Thoughts on Hebrews 1:3

“Upholding all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3)

In Hebrews 1:3 we find this phrase. The phrase is a Hebraic expression of His powerful word.^[1] It is a dative of means, indicating how the Son upholds the universe. It speaks of how He is upholding all things. It is of interest that the word Rhema is used here not the Logos. Allen states two reasons for this: (1) It is used by the Hebrew preacher is strictly of God speaking. (2) It emphases in not so much on content, but on the expression or action itself. It is the act of utterance.^[2] This reinforces the idea of God speaking progressively and unquestionably as asserted by the preacher in his opening comments.

The word upholding^[3] here has the idea of maintaining. He is the glue that holds all things together (cf. Colossians 1:17). However here it speaks of God’s active providence, which is His holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures and their actions.^[4] (cf. Neb. 9:6-7; Job 12:7-10; Psa. 104:27-32). As such, it is a part of God’s common grace to benefit all men. Brock says:

The Son keeps everything in the universe in running order. His power keeps the universe in good shape. This is seen in the word upholding, which refers to the Lord in maintaining all the laws of the universe which govern the planets, starts, and galaxies.^[5] 

This is to the benefit of all creatures and creation. Christ governs and guides all things in the universe to their consummation or goal.^[6] Or as Bruce points out, Christ “carries all things forward to their appointed course.”^[7] If the Greek word is to be taken as dynamic, it seems to me this phrase is tied to the idea of His being the agent of creation, in that He made the worlds-ages or time-space continuum (1:2). In this phrase, Christ is viewed as the sustaining guide upholding the course of this world. Allen holds to dynamic sustaining of God stating: “He is ‘carrying along’ or guiding it towards its intended goal, rather than merely passively supporting creation as if it were a burden.”^[8] The preacher is maintaining an eschatological perspective of God’s sustaining power.

---

[1]  Paul Ellingworth, NIGTC: HEBREWS, 101.

[2]  David L Allen, NAC: HEBREWS, 123.

[3]  ferwn has a basic dynamic meaning to bring, lead, or drive; in the transitive sense it has the idea of bearing or enduring. Cf. K. Weiss, “ferw “ TDNT, 9:56-59. David; Allen identifies five possible meanings, see HEBREWS, 121. However only 2 are possible in this context: to bear up, sustain or to bear along, guide. He says both meanings are likely [122].

[4]  J. Oliver Buswell, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 4 Volumes in One, [Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1962], 1;170.

[5]  R.C. Brock, HEBREWS: VERSE BY VERSE, [publish by the author 2005],8.

[6]  David MacLeod, “The Finality of Christ,” 223.  Cf. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, HEBREWS, 46.

[7]  F.F. Bruce, NICNT: THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, [Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1964], 6.

[8] David L Allen, NAC: HEBREWS, 122.

Devotions on John 001

JOHN 1:1-15

The focus of the Gospel of John is squarely on the Deity of Jesus. This is confirmed in the opening of John’s Gospel. It is unique in its perspective, unlike the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). John goes back to the beginning with the divine, not the earthly; the eternal not the temporal.

Christ is the word of God. Christ became the Word in the flesh. John brings out three truths:

1.      The revelation of the Word. 1:1-5. This word was eternal (v. 2). The Word was the agent creation (v. 3). The Word was life (v. 4), and He is the light that overcame darkness (v.5).

2.      The rejection of the Word (1:6-11). Key texts are verses 10—11. It speaks of being unwanted by His own people. The words “His own” is used twice, which denotes emphasis. There is a contrast between the two phrases, the first indicating who He came to; the other their reaction to His coming. The word translated “His own” is the same word translated “his own home” (19:27).

3.      The reception of the Word (1:12-15). We are to receive Him. The equitant is the words “give the right” and “born;” both speak of the action that makes those who receive him, the children of God “He gave.” The verb gave means to bestow, or present. It is a bridge word that connects both to the words receive and right. Because they receive the Son He (God) gave them a right to be sons of God.

The question before us is if we are one who rejected or receiver of the truth. 

---

Review: Grudem Systematic Theology

Wayne Grudem, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1994] 1269 pages.

                               

Don Elifson use to tell his classes to read one Theology book a year. I have tried to do so, but not always successfully. In 2017 I read Grudem’s theology, although I have referred to it several times in my studying.

Wayne Grudem is now the research professor at Phoenix Seminary here in Arizona. It is written from a Calvinist Reformed view of most doctrine. He is readable and understandable. It is not as dry as some of the older works. He strives to be clear in his explanations, holds that theology should be practical, and is evangelical in its presentation. These goals were not allways met. He builds his theology two basis assumptions: (1) The Bible is the absolute standard of truth. (2) God exists and the Bible reveals Him. I found his comments on why and how to study theology helpful. However, I disagree that systematic theology is simply the systematic organization of Biblical truth. It entails more than that.

He breaks down this work into the seven basic areas of theology.

1.      Doctrine of the Word

2.      Doctrine of God

3.      Doctrine of Man

4.      Doctrines of Christ and the Holy Spirit

5.      Doctrine of Application of Redemption

6.      Doctrine of the Church

7.      Doctrine of the Future

However, his theology has serious flaws or misconceptions. His stereotyping different views are a drawback to helpful understand of other positions. At times it seems his purpose is to indoctrinate in the Reform view, rather than enlighten us on the subject. His proof teaching seems narrow and without much if any exegesis. There are serious doctrinal errors including that glory is not an attribute of God (220-221), he sees the glory in Christ speaking not of character, but the bright light that surrounds the Father, and by implication His Son. He is somewhat shallow on some doctrines, i.e. the resurrection of Christ. While strong on the nature of the resurrection, it lacks the significance of it, or soteriological value, and its relevance to us. On election, he argues the reformed position and simply replies on how it relates to man he simply states that it does not make us robots. He does not fully engage those who differ. He is charismatic in his views on the Holy Spirit and gifts. His view of end times is Millennial with believers going through the Tribulation. Holds to one final judgment. He is clearly anti-dispensational.

This is a mediocre theology at best. It is informative in places, but one has to be really careful using it. There are two features the reader will find worthwhile: (1) Application sections are helpful. (2) The biography after every chapter is broke down by classification or type of the work, i.e. Anglican, Baptist, Reform, Dispensational, Lutheran, or Roman Catholic. It allows the student to look up difference works to see what their perspective may be with interference by this author.  This is a plus. However one needs to use this work with a critical eye.