With regard to 1:10,
we have already seen that the catena begins with a focus on Christ’s exaltation
as royal Son of God. Nothing in the verses that follow points to a shift in
this temporal location; rather, the train of thought maintains this timing.
Bauckham and others have argued that the passage is chiastic, which allows for
a different timing for the middle citations of the chain than at its beginning.
To argue for this structure, however, they must ignore its overt literary
structure. The grammatical structure of the chain links the first three
quotations in 1:4-6 (ειπεν . . .και παλιν . . . δε παλιν) and
views 1:7 (μεν) in contrast with the two citations of 1:8-12 (δε). With the timing of
1:5a effectively established as the point of Christ’s exaltation, it follows
that the citations in 1:5b and 1:6 also likely refer to the recently enthroned
Christ. The οικουμενη into which God leads his newborn πρωτοτοκος is thus the world of 2:5, the coming world,
the heavenly Jerusalem of 12:22-24. A disciplined interpretation of 1:6 thus
will not read it in the light of Jesus’ birth. In the train of thought here,
the angels bow as servants before their king as God seats him on his new,
heavenly throne.
The contrasts between
the Son and the angels in 1:7-12 continue this celebration of Jesus’
enthronement. The appointed role of the angels in the new era is transient,
like winds and flames (1:7). They are currently ministers to those about to
inherit salvation (1:14). By contrast, the appointed role of Jesus is unending
and permanent. The citation of Psalm 45 in 1:8-9 fits nicely with the enthronement
of a king whom God ‘anointed with oil of rejoicing in the presence of your
companions.’ The main point of contrast in 1:10-12 is thus the permanence of
Christ’s kingship in contrast to the creation and the angels as its ministers.
The point is not Christ’s literal role as creator. We will not need
considerable evidence elsewhere in Hebrews to conclude that the author is
thinking of Jesus literally as creator, for the enthronement context of the
passage might easily lead us to see Christ as the one who grounds the creation of
the world, as the one who brings the creation to the telos that God
intended for the world in creation.
Both of these proctological
passages, therefore, seem somewhat figurative in nature: 1:2 because of its
close association with God’s wisdom, and 1:10-12 because it appears in the
context of Jesus’ enthronement as cosmic king. Our search for further clues in
the rest of Hebrews only leads us further away from a literal reading. Hebrews
2:10, for example, strikingly distinguishes God as the one δι’ ου all things exist,
from Jesus as the one God perfects through suffering. This verse uses the same
language as 1:2 of God as creator in a passage that distinguishes him
from Jesus. Hebrews 3:4 similarly mentions God as creator in a context that
distinguishes him from Jesus. Hebrews 11:3 also mentions God as creator rather
than Christ. The only other possible reference to Jesus as creator appears in
8:2, where the ‘Lord’ is said to pitch the true tent, but the precise referent
here is ambiguous, as is the nature of the tent . . . This level of exaltation
and worship for someone who had only recently walked the earth is clearly unprecedented
within Judaism. However, we do find precedents in Jewish literature that
illuminate how the early Christians likely conceptualized and arrived at it . .
. In the Parables of Enoch, the Son of Man figure receives worship repeatedly
(e.g., 48.5; 62.9), and he receives this worship while seated on God’s throne.
We get no sense, however, that God’s oneness or supreme sovereignty is ever in
question, for this messianic figure is ruling for God and under the ultimate
sovereignty of the one God. He is mediating God’s sovereignty to the cosmos.
The worship he receives, from one perspective, seems to blur the lines between
the kind of reverence appropriate for a king and the kind of reverence
appropriate for God. We wonder, however, whether the problem is in fact one of
our own making. Perhaps interpreters have created two dictionary entries for
the word worship here when in fact there is only one. That is to say,
perhaps scholars have assumed that the worship of God is a different kind of
worship from the use of προσκυνεω in other contexts, when the difference is
more one of degree.
Bauckham similarly
dismisses the figure of Moses on the throne of God in the Exagogue of
Ezekiel the Tragedian as evidence against his fundamental understanding. The
idea of Moses sitting on God’s throne is figurative, a prediction of Moses’
biblical career in relation to Israel, based on the comment in Exodus 7:1 that
God would make Moses a ‘god’ to Pharaoh. Moses thus stands in relation to
Israel as God stands to the cosmos. Certainly Bauckham is correct here,
but we question whether he can so easily dismiss the relevance of this passage
to the worship of Jesus in the New Testament. Bauckham no doubt feels far less
comfortable with the image of Moses on the cosmic throne than Ezekiel the Tragedian
did. When it came to the mediation of God’s rule over the world, it was
possible to see the human throne as a reflection of God’s throne. Thus Jesus
can be like God in relation to the creation just as God is God over everything,
including Jesus. Divinity so conceived is primarily a matter of power and authority,
and God can allow others to represent his authority in the world.
In each case, the
apparent blurring of the lines between the worship of the one God and the
worship of another figure occurs with a royal figure who is mediating God’s
power and authority. We find a similar dynamic at work in the Life of Adam
and Eve 13-15, where the angels are commanded to worship Adam as the image
of God. As in Hebrews, the angels are merely servants of God. Adam, on the
other hand, was made to rule over the creation as God rules over all (cf. Gen
1:27-28). He was made to reflect and mediate God’s rule as an image of God’s
sovereignty. Satan’s refusal to reverence Adam according to God’s will was thus
rebellion against God’s authority.
This careful distinction
between Jesus as Lord and God in relation to the cosmos and YHWH as LORD
and GOD over all, is carefully maintained in both Paul and Hebrews (e.g., 1
Cor. 15:28; Phil 2:11). The wording of Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 45:6 already
distinguished the ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ (which the early Christians took to refer to
the Messiah) from YHWH as the ‘LORD’ and ‘GOD.’ Hebrews and other New Testament
authors who drew on these passages recognized the inherent distinction while
understandably blurring the imagery of worship and divinity at times, particularly
in poetic contexts. Hebrews 1 is a great case in point. Hebrews 1:8-9 can boldly
acclaim Jesus’ God, YHWH, anointing him as king. Hebrews 1:10-12 can use a YHWH
passage from Psalm 102 that originally spoke of God as creator, without
forgetting that it was at the exaltation that the LORD said to Jesus (as ‘Lord’)
to sit at his right hand. (Kenneth L. Schenck, “The Worship of Jesus Among
Early Christians: The Evidence of Hebrews,” in B.J. Oropeza, C.K. Robertson and
Douglas C. Mohrmann, Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James
D.G. Dunn. A Festschrift for his 70th Birthday [Library of New Testament
Studies 414; London: T&T Clark, 2009, 2019], 114-24, here, pp. 119-20,
122-23)