Does Hebrews Speak of the Coming Kingdom?
Hebrews is a book that Covenant theologians love to turn to in order to demonstrate that the OT was all types and shadows and thus all the promises made to national Israel concerning a coming kingdom with Messiah reigning on earth are fulfilled in the NT Church. However, the geopolitical imagery of the OT promises are transformed into strictly spiritual antitypes as fulfilled by the Church and any thought of a national future for ethnic Israel is dispensed with. So goes the strict supercessionist hermeneutic. There is no material aspect to the Davidic kingdom in Covenant theology. Thus, it may come as a surprise to some that the writer of Hebrews speaks of the Messianic kingdom in terms of material and territorial fulfillment.
In Hebrews 1, the writer seeks to set the stage for the superiority of Christ in all things. Apparently the recipients of the letter had a distorted angelogy and a diminished Christology that needed correcting. The writer highlights Jesus as the Son of God superior to angels and worshipped by them. Furthermore, he highlights the Son as also the supreme king and ruler of a divine kingdom. This is brought out in the quotation in verse 8 from Psalm 45. “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.’” This is preceded by an often overlooked verse 6 speaking of when the Father, “again (palin) brings the first-born into the world.” The term translated “world” here is oikoumene, a rare NT term for the writer to use. Its primary meaning is, “inhabited earth.” Thus, we must conclude that this verse is speaking of the return again of the Son to this present earth as inhabited by post-parousia humanity.
Now all this might not seem significant until we turn to chapter 2. The writer picks up the comparison again between angels and the Son of God in verse 5. Notice carefully what it says, “For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking.” The “world” in this verse is once again the rare term oikoumene. These instances are the only 2 times the writer uses this term. Notice the future tense. It is the world to come. It speaks of a material inhabited earth yet in the future. The writer seeks to show that this world will not be subjected to angels but to the Son of God who has an everlasting throne and kingdom (1:8). Verses 6-8 elaborate upon this point:
“But one has testified somewhere, saying, ‘What is man, that Thou rememberest him? Or the son of man, that Thou art concerned about him? ‘Thou hast made him for a little while lower than the angels; Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, and hast appointed him over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.’ For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.”
The NASV treats verse 8 as if it is “man” who has “all things” subjected to him. But the context of the comparison of the Son with angels in chapter 1 continues and the indications of Christ as the subject in the verses following verse 8 (i.e. verses 9-10) militate against this. The phrase “all things” is picked up again in verse 10 as clearly applying to the reign and authority of Jesus, “made for a little while lower than the angels” (vs. 9). However, my attention is drawn to verse 8: “'Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.’ For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.” In the style of Midrash the author quotes Psa. 8:6 and then comments upon it. The force of the interpretation is that the Father has subjected “all things” to the Son. The Son has inherited a kingdom over which He rules and reigns. He reigns now from the right hand of the Father (see chapter 1, verse 13). But not all things have been subjected to Him just yet. The kingdom has been inaugurated but not quite consummated. When shall “all things” be subjected to the Son-King? I believe verse 5 makes it clear - in the inhabited earth yet to come. This nicely dovetails into Paul thoughts concerning the kingdom of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (consider especially the parallels to verses 27 and 28 where Paul himself quotes Psa. 8:6 and applies it to the reign of Christ).
The writer of Hebrews indeed shows how much of the OT was couched in types and shadows that are now done away with since the first advent of Christ, being fulfilled in Him. However, much of the OT contains straightforward prophecies and anticipations of direct fulfillments of material and territorial promises that cannot be understood any other way than through a material-spiritual kingdom that Christ also fulfills. The writer of Hebrews is aware of both kinds of fulfillment as I believe chapters 1 and 2 of the book demonstrate.
In Hebrews 1, the writer seeks to set the stage for the superiority of Christ in all things. Apparently the recipients of the letter had a distorted angelogy and a diminished Christology that needed correcting. The writer highlights Jesus as the Son of God superior to angels and worshipped by them. Furthermore, he highlights the Son as also the supreme king and ruler of a divine kingdom. This is brought out in the quotation in verse 8 from Psalm 45. “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.’” This is preceded by an often overlooked verse 6 speaking of when the Father, “again (palin) brings the first-born into the world.” The term translated “world” here is oikoumene, a rare NT term for the writer to use. Its primary meaning is, “inhabited earth.” Thus, we must conclude that this verse is speaking of the return again of the Son to this present earth as inhabited by post-parousia humanity.
Now all this might not seem significant until we turn to chapter 2. The writer picks up the comparison again between angels and the Son of God in verse 5. Notice carefully what it says, “For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking.” The “world” in this verse is once again the rare term oikoumene. These instances are the only 2 times the writer uses this term. Notice the future tense. It is the world to come. It speaks of a material inhabited earth yet in the future. The writer seeks to show that this world will not be subjected to angels but to the Son of God who has an everlasting throne and kingdom (1:8). Verses 6-8 elaborate upon this point:
“But one has testified somewhere, saying, ‘What is man, that Thou rememberest him? Or the son of man, that Thou art concerned about him? ‘Thou hast made him for a little while lower than the angels; Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, and hast appointed him over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.’ For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.”
The NASV treats verse 8 as if it is “man” who has “all things” subjected to him. But the context of the comparison of the Son with angels in chapter 1 continues and the indications of Christ as the subject in the verses following verse 8 (i.e. verses 9-10) militate against this. The phrase “all things” is picked up again in verse 10 as clearly applying to the reign and authority of Jesus, “made for a little while lower than the angels” (vs. 9). However, my attention is drawn to verse 8: “'Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.’ For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.” In the style of Midrash the author quotes Psa. 8:6 and then comments upon it. The force of the interpretation is that the Father has subjected “all things” to the Son. The Son has inherited a kingdom over which He rules and reigns. He reigns now from the right hand of the Father (see chapter 1, verse 13). But not all things have been subjected to Him just yet. The kingdom has been inaugurated but not quite consummated. When shall “all things” be subjected to the Son-King? I believe verse 5 makes it clear - in the inhabited earth yet to come. This nicely dovetails into Paul thoughts concerning the kingdom of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (consider especially the parallels to verses 27 and 28 where Paul himself quotes Psa. 8:6 and applies it to the reign of Christ).
The writer of Hebrews indeed shows how much of the OT was couched in types and shadows that are now done away with since the first advent of Christ, being fulfilled in Him. However, much of the OT contains straightforward prophecies and anticipations of direct fulfillments of material and territorial promises that cannot be understood any other way than through a material-spiritual kingdom that Christ also fulfills. The writer of Hebrews is aware of both kinds of fulfillment as I believe chapters 1 and 2 of the book demonstrate.
posted by MSC at 1:59 PM
7 Comments:
Covenant theologians, like myself, have no problem whatsoever with a material world subject to Christ following His second coming. It is the new heavens and the new earth, and they will be very material indeed. The biggest problem I see with your argument here is that the Son's kingdom is "forever." Unless you posit this present earth as it is now will last forever, this is not a helpful reference for any form of premillennialism. It strongly argues that the kingdom in view is the eternal, not millennial, kingdom.
It's been a while since we've had a good, healthy discussion of eschatology on this board. Thanks for posting!!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Robb,
Part of the exegesis here is that Heb. 1:6 indicates that the Son comes into the "inhabited earth" (i.e. "world") "again." "Again" indicates to me that Christ occupies a place in the this present inhabited earth a second time. Since "world" in 2:5 is the same rare term used in 1:6. Thus, I believe the "coming world" of 2:5 is the same "world" Christ returns to "again" in 1:6. This is further supported by the phrase, "concerning which we are speaking" at the end of 2:5. The writer has not began an new context yet since he is still comparing Christ to the angels that began in 1:4.
However, your point is well taken. Christ's kingdom is eternal, this we both agree upon. We also probably agree that the same kingdom has different phases. We are in one phase right now and we agree that the inaguaration of the New Heavens and New Earth is another phase. This is the phase I belive Paul speaks of in 1 Cor. 15:24. Nonetheless, premillennialists believe that there still exists another phase of the kingdom on this present earth in fulfillment of OT prophecies concerning land that was part of the unfailing promise to Abraham's ethnic descendents. Paul indicates that these promises are still valid for national Israel (Rom. 9:4) and that these promises are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29) for the sake of the fathers (i.e. the Patriarchs - vs. 28).
Robb, I would be interested to know how your views have evolved on this issue. Is there a particular text or series of events that led to the change?
CalvDispy,
It is precisely at the point of the land promises that our views diverge. I believe those promises are for those in Christ. I also believe that someday a large potion of ethnic Jews will be converted to Christ and become true Israelites. This will occur prior to Christ's return per Romans 11, which you cited. The promise of land in Genesis is thus for Abraham's true descendants (Jews and Gentiles) and includes the entire world (Romans 4:17) as an everlasting possession, per the OT promise. Therefore, it must be the eternal state in the new heavens and new earth. A millennial kingdom can in no way fulfill the promise to Abraham that his descendants would have the land for an everlasting possession. I have read quite a bit trying to find a Dispensationalist who can explain to me satisfactorily how a promise for an everlasting possession can be (or must be) fulfilled in a kingdom only a thousand years in length, especially based on a "literal" hermeneutic. I'd welcome any thoughts you have on that question. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response.
Jonathan,
To put it very briefly, my views changed my 3rd year at TMS reading Ryrie's Dispensationalism. I actually was a committed Dispensationalist until I read that book. Ryrie's presentation seemed to miss the point of passage after passage, and the more I read of it, the more I began to think that Dispensationalism was a system being forced onto the text. I also began to consider how the apostles interpreted the OT text, and it seemed to be at variance with the dispensational interpretation (Gal 3:7, 29 is one example). But primarily my shift away from Dispensationalism was prompted by reading Ryrie.
Robb, I agree that Ryrie's presentation of hermeneutics merits criticism, but what do you think of Blaising and Bock's presentation in "Progressive Dispensationalism"?
Robb,
I see no problem with the eternal promise of land. Peter speaks of the "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21) and Paul speaks of the redemption of creation in Rom. 8 having been subject to futility. When Peter speaks of the destruction of the present heavens and earth he uses terminology that speaks of transformation not annihilation (2 Pet. 3:9-13). In other words, the New Heavens and New Earth are a re-creation, a re-newal, a re-storation that is consummate with the redemption and resurrection of our bodies which also undergo transformation not annihilation.
Thus, I believe the land of promise undergoes a similar redemption once Christ has placed all enemies under His feet and all things have been subjected to Him. There is certainly discontinuity between the different phases of the kingdom but continuity as well.
Jonathan,
I haven't read Bock/Blaising's treatment of hermeneutics specifically. I'll have to check it out. I have read Blaising defend premillennialism, and I thought it was pretty weak. I agree much more with Bock/Blaising than Ryrie or other classical dispensationalists, but, at the end of the day, they still hold dispensational distinctions I reject (church/Israel). I also find their treatment of the new covenant and its relationship to the church wanting, although better than classical dispensationalism.
I do want to add that I think these subjects, while incredibly interesting and enjoyable to discuss, are secondary to the issues we DO agree on. I'm thankful for my many Dispensational brothers who are faithful to preach Christ crucified.
CalvDispy, I agree with your points. I guess my question would be, "What about the Abrahamic covenant demands a millennial kingdom?" From my perspective, the eternal state would better fulfill those promises for an everlasting land for Abraham and his descendants than a millennial kingdom.
Post a Comment
<< Home