The Epistle to the Hebrews is full of contrasts and comparisons between the former messages and the last great message. This last message is surely the climax unless a greater messenger than the Son could be found, and the new covenant's superior authority is shown by the superior greatness of Him who brought and established it. We may entrust a minor errand to a child or servant, but the most vital transactions, if for any reason we cannot or choose not to attend to them ourselves, we entrust only to the nearest, dearest, and most trustworthy person. So God was content for the old covenant to be brought through the ministrations of angels; but "at the end of these days" he sent his own Son, the Heir and Creator and Upholder of all things. His greatness proves the vast importance of the message and stamps it with the highest authority of heaven.

      What did angels have to do with the former dispensation? (See Acts 7:30, 38, 53; Gal. 3:19.) And now that men might honor and value [22] the new message the more, the writer shows how much greater the Son is. His name is greater by inheritance. None of the angels ever bore that title. They are called "sons of God" in a figurative way; but this is the Son, God's "only begotten." He created all things, angels included (Col. 1:16), and his they are. The first of his proof texts is from Ps. 2; the next is a somewhat peculiar application of 2 Sam. 7:14--perplexing at first view, but, as a little thought will make clear, proper and beautiful. Turn to 2 Sam. 7:12-16. As a whole, the passage cannot apply to Christ. Why not? But in it is contained the promise of David's seed and the everlasting kingdom. The promise applied first to Solomon; next, to any son in the lineage of succession in the house of David; but pre-eminently to the great Son of David, elsewhere mentioned, for whom even the unbelieving Jews longed as their Messiah. (Matt. 22:42.) Hence it was not hard for the Jewish Christians to see that this passage was, in its widest bearing, Messianic; and as the Messiah should be the extraordinary Son of David, so would He be the Son of God in an extraordinary sense.

      The fact that God commanded the angels to worship the Son (a quotation from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, [23] which was then current) again marks the Son's superiority, if not divinity. Would you conclude from the wording of verse 6 (R. V.) that it refers to the second coming of Christ?

      Taking the quotation in verses 8, 9 as it stands in the text of both the King James and Revised Versions, Christ is here honored with the title "God;" and yet he is subordinated to God, for his God anointed him. Besides the Son, there is no being in the universe to whom this language could be applied. Who are the "fellows," the comrades, above whom He was anointed--the old messengers of God (the prophets), or the human beings on earth among whom he lived, or his own redeemed, or the angels? And why and when was the Son anointed? Evidently after having stood his test and proved his love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity. (What does the word "Christ" mean?) One anointing was at the outset of his public career (Matt. 3:16; Acts 10:38); but this passage seems rather to refer to his exaltation at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33).

      The next verses are as plain as they are sublime and beautiful. Christ is the Maker of all things, the Alpha and Omega, the unchangeable One--"the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever." Note how the present tense is [24] used of him in Col. 1:17: "He is before all things." Why does it not say: "He was before all things?" And in John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am." Why not, "I was?" What does that present tense signify?

      As for the angels, they are servant spirits. Do you recall any instances in the Old Testament where angels rendered service and aid to God's people? In the New Testament, when did they minister to Christ, to his apostles and disciples? (Matt. 4:11; 26:53; Luke 22:43; Acts 1:10; 8:26; 10:3; 12:7.) Is that promise for us also? Then let us have faith in it and claim it.

      "Therefore"--wherefore? Why should we give the more earnest heed to the gospel? We shall find exhortations and warnings interspersed throughout the whole Epistle, and it is in those parts that we catch a glimpse of the [25] spiritual condition of the Hebrew Christians that called for such a letter. They were hard pressed on many sides. In many cases their friends, relatives, and teachers persecuted them and urged strong arguments in favour of their abandoning the faith in Christ and returning to the old, well-accredited religion of their fathers. Besides, there was the warfare within, the wear and tear of life's turmoils, which of itself, under the best conditions, will kill a man's spirituality, and which must be met by constant renewal, just as the physical wear and tear of our bodies calls for a constant renewal by means of food and drink. The precious gift of the gospel must be maintained and sustained in our hearts; otherwise it will slip away from us, or, rather, we shall "drift" (note the word; it signifies the slow, imperceptible, passive sliding from the right road) away from it. The superior authority and excellence of the new message make a departure from it the more serious in its consequences.

      How shall we escape if we neglect it? This was spoken to well-meaning people. He does not so much as mention the possibility of their openly rejecting and renouncing the gospel. The danger was not there. Multitudes of Christians who would be horrified at the very suggestion of positively recanting their confession [26] of Christ lose their hope by neglect. Ours is a religion that requires constant attention, like a growing garden. There are these alternatives: Either give earnest heed to the message of God, or else meet the unanswered, unanswerable question, "How shall I escape?" In reading verses 2, 3, emphasize the words "angels," "we," and "Lord."

      The first two verses of the first chapter gave us a grand division of the whole Bible, drawing the line of distinction between that which was spoken to the fathers and that which was spoken to us--the former, by the prophets; the latter, by the Son. The two messages were, of course, not the same. The first contained hints, shadows, prophecies, types, promises of the great salvation which was to come through the Son; yet that salvation was a mystery until the gospel came--saints, prophets, and angels wondering and inquiring concerning it. (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12.) The veil was first lifted by Jesus. It "at the first began to be spoken by the Lord." It was a salvation revealed to us in speech, and that first by the mouth of the Lord. So we need not look for it back of Christ's day, except in types and prophecies. [27]

      Yet the Lord did not himself proclaim it to the world; but, having won the right to establish the new order of things, he simply announced it to his apostles (Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47), and made them his ambassadors and executors (John 20:21-23; 2 Cor. 5:20). Thus the salvation began at first to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him (the apostles), God bearing them witness. (Mark 16:20; 2 Cor. 12:12)

      For a long time it was generally accepted that Paul was the author of Hebrews; now it is believed that some one else, writing, perhaps, under Paul's supervision--at any rate, some one strongly imbued with Paul's manner of teaching--penned it. The style is somewhat different from Paul's; the language, calmer, statelier, and more ornate, although abounding in expressions peculiar to Paul's writing. But the chief argument lies in Heb. 2:3. Note Gal, 1:1, 11, 12, and see how emphatically Paul declares that he got his gospel directly from the Lord. Paul always had to meet opposition on this point, and at various times defended his apostleship in strong terms. Now (it is argued) surely Paul would not represent himself to the [28] Hebrews as one who received the gospel at second hand, and say: "It was confirmed unto us [that is, to me and to you] by them that heard." This, however, is a matter of small moment. The instrument is nothing; the God who used it, everything. As for the stamp of divine authority, this Epistle bears, like the other books of the New Testament, its own testimony; and from the first the Christians accepted, acknowledged, and honored it as a message from God.

      Our Father in heaven, we have to-day obtained a wider view of the glory of thy Son. We rejoice in this, our Savior, who is mighty to save. We thank thee that through him we have received the adoption as sons and have become heirs of salvation, and, as such, are being attended by the angels of God that encamp round about them that fear him. But grant us, O Father, wisdom and strength, that, recognizing the graver responsibilities connected with higher privileges, we may not neglect that great salvation. Awaken us when we grow indifferent; draw us back when we are drifting. Keep us mindful of thyself and thy love, that we may have a continual motive to serve you. Let thy word become daily more precious to us, lift us [29] into closer communion in prayer, and grant us a final escape from all evil, for Jesus' sake. Amen.

      The next lesson takes in Heb. 2:5-18. Whence was the quotation in verses 6-8 taken? What made David ask the question? Study the context in Ps. 8. Was it the littleness or greatness of man that impressed David? What was God's original purpose and what his ultimate purpose regarding man? Is that now realized? Will it ever be? What assurance have we of it? How did Christ's exaltation make his death available to every man? Why was it so hard for the Jews to believe that the Messiah should have to suffer and die? How is the fitness of it explained in this lesson? In verse 11 both the sanctified and sanctifier are all of one--"one" what? In verse 13, how does the quotation, "I will put my trust in him," prove that Christ took part in the human nature and infirmities of his brethren? [30]

[LOH1 21-30]