1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son; today I have become your Father”?
Or again,
“I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”
6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.”
8But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
10He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”
13To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool
14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? (Hebrews 1:1-14, NIV)
The Daily DAVEotional
Did you know that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael?
Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is Jehovah’s first created being, and that after creating Jesus, Jehovah used Jesus to create everything else.
Additionally, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that as a created being, Jesus is actually the archangel Michael, who assumed the name Jesus when he became a man in order to pay the ransom that was required to redeem mankind by reversing the disastrous consequences of Adam’s sin.
The first chapter of Hebrews provides a sound refutation to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine that Jesus is an exalted angel as the author effectively argues that Jesus is much better than the angels. In the process, this passage provides even more evidence for the traditional Christian doctrine that Jesus is God.
I previously wrote about the first 3 verses of Hebrews 1 in my blog post, “Better Than…” which sought to explain the purpose of the writing of the book of Hebrews, which was to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over angels, Moses, the Old Covenant and the entire Jewish legal system, all in an effort to convince Jewish Christians not to revert back to the old Jewish legal system as a means of attempting to gain favor with God.
In this first chapter, the writer to the Hebrews provides at least 6 reasons why Jesus is better than the angels.
REASON #1 – Jesus is a son, the angels are not
In verse 5, the writer quotes two different Old Testament verses (Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14) to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah who fulfilled the prophecies related to the Davidic covenant.
In the Old Testament, angels are often referenced as “sons of God”, but angels are never referenced as “God’s Son”. Jesus is distinctly unique in this respect. Hence, he is greater than the angels.
REASON #2 – The angels worship Jesus
In verse 6, the angels are directly commanded to worship Jesus. Since the lesser always worships the greater, Jesus must be greater than the angels.
Incidentally, this verse provides still more evidence for Jesus’ divine nature for it’s clear in Scripture that only God is to be worshiped (see Exodus 20:3-5, Exodus 34:14, Deuteronomy 6:13 and Matthew 4:10). Also, in Revelation 22:8-9, John falls down in worship to an angel who had shown him the things he was seeing. John is rebuked by the angel who tells John,
“Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”
If only God is to be worshiped and the angels are commanded to worship Jesus, it not only confirms that Jesus is better than the angels but provides strong evidence that Jesus must possess the nature of God.
REASON #3 – The angels are God’s ministers but the Son is God, ruling with righteousness
The writer to the Hebrews explains that angels are ministering spirits whose purpose is to serve those who will inherit salvation (verse 14). By contrast, verses 8-9 show that Jesus’ purpose is to reign in righteousness.
These verses further demonstrate the divine nature of Jesus as the son is referred to as “God” in verse 8 and again in verse 9.
The writer also attributes to Jesus a throne that will last forever and ever. Jesus is depicted as reigning forever on a throne of righteousness while being called “God”.
Jesus is indeed better than the angels because Jesus is God!
REASON #4 – Jesus is creator of the heavens and the earth
The writer states in verse 2 that God “made the world” through Jesus and that Jesus “upholds all things by the word of his power.”
Later, in verse 10, Jesus is referred to as “Lord” by God himself and is demonstrated to be the author of all creation. Jesus “laid the foundations of the earth” and “the heavens are the work of your [Jesus’] hands!”
Jesus is the creator while angels are created. Hence, Jesus is better than the angels.
REASON #5 – The creation perishes, but the creator, Jesus, remains
Because we are finite creatures, we tend to look at the world and see it as permanent and unchangeable. But the truth is, the world and the universe is decaying and energy is running down. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that the creation will eventually wear out just like an old garment, but Jesus remains the same. This is strong evidence for his immutability, which further buttresses the case for his divinity.
Verse 12 says that the creation not only changes but it will come to an end. On the other hand, Jesus’ years will NOT come to an end because he is eternal.
So Jesus is both immutable and eternal, both characteristics which demonstrate divinity.
REASON #6 – Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father and all enemies are subjected to him
Verse 14 shows that angels are ministering spirits who come before God and serve him while Jesus is seated at the right hand of God with his enemies under his feet.
This demonstrates that Jesus has ultimate authority and sovereignty over every living thing. Being seated at the right hand of God demonstrates his equality with God, which is yet another evidence for his divinity.
This entire passage clearly shows that Jesus is greater than the angels, and yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that Jesus actually IS an angel.
If Jesus is better than angels, as the writer to the Hebrews clearly demonstrates, how is it possible that he himself is an angel?
Jesus is better than the angels not just because he has a higher position, as Jehovah’s Witnesses may argue, but Jesus is better than the angels because he has a better nature.
Jesus is divine. He is God. Therefore, he cannot be the archangel Michael.
More blog posts related to Jehovah’s Witness Beliefs
Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!
Reflection
What do you think it means when it says that Jesus is the exact representation of the nature of God? In what ways does this description of Jesus argue against the idea that Jesus is an angel?
Do you think an angel can have the attributes and qualities that the writer of Hebrews assigns to Jesus? For example, do you think it’s possible that an angel has the power to “uphold all things by the power of his word?” What descriptions about Jesus argue most strongly against Jesus being an angel?
If Jesus is actually the archangel Michael, why do you think God would command all the angels to worship him?
If only God is to be worshiped, which is clear from Scripture, what does it tell you about the nature of Jesus that God commands all the angels to worship him?
If Jesus actually is the archangel Michael, as Jehovah’s Witnesses assert, why would the writer of Hebrews not disclose that in this passage, especially when the whole purpose is to contrast Jesus with angels?
If Jesus is the archangel Michael, how do you interpret the verse that says,
“For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”?”
Wouldn’t the answer to this question obviously be “Michael. That is the angel to which God has said this”?
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)
The Daily DAVEotional
About a year ago, I posted my thoughts on this very passage, explaining the meaning of the term “firstborn” and why it doesn’t teach that Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue.
I don’t want to rehash all of my points from that post so if you haven’t read it, I encourage you to read the original post, “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?” to get up to speed on the debate between the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus and the Arian view that Jehovah’s Witnesses hold.
My purpose in this post is to provide a response to some of the arguments levied by Jehovah’s Witnesses who argue against my interpretation of this passage.
In my initial post, I made the claim that the primary meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 and 18 is “preeminence”. I reasoned that this makes the most sense since Paul uses “firstborn” in conjunction with two different terms, “creation” and “death”, neither of which have anything to do with a parent. Therefore, it seems most natural that Paul is using the term to demonstrate Jesus’ supremacy (pre-eminence) over creation and death.
In recent weeks, I’ve encountered a number of committed Jehovah’s Witnesses online who disagree with my interpretation and have offered up their own explanations for this passage.
The standard Jehovah’s Witness talking point as it relates to the meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1 is that the term means something like “first in line.”
The argument is that the term “firstborn” most often refers to the first offspring of a particular person. Therefore, the word should be interpreted in a similar manner when it’s used in a verse that is not referencing offspring.
If you agree with the Jehovah’s Witness logic, then the interpretation of Colossians 1 yields the following:
Jesus is the firstborn of creation, which means that he was the first one to be created by Jehovah.
Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, which means he’s the first one to overcome death.
To some, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who hold to an Arian view of Christ, the debate is over. In their mind, the logic is irrefutable.
But is it?
Sound Bible study methods dictate that we investigate their claims. Is their understanding of the word the standard interpretation?
I did a Bible search and found that the word “firstborn” shows up in 111 Bible verses, all but 9 of which are found in the Old Testament. In some verses, the word “firstborn” appears multiple times. Hence, the term is used more than 120 times throughout the Bible.
I’ve catalogued every verse where the term shows up, so you can see for yourself. You can access this list of verses in my blog post “Bible References to the Term “Firstborn”“.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are right in this respect – a majority of the references to the term “firstborn” do actually refer to the first one born to a particular person. However, it is rather obvious from the context of all of those passages that this is the meaning.
Take Genesis 10:15 for example, which is the very first occurrence of the term. The verse says,
Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn.
In a majority of the occurrences of the term “firstborn”, it’s used in this same manner where the term is by itself, but referencing a parent. Occasionally, the term is referenced to another living creature as in Exodus 11:5 which states that God was going to kill the firstborn of Pharaoh as well as the firstborn of all cattle.
It’s clear in these situations that the term does mean “first offspring” primarily because the verse gives the name of the parent and the son or daughter.
But how is the word understood when it is not used in conjunction with a living being (man or animal)? Is it understood in the same way?
Typically not.
One of the first occurrences where firstborn is used in a non-traditional way is Exodus 4:22, which says,
“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23“So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”
Notice that the term shows up twice. In the second instance it’s used in the same way we typically see the word being used, in reference to the first offspring of a person. In this case, it’s referring to the first offspring of Pharaoh.
But in the first instance of the term “firstborn”, it is not used in the typical fashion.
According to Jehovah’s Witness’ argumentation, the word should have the same meaning even when it’s used in a non-traditional way.
It turns out that the first instance of “firstborn” in this passage CANNOT mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses attribute to the term. God specifically states that Israel, the nation, is his firstborn. If we understand “firstborn” to be “first in line”, in what sense is Israel the “first in line”?
Israel was not the first nation to be created. And God doesn’t “birth” nations anyway, so the word cannot mean “first offspring”.
It’s clear by the context that the first occurrence of “firstborn” in this verse is to be understood as Israel having a favored status. God selected Israel for a distinct and unique purpose – to be a nation through which all the other nations would be blessed and come to know the one true God.
In this case, the meaning of “preeminent” is clearly the correct understanding.
Genesis 48 provides an insightful story that helps us understand the significance of the firstborn.
In this passage, Joseph brings his sons Manasseh and Ephraim to Jacob in order to receive a blessing before Jacob passes.
Jacob is old and his vision is failing. As he reaches out to bless Joseph’s sons, he crosses his arms so that his right hand is on Ephraim instead of Manasseh who is the first offspring of Joseph and therefore the firstborn.
Genesis 48:14 says,
But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn.
In Genesis 48:18, Joseph tries to correct his father, saying,
“Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”
Jacob tells Joseph that he is aware of the situation and he knows what he is doing. He tells Joseph that Ephraim, though he is the younger, will have a higher position over his brother. He will be the firstborn, the favored son.
Just a few verses later, in the next chapter, Jacob is giving his final words to each of his sons. Here is what he says to Reuben, his first son, in Genesis 49:3-4,
“Reuben, you are my firstborn; My might and the beginning of my strength, Preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. 4“Uncontrolled as water, you shall not have preeminence, Because you went up to your father’s bed; Then you defiled it —he went up to my couch.
Jacob not only defines the term “firstborn” for us but expounds on its significance. The firstborn IS the might of the father AND the beginning of the father’s strength. The firstborn is PREEMINENT.
Jacob tells Reuben that he is the firstborn in terms of offspring. But he would NOT be firstborn in terms of preeminence.
These passages, which show up early in the biblical narrative, demonstrate clearly that the idea of “preeminence” was nearly synonymous with the term “firstborn”.
Though Manasseh was Joseph’s first offspring, it turns out that he was not considered the “firstborn” in terms of stature and rank. In Jeremiah 31:9, God confirms that “Ephraim is my firstborn.”
In 1 Chronicles 2:13, we read that,
Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third,
In verse 14, we learn that David was the seventh and last son born to Jesse. Yet, in Psalm 89:27, God says about David,
“I also shall make him Myfirstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.
David was not the first offspring of Jesse, but God made David His firstborn.
What does that mean?
It cannot mean that David was “first in line” because David was neither the first offspring of Jesse nor was he the first king of Israel.
What it means is that David was made by God to assume the highest rank among rulers. David was made firstborn – he was made to be preeminent.
The context dictates the meaning and sense of the word and so far, when the word is used in a way that doesn’t mean “first offspring”, it carries the meaning of “preeminence.”
There’s an interesting passage in Job that uses the term firstborn. It’s found in Job 18:13, which says:
“His skin is devoured by disease,
The firstborn of death devours his limbs.
This occurrence is informative because it uses the term “firstborn” with the prepositional phrase “of….” that doesn’t have a person or animal following. Whenever we see a person or animal (cattle, herd) follow, as in “firstborn of Jacob” or “firstborn of cattle”, the term always refers to the first offspring.
But in this case, the “firstborn of” phrase is not followed by a person or animal.
Does the standard Jehovah’s Witness meaning of “first in line” follow?
Not really.
Death is inanimate. It’s not a living organism that gives birth as humans and mammals do.
So what is this verse saying?
This verse is part of a larger discourse by Bildad in which he’s communicating his ideology that the wicked eventually get the punishment they deserve. He’s using this argumentation to try to prove that the reason Job has experienced so much trauma and suffering is because Job’s sin has finally caught up to him.
In describing the punishment the wicked will endure, Bildad claims that the skin of the wicked gets devoured by disease AND the “firstborn of death” devours his limbs. It’s obvious that Bildad is making reference to Job’s physical ailments as a proof of Job’s supposed secret sin.
But what is meant by “firstborn of death”?
Note that this term is very similar to how Paul uses “firstborn” in Colossians 1:18.
If “firstborn” means “first in line” in these kinds of cases, what exactly does that mean?
The context will not allow that interpretation because if you assume that meaning, you end up with a garbled mess of a sentence that is completely incoherent.
It’s clear in this context that death is afflicting its victim. There is no sense in which the term “firstborn of death” includes the meaning “first in line”. Death does not birth anything and does not produce a literal offspring.
But death CAN rule. Death CAN overwhelm. That is the sense that is being conveyed here. There is no meaningful or coherent sense in which “first in line” as a meaning applies to the term “firstborn” here.
There’s another uncommon use of the term “firstborn” in Isaiah that does not follow the typical examples that are littered throughout the Old Testament.
Isaiah 14:30 in the ESV says,
And the firstborn of the poor will graze,
And the needy lie down in safety; but I will kill your root with famine, and your remnant it will slay.
Here is another example of the word “firstborn” being used in connection with something that is a non-person and a non-animal, negating the traditional meaning of “first offspring.”
What exactly, then is the “firstborn of the poor” and does the definition of “first in line” fit here given the context?
This verse is part of a prophecy that the Lord is giving to Philistia. God warns that Philistia will experience complete devastation and that only “the firstborn of the poor will graze.”
What exactly does that mean?
One thing it doesn’t mean is “first in line”. If we apply the meaning of “highest rank” or “supreme” then it means that those who are the MOST poor will graze (be fed). In other words, it’s going to be bad, and only the most poor, or the poorest of the poor will survive.
It appears that in pretty much every case where the term “firstborn” is used in a way that doesn’t include the parent with the first offspring, the term means “preeminent.”
As mentioned at the outset, there are only 9 verses in the New Testament that use the term “firstborn”.
There are two verses in Luke 2 that use the term, and in both cases, the term “firstborn” is used to refer to Jesus as Mary’s first offspring.
In Hebrews 11:28, the term “firstborn” is referencing the Egyptian plague when the angel of death passed over the Israelites and all of the firstborn of the Israelites were shielded from the plague.
That leaves 6 more verses that use the term “firstborn” including the two in Colossians. None of these other verses use the term in the normal sense where it obviously refers to the first offspring of a certain person.
I’ll examine each of the non-Colossians verses before coming back to Colossians and then summarizing what this tells us.
Romans 8:29 says,
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
What is this verse saying?
It’s saying that those who become children of God are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. That is, believers ultimately are going to be LIKE him. We won’t just be declared righteous, we will BE righteous because in the end, our sin nature will finally be eradicated.
This is the sense that we will fully be Christ’s brethren. Though we will be LIKE him, we will not be equal to him. Jesus will be the firstborn among all these brethren, which simply means, he will be preeminent. He will be supreme.
So this verse, as applied to Jesus, does not state that he is the first of Jehovah’s creation. It’s stating that he will have a preeminent position among all of the brethren.
This interpretation makes complete sense if we understand that Jesus is a son by nature but we are sons (and daughters) by adoption.
Hebrews 1:6 says,
And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
The term “firstborn” in this verse clearly refers to Jesus, but does it mean that he was the first offspring?
That is a doubtful interpretation for reasons that have already been enumerated. Jesus was not born. Therefore, the more logical understanding of this term as applied to Jesus is “preeminent one”.
This makes sense given the context of Hebrews 1. This passage, starting in verse 5 and ending with verse 13, is demonstrating that Jesus is superior to, or better than the angels.
So when the firstborn, the preeminent one, comes into the world, God says “let all the angels worship Him.” It logically follows that the angels are commanded to worship Jesus because he is preeminent over them.
Now two things should be said about this. First of all, it’s clear from Scripture that only God is to be worshipped. So what does it say about Jesus that God instructs the angels to worship Him?
Secondly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael. They believe that Michael is the highest of angels and that God the Father (Jehovah to the Jehovah’s Witnesses) gave Michael the task of coming into the world to redeem humanity. Michael took on a human nature and changed his name for some reason. When his mission was complete, Jesus returned to heaven and assumed his prior identity as Michael the archangel.
So according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a powerful angel came to earth, took on a human body and God the Father instructed all the other angels to WORSHIP him.
This doesn’t sound like an angel or even someone who is god-like, as Jehovah’s Witnesses will say. This sounds like someone who possesses the divine nature. In fact, this is exactly what Hebrews 1:3 -4 teaches, that Jesus is the EXACT representation of God’s nature AND he is BETTER than the angels. How can he be better than the angels if he himself IS an angel?
Hebrews 12:23 says,
to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
There is some debate about what the term “church of the firstborn” refers to but we know it does NOT refer to Jesus. It clearly refers to a group of people in heaven. It’s also clear that the idea of “first offspring” is not in view here.
I think the most likely understanding of “firstborn” in this verse is either “favored status” or “inheritance.” Remember that the firstborn son had a favored status and received a double portion of the inheritance. So both of these ideas are already inherent in the term.
In this sense, the phrase “church of the firstborn” likely refers to those who have received the inheritance. In other words, it’s referring to those who, because they have placed their faith in Jesus and belong to him, receive exclusive spiritual blessings that are not available to those who are not in the church.
This view makes more sense than anything resembling “first in line”.
Revelation 1:5 says,
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—
This is the last occurrence of the term “firstborn” in the Bible and it’s the one occurrence that most resembles the usage of Colossians, especially Colossians 1:18.
So what does this mean?
Jehovah’s Witnesses will likely argue for the interpretation that they hold for Colossians 1:18, namely that this means that Jesus is the first to overcome death, that Jesus is “first in line”.
But given the context, noting that John follows this phrase by saying that Jesus is the RULER of the kings of the earth, it makes more sense that John is using the term to communicate that Jesus is the one who is preeminent over death. In other words, Jesus rules over death, just as he rules over the kings of earth.
It bears repeating that Jesus was not born. So what would be the purpose of using the term “firstborn” if it does not apply to Jesus as it applied to Reuben, Manasseh and the dozens of other references that referred to the first offspring of some person?
In other words, the term firstborn, in a majority of cases, was used to identify the first offspring of a person in order to distinguish that person from other siblings who were not first. But since Jesus has no spiritual “siblings”, there is no need to use the term “firstborn” to distinguish him from rival siblings.
Clearly, John is pointing to Jesus’ special status. To conclude otherwise is to stretch or twist the context of these passages and phrases to unnatural and incoherent meanings.
Now let’s circle back to the Colossians verses that use the term “firstborn”.
What we’ve seen in every use of the term “firstborn” is that it most often refers to “first offspring”. But it never means “first offspring” when the term “firstborn” is used in conjunction with a non-person or non-mammal. In those cases, some form of preeminence, rule or supremacy is meant.
One thing that is clear is that there are no verses where the term firstborn means “first in line”. Yes, it means “first offspring” when speaking of a person or animal that bears offspring in the natural way. However, when “firstborn” is coupled with a non-person, the idea of “first in line” is never in view.
Yet that is exactly what the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that it means in these two verses in Colossians. They argue that Colossians 1:15 means that Jesus was first in line to be created and Colossians 1:18 means that Jesus was first in line to be raised from the dead.
Their argument is that this understanding is demanded because it is the normal meaning when you see the term.
But, as we’ve seen, it’s only normal when the term is used to refer to “first offspring”. There is no instance where it carries that meaning apart from the term “firstborn” being connected with a living person or an animal such as “cattle” or “herd”.
When the term “firstborn” is used apart from a living person or animal, it always has the meaning of preeminence, supremacy or highest rank.
This rendering makes the most sense in Colossians, especially when you look at the context and realize that Paul is seeking to demonstrate that “in everything Christ might have supremacy.”
If Paul’s argument is designed to show that Christ will have supremacy in everything (verse 18), then it makes sense that he is going to support that argument by showing that Jesus has supremacy over creation and over death.
So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses still insist that “firstborn”, when attributed to Jesus, means “first in line” when it’s never used that way in any other example?
The answer is that they have manufactured this definition as a way to maintain their theological view that Jesus is a created being.
Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate the most egregious form of the Bible study error known as eisegesis, which means to “read into the text.”
In simple terms, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not approach the text in order to inform their theology. Instead, they add phrases to the text and change the normal meaning of words in order to conform the text to their theology.
It’s clear that, as it relates to Jesus, Paul is using the term “firstborn” in the sense of “preeminence”. This is how the word is used in cases that clearly don’t refer to “first offspring.”
Additionally, the context supports the idea of “preeminence” as the meaning of firstborn.
Paul states that Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” which means Jesus is preeminent over creation.
In the verses that follow, Paul states that Jesus is the creator of all things. So Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have to manufacture a meaning of firstborn to mean something like “first in line” in order to convince you that Paul is trying to tell you that Jesus is the first created being of Jehovah.
Yet if Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus was “first-created”, he would have used the Greek word “protoktisis” which literally means “first-created.”
That Paul didn’t use that word speaks volumes.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses then have to add the word “other” to the text four times in order to change the meaning of the text to show that Jesus is not really the creator as the original Greek text indicates.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are like the person who tells a small lie to promote a false narrative but are then forced to create bigger lies in order to maintain the fabricated story.
They first had to offer up a definition for “firstborn” that is literally not used in any of the more than 100 occurrences of the term.
Then, to keep their narrative alive that Jesus is a created being, they have to add the word “other” to the passage four times. Their explanations and justifications for their interpretive choices get increasingly more complicated and logically convoluted in their effort to maintain their theological view.
The most direct, plain and understandable meaning of this passage is that Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator. Additionally, Jesus is preeminent over death because he conquered death. All of this demonstrates that Jesus will come to have first place (i.e. preeminence) in everything!
No extra words and no uncommon and unnatural definitions are required to arrive at this understanding.
So we are back to my original premise in my first blog post, which is that the word “firstborn” does not mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses think it means.
Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well to heed the advice of Inigo Montoya, who famously said,
Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!
Reflection
Do you agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Colossians 1;15 and Colossians 1:18 that the term “firstborn” should be understood as “first in line”? If so, how do you interpret the other passages that use “firstborn” in a context that doesn’t refer to “first offspring”?
Have you ever told a small lie that escalated into much bigger fabrications? What is the motivation for lying in the first place? What are the reasons a person might continue to promote a falsehood?
What are some examples you can think of where a person is so committed to their narrative that they resort to convoluted logic and distorted definitions in an attempt to justify their narrative?
If the term “firstborn” means “first in line” in Colossians, as Jehovah’s Witnesses assert, what exactly is the meaning of the phrase “firstborn from among the dead”? How does the idea of “first in line” apply to Jesus’ death?
Photo is a screenshot from the movie “The Princess Bride”
17As Abram returned from his victory over Kedorlaomer and his allies, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18Then Melchizedek, the king of Salem and a priest of God Most High, brought him bread and wine. 19Melchizedek blessed Abram with this blessing:
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
20And blessed be God Most High,
who has helped you conquer your enemies.”Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the goods he had recovered. (Genesis 14:17-20, NLT)
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hebrews 7
1This Melchizedek was king of the city of Salem and also a priest of God Most High. When Abraham was returning home after winning a great battle against many kings, Melchizedek met him and blessed him. 2Then Abraham took a tenth of all he had won in the battle and gave it to Melchizedek. His name means “king of justice.” He is also “king of peace” because Salem means “peace.” 3There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God.
4Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized how great Melchizedek was by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle. 5Now the priests, who are descendants of Levi, are commanded in the law of Moses to collect a tithe from all the people, even though they are their own relatives. 6But Melchizedek, who was not even related to Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God. 7And without question, the person who has the power to bless is always greater than the person who is blessed.
8In the case of Jewish priests, tithes are paid to men who will die. But Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on. 9In addition, we might even say that Levi’s descendants, the ones who collect the tithe, paid a tithe to Melchizedek through their ancestor Abraham. 10For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s loins when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.
11And finally, if the priesthood of Levi could have achieved God’s purposes—and it was that priesthood on which the law was based—why did God need to send a different priest from the line of Melchizedek, instead of from the line of Levi and Aaron?
12And when the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed to permit it. 13For the one we are talking about belongs to a different tribe, whose members do not serve at the altar. 14What I mean is, our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never mentioned Judah in connection with the priesthood.
15The change in God’s law is even more evident from the fact that a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has now come. 16He became a priest, not by meeting the old requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. 17And the psalmist pointed this out when he said of Christ,
“You are a priest forever
in the line of Melchizedek.”
18Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. 19For the law made nothing perfect, and now a better hope has taken its place. And that is how we draw near to God.
20God took an oath that Christ would always be a priest, but he never did this for any other priest. 21Only to Jesus did he say,
“The Lord has taken an oath
and will not break his vow:
‘You are a priest forever.’”22Because of God’s oath, it is Jesus who guarantees the effectiveness of this better covenant. (Hebrews 7:1-22, NLT)
The Daily DAVEotional
One of the great themes of the book of Genesis and really the whole Bible, is the Abrahamic covenant, which is introduced in Genesis 12 and is repeated again in Genesis 15. In this covenant, God promises to bless Abraham, so that he, through his descendants, would be a blessing to the nations. This promise sets the backdrop for God’s biblical redemptive plan, which unfolds throughout the Scriptures.
In the chapters that provide the filling for this Abrahamic Covenant sandwich (Genesis 13 and 14), Moses tells the story of how Abram and Lot decide to separate, mainly because they both had grown their personal wealth so much, there was no suitable land that could accommodate both of them with all of their flocks and herds.
Now that Lot is no longer under Abram’s protection, he finds himself the innocent victim of what amounts to a local political rebellion. The end result is that Lot, along with others, is taken captive by a local ruler who did not take kindly to the uprising of his subjects.
Abram gets wind of the situation and launches a rescue operation, which is highly successful. Not only does he get Lot back, but he retrieves ALL of those who have been captured, along with all of their possessions which had been looted.
On his way back from victory, Abram encounters a local king named Melchizedek. To the unschooled reader, Melchizedek seems like just another insignificant local political leader with a name that’s hard to pronounce. There really isn’t much reason to think this guy is that important to the overall biblical narrative, until of course, you get to the book of Hebrews.
Everything we know about Melchizedek comes from just 3 verses in Genesis 14. Here is what we know:
Melchizedek was the king of Salem, which means “king of peace.”
Melchizedek was also “king of righteousness” since the name “Melchizedek” means “my king is righteousness.”
Melchizedek was a priest of the most High God – he apparently followed the one true God.
Melchizedek blessed Abram
Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth of all the goods he recovered. He paid a tithe to Melchizedek.
Here’s a guy who gets a mere 3 verses of attention in Genesis but then later, is a major source of discussion for 3 chapters in the book of Hebrews. What is really going on here?
If you know anything about the book of Hebrews, the theme is the idea of “Better”. The author advances a series of arguments to show how Jesus is better.
Better than what?
Better than everything!
Jesus is better than angels. Jesus is better than Moses. Jesus is a better priest because He belongs to a better priesthood. Jesus offers a better sacrifice because Jesus’ sacrifice is built on better blood.
Everything about Jesus is better. Including the fact that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant.
Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians who were beginning to forsake their new faith in Christ in favor of reverting back to their Jewish religious practices. The author pens his letter to demonstrate why that is not advisable. I’ve written about that in my blog post “Better Than…” as well as another post “A Better Sacrifice”.
In this section of Hebrews, the writer uses Melchizedek as an illustration to make the argument that Jesus is the author of a better covenant.
How exactly does he make his case?
The author first demonstrates that Melchizedek was greater than Abram. He does this by pointing out that Melchizedek blessed Abram and also received a tithe from Abram. He argues that the person who blesses is always greater than the person being blessed and the person who receives a tithe generally has a higher status than the person paying the tithe. Hence, Melchizedek is greater than Abram.
If Melchizedek is greater than Abram, then he’s also greater than Levi, who came from Abram. The writer points out that even though Levi, who is the basis for the Old Testament priesthood, was not yet born, his seed was within Abram when Abram paid the tithe to Melchizedek.
We know also that Melchizedek was a priest of the most high God just as Levi was. But since the Levitical priesthood had not even been implemented yet, Melchizedek’s priesthood must be of a different order. This order is different in one very obvious respect – this priesthood allowed kings to function as priests. This was not allowed in the Levitical priesthood which kept the roles of priests, who were the mediators, separate from the roles of kings, who were the rulers. (See my post, “Whatever Became of Sin?” to see an example of what happens when a king tries to perform priestly functions in the Levitical priesthood system.)
The author then gives another reason for the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood over Levi’s – Melchizedek’s priesthood is eternal while Levi’s was temporary.
The author reasons that alhough Melchizedek was a real person, his genealogy is not mentioned anywhere. We don’t know where he came from and there is no mention of him after these few verses in Genesis 14. It’s as if he never died.
The writer uses this as an analogy of sorts. Melchizedek appears on the scene out of nowhere and since we have no record of his death, it’s as if he lives on forever. Melchizedek, therefore, is a priest forever.
The argument then is that Jesus’ priesthood is more like Melchizedek’s priesthood than it is like Levi’s. How?
Jesus descends from Judah, not from Levi. Therefore, Jesus is not even eligible to be a priest within the Levitical system.
Also, Jesus is a priest AND a king, just as Melchizedek was.
Finally, Jesus’ priesthood is eternal, just like Melchizedek’s appeared to be. Unlike Levitical priests, who died and had to be replaced by new priests, Jesus lives on forever and therefore is NEVER replaced.
We’ve already established that Melchizedek is greater (better) than Levi and since Jesus’ priesthood resembles Melchizedek’s not Levi’s, it logically follows that Jesus’ priesthood is better than Levi’s.
And because Jesus’ priesthood is better, the covenant which He introduces must also be better. So why would you then go back to the Old Covenant which was clearly inferior?
So there you have it. Melchizedek, who is just a blip on the screen in the Old Testament, becomes a central figure of the New Testament.
In theological terms, we say that Melchizedek is a “type” of Christ, which simply means that his existence and what we know of him figuratively resembles what we know to be true of Jesus. Hence, even though it may seem, on the surface, like Melchizedek is just a hired extra in the background of a major Hollywood movie scene, he turns out to be much more important than that. His mention is made to prefigure the coming of Jesus.
Now you know.
Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!
Reflection
What has been your understanding of Melchizedek before reading this blog? Who did you think he was and what importance did you think he had to the overall message of Scripture?
What do you think are some of the reasons the audience of the book of Hebrews may have been forsaking their faith? What are some things that can tend to draw you away from the faith and back into your former lifestyle?
Of the characteristics of Melchizedek that resemble Jesus, which one stands out to you the most and why?
Jesus is the author of a better covenant. The old covenant was based on the Law. How would you explain to another person that the new covenant is better than the old covenant? What are some of the ways that it is better?
AI image of Abram paying a tithe to Melchizedek created by Grok
1Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. 2But now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he made the universe and everything in it. 3The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven. (Hebrews 1:1-3, NLT)
The Daily DAVEotional
Imagine for a moment that you grew up in a different culture with a non-Christian religious background. You move to America and some friends invite you to church. You gladly go, make new friends and begin to learn about this Jesus fellow.
Over time, you’re exposed to many Christians who all seem nice. The message of Christianity seems nice as well. In fact, it seems very similar to your non-Christian religious upbringing, except some of the major religious figures are different.
One day, you decide to become a Christian. After all, many of your friends are Christians and you are living in America. It seems like the right thing to do.
But everyone in your family is still committed to the religion of your upbringing and your conversion is not taken well, as it’s asserted that forsaking your religious roots is akin to turning your back on your culture. Over time, you relent and once again embrace the religion of your upbringing.
In a way, this is the context for the letter to the Hebrews. The letter is written to a group of Jews who had become Christians but were beginning to abandon their newfound faith in order to revert back to their Jewish religious cultural roots and customs.
The author, whoever they may be (we don’t know for sure), uses the letter to advance the argument that the New Covenant of Jesus is far superior to the Old Covenant, on which the Jewish religion is based. Hence, reverting back to the Old Covenant religious system is senseless.
These first three verses serve as a sort of introduction and thesis to the letter and are packed with a number of theological truths that demonstrate, by themselves, proof of the author’s assertion – the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old Covenant.
How does the author demonstrate this?
The author starts by stating that in the past, God has spoken to His people through prophets. Now if you are a Jew following the Jewish religious customs, there is no greater authority than the prophets, Moses being chief among them. Moses, after all, was the primary mediator between the Israelites and God and he delivered the Old Testament Law to the people.
The author then says that God, in these final days, has spoken through His Son. So instead of sending human messengers (prophets) to be His mediator, God has upped His game and has now sent His Son. A son is always better than a servant.
What follows is a short list of key theological facts that demonstrate the superiority of Jesus as a mediator over the prophets, including the following:
God has promised everything to the Son as an inheritance. Hence, the Son is the owner of EVERYTHING.
The universe and everything in it was made by the Son. Hence, the Son is the creator.
The Son reflects the glory of God and is the exact representation of God. Hence, the Son is deity.
The Son sustains the universe by His power and command. Hence, the Son is almighty.
The Son died to cleanse us from sin. Hence, the Son is redeemer.
The Son sat down at the right hand of the Father. Hence, the Son is ruler.
What follows in the book of Hebrews is a number of detailed arguments that serve to reinforce the author’s original thesis – that Jesus is a better mediator and therefore, the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant. If this is true, then you would be foolish to return to your Old Testament Jewish religious customs.
Reflection
What was your religious background growing up?
If you grew up in a different religious environment, what were the factors that caused you to convert to Christianity?
Do you find it difficult to maintain your Christian beliefs? What are some of the factors or forces that might be seeking to draw you away from Christianity and back to the religious roots of your upbringing?
What are some other reasons you can think of that might prompt someone to “give up” on being a Christian and revert to their old religious ways or philosophical worldview?
Of the reasons stated by the author in just these 3 verses regarding the superiority of the Son, which do you find most compelling and convincing?
11There is so much more we would like to say about this. But you don’t seem to listen, so it’s hard to make you understand. 12You have been Christians a long time now, and you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things a beginner must learn about the Scriptures. You are like babies who drink only milk and cannot eat solid food. 13And a person who is living on milk isn’t very far along in the Christian life and doesn’t know much about doing what is right. 14Solid food is for those who are mature, who have trained themselves to recognize the difference between right and wrong and then do what is right. (Hebrews 5:11-14, NLT)
The Daily DAVEotional
In this section, the author of Hebrews rebukes his audience for their immaturity.
Truthfully, these words could easily be directed towards the mainstream of today’s evangelical church, as data suggests that a majority of those who call themselves Christians today are either uninvolved or only marginally involved in the activities of their local congregation.
So what’s the issue?
According to the author, these believers were experiencing a spiritual dietary problem. They were drinking milk when they should be eating steak!
The author states that these believers had been Christians for a long time. If you’ve been a believer for a while, there is an expectation concerning your growth and maturity level. Yet these recipients had not attained an expected level of maturity.
The author compares them to babies. Babies drink milk because their bodies cannot handle solid food. So essentially, they need pre-digested food.
The food the author is talking about is related to an ability to understand right and wrong and to do the right thing. These believers were not new followers of Christ, but because they had not grown much spiritually, their lives looked like the lives of someone who had only recently been exposed to the Christian faith.
The author states that as long-time believers, they should be at the point where they are able to teach others.
What should they be teaching?
The author states that they should be able to teach others concerning what is right and what is wrong. But they weren’t able to do that. Instead, they still needed others to step in and lead them and teach them “again the basic things a beginner must learn about the Scriptures.”
The growth process isn’t automatic. In order to experience growth in the Christian life, there’s a process that we undergo where we begin to learn what is right and what is wrong. We learn this by understanding the Scriptures.
Those who are growing and becoming mature are learning what the Scriptures say about what is right and they are DOING what the Scriptures say we must do if we want to do what is right.
This process, over time, causes us to become mature and it results in our ability to teach others what the Scriptures say.
So the question is, are you a Christian who needs milk or meat?
Milky Christians are characterized by the following:
lack of knowledge of what the Scriptures teach
need for others to explain basic truths about Christianity
Incomplete or limited understanding of right and wrong
Consistently unable to make right choices in actions
Unable to teach others these truths (primarily because of a lack of personal understanding)
Meaty Christians may be characterized by the following:
Ability to recognize between right and wrong
Consistent application of God’s truth in their lives
Not overly dependent on others for understanding
Able to teach others Scriptural truths
Reflection
Which of the two conditions best reflects where you’re at? Are you a Milky Christian or a Meaty Christian?
What has been your experience in teaching the Scriptures to others?
What do you think is the biggest barrier to you growing in maturity and becoming someone who is able to teach other?
What steps can you take to become a person who is mature, knowing right from wrong, and able to teach others?
1Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan River. He was led by the Spirit to go out into the wilderness, 2where the Devil tempted him for forty days. He ate nothing all that time and was very hungry.
3Then the Devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, change this stone into a loaf of bread.”
4But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People need more than bread for their life.’ ”
5Then the Devil took him up and revealed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6The Devil told him, “I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them—because they are mine to give to anyone I please. 7I will give it all to you if you will bow down and worship me.”
8Jesus replied, “The Scriptures say,
‘You must worship the Lord your God; serve only him.’ ”
9Then the Devil took him to Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, and said, “If you are the Son of God, jump off! 10For the Scriptures say,
‘He orders his angels to protect and guard you.
11And they will hold you with their hands to keep you from striking your foot on a stone.’ ”
12Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘Do not test the Lord your God.’ ”
13When the Devil had finished tempting Jesus, he left him until the next opportunity came. (Luke 4:1-14, NLT)
Hebrews 4
14That is why we have a great High Priest who has gone to heaven, Jesus the Son of God. Let us cling to him and never stop trusting him. 15This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin. 16So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it. (Hebrews 4:14-16, NLT)
The Daily DAVEotional
A few days ago, in my daily bible reading, I came across both Luke 4 and Hebrews 4. Both of these chapters have portions related to the temptations Jesus experienced from Satan in the wilderness.
What exactly was the purpose of the temptations Jesus experienced in the desert and how can we learn from His example?
NOTE: Many of my thoughts concerning the temptations Jesus faced come from a talk that Dr. Bill Lawrence, a former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, gave to a group of Cru staff at a conference in March, 2011.
Sin has been described as our attempt to meet legitimate needs in illegitimate ways. In other words, we all have basic human needs that need to be met but we sin when we attempt to meet those needs in ways that are outside of the boundaries that God has set for us to meet those needs.
Dr. Lawrence, in his talk on the temptations Jesus faced, described the 3 temptations this way:
Every one of the temptations is related to what God wants you to do but not the way God wants you to do it. We are tempted to do God’s will but man’s way.
So how exactly are these three temptations an attempt to do God’s will but in man’s way?
In the first temptation, Jesus experiences the temptation to meet His own needs – to rely on himself instead of on God.
Clearly Jesus needed to eat. We all need food and sustenance to survive. But Satan was inviting Jesus to rely on His own resources instead of relying on the Father. Jesus recognized Satan’s tactic and quoted Deuteronomy 8:3, which states that people need more than bread for life, we need the Lord Himself in order to really live.
The second temptation, according to Lawrence, is the temptation to Self-Advancement. Jesus knew that it was the Father’s will that He would rule over the nations. Satan offered Jesus a shortcut to that outcome. But at what cost?
Jesus would have had to bow to Satan, who is NOT God.
Sometimes, because of our impatience, we can seek to get to a godly outcome via an ungodly process. In our haste to get what we want, we can cut corners and do things our way instead of God’s way.
In the third temptation, Jesus faces the temptation to make an impact. Remember that this desert encounter with Satan occurs at the very beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry. He’s a relative unknown. By throwing Himself down from the highest point and saving Himself, He would have instantly been seen as a divine being by the crowds.
Lawrence says that this is the temptation to self-assertion – to be successful.
There’s no doubt that had Jesus followed Satan’s plan, He would have gained an instant following. People would have recognized His power and divinity. But humility is more messianic than self-assertion and so Jesus rejects Satan’s offer for immediate fame and popularity.
These temptations are illustrative of the kinds of temptations we all face as human beings. We too face the temptation to meet our own needs instead of trusting God. We too face the temptation to do things our own way in order to get an outcome that we justify as “godly”. We too can act without humility, seeking to advance our own name instead of advancing God’s name.
In the Hebrews passage, we’re told the reason why Jesus experienced these temptations. Jesus experienced the temptations He did so that He could identify with our weaknesses and offer help to us in our time of need.
Jesus is our High Priest, which means He works as a mediator between us and the Father. Jesus is the perfect mediator because He knows from first-hand experience what it is like to be tempted with the kinds of things we are all tempted with.
The writer of Hebrews says that Jesus experienced, “all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin.”
Jesus knows what we’re going through. He doesn’t just know on a cognitive level. He knows on an emotional level because He has endured the kinds of temptations we’ve endured, and yet, He did not sin.
This last part, He did not sin, is important because it means that Jesus is divine and therefore can relate to the Father, who shares in His divinity, while at the same time, He can relate to us because He lived a life where He experienced all of the same struggles, hardships, and yes, TEMPTATIONS, that we have experienced.
As a result of these two truths, the author of Hebrews tells us that we can have confidence to come boldly before God’s throne. Because of Jesus, God will extend mercy to us and offer grace to us when we need it most!
Reflection
Which of the three temptations outlined in Luke 4 do you struggle with the most and why?
In what ways have you seen the statement “sin is meeting legitimate needs in illegitimate ways” to be true in your own life?
What do you learn from Jesus’ encounter that you can apply to your own life in terms of resisting temptation?
The author of Hebrews states that Jesus is our High Priest and that He’s experienced temptation just as we have, and yet did not sin! This gives us confidence to boldly approach God’s throne. What does it look like for you to boldly approach God’s throne? What are some practical ways you have done that in your own devotional life with God?
NOTE: For more on this topic, check out this online article from Dr. Lawrence regarding “Ten Temptations of a Leader”
1And so, dear brothers and sisters who belong to God and are bound for heaven, think about this Jesus whom we declare to be God’s Messenger and High Priest. 2For he was faithful to God, who appointed him, just as Moses served faithfully and was entrusted with God’s entire house. 3But Jesus deserves far more glory than Moses, just as a person who builds a fine house deserves more praise than the house itself. 4For every house has a builder, but God is the one who made everything.
5Moses was certainly faithful in God’s house, but only as a servant. His work was an illustration of the truths God would reveal later. 6But Christ, the faithful Son, was in charge of the entire household. And we are God’s household, if we keep up our courage and remain confident in our hope in Christ. 7That is why the Holy Spirit says,
“Today you must listen to his voice.
8Don’t harden your hearts against him as Israel did when they rebelled, when they tested God’s patience in the wilderness.
9There your ancestors tried my patience, even though they saw my miracles for forty years.
10So I was angry with them, and I said, ‘Their hearts always turn away from me. They refuse to do what I tell them.’
11So in my anger I made a vow: ‘They will never enter my place of rest.’”
12Be careful then, dear brothers and sisters. Make sure that your own hearts are not evil and unbelieving, turning you away from the living God. 13You must warn each other every day, as long as it is called “today,” so that none of you will be deceived by sin and hardened against God. 14For if we are faithful to the end, trusting God just as firmly as when we first believed, we will share in all that belongs to Christ. 15But never forget the warning:
“Today you must listen to his voice. Don’t harden your hearts against him as Israel did when they rebelled.”
16And who were those people who rebelled against God, even though they heard his voice? Weren’t they the ones Moses led out of Egypt? 17And who made God angry for forty years? Wasn’t it the people who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom was God speaking when he vowed that they would never enter his place of rest? He was speaking to those who disobeyed him. 19So we see that they were not allowed to enter his rest because of their unbelief. (Hebrews 3:1-19, NLT)
The Daily DAVEotional
A few days ago, I wrote my thoughts about a warning that was included in Psalm 95. You can read my thoughts here.
Just two days later, I came to this passage in Hebrews 3, in which the author quotes the very text I had read from Psalm 95 and highlights the same warning that I mentioned a few days ago.
Coincidence?
Actually, these kinds of random biblical cross-references happen more often than you might think when you’re following the Grant Horner Bible reading plan.
So what is happening in this passage and why is the author referencing Psalm 95 to issue this warning?
The theme of the letter to the Hebrews could be labeled as “Jesus is Better than…”
The audience, as the name of the letter implies, is Hebrew Christians. These believers were in danger of reverting back to their Jewish rituals and customs as a means of appeasing God and gaining His favor.
So the author erects an outline, detailing in point by point fashion that Jesus is better than everything associated with the Old Testament religious system.
In chapter 1, the author demonstrates that Jesus is better than the angels, and now in this chapter, the author takes on the greatest icon within the Jewish religious system, Moses himself.
The author states that Jesus is better than Moses in the same way a builder of a house is better than the house.
The author then develops their argument by stating that Moses was faithful in God’s house but only as a servant. Jesus, on the other hand, is in charge of the household because he is a son, not a servant. I wrote about the implications of slaves/servants as opposed to sons here, in a blog post which referenced a passage from Galatians.
The point is that in the household of God, Moses was a servant. Yes, he was important and he played a key role and he was faithful in his duties. But Jesus is a SON in the household and therefore deserves more glory because as a son, He is the heir to the household. He is the owner!
The author then says that we (people) ARE God’s household. Our choice is that we can follow Moses who is a servant in God’s household, or we can follow Jesus, who is a son in God’s household. Which person makes more sense to follow?
It’s at this point that the author references the warnings from Psalm 95.
The warning can be paraphrased as follows:
We must listen to God’s voice today
Don’t harden your hearts as the Israelites did when they rebelled (see the Psalm 95 blog post here to read about the incident in which the Israelites rebelled against God)
The consequence for their rebellion was that they were not allowed to enter into God’s rest – they were not allowed to enter the promised land.
Starting in verse 12, the author of Hebrews begins to unpack the warning of Psalm 95 a bit more, demonstrating the implications of how the warning applies to his readers.
Remember, the recipients of this letter were being tempted to forsake Jesus as the object of their faith and trust for salvation and revert back to the Old Testament legal system, with its many rules and regulations as a means of achieving a righteous standing before God.
The author then elaborates on the warning, saying:
Make sure your hearts are not evil and unbelieving
This results in turning away from God
You must warn each other so that you won’t be deceived by sin and hardened against God
This hardening results in a lack of trust in God (unbelief)
Unbelief is characterized by disobedience
So the pattern is as follows: sin, hardening (lack of openness to God), distrust, disobedience.
When this pattern fully develops into disobedience, we will no longer experience the benefits of God’s rest. All of the benefits Jesus wants us to experience now as His beloved children and followers will fail to materialize.
How do we avoid the hardening, distrust, disobedience cycle?
It starts with listening to His voice, a command the author reiterates again in verse 15. When we listen to His voice, we learn who He is and we learn to trust Him. We also learn what He wants from us and we learn how to follow Him.
When we don’t listen to His voice, it means that we’re listening to another voice, whether it’s our own or that of the culture or someone else. At that point, we’re no longer following God but we’re following ourselves.
How then do we listen to God’s voice?
It’s possible God may audibly speak to you but I would say that is not typical. The primary way in which God speaks to us today is through His word, the Scriptures. If you want to listen to God’s voice, to know Him and understand what He expects, then read the Scriptures. It’s through God’s word that we understand what is sin and what isn’t. It’s through His word that we understand who He is and who He isn’t.
If we fail to appeal to God’s word as our means of listening to His voice, it is quite likely we will be deceived by sin. We will begin to follow our own ideas about what we think is right and wrong. We may even attribute our new moral values to God Himself. Indeed, it’s quite common today for people to reject certain moral standards from the bible and replace them with more updated, contemporary values that speak to today’s cultural norms.
It is also common for these same people to claim to be God worshipers and Christ-followers. But if they are creating their own morality while rejecting what God explicitly says, they are in effect, creating their own version of God. This is the modern day equivalent of idol worship. I wrote about this in a previous post here.
This is deception, which leads to a hardening of the heart, which is characterized by not listening to God. This results in unbelief which is characterized by disobedience.
This cycle is alluring and it’s easy to fall into, which is why the author exhorts the audience to “warn each other every day”.
We are ALL susceptible to deceiving ourselves and falling into this religious trap.
Hence, the author says again in verse 15, “Never forget the warning”!
Reflection
In what ways are you tempted to harden your heart towards God?
What are some examples in today’s culture where you see people forsaking biblical moral values and substituting them for something that seems to fit our current culture better?
The author says that those who reject God because of their unbelief will not enter God’s rest? What do you think that means? What would it look like to not enter God’s rest?
What are some ways you could heed the author’s warning and ensure that you are listening to His voice today?
What can you do to ensure that you don’t harden your heart towards God?
19And so, dear brothers and sisters, we can boldly enter heaven’s Most Holy Place because of the blood of Jesus. 20This is the new, life-giving way that Christ has opened up for us through the sacred curtain, by means of his death for us.
21And since we have a great High Priest who rules over God’s people, 22let us go right into the presence of God, with true hearts fully trusting him. For our evil consciences have been sprinkled with Christ’s blood to make us clean, and our bodies have been washed with pure water.
23Without wavering, let us hold tightly to the hope we say we have, for God can be trusted to keep his promise. 24Think of ways to encourage one another to outbursts of love and good deeds. 25And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage and warn each other, especially now that the day of his coming back again is drawing near. (Hebrews 10:19-25, NLT)
In the next chapter, the author of the letter to the Hebrews shares the practical implications of Jesus’s better sacrifice.
You might remember that when Jesus was crucified, immediately after he breathed his last breath, the Scriptures tell us that the veil that separated the most holy place from the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. I wrote about the significance of that event here.
The author of Hebrews picks up on that theme in verse 20, sharing that this new life Jesus gives us, because of his shed blood, grants us access to the very presence of God. This was a radical shift for the Jewish person of Jesus’s day.
To the Jewish person from the Old Testament through the time of Jesus, God was seen as holy and unapproachable. Coming near to God might result in death. In theological terms, we call this the doctrine of transcendence. The idea is that God is so much higher than us, so much greater than us, so much more righteous than we are, that it is impossible for us to enter His presence.
This idea that God is transcendent is, in fact, the view that many major religions have regarding the nature of God, even today. As an example, one of the reasons Islam rejects the deity of Christ is because it is unthinkable that God could stoop himself to take on human flesh and become a man.
But Jesus flips the doctrine of transcendence on its head, according to the author of Hebrews. Because of His death, and particularly His shed blood, we can now approach God with confidence. We don’t have to be afraid of Him and we have free access without having to jump through any religious hoops.
Theologically, we call this the doctrine of immanence. Whereas most Jews, and other religions for that matter, see God as wholly transcendent and distant, one of the hallmarks of Christianity is the truth that God is not only transcendent, but He is also immanent – he is near and accessible.
As John stated in the first chapter of his gospel:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1, 14, ESV)
This is incredibly good news for those who trust and follow Jesus. God is not the cosmic killjoy that some presume Him to be. He is near. He is accessible. He is compassionate. He is a FATHER and we are His children. And it’s the blood of Jesus that makes it all possible!
Reflection
When you think about God, which of His qualities do you tend to emphasize…the doctrine of transcendence – that He’s holy, righteous, immense and so far beyond us? Or do you tend to emphasize His immanence – the fact that He is near, accessible, approachable, loving and gracious?
What experiences and factors have influenced your current view of God?
What do you think would be the downsides of emphasizing one of those doctrines too much over the other?
What about this passage do you find most encouraging and what do you find most challenging as it relates to your view of God?
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:11-28, NLT)
The Daily DAVEotional
The theme of the book of Hebrews is “better”. The author gives a logical argument for why Christ is better than all of the elements of the Jewish religious system. He’s better than Moses; He’s better than the angels; He’s a better high priest and in this chapter, the author outlines why and how Jesus’s sacrifice is a better sacrifice than the Old Testament sacrificial system.
The short answer to why Jesus’s sacrifice is better is: it’s the blood.
In the first 10 verses, which I didn’t list, the author gives a brief description of the layout and function of the earthly temple, including the exact detail of the priestly duties in relation to the Holy of Holies, which the high priest entered only once a year to atone for his own sins and the sins of the people.
The first reason the author gives for Jesus’s sacrifice being better is that Jesus offered his sacrifice in the heavenly temple, not the man-made temple. According to verse 24, the earthly temple was merely a copy of the heavenly temple, and when the earthly high priest made atonement, once a year, he was doing it in the earthly tabernacle, which was merely a symbol of the heavenly temple.
Secondly, when Jesus made atonement, he did it with better blood. The earthly priests offered up sacrifices with the blood of goats, bulls and calves, which are imperfect animals. As a result, the earthly priest made this atonement on an annual basis. There was always a reminder of sin because of the constant need for atonement.
Jesus, on the other hand, offered up his own blood, which is perfect in every way, because he is not only better than an animal, he is God himself. His blood does not come from an imperfect, sinful being.
This logically leads to the final reason Jesus’s sacrifice is better. Jesus’s sacrifice is better than the Old Testament sacrifices because it is FINAL. As has been mentioned, the Old Testament sacrificial system required a constant stream of sacrifices to atone for sins committed. This is because the blood of bulls and goats could not permanently atone for sin.
But Jesus’s blood DOES permanently atone for sins. The author declares in verse 28 that:
Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people;
The argument the author is making is crucial to his audience, the Hebrews, because there was a strong urge to hold fast to Old Testament rituals and to maintain adherence to the Law, even after trusting in Jesus as the Messiah. It was difficult for these believers to shift their thinking and see that there was no longer a need for the religious rules and rites they had been following for centuries. The author is helping them to see how the Old covenant had a purpose, but Jesus offers a new and BETTER covenant.
He offers this better covenant to us as well as the author notes that “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
Reflection
Early Jewish Christians had difficulty discarding their old religious traditions, (namely, the sacrificial system) and putting their trust in Jesus’s sacrifice alone. What religious traditions might be easy for you to subtly make a substitute for Jesus’s sacrifice? In other words, what rules or religious rituals, apart from Jesus, are you apt to put your hope and trust in as somehow providing a means of forgiveness and atonement?
The author states in verse 27 that man is destined to die once, and then comes the judgment. What is your reaction to the idea that there are no second chances after we die?
What new awareness or insights do you have regarding Jesus’s sacrifice as a result of this chapter of Scripture? How will this new awareness impact your relationship with Christ?
The Lowedown 