12th July, 2010

BRUCE C. WEARNE

Read Hebrews 1: 4-7

The writer puts pen to paper inspired by Someone, he says, who is more significant than all the angels, more important that all of God's holy battalions. Seemingly, he is writing to people for whom angels and their messages were very important parts of their story of God's dealings with them and all people.

That seems to be why the writer is keen to tell them that this Person's bequest actually includes all the angels. It is God who is their creator, ascribing to them their characteristics - wind and fire - and sends them on their way under His orders with His message. His Name, the Name by which He is to be known from now on, is thus of greatest splendour, beyond comparing with the derived glory of His messengers.

SUPERIOR TO ANGELS: Bruce C. Wearne says the writer of Hebrews points to the fact that one would not understand why the angels - messengers - are important to the story if they fail to understand the message they carry is about Jesus Christ. PICTURE: © Sasha Davas (www.sxc.hu) "It can be said that there is a tendency among those who believe in Jesus Christ...to misunderstand His Lordship in a pretty basic way. Are they (we) not prone to view this "Lordship" as something they (we) ascribe to Him by their (our) faith? That, I suggest, is a tendency the writer wants to challenge."

It seems strange to us that the writer, having announced the Son of God, proclaiming the news of His glorious inheritance in such definitive terms, should now move on to compare Him to angels at such length. Why does the writer have to do so and affirm so strongly that He is more excellent with a better name than these angels?

You may recall in the Gospels that Jesus not only confronted the Pharisees - He was also interrogated by a group known as the Sadducees. These particular Jews not only did not believe in the resurrection, they did not believe in angels. You can find Jesus' telling reply to them in Mark's Gospel (Mark 12: 18-27). These Greek-speaking Jews don't seem to have been influenced by Sadducean views, but what is clear is that the writer of this letter is saying that their faith has been constituted as something other than respect for angels. They are told of the One Who is God's message. After all, he writes, God's angels are enjoined to worship Him!

Our generation is not so ready to believe in angels. Why should people believe in God's messengers if they have already decided that there is no personal message from God to be brought anyway? But the writer of this letter is on another wavelength. He is saying to his initial readers that one will not begin to truly comprehend why such messengers are even part of the story, if we do not understand that their message is about the One who is "more significant than the angels".

It can be said that there is a tendency among those who believe in Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, the One proclaimed Ruler of the Princes of this Earth, to misunderstand His Lordship in a pretty basic way. Are they (we) not prone to view this "Lordship" as something they (we) ascribe to Him by their (our) faith? That, I suggest, is a tendency the writer wants to challenge. How so?

It would seem that in that context, believers would be going about their daily affairs meeting those who do not share their profession, and who believing in other gods or in no gods, yet believed nevertheless in their "fiery winds", these messengers "from another world". In that everyday context there will, in all likelihood, arise the tendency to discuss the life of Jesus as He lived it in Galilee and Judea in "common denominator" terms, terms that seem to assist the other person to understand. And then, wouldn't it be probable for Jewish Christians, in discussion with fellow Jews as much as with Gentiles, to refer to Jesus in terms of such "everyday spirituality", to affirm that He is another of God's foremost messengers, indeed THE foremost messenger? Wouldn't that be a credible way of contributing to the "old, old story" of God's dealing with humankind, of Jesus and His love? Isn't that, in fact, a strong temptation today for us as well, particularly when we discuss our faith with our Muslim neighbours with whom, in our respective "stories" we share so many common elements of the Biblical story including that part played by angels in that story?

And with Buddhists we might talk of "our" teacher of wisdom and with Hindus of our "lord". Still, the writer here indicates another approach because he is indicating an alternative self-understanding.

Now that their Lord is no longer walking this earth with them, and even though He has sent His Spirit to be with them to guide them so that He will be with them "until the close of the age", will not these Hebrews, in their Gentile cultural context, be tempted to refer to Him as another mighty angel in the wondrous story of grace? Clearly, the writer wants to avert his readers from such a retrospective tendency. But how is he to do that? Jesus is neither a mere messenger nor even the greatest of angelic messengers. So, in writing to these dispersed Jewish believers, He seeks to explain WHO he is writing about? He writes to them about the One to whom all angels bow in worship and in so doing develops the "old, old story" not only to include the contribution of the Son of God, but to help them see themselves (and not just the angels) as part of His story.

But we are taking this one step at a time in order to fully digest the incredibly wonderful and splendid teaching that this letter puts before us.

FOR MORE OPEN BOOK, click here...

Got a verse or a short passage you'd like us to look at? Just send an email to editor@sightmagazine.com.au.