The Exact Imprint Of His Nature

What this episode covers

C.S. Lewis has a famous argument called the Trilemma in Mere Christianity that prepares us for this morning’s sermon. Roman Catholic philosopher, Peter Kreeft, calls Lewis’ Trilemma “the most important argument in Christian apologetics.” US President, Ronald Reagan, used the argument in reply to a Methodist minister who didn’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God (I use the term ‘minister’ loosely). “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” Since the Son’s incarnation, there has been a tendency to view him as nothing more than human. He might have been a talented speaker and gifted leader, but that’s all he was. It was his followers who divinized him beginning with the false account of his resurrection. C.S. Lewis simply reflected upon what Jesus said about himself to make his case. Jesus said he always existed, that he had the authority to forgive sin, and that he would return to judge the world at the end of time. Lewis argued that the only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these statements is that Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or he was Lord. Some have argued that a fourth option should be added making it a tetralemma. They rightly point out that the accounts of Jesus’ claims could be legend. Jesus didn’t really make claims about his divinity that the NT assigns to him. Granting that, Lewis’ point remains valid. You must worship or reject entirely the Jesus of Scripture. There is no middle path available. I’ve been arguing that the author of Hebrews is elevating Christ in the view of his audience so that departure from him becomes more difficult. A robust Christology is an anchor for the soul. The more we understand of his greatness, the more satisfied we are in him. Everyone faces the ultimate dilemma of accepting or rejecting Jesus based upon eyewitness testimony. If Jesus is divine, as the New Testament affirms, then we must submit to him. Read Heb 1:1-4. We have considered three aspects of the identity of the Son so far: 1. The Son as Heir of All Things 2. The Son as Agent of Creation 3. The Son Radiates God’s Glory › This morning we will look at the next description, which is the central phrase of this opening sentence. The Son who radiates God’s glory… The Son Represents God’s Nature Once again we meet a hapax legomena, which is a word that only occur once in the NT. Last week, that word was ‘radiance’. This week, it is the word translated “exact imprint” (χαρακτήρ). It also occurs twice in the LXX. In the first instance it is referring to the “scar” or “scab” that remains on the skin after it is burned (Lev 13:28). The Hebrew word (צָרֶ֫בֶת) is found twice in this passage, the other time in reference to a boil or inflamed skin. Obviously, the author is not speaking of the Son as the scab of God. It has to do with the mark that is left. The other instance is found in the Apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees 4:10 which is translated as the Greek “way of life.” In context, it is referring to a corrupt arrangement between Antiochus Epiphanes and the high priest Jason. The king appointed Jason as high priest, and in exchange, Jason encouraged the people to acclimate themselves

Distinct summary based on available episode metadata or transcript content.