In Hebrews 1:6 the author says that God commands the angels to worship Jesus, his firstborn son. The command to worship is drawn from the LXX of Deut 32:43 but seems to be blended with Psalm 97:7 (LXX Ps 96:7) and Psalm 89:27 (LXX 88:28). Ellingworth suggests Odes of Solomon 2:43b and 4QDt 32:43b are possible sources as well, although these two texts are probably alluding to the same texts as the author of Hebrews. The phrase “let all the sons of God/angels worship him” is missing in the Hebrew text, so the writer of Hebrews either is following the Greek of Deuteronomy or only has the Psalm in mind.
There are two issues with this verse that need to be addressed that have a bearing on Christology. First, the quote is introduced by a phrase calling Christ the “firstborn of God.” The word “firstborn” could be taken to mean that Jesus was created or generated by God, so that Jesus was similar to God, but not the same substance as God himself. In fact, the Greek word πρωτότοκος (prototokos) does mean “first born,” but it often refers to the legal status as heir rather than birth order.
It is possible for the “first born” to be the literal first born child, but that is not necessarily the case. Jacob can be called the first born, even though he was not the literal first born, because he was the son of the blessing over his older brother. More importantly for the writer of Hebrews, the word πρωτότοκος was applied to David in Psalm 89:27 (LXX 88:28).
The second issue is the command to worship Jesus. In the original context of Psalm 97:7, worshipers of idols are put to shame by the glory of God revealed in creation. Since the idols are worthless, the gods/angels are commanded to worship God. The Hebrew Bible has כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים, “all the gods,” the Greek of the Psalm has πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, “all his angels.” It is probably the case that the translator took the “gods” as “sons of God” and translated the phrase “angels,” a similar case is found in Psalm 8.
The important point is what the quote says: all the angels should (now) worship the Son. In this present age, the firstborn son ought to receive the worship that was reserved for God in the previous age. This would create a problem for a monotheistic Jewish thinker – how can Jesus be worshiped as God? God is commanding his angels to worship something other than himself, a violation of his own Law. The shema, after all, says that there is one God. The angels can only worship God himself, so the author of Hebrews is pointing to the fact that the Son is to be worshiped because he is God.
Is this a valid inference from the text of Hebrews? If a reader sets aside their views on the Trinity (either for or against it), does the writer of Hebrews intend to equate Jesus and God in some real way in this verse? What else is there in Hebrews 1 to support this assertion?
I don’t think that such worship was understood to be violating God’s commandment, any more than the worship of the king when seated on Yahweh’s throne was thought to in 1 Chronicles 29.
1 Chronicles 29:20
And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king. (KJV)
Hello James,
In the above passage the king is not being worshiped. There are other passages in 2 Chronicles where the author uses the same construction which demonstrates that only God is being rendered worship in 1 Chronicles 29:20.
2 Chronicles 31:8
When Hezekiah and the rulers came and saw the heaps, they blessed the LORD and His people Israel. (NASB)
Blessing the Lord means offering Him worship, but that doesn’t mean Hezekiah and the rulers rendered worship unto the people of Israel.
2 Chronicles 35:3
He also said to the Levites who taught all Israel and who were holy to the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel built; it will be a burden on your shoulders no longer. Now serve the LORD your God and His people Israel. (NASB)
Josiah (cf. 2 Chronicles 35:1) did not mean that the service (worship) that ought to be given unto God was also to be done unto the people of Israel.
In all three passages (1 Chronicles 29:20; 2 Chronicles 31:8 and 2 Chronicles 35:3) worship is only offered unto God. Furthermore, the ending of 2 Corinthians 8:5 ought also to be considered for it reads: but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God (NASB). When one “gives” themselves to the Lord it entails worshiping the Lord, but not so when it comes to other people in this passage.
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I discuss the range of forms of “worship” in my book The Only True God. The one that was a make-or-break issue for most Jews (and other Israelites) was sacrificial worship. Prostration before another figure could be appropriate, provided that the figure was not someone understood to be setting themselves up over against the one God. In this text, it explicitly says later on that sacrifices were offered to Yahweh alone. The worship that both received was presumably prostration, the recognition of the authority of the one God and his anointed one.
1 Chronicles 29:20 then does not at all detract from the worship properly rendered unto the Lord Jesus in Hebrews 1:6 – nor does it do so anywhere else.
Worship due only unto God also encompasses worship that did not involve offering sacrifices spelled out in the Law. Anytime one prayed it was (and is) an act of worship. And there are plenty of examples of prayer to the Lord Jesus in the New Testament.
Yes, there definitely was a broader array of practices which could have human and/or angelic figures as their focus, in addition to practices like sacrificial worship which were felt to be appropriate only to the one God.
The same thing can be said to your approach in that you seek to detract from the divinity of Jesus in that you are not focused on how the words of the Bible are properly defined.
Nice try, but it is clear that even after acknowledging the existence of evidence showing that there were Jews who did not think prayer/invocation/prostration were inappropriate if offered to a divine agent, you still insist that on some basis you have not specified, you can decide that doing these things with Jesus as the object in the New Testament nonetheless indicates that they clearly put him in a category other than that of divine agent. Instead of just offering a rhetorical comeback without substance, why not discuss the evidence that has already been brought into the discussion?
Prayer would be appropriate only unto the one true God.
1. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P. A. Verhoef).
2. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty one with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).
Since the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer demonstrates that He is God.
The inscriptional evidence shows that there were ancient Jews who disagreed with the modern sources that you cite (see my book The Only True God) on this topic).
On the rabbinic evidence and later trajectories in what became orthodox Judaism, this may be useful: https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~testsm/Angels_Intermed.html
People may disagree with the 2 citations I have cited but that doesn’t necessitate that it ought to be done. Indeed, I see no evidence from the Bible that prayers to angels was an accepted practice for God is the Hearer of prayer (Psalm 65:2).[*1] Furthermore, 1 Kings 8:38-39 connects the hearing of prayer with His omniscience. It reads:
whatever prayer…is made…then hear in heaven…for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men. (NASB)
[*1] Allen Ross: The use of the participle stresses that this is a characteristic of God – he is a prayer-answering God (A Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 2, page 413).
The question is not about organizing “what the Bible says” into a system, but about the range of practices that existed in first century Judaism which were the milieu of the development of early Christian thought about Jesus.
I agree that others at that time can run contrary to what the Bible teaches. This is to be expected for it has been happening even up to today. Even James Dunn (correctly) asserts that “at the time of Jesus…prayers of adoration, of penitence and confession, of petition and intercession, all indicating the dependence of the inferior (creature) upon the all-powerful Creator, Saviour and Lord” (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, page 30).
If the Lord Jesus was the proper recipient of of just one prayer this would demonstrate that He is the “all-powerful Creator.” The fact that Scripture teaches that He is the proper recipient of prayer in far more than jut one instance is more than enough evidence to convince the honest and diligent seeker of His rightful place as the Almighty Creator.
So you are interested in trying to make a theological case for the divinity of Jesus, and not focused on what the historical evidence says about the likely meaning of the New Testament texts in their historical context.
Why do you refuse to focus on how “prayer” is properly defined?
Would this carry over into how other words of the Bible are properly defined as well?
Where did I refuse to do that, or anything else? My entire effort here has been to get you to understand the beliefs and practices that appear to have defined the varieties of first century Judaism, how they are different from your own beliefs about what you think ought to be the case, and how the former are crucial to an accurate contextual interpretation of the meaning of the New Testament writings.
“Prayer” has been properly defined in two different sources. Yes, there were some ancient Jews who disagreed with what these definitions but they were certainly not in accord what what the biblical text affirms. I have already cited both 1 Kings 8:38-39 as well as Psalm 65:2. In fact, when defining “Monotheism” the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901) affirms that it entails the “worshipers of the one God and of Him alone.” (See the first paragraph)
https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/tje/m/monotheism.html
Are you suggesting that first-century Jews had not read their own scriptures, or just that you understand them better than they did? And given our discussion thus far higlighting the diversity of Judaism, why are you assuming that citing a couple of texts that at most lean in the direction of emphasizing what you think ought to be normative somehow negates the fact that there were a range of views and practices?
Also, you must realize that the phenomena we are talking about are precisely the reason there has been so much debate about what is meant by first-century Jewish monotheism, with some even arguing that the term is not appropriate at all.
First, I was wondering if you still stand by your assertion that the king was being worshiped in 1 Chronicles 29:20?
Second, I cited a source what Jews believe and previously believed concerning the worship of God. Even today you may have some people who claim to be Christians yet forbid the worship of Jesus. This demonstrates that they aren’t Christians.
Third, you simply refuse to address the passages I have cited in any kid of meaningful way.
You talk about “what Jews believe” as though in the first century there were a monolithic orthodoxy, and you approach Christianity the same way, denying that anyone who disagrees with you is a Christian. You are clearly not approaching this as a matter of scholarly historical study, but merely seeking to advocate your own contemporary theological viewpoint.
I wish I had realized that you weren’t addressing the topic of the original post sooner.
B. B. Warfield: the mark of Christians from the beginning was obviously that they looked to Jesus as their “Lord” and “called upon His name” in their worship (The Lord of Glory, page 256).
Your original assertion was that the king was being worshiped. This is in reference to 1 Chronicles 29:20, and I have already shown from the syntax elsewhere that your assertion is without foundation.
No, you haven’t.
In fact, the examples you quoted show the opposite to what you claim. The rulers bless both God and their fellow Israelites. The Levites serve both God and nation. Not in the same way, to be sure, but no one was suggesting that prostration before God and the king equated the two. Indeed, the whole point was that it doesn’t have that implication.
I am surprised you finally addressed what you originally asserted. It took quite some time.
My examples demonstrate that people were not being worshiped. So your assertion that they “show the opposite to what you claim” is fallacious.
Since Hebrews 1:6 is the topic of this discussion this is how the “worship” being rendered unto the Lord Jesus is properly defined.
1. BDAG (3rd Edition): Citing Hebrews 1:6 it reads “of deity in monotheistic cult” (proskyneō, page 882).
2. Joseph Thayer: Citing Hebrews 1:6 it reads “absol. (our to worship)” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, proskyneō).
http://biblehub.com/greek/4352.htm
You are citing one of the range of meanings in lexicons, and ignoring that the Bible has plenty examples of the primary sense of that term – prostration – towards a human being.
Hebrews 1:6 is used in reference to the definitions I cited.
I believe that this is a correct way to interpret this verse. Not only because of this verse but because we see in v.3 that “…the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” I think that putting these two verses together help us see that the author of Hebrews is making a case for Jesus being God. I think that Jobes gives a great idea of what this means and looks like, “The character wasn’t just similar to the mold from which it was stamped; it was identical except it existed in a separate form (e.g. clay or ink) from the mold” (84). This helped me understand that Jesus wasn’t just another prophet or a good man, Jesus was God in the form of man.
As we read through the Old Testament, i am amazed as to the jealously of God. He is constantly proving that he is God to the Israelites (Think of the 10 plagues and parting of the Red Sea in Exodus). Of all of the sins that Israel commits as a people in the Old Testament, Idolatry is the most used and punished. We even have a chart used to describe the cycle of sin in Judges that goes peace-idolatry-slavery-Israel cries out- God raises a judge- the people are delivered. It is funny to think that this happened over a handful of times, but the people of Israel fell into idolatry over and over… and God shows that this is one of the biggest things that he despises. It is in the 10 commandments for Pete’s sake! Exodus 20:3 says, “You shall have no other gods before me.” So when we see God telling His angels in Hebrews 1:6 to worship Jesus, it would seem to be a direct contradiction in the character. As for your comment James, i am not exactly sure where you’re coming from. No where in 1 Chronicles do we find worship of a king, unless that king is God himself. In that passage we see David talking about building the temple to glorify God, whereas all the people bow down and praise God. Not David or Solomon. In verse 23 and 24 of that 1st Chronicles passage we see Israel obeying and submitting to both David and Solomon, but no worship. Jesus cannot simply be a human, or divine being above the angels without being God. God the Father only allows for worship of the one true God, and as it appears in this passage, Jesus is included in the Godhead. When he is called the Son of God or the firstborn, this is not referring to our human ideas of what a son is. “Hebrews describes the Son with the Greek word character of God, translated “exact representation”..It was used to describe something that was an exact representation of its source, bearing all of its distinctive traits” (Jobes* 84). We are not looking at a different type of being, but at God in a different capacity and yet still connected as one. I believe that this passage pushes us towards the Deity and high Christology of Jesus as part of the Trinity.
*Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles
Pierpont and Renberg are on point as they refer to Jesus as the “exact representation of his being”. One could argue this equality from the beginning where Genesis records God(s) saying, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…” (Gen 1:26). The plurality of this statement reveals God with separate entities. However, upon the creation of humankind God ensures to create a being that represents him fully – not just partially. That his entirety be included with the formation of man demonstrates the equality of God’s entities from the beginning. Thousands of years later the Hebrew author maintains that Jesus is equal to God himself and deserves just as much praise, worship, and admonition as any part of the Godhead.
Another Another portion of Hebrews 1 that supports the assertion that the author of Hebrews was equating Jesus with God is in verse 2, “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.” The last part of the verse is something that can only be attributed to God. This is similar to what Jon was talking about in the previous post, and what is said in John 1. Jesus was present and active in the creation of the world. Jesus is established as being superior to angels in Hebrews, he is the firstborn and heir of all things, he is the radiance of the glory of God, and the writer affirms the idea that Jesus was at the beginning. If the writer is not asserting that Jesus is God, then I have no idea what he is implying.
In the context of Heb 1, “firstborn” is a variation of “son”, but it carries with it a nuance of pre-eminence (cf. Exod 4:22; Jer 31:8; Ps 89:28; 4Q418 81 5; 4 Ezra 6:58), which the term “son”, in and of itself, does not (although, in the context of Heb 1, even the term “son” is defined in a pre-eminent way). In view of this, and since the son is described as both the secondary (1:2) and primary (1:10) cause of creation, it is unlikely that the term “firstborn” is intended as a literal reference to his origins/creation.
As for “worship” it is important to note that the term can denote different kinds/degrees of devotion in these ancient Jewish and Christian texts. The term itself can denote anything from the respectful acknowledgment of one’s superior (e.g. Matt 18:26) to the exclusive devotion that is due the God of Israel (e.g. Matt 4:10). There are also a number of examples of “worship” that are clearly greater than the former but which do not compromise the latter (e.g. Isa 45:14; 1 En. 48:5; Rev 3:9; 3 Bar. 11:6; L.A.E. 12–16). The question that needs to be answered, therefore, is what kind of worship is envisioned in Heb 1:6? As I have argued elsewhere this worship was not thought to compromise the worship that is due to God alone (since it is God who decrees it) yet the worship that the firstborn receives here (he is enthroned in heaven worshipped by all the angels) seems to be the sort of worship is that is normally received by God alone (see Barnard, Mysticism of Hebrews, 247–52).
[Just to clarify, Ellingworth is not referring to the Odes of Solomon, but to the collection of biblical Odes found after the Psalms in Rahlfs edition of the Septuagint. Ode 2 comes from Deut 32. Also, when you say that the phrase utilized in Heb 1:6 is “missing in the Hebrew text” you mean the Masoretic Text; as you note an equivalent is present in one ancient Hebrew text, namely 4QDeut]
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
In Hebrews 1:2-3 says, “He has spoken to us by His Son. God has appointed Him heir of all things and made the universe through Him. v3 the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word.”
Heir, means the legal status entitle to the next in line, also to represent the family and the ancestors of the family. Passing on the responsibility and everything that came in that position. Jesus knowing his supernatural being of being the Son of God, when he came into a human form he had to temporarily limited himself to the level of a human being. Thus, allowing him to totality rely on His Father in Heaven and also to fully experience the human being in the earthly bound side. When it was mentioned that the angels must worship him, probably meant Jesus who is the High Priest and ultimate sacrifice, Jesus was positioned in his rightful place of authority and dominion over all things both heavens and earth. the definition for the angels to worship may of been a position of service. Jesus fulfilled all that was spoken of and more.
P. Long’s blog addressing the worship of Jesus as stated in Hebrews 1 is quite informative and helpful in understanding the relationship between God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son). I find it interesting that in Hebrews 1 we almost get a sense that the original audience is looking to what the angels worship to indicate what they ought to worship, at least this is the impression I get from P. Long’s post and in reading Hebrews 1. P. Long touches upon the fact that a Jew reading Hebrews 1 would have either found a contradiction of there being one god or would have come to the conclusion that Jesus and God are the same.
On the topic of the trinity and God and Jesus being equal there are several passages that support the conclusion of God and Jesus being one such as John 1:1, 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1. Hebrews 1:8-9 is quoting Psalm 45:6-7 and pointing to the fact that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah anointed one and has eternal power much like God (ESVSB). On this topic Jobes writes that Hebrews (and the entire NT) destroy the thought that Jesus is just another prophet but presents Jesus as God Himself. Thus, I would infer highly that the author of Hebrews does in fact intend to present Jesus as God Himself and indeed is deserving of worship as God.
The author of Hebrews is using a Hellenistic idea to explain the Son’s importance to the Father. These are several examples in Scripture to illustrate this concept. Jacob becoming firstborn as P. Long said, but also Solomon became the heir of his father’s kingdom, rather than one of David’s older sons. These examples show that the priority has been given to the Son, but that the Father chose to do so.
Hebrews 1:2 says that Christ is the “heir of all things”. This concept of being an heir comes from a Greco-Roman idea that when some has been made an heir, they have received greater honor than those of the family who have not. More so then that, this encompasses the idea that the individual who was made heir had the power and head over the family when the patriarch died. Because of this, the heir received the wealth, but also the responsibility.
Throughout Hebrews 1, there are several passages the author takes and uses to explain how and why Jesus is greater than the angels. Many of these passages are found in the book of Psalms, which shows the impact that David’s writings have on our theology today. To the Jews, the Messiah was, and unfortunately still is in their belief, a person who is yet-to-come. Yet at the same time, David writes so much about the Messiah and the author of Hebrews uses this Jewish understanding of the Messiah to defend his authority and the fact that he is worthy to be praised.
Reading that God commands the angels to worship his son makes sense, due to him being his son. John 10:30 says “ I and the Father are one”. Basic building block to the trinity, having to put aside that mindset would be a difficult thing to do. Jesus is the son of God, they are one why would it be a contradiction? In verse 10 it is made clear that the authorship of Christ on creation, that he does deserve the Glory because he is God (Matt 1:23). I think that the New Testament explains well the role of Christ and how he is the son of God and not just some man who claims to be a prophet. I find it interesting reading through Hebrews 1 that the original audience, see what the angelic beings worship instead of knowing who to worship already. We, as readers, already know who to give glory too, we are taught at a young age. I did not need to read Hebrews 1 to understand that, but it seems like angels need to be told what to do, which is something to think about
In Hebrews 1:2-3, states that God appoints Jesus the heir of all things. Two parts to this verse make it interesting. First being the fact that the word ‘heir’ is used. During the ancient times, people were familiar with the term heir, due to the fact that King’s would die, and would be superseded by their sons. This is not something that was simply a suggestion, it was straight from God, stating he would be the heir, the King. The second part of this verse states that he would all things. So first he is the king, secondly he was given the authority to rule everything. This gives him the highest title in the universe, simply deserving of all honor and glory. The heir, is greater than any family member who is not royalty. The heir who becomes king usually has reign of all things within their kingdom, and the thing notice about Jesus is his kingdom is everything. These two parts are extremely important to the role because the heir needs to know their authority as well as their authority is enforced. For Jesus he will be ruling all things.
While we read this and learn about how we are to worship Jesus the first born, there was a lot of confusion and or knowledge in other languages that it might say something different such as heir. One thing that I think of when it comes to this topic is that the first born and an heir are a lot in common. One thing that I think about is that when a king dies his first-born son takes over the thrown from his father. So, worshiping the firstborn would also be the heir to the throne meaning one day he will be the king overall. Jesus was the one who came down to earth and paid the sacrifice so that we will one day serve him and worship him for saving us from our ultimate death. God and Jesus although are two separate beings, God created Jesus who is God’s son and so we are to worship him as king of our lives.
Hebrews 1:2-4 give very strong language indicating the equality of Son and Father. I believe these passages help to support the statement of worship made in verse 6. When reading through scripture I think it can be easy to pick out one verse that suits our beliefs and then move on. We read what we want to read and then continue on and disregard the rest of the passage. To understand verse 6, you need 1-5 as well. Its context is very important in this text. I do believe that the author is equating Jesus and God, not just in this verse but in this chapter. This chapter, and specifically verse 6 really reject the idea of Gnosticism and the belief that the angels were higher than Jesus (Jobes, 93). Angels are servants of God and Jesus is His Son, one deserving of the angels’ worship, which is seen in verse 6. How then, from these passages can we call the Son and the Father equal? Is there trinitarian evidence here? Again, I believe there is and even more throughout scripture. The mention of the Holy Spirit is not present in this passage but verse 2-4 surely claim equality. We also see equality in John 1:1 and 1:14. Many scholars and translations taking “Word” meaning Jesus himself in verse 1, which is then supported in verse 14. Then of course we see in John 10:30 the equality of Father and Son, straight from the mouth of Jesus himself. The last piece of significant evidence for the full trinity would be in the Great Commission from Matthew 28. Hebrews seems to tie all of these passages together right in the first chapter.
Reading through the first chapter of Hebrews, many of the verses would be offensive to Jewish readers at this time that do not hold Jesus as equal to God. For the writer of Hebrews is certainly making the case that Jesus is not only superior to the angels and Moses, but is equal to God the Father. When we take one of the quoted verses in chapter one and separate it from the others and then examine its context, it often appears to be talking about one of the kings of Israel. For example, in verse 5, Psalms 2:7 is quoted. Jobes tells us that this Psalm was clearly a reference to the King of Israel and would most likely have been for a coronation ceremony (Jobes 92). This would make it harder to relate to Jesus, but when we look at his work on Earth and see his ascension into heaven as a coronation it makes more sense (Jobes 93). Each of the quoted verses is similar that it has its own specific context, but the writer of Hebrews strings them together, using a midrash, to provide the support of his argument that Jesus is superior to the angels. Not only in the quoted verses (5-13) do we see an argument for Jesus’ diety, but we can also look to verses 1-4. Each of these verses are rich in language that supports Jesus being more than a man and infact being equal to God. “The son is the exact radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:3). Therefore when we look at verse 6 “Let all God’s angels worship him”, it is no coincidence that worship was reserved only for the true God, and the writer of Hebrews uses this to say Jesus is deserving of worship as well.
It is interesting to me how the use of firstborn is used throughout Scripture. In many passages, it does not actually refer to the literal firstborn, but rather the one on whom the covenant blessing resides, in the case of Israel. This is seen in such cases as Jacob and Esau, and Ishmael and Isaac. As stated in the notes, the idea of firstborn had more to do with status than actual birth order. Having this understanding of the firstborn as a status rather than birth order, how the covenant of Abrham is passed down through his descendants makes more sense.
When looking at the actual command to worship, I feel the connotation is more obvious than that of the firstborn. God is clearly telling them to worship someone that many people would not have considered YHWH. This then leaves readers with two options. Either Jesus is in fact God, or God is telling them to worship someone who is not God, and therefore making them commit idolatry. Given these two options, I feel it is clear that the author is calling Jesus God, which we then view as Jesus being a part of the trinity, which we can see evidenced in the Gospels.
Throughout scripture, the firstborn is used over and over again as a symbol of power or leadership. That being said I do not believe that God is telling us to worship that status of the firstborn. We must realize that Jesus was and is, in fact, God and that is why we are commanded to worship him. God would not ask us to commit idolatry and worship a status or a person because that would go against everything that God commands in his word. Jesus was and is the heir and yet he is God and yet fully the heir.
Adam was the bridge between man and God but when he sinned and heir was needed to save creation from their sins and that is why the author of Hebrews is telling us to worship the firstborn. The firstborn is Jesus who is God and so we are not sinning when we worship Jesus because he is God. God cannot contradict himself so when people make that point that the author was trying to tell us to worship the firstborn of a family that makes no sense because God cannot contradict himself.
I agree and believe that this is the right way to interpret what this blog is talking about because we see that God commands the angels to worship his son makes a lot of sense in my opinion. I think the New Testament shows us that the role of Christ and the Son of God is not just a person who thinks they are above the rights or anything that goes on. It was cool to me to see how the use of firstborn is used through the scriptures that were put in place. It didn’t give full details but the Blog tried its best to give us the best understanding of what is going on in this passage.
I think this is a valid inference from this chapter in Hebrews. God spent the whole Old Testament trying to teach the Israelites not to worship any other god, so it would be strange for this suddenly to be changed. Another verse in this chapter that stands out is verse 5, which says “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘you are my son; today I have become your Father’?” As you said, “firstborn” doesn’t necessarily mean one who is physically the firstborn. But this verse makes it clear that God has never appointed any one to be His firstborn, which would imply that His firstborn would be literal, meaning that Jesus was literally born of God. This would mean that Jesus is at least partially a god, which is never claimed about any of God’s angels. This leads one to think that the author of Hebrews is indeed trying to equate Jesus with God, at least in some way.
I always find it interesting the theological themes that can be extrapolated out of a verse. I often find myself taking words, especially the scriptures still, at face value. It can be difficult for me to often think about the implications of one verse without the help of others’ commentaries. I appreciate the dissection of the verse into the two theological themes regarding Christology. The first issue is particularly interesting to me, especially since I just finished reading Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis, where in which there is a whole section regarding the Trinity and the role of Christ as a first born. I found myself drawn back to the similarities of topics. Lewis talks heavily about the differences between God creating and begetting. Creating meaning that one makes something new, begetting meaning to become the father of. God begets God, just as man begets man (Lewis, 1952) . Jesus Christ is God’s “only begotten son… (John 3:16), meaning that he is fully God, not a created being.
I think this is a very important point that the author of Hebrews was trying to make. Jesus and God are one, meaning that they are both worthy of praise. The fact that Jesus is called the firstborn and that the angels are commanded to worship him are two arguments for the fact that Jesus and God are one, especially with this issue being so important to the Jewish audience.
References
ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. Print
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity: A revised and amplified edition, with a new introduction, of the three books broadcast talks, Christian behaviour, and beyond personality. HarperOne.
The trinity is essential to Christian’s core beliefs, an individual cannot have one of these things without the other. I believe that God eternally exists in three Persons: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; these three are on God (monotheistic; Mark 12:29), co-equal and co-eternal, having the same nature and attributes that are worthy of the same worship and obedience. When I say these things, I mean the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but they are not three separate gods but only one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, but each is God individually and together the one true God of the Bible. (Isaiah 48:16).
When setting aside the views on the Trinity (either for or against it), I think the writer of Hebrews did intend to equate Jesus and God in some way. Though monotheistic views are the foundational truths of basic Christianity; one can’t say that they are unequal and still have the view of Christ’s deity. Regardless of you cannot have one without the other, and since that is the case, I think that worship can also be equated together as well. Since it is essential to believe that Christ is equal to God in order to redeem His deity and therefore since God gets out worship so should His Son that is equal in power as Him.
One of the first verses stated in Hebrews is, how angels were told to worship Jesus the firstborn. Hebrews 1:6 says this, “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”” (ESV). It is known that the Hebrews author was very knowledgeable in the Old Testament as well. With that, there are quit of few of OT verses that help come to idea of what is being said here in Hebrews 1:6. Deuteronomy 32:43 is one of the Old Testament verses that the idea of worship is coming from. This is what Deut 32:43 says, “Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people’s land.” (ESV). Two of the other verses that were used to draw out the idea of Worship from the OT are Psalm 97:7 and Psalm 89:27. Based off these passages we can come the same ideas that God is commanding that Jesus be worshipped, for he is the Firstborn. When the term Firstborn is being used here in Hebrews, it is not necessarily being used in the form of talking about the literal firstborn. It is however, being used in the form of who gets heirs not the birth order.
Worshiping Jesus the firstborn son of God is talked about within the context of Hebrews 1. Long (2018) says that scripture references angels and sons of God who worship him, who are identified, and Jesus his “firstborn” son. After reading through this week’s blog post it has come to my attention that first born can mean many different things to different people. Long identifies a couple of those meanings but as I was reading it occurred to me that I think there could be another confusing issue with the term firstborn. Firstborn to me means that Jesus was the first to be born yet there is another born individual. I truly believe that this is alluding to Jesus coming again soon. Firstborn can be difficult to understand when the thought in mind that there is possibly another meaning behind the content. I can understand that “firstborn being meant as Jesus being similar to God” (Long, 2018) can be mistaken within the context of Hebrews. There should have been more context explaining that Jesus is not similar to God but he is God, such as referencing the Holy Trinity. Many may come to an understanding that in Hebrews it is referencing that Jesus is not similar to God but he is God but the words used to describe Jesus can be misjudged. Other books of the New Testament reference Jesus being a part of God but there is research that needs to be done to fully understand Jesus is not similar to God but he is God.
Reference
Long, Phillip J. (2018, January 25). Hebrews 1- Worship Jesus, the Firstborn son ReadingActs.com https://readingacts.com/2018/01/25/hebrews-1-worship-jesus-the-firstborn/ Retrieved January 29, 2024.
The writer of Hebrews intends to equate Jesus as God. In verses 8 and 9, the author writes from the perspective of God to the Son. In this, the Son is referred to as God and calls God “his” God. This takes the reader aback while reading, but clearly shows the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. In verse 10, the author goes on to call him Lord and speak about him laying the foundation of the earth. In Genesis, we learn that it is God who speaks everything into existence. But still there is John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” With all of these things combined, the reader can come to the conclusion that Jesus is God. In fact, “the Word” refers to Jesus. The word lowercase means the Bible. When the Word is capitalized, it is referring to Jesus. Using Hebrews 1:10 and John 1:1, readers can see that Jesus was indeed the one through which everything was created. It states that He both was with God and was God.
That being said, since Jesus is God, he should be worshipped as God. If we allow ourselves to step outside of our own understanding, as we are called to do as believers, then we can see how Jesus was the incarnation of God. God in flesh. That does not subtract from his status as God, rather it is God made human. God even claims Jesus as his Son during his time on earth at Jesus’ baptism. Going back to Hebrews 1, it is said that Jesus’ years have no end and that he has been anointed. It distinguishes between the status of the angels and Jesus. The passage even speaks on this, alluding to the fact that God has never claimed an angel to hold that place. God has never offered to put the enemies of angels as their footstool. Jesus being God and having the same authority of God and holding the same importance, yes the angels should worship him.