In this text, the son is set over
against the created order with the implication that this creation is the dwelling
place of angels. Γη and ουρανος both belong to the created order. It is
likely that εργα των χειρων
σου is to be equated with χειροποιητος at
9;11, 24 and signifies the earthly κτισις (9:11) in
contrast with the heavenly world of the exaltation. The terms in which this
relationship of the exalted Christ to the creation is spelled out (cf. 1:2) are
well known in the Hellenistic Age, where the problem of defining God’s relationship
to the world had occasioned the increasing interest in a hypostasis who creates
and sustains the world. Jewish wisdom speculations, which play an important
role in the development of NT christology, speak of Wisdom’s relation to the
world (Prov 8:22; cf. John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 1:24; Col 1:15-20). Similarly, the
Hermetica hypostasizes the Platonic category of αιων and affirms that αιων (11. 2) made the world. Such speculations are
undoubtedly a presupposition of the author of Hebrews when he affirms that the creation
is the work of Christ.
Hebrews 1:11 shows the reason behind
the utilization of Psalm 102 to introduce the category of transitoriness-eternity
into the argument, as the author cites the words αυτοι απολουνται,
συ δε
διαμενεις. Because of the importance of this category
elsewhere in Hebrews, it is probable that the author has selected this
particular text because he found there what he wanted to accent: the contrast
between the changeable creation and the immutable creator. The transitoriness
of the creation is indicated by the subsequent phrases which reinforce 1:11a.
The text cited uses the image of clothes to convey the transitoriness of the
cosmos. Thus the author quotes, ως
ιματιον παλαιωθησονται.
Παλαιοω, which means “to grow old” or “become
obsolete,” is theologically significant for the author. At 8:13 he uses the
term in his critique of the cultus in order to show that the transitory cult
lacks ultimate validity. The change from αλλασσω to ελισσω suggests
the image of rolling up of a cloak, this providing another image of
changeableness. Αλλασσω meaning “change,” is to be understood,
in view of the added ως ιματιον, as a change of clothes. Thus the
characteristic of the created order (and implicitly of angels) is made on the
basis of its mutability. The author has no intent, as A. Vögtle rightly argues,
to develop a throughgoing thesis concerning the world conflagration; his
purpose is to provide the contrast to the one who is exalted above the created
order and thus remains. That the author is bringing to his text his specific
assumptions about the world is indicated by comparison with 12:25-28, where the
transitory nature of the world is contrasted to the eternity of the stable possession.
It is not necessary to see in 1:10-11 the announcement of an eschatological
catastrophe, as O. Michel understands the text (cf. p. 58). The author’s interest
is to distinguish radically between the changeable creation and the immutable
Christ. The argument is parallel to 1:7-8, where the mutability of angels is
contrasted to the eternity of Christ.
The distinction between the change
which is inherent in the cosmos and the abiding of the deity was already
present in the author’s text Ps 102:26-28. But for the psalmist there is no
essential metaphysical intent; the psalmist indicates only that God outlasts
the creation. By using this psalm as an exaltation text, the author has introduced
the spatial framework into the argument. His argument is reminiscent of the
Platonic view in which the “becoming” (γενεσις) in this
creation is distinguished from the eternal world of forms. One may compare
Philo’s argument that this world is subject to dissolution (Leg. All.
3.101, αι γαρ εν
γενεητοις εμφασεις
διαλυονται) in contrast to those things above the
creation which are μονιμοι και βεβαιοι
και αιδιοι. Whereas
such representatives of Platonism as the Hermetic, Hebrews speaks of the change
inherent in angels (1:7) and in the creation. It is probable, therefore, that
the author has read Ps 102:26-28 with Platonic assumptions in order to
interpret the exaltation and to demonstrate the precise way in which
Christ is “better” than angels.
What the exaltation means to the author can be ascertained from two of
the phrases of Psalm 102 which are of special christological significant for
him. Συ δε
διαμενεις to contrast the
abiding of the exalted son with the transitory nature of the creation. That
Christ is the one who “remains” is of central importance to Hebrews (7:3, 24;
cf. 13:8). Furthermore, the author regularly uses μενειν in theologically significant
text for a Christian possession which “abides.” In each instance, forms of διαμενεις are used exclusively for
a heavenly reality. The use of μενειν regularly in Hebrews indicates that the author has
chosen this text precisely because of the presence of διαμενεις in it. The author has
altered the future διαμενεις of his LXX text to the present διαμενεσις
in order to emphasize the timeless and eternal
nature of the exalted Christ.
The use of διαμενεις in a text were Christ is contrasted with the created order indicates
that διαμενεις here betrays the
author’s metaphysical understanding. One may compare the use of μενειν in Plato (Tim.
37D), Plotinus (3. 7), Philo (de Som. 2.221) and the Hermetica, where (δια)μενει is regularly used in
a spatial framework to contrast the immutability of the intelligible world with
the change which exists in the sphere of γενεσις. This metaphysical understanding had come to play an
important role in the piety of the Hellenistic Age. Of special important as a parallel
to Hebrews is Philo’s view that the σοφος who leaves τα
εν γενεσει
(Leg. All.
2.54) is able to share in the μονη of God (de Som. 2.237). Similarly, in the
Hermetic literature αιων is a hypostasis in the intelligible world to διαμενει (11:4). Thus just as
the Hermetica attributes διαμονη to the αιων of the intelligible world. Hebrews says that the
exalted Christ διαμενει.
As a parallel to διαμενεις the
author cites further from his text the words συ δε
ο αυτος. That “sameness”
is an important christological category for the author is evident at 13:8. The
term reflects also a dependence on Greek metaphysics. Philo says that God is ο αυτος (de Post. Cain. 19). Similarly, the
Hermetica speaks of αιων as that which is διαμενουσα τη
ταυτοτητι (11.4). In the tractate Asclepius, αιων is identified with God and declared immutable
(semperque similiter), in contrast to the world of sense perception. For
the author of Hebrews, the fact that Jesus is εν υψηλοις means that
he is now immutable. This understanding of the exaltation shows a definite
point of contact with the literature influenced by Plato. Just as the Hermetica
attributes “sameness” to the αιων of the intelligible
world. Hebrews attributes the same quality to the exalted Christ who is εν υψηλοις.
Having demonstrated through the careful selection of texts that Christ,
as the abiding son (1:7-12), is “better than angels,” the author returns in 1:12
to Ps 110:1, the text which provided the starting point for the reflections
contained the catena. The δε of 1:13 correlates this verse to the preceding
argument and to the reflections concerning Christ and the angels. The messianic
understanding of this psalm is well known in the NT and of great importance to
Hebrews. The setting of this citation at 1:13 indicates that the author uses it
to recapitulate all that has been argued in 1:3-12: the angels do not share in
the exaltation, and thus they are inferior. Because they are cosmologically
subordinate (υποποδιον των ποδων
σου, 1:13), they have an
inferior status (1:14).
The δε of 1:13 reinforce the argument which is made in 1:7: that because
angels do not share in the exaltation to the heavenly world, they do not abide.
Δε serves in this
context to distinguish between the abiding of the son and the changeableness of
the angels. This usage indicates further the assumptions with which the author approaches
his text, Ps 110:1. Such a reading of Psalm 110 is quote different from both the
rabbinic and early Christian use of this text and can only be explained by
supposing that the author’s metaphysical assumptions influenced his reading of the
text. The significance of the exaltation is that Christ “initiert . . . die
Ewigkeitsbejahung [initiated. . . the affirmation of eternity].” A dualistic
reading of the OT is the basis of the author’s argumentation.
The close connection between the argument from the superiority of Christ
over the angels and the parenesis in 2:1-4 indicates that the argument in
1;5-13 serves as the basis for the parenesis. Δια τουτο in 2:1 connects the warning in 2:1-4 with the theological
statement in chap. 1. The author has shown on metaphysical grounds that Christ
is greater than the angels. This fact means for the community that the word of
Christ is to be taken seriously. The author’s metaphysical argument thus serves
the need of paranesis. (James W.
Thompson, “The Structure and Purpose of the Catena in Hebrews 1:5-13,” in The
Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews [The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 13; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock,
1982], 135-39)