 You're listening to the Naked Bible Podcast. To support this podcast, go to nakedbiblepodcast.com and click on the support link in the upper right hand corner. If you're new to the podcast and Dr. Heiser's approach to the Bible, click on newstarthere at nakedbiblepodcast.com. Welcome to the Naked Bible Podcast, Episode 175, Hebrews Chapter 1, Verse 1-4, on the layman, Trace Triplen, and he's the scholar Dr. Michael Heiser. Hey Mike, how are you? Pretty good getting set for fantasy drafts this weekend. Yeah, it's actually this weekend, so I'm excited. I've renamed my team. I don't know if you noticed. I did that. The Pugs. Something about Pugs, all right? The Pugnacious Pugs. Pugnacious Pugs. And we are pugnacious. That's a little too cute for me in fantasy football, so I think you just sealed the deal that you're not going to be a major threat with a name like that. Maybe I should change the picture. I'm not quite worried now, so thank you. I can count you out. Well, we're the sleeper team. Okay. Well, you think that, well, we shall see, Mike. We shall see. So I'm excited football is starting up, and good luck to you, sir. Yeah. Well, good luck. That's a great theological statement right there. Good luck, said the Calvinist. Yeah. Say a happy Providence. I don't know. So here we are. The Book of Hebrews. Yeah, finally here in terms of chapter content, this is going to be like our other book studies. I'm going to hit a few verses at a time. I mean, there's so much in Hebrews, I doubt if we'll ever really hit a whole chapter in one episode, but who knows, you know, just wait and see until we get there. But same procedure. This is not going to be verse by verse commentary. I'm just going to land on things that I think I need to say something about or things that are especially interesting. And so that's how we're going to begin. As far as the structure of the book, I should say something here real briefly. We're going to do the introduction, what scholars recognize as the introduction of the book today, the first four verses. And then you could actually break the book into three sections. The first section would be Christ's royal sonship. Again, the theme is the supremacy of Christ, so his supremacy as the elect royal son as opposed to the other sons of God or anybody else. That's from chapter one, verse five, all the way into chapter four, but verse 13. And then from that point on, it's really the superiority of Christ, high priesthood. It goes from chapter 414 all the way into chapter 10, around verse 18. And the rest of the book is basically a series of exhortations to believers in light of what they've just talked about, superiority of Christ. So the book is actually pretty simple to break down. We're not going to necessarily worry too much about structural things. But there are those who sort of like that information. So I thought I'd say something upfront. But let's just jump into the section we're going to do today. I'm going to read all four verses. And then like I said, we'll just drill down at different points. So again, I'm reading ESV and we read here starting in verse one. Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets. But in these last days, he has spoken to us by his son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature. And he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. That's verses one through four. There are going to be places where I'm going to suggest doing something a little bit different with the translation. But generally, there's nothing terrible about the translation. We're not like in Deuteronomy 32 at verse 17 where the ESV just messes that up terribly. But it's pretty straightforward. There are a couple of things just off the bat here. In verse three, and I'm going to mention these quickly because I want to camp on other things. But in verse three, this line that he upholds the universe. There's nothing special about the verb upholds. It's just a very common verb pharaoh. B-dag, which is the standard lexicon for New Testament Greek, lists as one possible meaning. And I think this is the one that sort of captures the intent here is pharaoh can mean to cause, to continue in a state or condition. In other words, it's kind of a maintenance idea, a sustenance idea. Pharaoh typically means to carry or to pick up in the sense of like a bird, you're carrying something heavy, that sort of thing. But here the author uses it, again, I think in this little bit more of an abstract sense to continue in a state or condition. And so, again, that's what happens to the quote universe. Now there is an issue here with the translation. There's no Greek word for universe, although you're going to see this translation if you're using ESB in a couple of other places where we have the term ion, like the age, or it could be translated world. You're going to see that in the plural. And so when we hit those instances, we're going to talk about does Hebrews affirm the plurality of worlds because that term is in the plural. But that term is not here. Literally, what this phrase says is that he upholds all things for those of you who have a little Greek. This is the plural of pos, pontus, okay? So we don't even have that ion word here. And you might say, well, why in the world would they opt for universe here? I think, I don't think it's a bad translation. It's obviously not very literal. But he upholds or sustains in their present state of condition all things. Well, all things, sort of a modern way of looking at all things. You can see how universe might occur to a modern person. So that's why I think the ESV translator used it here. But there is no specific word to this. It's literally just all things. And when we were running into those other instances where we talk about the plurality of worlds idea, we'll flag that when we get there. But that's not going to be in chapter one. It's not going to be for a while, actually. So having just made a couple of comments there, there are two adverbs here. I think I should say something about these this many times and in many ways. One is Palu Meros, and that's the many times, at least in the ESV translation. The other one is Palu Tripos. So Palu Meros and Palu Tripos. The first one speaks of things done incrementally, so many times. Again, some sort of incremental dispensing of information because it's God speaking at many times in many ways. So that it refers to, again, something that's just a piecemeal. And this is probably, again, a reference to the Old Testament revelation. The Old Testament revelation came in sections or portions at various times. It's quite large. So it was never produced at the same time. And so hence this description. The other one is in many ways, right? This would refer to the diverse forms and the variety of content that, you know, just maybe genres, maybe subject matter, that kind of thing that is the Old Testament. So it's not just one, not just one subject, not just one literary form, not just one anything. And so this is the reference to long ago, you know, in this incremental way and in various modes of speaking. God spoke to our fathers by the prophets. Now you say, well, why, you know, that's kind of straightforward. Why bring it up? Well, there are some who might want to take this language and create, you know, drive some sort of wedge between the Old Testament and the New Testament, or, you know, that, well, as time went on, you know, later revelation corrected earlier revelation. Again, that is not, those are not ideas that you can divine from, you know, just these normal Greek adverbs. I mean, they're, it's obvious what they describe, but to read in anything like that would be unwarranted. I think Atridge and Kirster, their commentary on the Hebrews, Pistle to the Hebrews in the Hermioneus series, as it puts this well, they write, God's speech through the prophets comprised commandments and exhortations, oracles and stories. And it came to its human recipients sometimes directly, sometimes in visions or dreams, sometimes in an in awesome theophanies and at other times in a still small voice. However, the multiplicity of God's speech of old is to be conceived. Hebrews basic affirmation is that such diversity contrasts. Here's the big point. Such diversity contrasts with the singularity and finality of God's eschatological speech in the sun, that is his son, Jesus. Thus, while the initial adverbs are not necessarily pejorative, they seek here to contrast the two phases of the divine address to the disadvantage of the earlier. In other words, the revelation about Jesus is superior because Jesus is a superior revelation, continuing with their quote. While there is a clear contrast between the old and the new, there is no sense that the two phases stand in contradiction to one another. That's the end of the quote. So I think that's well said. It highlights the fact that what the author of Hebrews is doing from the get go, and if you've read the book of Hebrews, I think most listeners probably have. The big theme in the book is how the revelation in Christ and what Christ did and even who Christ is, all of that is superior to what has preceded. And I think this quote by Atridge and Kirsten really does a nice job of saying, hey, look, from the very first sentence, this is implied. OK, God gave us a revelation before it was fragmented. It was, you know, it was incremental. It was sort of all over the place. But, you know, in these days, OK, now in these last days, we'll talk about that phrase in a moment, he has spoken to us by his son. And that's like it's fully formed. It's final. It's superior. I should, you know, just as a little bit of an editorial comment here. One thing I'd like the listeners to be thinking of as we go through Hebrews is this question, and I don't mean to be overly critical. I mean, to be appropriately critical here. But you should be asking yourself, how in the world can anybody in the Hebrew roots movement read the book of Hebrews and like it because it is consistently making this claim of the superiority of Christ. How in the world is going back to the by implication and really by statement inferior stuff? How does that assist us as believers? How does that even honor or take seriously the content of the book of Hebrews? So I'd like listeners just to be thinking about that as we go through the book. You know, we're going to be here for a while, but in almost every place, that's an appropriate question. Now, going back to the passage, our fathers, again, is going to point orientus back to the Israelites, again, to the Jews, the Hebrews. You know, we don't lose the Gentiles from the get go because the writer is going to be using the Septuagint a lot. So if you're a Gentile convert to following Christ and you can read Greek, which basically everybody could, but you have access to the Septuagint, which might be a different question. But those who are literate and can do that and have access to it, they're going to be familiar with Old Testament content because that was the Bible of the early church. That's their Bible. That's what they're talking about on a weekly or even daily basis when they meet. That is the body of revelation. That is scripture. It's the Old Testament. So Gentiles are not hopelessly ignorant of Old Testament content, especially since they have a translation in the Septuagint. So this phrase, our fathers, isn't isn't like either to divorce what's going to be said from the Gentiles or is going to leave the Gentiles hopelessly confused. Neither of those things is going to be the case. Now, down into verse two, this phrase in these last days. What does that mean? I mean, this is a book written in the New Testament period. Sometime in the first century, we talked about dating last last time when we introduced the book and scholars throw around the date of 60 roughly. That seems to be sort of the working number here. What do they mean in the last days? Well, you got really two options. It's a phrase that means either at the end of these days that we're like living in now and for the immediate audience, that would be the end of the Christian period, OK, the end of the first century, the end of the end of the early Christian period. Or number two, it could mean at the end of the previous age, it could mark the end of the previous age, in other words. And so the dawn of a new era is something they're experiencing right then. And it's a positive thing. It's great to be at the dawn of a new era while this other one is passing away. And these last days, we get to witness the passing of the old era and we're here at the cusp of the new. So you got two choices. Again, either this is an apocalyptic thought that all the world's going to add. Here we are as Christians and things are just going to be no more imminently and they're thinking of the end of their own time period or they're thinking of the end of the previous time period. And then they're at the dawn of this new beginning. It's probably the latter, actually, due to the parallel expression similar phrase in Hebrews 9 verse 26, which reads, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice himself. So it's the closest phrase. And it's it's pretty close to this one end of the ages. Last days and most scholars would say, again, this is probably this is probably sort of a correlative or parallel reference here, which would indicate that they're thinking of the passing of the old and the dawn of the new. Now, that is not to say that he's writing to a bunch of people that would not see, you know, would not be like with the early church, that the Lord is going to come back soon. It's not a denial of that. It's just that the particular phrase probably most viably refers to the the passing of the old and the dawn of the new, the dawn of the era of Christ. That sort of thing where with the church, we have this circumcision, neutral thing, even though we're writing to Hebrews, everybody's aware that Gentiles are in the mix. I mean, that's not news to anybody. Again, nobody's going to go, huh? By 60, you know, or even if it's later, this is obvious. Again, that the Gentile inclusion, the whole goal or not the whole goal, but one of the important goals of the messianic work, the reclaiming of the nations has begun. And now the old order is passing away, the new order, the time of the Gentiles. That's what we're in. That's the new order. And of course that, you know, that they're thinking is going to have an end at some point, too. You know, Paul talks about that and associates it with the return of the Lord. But again, for those reasons, it's probably better to look at it that second way. The Hagner, again, I think has a nice little statement of this in his encountering in the book of Hebrews. He writes, a turning point in the ages has been reached. He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages. He quotes Hebrews 926 there. This means that the author in agreement with all of near, all of early Christianity believed that the present age was in some sense the beginning of the end of time. They're in a new era, which is going to have a terminus point. But the oldest passing away now, they're at this new dawn, the new time, which is going to have its own end. But we're in some sense, we're at the beginning of the end of time, a unique era in which God poured out gifts upon his people that were the anticipations of the age to come, the eschatological age. So again, I think that's well put. This phrase here, let's go back to the verse of verse two. In these last days, he has spoken to us by his son, whom he appointed the heir of all things through whom also he created the world. Now, if you've ever looked at the text in Greek, there's an interesting item here that I'm going to I'm going to take a little bit of disagreement with commentators over. The Greek here has no there's no definite article when you get to his son. OK, there's no definite article before the noun. And there's also no possessive pronoun literally this reads in these last days, he has spoken to us by a son, whom he appointed the heir of all things through whom also he created the world. Now, I think commentators kind of missed the boat here because they lack a divine council context. And to be blunt about it, most New Testament scholars do. And that's not, you know, I'm not blaming them for anything because if your field isn't Semitic's chances are you're not going to run into this. You know, your your your contact with the Old Testament is going to consist of the fact that the New Testament quotes the old, you're not going to be going back and looking at the Old Testament in its own context, that sort of thing. So most New Testament commentators don't have any sort of frame of reference for divine council stuff. And I think that that's a bit of a harm here for I'm going to give you two examples. OK, so the commentators are writing about the fact that literally this has a son instead of the son or instead of his son, even though the ESV translates it, his son. OK, literally in Greek, it's a son. So Guthrie says in his little commentary, his Tyndale commentary, when in the Greek text, the writer says a son rather than his son. He does this to show the superior means used. He is certainly not saying that God has more than one son. He is implying that the finest of the prophets cannot stand comparison with a son as a means of revelation. Well, I'm sorry, but there are sons of God in the Old Testament. I don't know how you can miss that, but there are. So I think while I'm going to agree with his conclusion, and frankly, the rest of the book of Hebrews bears out the conclusion, the means to arguing it just is not very good. Atridge and Custer here, again, same problem, I'll read what they say. The expression without a definite article does not imply that there are many sons whom God could have chosen as agents of revelation. That I would agree with back to them. Rather, the term emphasizes the exalted status of that final agent. Westcott, usefully paraphrases in one who is son. That's a little awkward. I don't know how useful it is, but they're calling it useful. That's how Westcott renders it in one who is son. As the following chapters will indicate the son seated at God's right hand is superior to all of their agents through whom God's word has come, particularly to the angels. That's better than Guthrie, again, because I would agree that of all the other sons of God, the supernatural sons of God from the Old Testament, you know, which is a term used for the angelic host, and they are sons because God created them. They are his, quote unquote, offspring. All right. So they're there. So Guthrie's denial, like this language doesn't exist, just isn't helpful. This is a little bit better. But the point, I think, could have been made a lot more forcefully because of the contrast with the angels. If you have a divine counsel view here, if it just makes the contrast all the more pointed. So the point about the superiority of angels or two angels is, of course, important. But embracing, again, this Old Testament concept, this Old Testament reality that God does have other supernatural sons, the divine counsel makes the contrast, you know, even that more pronounced. Here's what I would propose. Let's read about it or think about it this way. In these last days, he has spoken to us by a son whom he appointed the heir of all things through whom also he created the world. In other words, he has spoken to us by one particular son to the exclusion of all the others, pointing to the great superiority of that particular son by whom, incidentally, he created the world. So it highlights this one particular son from all of the others. It accentuates him in opposition to all the others. So if you, again, come at this with a Semitic context and hey, it's the Book of Hebrews and you know that God has other supernatural sons, it's still a profound thing to say that there's this one particular one. OK, and we're going to get into, well, why that one? What makes that one different? And the first four verses here are going to tell us what makes that one different. So again, I think it's kind of useless for Guthrie to say, well, he doesn't have any other sons when he very well does. And the singular here, the lack of the definite article doesn't hurt anything. It doesn't hurt the status of Christ. And in fact, I would say it accentuates it because it creates a contrast, a definite contrast between him and all the other ones that could say, hey, we're sons of God, too. Out here, you know, we were here before the foundation, a big deal. You're not this one. You're not this one. So I think it actually, again, makes the contrast even even more significant. Now, this agent of creation status is one thing that makes this particular son different from the others. So one three, again, we have that statement about through whom he created the world that that is the beginning of how the writer of Hebrews is going to is going to focus on this one particular son and say there's something different about this one. And then when you get into, you know, verse three and verse four, we're going to get a full description of what makes this one different. OK, but before we get there, we need to talk about the inheritance language in one to this. I'll just read it again. But in these last days, he has spoken to us by his son, whom he appointed the heir of all things. Then down in verse four, there's this reference to the name he has inherited. It's more excellent than than the one that the angels have. All that there's inheritance language here. Now, the inheritance language does not mean that there was some point in the past when the son, this particular son, wasn't around or that another son, another council member held that status, held his status. And it is a status. OK, this is the inheritance language is about status, not a statement of ontology. It's not a statement that he didn't exist. Well, he had to he had to he had to be created and then he'd become the inheritor. OK, that's reading into the language in a pretty dramatic way. And I would say quite an unnecessary way, but you know, people have their agendas here. It's a status, not a statement of ontology. There's no obstacle in the text to affirming that one and only one divine son was designated as the inheritor in the mind of God from eternity. This is implied, as we'll see when we hit first born, the term first born in verse six, which would be in our next episode. So I just wanted to say that now because we're going to talk. We're going to focus on the inheritance language and how that again needs to be defined and it is defined. It is fleshed out in the first four verses, but then we're going to hit it a little bit again. We had to hit verse six when we get the first born language. But the important questions to ask at this point in when we're thinking about the inheritance issue is this, there's really two of them. One, why is this particular son, the inheritor? And two, does inheritance mean the one giving the inheritance that would be God is passing on or passing away? In other words, is inheritance about a successor or a changing of the guard? Well, the second one, the answer to that is obviously no. God isn't going by by God isn't retiring. God isn't fading out of the picture and he isn't being replaced. OK, it's not the idea of a son succeeding the father situation because the father is always in the picture. And you know, you read through the New Testament at the end of the eschaton, he's still there. OK, the father is always in the picture. Consequently, we need to think differently than that about the inheritance language. I would say the inheritance language is best understood as sharing or co-possession, sharing or co-possession. In other words, this particular son mutually shares in or mutually possesses certain things. So when we talk about this particular son being the inheritor, OK, inheriting a pointed air of these things, it's not God saying, hey, you over there, I'm going to appoint you to inherit all this stuff when I leave. Now, rather, it's God selecting one particular son, and we'll talk about why, to be the co-possessor, the co-sharer, really the co-regent, the co-ruler. Because what's shared? Well, there's two things that are actually mentioned in the first four verses that get, quote, unquote, inherited. And I'm suggesting shared. One is, quote, all things, that's verse two. And the other one is the divine name, which is verse four. So God isn't like, hey, you know, I'm kind of through with like being the master of all things here. You take the job, I'm going to retire. That isn't it, again, because the rest of the New Testament bears that out. And he's also not saying, hey, you know, I'm kind of tired of being who I am. You know, I have the special name, this Yahweh thing, you know, the name that is my essence. Again, if you've read Unseen Realm, you know, all about this, you know, all about the name theology. So God isn't saying, you know, I'm tired of being God, and you can do that now. OK, it's not about a transition from one person to another, as though the one is, you know, there's this succession thing going on. That is not the point. So the point can't be that, and therefore we need to understand the inheritance language in a different way. And I'm suggesting that it's really about they both, both God and this particular son, share or co-possess all things and the divine name. I think that that's the point. And that obviously would put this whole issue in a different light. And it begs the question, well, why? Why is this particular son, you know, different than all the others? Why is he deserving of this status? And that brings us to the third verse, because the writer is going to explain that. Now, he's already sort of gotten into it, this thing about he created the world. OK, the one who's appointed air created the world. You know, so there's a bit of an equation going on already. But when you get to verse three, he just sort of, you know, it's a smackdown. So in addition to being the agent of creation, verse three gives us five things about this particular son, five notes. This particular son is, one, the radiance of the glory of God, to the exact representation of his being or his nature. We'll talk about that term in a moment. Third, the upholder, sustainer of all things by his, not God's, by his powerful word. Again, that's an echo of the creative word, Genesis one, right. Four, he's the one who provided purification for sins. It's a clear reference to Jesus. And five, he is the occupant of the throne at the right hand of the majesty in heaven. Now, note, note carefully and note well, these are not the things inherited. They are the things that establish this particular son as the one worthy of the inheritor status. And again, in my suggestion, the co-possession, co-share status. This is what characterizes the son. And it's what it's really what validates him as the one who has this status of inheritor. The text never has the son inheriting that list of five things. They establish why this particular son is the co-possessor of all things and why the name that is above all names is his. In a nutshell, again, these five things identify this particular son with God. With Yahweh, but he is those things, regardless of what, you know, again, he's eligible to co-possess. He just is those things. But they make him, you know, they validate God's selection as it were. God's bestowal of this this equal status to this one particular son. So I'm going to go through all of them. But to be honest with you, I'm really only going to talk at length about the first two, the first or the next three are kind of ancillary and supportive, but the first two are the most important. So in the sake of time, we're going to camp there. The radiance of the glory of God. That's the first one again in verse three. Now the word radiance, if you've read Unseen Realm, you know what this term is. This is Apagosma. It occurs only one time in the New Testament right here. And to figure out what the writer of Hebrews meant, we have to look at his source for it. It actually only occurs one other place. And this is a really rare term. The writer is quoting the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. But the Septuagint, of course, included other books that are outside the Hebrew Bible. You know, other books that many Jews and Christians today don't consider part of the canon, but which in ancient times some considered sacred. Others just didn't assign sacred status to it, but they were still well known. The phrase or the term here, Apagosma in Hebrews one three comes from the wisdom of Solomon. It's the only other time it occurs. This is a rare term. So it's very clear where the writer of Hebrews is getting it. Again, it's only found one time in the Septuagint. Here it is, wisdom of Solomon seven twenty six. It's a longer verse here. For wisdom is more mobile than any motion because of her pureness. She pervades and penetrates all things for she is a breath of the power of God and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty. Therefore, nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection. She is Apagosma of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God and an image of his goodness. That's wisdom of Solomon seven twenty four through twenty six. Verse twenty six is the one that has the term in it. Now you say, well, wisdom, boy, that OK, man, I've heard that before. Well, you've heard it if you've read Proverbs eight and it's probably resonating with you. If you read the what was originally the original draft of what would become the unseen realm, the method is true. I had a whole section in that on lady wisdom in Proverbs. And we're going to get into that here. That that didn't make it into unseen realm. You know, we're we're saving that for something later. But if you go to my website, www.thedivinecouncil.com, there's a short paper short in a little essay on Jesus and lady wisdom in Proverbs eight that you might want to read. But here we have a reference to wisdom and the pronouns were feminine. She is a reflection. She is an Apagosma. OK. And her again was was a pronoun used in here. There this book, this book of the Apocrypha here or the Deuterocanonical, if you're Catholic here, the wisdom of Solomon draws on Proverbs eight. This is again an intertestamental Second Temple period piece of literature. It's drawing on Proverbs eight's portrayal of wisdom as a woman, right? Sirac is another book that does this. Sirac twenty four versus one through three and verse twenty two. I'll just read that here. Wisdom praises herself and tells of her glory in the midst of her people in the assembly of the Most High. There's the Divine Council. She opens her mouth and in the presence of his hosts, she tells of her glory. I came forth from the mouth of the Most High and covered the earth like a mist. All this is the book of the Covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us. We'll get back to that statement in a moment because Jews thought that wisdom was Torah and that this was personified Torah. They put Torah at the level of God, which puts Paul's problem, you know, with the Judaizers and holding light. But again, we'll come back to that in a moment. Just say something real brief about it. Wisdom of Solomon, another passage. Wisdom of Solomon nine versus one, four, ten and eighteen. Again, just just hitting the highlights here says, God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, give me the wisdom that sits by your throne. Oh, wow, wisdom is by the Lord's throne. Isn't that interesting? Send her forth from the holy heavens and from the throne of your glory. Send her that I may learn what is pleasing to you and the people were taught what pleases you and were saved by wisdom. Now, that's the end of the quotation that the Jewish writer of wisdom of Solomon again gets this idea. And of course, Sarac does, too, from Proverbs eight wisdom as a woman in the book of Proverbs. And while the term most often refers to practical, insightful living according to God's law in the book of Proverbs, the writer of Proverbs at times portrays wisdom as a woman. There's a reference to her voice. OK, Proverbs one, twenty, you know, you've got Proverbs four, six, seven, four, chapter nine versus one through six. Wisdom is again portrayed as a feminine figure. Proverbs eight, one describes wisdom speaking to God's people, does not wisdom call out, does not understanding raise her voice. But what is especially remarkable about wisdom in Proverbs eight is Proverbs eight, twenty two through thirty. She is described as God's co creator, the agent of creation. Here's the passage, and this is the NIV. The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works before his deeds of old. I was appointed from eternity from the beginning before the world began before the mountains were settled in place before the hills. I was given birth. I was there when he, God, set the heavens in place. When he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, then I was the craftsman at his side. That's the that's the end of the NIV version. Now, the wording here echoes Proverbs three, nineteen, where we read by wisdom, the word, the Lord laid the found the earth's foundations. By understanding, he set the heavens in place. Jeremiah 10, 12 says something similar. It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom and by his understanding, stretched out the heavens. But in Proverbs eight, this wisdom figure is personified. Now, again, you can go to the DivineCouncil.com, read the read the full paper. But just in a nutshell here, why the feminine language? Well, it's because of grammatical gender, not biological gender, grammatical gender. In Hebrew, Khukma is grammatically feminine. It's a feminine noun. Hebrew, like, you know, Spanish, German, whatever, they assign grammatical gender to nouns to coordinate nouns with verbs so that you know what's the subject, what's the object, what's the indirect object, OK, what person and number, you know, if you have a group who's doing the speaking, is it collectively them or they or he, she or it? This is all person, number and gender in a language like Hebrew and Greek. It does the same thing. It has nothing to do with biology. For instance, in German, Das Mädchen, little girl, is grammatically neuter. Little girls are feminine, they're female, again, but it's grammatical gender and it is, in many cases, arbitrary. It's a system of classification that language is used. That's what it is, has nothing to do with biology. But how is this consistent, you know, with the New Testament teaching about Jesus, because Jesus is the co-creator in the New Testament. Here in Hebrews 1, you know, he's the one through whom God created the world. I mean, but here you got, you know, something in Proverbs 8 going, I was appointed, you know, I was by God's side, you know, when he's creating the world, you know, what's up with that? It has this consistent with Jesus. We need a little more backdrop to answer that question. And I'm taking this from, again, the not the old myth draft, but the thing on the on the Divine Council website. Just going to read you a few portions of this, actually a good bit of it because again, for a lot of listeners, this is going to be new because this material is not in unseen realm and they may not have come across it on the website. But what we're talking about here is how this, you know, how how how this particular Son in Hebrews 1 is distinguished. And he's the co-creator. He's the radiance of God's glory. He's the Apagosma of God's glory and wisdom in the Old Testament is credited with both those things, this agent of creation and Apagosma. Old Testament, if you count again, the Second Temple books in there. But even if you don't, hey, it's still part of Second Temple Judaism. So wisdom actually falls into both those categories. And so how is this consistent with Hebrews 1, where we're talking about the supremacy of the Son, the particular Son, who, of course, you know, it's going to be Jesus. How does this work? Well, let me just, you know, read a little bit to you. There are several instances in the New Testament where Jesus is identified in some way with wisdom. First Corinthians 124 is considered by some an explicit statement to the effect since Paul refers to Jesus as, quote, the wisdom of God. Unquote, that's First Corinthians 124. However, it is not completely clear that Paul meant to identify Jesus with the wisdom figure of Proverbs 8 in that statement, in light of his wording in verse 30, where Paul says, and because of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification, redemption. So some would say, you know, you can't really say for sure if Paul was actually thinking of personified wisdom in Proverbs 8. And, you know, that's legit. The wording here seems to imply or seems to simply list wisdom among a number of other attributes and theological concepts. Very well, it could be that simple. Since it is also possible that Paul could have derived his notion of Jesus as co-creator, Colossians 1.16, First Corinthians 8.6. From other lines of thought, scholars are hesitant to affirm what scholars call a wisdom Christology too firmly with respect to Paul. Much more striking, though, is Luke 11, verses 49 through 51. This text refers to the wisdom of God in personified terms. The same thing that happens in Proverbs 8. Now, listen carefully to Luke 11, 49 through 51. And he, again, Jesus is the speaker, Jesus said, Woe to you, lawyers also, for you load people with burdens hard to bear and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you, for you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them and you build their tombs. Now, listen to verse 49. Therefore also the wisdom of God said, quote, I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute, unquote, so that the blood of all the prophets shed from the foundation of the world may be charged against this generation from the blood of Abel of El to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. That's the end of the passage, the end of Jesus, you know, statement, you know, his accusation. The passage is straightforward in context. Jesus is the speaker. He's railing against the hypocrisy of his enemies. But in verse 49, Jesus suddenly interjects and other speaker, the wisdom of God, who proceeds to say in the first person, I sent you prophets and apostles. Scholars know this is not a direct quotation of any passage in the Old Testament about wisdom. Rather, it is apparently an allusion to the wisdom of Solomon passage, wisdom of Solomon 727, you know, where wisdom makes everything new, although she herself never, never changes from generation to generation. She enters the souls of holy people and makes them God's friends and prophets, unquote. Now, regardless of the source, Jesus creates the impression that it was wisdom who sent the prophets and apostles, something we know from both the Old and New Testament that God the Father did. Jesus' statement therefore identifies wisdom and God the Father together. It sort of fuses them. It identifies them with each other. Now, as far as those passages where the Old and New Testament say that God the Father did this thing, sending prophets and apostles, you've got Isaiah 6, 8, Isaiah 10, 6, Jeremiah 1, 7, 1 Corinthians 1, 28, and there are other ones. So that's really interesting. Now, is Jesus confused? Is the Gospel writer careless? No, the wording is deliberate, but the amazing impact of the statement comes when one compares Luke 1149 with the parallel passage of the incident in Matthew 23. Now, I'm going to read Matthew 23. Same scene, Jesus is the speaker, and Jesus said, Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. Thus you witness against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers. How are you to escape being sentenced to hell? And here's the verse. Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify. Now you look at that. It's pretty startling. Whereas the Gospel of Luke had Jesus making wisdom, the second speaker and speaking in the first person, wisdom sent. Wisdom says, I sent you apostles and prophets. Matthew puts the words of wisdom, who was identified with God, the Father in Luke, into Jesus' mouth. Hey, Luke and Matthew, again, through sort of a tag team effort, identified Jesus as co-creator wisdom and the one who sends the apostles and the prophets. I mean, you put the two things together and it's really startling. So what the point of all of all this for Hebrews one three is that this particular son is the Apagosma of God, a description only found in one other place, used of wisdom, the breath of God, who is in the assembly of the Most High, who came forth from the mouth of the Most High. Jesus is identified as wisdom in Hebrews one three and wisdom was eternal. Okay, this is the second reason why this particular son is different than the others. He is the co-creator, the agent of creation. And he's also eternal. Well, how do you know he's eternal from all that Mike? Why? Well, why, why, why does that speak of eternality? Because he's wisdom. He's the wisdom of God. There could not be a time when God lacked wisdom. Wisdom comes forth from God and was always there. Wisdom is an attribute of God. Again, it's this personified language. This is this is how when the writers do this, when they personify wisdom, it's not that God's sitting there thinking, well, you know, I knew I was supposed to do something today. Oh, yeah. Oh, wait a minute. I better create wisdom first, you know, wisdom now so that I can remember what I was supposed to do or that I can think of thought and decide to do something. Poof, there's wisdom. Oh, now I know what to do. You can't have a God that's described in such a fashion. He wouldn't be God. You can't have an ignorant God. That is not the God of the Bible. Wisdom, this attribute is eternal. And so when, when, when the writers don't, you know, again, the scriptural writers start talking about God's wisdom and casting God's wisdom as this other person, this, this hypostasis. We're going to get to that word a moment as well. Casting wisdom as this other person. It's again, a statement of this other person is like part of God and is eternal. That you can't separate the one from the other and you can't have a chronology. Otherwise, you'd have a dumb deity at some point. Again, you can't, you know, say these things and be consistent with, with what scripture says in so many places. Now, you know, the, the result of this is again, there's no time when God lacked wisdom and wisdom comes forth from God, you know, wisdom, you know, God takes that card out of his hand and says, OK, we're going to do this because I'm wise and I always have been wise. Wisdom is eternal. And when, when the sun is identified with wisdom in Hebrews one, three, that means the sun, this particular sun is eternal. He's different. Why? Because all of the other sons of God are created beings. And again, you can read Unseen Realm for the passages to that effect where God creates, you know, you know, the other parts of the heavenly host. Now, a side note here again, some Jews of the period, I mentioned this earlier in a few centuries before Jesus equated Torah with wisdom. Again, Torah is also a feminine noun, Torah, you know, that's grammatically feminine in Hebrew. And so the Torah makes one wise. This meant that to many Jews, the Torah was divine. The Torah was at the level of God. The Torah was eternal. Then the writer of Hebrews, just think about how interesting this is. The writer of Hebrews, the writer knows these traditions. He's using this, you know, this this passage about wisdom. He knows the material. The writer of Hebrews has already suggested that the old revelation, given to the fathers, is lesser. That was just incremental. That was scattered around. That was this and that. But in these last days, God has spoken to us by his son, okay, by this particular son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. And that particular son is the Apagosma of the glory of God. And again, we're going to get to the next line, the exact imprint of his nature. It's not the Torah that's these things. The Torah is not the radiance of the glory of God. The Torah is not the exact imprint of his nature. The Torah is not the agent of creation. The sun is this particular sun. So he's a Hebrew writing to the Hebrews, knowing that what he's writing is really going to torque some of them off, because they view Torah at that level. Hebrews is about the superiority of Christ to the Torah. And frankly, to the Old Testament in general. And so this opening statement laid down the gauntlet and was already setting up the writer's appeal to believers later on the book to not return to Judaism, to not return to the to the prior revelation. This is why I said earlier, I don't know how you can be in Hebrew roots and like the book of Hebrews. I just don't know how you can do that. Again, if this applies to somebody out there, you know, you need to think about that. Next phrase, the exact representation of his being or his nature and the exact imprint of his nature is how ESV renders it. Now imprint there is the Greek word character, we get our word character from it. That's not the really important one. It's the word translated nature. That is hoopostasis. We get our word hypostasis from it. The citation of Hebrews one three, this is from B dag, draws attention to the Greek word hoopostasis often translated as nature. The term refers to essence, actual being and reality. Again, that's power, you know, aren't getting it darker and power B dag as it's as it's abbreviated. Again, think about that. This particular son is the actual being or essence of God. This again, along with the Apagos, along with the identification of wisdom means he is co-eternal and therefore the inheritance language doesn't mean that there was a time when the son, you know, was sort of out of the picture. He's a co-share. He deserves this status because he is eternal. He is the exact imprint. He is the hypostasis. He is the essence of God himself. A Hagner again has a nice little did he hear a little quotation? The meaning of again this phrase, you know, the character and hypostasis, the meaning, however, is not far different from either the Pauline notion of Christ as the image of God, the express image, you know, that most excellent image as in 2nd Corinthians 4, 4 Colossians 1, 15 or the Johannine assertion that to have seen the son is to have seen the father, John 149, John 118. The son is the unique revelation, the unique revealing, the unique manifestation of God himself. Okay, he's not lesser than, he is God and he is again this expression, this manifestation, this revelation of the father. The inheritance language, again, I would suggest, is really about sharing. It's about this fused identity, this co-possession of the rule of all things and the divine name. But there's even more to it than that, and some of which we'll only get to in the next episode, but just real quickly, you know, through some of these other phrases, the upholder or sustainer of all things by his powerful word. I've already said this, this whole thing about this being an illusion again, to the word of God that came forth and arranged things brought order out of chaos again, this Genesis 1 idea Hagnar writes, the son upholds or sustains the whole of the created order. The Greek present participle Pharoan sustaining points to the son's present and ongoing activity in upholding all that exists. Notice again, this is not what's inherited. Okay, the son, this particular son didn't inherit that power. He had it. It's what makes him worthy of the inheritor status. It's a statement again that points to eternality, because if he's the one who really does this really sustains the creation, well, then like, you know, he would have would have had to have been there from the beginning. And again, it's just you concatenate these thoughts. So in the first five of the phrases again, we these phrases, five, five things that were given, we encounter statements that require us to identify Jesus uniquely with God, that's Hagnar again, the son is put with God at the beginning and the end of time as instrumental in creation and as the eventual heir of everything at the end of the age. He also functions in a divine capacity throughout all interim time as the one through whom an overruling providence makes possible all ongoing existence. Now the other the the remaining two the one who provided purification for sins, the occupant of the throne at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. We're going to hit both of those themes later in the book, because they're both going to be picked up again, this the sacrifice for sins, and again, sitting at the right hand of God. So we're going to defer our discussion to when we hit those again. But again, just think about one for again before, you know, we wrap up here, you know, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than there. So going to go back to verse one, God revealed himself in the Old Testament and scattered ways, but now we have a final revelation of Christ. We have a final revelation. He's spoken to us by this particular son who he's going to share. He's going to, he's the co-possessor, co-share of all things through whom he created the world, the one who is wisdom, wisdom there from the beginning, who is part of God and therefore inseparable from God and therefore co-eternal. He's the exact imprint, the hypostasis of God, his very essence. He upholds the universe by his power. Again, then we get the purification language sitting down at the right hand of God. Then we get verse four, which I just read, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. Now having become, genomai is the Greek, makes it sound as though he wasn't before, that he didn't have that superior status before. The lemma is often translated to be, can mean to be or to become, and so this part of the book could just as easily be translated having been as much superior, so on and so forth. But become, I would say become is fine, not because he wasn't superior in the past, but because this particular son was for a time a little lower than the angels. That's Hebrews 2,7. That's why become would be appropriate here. He surrendered that status. He surrendered a status he had at the beginning, it was incarnated, became a little lower than angels, and now he has become, again, superior. It's actually a reference to his return to his previously superior status, which he did not consider, Jesus didn't consider that a thing to be grasped, according to Philippians 2. He let it go, again, to become humbled, to become a man. It's the incarnation. So I'm fine with the translation like become here if it's taken in context. Now people are going to twist it and say and try to make Jesus a lesser status or created being or whatever. You just have to ignore context like Philippians 2. You just have to ignore that. But people do. What can you say? Let's let me another couple of things here. You know, we could we could go off into the grammar. There's just just a lot more to say here because the grammarians discuss this a lot. You have a bunch of heiress participles here in conjunction with an heiress main verb. The main verb is he sat down, you know, sort of, you know, Wallace, for instance, says this, I'll just throw this one quote in the heiress participle is normally the by no means always antecedent in time to the action of the main verb. But when the heiress participle is really to an heiress main verb, the participle will often be, but doesn't have to be contemporaneous or simultaneous to the action of the main verb. So in Hebrews one for the first participle, this is me talking now, must be understood as antecedent in time, purification for sins again, preceded naturally, the ascension to the right hand of God. Again, we're talking about this state of incarnation here, but the others could well be simultaneous. And so you could you could look at the passage this way or read it this way. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high having become because the incarnation was over, as much superior to the angels as the name he possessed or the name that he had possessed. Okay, he, you know, he may just read that over as much superior to the angels as the name he possessed or that he had possessed is more excellent than their names and the names of the other angels again. You know, you have, you have a number of grammatical things going on here. The verb is there. Isn't even the text that's supplied by English, but we can't, we can't rabbit trail on all these things. Now, this suggestion, though, suggests the superiority of this son was a reality before he ever sat down on the throne. It's just that his superior status was surrendered. In other words, Jesus didn't become superior to the angels only after the cross resurrection and ascension. Hebrews one three to four can rightly be translated and understood in a way that reflects his prior original eternal superiority. And then you have this becoming language because of the incarnation. They say, well, is that cheating? No, it's not cheating because of what follows in Hebrews one, five and six. Again, we're not going to go off into this. This is the next episode, but it says, for which of the angels did God ever say, you are my son. Today, I have gotten you. Or again, I will be to him a father. He shall be to me a son. Again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, let all God's angels worship him. Again, Hebrews one, five and six is going to establish the fact that Jesus had exalted status long before the cross. The phrasing there in verses five and six about begotten, here's a hint for next time, next episode. People think that begotten, well, this whole thing about you're my son. Today, I've begotten you. That's like talking about the origin point. In terms of existence of the son of Jesus. Well, guess what, folks? That phrase is actually used two other times in the New Testament, where it can't be chronological. I'm just going to leave it there. Again, we'll say that for next time. But again, there's something else going on there. Now, again, as we wrap up here, our understanding of inheritance is the big deal here. It needs to be borne out by the context of all these things we've really talked about the context of Hebrews to what comes after is going to be a big deal. This whole notion of understanding inheritance as a handing off of the baton and the one that hands off the baton fades out of the picture. And now we have a succession that is not in view because God is always in the picture. You have to understand the inheritance language in a different way. And again, I'm suggesting co possession, co sharing. Why? Because the one, the two entities sharing are identified with each other. They're both eternal. One is the essence of the other. Again, you have to you have to take the meaning of the terminology and understand a little bit about the wisdom background, and then think about the implications for the links back to an attribute of God again cast as an entity or hypostasis. That has to be eternal. You know, all these things, you know, factor into how we would understand the inheritance language. It's going to be, you know, with the name Jesus, think about it this way. Just this last thought about the name Jesus already had the most excellent name before the cross. And so before he ever sat down on the throne, how did we know that? We know that from John 17. Jesus already had the name. You know, I've come to manifest your name. I thank you for the name given to me. You know, if you've heard me lecture before basically what Jesus is saying there, isn't it great? Isn't it great that I got to become a man? And I'm here to reveal you what you're like to them, because you have given me the name. You have I am you and you have given me again this body so that I can be among them and show them who you are. If you have seen the son, you have seen the father. Again, the theology of John here is significant. And so you can't look at this statement about, you know, the name he has inherited is more excellent than that. Well, he didn't have the name before because he inherited. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, he had the name before he ever went to the cross. John 17. And there are other things going on too. You know, again, you can read unseen realm for that. But all of these things factor into the context. The real the real wrap up statement here is what Hebrews one one through four does is it makes clear that there is only one son eligible to possess to co possess all things and to claim the name. There's only one of those. And we get off into verse five as we'll do next time. And in the content of chapter two, that that one son, of course, is going to be identified as if anybody needed the word. It's going to be Jesus. And all of that that revelation from the opening statement is superior to the Torah. It's superior to what has preceded. So next time we'll hit verses five through 14. Finish up chapter one. And it's going to really build off, you know, what we talked about this time. But again, the superiority of Christ to Torah to everything else to Torah and to all the other sons of God to any anything else in heaven and earth, okay, is really the point of the first four verses, the introduction. That's just the introduction. A lot packed in the first four verses, Mikey would have thought. Yeah. Yeah, there's a lot there. Yeah, there is. Well, I'm excited about next week getting into the rest of the chapter. So really, Mike, do you have anything else that we need to discuss for this episode? I don't think so. It's it's been a mouthful. All righty. Well, I'm looking forward to the rest of the book. I just want to thank everybody for listening to the naked Bible podcast of us. Thanks for listening to the naked Bible podcast. To support this podcast, visit www.naked Bible blog.com. To learn more about Dr. Heizer's other websites and blogs, go to www.grmsh.com.