How crazy is that? What is crazier is that we have access to that truth! Dwell on this truth today or rather let this truth dwell in you!
Comments
Nobody knows for certain if it was the (fathers) Jews near Italy, Rome, or Palestine. The title of the letter or sermon is addressing a non-gentile society. Many Judaizers in that time period could of heard this message as an undermined way opposing the Levitical law. The audience is generally accepted as being located in or around Italy from a dominant use of the Septuagint. Greek Old Testament translations was like having DSL internet, and you wouldn’t expect a Palestinian wealthy enough for its ownership. I am perplexed at the fact that Ryrie Study Bible states the letter was a stirring apologetic for the superiority of Christ. Why in the world should somebody need to apologize for God’s will?
Why does the author compare the past to the last days?
During that time period after the church started so many pagan religions were practiced , and others seemed to revert back to the Jewish customary law. There were a lot of people who seemed to force the idealology onto gentiles in following the law which Christ afforded them. This is a link to a Judeo Christian monument of the ten commandments in Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg they still seem to hold so dearly close to the constitutional right of bearing Arms (I lived in the Lone Star State for a short while, and I hold them close to my heart too). I love to write about the past, but lets see how verse two explains He is appointed heir of all those things. Verse 1 Chapter 10, “The law simply is a shadow of the good things to come” now think about that in regards to Yeshua.(Jesus in the Hebrew). God, used his own Son as Abraham used Isaac, and all the things He endured on the cross was the final sacrifice. Jews don’t need a law? The law condemns all things, and God sure made that truth come true. I love the Messianic Psalm 2:7-9 which details the last days a little further. Imagine those who did not deny the resurrection but still persecuted the message - for example, Saul of Tarsus, and Sanhedrin. Anyway, that’s my explanation.
Is what is spoken by the Son a replacement of what is spoken through the prophets?
No. Hebrews has more Septuagint references than any other book in the N.T.. Clearly atonement was the remedy to condemnation of law. I think the author understood this according to the word anointed. God was upset when Israel wanted a King, remember? I won’t explain Christ’s authority, He’ll show you through our earnest study.
How does the way God has spoken by his prophets compare to the Prophets?
Who’s your favorite prophet? Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, or the son of Mary. Jeremiah couldn’t Marry, Isaiah was stuffed into a log and sawn in two (legends) and Daniel was taken from his home to serve the Babylonian Government. The brother of James, son of Mary, and as Hebrews points out God’s right hand man is far superior. The prophets didn’t give up attributes to be prophets, they did the will of God. Christ was not impeccable He was amazing as anybody is in the will of the Father. The carnage of man is the difference in my mind. Jeremiah was astounding and so obedient even with not being able to marry his love Judith. God knew Bridegroom before the Passover.