Hebrews · Chapter 1

V. 1. God, who at sundry times-The creation was revealed in the time of Adam; the last judgment, in the time of Enoch: and so at various times, and in various degrees, more explicit knowledge was given. In divers manners-In visions, in dreams, and by revelations of various kinds. Both these are opposed to the one entire and perfect revelation which he has made to us by Jesus Christ. The very number of the prophets showed that they prophesied only "in part."

Of old-There were no prophets for a large tract of time before Christ came, that the great Prophet might be the more earnestly expected. Spake-A part is put for the whole; implying every kind of divine communication.

By the prophets-The mention of whom is a virtual declaration that the apostle received the whole Old Testament, and was not about to advance any doctrine in contradiction to it.

Hath in these last times-Intimating that no other revelation is to be expected.

Spoken-All things, and in the most perfect manner.

By his Son-Alone. The Son spake by the apostles. The majesty of the Son of God is proposed,

1. Absolutely, by the very name of Son, verse 1, and by three glorious predicates,-"whom he hath appointed," "by whom he made," who "sat down;" whereby he is described from the beginning to the consummation of all things, Hebrews 1:2, 3

Verse 1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners] We can scarcely conceive any thing more dignified than the opening of this epistle; the sentiments are exceedingly elevated, and the language, harmony itself! The infinite God is at once produced to view, not in any of those attributes which are essential to the Divine nature, but in the manifestations of his love to the world, by giving a revelation of his will relative to the salvation of mankind, and thus preparing the way, through a long train of years, for the introduction of that most glorious Being, his own Son. This Son, in the fulness of time, was manifested in the flesh that he might complete all vision and prophecy, supply all that was wanting to perfect the great scheme of revelation for the instruction of the world, and then die to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. The description which he gives of this glorious personage is elevated beyond all comparison. Even in his humiliation, his suffering of death excepted, he is infinitely exalted above all the angelic host, is the object of their unceasing adoration, is permanent on his eternal throne at the right hand of the Father, and from him they all receive their commands to minister to those whom he has redeemed by his blood. in short, this first chapter, which may be considered the introduction to the whole epistle is, for importance of subject, dignity of expression, harmony and energy of language, compression and yet distinctness of ideas, equal, if not superior, to any other part of the New Testament. Sundry times] polumerwv, from poluv, many, and perov, a part; giving portions of revelation at different times.

Divers manners] polutropwv, from poluv, many, and tropov, a manner, turn, or form of speech; hence trope, a figure in rhetoric. Lambert Bos supposes these words to refer to that part of music which is denominated harmony, viz. that general consent or union of musical sounds which is made up of different parts; and, understood in this way, it may signify the agreement or harmony of all the Old Testament writers, who with one consent gave testimony to Jesus Christ, and the work of redemption by him. To him gave all the prophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins; Acts 10:43.

But it is better to consider, with Kypke, that the words are rather intended to point out the imperfect state of Divine revelation under the Old Testament; it was not complete, nor can it without the New be considered a sufficiently ample discovery of the Divine will. Under the Old Testament, revelations were made polumerwv kai polutropwv, at various times, by various persons, in various laws and forms of teaching, with various degrees of clearness, under various shadows, types, and figures, and with various modes of revelation, such as by angels, visions, dreams, mental impressions, &c. See Numbers 12:6, 8. But under the New Testament all is done aplwv, simply, by one person, i.e. JESUS, who has fulfilled the prophets, and completed prophecy; who is the way, the truth, and the life; and the founder, mediator, and governor of his own kingdom. One great object of the apostle is, to put the simplicity of the Christian system in opposition to the complex nature of the Mosaic economy; and also to show that what the law could not do because it was weak through the flesh, Jesus has accomplished by the merit of his death, and the energy of his Spirit.

Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 1, page 7, has a passage where the very words employed by the apostle are found, and evidently used nearly in the same sense: th rov anqrwpou yuch duo organwn ontwn prov sunesin, tou men aplou, on kaloumen noun, tou de poikilou kai

polumerouv kai polutropou, av aisqhseiv kaloumen. “The soul of man has two organs of intelligence: one simple, which we call mind; the other diversified, and acting in various modes and various ways, which we term sense.”

A similar form of expression the same writer employs in Diss. 15, page 171: “The city which is governed by the mob, polufwnon te einai kai polumerh kai polupaqh, is full of noise, and is divided by various factions and various passions.”

The excellence of the Gospel above the law is here set down in three points: 1. God spake unto the faithful under the Old Testament by Moses and the prophets, worthy servants, yet servants; now the Son is much better than a servant, Hebrews 1:4. 2. Whereas the body of the Old Testament was long in compiling, being about a thousand years from Moses to Malachi; and God spake unto the fathers by piecemeal, one while raising up one prophet, another while another, now sending them one parcel of prophecy or history, then another; but when Christ came, all was brought to perfection in one age; the apostles and evangelists were alive, some of them, when every part of the New Testament was completely finished. 3. The Old Testament was delivered by God in divers manners, both in utterance and manifestation; but the delivery of the Gospel was in a more simple manner; for, although there are various penmen, yet the subject is the same, and treated with nearly the same phraseology throughout; James, Jude, and the Apocalypse excepted. See Leigh.

Verse 1. God, &c. — After the manner of the best writers, the apostle begins this most instructive epistle with proposing the subjects of which he is about to discourse; namely, four important facts, on which the authority of the gospel, as a revelation from God, is built; and which, if well established, should induce unbelievers, whether Jews or Gentiles, to renounce their infidelity and embrace the gospel. Of these facts, the first is, that the same God, who gave the former revelations to the fathers of the Jewish nation, hath in these last days given the gospel to all mankind. This the apostle mentions first of all, to show the agreement of the gospel with the former revelations. For if there were any real opposition between the Jewish and Christian revelations, the authority of one or of both of them would be destroyed; whereas these revelations agreeing in all things, they mutually explain and support each other. Thus in this verse; God, who at sundry times — The creation was revealed in the time of Adam; the last judgment in the time of Enoch; the coming of the Messiah in the time of Abraham, and the following patriarchs; the offices he should sustain, and the process he should go through in accomplishing man’s redemption, in the time of Moses, of David, of Isaiah, and the other prophets; and so at various times more explicit knowledge was given. But the word polumerwv rather signifies in sundry parts, parcels, or degrees, in opposition to a complete revelation; or the gradual discovery of the mind and will of God, by communications, one after another, as the church could bear the light of them. Thus to Adam, victory over the grand enemy of mankind by the Seed of the woman, was promised: to Abraham, that all mankind should be blessed in him and his seed: to Jacob, that the promised Seed of the woman and of Abraham should be a peaceful Prince, unto whom the gathering of the people should be: by Moses, that he should be an extraordinary Prophet, the disobeying of whom would be punished with certain destruction: by David, that he should be a Priest of a higher order than that of Aaron, and a King in Zion, whose dominion should extend from sea to sea, yea, to the ends of the earth, Psalms 72:1Psalm 72:1, 8: by Isaiah, that he should be the Child born, the Son given, and yet the mighty God, of the increase of whose government and peace there should be no end; that he should go through great scenes of suffering, (chap. 53.,) but should expiate sin, and conquer death: by Jeremiah, that he should be the Lord our righteousness: by Ezekiel, the one Shepherd of God’s people, Ezekiel 34:23: by Zechariah, that he should build the spiritual temple, bear the glory, and be a Priest upon his throne; from whence, according to Joel, he should pour out his Spirit in an extraordinary measure upon his disciples: by Haggai and Malachi, that he should come to the temple, built after the return from Babylon, and that awful judgments should follow his coming upon such as rejected him. If (says Dr. Owen) we consider the whole progress of divine revelation from the beginning of the world, we shall find that it comprehends four principal parts or degrees, with such as were subservient to them. The first, made to Adam, was the principle of faith and obedience to the antediluvian fathers, and to this were subservient all the consequent particular revelations before the flood. The second, to Noah after the flood, contained the renewal of the covenant, and establishment of the church in his family, whereunto were subservient the revelations made to Melchizedec (Genesis 14:19) and others, before the calling of Abraham. The third, to Abraham, implied a peculiar restriction of the promise to his seed, and a fuller illustration of the nature of it confirmed in the revelations made to Isaac, Jacob, and others of their posterity. The fourth, to Moses, comprehended the giving of the law, and erection of the Jewish Church in the wilderness; to which was principally subservient the revelation made to David, which was peculiarly designed to perfect the Old Testament worship. To which we may add the revelations made to Solomon, and the prophets in their respective days; particularly those who, before and during the captivity, pleaded with the people about their defection by scandalous sins and false worship: and Ezra, with the prophets that assisted in the reformation of the church after its return from Babylon, who in an eminent manner excited the people to expect the Messiah. These were the principal parts and degrees of divine revelation, from the foundation of the world to the coming of Christ, at least until his forerunner, John the Baptist. And by thus reminding the Hebrews, that the will of God was not formerly revealed to his church all at once, by Moses or any other, but by several parts and degrees, by new additions of light, as in his infinite wisdom he saw meet, the apostle clearly convinces them of their mistake in obstinately adhering to the Mosaic institutions. It is as if he had said, Consider the way whereby God revealed his will to the church hitherto. Hath it not been by parts and degrees? Hath he at any time shut up the progress of revelation? Hath he not always kept the church in expectation of new discoveries of his will? Did he ever declare that he would add no more to what he had commanded; or make no alteration in what he had instituted? So far from it, that Moses, when he had finished all his work in the Lord’s house, told the people God would raise up another prophet like unto him, that is, who should reveal new laws and institutions as he had done, whom they were to hear and obey on the penalty of utter extermination, Deuteronomy 18:15, &c. But in opposition to this gradual revelation, the apostle intimates that now, by Jesus the Messiah, the Lord had begun and finished the whole revelation of his will, according to their own hopes and expectations.

And in divers manners — By dreams, visions, audible voices, the appearances of angels, of the Lord in a human form, by Urim and Thummim, and the immediate inspiration of his Spirit, 2 Peter 1:21; 1 Peter 1:11. Or, the expression, divers manners, may refer to the different ways in which the prophets communicated the different revelations which they received to the fathers. They did it in types and figures, significant actions, and dark sayings, as well as in plain language: whereas the gospel revelation was spoken by Christ and his apostles in one manner only, namely, in plain language; and to this one entire and perfect revelation the various, partial, imperfect revelations made before are opposed. Spake in time past — Palai, of old, or anciently. The word, taken absolutely, comprises the whole space of time from the giving of the first promise to the end of the Old Testament revelations. Taken as relating to the Jews, it includes the ages intervening between the giving of the law and the death of the last prophet, Malachi, namely, the space of twenty-one jubilees, or near one thousand one hundred years, after which, as the Jews confess, the Spirit of prophecy was taken from Israel. The word spake is put for every kind of divine communication: unto the fathers — The ancestors of the Jewish nation; by the prophets — The mention of whom is a virtual declaration that the apostle received the whole Old Testament as of divine authority, and was not about to advance any doctrine in contradiction to it. Indeed, as he was writing to the Hebrews, many of whom were prejudiced against him as a person who departed from Moses and the prophets, it was an instance of great wisdom in him to signify, at the very beginning of his epistle, that he believed the revelations given by them of old. Thus, by removing one great cause of prejudice from those to whom he wrote, he would open the way for their receiving the doctrines contained in his epistle, a summary of which we have in the two next verses.

Verse 1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake — to the fathers. By the personal appearances of Christ, the Word of the Lord; by voices, by angels, by visions, by dreams, and by impulses of the Holy Ghost. In these forms we have received all the glorious doctrines of truth, and particular revelations, and that chiefly in times of ecclesiastical trouble.

1. Transcendence of the Son as divine Apostle of our Age, 1-4. WITH a most impressive grandeur does our author open upon his readers the full affirmation of the divine origination of the Son, preparatory to unfolding the true glory of his humiliation. If his Alexandrian audience glory in asserting the Son’s divinity, he can re-assert that same on the highest key.

1. God—The divine name is not thus placed at the beginning of this epistle in the Greek. The first words are the two Greek adverbs, rendered sundry times and divers manners, polumerwv kai polutropwv. Each of these Greek words begins with a pol; and Delitzsch asks whether this is accidental, or whether the epistle does thus begin intentionally, with a hint of Paul’s own name. Sundry times and in divers manners—More literally: In many parts and by many methods. The words describe the fragmentary character of the old revelations, in depreciatory comparison with the unity of revelation by the Son. There is no Greek word answering to times. In many parts, indicates that truth came by piecemeal through a succession of ages. Divers manners—Sometimes by visions and dreams, sometimes by word of mouth, by the declaration of angels, by the impulsive inspiration of prophets, by types and symbols. These were all, however, as but lamps and candles before the coming of the sun. In time past—Palai, in the olden time, anciently; including the whole period of inferior revelation before the coming of the Son. The fathers—The Hebrew ancestry, who heard the ancient revelations. By the prophets— Including the inspired mediums of either or all these methods of revelation, at whose head was Moses.

2. Comparatively to angels, Hebrews 1:4. The proof of this proposition immediately follows: the name of Son being proved, Hebrews 1:5; his being "heir of all things," Hebrews 1:6-9; his making the worlds, Hebrews 1:10-12 his sitting at God's right hand, Hebrews 1:13, &c.

V. 2. Whom he hath appointed heir of all things-After the name of Son, his inheritance is mentioned. God appointed him the heir long before he made the worlds, Ephesians 3:11; Proverbs 8:22, &c. The Son is the firstborn, born before all things: the heir is a term relating to the creation which followed, Hebrews 1:6.

By whom he also made the worlds-Therefore the Son was before all worlds. His glory reaches from everlasting to everlasting, though God spake by him to us only "in these last days."

Verse 2. Last days] The Gospel dispensation, called the last days and the last time, because not to be followed by any other dispensation; or the conclusion of the Jewish Church and state now at their termination. By his Son] It is very remarkable that the pronoun autou, his, is not found in the text; nor is it found in any MS. or version. We should not therefore supply the pronoun as our translators have done; but simply read en Uiw, BY A SON, or IN A SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things. God has many sons and daughters, for he is the Father of the spirits of all flesh; and he has many heirs, for if sons, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; but he has no Son who is heir of all things, none by whom he made the worlds, none in whom he speaks, and by whom he has delivered a complete revelation to mankind, but Jesus the Christ. The apostle begins with the lowest state in which Christ has appeared: 1. His being a SON, born of a woman, and made under the law. He then ascends, 2. So his being an Heir, and an Heir of all things. 3. He then describes him as the Creator of all worlds. 4. As the Brightness of the Divine glory. 5. As the express Image of his person, or character of the Divine substance. 6. As sustaining the immense fabric of the universe; and this by the word of his power. 7. As having made an atonement for the sin of the world, which was the most stupendous of all his works. “‘Twas great to speak a world from nought;.

Twas greater to redeem.”

8. As being on the right hand of God, infinitely exalted above all created beings; and the object of adoration to all the angelic host. 9. As having an eternal throne, neither his person nor his dignity ever changing or decaying. 10. As continuing to exercise dominion, when the earth and the heavens are no more! It is only in God manifested in the flesh that all these excellences can possibly appear, therefore the apostle begins this astonishing climax with the simple Sonship of Christ, or his incarnation; for, on this, all that he is to man, and all that he has done for man, is built.

Verse 2. Hath in these last days — Namely, the last of the Jewish Church and state, which were then drawing to their final abolition. Or the times of the Messiah may be intended, as 2 Timothy 3:1. Here we have the second fact of which the apostle proposed to discourse, namely, that the person by whom God hath revealed the gospel is his Son, appearing in the human nature; a person far superior to the highest creatures, even a person properly divine; from which it is reasonable to infer, that the revelation made by him to mankind is more perfect than that made to the Jews by angels, and that the dispensation founded thereon is a better and more permanent dispensation than the law. In saying, God hath spoken to us, the apostle chiefly intends the members of the Jewish Church. The Jews of those times were very apt to think if they had lived in the days of the former prophets, and had heard them deliver their message from God, they would have received it with cheerful obedience. Their only unhappiness, as they thought, was, that they were born out of due time, as to prophetical revelations, Matthew 23:30. Now the apostle, aware of this prejudice, informs them that God, in the revelation of the gospel, had spoken to themselves what they so much desired; and that if they did not attend to this word, they must needs be self-condemned. Besides that, the care and love which God had manifested toward them, in speaking to them in this immediate manner, requiring the most indisputable obedience, especially considering how far this mode excelled what he had before used toward their fathers. For this revelation, by the Son of God, is more perfect than any preceding one, because, 1st, It is more clear, even respecting things formerly revealed; as, for instance, God’s spiritual nature, (John 4:24,) and some of his attributes, particularly his love; the fall and depravity of man; his redemption; the person, offices, and work of the Redeemer; the salvation that is through him, particularly as it is future and eternal; that it is attained by faith, the fruits of which, and the spirituality of God’s law, are set in a clearer point of view in the gospel than formerly. 2d, More full, giving us explicit information of things hardly intimated before, as the abolition of the Jewish dispensation, the temporary rejection of their nation because of their unbelief, a general and solemn judgment; that the consequences of it will be eternal; that the heavens and the earth shall be destroyed, and a new heaven and new earth shall be prepared for the habitation of the righteous. So that whereas the former dispensations might be compared to starlight, or moonshine, this last revelation is called the day-spring from on high visiting us, (Luke 1:78, 79,) and the Sun of righteousness arising upon us: and no wonder, considering that the messenger of this new covenant is the Son of God, to whom God’s will was known not by dreams, visions, voices, &c., or in any of the ways before mentioned, but, as St. John speaks, he was in the bosom of the Father; that is, was intimately and perfectly acquainted with his eternal mind and counsels, being his wisdom, word, and truth, and therefore fully qualified to give mankind a revelation every way perfect and complete. Whom he hath appointed heir of all things — That is, of the whole creation; of all creatures, visible and invisible, which were all made for him, as well as by him, Colossians 1:16. The apostle’s grand design throughout this epistle being to engage the Hebrews to constancy and perseverance in their attachment to the gospel, with its fundamental doctrines, he takes his main argument for that purpose from its immediate author, the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Him, therefore, in this chapter he describes at large, declaring what he is absolutely, in his person and offices; and comparatively, with respect to other ministerial revealers of the mind and will of God, principally insisting on his excellence and pre- eminence above angels. After the name of Son, his inheritance is mentioned. God appointed him the heir long before he made the worlds, Ephesians 3:11; Proverbs 8:22. Crellius, a noted Socinian, with whom some other Socinians have agreed, allowed that Christ hath the highest dominion and empire over men and angels. But still they would persuade us that all this was spoken of him as a mere man, as the son of Mary. But how a mere man, or mere creature, should have this empire over all men and angels, and all creatures in the universe, or even should know them all, and have power over death, is as impossible to understand as the mystery of the incarnation, or that of the Trinity. But to guard us against this error, the inspired writers have taken care to inform us that he existed before he was born of Mary; before Abraham, John 8:58; before all things, Colossians 1:17; that he was loved by the Father, and had glory with him before the foundation of the world, John 17:5, 24. Nay, and, as the apostle here asserts, that the worlds were made by him. It is true, the word aiwnav, here used by the apostle, may be rendered ages, or dispensations; yet in Hebrews 11:3, it must mean, as it is rendered, worlds. And we know, from John 1:2, 3, 10; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6, and verse 10 of this chapter, that the Son of God did in fact make the worlds; and agreeably to the apostle’s words here, (God hath spoken unto us by his Son, by whom he made the worlds,) in their plain and literal meaning, he was the Son of God when the worlds were made by him. Accordingly, He, without whom was not any thing made that was made, is called the only-begotten of the Father, John 1:1-14, where see the notes. Therefore, the Son, as the Son, was before all worlds: and his glory reaches from everlasting to everlasting, though God spake by him to us only in these last days. This is the third fact of which the apostle proposes to discourse, namely, that the Author of the gospel, in consequence of his having made the worlds, is Heir, or Lord, and Governor of all. And although, after becoming man, he died, yet, being raised from the dead, he had the government of the world restored to him in the human nature. To the faithful, this is a source of the greatest consolation; because if the world is governed by their Master, he certainly hath power to protect and bless them; and every thing befalling them will issue in good to them. Besides, being the Judge as well as the Ruler of the world, he hath authority to acquit them at the judgment, and power to reward them for all the evils they have suffered on his account. This, that the author of the gospel is the Son of God, is the main hinge on which all the apostle’s subsequent arguments throughout the epistle turn, and this bears the stress of all his inferences; and, therefore, having mentioned it, he proceeds immediately to that description of him which gives evidence to all he deduces from this consideration.

Ver. 2. Hath in these last days, those new and good days foretold by the prophet. Joel 2:28. That old men should dream dreams, and young men should see visions; for God is not unmindful of his promises. Spoken unto us by his Son, as stated on Psalms 2:7Psalm 2:7. Matthew 3:17. 16:18. Acts 13:33. Romans 1:4. He is the heir of all things in heaven and earth, the Lord, the head, the prince of life and glory. By whom also he made the worlds. Aiwnav, secula, “the ages;” that is, he created, for so Paul quotes the Greek word of the LXX, in Acts 17:24. “God that made the world, and all things therein.” By ages then we understand the duration of all creatures, and all the diversities of dispensations in their government, for Christ is Lord of all, the Immortal of the Immortal.

The Arians endeavour to evade the force of this passage, by allowing that Christ has prepared or made the new ages of the church. This cannot be conceded; for the word is put absolutely, as the Hebrew µymlw[ always is used, when speaking of the Divine Being; and St. Paul also uses it in the same sense, in Hebrews 11:3. “Through faith we understand that the worlds (or ages) were framed by the Word of God.”

2. These last days—The English gives accurately the general sense of the peculiar phrase, ep’ escatou twn hmerwn toutwn, the ultimatum or finality of these days. We take it that ep’ escatou, at the finality, is the true antithesis to time past, or of old; and that of these… days defines the finality as consisting of these Messianic, in contrast to the old prophetic, days. So Delitzsch defines the phrase as signifying “for our author here, as for Peter, (1 Peter 1:20,) that ‘last time’ which he viewed as already begun, and as in process of unfolding itself before his eyes.” His Son— Greek, a son. The old seers were but prophets; this last is no less than a son. But inferentially, as the prophets were his prophets, so the son is no less than his Son. And how lofty a being, how infinitely superior to the prophets of old is this Son, Paul proceeds to unfold. Render the whole sentence thus: In many parts and by many methods God, having spoken to the fathers in the olden time by the prophets, has in the finality, consisting of these days, spoken unto us by a Son. There is in the sentence an elegant antithesis, consisting of a series of neatly adjusted contrastive terms. Compare remarks on Paul’s rhythmical passages in our vol. iii, p. 287, and our note on Romans 1:1. Perhaps there is not another as finely rounded a period in this epistle as this introductory one.

In the sublime three descriptive clauses that follow, the writer goes deeper and deeper at each step, if we may so express it, back into eternity. He traces his predicates regressively. First, the Son’s heirship of all things; preceded by his creation of all things; and that preceded by his inmost emanative identity with the divine Essence. The predicate phrase, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, is based upon, by whom also he made the worlds; and that upon the being and upholding of verse 3, all furnishing a description of the infinite superiority of the eternal Son. And, undoubtedly, we must here avail ourselves of the important distinction between “the order of nature” and “the order of time.” One eternal may, in the order of nature, precede another eternal. An eternal cause eternally precedes an eternal effect, as an eternal Father precedes an eternal Son. God’s eternal nature and person precede in order his foreknowledge, as his foreknowledge precedes his predeterminations. So the heirship of Christ, if eternal, is preceded by his creation of the worlds, which means not merely the production of planets and earths, but the eternal self-revelation of God in production of creature existence. And this creation is preceded by God’s self-expression in the eternal Word; or, as it is otherwise mentally conceived, the generation by the Father of the Son. We are now prepared to answer the questions here aroused before the commentators, When did the Son become heir of all things? And what are the all things of which he became heir? To the first question the answer has been made by many annotators that his heirship took place at the resurrection and ascension. And undoubtedly it did take place, for the divine-human Son, at that time; but that was only an objectivizing of the eternal heirship of the Logos of John and the Son of our present writer. More erroneous is the answer of some commentators, that it was an heirship in God’s eternal purpose, as if the Logos by whom (John 1:3) every thing became existent which has become, were not eternal Son, and, if Son, then heir. The back-ground of the divine Essence becomes manifest through the Word resulting in creation; which is existence different from the divine Being. Heir—Not simply lord, possessor, (which would be true of the Father,) but derived possessor, as Son of a Father, though a Father that never dies. All things—Not only earth, planets, suns, fixed stars, and nebulae, but all the real universe of which these are but external glimpses perceptible to our little optics. Were we endowed with an additional number of senses, vast additional volumes of God’s created universe would open before our perceptions and our knowledge. Worlds—All the mundane systems of which the universe ever consisted. As between the two terms, cosmos, frame-world, and aeon, time-world, the latter is here used. So that the term worlds, here, first suggests systems successive in time, and then by secondary implication, takes in their space-filling or frame-work character, if such they have. So, also, is the same word used at Hebrews 11:3. That this is the meaning is absolutely proved by ver. 10-12. If the reader compare these views of this passage with John 1:1-14; Colossians 1:15, and onwards; <501706> Philippians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 10:4; 15:47; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 8:9, he will reasonably infer that the author of Hebrews agrees with John and Paul in his views of the exalted nature of the Son, or Logos, in his pre-existent being. Having thus traced the heirship and creatorship of the Son, he now penetrates even more deeply into his essential relations to the divine Essence.

V. 3. Who sat down-The third of these glorious predicates, with which three other particulars are interwoven, which are mentioned likewise, and in the same order, Colossians 1:15, 17, 20.

Who, being-The glory which he received in his exaltation at the right hand of the Father no angel was capable of; but the Son alone, who likewise enjoyed it long before.

The brightness of his glory-Glory is the nature of God revealed in its brightness.

The express image-Or stamp. Whatever the Father is, is exhibited in the Son, as a seal in the stamp on wax.

Of his person-Or substance. The word denotes the unchangeable perpetuity of divine life and power.

And sustaining all things-Visible and invisible, in being. By the word of his power-That is, by his powerful word.

When he had by himself-Without any Mosaic rites or ceremonies. Purged our sins-In order to which it was necessary he should for a time divest himself of his glory. In this chapter St. Paul describes his glory chiefly as he is the Son of God; afterwards, Hebrews 2:6, &c., the glory of the man Christ Jesus. He speaks, indeed, briefly of the former before his humiliation, but copiously after his exaltation; as from hence the glory he had from eternity began to be evidently seen. Both his purging our sins, and sitting on the right hand of God, are largely treated of in the seven following chapters.

Sat down-The priests stood while they ministered: sitting, therefore, denotes the consummation of his sacrifice. This word, sat down, contains the scope, the theme, and the sum, of the epistle.

Verse 3. The brightness of his glory] apaugasma thv doxhv The resplendent outbeaming of the essential glory of God. Hesychius interprets apaugasma by hliou feggov, the splendour of the sun. The same form of expression is used by an apocryphal writer, Wisdom Wisdom 7:26, where, speaking of the uncreated wisdom of God, he says: “For she is the splendour of eternal light, apaugasma gar esti fwtov aidiou, and the unsullied mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness.” The word augasma is that which has splendour in itself apaugasma is the splendour emitted from it; but the inherent splendour and the exhibited splendour are radically and essentially the same.

The express image of his person] carakthr thv upostasewv autou. The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied. From these words it is evident, 1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the apaugasma, or proceeding splendour, must be the same with the augasma, or inherent splendour.

2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one augh, or splendour, produce another augh, or splendour, the produced splendour must be of the same essence with that which produces it.

3. That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendour of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other; as the augasma, or inherent splendour, cannot subsist without its apaugasma, or proceeding splendour, nor the proceeding splendour subsist without the inherent splendour from which it proceeds.

4. That Christ is eternal with the Father, as the proceeding splendour must necessarily be coexistent with the inherent splendour. If the one, therefore, be uncreated, the other is uncreated; if the one be eternal, the other is eternal.

Upholding all things by the word of his power] This is an astonishing description of the infinitely energetic and all pervading power of God. He spake, and all things were created; he speaks, and all things are sustained. The Jewish writers frequently express the perfection of the Divine nature by the phrases, He bears all things, both above and below; He carries all his creatures; He bears his world; He bears all worlds by his power. The Hebrews, to whom this epistle was written, would, from this and other circumstances, fully understand that the apostle believed Jesus Christ to be truly and properly God.

Purged our sins] There may be here some reference to the great transactions in the wilderness.

1. Moses, while in communion with God on the mount, was so impressed with the Divine glories that his face shone, so that the Israelites could not behold it. But Jesus is infinitely greater than Moses, for he is the splendour of God’s glory; and,

2. Moses found the government of the Israelites such a burden that he altogether sank under it. His words, Numbers 11:12, are very remarkable: Have I conceived all this people? Have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, CARRY them in thy BOSOM-unto the land which thou swearest unto their fathers? But Christ not only carried all the Israelites, and all mankind; but he upholds ALL THINGS by the word of his power.

3. The Israelites murmured against Moses and against God, and provoked the heavy displeasure of the Most High; and would have been consumed had not Aaron made an atonement for them, by offering victims and incense. But Jesus not only makes an atonement for Israel, but for the whole world; not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with his own blood: hence it is said that he purged our sins di autou, by himself his own body and life being the victim. It is very likely that the apostle had all these things in his eye when he wrote this verse; and takes occasion from them to show the infinite excellence of Jesus Christ when compared with Moses; and of his Gospel when compared with the law. And it is very likely that the Spirit of God, by whom he spoke, kept in view those maxims of the ancient Jews, concerning the Messiah, whom they represent as being infinitely greater than Abraham, the patriarchs, Moses, and the ministering angels. So Rabbi Tanchum, on Isaiah 52:13, Behold my servant shall deal prudently, says, jyvmh Ëlm hz Zeh melek hammashiach, this is the King Messiah; and shall be exalted, and be extolled, and be very high. “He shall be exalted above Abraham, and shall be extolled beyond Moses, and shall be more sublime than the ministering angels-.”See the preface. The right hand of the Majesty on high] As it were associated with the supreme Majesty, in glory everlasting, and in the government of all things in time and in eternity; for the right hand is the place of the greatest eminence, 1 Kings 2:19. The king himself, in eastern countries, sits on the throne; the next to him in the kingdom, and the highest favourite, sits on his right hand; and the third greatest personage, on his left.

Verse 3. Who being the brightness — Apaugasma, the effulgence, or out-beaming, or splendour; of his — The Father’s; glory — In Scripture, the glory of God signifies the perfections of God. See Romans 1:23; and in and by the Son of God, the glorious nature and attributes of the Father have shone forth probably to angels, at least to men; as on mount Sinai, when his voice shook the earth, (Hebrews 12:26,) in the tabernacle and temple. Compare Exodus 24:10 with John 1:18, and 1 Timothy 6:16. The divine glory, which was manifested to Isaiah in the vision recorded Isaiah 6:1-4, is expressly said, John 12:41, to have been the glory of Christ. This glory indeed was veiled in flesh when he became incarnate, yet he still possessed it, and it shone forth, in some degree, on many occasions, especially at his transfiguration, and even in his whole ministry; infinite wisdom manifesting itself in his discourses; almighty power in his miracles; unspeakable love in his benevolent actions; and holiness unparalleled in his spirit and conduct daily. So that he was fitly denominated the Holy One of God. And the express image — Stamp or delineation; of his person — Or substance, as upostasewv signifies. That is, he is one who has the whole nature of God in him, as he is his eternal Son; and declares and represents, in a most conspicuous manner, the divine properties to our faith and contemplation as incarnate: whatever the Father is, is exhibited in the Son as a seal in the stamp on wax. For the word carakthr, here rendered express image, properly signifies an image made by engraving, such as that on a seal; also the image which the seal makes on wax by impression. Phavorinus says, it is diatupwsiv dhlousa thn upostasin, a form, or draught, manifesting the substance whence it was taken. And the word upostasiv, rendered person, he says, is ousia meta twn idiwmatwn, the substance with the properties. So that the clause here, according to him, is a draught manifesting, or exhibiting the substance and properties of God. “According to the Greek commentators on the place,” says Whitby, “it is the same with our Lord’s being in the form of God before he took our nature on him.” See on <501706> Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15, where this is explained at large. And upholding — Ferwn, sustaining, or preserving and governing; all things — Visible and invisible. This expression is parallel to 1 Colossians 1:17, ta panta en autw sunesthke, by him all things consist. According to Pierce, the meaning of both passages is, that as the Son gave being to all things, so he maintains them in being. By the word of his power — That is, by his powerful word: in the same divine manner in which all things were created; for he only spake, and they were done. When he had by himself — By the sacrifice of himself, (Hebrews 9:26,) without any Mosaic rites or ceremonies; purged our sins — Kaqarismon poihsamenov, having effected a purification of them, or made atonement to satisfy the demands of divine justice. In order to which it was necessary he should for a time divest himself of his glory. This is the fourth fact treated of in this epistle, namely, that the Author of the gospel laid down his life a sacrifice for sin; of which, when offered, God declared his acceptance, by setting Jesus at his own right hand. The gospel, therefore, hath a priesthood and sacrifice more efficacious than the priesthood and sacrifices of the law taken together. For an expiation made by a person so great in himself, and so dear to God as his own Son, and made by the appointment of God, could not but be acceptable to him; consequently it must be a sure foundation for that hope of pardon, by which the gospel encourages sinners to repent. Sat down — The Jewish priests stood while they ministered: Christ’s being said to sit down, therefore, denotes the consummation of his sacrifice: on the right hand of the Majesty — Of God; on high — In the highest heavens. The apostle’s meaning is, that our Lord, after his ascension, was invested in the human nature with that visible glory and power which he enjoyed with God before the world, as mentioned by himself, John 17:5. Our Lord’s sitting down at the right hand of God is affirmed in this epistle no less than five different times, because it presupposes his resurrection from the dead, and implies his being put in possession of the highest authority in heaven, under the Father. Consequently it is a clear proof that he is really the Son of God. It must be observed, that in this chapter the apostle describes Christ’s glory chiefly as he is the Son of God; afterward, Hebrews 2:6, &c., the glory of the man Christ Jesus. He speaks indeed briefly of the former before his humiliation, but copiously after his exaltation; as from hence the glory he had from eternity began to be evidently seen. Both his purging our sins, and sitting on the right hand of God, are largely treated of in the seven following chapters.

Ver. 3. Who being the brightness of his glory, the existing splendour of his glory. Paul speaks here as the prophets, for every word would be weighed, and brought to the strictest analogy of faith. By the glory, the enlightened jew would understand the Messiah, the God of glory that appeared to Abraham. The King of glory, as in Psalms 24:7Psalm 24:7. The glory of the Lord that was to be revealed. Isaiah 40:5. 60:1. Beza well observes here, that we cannot contemplate the glory of the Father, except in the Son. And the express image of his Person. Carakthr thv upostasewv autou, “and character of his substance.” The note of Erasmus is, “And figure, as we may say, the express form of another, or the mark of the thing we desire impressed, as in wax. Augustine, in his book on the incarnation of the Word, for character understands the figure expressed. Jerome adduces this place in his commentary on Isaiah, and for character reads, form. Nothing is so proper to express the archetype as the image impressed by the seal. — This word, hypostasis, designates what subsists, and which the Greeks sometimes take for person.”

Christ thus subsists, the image of the Father’s wisdom, and power, and love. And how is it possible to divest this ever-subsisting glory of the Father, who comes, who goes, who hears, who speaks, of the idea of personality? No man should cavil at our plain words, unless he can give us better. — Who upholdeth all things by the word of his power; proof absolute that he made all things.

When he had by himself purged our sins. The great object of Christ’s coming into the world was to take away sin, by the shedding of his most precious blood. Almost all things, says this apostle, were by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission: Hebrews 9:22. Hence it was that David prayed, Purge me with hyssop, that is, with the sprinkling of blood, and I shall be clean; and hence also it is said, that the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 1:7. The death of Christ removes the penal effects of sin, and its application by faith takes away the guilt and pollution from the heart. The efficacy of Christ’s atonement for this purpose is here ascribed to the infinite dignity of his person: he “by himself” purged our sins. It was his divinity that gave worth and efficacy to his sufferings; it is his blood as “the Son of God” that cleanseth us from all sin. By his one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified, and there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin. This rejected, the sinner is lost beyond all hope of recovery. Having fulfilled this part of the priestly office, he entered the holy place, and took his seat on the right hand of the Majesty on high. <19B001>Psalm 110:1. The session of the Saviour at the right hand of God shows the work of our redemption to be complete, and that the removal of guilt is followed by all the glory of sanctifying grace, to prepare us for thrones in his heavenly kingdom. So we are everywhere taught. Ephesians 5:25-27. 2 Corinthians 7:1. Titus 2:14.

3. Brightness… glory—The relation of the Father to the Son is indicated as that of an essential glory to a brightness, or forth-beaming radiation. Hence the Nicene Creed styles the Son, “Light of light,” (fwv ek fwtov, literally, light out from light,) and pronounces the Father and Son to be of one substance, “consubstantial,” as light and light are one. Stuart asks if the sun and the rays proceeding from him are “consubstantial?” The reply is, that the body of the sun is material, whereas the glory, the pure “light,” is the very essence of God, and its radiations being also luminosity, are consubstantial with it. In place of the dark, material, central body of the sun, issuing its rays, is the central divine Essence, which, in the Miltonic phrase, is “dark with excessive bright,” yet unfolding its visible effulgence in the Son. Brightness—The Greek thus rendered is apaugasma, which may signify either, 1. A ray actually darting forth from the glory or luminosity; 2. A bright spot shed upon a surface upon which it alights; or,

3. A light-form; being the shape assumed by the collected beams in combination: a second emanative luminosity repeating the first luminosity. That this last is the meaning here is clear from such phrases as, (Colossians 1:4,) “image of the invisible God;” (<501405> Philippians 2:5,) “form of God,” on which passages see notes. This emanative nature of the apaugasma is ground for the use of the terms Son, Word, and, in the present epistle, Apostle. Hebrews 3:1, where see note. Express image—The image, here, is literally the figure or letters made upon a surface by a stamp. Hence, the relation between the Father and Son is here indicated by that between the stamp and the impress it fixes. This illustration, of course, touches only the two points of derivation and oneness. Person—More properly, substance; same word as in Hebrews 11:1, where see note. The eternal Son is the express image of the Father’s basis-reality, his essential being. The one is God permanent, and the other is God emanant. Upholding—As the ineffable Essence is the background, so the Word is its revelation in executive action. This Word is the eternal medium between the Essence and all external creations, both in bringing and maintaining them in existence. Word of his power—A more energetic phrase than “his powerful word,” as it is sometimes rendered. The emphasis is on his power, and its word is its expression in act. The Socinian explanation, referring it to the “Gospel,” is entirely out of place. As executive of the divine essential God, the Word is “the plastic Power” by which all the natural and typical forms of things in nature are shaped and endowed with properties and powers; and, assuming humanity, the Word becomes the shaping agent of all the primary realities of the moral realm. In the former he is incarnated as immanent deity in the material world; in the latter he is incarnated as immanent deity in the material body of a human person. Mr. Bushnell somewhere says, in effect, it is no more impossible for God to be incarnated in Christ than for him to be in-worlded in the cosmos. As Word, the divine Apostle is Lord of nature; as Son, he is King of nations and Head of the Church. Purged… sat—Transition now from the Son’s pre-existent state and being, to his incarnate manifestation and doings. Thus far the Son has been an emanation, an eternal apostle; now he becomes not only incarnate apostle, but HIGH PRIEST, Hebrews 3:1. Purged, more literally, having wrought a purification; that is, a purifying by his atonement as our priest. That purification is wrought by him potentially, once for all; it is actually appropriated in the individual by act of faith. By himself—And not, as symbolically under the old dispensation, by victims and sacrifices. Right hand—Note on Romans 8:34 and Acts 7:55. The image, derived, doubtless, from Psalm 110, alludes to the Oriental custom by which a prince or premier, or other most exalted subject, sits at the right side of the throne. The phrase is never applied to the pre-existent Son, but always implies his incarnation and his exaltation in his glorified humanity. On high—Greek, ‘En ‘uyhloiv, in high regions, the third heavens. On the heavens, see our note on 2 Corinthians 12:2. On relative locality of Father and Son, note, Acts 7:55, 56.

V. 4. This verse has two clauses, the latter of which is treated of, Hebrews 1:5; the former, Hebrews 1:13. Such transpositions are also found in the other epistles of St. Paul, but in none so frequently as in this. The Jewish doctors were peculiarly fond of this figure, and used it much in all their writings. The apostle therefore, becoming all things to all men, here follows the same method. All the inspired writers were readier in all the figures of speech than the most experienced orators. Being-By his exaltation, after he had been lower than them, Hebrews 2:9.

So much higher than the angels-It was extremely proper to observe this, because the Jews gloried in their law, as it was delivered by the ministration of angels. How much more may we glory in the gospel, which was given, not by the ministry of angels, but of the very Son of God! As he hath by inheritance a more excellent name-Because he is the Son of God, he inherits that name, in right whereof he inherits all things. His inheriting that name is more ancient than all worlds; his inheriting all things, as ancient as all things.

Than they-This denotes an immense pre-eminence. The angels do not inherit all things, but are themselves a portion of the Son's inheritance, whom they worship as their Lord.

Verse 4. So much better than the angels] Another argument in favour of the Divinity of our Lord. The Jews had the highest opinion of the transcendent excellence of angels, they even associate them with God in the creation of the world, and suppose them to be of the privy council of the Most High; and thus they understand Genesis 1:26: Let us make man in our own image, in our own likeness; “And the Lord said to the ministering angels that stood before him, and who were created the second day, Let us make man,” &c. See the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. And they even allow them to be worshipped for the sake of their Creator, and as his representatives; though they will not allow them to be worshipped for their own sake. As, therefore, the Jews considered them next to God, and none entitled to their adoration but God; on their own ground the apostle proves Jesus Christ to be God, because God commanded all the angels of heaven to worship him. He, therefore, who is greater than the angels, and is the object of their adoration, is God. But Jesus Christ is greater than the angels, and the object of their adoration; therefore Jesus Christ must be God.

By inheritance obtained] keklhronomhken onoma. The verb

klhronomein signifies generally to participate, possess, obtain, or acquire; and is so used by the purest Greek writers: Kypke has produced several examples of it from Demosthenes. It is not by inheritance that Christ possesses a more excellent name than angels, but as God: he has it naturally and essentially; and, as God manifested in the flesh, he has it in consequence of his humiliation, sufferings, and meritorious death. See <502609> Philippians 2:9.

Verses 4-6. Being made — Rather being; (for the word made is not implied in the original expression, genomenov;) so much better — Higher; than the angels — As the Jews gloried exceedingly in the law of Moses, on account of its being delivered by the ministry of angels, the apostle proves, by passages from the Jewish Scriptures, that the Son is superior in nature and dignity to all the angelical hosts. How much more then may we glory in the gospel, which was given, not by the ministry of angels, but by the very Son of God. As he hath by inheritance obtained — Greek, keklhronomhkhn, he hath inherited; a more excellent name than they — Namely, the name of Son; a name which he is said to inherit, because he really is God’s Son, and that in a sense in which no creature, man or angel, is his son. 1st, Not by adoption, regeneration, or title, as patriarchs, prophets, or any other saints might be his sons: for he is distinguished from all these, Mark 12:6. 2d, Not by the resurrection merely, by which the saints will hereafter be manifested to be the sons of God, Luke 20:36. For he was distinguished from Moses and Elias on the mount of transfiguration, who had both entered the immortal state, Matthew 17:6. 3d, Not by creation, as Adam was, (Luke 3:38,) and angels are God’s sons; for he is here represented as having a right to the name of Son by inheritance, which the angels have not. Hence he is termed the only- begotten of the Father; an expression which excludes from that honourable relation angels, and all other beings whatever. For unto which of the angels — Although sometimes termed in Scripture the sons of God, because created by him; said he at any time, Thou art my Son — God of God, Light of Light, the eternal Word of the eternal Father; this day have I begotten thee — Namely, in and from eternity; which, by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued unsuccessive day. See the note on Psalms 2:7Psalm 2:7. “It is true, because the angel said to his mother, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God; some contend that these words, Thou art my Son, &c.; are a prediction of our Lord’s miraculous conception. But on that supposition the argument taken from the name falls: for instead of proving Jesus superior to angels, his miraculous conception does not make him superior to Adam, who was as much the immediate work of God as Christ’s human nature was the immediate work of the Holy Ghost. Besides, he is said (John 3:17) to have been the Son of God before he was sent into the world;” and verse 2 of this chapter, when the worlds were made by him. See Macknight. And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son — I will own myself to be his Father, and him to be my Son, by eminent tokens of my peculiar love. “The former clause relates to his natural Sonship by an eternal inconceivable generation, the other to his Father’s acknowledgment and treatment of him as his incarnate Son: indeed this promise related immediately to Solomon, but in a far higher sense to the Messiah; applied to whom, it hath a very different meaning from what it had when applied to Solomon.” — Wesley. Understood of the Messiah, it is a prediction that God would, in the most public manner, declare Jesus his Son by voices from heaven uttered on different occasions, and by the descent of the Holy Ghost on him after his baptism, and by his resurrection from the dead. Whereas the same promise spoken concerning Solomon, means only that he was to be the object of God’s especial affection and care. Accordingly it was so explained in the revelation to David himself, 1 Chronicles 22:9; I will give him rest from all his enemies round about. And again — That is, in another passage of Scripture; when he bringeth in the first-begotten — Him who is before all creatures, Proverbs 8:24, 25; more excellent than all, Genesis 49:3; and Heir or Lord of all, Psalms 2:6Psalm 2:6, 8. The appellation first-begotten includes that of Son, together with the rights of primogeniture, which the first-begotten Son of God enjoys, in a manner not communicable to any creature; into the world — Namely, at his incarnation; he, God, saith, Let all the angels of God worship him — So much higher was he, when in his lowest estate, than the highest angel! “In the Hebrew text it is cal Elohim, which in our Bibles is rendered all ye gods. But the expression is elliptical, and may be supplied as the writer of this epistle hath done; all ye angels of God — In the 97th Psalm, whence it is commonly thought this quotation is made, the establishment of the kingdom of Christ is foretold, together with its happy influence in destroying idolatry. Because, in a few instances, the word Elohim, gods, denotes idols, this clause is translated by some, Worship him, all ye idols. But how can idols, most of whom are nonentities, worship the Son?”

Ver. 4. Being made so much better than the angels, inheriting all the glory of the Father, and all the glory of the mediatorial kingdom. Kreittwn designates not only better, but more excellent and powerful, in regard of his exaltation; for the glory is his own, both regal and priestly. In regard also of the divine nature, the glory is his own for ever. His name is ineffable and unutterable, as Agur has noted. Proverbs 30:4. What is his name, and what his Son’s name, if thou canst tell?

4. Being made—Rather, having become; a state which had a commencement, as the being of verse 3 is a state without commencement. This being made, takes place in the incarnate exaltation, as the made a little lower than the angels, of Hebrews 2:9, takes place in the incarnate humiliation. By inheritance—From an undying Father. Name— Rather, dignity embraced in the name of Son. It was by power of his eternal inheritance (v. 2) as Son that he passed through the humiliation of the incarnation, and attained an incarnate exaltation above angelic rank.

2. Proof of this transcendence from Old Testament texts, 5-14.

V. 5. Thou art my Son-God of God, Light of Light.

This day have I begotten thee-I have begotten thee from eternity, which, by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued, unsuccessive day.

I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son-I will own myself to be his Father, and him to be my Son, by eminent tokens of my peculiar love The former clause relates to his natural Sonship, by an eternal, inconceivable generation; the other, to his Father's acknowledgment and treatment of him as his incarnate Son. Indeed this promise related immediately to Solomon, but in a far higher sense to the Messiah. Psalms 2:7Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14

Verse 5. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee] These words are quoted from Psalms 2:7Psalm 2:7, a psalm that seems to refer only to the Messiah; and they are quoted by St. Paul, Acts 13:33, as referring to the resurrection of Christ. And this application of them is confirmed by the same apostle, Romans 1:4, as by his resurrection from the dead he was declared-manifestly proved, to be the Son of God with power; God having put forth his miraculous energy in raising that body from the grave which had truly died, and died a violent death, for Christ was put to death as a malefactor, but by his resurrection his innocence was demonstrated, as God could not work a miracle to raise a wicked man from the dead. As Adam was created by God, and because no natural generation could have any operation in this case, therefore he was called the son of God, Luke 3:38, and could never have seen corruption if he had not sinned, so the human nature of Jesus Christ, formed by the energy of the eternal Spirit in the womb of the virgin, without any human intervention, was for this very reason called the Son of God, Luke 1:35; and because it had not sinned, therefore it could not see corruption, nor was it even mortal, but through a miraculous display of God’s infinite love, for the purpose of making a sacrificial atonement for the sin of the world and God, having raised this sacrificed human nature from the dead, declared that same Jesus (who was, as above stated, the Son of God) to be his Son, the promised Messiah; and as coming by the Virgin Mary, the right heir to the throne of David, according to the uniform declaration of all the prophets. The words, This day have I begotten thee, must refer either to his incarnation, when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit; or to his resurrection from the dead, when God, by this sovereign display of his almighty energy, declared him to be his Son, vindicated his innocence, and also the purity and innocence of the blessed virgin, who was the mother of this son, and who declared him to be produced in her womb by the power of God. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, to which the words most properly refer, not only gave the fullest proof that he was an innocent and righteous man, but also that he had accomplished the purpose for which he died, and that his conception was miraculous, and his mother a pure and unspotted virgin. This is a subject of infinite importance to the Christian system, and of the last consequence in reference to the conviction and conversion of the Jews, for whose use this epistle was sent by God. Here is the rock on which they split; they deny this Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and their blasphemies against him and his virgin mother are too shocking to be transcribed. The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus refutes their every calumny; proves his miraculous conception; vindicates the blessed virgin; and, in a word, declares him to be the Son of God with power.

This most important use of this saying has passed unnoticed by almost every Christian writer which I have seen; and yet it lies here at the foundation of all the apostle’s proofs. If Jesus was not thus the Son of God, the whole Christian system is vain and baseless: but his resurrection demonstrates him to have been the Son of God; therefore every thing built on this foundation is more durable than the foundations of heaven, and as inexpungable as the throne of the eternal King.

He shall be to me a Son?] As the Jews have ever blasphemed against the Sonship of Christ, it was necessary that the apostle should adduce and make strong all his proofs, and show that this was not a new revelation; that it was that which was chiefly intended in several scriptures of the Old Testament, which, without farther mentioning the places where found, he immediately produces. This place, which is quoted from 2 Samuel 7:14, shows us that the seed which God promised to David, and who was to sit upon his throne, and whose throne should be established for ever, was not Solomon, but Jesus Christ; and indeed he quotes the words so as to intimate that they were so understood by the Jews. See among the observations at the end of the chapter.

Verses 4-6. Being made — Rather being; (for the word made is not implied in the original expression, genomenov;) so much better — Higher; than the angels — As the Jews gloried exceedingly in the law of Moses, on account of its being delivered by the ministry of angels, the apostle proves, by passages from the Jewish Scriptures, that the Son is superior in nature and dignity to all the angelical hosts. How much more then may we glory in the gospel, which was given, not by the ministry of angels, but by the very Son of God. As he hath by inheritance obtained — Greek, keklhronomhkhn, he hath inherited; a more excellent name than they — Namely, the name of Son; a name which he is said to inherit, because he really is God’s Son, and that in a sense in which no creature, man or angel, is his son. 1st, Not by adoption, regeneration, or title, as patriarchs, prophets, or any other saints might be his sons: for he is distinguished from all these, Mark 12:6. 2d, Not by the resurrection merely, by which the saints will hereafter be manifested to be the sons of God, Luke 20:36. For he was distinguished from Moses and Elias on the mount of transfiguration, who had both entered the immortal state, Matthew 17:6. 3d, Not by creation, as Adam was, (Luke 3:38,) and angels are God’s sons; for he is here represented as having a right to the name of Son by inheritance, which the angels have not. Hence he is termed the only- begotten of the Father; an expression which excludes from that honourable relation angels, and all other beings whatever. For unto which of the angels — Although sometimes termed in Scripture the sons of God, because created by him; said he at any time, Thou art my Son — God of God, Light of Light, the eternal Word of the eternal Father; this day have I begotten thee — Namely, in and from eternity; which, by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued unsuccessive day. See the note on Psalms 2:7Psalm 2:7. “It is true, because the angel said to his mother, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God; some contend that these words, Thou art my Son, &c.; are a prediction of our Lord’s miraculous conception. But on that supposition the argument taken from the name falls: for instead of proving Jesus superior to angels, his miraculous conception does not make him superior to Adam, who was as much the immediate work of God as Christ’s human nature was the immediate work of the Holy Ghost. Besides, he is said (John 3:17) to have been the Son of God before he was sent into the world;” and verse 2 of this chapter, when the worlds were made by him. See Macknight. And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son — I will own myself to be his Father, and him to be my Son, by eminent tokens of my peculiar love. “The former clause relates to his natural Sonship by an eternal inconceivable generation, the other to his Father’s acknowledgment and treatment of him as his incarnate Son: indeed this promise related immediately to Solomon, but in a far higher sense to the Messiah; applied to whom, it hath a very different meaning from what it had when applied to Solomon.” — Wesley. Understood of the Messiah, it is a prediction that God would, in the most public manner, declare Jesus his Son by voices from heaven uttered on different occasions, and by the descent of the Holy Ghost on him after his baptism, and by his resurrection from the dead. Whereas the same promise spoken concerning Solomon, means only that he was to be the object of God’s especial affection and care. Accordingly it was so explained in the revelation to David himself, 1 Chronicles 22:9; I will give him rest from all his enemies round about. And again — That is, in another passage of Scripture; when he bringeth in the first-begotten — Him who is before all creatures, Proverbs 8:24, 25; more excellent than all, Genesis 49:3; and Heir or Lord of all, Psalms 2:6Psalm 2:6, 8. The appellation first-begotten includes that of Son, together with the rights of primogeniture, which the first-begotten Son of God enjoys, in a manner not communicable to any creature; into the world — Namely, at his incarnation; he, God, saith, Let all the angels of God worship him — So much higher was he, when in his lowest estate, than the highest angel! “In the Hebrew text it is cal Elohim, which in our Bibles is rendered all ye gods. But the expression is elliptical, and may be supplied as the writer of this epistle hath done; all ye angels of God — In the 97th Psalm, whence it is commonly thought this quotation is made, the establishment of the kingdom of Christ is foretold, together with its happy influence in destroying idolatry. Because, in a few instances, the word Elohim, gods, denotes idols, this clause is translated by some, Worship him, all ye idols. But how can idols, most of whom are nonentities, worship the Son?”

Ver. 5. Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? Here the ineffable generation of the only- begotten is designated, in which angels have no share. Neither have they a participation in the name, and the glory of the only-begotten of the Father. Neither was the incommunicable name of Jehovah ever given to a creature, as it is to Christ. Exodus 3:15. Jeremiah 23. 6.

5. For—To prove this superiority of the eternal Son over the angels, our author now quotes six texts from the Old Testament. The modern interpreter, especially of the rationalistic type, finds not a little difficulty in applying these passages to Christ. But if, as in our Introduction we have indicated, the very purpose of our inspired apostle is to take the Alexandrian interpreters at their own word, and confirm all their brightest ascriptions and descriptions of the eternal Word, and affirm them of Christ, and thence show with what a glory even his humiliations are thereby irradiated, little difficulty need be felt in the interpretations here given. Says Delitzsch, “This epistle forms a link between the later Pauline epistles and the writings of John, and excels all others in the New Testament in the abundance of what cannot be merely accidental resemblances to Alexandrine modes of thought and expression. To us, indeed, it seems indisputable that the Jewish theology of the last few centuries before Christ, in Palestine, and more especially in Alexandria, did manifest many foregleams of that fuller light which was thrown on divine things in general, and on the triune nature of the Godhead in particular, by the great evangelical facts of redemption; nor can the admission that so it was prove a stumbling block to any but those who think that the long chain of divine preparations for the coming of Christ, on which the whole outward and inward history of Israel is strung, must have been broken off abruptly with the last book of the Old Testament canon. Is it, then, possible that the Book of Wisdom (7:26) should speak of the Sophia as apaugasma fwtov aidiou—a beaming forth of the eternal light (Philo, De Cherub) of God—as arcetupov augh, archetypal splendour; and now our author of Him who was manifested in Jesus as apaugasma thv doxhv autou, without these several terms having any internal historical connexion?” At any time—Though angels are incidentally called sons, this is not their permanent name as significant of their nature. No one angel is ever mentioned or addressed as Son. Thou—Quoted from Psalm ii, where see notes. The psalm was applied by the Jewish commentators to the Messiah as well as by the Jerusalem Church. Acts 4:25. This day—As addressed by the Author to a human Son, anointed to be king in Zion, the phrase is of course temporal. It means “This day [it stands true that] I have [from eternity] begotten thee.” Even here, therefore, it does not mean that the exaltation and anointing are identical in time with the begetting. And this seems to refute those who in its higher application to Christ refer the begetting to his resurrection or to his incarnation.

V. 6. And again-That is, in another scripture.

He-God.

Saith, when he bringeth in his first-begotten-This appellation includes that of Son, together with the rights of primogeniture, which the first-begotten Son of God enjoys, in a manner not communicable to any creature.

Into the world-Namely, at his incarnation.

He saith, Let all the angels of God worship him-So much higher was he, when in his lowest estate, than the highest angel. Psalms 97:7Psalm 97:7.

Verse 6. And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten] This is not a correct translation of the Greek, oJtan de palin eisagagh ton prwtotokon eiv thn oikoumenhn. But when he bringeth again, or the second time, the first-born into the habitable world. This most manifestly refers to his resurrection, which might be properly considered a second incarnation; for as the human soul, as well as the fulness of the Godhead bodily, dwelt in the man, Christ Jesus on and during his incarnation, so when he expired upon the cross, both the Godhead and the human spirit left his dead body; and as on his resurrection these were reunited to his revivified manhood, therefore, with the strictest propriety, does the apostle say that the resurrection was a second bringing of him into the world. I have translated oikoumenh the habitable world, and this is its proper meaning; and thus it is distinguished from kosmov, which signifies the terraqueous globe, independently of its inhabitants; though it often expresses both the inhabited and uninhabited parts. Our Lord’s first coming into the world is expressed by this latter word, Hebrews 10:5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, dio eisercomenov eiv ton kosmov, and this simply refers to his being incarnated, that he might be capable of suffering and dying for man. But the word is changed on this second coming, I mean his resurrection, and then oikoumenh is used; and why? (fancy apart) because he was now to dwell with man; to send his gospel everywhere to all the inhabitants of the earth, and to accompany that Gospel wherever he sent it, and to be wherever two or three should be gathered together in his name. Wherever the messengers of Jesus Christ go, preaching the kingdom of God, even to the farthest and most desolate parts of the earth where human beings exist, there they ever find Christ; he is not only in them, and with them, but he is in and among all who believe on him through their word.

Let all the angels of God worship him.] The apostle recurs here to his former assertion, that Jesus is higher than the angels, Hebrews 1:4, that he is none of those who can be called ordinary angels or messengers, but one of the most extraordinary kind, and the object of worship to all the angels of God. To worship any creature is idolatry, and God resents idolatry more than any other evil. Jesus Christ can be no creature, else the angels who worship him must be guilty of idolatry, and God the author of that idolatry, who commanded those angels to worship Christ. There has been some difficulty in ascertaining the place from which the apostle quotes these words; some suppose Psalms 97:7Psalm 97:7: Worship him, all ye gods; which the Septuagint translate thus: proskunhsate autw, pantev aggeloi autou. Worship him, all ye his angels; but it is not clear that the Messiah is intended in this psalm, nor are the words precisely those used here by the apostle. Our marginal references send us with great propriety to the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, where the passage is found verbatim et literatim; but there is nothing answering to the words in the present Hebrew text. The apostle undoubtedly quoted the Septuagint, which had then been for more than 300 years a version of the highest repute among the Jews; and it is very probable that the copy from which the Seventy translated had the corresponding words. However this may be, they are now sanctioned by Divine authority; and as the verse contains some singular additions, I will set it down in a parallel column with that of our own version, which was taken immediately from the Hebrew text, premising simply this, that it is the last verse of the famous prophetic song of Moses, which seems to point out the advent of the Messiah to discomfit his enemies, purify the land, and redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

Deuteronomy 32:43,

from the Hebrew.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Rejoice, O

ye nations, with his people; .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .for he will

avenge the blood of his

servants; . . . and will render

vengeance to his

adversaries: . and . . will be

merciful to his land and to

his people.

Deuteronomy 32:43, from the

Septuagint.

Rejoice, ye heaven, together with

him; and let all the angels of God

worship him. Rejoice, ye Gentiles,

with his people; and let the children

of God be strengthened in him; for

he will avenge the blood of his

children; he will avenge, and will

repay judgment to his adversaries;

and those who hate him will he

recompense: and the Lord will purge

the land of his people.

This is a very important verse; and to it, as it stands in the Septuagint, St. Paul has referred once before; see Romans 15:10. This very verse, as it stands now in the Septuagint, thus referred to by an inspired writer, shows the great importance of this ancient version; and proves the necessity of its being studied and well understood by every minister of Christ. In Rom. 3: there is a large quotation-from Psalm 14:, where there are six whole verses in the apostle’s quotation which are not found in the present Hebrew text, but are preserved in the Septuagint! How strange it is that this venerable and important version, so often quoted by our Lord and all his apostles, should be so generally neglected, and so little known! That the common people should be ignorant of it, is not to be wondered at, as it has never been put in an English dress; but that the ministers of the Gospel should be unacquainted with it may be spoken to their shame.

Verses 4-6. Being made — Rather being; (for the word made is not implied in the original expression, genomenov;) so much better — Higher; than the angels — As the Jews gloried exceedingly in the law of Moses, on account of its being delivered by the ministry of angels, the apostle proves, by passages from the Jewish Scriptures, that the Son is superior in nature and dignity to all the angelical hosts. How much more then may we glory in the gospel, which was given, not by the ministry of angels, but by the very Son of God. As he hath by inheritance obtained — Greek, keklhronomhkhn, he hath inherited; a more excellent name than they — Namely, the name of Son; a name which he is said to inherit, because he really is God’s Son, and that in a sense in which no creature, man or angel, is his son. 1st, Not by adoption, regeneration, or title, as patriarchs, prophets, or any other saints might be his sons: for he is distinguished from all these, Mark 12:6. 2d, Not by the resurrection merely, by which the saints will hereafter be manifested to be the sons of God, Luke 20:36. For he was distinguished from Moses and Elias on the mount of transfiguration, who had both entered the immortal state, Matthew 17:6. 3d, Not by creation, as Adam was, (Luke 3:38,) and angels are God’s sons; for he is here represented as having a right to the name of Son by inheritance, which the angels have not. Hence he is termed the only- begotten of the Father; an expression which excludes from that honourable relation angels, and all other beings whatever. For unto which of the angels — Although sometimes termed in Scripture the sons of God, because created by him; said he at any time, Thou art my Son — God of God, Light of Light, the eternal Word of the eternal Father; this day have I begotten thee — Namely, in and from eternity; which, by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued unsuccessive day. See the note on Psalms 2:7Psalm 2:7. “It is true, because the angel said to his mother, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God; some contend that these words, Thou art my Son, &c.; are a prediction of our Lord’s miraculous conception. But on that supposition the argument taken from the name falls: for instead of proving Jesus superior to angels, his miraculous conception does not make him superior to Adam, who was as much the immediate work of God as Christ’s human nature was the immediate work of the Holy Ghost. Besides, he is said (John 3:17) to have been the Son of God before he was sent into the world;” and verse 2 of this chapter, when the worlds were made by him. See Macknight. And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son — I will own myself to be his Father, and him to be my Son, by eminent tokens of my peculiar love. “The former clause relates to his natural Sonship by an eternal inconceivable generation, the other to his Father’s acknowledgment and treatment of him as his incarnate Son: indeed this promise related immediately to Solomon, but in a far higher sense to the Messiah; applied to whom, it hath a very different meaning from what it had when applied to Solomon.” — Wesley. Understood of the Messiah, it is a prediction that God would, in the most public manner, declare Jesus his Son by voices from heaven uttered on different occasions, and by the descent of the Holy Ghost on him after his baptism, and by his resurrection from the dead. Whereas the same promise spoken concerning Solomon, means only that he was to be the object of God’s especial affection and care. Accordingly it was so explained in the revelation to David himself, 1 Chronicles 22:9; I will give him rest from all his enemies round about. And again — That is, in another passage of Scripture; when he bringeth in the first-begotten — Him who is before all creatures, Proverbs 8:24, 25; more excellent than all, Genesis 49:3; and Heir or Lord of all, Psalms 2:6Psalm 2:6, 8. The appellation first-begotten includes that of Son, together with the rights of primogeniture, which the first-begotten Son of God enjoys, in a manner not communicable to any creature; into the world — Namely, at his incarnation; he, God, saith, Let all the angels of God worship him — So much higher was he, when in his lowest estate, than the highest angel! “In the Hebrew text it is cal Elohim, which in our Bibles is rendered all ye gods. But the expression is elliptical, and may be supplied as the writer of this epistle hath done; all ye angels of God — In the 97th Psalm, whence it is commonly thought this quotation is made, the establishment of the kingdom of Christ is foretold, together with its happy influence in destroying idolatry. Because, in a few instances, the word Elohim, gods, denotes idols, this clause is translated by some, Worship him, all ye idols. But how can idols, most of whom are nonentities, worship the Son?”

Ver. 6. Let all the angels of God worship him. Not only are all men required to honour the Son even as they honour the Father, but the angels in heaven are commanded to worship him. Those intelligences being called Elohim in the Hebrew, and gods in the Greek, it is also said, “worship him all ye gods.” Thus we read in Psalms 97:9Psalm 97:9. Thou Lord art high above all the earth; thou art exalted far above all gods. D. Kimchi admits that the course of psalms from 93. to 102. regard the mysteries of the Messiah; and so we understand the chariots of the Lord which were with him on Sinai; and the host of angels carolling his nativity to the shepherds. Luke 2:11.

6. And—As the last verse touches the coronation of the eternal Son, so this verse describes his induction into the rule of the world. Again— Understood by our translators and by many commentators as correlated to the again of the last verse, as introducing a superadded quotation. Others make it qualify bringeth in; as if reading, when he again bringeth in; as referring to some second being, brought in after a first. Alford and Delitzsch refer it to the second advent; very arbitrarily, for it needs some previous mention of the first advent to make it allowable. If a second bringing into the inhabited world is to be supposed, then we should refer it to his resurrection, which was the time of a return and of exaltation, closing the period of his humiliation. See note on Matthew 28:18. Then all power in heaven and in earth was given unto him. So Ephesians 1:19, 20: “He raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named,” etc. Then, of course, was fulfilled the requirement on all supernal powers to do him homage. But to describe the second advent as a bringing of the Son into the world is entirely unbiblical. First-begotten—Because eternally begotten. For even if God has been eternally engaged in creating, still the Son is in order of nature first. And when the Son is called first-begotten, it is implied both that his being begotten is prior in order and superior in nature; for creation and formation are in a lower sense figured as generation. And it is as first-begotten that he is, by the divine primogeniture, heir. Verse 1. So he is firstborn of every creature, Colossians 1:15; firstborn among earthly rulers, Psalms 89:27Psalm 89:27; firstborn from the dead, Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5. Here the term stands alone, and it alludes to the this day, that is, primordially, have I begotten thee, (of the last verse,) as God manifest, prior to and above all created things. World—Not cosmos, or frame-world, nor aeon, or time-world; but oikoumene, the inhabited earth. He [God] saith—Quoted, perhaps, from Psalms 97:7Psalm 97:7, which reads in the Septuagint, “Worship him, all his angels.” Yet the precise words are found in the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 32:43, which the Jewish doctors held also Messianic. Indeed, Delitzsch maintains that in the Old Testament, Jehovah, when described as coming, manifestive, administering the affairs of the world, implies Jehovah, the Word, the Son, the ultimate Messiah. The words in Deuteronomy are in the Seventy, but not in the Hebrew. They may, indeed, be supposed to have been in the Hebrew copy used by the Septuagint translators, but dropped out from other copies. They may have been transferred from the psalm, being, perhaps, an essentially accurate reading in some copy of the Septuagint, and even in the copy used by our author. More probably the addition to the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:42 is made up from Isaiah 44:33, Psalm 117:7, and Psalms 29:1Psalm 29:1, springing probably from the liturgical use in the Jewish synagogue of the song of Moses, that is, its use in the chanting of the song in the public worship. Our author, therefore, even if quoting a superaddition to the song, quotes a superaddition acknowledged by his readers, and really made up of inspired words. All the psalms from 93 to 150 were by the Jews held predictive of the Messiah. Psalm 97 is an expansion of our author’s words in verse 2, appointed heir of all things. This quotation is an expansion, also, of Psalms 2:7Psalm 2:7-12, which all confess, who confess any Messiah, to be Messianic. It describes the firstborn, the eternal Son, as God manifest, ruling over nature and overruling all things to the highest ultimate moral good. And when, by the Father, he is thus installed over all, the very highest intelligences are required to do him homage.

In our English version, as in the Hebrew, Psalms 97:7Psalm 97:7 reads, “Worship him, all ye gods;” and the connexion indicates the idea that the heathen deities are to submit to Jehovah. In accordance with the idea that behind the idol there is a demon, the Jewish Church preferred to extend the term to include all supernaturals. Stuart shows that elohim (gods) is a term repeatedly rendered in the Septuagint by angel, as Job 20:15; Psalms 8:6Psalm 8:6; 137:1. The writer of Hebrews does the same in 2:7, in quoting Psalms 8:6Psalm 8:6, as he does in this present verse.

V. 7. Who maketh his angels-This implies, they are only creatures, whereas the Son is eternal, Hebrews 1:8; and the Creator himself, Hebrews 1:10.

Spirits and a flame of fire-Which intimates not only their office, but also their nature; which is excellent indeed, the metaphor being taken from the most swift, subtle, and efficacious things on earth; but nevertheless infinitely below the majesty of the Son. <19A404>Psalm 104:4.

Verse 7. Who maketh his angels spirits] They are so far from being superior to Christ, that they are not called God’s sons in any peculiar sense, but his servants, as tempests and lightnings are. In many respects they may have been made inferior even to man as he came out of the hands of his Maker, for he was made in the image and likeness of God; but of the angels, even the highest order of them, this is never spoken. It is very likely that the apostle refers here to the opinions of the Jews relative to the angels. In Pirkey R. Elieser, c. 4, it is said: “The angels which were created the second day, when they minister before God, va lv נעשין become fire.” In Shemoth Rabba, s. 25, fol. 123, it is said: “God is named the Lord of hosts, because with his angels he doth whatsoever he wills: when he pleases, he makes them sit down; Judges 6:11: And the angel of the Lord came, and sat under a tree. When he pleases, he causes them to stand; Isaiah 6:2: The seraphim stood. Sometimes he makes them like women; Zecariah 5:9: Behold there came two women, and the wind was in their wings. Sometimes he makes them like men; Genesis 18:2: And, lo, three men stood by him. Sometimes he makes them spirits; <19A404>Psalm 104:4: Who maketh his angels spirits. Sometimes he makes them fire; ibid. His ministers a flame of fire.”

In Yalcut Simeoni, par. 2, fol. 11, it is said: “The angel answered Manoah, I know not in whose image I am made, for God changeth us every hour: sometimes he makes us fire, sometimes spirit, sometimes men, and at other times angels.” It is very probable that those who are termed angels are not confined to any specific form or shape, but assume various forms and appearances according to the nature of the work on which they are employed and the will of their sovereign employer. This seems to have been the ancient Jewish doctrine on this subject.

Verses 7-9. Of the angels — Speaking of them; he — David; saith, Who maketh — Or rather, who made; his angels spirits, &c. — That is, the greatest thing said of angels is, that they are beings not clogged with flesh, and who are zealous and active in the service of God like flames of fire. The expressions intimate not only their office, but also their nature, which is very excellent; the metaphor being taken from the most swift, subtle, and efficacious things on earth; but, nevertheless, infinitely below the majesty of the Son. For unto the Son he saith — Of him the psalmist speaks in more exalted language, expressive of his sovereign, universal, and everlasting dominion, saying, Thy throne — That is, thy reign, which the word throne implies; O God, is for ever and ever — These words are quoted from the 45th Psalm, which, in the opinion of “some commentators, was composed concerning Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter. But could Solomon, with any propriety, be addressed by the title of God? Or could it be said of him that his kingdom, which lasted only forty years, was eternal? It was not even eternal in his posterity; and with respect to his loving righteousness, and hating wickedness, it but ill applies to one who, in his old age, became an encourager of idolatry, through the influence of women. This Psalm, therefore, is applicable only to Christ. Further, Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter being expressly condemned as contrary to the law, (1 Kings 11:2,) to suppose that this Psalm was composed in honour of that event, is certainly an ill-founded imagination. The rabbins, in their commentaries, affirm that it was written wholly concerning the Messiah. Accordingly, they translate the title of the Psalm as we do, A Song of Loves: the LXX., wdh uper tou agaphtou, a song concerning the Beloved: a title justly given to the Messiah, whom God, by voices from heaven, declared his beloved Son.” — Macknight. Pierce says, “They who imagine this Psalm is an epithalamium upon Solomon’s marrying Pharaoh’s daughter, must suppose that it is here foretold that Solomon was to have a numerous progeny by her, whom he should set up for princes up and down the world, by one of whom he should be succeeded, verse 16, Instead of thy father shall be thy children, when thou mayest make princes in all the earth. But this cannot be true; for besides that we read not of any children Solomon had by Pharaoh’s daughter, it is certain that Rehoboam, who succeeded him, was the son of Naamah, an Ammonitess, 2 Chronicles 12:13. And so far was he from being able to set his sons to rule over other countries, that it was with great difficulty his successors kept two tribes of the twelve steadfast to them. The whole tenor of the Psalm directs us plainly to understand it of some excellent prince, who was highly favoured of God, and not of such a degenerate one as Solomon became, God also having testified his displeasure against him. Further, how unlikely is it that verse 2 should be understood of Solomon? Nothing could be more suitably said of Christ than what we there meet with: Grace is poured into thy lips, therefore God hath blessed thee for ever: but was such language fit to be used concerning a man who became a most notorious idolater? Was not the promise conditional that was made to Solomon of blessedness, and had he not forfeited it by breaking the condition? The last verse of the Psalm seems also very unlikely to belong to Solomon: I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations; therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever. Certainly a greater than Solomon is here: and the primitive Christians were much in the right, who universally agreed in applying the Psalm to Christ, and him only.” See notes on Psalm 45.

A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom — That is, thy reign, of which the sceptre is the ensign, is full of justice and equity. Or, thy government is exercised for maintaining truth and righteousness in the world. Thou hast loved righteousness, &c. — Thou art infinitely pure and holy; therefore God — Who, as thou art Mediator, is thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness — With the Holy Ghost, the fountain of joy; above thy fellows — Above all the children of men. For God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him, John 3:34. In other words, God bestowed on him, as a prophet, priest, and king, endowments, whereby he excelled all his associates (as metocoi signifies) in those offices. “Anciently, kings, priests, and prophets were consecrated to their several offices by the ceremony of solemn unction with perfumed oil, called in the Psalm the oil of gladness, because it occasioned great joy, both to the person anointed, and to those who were present at the ceremony. Wherefore the Son, being appointed of God to the high offices of universal King, Priest, and Prophet among men, he is called, by way of eminence, the Lord’s Messiah, Christ, or Anointed One. But the oil with which God anointed or consecrated him to these offices was not any material oil, nor was the unction external, but internal, with the Holy Ghost. We may therefore understand the Psalm as a prediction of the descent of the Holy Ghost on Jesus at his baptism, whereby was signified God’s giving him the Spirit without measure.”

Ver. 7. Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. Faisant les vents ses anges, et la flamme de feu ses ministres; making the winds his angels, and the flame of fire his ministers. We cannot follow this reading, though it has some support from good authors; for by spirits, angels are understood; and by flame, the cherubim or burning ones are designated, as in Isaiah 6:2. Such also are the ideas in Psalms 18:10Psalm 18:10, when he rode in his chariot, on the wings of the wind, the cherubim and the seraphim attended in his cloud. All these are servants, but Christ is the Son.

7. And—We have here (7-9) another contrast between angels and the Son. The former are but natural instruments, the latter is God, ruling in righteousness, forever. Spirits—Rather, winds; and thus we have the parallelism, maketh his angels winds, and his servants a flame of fire. Angels are so made that they may transform themselves into, and serve the work of, winds, and of lightning flashes or atmospheric blazes. Our author’s exact words are found in the Alexandrian Septuagint. The Hebrew at first seems to have a slightly different sense. <19A404> Psalm 104:4. In that

psalm, verse 3 says, “who maketh the clouds his chariot,” and hence some infer that this cited verse should read, he maketh the winds his messengers, which would exclude any reference to literal angels. But, in fact, in the verse cited, the Hebrew reverses the order of the words of verse 3, and reads, maketh his angels winds, which is the true rendering. Alford gives quotations from Schottgen and Wetstein showing that our author gives the meaning as held by the Jewish Church. Schemoth Rabba, § 25, fol. 123, 3, says, “God is called God of hosts, because he does with his angels whatsoever he wills. Whensoever he wills he makes them sitting; (Judges 6:11;) sometimes he makes them standing; (Isaiah 6:2;) sometimes he makes them similar to women; (Zechariah 5:9;) sometimes to men; (Genesis 18:2;) sometimes he makes them winds, (<19A404>

Psalm 104:4,) the citation of the present verse. Sometimes fire, ibidem.”

V. 8. O God-God, in the singular number, is never in scripture used absolutely of any but the supreme God.

Thy reign, of which the sceptre is the ensign, is full of justice and equity. Psalms 45:6Psalm 45:6, 7.

Verse 8. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever] If this be said of the Son of God, i.e. Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ must be God; and indeed the design of the apostle is to prove this. The words here quoted are taken from Psalms 45:6Psalm 45:6, 7, which the ancient Chaldee paraphrast, and the most intelligent rabbins, refer to the Messiah. On the third verse of this Psalm, Thou art fairer than the children of men, the Targum says: “Thy beauty, ajyvm aklm malca Meshicha, O King Messiah, is greater than the children of men.” Aben Ezra says: “This Psalm speaks of David, or rather of his son, the Messiah, for this is his name,” Ezekiel 34:24: And David my servant shall be a Prince over them for ever. Other rabbins confirm this opinion.

This verse is very properly considered a proof, and indeed a strong one, of the Divinity of Christ; but some late versions of the New Testament have endeavoured to avoid the evidence of this proof by translating the words thus: God is thy throne for ever and ever; and if this version be correct, it is certain the text can be no proof of the doctrine. Mr. Wakefield vindicates this translation at large in his History of Opinions; and o qeov, being the nominative case, is supposed to be a sufficient justification of this version. In answer to this it may be stated that the nominative case is often used for the vocative, particularly by the Attics; and the whole scope of the place requires it should be so used here; and, with due deference to all of a contrary opinion, the original Hebrew cannot be consistently translated any other way, ועד µlw[ אלהים Ëask kisaca Elohim olam vaed, Thy throne, O God, is for ever, and to eternity. It is in both worlds; and extends over all time; and will exist through all endless duration. To this our Lord seems to refer, Matthew 28:18: All power is given unto me, both in HEAVEN and EARTH. My throne, i.e. my dominion, extends from the creation to the consummation of all things. These I have made, and these I uphold; and from the end of the world, throughout eternity, I shall have the same glory-sovereign, unlimited power and authority, which I had with the Father before the world began; John 17:5. I may add that none of the ancient versions has understood it in the way contended for by those who deny the Godhead of Christ, either in the Psalm from which it is taken, or in this place where it is quoted. Aquila translates אלהים Elohim, by qee, O God, in the vocative case; and the Arabic adds the sign of the vocative [Arabic] ya, reading the place thus: [Arabic] korsee yallaho ila abadilabada, the same as in our version. And even allowing that o qeov here is to be used as the nominative case, it will not make the sense contended for, without adding esti to it, a reading which is not countenanced by any version, nor by any MS. yet discovered. Wiclif, Coverdale, and others, understood it as the nominative, and translated it so; and yet it is evident that this nominative has the power of the vocative: forsothe to the sone God thi troone into the world of world: a gerde of equite the gerde of thi reume. I give this, pointing and all, as it stands in my old MS. Bible. Wiclif is nearly the same, but is evidently of a more modern cast: but to the sone he seith, God thy trone is into the world of world, a gherd of equyte is the gherd of thi rewme. Coverdale translates it thus: But unto the sonne he sayeth, God, thi seate endureth for ever and ever: the cepter of thi kyngdome is a right cepter. Tindal and others follow in the same way, all reading it in the nominative case, with the force of the vocative; for none of them has inserted the word esti, is, because not authorized by the original: a word which the opposers of the Divinity of our Lord are obliged to beg, in order to support their interpretation. See some farther criticisms on this at the end of this chapter.

A sceptre of righteousness] The sceptre, which was a sort of staff or instrument of various forms, was the ensign of government, and is here used for government itself. This the ancient Jewish writers understand also of the Messiah.

Verses 7-9. Of the angels — Speaking of them; he — David; saith, Who maketh — Or rather, who made; his angels spirits, &c. — That is, the greatest thing said of angels is, that they are beings not clogged with flesh, and who are zealous and active in the service of God like flames of fire. The expressions intimate not only their office, but also their nature, which is very excellent; the metaphor being taken from the most swift, subtle, and efficacious things on earth; but, nevertheless, infinitely below the majesty of the Son. For unto the Son he saith — Of him the psalmist speaks in more exalted language, expressive of his sovereign, universal, and everlasting dominion, saying, Thy throne — That is, thy reign, which the word throne implies; O God, is for ever and ever — These words are quoted from the 45th Psalm, which, in the opinion of “some commentators, was composed concerning Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter. But could Solomon, with any propriety, be addressed by the title of God? Or could it be said of him that his kingdom, which lasted only forty years, was eternal? It was not even eternal in his posterity; and with respect to his loving righteousness, and hating wickedness, it but ill applies to one who, in his old age, became an encourager of idolatry, through the influence of women. This Psalm, therefore, is applicable only to Christ. Further, Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter being expressly condemned as contrary to the law, (1 Kings 11:2,) to suppose that this Psalm was composed in honour of that event, is certainly an ill-founded imagination. The rabbins, in their commentaries, affirm that it was written wholly concerning the Messiah. Accordingly, they translate the title of the Psalm as we do, A Song of Loves: the LXX., wdh uper tou agaphtou, a song concerning the Beloved: a title justly given to the Messiah, whom God, by voices from heaven, declared his beloved Son.” — Macknight. Pierce says, “They who imagine this Psalm is an epithalamium upon Solomon’s marrying Pharaoh’s daughter, must suppose that it is here foretold that Solomon was to have a numerous progeny by her, whom he should set up for princes up and down the world, by one of whom he should be succeeded, verse 16, Instead of thy father shall be thy children, when thou mayest make princes in all the earth. But this cannot be true; for besides that we read not of any children Solomon had by Pharaoh’s daughter, it is certain that Rehoboam, who succeeded him, was the son of Naamah, an Ammonitess, 2 Chronicles 12:13. And so far was he from being able to set his sons to rule over other countries, that it was with great difficulty his successors kept two tribes of the twelve steadfast to them. The whole tenor of the Psalm directs us plainly to understand it of some excellent prince, who was highly favoured of God, and not of such a degenerate one as Solomon became, God also having testified his displeasure against him. Further, how unlikely is it that verse 2 should be understood of Solomon? Nothing could be more suitably said of Christ than what we there meet with: Grace is poured into thy lips, therefore God hath blessed thee for ever: but was such language fit to be used concerning a man who became a most notorious idolater? Was not the promise conditional that was made to Solomon of blessedness, and had he not forfeited it by breaking the condition? The last verse of the Psalm seems also very unlikely to belong to Solomon: I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations; therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever. Certainly a greater than Solomon is here: and the primitive Christians were much in the right, who universally agreed in applying the Psalm to Christ, and him only.” See notes on Psalm 45.

A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom — That is, thy reign, of which the sceptre is the ensign, is full of justice and equity. Or, thy government is exercised for maintaining truth and righteousness in the world. Thou hast loved righteousness, &c. — Thou art infinitely pure and holy; therefore God — Who, as thou art Mediator, is thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness — With the Holy Ghost, the fountain of joy; above thy fellows — Above all the children of men. For God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him, John 3:34. In other words, God bestowed on him, as a prophet, priest, and king, endowments, whereby he excelled all his associates (as metocoi signifies) in those offices. “Anciently, kings, priests, and prophets were consecrated to their several offices by the ceremony of solemn unction with perfumed oil, called in the Psalm the oil of gladness, because it occasioned great joy, both to the person anointed, and to those who were present at the ceremony. Wherefore the Son, being appointed of God to the high offices of universal King, Priest, and Prophet among men, he is called, by way of eminence, the Lord’s Messiah, Christ, or Anointed One. But the oil with which God anointed or consecrated him to these offices was not any material oil, nor was the unction external, but internal, with the Holy Ghost. We may therefore understand the Psalm as a prediction of the descent of the Holy Ghost on Jesus at his baptism, whereby was signified God’s giving him the Spirit without measure.”

Ver. 8. But to the Son he saith, Thy throne, oh God, is for ever and ever. Who is he, called ELOHIM, O Qeov, the God? Answer: he is what he is called in his two natures; the God in excellence, the Mediator, anointed and exalted in his high office of priestly and regal dignity. No king, no alien shall ever succeed him on that throne. His rod or sceptre is a sceptre like the rod of Moses, a sceptre of righteousness, never to be broken like the rod of the oppressor.

8. Saith—Quoted from Psalms 45:6Psalm 45:6, 7, generally held to be a Messianic psalm. See in vol. v, O.T., of this series. It is addressed not so much to the pre-existent Word as to the incarnate Son, tracing the character of his rule in the earth, with his Messianic exaltation in consequence. Thy throne, O God—That the vocative here agrees with both Greek and Hebrew, see notes. Sceptre of righteousness—The rule of the Mediator is in itself right; it is the origin and securer of the moral quality in the progress of the world; and it is pledge that the right shall prevail in the final destinies of men. Physical nature in itself is necessitated, and destitute of justice and mercy. The normal processes of necessary causes, by the law of the Father as God of nature, are all relentless and regardless of the gracious. It is from the presence and sway of the blessed Mediator, under grace of the Father, that the power of mercy and peace is felt in earthly things.

V. 9. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity-Thou art infinitely pure and holy.

Therefore God-Who, as thou art Mediator, is thy God. Hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness-With the Holy Ghost, the fountain of joy.

Above thy fellows-Above all the children of men.

Verse 9. Thou hast loved righteousness] This is the characteristic of a just governor: he abhors and suppresses iniquity; he countenances and supports righteousness and truth.

Therefore God, even thy God] The original, dia touto ecrise se o qeov, o qeov sou, may be thus translated: Therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee. The form of speech is nearly the same with that in the preceding verse; but the sense is sufficiently clear if we read, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee, &c.

With the oil of gladness] We have often had occasion to remark that, anciently, kings, priests, and prophets were consecrated to their several offices by anointing; and that this signified the gifts and influences of the Divine Spirit. Christ, o cristov, signifies The Anointed One, the same as the Hebrew Messias; and he is here said to be anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows. None was ever constituted prophet, priest, and king, but himself; some were kings only, prophets only, and priests only; others were kings and priests, or priests and prophets, or kings and prophets; but none had ever the three offices in his own person but Jesus Christ, and none but himself can be a King over the universe, a Prophet to all intelligent beings, and a Priest to the whole human race. Thus he is infinitely exalted beyond his fellows-all that had ever borne the regal, prophetic, or sacerdotal offices.

Some think that the word metocouv, fellows, refers to believers who are made partakers of the same Spirit, but cannot have its infinite plenitude. The first sense seems the best. Gladness is used to express the festivities which took place on the inauguration of kings, &c.

Verses 7-9. Of the angels — Speaking of them; he — David; saith, Who maketh — Or rather, who made; his angels spirits, &c. — That is, the greatest thing said of angels is, that they are beings not clogged with flesh, and who are zealous and active in the service of God like flames of fire. The expressions intimate not only their office, but also their nature, which is very excellent; the metaphor being taken from the most swift, subtle, and efficacious things on earth; but, nevertheless, infinitely below the majesty of the Son. For unto the Son he saith — Of him the psalmist speaks in more exalted language, expressive of his sovereign, universal, and everlasting dominion, saying, Thy throne — That is, thy reign, which the word throne implies; O God, is for ever and ever — These words are quoted from the 45th Psalm, which, in the opinion of “some commentators, was composed concerning Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter. But could Solomon, with any propriety, be addressed by the title of God? Or could it be said of him that his kingdom, which lasted only forty years, was eternal? It was not even eternal in his posterity; and with respect to his loving righteousness, and hating wickedness, it but ill applies to one who, in his old age, became an encourager of idolatry, through the influence of women. This Psalm, therefore, is applicable only to Christ. Further, Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter being expressly condemned as contrary to the law, (1 Kings 11:2,) to suppose that this Psalm was composed in honour of that event, is certainly an ill-founded imagination. The rabbins, in their commentaries, affirm that it was written wholly concerning the Messiah. Accordingly, they translate the title of the Psalm as we do, A Song of Loves: the LXX., wdh uper tou agaphtou, a song concerning the Beloved: a title justly given to the Messiah, whom God, by voices from heaven, declared his beloved Son.” — Macknight. Pierce says, “They who imagine this Psalm is an epithalamium upon Solomon’s marrying Pharaoh’s daughter, must suppose that it is here foretold that Solomon was to have a numerous progeny by her, whom he should set up for princes up and down the world, by one of whom he should be succeeded, verse 16, Instead of thy father shall be thy children, when thou mayest make princes in all the earth. But this cannot be true; for besides that we read not of any children Solomon had by Pharaoh’s daughter, it is certain that Rehoboam, who succeeded him, was the son of Naamah, an Ammonitess, 2 Chronicles 12:13. And so far was he from being able to set his sons to rule over other countries, that it was with great difficulty his successors kept two tribes of the twelve steadfast to them. The whole tenor of the Psalm directs us plainly to understand it of some excellent prince, who was highly favoured of God, and not of such a degenerate one as Solomon became, God also having testified his displeasure against him. Further, how unlikely is it that verse 2 should be understood of Solomon? Nothing could be more suitably said of Christ than what we there meet with: Grace is poured into thy lips, therefore God hath blessed thee for ever: but was such language fit to be used concerning a man who became a most notorious idolater? Was not the promise conditional that was made to Solomon of blessedness, and had he not forfeited it by breaking the condition? The last verse of the Psalm seems also very unlikely to belong to Solomon: I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations; therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever. Certainly a greater than Solomon is here: and the primitive Christians were much in the right, who universally agreed in applying the Psalm to Christ, and him only.” See notes on Psalm 45.

A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom — That is, thy reign, of which the sceptre is the ensign, is full of justice and equity. Or, thy government is exercised for maintaining truth and righteousness in the world. Thou hast loved righteousness, &c. — Thou art infinitely pure and holy; therefore God — Who, as thou art Mediator, is thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness — With the Holy Ghost, the fountain of joy; above thy fellows — Above all the children of men. For God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him, John 3:34. In other words, God bestowed on him, as a prophet, priest, and king, endowments, whereby he excelled all his associates (as metocoi signifies) in those offices. “Anciently, kings, priests, and prophets were consecrated to their several offices by the ceremony of solemn unction with perfumed oil, called in the Psalm the oil of gladness, because it occasioned great joy, both to the person anointed, and to those who were present at the ceremony. Wherefore the Son, being appointed of God to the high offices of universal King, Priest, and Prophet among men, he is called, by way of eminence, the Lord’s Messiah, Christ, or Anointed One. But the oil with which God anointed or consecrated him to these offices was not any material oil, nor was the unction external, but internal, with the Holy Ghost. We may therefore understand the Psalm as a prediction of the descent of the Holy Ghost on Jesus at his baptism, whereby was signified God’s giving him the Spirit without measure.”

Ver. 9. God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. These words are cited from Psalms 45:6Psalm 45:6, 7, where Solomon is said to be anointed above his brothers, by Zadoc the priest. Moses anointed the elders, and Samuel anointed David, but the Messiah was anointed by his Sire at the Jordan, Matthew 3:17; and God gave not the Spirit to him by measure. Now Christ is anointed above all gods, for his kingdom is everlasting. He shall establish it in judgment and in justice for ever. — His unction is the oil of gladness; all the graces of glory and beauty emanate from him. He is the king who anoints all others; of his fulness have we all received, and grace for grace.

9. God, even thy God—Some excellent commentators make this also vocative, and read, therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee. See Dr. H. So Augustine, as quoted by Alford: “O thou God, thy God hath anointed thee. God is anointed by God.” Anointed… oil of gladness— Reference is here had to anointing, not to the office of king, but to a triumphal anointing in consequence of merit and victory. The head was customarily anointed at festivals. Deuteronomy 28:40; Psalms 23:5Psalm 23:5; 92:10; Matthew 6:17. Above thy fellows—As the anointing is not to office, so the fellows are not, as some understand, other kings, but the angels. They are not, indeed, ever said to be anointed, but it is in this very fact of the unction being bestowed on him that he is distinguished as above them.

V. 10. Thou-The same to whom the discourse is addressed in the preceding verse. <19A225>Psalm 102:25, 26

Verse 10. And, Thou, Lord] This is an address to the Son as the Creator, see Hebrews 1:2; for this is implied in laying the foundation of the earth. The heavens, which are the work of his hands, point out his infinite wisdom and skill.

Verses 10-12. And thou, Lord, in the beginning, &c. — These words, with those contained in the two following verses, are quoted from <19A225>Psalm 102:25-27, where they are evidently spoken of the God of Israel, the living and true God. “Some have thought they are here addressed to the Father, and not to the Son. But, as the former passages are directed to the Son, it is reasonable to suppose this is so likewise: especially as it would not have been to the apostle’s purpose to quote it here, if it had been addressed to the Father. By affirming that these words were spoken to the Son, the apostle confuted the opinion of those Jews who held that the angels assisted in making this mundane system; an error which was afterward maintained by some heretics in the Christian Church. They — Permanent as they seem, and though firmly founded; shall at length perish — Of the perishing of the earth and aerial heavens, Peter speaks, 2 Peter 3:10-13, where he also foretels that there shall be new heavens and a new earth, formed for the habitation of the righteous, after the old creation is destroyed. But thou remainest — Diameneiv, continuest in undecaying glory; as a vesture — Peribolaion, a mantle, upper garment, or cloak; shalt thou fold them up — With infinite ease; and they shall be changed — Into new heavens and a new earth; or thou shalt remove them out of their place, and introduce a new scene of things with as much ease as a prince lays aside one robe and puts on another. But thou art eternally the same, and thy years shall not fail — Through everlasting ages, nor can thy perfections admit any possible diminution.

Ver. 10. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. These things David spake when he saw his glory. <19A226>Psalm 102:26. Here the apostle speaks, as in John 1:2. Christ began the creation. Christ shall subsist when it vanishes away. He shall bow the heavens again at the times of the restitution of all things. Acts 3:21. The Talmudists have said, that the Spirit which moved upon the waters was the Spirit of the Messiah. Genesis 1:2. St. Paul had rabbinical authority, as well as revelation, for saying, with the evangelist, that the whole creation was the work of Christ. John 1:3. Thus also we read in Psalms 33:6Psalm 33:6. 102:26.

10. And—Quoted from <19A226>

Psalm 102:26-28, where see notes. Though

this psalm is within the Messianic number, there is nothing in its contents which limits it to him. We are at liberty, indeed, whether applied to the Trinity or to the Son, to see that our author intends it to be an expansion of his own words in verse 2, by whom also he made the worlds. It is to the Logos, the executive Maker of the worlds, that in accordance with the mind of the Church he applies them. In the beginning—Literal Greek, kat’ arcav, at beginnings. At the various commencements, whether of different things in the same world, or of serial worlds in succession. Less solemn and aboriginal than St. John’s en arch, “In the beginning was the Word.” For even if a scientist maintains that matter is chronologically eternal, still in the order of nature and truth God, the Word, is back of it. It is dependent and phenomenal: He is independent, unconditioned, and absolute. If creation, or creations, be eternal in series, it is because He eternally and freely creates. Laid the foundation—It is not illegitimate for modern science to read into these words the definite facts comprehensively embraced in them. By the divine Word, the author of order in chaos, the work of order, whatever it was, was performed. If that chaos was a nebula, there was nothing in the mere nebula itself by which it could frame itself into an intellective system. If it condensed and hardened, without some regulative mind it would harden into an unintelligent solidity. It required an indwelling Mind, a divine Logos, to translate the unintelligent mass into intelligent forms. As easily could a pile of type lying in pi form themselves into a poem without a forming mind, as a pile of matter frame itself into a cosmos without the formative Logos. No atheistic philosophy, whether of Hume or Herbert Spencer, has been able to bridge this chasm. Foundation—Geology reveals such “foundation” in the primitive rocks, and in the strata of successive ages. Heavens—The atmospheric expanse; and we may add, as speaking optically from our earth-centre, the firmament and the starry heavens. Works of thine hands—Spoken anthropomorphically, that is, under momentary conception, as if God were an infinite man; which abstracting away from him all imperfection, and adding all perfection, we rightfully do. Weak-minded pseudo-philosophers raise a great protest against such anthropomorphism, showing a sudden sensitiveness at our degrading God—a God in whom they themselves do not believe. And yet Mr. Spencer, who leads in this outcry against anthropomorphizing “the Absolute,” thinks he elevates him by denying to him the attribute of intelligence. A better philosopher, Sir Isaac Newton, says, (at the close of his “Optics,”) that the entire universe, including all material things from the planets down to animal bodies, the organs of sense and motion, and the instinct of brutes and insects, “can be the effect of nothing else than the wisdom and skill of a powerful everliving Agent, who, being in all places, is more able by his will to move the bodies within his boundless, uniform sensorium, (of space,) and thereby to form and reform the parts of the universe, than we are by our will to move the parts of our own bodies.” In his “Principia” he says: “It is confessed that God supreme exists necessarily. By the same necessity he is always and everywhere. Whence he is all similar to himself—all eye, all ear, all brain; all perceptive, intellective, and active force; but in a manner not at all human or corporeal, but in a mode to us unknown.”—Liber iii, De Mundi Systemate.

That acute Christian philosopher, Tayler Lewis, rebuking the squeamish avoidance of anthropomorphisms by later Jewish writers, as Philo and the Rabbis, shows that the divine mind is truly competent to see things as man sees them, and to realize the human feeling. If God knows how things appear to our human thought he must be able to see them not only as he absolutely sees them, but as we finitely see them; that is, he thinks our thoughts. “May not God come actually into the human sphere and the human finity? May he not, if it pleases him, tabernacle in the human mind, knowing things as we know them, feeling them as we feel them? For, unless he thus knows them as we know them, feels them as we feel them, there would be a knowledge unknown to him as it really is—that is, as it exists in our mind.” And yet, Moses, who uses the strongest anthropomorphisms, (and we may add, Newton, as in the above quotation,) “knew that God was infinite as well as Spinoza” knew it.

Verse 11. They shall perish] Permanently fixed as they seem to be, a time shall come when they shall be dissolved, and afterward new heavens and a new earth be formed, in which righteousness alone shall dwell. See 2 Peter 3:10-13.

Shall wax old as doth a garment] As a garment by long using becomes unfit to be longer used, so shall all visible things; they shall wear old, and wear out; and hence the necessity of their being renewed. It is remarkable that our word world is a contraction of wear old; a term by which our ancestors expressed the sentiment contained in this verse. That the word was thus compounded, and that it had this sense in our language, may be proved from the most competent and indisputable witnesses. It was formerly written [Anglo-Saxon] weorold, and [Anglo-Saxon] wereld. This etymology is finely alluded to by our excellent poet, Spencer, when describing the primitive age of innocence, succeeded by the age of depravity:—

“The lion there did with the lambe consort,

And eke the dove sat by the faulcon’s side;

Ne each of other feared fraude or tort,

But did in safe security abide,

Withouten perill of the stronger pride:

But when the WORLD woxe old, it woxe warre old,

Whereof it hight, and having shortly tride

The trains of wit, in wickednesse woxe bold,

And dared of all sinnes, the secrets to unfold.”

Even the heathen poets are full of such allusions. See Horace, Carm. lib. iii., od. 6; Virgil, Æn. viii., ver. 324.

Thou remainest] Instead of diameneiv, some good MSS. read diameneiv, the first, without the circumflex, being the present tense of the indicative mood; the latter, with the circumflex, being the future-thou shalt remain. The difference between these two readings is of little importance.

Verses 10-12. And thou, Lord, in the beginning, &c. — These words, with those contained in the two following verses, are quoted from <19A225>Psalm 102:25-27, where they are evidently spoken of the God of Israel, the living and true God. “Some have thought they are here addressed to the Father, and not to the Son. But, as the former passages are directed to the Son, it is reasonable to suppose this is so likewise: especially as it would not have been to the apostle’s purpose to quote it here, if it had been addressed to the Father. By affirming that these words were spoken to the Son, the apostle confuted the opinion of those Jews who held that the angels assisted in making this mundane system; an error which was afterward maintained by some heretics in the Christian Church. They — Permanent as they seem, and though firmly founded; shall at length perish — Of the perishing of the earth and aerial heavens, Peter speaks, 2 Peter 3:10-13, where he also foretels that there shall be new heavens and a new earth, formed for the habitation of the righteous, after the old creation is destroyed. But thou remainest — Diameneiv, continuest in undecaying glory; as a vesture — Peribolaion, a mantle, upper garment, or cloak; shalt thou fold them up — With infinite ease; and they shall be changed — Into new heavens and a new earth; or thou shalt remove them out of their place, and introduce a new scene of things with as much ease as a prince lays aside one robe and puts on another. But thou art eternally the same, and thy years shall not fail — Through everlasting ages, nor can thy perfections admit any possible diminution.

11. They shall perish—They shall change from one form or system to another, the old form disappearing. Compare Isaiah 34:4; 5:6; 6:11; 2 Peter 3:12, 13; Revelation 20:11. Science assumes matter to be indestructible; higher truth holds it to be in itself phenomenal, and indestructible only as it is sustained by underlying divine power. Thou remainest—The Greek word expressively means, thou art permanent through; that is, through all the changes of phenomena and systems.

V. 12. As a mantle-With all ease.

They shall be changed-Into new heavens and a new earth. But thou art eternally the same.

Verse 12. And they shall be changed] Not destroyed ultimately, or annihilated. They shall be changed and renewed.

But thou art the same] These words can be said of no being but God; all others are changeable or perishable, because temporal; only that which is eternal can continue essentially, and, speaking after the manner of men, formally the same.

Thy years shall not fail.] There is in the Divine duration no circle to be run, no space to be measured, no time to be reckoned. All is eternity-infinite and onward.

Verses 10-12. And thou, Lord, in the beginning, &c. — These words, with those contained in the two following verses, are quoted from <19A225>Psalm 102:25-27, where they are evidently spoken of the God of Israel, the living and true God. “Some have thought they are here addressed to the Father, and not to the Son. But, as the former passages are directed to the Son, it is reasonable to suppose this is so likewise: especially as it would not have been to the apostle’s purpose to quote it here, if it had been addressed to the Father. By affirming that these words were spoken to the Son, the apostle confuted the opinion of those Jews who held that the angels assisted in making this mundane system; an error which was afterward maintained by some heretics in the Christian Church. They — Permanent as they seem, and though firmly founded; shall at length perish — Of the perishing of the earth and aerial heavens, Peter speaks, 2 Peter 3:10-13, where he also foretels that there shall be new heavens and a new earth, formed for the habitation of the righteous, after the old creation is destroyed. But thou remainest — Diameneiv, continuest in undecaying glory; as a vesture — Peribolaion, a mantle, upper garment, or cloak; shalt thou fold them up — With infinite ease; and they shall be changed — Into new heavens and a new earth; or thou shalt remove them out of their place, and introduce a new scene of things with as much ease as a prince lays aside one robe and puts on another. But thou art eternally the same, and thy years shall not fail — Through everlasting ages, nor can thy perfections admit any possible diminution.

12. As a vesture—By a figure of great majesty in this verse God is an infinite Person, and the universe is his immense raiment. As a person takes off, folds up, and throws aside when old, his garments, so God deals with phenomenal things. But, contrastively, the person remains the same, and of God’s person the years shall not fail; they shall roll forever onward.

V. 13. <19B001>Psalm 110:1.

Verse 13. But to which of the angels] We have already seen, from the opinions and concessions of the Jews, that, if Jesus Christ could be proved to be greater than the angels, it would necessarily follow that he was God: and this the apostle does most amply prove by these various quotations from their own Scriptures; for he shows that while he is the supreme and absolute Sovereign, they are no more than his messengers and servants, and servants even to his servants, i.e. to mankind.

Verse 13. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit thou, &c. — In this interrogation a vehement negation is included; He said not at any time to any of the angels, as he said to his Son in the human nature, <19B001>Psalm 110:1. Sit thou on my right hand — Reign thou over the universe; till, &c. — He never spake these words, or the like, concerning them; there is no testimony to that purpose recorded in the whole book of God, the only means of such knowledge, and rule of our faith in such things. Our Lord (Matthew 22:43) spake of it to the Pharisees as a thing certain, and allowed by all the Jewish doctors, that David wrote the cxth Psalm (from which this quotation is made) by inspiration of the Spirit, concerning Christ. This passage, therefore, is rightly applied to Christ by the writer of this epistle. See note on <19B001>Psalm 110:1. I make thine enemies thy footstool — The eastern princes used to tread on the necks of their vanquished enemies, in token of their utter subjection, Joshua 10:24. And some of the more haughty ones, in mounting their horses, used their enemies as a footstool. This passage, therefore, is a prediction of the entire conquest of evil angels and wicked men, Christ’s enemies. Are they not all ministering spirits, &c. — The apostle having proved the pre- eminence of the Son, as Mediator of the new covenant, above all the angels, from the attributes of honour and glory that are ascribed to him in the Scripture, that he might not appear to argue merely in a negative manner, from what is not said concerning them, he adds here such a description of their natures and office, or employment as shows that indeed no such thing can be rightly affirmed concerning them, as he had before manifested to be spoken and recorded concerning the Son: 1st, As to their nature, they are pneumata, spirits, or spiritual substances; not qualities, or natural faculties, as the Sadducees imagined: and 2d, As to their offices, they are pneumata leitourgika, ministering spirits. So they are termed <19A321>Psalm 103:21. Bless the Lord all ye his hosts, leitourgoi autou, ye ministers of his that do his pleasure. And how they execute their office we here learn. They are eiv diakonian apostellomena, sent forth unto a ministry: dia touv mellontav klhronomein swthrian, on account, or for the sake of those that shall be heirs of salvation — Perhaps this is said in allusion to the Hebrew name of angels, which properly signifies messengers. The word all is here emphatical, denoting that even the highest orders of angels, dominions, thrones, principalities, and powers bow the knee and are subject to Jesus; ministering in the affairs of the world according to his direction. But although the Scriptures speak of all the angels as thus ministering, the word all does not imply that every individual angel is actually employed in this way, but that every one is subject to be so employed. It must be observed also, that the expression is not, sent forth to minister to, but dia, for — Or on account of; them who shall be heirs of salvation. And herein the harmony subsisting between both parts of God’s family is still preserved. As in the service of the church the ministers thereof do not, properly speaking, minister to man, but to the Lord in the behalf of men, (Acts 13:2,) so is it with these spirits also; they are sent forth to minister for the good of men, but properly it is the Lord to whom they minister. His servants they are, not ours: rather, they are our fellow-servants. As all the servants of a king, though otherwise they greatly differ, agree in this, that they are all servants to the same person. Wherefore this passage affords no ground for believing that every heir of salvation has a guardian angel assigned him. Of the ministry of angels for the benefit of the heirs of salvation we have many examples both in the Old and in the New Testament.

13. Sit on my right hand—Words applicable to Christ’s exaltation at his ascension. See notes on verse 3; Matthew 28:18. Until—During the interval between that ascension and the completion of the work of his second coming. Make… footstool—Note on Acts 2:35. This is to be being accomplished during the present dispensation, and fully accomplished at the final judgment.

V. 14. Are they not all-Though of various orders.

Ministering spirits, sent forth-Ministering before God, sent forth to men. To attend on them-In numerous offices of protection, care, and kindness. Who-Having patiently continued in welldoing, shall inherit everlasting salvation.

In this and the two following chapters the apostle sub-joins an exhortation, answering each head of the preceding chapter.

Verse 14. Are they not all ministering spirits] That is, They are all ministering spirits; for the Hebrews often express the strongest affirmative by an interrogation.

All the angels, even those of the highest order, are employed by their Creator to serve those who believe in Christ Jesus. What these services are, and how performed, it would be impossible to state. Much has been written on the subject, partly founded on Scripture, and partly on conjecture. They are, no doubt, constantly employed in averting evil and procuring good. If God help man by man, we need not wonder that he helps man by angels. We know that he needs none of those helps, for he can do all things himself; yet it seems agreeable to his infinite wisdom and goodness to use them. This is part of the economy of God in the government of the world and of the Church; and a part, no doubt, essential to the harmony and perfection of the whole. The reader may see a very sensible discourse on this text in vol. ii., page 133, of the Rev. John Wesley’s works, American edition. Dr. Owen treats the subject at large in his comment on this verse, vol. iii., page 141, edit. 8vo., which is just now brought to my hand, and which appears to be a very learned, judicious, and important work, but by far too diffuse. In it the words of God are drowned in the sayings of man. THE Godhead of Christ is a subject of such great importance, both to the faith and hope of a Christian, that I feel it necessary to bring it full into view, wherever it is referred to in the sacred writings. It is a prominent article in the apostle’s creed, and should be so in ours. That this doctrine cannot be established on Hebrews 1:8 has been the assertion of many. To what I have already said on this verse, I beg leave to subjoin the following criticisms of a learned friend, who has made this subject his particular study.

BRIEF REMARKS ON HEBREWS, chap. i., ver. 8.

JO qronov sou, o Qeov, eiv touve aiwnav.

It hath ever been the opinion of the most sound divines, that these words, which are extracted from the 45th Psalm, are addressed by God the Father unto God the Son. Our translators have accordingly rendered the passage thus: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever.” Those who deny the Divinity of Christ, being eager to get rid of such a testimony against themselves, contend that o Qeov is here the nominative, and that the meaning is: “God is thy throne for ever.” Now it is somewhat strange, that none of them have had critical acumen enough to discover that the words cannot possibly admit of this signification. It is a rule in the Greek language, that when a substantive noun is the subject of a sentence, and something is predicated of it, the article, if used at all, is prefixed to the subject, but omitted before the predicate. The Greek translators of the Old, and the authors of the New Testament, write agreeably to this rule. I shall first give some examples from the latter:—

qeov hn o logov.-“The Word was God.” John 1:1.

oJ logov sarx egeneto.-“The Word became flesh.” John 1:14. pneuma o qeov.-“God is a Spirit.” John 4:24.

o qeov agaph esti.-“God is love.” 1 John 4:8.

oJ qeov fwv esti.-“God is light.” 1 John 1:5.

If we examine the Septuagint version of the Psalms, we shall find, that in such instances the author sometimes places the article before the subject, but that his usual mode is to omit it altogether. A few examples will suffice:—

oJ qeov krithv dikaiov.-“God is a righteous judge.” Psalms 7:11Psalm 7:11.

oJ qeov hmwn katafugh kai dunamiv,-“God is our refuge and strength.” Psalms 46:1Psalm 46:1.

kuriov bohqov mou.-“The Lord is my helper.” Psalms 28:7Psalm 28:7. kuriov sterewma mou kai katafugh mon.-“The Lord is my

firm support and my refuge.” Psalms 18:2Psalm 18:2.

qeov megav kuriov.-“The Lord is a great God.” Psalms 95:3Psalm 95:3. We see what is the established phraseology of the Septuagint, when a substantive noun has something predicated of it in the same sentence. Surely, then, we may be convinced that if in Psalms 45:6Psalm 45:6, the meaning which they who deny our Lord’s Divinity affix, had been intended, it would rather have been written qronov sou, o qeov, or qronov sou, qeov. This our conviction will, if possible, be increased, when we examine the very next clause of this sentence, where we shall find that the article is prefixed to the subject, but omitted before the predicate.

Jrabdov euquthrov h rabdov thv basileiav sou.-“The sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of rectitude.”

“But it may be doubted whether qeov with the article affixed be ever used in the vocative case.” Your doubt will be solved by reading the following examples, which are taken not promiscuously from the Septuagint, but all of them from the Psalms.

krinon autouv, o qeov.-“Judge them, O God.” Psalms 5:10Psalm 5:10. oJ qeov, o qeov mou.-“O God, my God.” Psalms 22:1Psalm 22:1. soi yalw, o qeov mon.-“Unto thee will I sing, O my God.”

Psalms 59:17Psalm 59:17.

uywsw se, o qeov mon.-“I will exalt thee, O my God.” <19E501>Psalm 145:1.

kurie, o qeov mou.-“O Lord my God.” <19A401>Psalm 104:1.

I have now removed the only objection which can, I think, be started. It remains, that the son of Mary is here addressed as the God whose throne endures for ever.

I know that a pronoun sometimes occurs with the article prefixed to its predicate; but I speak only of nouns substantive.

I must not fail to observe, that the rule about the subject and predicate, like that of the Greek prepositive article, pervades all classes of writers. It will be sufficient, if I give three or four examples. The learned reader may easily collect more.

proskhnion men o ouranov apav, qeatron dhJ oikoumenh. “The whole heaven is his stage, and the world his theatre.” Chrysostom. We have here two instances in one sentence. The same is the case in the following examples:-

bracuv men o xullogov, megav d o poqov.-“Small indeed is the assembly, but great is the desire.” Chrysostom.

kalon gar to aqlon, kai h elpiv megalh.-“For the prize is noble, and the hope is great.” Plato.

to taiJscron ecqron, kai to crhston eukleev.-“That which is base is hateful; and that which is honest, glorious.” Sophocles.

Having spoken of nouns substantive only, I ought to state that the rule applies equally to adjectives and to participles. Near the opening of the fifth of Matthew, we find eight consecutive examples of the rule. In five of these the subject is an adjective, and in the other three, a participle. Indeed one of them has two participles, affording an instance of the rule respecting the prepositive article, as well as of that which we are now considering. makarioi oi peinwntev kai diywntev. “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst.” In the Apocalypse there are four examples of the rule with participles, and in all these twelve cases the predicate is placed first. See the supplement to my Essay on the Greek Article, at the end of Dr. A. Clarke’s commentary on Ephesians.

I am aware that an exception now and then occurs in the sacred writings; but I think I may assert that there are no exceptions in the Septuagint version of the book of Psalms. As the words o qronov sou, o qeov, occur in the book of Psalms, the most important question is this: Does that book always support the orthodox interpretation? With regard to the deviations which are elsewhere occasionally found, I think there can be little doubt that they are owing to the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers, for the rule is unquestionably genuine.-H. S. BOYD.

The preceding remarks are original, and will be duly respected by every scholar.

I have shown my reasons in the note on “Luke 1:35”, why I cannot close in with the common view of what is called the eternal Sonship of Christ. I am inclined to think that from this tenet Arianism had its origin. I shall here produce my authority for this opinion. Arius, the father of what is called Arianism, and who flourished in A. D. 300, was a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, a man of great learning and eloquence, and of deeply mortified manners; and he continued to edify the Church by his teaching and example till the circumstance took place which produced that unhappy change in his religious sentiments, which afterwards gave rise to so much distraction and division in the Christian Church. The circumstance to which I refer is related by Socrates Scholasticus, in his supplement to the History of Eusebius, lib. i., c. 5; and is in substance as follows: Alexander, having succeeded Achillas in the bishopric of Alexandria, self-confidently philosophizing one day in the presence of his presbyters and the rest of his clergy concerning the holy Trinity, among other things asserted that there was a Monad in the Triad, filotimoteron peri thv agiav triadov, ev triadi Monada einai filosofwn eqeologei. What he said on the derived nature or eternal Sonship of Christ is not related. Arius, one of his presbyters, a man of considerable skill in the science of logic, anhr ouk amoirov thv dialektikhv leschv, supposing that the bishop designed to introduce the dogmas of Sabellius, the Libyan, who denied the personality of the Godhead, and consequently the Trinity, sharply opposed the bishop, arguing thus: “If the Father begot the Son, he who was thus begotten had a beginning of his existence; and from this it is manifest, that there was a time in which the Son was not. Whence it necessarily follows, that he has his subsistence from what exists not.” The words which Socrates quotes are the following, of which the above is as close a translation as the different idioms will allow: ei o pathr egennhoe ton uion, archn uparxewv ecei o gennhqeiv kai ek toutou dhlon, oti hn ote ouk hn o uiov. akolouqei te ex anagkhv, ex ouk ontwn ecein auton thn upostasin. Now, it does not appear that this had been previously the doctrine of Arius, but that it was the consequence which he logically drew from the doctrine laid down by the bishop; and, although Socrates does not tell us what the bishop stated, yet, from the conclusions drawn, we may at once see what the premises were; and these must have been some incautious assertions concerning the Sonship of the Divine nature of Christ: and I have shown elsewhere that these are fair deductions from such premises. “But is not God called Father; and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? “Most certainly. That God graciously assumes the name of Father, and acts in that character towards mankind, the whole Scripture proves; and that the title is given to him as signifying Author, Cause, Fountain, and Creator, is also sufficiently manifest from the same Scriptures. In this sense he is said to be the Father of the rain, Job 38:28; and hence also it is said, He is the Father of spirits, Hebrews 12:9; and he is the Father of men because he created them; and Adam, the first man, is particularly called his son, Luke 3:38. But he is the Father of the human nature of our blessed Lord in a peculiar sense, because by his energy this was produced in the womb of the virgin. Luke 1:35, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; THEREFORE also that HOLY THING WHICH SHALL BE BORN OF THEE shall be called THE SON OF GOD. It is in consequence of this that our blessed Lord is so frequently termed the Son of God, and that God is called his Father. But I know not any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the Divine nature of our Lord to be begotten of God, or to be the Son of God. Nor can I see it possible that he could be begotten of the Father, in this sense, and be eternal; and if not eternal, he is not God. But numberless scriptures give him every attribute of Godhead; his own works demonstrate it; and the whole scheme of salvation requires this. I hope I may say that I have demonstrated his supreme, absolute, and unoriginated Godhead, both in my note on Colossians 1:16, 17, and in my Discourse on Salvation by Faith. And having seen that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship produced Arianism, and Arianism produced Socinianism, and Socinianism produces a kind of general infidelity, or disrespect to the sacred writings, so that several parts of them are rejected as being uncanonical, and the inspirations of a major part of the New Testament strongly suspected; I find it necessary to be doubly on my watch to avoid every thing that may, even in the remotest way, tend to so deplorable a catastrophe.

It may be said: “Is not God called the eternal Father? And if so, there can be no eternal Father if there be no eternal Son.” I answer: God is not called in any part of Scripture, as far as I can recollect, either the eternal or everlasting Father in reference to our blessed Lord, nor indeed in reference to any thing else; but this very title, strange to tell, is given to Jesus Christ himself: His name shall be called the EVERLASTING FATHER, Isaiah 9:6; and we may on this account, with more propriety, look for an eternal filiation proceeding from him, than from any other person of the most holy Trinity.

Should it be asked: “Was there no trinity of persons in the Godhead before the incarnation!” I answer: That a trinity of persons appears to me to belong essentially to the eternal Godhead, neither of which was before, after, or produced from another; and of this the Old Testament is full: but the distinction was not fully evident till the incarnation; and particularly till the baptism in Jordan, when on him, in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove; and a voice from heaven proclaimed that baptized person God’s beloved Son: in which transaction there were three persons occupying distinct places; as the person of Christ in the water, the Holy Spirit in a bodily shape, and the voice from heaven, sufficiently prove; and to each of these persons various scriptures give all the essential attributes of God.

On the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of the Divine nature of Christ I once had the privilege of conversing with the late reverend John Wesley, about three years before his death; he read from a book in which I had written it, the argument against this doctrine, which now stands in the note on “Luke 1:35”. He did not attempt to reply to it; but allowed that, on the ground on which I had taken it, the argument was conclusive. I observed, that the proper, essential Divinity of Jesus Christ appeared to me to be so absolutely necessary to the whole Christian scheme, and to the faith both of penitent sinners and saints, that it was of the utmost importance to set it in the clearest and strongest point of view; and that, with my present light, I could not credit it, if I must receive the common doctrine of the Sonship of the Divine nature of our Lord. He mentioned two eminent divines who were of the same opinion; and added, that the eternal Sonship of Christ bad been a doctrine very generally received in the Christian Church; and he believed no one had ever expressed it better than his brother Samuel had done in the following lines:—

“From whom, in one eternal now,

The Son, thy offspring, flow’d;

An everlasting Father thou,

An everlasting God.”

He added not one word more on the subject, nor ever after mentioned it to me, though after that we had many interviews. But it is necessary to mention his own note on the text, that has given rise to these observations; which shows that he held the doctrine as commonly received, when he wrote that note; it is as follows:-

“Thou art my Son] God of God, Light of Light. This day have I begotten Thee-I have begotten Thee from eternity, which, by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued unsuccessive day.” Leaving the point in dispute out of the question, this is most beautifully expressed; and I know not that this great man ever altered his views on this subject, though I am certain that he never professed the opinion as many who quote his authority do; nor would he at any time have defended what he did hold in their way. I beg leave to quote a fact. In 1781, he published in the fourth volume of the Arminian Magazine, p. 384, an article, entitled “An Arian Antidote;” in this are the following words: “Greater or lesser in infinity, is not; inferior Godhead shocks our sense; Jesus was inferior to the Father as touching his manhood, John 14:28; he was a son given, and slain intentionally from the foundation of the world, Revelation 13:8, and the first-born from the dead of every creature, Colossians 1:15, 18. But, our Redeemer, from everlasting (Isaiah 63:16) had not the inferior name of Son; in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God from eternity, and the Word, made flesh, was God,” &c. This is pointedly against the eternal Sonship of the Divine nature. But why did Mr. W. insert this? and if by haste, &c., why did he not correct this when he published in 1790, in the 13th vol. of the Magazine, eight tables of errata to the eight first volumes of that work? Now, although he had carefully noticed the slightest errors that might affect the sense in those preceding volumes, yet no fault is found with the reasoning in the Arian Antidote, and the sentence, “But, our Redeemer, from everlasting, had not the inferior name of Son,” &c., is passed by without the slightest notice! However necessary this view of the subject may appear to me, I do not presume to say that others, in order to be saved, must view it in the same light: I leave both opinions to the judgment of the reader; for on such a point it is necessary that every man should be clear in his own mind, and satisfied in his own conscience. Any opinion of mine my readers are at perfect liberty to receive or reject. I never claimed infallibility; I say, with St. Augustine, Errare possum; hæreticus esse nolo. Refined Arians, with some of whom I am personally acquainted, are quite willing to receive all that can be said of the dignity and glory of Christ’s nature, provided we admit the doctrine of the eternal Sonship, and omit the word unoriginated, which I have used in my demonstration of the Godhead of the Saviour of men; but, as far as it respects myself, I can neither admit the one, nor omit the other. The proper essential Godhead of Christ lies deep at the foundation of my Christian creed; and I must sacrifice ten thousand forms of speech rather than sacrifice the thing. My opinion has not been formed on slight examination.

HEBREWS

Ver. 14. Are they not all ministering spirits? By this question, and the interrogation is more forcible than a plain assertion, we have a new view of the exaltation of Christ over all intelligent beings. They serve; he reigns, and must reign, till all his enemies become his footstool. Why, oh Arian, dost thou pretend to love the bible, and degrade the Redeemer. The hope of all the earth is no hope to thy poor fainting soul, fed with the ashes and husks of a vain philosophy.

14. They—The angels in contrast with the Son. He is enthroned at God’s right hand; they are perpetual servants. All—Even to the highest rank. Even Gabriel ministered to Daniel. Ministering—Liturgical; that is, performing a public and sacred service. For the liturgia (whence our liturgy) was originally in Athens a public service rendered by wealthy citizens to the public at their own expense; thence the term designated the sacred ministrations of the Jewish priesthood in the temple. The angels are liturgical spirits performing God’s public ministrations. The angels are not menials or secular servants; they are sacred servitors. They do not carry on the processes of mere physical nature. Spirits—In contrast with human, corporeal, ministers. Sent forth—Passive participle in the continuous present, being ever sent forth. Whence sent forth, may appear from our closing note on verse 3. For—Not to. Their service is rendered to God in behalf of men. And not for all men, but specially for heirs; or, rather, those who are about to be heirs; heirs not only in expectation but in possession; that is, who will in due time come into a realized inheritance of salvation. Notes on Matthew 18:10, and Ephesians 2:2.