Since we looked at Hebrews 1:1-4 exegetically last week, this week I want to throw out some sermon ideas from it.
"In many and various ways, God formerly spoke ... in these last days He's spoken through a Son."
The Final Way
There is a clear contrast in the first two verses between former ways and the way God is now speaking. Two characteristics come to mind--
1) Previous ways were many and various--the current way is singular, a Son.
The singularity implied here reminds me of John 14:6--"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Of course the plurality of God's revelations in the past were not a pluralism. The plurality was within the bounds of the worship of the singular God, Yahweh. The theologians can also debate exactly how the one way of the Son might work. Does it work, for example, according to the light we have, to where someone who has never heard of Christ might be saved by Christ because they have responded to the light they have?
2) The use of the phrase "the last days" shows that the Son is the final way. This is the historic belief of Christian faith. There are people who are Christians in the social and cultural sense who do not believe that Christ is the only way, but their "center point" is therefore not Christianity but a point outside that draws on selective Christian elements.
God appointed him heir of all things--indeed He made the worlds through him.
I never know what to do with capitals of Him and him. I have typically used "Him" for God the Father and "him" for God the Son. Otherwise there would be capitals everywhere and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference--same if I used small case for both. Of course it's bad theology to distinguish them...
It's All About Christ
The next few options could either be points in one sermon or several sermons. So for this verse, we have Christ at the beginning and end of creation. He is the one to whom God is giving the world as an enthronement present... Indeed Christ is the one through whom God made the worlds. As I said last week, I think this means that Christ is like God's word (see John 1:14), His will in action. So Christ is God's will for the worlds...
Christ "is a reflection of God's glory and an impression of His substance"
What God Looks Like
I could see a sermon based off this verse arguing that if you want to know what God looks like, look at what Jesus Christ looks like. The sermon might then go through various stories about Jesus that highlight the Father's character through Jesus' character.
Love, Justice, Mercy, Victory, Cares for the forgotten, etc...
Christ "sat on the right hand of Majesty in the heavens, as much greater than the angels as the name he has inherited is greater than theirs."
The Kingship of Christ
You might join this sermon to the preceding one. The picture here is the enthroned Christ, with the angels bowing before him as his servants. How would you relate to such a person--ignore them, listen to them selectively? I bet you would pay attention to them and want them to see your good side (P.S. He's always in the room).
These are some of my preaching notes from Hebrews 1:1-4.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for these.
A minor quibble (as is my custom):
You said "Of course it's bad theology to distinguish them..." If by 'theology' you are gesturing toward classical orthodoxy, then actually it's good theology to distinguish Father and Son, not in nature but in person. No distinction at all would mean no doctrine of the trinity. So distinct pronouns are permissible, though not necessary and perhaps inadvisable on other grounds.
I didn't mean that it was bad theology to distinguish between the persons period. It is the manner of my distinction that is problematic. If someone were to go through my posts, they would notice that I consistently use "Him" of both the Father and Spirit and yet "him" of the Son.
Why is this, someone might ask. Is it because Schenck considers the Son human in contrast to the divinity of the Father and Spirit? That would be odd practice, even though the Son is the only member of the Trinity that is fully human.
Is it because Schenck subordinates the Son to the Father? Not one of the worse heresies but historically unorthodox nonetheless... and curious since he apparently doesn't subordinate the Spirit to either.
That's what I was getting at...
Post a Comment