| RPM, Volume 18, Number 51, December 11 to December 17, 2016 |
Note: Due to extended length the Introductory Materials to this book can be found in Barnes Notes on Mal 1:1-5.
THE main object of the epistle is to commend the Christian religion to those who were addressed in it, in such a way as to prevent defection from it. This is done, principally, by showing its superiority to the Mosaic system. The great danger of Christians in Palestine was of relapsing into the Jewish system. The imposing nature of its rites; the public sentiment in its favour; the fact of its antiquity, and its undisputed Divine origin, would all tend to that. To counteract this, the writer of this epistle shows that the gospel had higher claims on their attention, and that, if that were rejected, ruin was inevitable. In doing this, he begins, in this chapter, by showing the superiority of the Author of Christianity to prophets, and to the angels; that is, that he had a rank that entitled him to the profoundest regard. The drift of this chapter, therefore, is to show the dignity and exalted nature of the Author of the Christian system— the Son of God. The chapter comprises the following points :—
I. The announcement of the fact that God, who had formerly spoken by the prophets, had, in this last dispensation, spoken by his Son, Heb 1:1,2.
II. The statement respecting his rank and dignity. He was
(1.) the Heir of all things;
(2.) the Creator of the worlds;
(3.) the brightness of the Divine glory, and the proper expression of his nature;
(4.) he upheld all things, Heb 1:2,3.
III. The work and exaltation of the Author of the Christian system.
(1.) He, by his own unassisted agency, purified us from our sins.
(2.) He is seated at the right hand of God.
(3.) He has a more exalted and valuable inheritance than the angels, in proportion as his name is more exalted than theirs, Heb 1:3,4.
IV. Proofs that what is here ascribed to him belongs to him, particularly that he is declared to be superior to the angels, Heb 1:5-14.
(1.) The angels have never been addressed with the title of Son, Heb 1:5.
(2.) He is declared to be the object of worship by the angels, while they are employed merely as the messengers of God, Heb 1:6,7.
(3.) He is addressed as God, and his throne is said to be for ever and ever, Heb 1:8,9.
(4.) He is addressed as immutable. He is declared to have laid the foundations of heaven and earth; and though they would perish, yet he would remain the same, Heb 1:10-12.
(5.) None of the angels had been addressed in this manner, but they were employed in the subordinate work of ministering to the heirs of salvation, Heb 1:13,14.
From this train of reasoning, the inference is drawn in Heb 2:1-4, that we ought to give diligent heed to what had been spoken. The Great Author of the Christian scheme had peculiar claims to be heard, and there was peculiar danger in disregarding his message. The object of this chapter is, to impress those to whom the epistle was addressed with the high claims of the Founder of Christianity, and to show that it was superior in this respect to any other system.
Verse 1. God, who at sundry times. The commencement of this epistle varies from all the others which Paul wrote. In every other instance, he at first announces his name, and the name of the church or of the individual to whom he wrote. In regard to the reason why he here varies from that custom, see the Introduction, & 3. This commences with the full acknowledgment of his belief, that God had made important revelations in past times, but that now he had communicated his will in a manner that more especially claimed their attention. This announcement was of particular importance here. He was writing to those who had been trained up in the full belief of the truths taught by the prophets. As the object of the apostle was to show the superior claims of the gospel, and to lead them from putting confidence in the rites instituted in accordance with the directions of the Old Testament, it was of essential importance that he should admit that their belief of the inspiration of the prophets was well founded, he was not an infidel, he was not disposed to call in question the Divine origin of the books which were regarded as given by inspiration, he fully admitted all that had been held by the Hebrews on that head, and yet showed that the new revelation had more important claims to their attention. The word rendered "at sundry times" —polumerwv— means, in many parts. It refers here to the fact, that the former revelation had been given in various parts. It had not all been given at once. It had been communicated from time to time, as the exigencies of the people required, and as God chose to communicate it. At one time it was by history, then by prophecy, by poetry, by proverbs, by some solemn and special message, etc. The ancient revelation was a collection of various writings, on different subjects, and given at different times; but now God had addressed us by his Son—the one great Messenger, who had come to finish the Divine communications, and to give a uniform and connected revelation to mankind. The contrast here is between the numerous separate parts of the revelation given by the prophets, and the oneness of that given by his Son. The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament.
And in divers manners polutropwv. In many ways. It was not all in one mode. He had employed various methods in communicating his will. At one time it was by direct communication, at another by dreams, at another by visions, etc. In regard to the various methods which God employed to communicate his will, see Introduction to Isaiah, & 7. In contradistinction from these, God had now spoken by his Son. He had addressed us in one uniform manner. It was not by dreams, or visions; it was a direct communication from him. The word used here, also, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.
In times past. Formerly; in ancient times. The series of revelations began, as recorded by Moses, with Adam, (Ge 3.) and terminated with Malachi—a period of more than three thousand five hundred years. From Malachi to the time of the Saviour, there were no recorded Divine communications; and the whole period of written revelation, or when the Divine communications were recorded from Moses to Malachi, was about a thousand years.
Unto the fathers. To our ancestors; to the people of ancient times.
By the prophets. The word prophet, in the Scriptures, is used in a wide signification. It means not only those who predict future events, but those who communicate the Divine will on any subject. See Barnes "Ro 12:6" See Barnes "1 Co 14:1".
It is used here in that large sense—as denoting all those by whom God had made communications to the Jews in former times.
Verse 2. Hath in these last days. In this the final dispensation; or in this dispensation under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. Phrases similar to this occur frequently in the Scriptures. They do not imply that the world was soon coming to an end, but that that was the last dispensation, the last period of the world. There had been the patriarchal period, the period under the law, the prophets, etc., and this was the period during which God's last method of communication would be enjoyed, and under which the world would close. It might be a very long period, but it would be the last one; and, so far as the meaning of the phrase is concerned, it might be the longest period, or longer than all the others put together, but still it would be the last one. See Barnes "Ac 2:17" See Barnes "Isa 2:2".
Spoken unto us. The word "us" here does not of necessity imply that the writer of the epistle had actually heard him, or that they had heard him to whom the epistle was written. It means that God had now communicated his win to man by his Son. It may be said, with entire propriety, that God has spoken to us by his Son, though we have not personally heard or seen him. We have what he spoke, and caused to be recorded, for our direction.
By his Son. The title commonly given to the Lord Jesus, as denoting his peculiar relation to God. It was understood, by the Jews, to denote equality with God, (See Barnes "Joh 5:18" comp. See Barnes "Joh 10:33,36, ) and is used with such a reference here. See Barnes "Ro 1:4, where the meaning of the phrase "Son of God" is fully considered. It is implied here, that the fact, that the Son of God has spoken to us, imposes the highest obligations to attend to what he has said; that he has authority superior to all those who have spoken in past times; and that there will be peculiar guilt in refusing to attend to what he has spoken. See Heb 2:1-4; comp. Heb 12:25. The reasons for the superior respect which should be shown to the revelations of the Son of God may be such as these:—-
(1.) His rank and dignity. He is: the equal with God, (Joh 1:1,) and is himself called God in this chapter, Heb 1:8. He has a right, therefore, to command, and when he speaks men should obey.
(2.) The clearness of the truths which he communicated to man, on a great variety of subjects, that are of the highest moment to the world. Revelation has been gradual—like the breaking of the day in the east. At first there is a little light; it increases and expands till objects become more and more visible, and then the sun rises in full-orbed glory. At first we discern only the existence of some object—- obscure and undefined; then we can trace-its outline; then its colour, its size, its proportions, its drapery—till it stands before us fully revealed. So it has been with revelation. There is a great variety of subjects which we now see clearly, which were very imperfectly understood by the teaching of the prophets, and would be now if we had only the Old Testament. Among them are the following:—
(a.) The character of God. Christ came to make him known as a merciful Being, and to show how he could be merciful as well as just. The views given of God by the Lord Jesus are far more clear than any given by the ancient prophets; compared with those entertained by the ancient philosophers, they are like the sun compared with the darkest midnight.
(b.) The way in which man may be reconciled to God, The New Testament— which may be considered as that which God "has spoken to us by his Son" —has told us how the great work of being reconciled to God can be effected. The Lord Jesus told us that he came to "give his life a ransom for many;" that he laid down his life for his friends; that he was about to die for man; that he would draw all men to him. The prophets indeed— particularly Isaiah —threw much light on these points. But the mass of the people did not understand their revelations. They pertained to future events—always difficult to be understood. But Christ has told us the way of salvation; and he has made it so plain, that he who runs may read.
(c.) The moral precepts of the Redeemer are superior to those of any and all that had gone before him. They are elevated, pure, expansive, benevolent—such as became the Son of God to proclaim. Indeed, this is admitted on all hands. Infidels are constrained to acknowledge, that all the moral precepts of the Saviour are eminently pure and benignant. If they were obeyed, the world would be filled with justice, truth, purity, and benevolence. Error, fraud, hypocrisy, ambition, wars, licentiousness, and intemperance, would cease; and the opposite virtues would diffuse happiness over the face of the world. Prophets had indeed delivered many moral precepts of great importance, but the purest and most extensive body of just principles and of good morals on earth are to be found in the teachings of the Saviour.
(d.) He has given to us the clearest view which man has had of the future state; and he has disclosed, in regard to that future state, a class of truths of the deepest interest to mankind, which were before wholly unknown or only partially revealed.
1. He has revealed the certainty of a state of future existence—in opposition to the Sadducees of all ages. This was denied, before he came, by multitudes; and where it was not, the arguments by which it was supported were often of the feeblest kind. The truth was held by some—like Plato and his followers—but the arguments on which they relied were feeble, and such as were unfitted to give rest to the soul. The truth they had obtained by TRADITION; the arguments were THEIR OWN.
2. He revealed the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This before was doubted or denied by nearly all the world. It was held to be absurd and impossible. The Saviour taught its certainty; he raised up more than one to show that it was possible; he was himself raised, to put the whole matter beyond debate.
3. He revealed the certainty of future judgment—the judgment of all mankind.
4. He disclosed great and momentous truths respecting the future state. Before he came, all was dark. The Greeks spoke of Elysian fields, but they were dreams of the imagination; the Hebrews had some faint notion of a future state, where all was dark and gloomy, with perhaps an occasional glimpse of the truth that there is a holy and blessed heaven; but to the mass of mind, all was obscure. Christ revealed a heaven, and told us of a hell. He showed us that the one might be gained, and the other avoided. He presented important motives for doing it; and, had he done nothing more, his communications were worthy the profound attention of mankind. I may add,
(3.) That the Son of God has claims on our attention from the MANNER in which he spoke, He spoke as one having "authority," Mt 7:29. He spoke as a witness of what he saw and knew, Joh 3:11. He spoke without doubt or ambiguity of God, and heaven, and hell. His is the language of one who is familiar with all that he describes; who saw all, who knew all. There is no hesitancy or doubt in his mind of the truth of what he speaks; and he speaks as if his whole soul were impressed with its unspeakable importance. Never were so momentous communications made to men of hell as fell from the lips of the Lord Jesus, (See Barnes "Mt 23:33") never were announcements made so fitted to awe and appall a sinful world.
Whom he hath appointed heir of all things. See Ps 2:8; comp. See Barnes "Ro 8:17".
This is language taken from the fact that he is "the SON of God." If a Son, then he is an heir —for so it is usually among men. This is not to be taken literally, as if he inherits anything as a man does. An heir is one who inherits anything after the death of its possessor—usually his father. But this cannot be applied in this sense to the Lord Jesus. The language is used to denote his rank and dignity as the Son of God. As such, all things are his, as the property of the father descends to his son at his death. The word rendered heir— klhronomov—means, properly,
(1.) one who acquires anything by lot; and
(2.) an heir in the sense in which we usually understand the word. It may also denote a possessor of anything received as s portion, or of property of any kind. See Ro 4:13,14. It is, in every instance, rendered heir in the New Testament. Applied to Christ, it means that, as the Son of God, he is possessor or lord of all things, or that all things are his. Comp. Ac 2:36; 10:36; Joh 17:10; 16:15. "All things that the Father hath are mine." The sense is, that all things belong to the Son of God. Who is so rich, then, as Christ? Who so able to endow his friends with enduring and abundant wealth?
By whom. By whose agency; or who was the actual agent in the creation. Grotius supposes that this means, "on account of whom;" and that the meaning is, that the universe was formed with reference to the Messiah, in accordance with an ancient Jewish maxim, But the more common and classical usage of the word rendered by, (dia,) when it governs a genitive, as here, is to denote the instrumental cause; the agent by which anything is done. See Mt 1:22; 2:5,15,23; Lu 18:31; Joh 1:17; Ac 2:22,43; 4:16; 12:9; Ro 2:16; 5:5.
It may be true that the universe was formed with reference to the glory of the Son Of God, and that this world was brought into being in order to show his glory; but it would not do to establish that doctrine on a passage like this. Its obvious and proper meaning is, that he was the agent of the creation—a truth that is elsewhere abundantly taught. See Joh 1:3,10; Col 1:16; Eph 3:9; 1 Co 8:6.
This sense, also, better agrees with the design of the apostle in this place. His object is to set forth the dignity of the Son of God. This is better shown by the consideration that he was the Creator of all things, than that all things were made for him.
The worlds. The universe, or creation. So the word here— aiwn—is undoubtedly used in Heb 11:3. The word properly means age—an indefinitely long period of time; then perpetuity, ever, eternity—always being. For an extended investigation of the meaning of the word, the reader may consult an essay by Prof. Stuart, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, for 1829, pp. 406—452. From the sense of age, or duration, the word comes to denote the present and future age; the present world, and the world to come; the present world, with all its cares, anxieties, and evils; the men of this world—a wicked generation, etc. Then it means the world —the material universe—creation as it is. The only perfectly clear use of the word in this sense in the New Testament is in Heb 11:3, and there there can be no doubt. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were made by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." The passage before us will bear the same interpretation, and this is the most obvious and intelligible. What would be the meaning of saying that the ages or dispensations were made by the Son of God? The Hebrews used the word—
HEBREW—olam—in the same sense. It properly means age, duration; and thence it came to be used by them to denote the world—made up of ages or generations; and then the world itself. This is the fair, and, as it seems to me, the only intelligible interpretation of this passage—an interpretation amply sustained by texts referred to above, as demonstrating that the universe was made by the agency of the Son of God Comp. See Barnes "Heb 1:10, and See Barnes "Joh 1:3".
{a} "spoken" De 18:15
{b} "heir" Ps 2:8
{c} "by whom also" Joh 1:3
Verse 3. Who being the brightness of his glory. This verse is designed to state the dignity and exalted rank of the Son of God, and is exceedingly important with reference to a correct view of the Redeemer. Every word which is employed is of great importance, and should be clearly understood in order to a correct apprehension of the passage. First, In what manner does it refer to the Redeemer? To his Divine nature? To the mode of his existence before he was incarnate? Or to him as he appeared on earth? Most of the ancient commentators supposed that it referred to his Divine dignity before he became incarnate; and proceed to argue, on that supposition, on the mode of the Divine existence. The true solution seems to me to be, that it refers to him as incarnate, but still has reference to him as the incarnate Son of God. It refers to him as Mediator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as Divine—thus, in his incarnation, being the brightness of the Divine glory, and the express image of God. That this is the correct view is apparent, I think, from the whole scope of the passage. The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as he has spoken to us, (Heb 1:1,) and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from Gods the last and greatest of the messengers which God has sent to man. But, then, it is a description of him as he actually is —-the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh: and this leads the writer to dwell on his Divine character, and to argue from that, Heb 1:8,10-12.
I have no doubt, therefore, that this description refers to his Divine nature, but it is the Divine nature as it appears in human flesh. An examination of the words used will prepare us for a more clear comprehension of the sense. The word glory—doxa— properly, a seeming, an appearance; and then
(1.) praise, applause, honour;
(2.) dignity, splendour, glory;
(3.) brightness, dazzling light; and
(4.) excellence, perfection, such as belongs to God, and such as there is in heaven. It is probably used here, as the word is often among the Hebrews, to denote splendour, brightness, and refers to the Divine perfections as resembling a bright light, or the sun. The word is applied to the sun and stars, 1 Co 15:40,41; to the light which Paul saw on the way to Damascus, Ac 22:11; to the shining of Moses' face, 2 Co 3:7; to the celestial light, which surrounds the angels, Re 18:1; and glorified saints, Lu 9:31,32; and to the dazzling splendour or majesty in which God is enthroned. 2 Th 1:9; 2 Pe 1:17; Re 15:8; 21:11,23.
Here there is a comparison of God with the sun; he is encompassed with splendour and majesty; he is a being of light and of infinite perfection. It refers to all in God that is bright, splendid, glorious; and the idea is, that the Son of God is the brightness of it all. The word rendered brightness apaugasma —occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, reflected splendour, or the light which emanates from a luminous body. The rays or beams of the sun are its "brightness," or that by which the sun is seen and known. The sun itself we do not see; the beams which flow from it we do see. The meaning here is, that if God be represented under the image of a luminous body, as he is in the Scriptures, (see Ps 84:11; Mal 4:2,) then Christ is the radiance of that light, the brightness of that luminary. Stuart. He is that by which we perceive God, or by which God is made known to us in his real perfections. Comp. Joh 1:18; Joh 14:9. It is by him only that the true character and glory of God is known to men. This is true in regard to the great system of revelation; but it is especially true in regard to the views which men have of God. Mt 11:27: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." The human soul is dark respecting the Divine character, until it is enlightened by Christ. It sees no beauty, no glory in his nature—nothing that excites wonder, or that wins the affections, until it is disclosed by the Redeemer. Somehow it happens—account for it as men may—that there are no elevating, practical views of God in the world; no views that engage and hold the affections of the soul; no views that are transforming and purifying, but those which are derived from the Lord Jesus. A man becomes a Christian, and at once he has elevated practical views of God. He is, to him, the most glorious of all beings. He finds supreme delight in contemplating his perfections. But he may be a philosopher or an infidel, and though he may profess to believe in the existence of God, yet the belief excites no practical influence on him; he sees nothing to admire—nothing which leads him to worship him. Comp. Ro 1:21.
And the express image. The word here used carakthr likewise occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is that from which our word character is derived. It properly means, a graying, tool; and then something engraved or stamped—a character —as, a letter, mark, sign. The image stamped on coins, seals, wax, expresses the idea; and the sense here is, that if God be represented under the idea of a substance, or being, then Christ is the exact resemblance of that, as an image is of the stamp or die. The resemblance between a stamp and the figure which is impressed is exact; and so is the resemblance between the Redeemer and God. See Col 1:15: "Who is the image of the invisible God."
Of his person. The word person, with us, denotes an individual being, and is applied to human beings, consisting of body and soul. We do not apply it to anything dead—not using it with reference to the body when the spirit is gone. It is applied to man— with individual and separate consciousness and will; with body and soul; with an existence separate from others. It is evident that it cannot be used in this sense when applied to God, and that this word does not express the true idea of the passage here. Tindal renders it, more accurately, substance. The word in the original upostasiv —whence our word hypostasis means, literally, a foundation, or substructure. Then it means, a well-founded trust, firm expectation, oonttdence, firmness, boldness; and then reality, substance, essential nature. In the New Testament, it is rendered confident, or confidence, (2 Co 9:4; 11:17; Heb 3:14; ) substance, (Heb 11:1;) and person in the passage before us. It is not elsewhere used. Here it properly refers to the essential nature of God—that which distinguishes him from all other beings and which, if I may so say, constitutes him God; and the idea is, that, the Redeemer is the exact resemblance of that. This resemblance consists, probably, in the following things—though perhaps the enumeration does not include all— but in these he certainly resembles God, or is his exact image.
(1.) In his original mode of being, or before the incarnation. Of this we know little. But he had a "glory with the Father before the world was," Joh 17:5. He was "in the beginning with God, and was God," Joh 1:1. He was in intimate union with the Father, and was one with him, in certain respects; though in certain other respects, there was a distinction. I do not see any evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrine of "eternal generation," and it is certain that that doctrine militates against the proper eternity of the Son of God. The natural and fair meaning of that doctrine would be, that there was a time when he had not an existence, and when he began to be, or was begotten. But the Scripture doctrine is, that he had a strict and proper eternity. I see no evidence that he was, in any sense, a derived being—deriving his existence and his divinity from the rather. The Fathers of the Christian church, it is believed, held that the Son of God, as to his Divine, as well as his human nature, was derived from the Father. Hence the Nicene creed speaks of him as begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light very God of very God, begotten, not made" —language implying derivation in his Divine nature. They held, with one voice, that he was God; but it was in this manner. See Stuart, Excursus III on the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this is incredible, and impossible. A derived being cannot, in any proper sense, be God; and if there is any attribute which the Scriptures have ascribed to the Saviour with peculiar clearness, it is that of proper eternity, Re 1:11,18; Joh 1:1.
It may have been, that it was by him that the perfections of God were made known, before the incarnation, to the angelic world, but on that point the Scriptures are silent.
(2.) On earth he was the brightness of the Divine glory, and the express image of his person.
(a.) It was by him, eminently, that God was made known to men—as it is by the beams of the sun that that is made known.
(b.) He bore an exact resemblance to God. He was just such a being as we should suppose God to be, were he to become incarnate, and to act as a man. He was the embodied representation of the Deity. He was pure—like God. He was benevolent—like God. He spake to the winds and storms—like God. He healed diseases—like God. He raised the dead—like God. He wielded the power which God only can wield, and he manifested a character in all respects like that which we should suppose God would evince, if he appeared in human flesh, and dwelt among men. And this is saying much. It is, in fact, saying that the account in the Gospels is real, and that the Christian religion is true. Uninspired men could never have drawn such a character as that of Jesus Christ, unless that character had actually existed. The attempt has often been made to describe God, or to show how he would speak and act if he came down to earth. Thus the Hindoos speak of the incarnations of Vishnu; and thus Homer, and Virgil, and most of the ancient poets, speak of the appearance of the gods, and describe them as they were supposed to appear. But how different from the character of the Lord Jesus! They are full of passion, and lust, and anger, and contention, and strife; they come to mingle in battles, and to take part with contending armies, and they evince the same spirit as men, and are merely men of great power, and more gigantic passions; but Christ is God IN HUMAN NATURE. The form is that of man; the Spirit is that of God. He walks, and eats, and sleeps as a man; he thinks, and speaks, and acts like God. He was born as a man—but the angels adored him as God. As a man he ate; yet, by a word, he created food for thousands, as if he were God. Like a man he slept on a pillow, while the vessel was tossed by the waves; like God he rose, and rebuked the winds, and they were still. As a man he went, with affectionate interest, to the house of Martha and Mary. As a man he sympathized with them in their affliction, and wept at the grave of their brother; like God he spoke, and the dead came forth to the land of the living. As a man he travelled through the land of Judea. lie was without a home; yet everywhere the sick were laid at his feet, and health came from his touch, and strength from the words of his lips—as if he were God. As a man he prayed in the garden of Gethsemane; he bore his cross to Calvary; he was nailed to the tree; yet then the heavens grew dark, and the earth shook, and the dead arose—as if he were God. As a man he slept in the cold tomb; like God he rose, and brought life and immortality to light. He lived on earth as a man—he ascended to heaven like God. And in all the life of the Redeemer, in all the variety of trying situations in which he was placed, there was not a word or action which was inconsistent with the supposition that he was the incarnate God. There was no failure of any effort to heal the sick or to raise the dead; no look, no word, no deed, that is not perfectly consistent with this supposition; but, on the contrary, his life is full of events which can be explained on no other supposition than that he was the appropriate shining forth of the Divine glory, and the exact resemblance of the essence of God. There are not two Gods, as there are not two suns when the sun shines. It is the one God, in a mysterious and incomprehensible manner, shining into the world in the face of Jesus Christ. See Barnes "2 Co 4:6".
As the wax bears the perfect image of the seal—perfect not only in the outline, but in the filling up—in all the lines, and features, and letters, so is it with the Redeemer. There is not one of the Divine perfections which has not the counterpart in him; and if the glory of the Divine character is seen at all by men, it will be Been in and through him.
And upholding all things by the word of his power. That is, by his powerful word, or command. The phrase "word of his power' is a Hebraism, and means his efficient command. There could not be a more distinct ascription of divinity to the Son of God than this. He upholds or sustains all things—i. e. the universe. It is not merely the earth; not only its rocks, mountains, seas, animals, and men, but it is the universe—all distant worlds. How can he do this who is not God? He does it by his word— his command. What a conception! That a simple command should do all this: So the world was made when God "spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast," Ps 33:9. So the Lord Jesus commanded the waves and the winds, and they were still, (Mt 8:26,27;) so he spoke to diseases, and they departed—and to the dead, and they arose. Comp. Ge 1:3. I know not how men can explain away this ascription of infinite power to the Redeemer. There can be no higher idea of omnipotence than to say, that he upholds all things by his word; and assuredly he who can hold up this wast universe, so that it does not sink into anarchy or into nothing, must be God. The same power Jesus claimed for himself. See Mt 28:18.
When he had by himself purged our sins. "By himself"—not by the blood of bulls and lambs, but by his own blood. This is designed to bring in the grand feature of the Christian scheme, that the purification made for sin was by his blood, instead of the blood which was shed in the temple-service. The word here rendered "purged" means purified, or "expiated". See Barnes "Joh 15:2".
The literal rendering is, "having made purification for our sins." The purification or cleansing, which he effected, was by his blood. See 1 Jo 1:7: "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." This the apostle here states to have been the great object for which he came, and having done this, he sat down on the right hand of God. See Heb 7:27; 9:12-14. It was not merely to teach that he came; it was to purify the hearts of men, to remove their sins, and to put an end of sacrifice by the sacrifice of himself.
Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Of God. See Barnes "Mr 16:19" See Barnes "Eph 1:20, seq.
{a} "being the brightness" Joh 1:14
{b} "when he" Heb 7:27; 9:12-14
{a} "sat down" Ps 110:1
Verse 4. Being made so much better. Being exalted so much above the angels. The word "better" here does not refer to moral character, but to exaltation of rank. As Mediator; as the Son of God in our nature, he is exalted far above the angels.
Than the angels. Than all angels of every rank. See Barnes "Eph 1:21" comp. 1 Pe 3:22: "Angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." He is exalted to his mediatorial throne, and all things are placed beneath his feet.
As he hath by inheritance. Or in virtue of his name—the Son of God; an exaltation such as is implied in that name. As a son has a rank in a family above servants; as he has a control over the property above that which servants have, so it is with the Mediator. He is the Son of God: angels are the servants of God, and the servants of the church. They occupy a place in the universe, compared with that which he occupies, similar to the place which servants in a family occupy compared with that which a son has. To illustrate and prove this is the design of the remainder of this chapter. The argument which the apostle insists on is, that the title "THE Son of God" is to be given to him alone. It has been conferred on no others. Though the angels, and though saints are called in general "sons of God," yet the title "THE Son of God" has been given to him only. As the apostle was writing to Hebrews, he makes his appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures alone for the confirmation of this opinion,
A more excellent name. To wit, the name Son. It is a more honourable and exalted name than has ever been bestowed on them. It involves more exalted privileges, and entitles him on whom it is bestowed to higher respect and honour than any name ever bestowed on them.
Verse 5. For unto which oft he angels, etc. The object of this is to prove that the Son of God, who has spoken to men in these last days, is superior to the angels. As the apostle was writing to those who had been trained in the Jewish religion, and who admitted the authority of the Old Testament, of course he made his appeal to that, and undoubtedly referred for proof to those places which were generally admitted to relate to the Messiah. Abarbanel says, that it was the common opinion of the Jewish doctors, that the Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the angels. Stuart. There is a difficulty, as we shall see, in applying the passages which follow to the Messiah—a difficulty which we may find it not easy to explain. Some remarks will be made on the particular passages as we go along. In general, it may be observed here,
(1.) That it is to be presumed that those passages were, in the time of Paul, applied to the Messiah. He seems to argue from them as though this was commonly understood, and is at no pains to prove it.
(2.) It is to be presumed, that those to whom he wrote would at once admit this to be so. If this were not so, we cannot suppose that he would regard this mode of reasoning as at all efficacious, or adapted to convince those to whom he wrote.
(3.) He did not apprehend that the application which he made of these texts would be called in question by the countrymen of those to whom he wrote. It is to be presumed, therefore, that the application was made in accordance with the received opinions, and the common interpretation.
(4.) Paul had been instructed, in early life, in the doctrines of the Jewish religion, and made fully acquainted with all their principles of interpretation. It is to be presumed, therefore, that he made these quotations in accordance with the prevalent belief, and with principles which were well understood and admitted,
(5.) Every age and people have their own modes of reasoning. They may differ from others, and others may regard them as unsound, and yet, to that age and people, they are satisfactory and conclusive. The ancient philosophers employed modes of reasoning which would not strike us as the most forcible, and which, perhaps, we should not regard as tenable. So it is with the Chinese, the Hindoos, the Mohammedans now. So it was with the writers of the dark ages, who lived under the influence of the scholastic philosophy. They argue from admitted principles in their country and time—just as we do in ours. Their reasoning was as satisfactory to them, as ours is to us.
(6.) In a writer of any particular age we are to expect to find the prevailing mode of reasoning, and appeals to the usual arguments on any subject. We are not to look for methods of argument founded on the inductive philosophy in the writings of the schoolmen, or in the writings of the Chinese or the Hindoos. It would be unreasonable to expect it. We are to expect that they will be found to reason in accordance with the customs of their time; to appeal to such arguments as were commonly alleged; and, if they are reasoning with an adversary, to make use of the points which he concedes, and to urge them as fitted to convince him. And this is not wrong. It may strike him with more force than it does us; it may be that we can see that is not the most solid mode of reasoning, but still it may not be in itself an improper method. That the writers of the New Testament should have used that mode of reasoning sometimes, is no more surprising than that we find writers in China reasoning from acknowledged principles, and in the usual manner there; or than that men in our own land, reason on the principles of the inductive philosophy. These remarks may not explain all the difficulties in regard to the proof-texts adduced by Paul in this chapter, but they may remove some of them, and may so prepare the way that we may be able to dispose of them all as we advance. In the passage which is quoted in this verse, there is not much difficulty in regard to the propriety of its being thus used. The difficulty lies in the subsequent quotations in the chapter.
Said he at any time. He never used language respecting the angels, like that which he employs respecting his Son. He never applied to any one of them the name Son.
Thou art my Son. The name "sons of God," is applied in the Scriptures to saints, and may have been given to the angels. But the argument here is, that the name "my son" has never been given to any one of them particularly, and by eminence. In a large, general sense, they are the sons of God, or the children of God; but the name is given to the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, in a peculiar sense, implying a peculiar relation to him, and a peculiar dominion over all things. This passage is quoted from Ps 2.—a Psalm that is usually believed to pertain particularly to the Messiah, and one of the few Psalms that have undisputed reference to him. See Barnes "Ac 4:25" See Barnes "Ac 13:33".
This day. See Barnes "Ac 13:33, where this passage is applied to the resurrection of Christ from the dead;—proving that the phrase "this day" does not refer to the doctrine of eternal generation, but to the resurrection of the Redeemer—"the FIRST-BEGOTTEN of the dead," Re 1:6. Thus Theodoret says of the phrase "this day"—" It does not express his eternal generation, but that which is connected with time." The argument of the apostle here does not turn on the time when this was said, but on the fact that this was said to him, and not to any one of the angels; and this argument will have equal force, whether the phrase be understood as referring to the fact of his resurrection, or to his previous existence. The structure and scope of the second Psalm refers to his exaltation after the kings of the earth set themselves against him, and endeavoured to cast off his government from them. In spite of that, and subsequent to that, he would set his King, which they had rejected, on his holy hill of Zion. See Ps 2:2-6.
Have I begotten thee. See this place explained See Barnes "Ac 13:33".
It must, from the necessity of the case, be understood figuratively; and must mean substantially, "I have constituted, or appointed thee." If it refers to his resurrection, it means that that resurrection was a kind of begetting to life, or a beginning of life, see Re 1:5. And yet, though Paul (Ac 13:33) has applied it to the resurrection of the Redeemer, and though the name "Son of God" is applied to him on account of his resurrection, (See Barnes "Ro 1:4,) yet I confess this does not seem to me to come up to all that the writer here intended. The phrase, "THE Son of God," I suppose, properly denotes that the Lord Jesus sustained a relation to God, designated by that name, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name "the Son of man." The one implied that he had a peculiar relation to God, as the other implied that he had a peculiar relation to man. This is indisputable. But on what particular account the name was given him, or how he was manifested to be the Son of God, has been the great question. Whether the name refers to the mode of his existence before the incarnation, and to his being begotten from eternity, or to the incarnation and the resurrection, has long been a point on which men have been divided in opinion. The natural idea conveyed by the title, `THE Son of God,' is, that he sustained a relation to God which implied more than was human or angelic; and this is certainly the drift of the argument of the apostle here. I do not see, however, that he refers to the doctrine of `eternal generation,' or that he means to teach that. His point is, that God had declared and treated him as a Son—as superior to the angels and to men, and that this was shown in what had been said of him in the Old Testament. This would be equally clear, whether there is reference to the doctrine of eternal generation or not. The sense is, "he is more than human." He is more than angelic, He has been addressed and treated as a Son—which none of the angels have. They are regarded simply as ministering spirits. They sustain subordinate stations, and are treated accordingly. He, on the contrary, is the brightness of the Divine glory, he is treated and addressed as a Son. In his original existence this was so. In his incarnation this was so. When on earth this was so; and in his resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God, he was treated in all respects as a Son—as superior to all servants, and to all "ministering spirits." The exact reference, then, of the phrase "this day have I begotten thee," in the Psalm, is to the act of constituting him, in a public manner, the Son of God; and refers to God's setting him as King on the "holy hill of Zion"—or making him King over the church and the world, as Messiah; and this was done eminently, as Paul shows (Ac 13) by the resurrection. It was based, however, on what was fit and proper. It was not arbitrary. There was a reason why he should thus be exalted, rather than a man or an angel; and this was, that he was the God incarnate, and had a nature that qualified him for universal empire, and he was thus appropriately called "THE Son of God."
And again, I will be to him a Father. This passage is evidently quoted from 2 Sa 7:14. A sentiment similar to this is found in Ps 89:20-27. As these words were originally spoken, they referred to Solomon. They occur in a promise to DAVID, that he should not fail to have an heir to sit on his throne, or that his throne should be perpetual. The promise was particularly designed to comfort him in view of the fact, that God would not suffer him to build the temple, because his hands had been defiled with blood. To console him, in reference to that, God promises him far greater honour than that would be. He promises that the house should be built by one of his own family, and that his family and kingdom should be established for ever. That, in this series of promises, the Messiah was included, as a descendant of David, was the common opinion of the Jews, of the early Christians, and has been of the great body of interpreters. It was certainly from such passages as this, that the Jews derived the notion, which prevailed so universally in the time of the Saviour, that the Messiah was to be the Son or the descendant of David. See Mt 22:42-45; 9:27; 15:22; 20:30,31; Mr 10:47,48; Lu 18:38,39;; Mt 12:23; Mt 21:9; Joh 7:42; Ro 1:3; Re 5:5; 22:16.
That opinion was universal. No one doubted it; and it must have been common for the Jews to apply such texts as this to the Messiah. Paul would not have done it, in this instance, unless it had been usual. Nor was it improper. If the Messiah was to be a descendant of David, then it was natural to apply these promises, in regard to his posterity, in an eminent and peculiar sense to the Messiah. They were a part of the promises which included him, and which terminated in him. The promise, therefore, which is here made is, that God would be to him, in a peculiar sense, a Father, and he should be a Son. It does not, as I suppose, pertain, originally, exclusively to the Messiah, but included him as a descendant of David. To him it would be applicable in an eminent sense; and if applicable to him at all, it proved all that the passage here is adduced to prove—that the name Son is given to the Messiah, a name not given to angels. That is just the point on which the argument turns. What is implied in the bestowment of that name, is another point on which the apostle discourses in the other parts of the argument. I have no doubt, therefore, that while these words originally might have been applicable to Solomon, or to any of the other descendants of David who succeeded him on the throne, yet they at last terminated, and were designed to, in the Messiah, to whom pre-eminently God would be a Father. Comp. Introduction to Isaiah, & 7, iii. (3,) and See Barnes "Isa 7:16".
{a} "at any time, Thou" Ps 2:7
{b} "and again" 2 Sa 7:14
Verse 6. And again. Marg., When he bringeth in again. The proper construction of this sentence probably is, "But when, he the moreover, brings in," etc. The word "again" refers not to the fact that Son of God is brought again into the world, implying that he had been introduced before; but it refers to the course of the apostle's argument, or to the declaration which is made about the Messiah in another place. "The name Son is not only given to him as above, but also in another place, or on another occasion, when he brings in the first-begotten into the world."
When he bringeth in. When he introduces. So far as the language here is concerned, this might refer to the birth of the Messiah; but it is evident, from the whole connexion, that the writer meant to refer to something that is said in the Old Testament. This is plain, because the passage occurs among quotations designed to prove specific point—that the Son of God, the Author of the Christian system, was superior to the angels. A declaration of the writer here, however true and solemn, would not have answered the purpose. A proof-text was wanting; a text which would be admitted, by those to whom he wrote, to bear on the point under consideration. The meaning then is, "that on another occasion, different from those to which he had referred, God, when speaking of the Messiah, or when introducing him to mankind, had used language showing that he was superior to the angels." The meaning of the phrase, "when he bringeth in," therefore, I take to be, when he introduces him to men; when he makes him known to the world—to wit, by the declaration which he proceeds immediately to quote.
The first-begotten. Christ is called the "first-begotten," with reference to his resurrection from the dead, in Re 1:5; Col 1:18. It is probable here, however, that the word is used, like the word first-born, or first-begotten, among the Hebrews, by way of eminence. As the first-born was the principal heir, and had peculiar privileges, so the Lord Jesus Christ sustains a similar rank in the universe of which God is the Head and Father. See Barnes "Joh 1:14, where the word, "only-begotten," is used to denote the dignity and honour of the Lord Jesus.
Into the world. When he introduces him to mankind, or declares what he is to be.
He saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Much difficulty has been experienced in regard to this quotation, for it cannot be denied that it is intended to be a quotation. In the Septuagint these very words occur in De 32:43, where they are inserted in the Song of Moses. But they are not in the Hebrew; nor are they in all the copies of the Septuagint. The Hebrew is, "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people; for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries.", The Septuagint is, "Rejoice ye heavens with him and let all the angels of God worship him. Let the nations rejoice with his people, and let all the sons of God be strong in him, for he has avenged the blood of his sons." But there are objections to our supposing that the apostle had this place in his view, which seem to me to settle the matter.
(1.) One is, that the passage is not in the Hebrew; and it seems hardly credible that, in writing to Hebrews, and to those residing in the very country where the Hebrew Scriptures were constantly used, he should adduce, as a proof-text on an important doctrine, what was not in their Scriptures.
(2.) A second is, that it is omitted in all the ancient versions, except the Septuagint.
(3.) A third is, that it is impossible to believe that the passage in question, in Deuteronomy, had any reference to the Messiah. It does not relate to his "introduction" to the world. It would not occur to any reader that it had any such reference. The context celebrates the victory over the enemies of Israel which God will achieve. After saying that "his arrows would be drunk with blood, and that his sword would devour flesh with the blood of the slain and of captives, from the time when he begins to take vengeance on an enemy," the Septuagint (not the Hebrew) immediately asserts, "let the heavens rejoice at the same time with him, and let all the angels of God worship him." That is: "Let the inhabitants of the heavenly world rejoice in the victory of God over the enemies of his people, and let them pay their adoration to him." But the Messiah does not appear to be alluded to anywhere in the context; much less described as "introduced into the world." There is, moreover, not the slightest evidence that it was ever supposed by the Jews to have any such reference; and though it might be said that the apostle merely quoted language that expressed his meaning—as we often do when we are familiar with any well-known phrase that will exactly suit our purpose and convey an idea—yet, it should be remarked, that this is not the way in which this passage is quoted. It is a proof-text, and Paul evidently meant to be understood as saying, that that passage had a fair reference to the Messiah. It is evident, moreover, that it would be admitted to have such a reference by those to whom he wrote. It is morally certain, therefore, that this was not the passage which the writer intended to quote. The probability is, that the writer here referred to Ps 97:7, (in the Sept. Ps 96:7.) In that place, the Hebrew is, "worship him all ye gods"—all ye elohim. In the Septuagint it is, "Let all his angels worship him;" where the translation is literal, except that the word God—"angels of God" —is used by the apostle instead of his— "all his angels"—as it is in the Septuagint. The word "gods" elohim is rendered by the word angels, but the word may have that sense. Thus it is rendered by the Seventy, in Job 20:15; and in Ps 8:6; 138:1. It is well known, that the word elohim may denote kings and magistrates, because of their rank and dignity; and is there anything improbable in the supposition that, for a similar reason, the word may be given also to angels? The fair interpretation of the passage, then, would be, to refer it to angelic beings; and the command, in Ps 97, is for them to do homage to the being there referred to. The only question then is, whether the Psalm can be regarded properly as having any reference to the Messiah? Did the apostle fairly and properly use this language as referring to him? On this we may remark,
(1.) That the fact that he uses it thus may be regarded as proof that it would be admitted to be proper by the Jews in his time, and renders it probable that it was in fact so used.
(2.) Two Jewish rabbins of distinction—Raschi and Kimchi—affirm, that all the Psalms, from 93, to 101 are to be regarded as referring to the Messiah. Such was, and is, the opinion of the Jews.
(3.) There is nothing in the Psalm which forbids such a reference, or which can be shown to be inconsistent with it. Indeed, the whole Psalm might be taken as beautifully descriptive of the "introduction" of the Son of God into the world, or as a sublime and glorious description of his advent. Thus, in Ps 97:1, the earth is called on to rejoice that the Lord reigns. In Ps 97:2-5, he is introduced or described as coming in the most magnificent manner—clouds and darkness attend him; a fire goes before him; the lightnings play; and the hills melt like wax —a sublime description of his coming, with appropriate symbols, to reign, or to judge the world. In Ps 97:6, it is said that all people shall see his glory; in Ps 97:7, that all who worship graven images shall be confounded, and all the angels are required to do him homage, and in vers. Ps 97:8-12, the effect of his advent is described as filling Zion with rejoicing, and the hearts of the people of God with gladness. It cannot be proved, therefore, that this Psalm had no reference to the Messiah; but the presumption is that it had, and that the apostle has quoted it not only as it was usually regarded in his time, but as it was designed by the Holy Ghost. If so, then it proves, what the writer intended, that the Son of God should be adored by the angels; and, of course, that he was superior to them. It proves also more. Whom would God require the angels to adore? A creature? A man? A fellow-angel? To ask these questions is to answer them. He could require them to worship none but God, and the passage proves that the Son of God is divine.
{1} "And again" or "when he bringeth again"
{a} "let all the angels" Ps 97:7
Verse 7. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits. He gives to them an inferior name, and assigns to them a more humble office. They are mere ministers, and have not ascribed to them the name of Son. They have a name which implies a more humble rank and office—the name "spirit," and the appellation of a "flame of fire." They obey his will as the winds and the lightnings do. The object of the apostle in this passage is to show that the angels serve God in a ministerial capacity—as the winds do; while the Son is Lord of all. The one serves him passively, as being wholly under his control; the other acts as a Sovereign, as Lord over all, and is addressed and regarded as the equal with God. This quotation is made from Ps 104:4. The passage might, be translated, "Who, maketh his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire; that is, "who makes his angels like the winds, or as swift as the winds, and his ministers as rapid, as terrible, and as resistless as the lightning." So Doddridge renders it; and so did the late Rev. Dr. J.P. Wilson. MS. Notes. The passage in the Psalm is susceptible, I think, of another interpretation, and might be regarded as meaning, "who makes the winds his messengers, and the flaming fire his ministers;" and perhaps this is the sense which would most naturally occur to a reader of the Hebrew. The Hebrew, however, will admit of the construction here put upon it, and it cannot be proved that it was the original intention of the passage to show that the angels were the mere servants of God, rapid, quick, and prompt to do his will—like the winds. The Chaldee Paraphrase renders the passage in the Psalm, "Who makes his messengers swift as the wind; his ministers strong, like a flame of fire." Professor Stuart maintains that the passage in the Psalm cannot mean "who makes the winds his messengers," but that the intention of the Psalmist is to describe the invisible as well as the visible majesty of God, and that he refers to the angels as a part of the retinue which goes to make up his glory. This does not seem to me to be perfectly certain; but still, it cannot be demonstrated that Paul has made an improper use of the passage. It is to be presumed that he, who had been trained in the knowledge of the Hebrew language, would have had a better opportunity of knowing its fair construction than we can; and it is morally certain, that he would employ the passage in an argument as it was commonly understood by those to whom he wrote—that is, to those who were familiar with the Hebrew language and literature. If he has so used the passage; if he has —as no one can disprove— put the fair construction on it, then it is just in point. It proves that the angels are the attendant servants of God; employed to grace his train, to do his will, to accompany him as the clouds and winds and lightnings do, and to occupy a subordinate rank in his creation.
Flame of fire. This probably refers to lightning— which is often the meaning of the phrase. The word "ministers" here, means the same as angels; and the sense of the whole is, that the attending retinue of God, when he manifests himself with great power and glory, is like the winds and the lightning. His angels are like them. They are prompt to do his will—rapid, quick, obedient in his service; they are, in all respects, subordinate to him, and occupy, as the winds and the lightnings do, the place of servants. They are not addressed in language like that which is applied to the Son of God, and they must all be far inferior to him.
{1} "And of the angels" "unto"
{a} "maketh" Ps 104:4
Verse 8. But unto the Son he saith. In Ps 45:6,7. The fact that the writer of this epistle makes this application of the Psalm to the Messiah, proves that it was so applied in his time, or that it would be readily admitted to be applicable to him. It has been generally admitted, by both Jewish and Christian interpreters, to have such a reference. Even those who have doubted its primary applicability to the Messiah, have regarded it as referring to him in a secondary sense. Many have supposed that it referred to Solomon in the primary sense, and that it has a secondary reference to the Messiah. To me it seems most probable that it had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah. It is to be remembered, that the hope of the Messiah was the peculiar hope of the Jewish people. The coming of the future King, so early promised, was the great event to which they all looked forward with the deepest interest. That hope inspired their prophets and their bards, and cheered the hearts of the nation in the time of despondency. The Messiah, if I may so express it, was the hero of the Old Testament—more so than Achilles is of the Iliad, and AEneas of the AEniad. The sacred poets were accustomed to employ all their most magnificent imagery in describing him, and to present him in every form that was beautiful in their conception, and that would be gratifying to the pride and hopes of the nation. Every thing that is gorgeous and splendid in description is lavished on him; and they were never under any apprehension of attributing to him too great magnificence in his personal reign; too great beauty of moral character; or too great an extent of dominion. That which would be regarded by them as a magnificent description of a monarch, they freely applied to him; and this is evidently the case in this Psalm. That the description may have been, in part, derived from the view of Solomon in the magnificence of his court, is possible, but no more probable than that it was derived from the general view of the splendour of any oriental monarch, or than that it might have been the description of a monarch which was the pure creation of inspired poetry. Indeed, I see not why this Psalm should ever have been supposed to be applicable to Solomon. His name is not mentioned. It has no peculiar applicability to him. There is nothing that would apply to him which would not also apply to many an oriental prince. There are some things in it which are much less applicable to him than to many others. The king here described is a conqueror. He girds his sword on his thigh, and his arrows are sharp in the hearts of his foes, and the people are subdued under him. This was not true of Solomon. His was a reign of peace and tranquillity, nor was he ever distinguished for war. On the whole, it seems clear to me, that this Psalm is designed to be a beautiful poetic description of the Messiah as king. The images are drawn from the usual characteristics of an oriental prince; and there are many things in the poem—as there, are in parables—for the sake of keeping, or veri-similitude, and which are not, in the interpretation, to be cut to the quick. The writer imagined to himself a magnificent and beautiful prince: a prince riding prosperously in his conquests; swaying a permanent and wide dominion; clothed in rich and splendid vestments; eminently upright and pure; and scattering blessings everywhere—and that prince was the Messiah. The Psalm, therefore, I regard as relating originally and exclusively to Christ; and though, in the interpretation, the circumstances should not be unduly pressed, nor an attempt be made to spiritualize them, yet the whole is a glowing and most beautiful description of Christ as a King. The same principles of interpretation should be applied to it which are applied to parables, and the same allowance be made for the introduction of circumstances for the sake of keeping, or for finishing the story. If this be the correct view, then Paul has quoted the Psalm in conformity exactly with its original intention, as he undoubtedly quoted it as it was understood in his time.
Thy throne. A throne is the seat on which a monarch sits, and is here the symbol of dominion, because kings, when acting as rulers, sit on thrones. Thus a throne becomes the emblem of authority or empire. Here it means, that his rule or dominion would be perpetual- "for ever and ever" —which assuredly could not be applied to Solomon.
O God. This certainly could not be applied to Solomon; but applied to the Messiah, it proves what the apostle is aiming to prove—that he is above the angels. The argument is that a name is given to him which is never given to them. They are not called God in any strict and proper sense. The argument here requires us to understand this word as used in a sense more exalted than any name which is ever given to angels, and though it may be maintained that the name Elohim is given to magistrates or to angels, yet here the argument requires us to understand it as used in a sense superior to what it ever is when applied to an angel—or of course to any creature, since it was the express design of the argument to prove that the Messiah was superior to the angels. The word God should be taken in its natural and obvious sense, unless there is some necessary reason for limiting it. If applied to magistrates (Ps 82:6) it must be so limited. If applied to the Messiah there is no such necessity, (Joh 1:1; Isa 10:6; 1 Jo 5:20; Php 2:6, ) and it should be taken in its natural and proper sense. The form here—o yeov in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it. Stuart. This, then, is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word. Unitarians proposed to translate this, "God is thy throne;" but how can God be a throne of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary?—This refers, as it seems to me, to the Messiah as king. It does not relate to his mode of existence before the incarnation, but to him as the magnificent monarch of his people. Still the ground or reason why this name is given to him is that he is divine. It is language which properly expresses his nature. He must have a divine nature, or such language would be improper. I regard this passage, therefore, as full proof that the Lord Jesus is divine; nor is it possible to evade this conclusion by any fair interpretation of it. It cannot be wrong to address him as God; nor addressing him as such, not to regard him as divine.
Is for ever and ever. This could not, in any proper sense, apply to Solomon. As applied to the Messiah, it means that his essential kingdom will be perpetual, Lu 1:33. As Mediator his kingdom will be given up to the Father, or to God, without reference to a mediatorial work, (1 Co 15:24,28—See Barnes "1 Co 15:24" See Barnes "1 Co 15:28,) but his reign over his people will be perpetual. There never will come a time when they shall not obey and serve him, though the peculiar form of his kingdom, as connected with the work of mediation, will be changed. The form of the organized church, for example, will be changed—for there shall be no necessity for it in heaven—but the essential dominion and power of the Son of God will not cease. He shall have the same dominion which he had before he entered on the work of mediation; and that will be eternal. It is also true, that, compared with earthly monarchs, his kingdom shall be perpetual. They soon die. Dynasties pass away. But his empire extends from age to age, and is properly a perpetual dominion. The fair and obvious interpretation of this passage would satisfy me, were there nothing else, that this Psalm had no reference to Solomon, but was designed originally as a description of the Messiah, as the expected King and Prince of his people.
A sceptre of righteousness. That is, a right or just sceptre. The phrase is a Hebraism. The former expression described the perpetuity of his kingdom; this describes its equable nature. It would be just and equal. See Barnes "Isa 11:5".
A sceptre is a staff or wand usually made of wood, five or six feet long, and commonly overlaid with gold, or ornamented with golden rings. Sometimes, however, the sceptre was made of ivory, or wholly of gold. It was borne in the hands of kings as an emblem of authority and power. Probably it had its origin in the staff or crook of the shepherd— as kings were at first regarded as the shepherds of their people. Thus Agamemnon is commonly called, by Homer, the shepherd of the people. The sceptre thus becomes the emblem of kingly office and power—as when we speak of swaying a sceptre;— and the idea here is, that the Messiah would be a King, and that the authority which he would wield would be equitable and just. He would not be governed, as monarchs often are, by mere caprice, or by the wishes of courtiers and flatterers; he would not be controlled by mere will, and the love of arbitrary power; but the execution of his laws would be in accordance with the principles of equity and justice. How well this accords with the character of the Lord Jesus we need not pause to show. Comp. See Barnes "Isa 11:2, seq.
{b} "he saith" Ps 14:6,7
{2} "righteousness" "rightness or straightness"
Verse 9. Thou hast loved righteousness. Thou hast been obedient to the law of God, or holy and upright. Nothing can be more truly adapted to express the character of any one, than this is to describe the Lord Jesus, who was "holy, harmless, undefiled," who "did no sin, and in whose mouth no guile was found;" but it is with difficulty that this can be applied to Solomon. Assuredly, for a considerable part of his life, this declaration could not well be appropriate to him; and it seems to me, that it is not to be regarded as descriptive of him at all. It is language prompted by the warm and pious imagination of the Psalmist, describing the future Messiah and, as applied to him, is true to the letter.
Therefore God, even thy God. The word even inserted here by the translators, weakens the force of the expression. This might be translated, "O God, thy God hath anointed thee." So it is rendered by Doddridge, Clarke, Stuart, and others. The Greek will bear this construction, as well the Hebrew in Ps 45:7. In the margin in the Psalm it is rendered, "O God." This is the most natural construction, as it accords with what is just said before. "Thy throne, O God, is for ever. Thou art just and holy, therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee." It is not material, however, which construction is adopted.
Hath anointed thee. Anciently kings and priests were consecrated to their office by pouring oil on their heads. See Le 8:12; Nu 3:3; 1 Sa 10:1; 2 Sa 2:7; Ps 2:6; Isa 61:1; Ac 4:27; 10:38; See Barnes "Mt 1:1".
The expression "to anoint," therefore, comes to mean, to consecrate to office, or to set apart to some public work. This is evidently the meaning in the Psalm, where the whole language refers to the appointment of the personage there referred to to the kingly office.
The oil of gladness. This probably means the perfumed oil that was poured on the head, attended with many expressions of joy and rejoicing. The inauguration of the Messiah, as king would be an occasion of rejoicing and triumph. Thousands would exult at it—as in the coronation of a king; and thousands would be made glad by such a consecration to the office of Messiah.
Above thy fellows. Above thine associates; that is, above all, who sustain the kingly office. He would be more exalted than all other kings. Doddridge supposes that it refers to angels, who might have been associated with the Messiah in the government of the world. But the more natural construction is, to suppose that it refers to kings, and to mean that he was the most exalted of all.
Verse 10. And. That is, "To add another instance;" or, "to the Son he saith in another place, or in the following language." This is connected with Heb 1:8. "Unto the Son he saith, (Heb 1:8,) Thy throne, etc.—and (Heb 1:10) he also saith, Thou Lord," etc. That this is the meaning is apparent, because
(1.) the object of the whole quotation is to show the exalted character of the Son of God, and
(2.) an address here to JEHOVAH would be wholly irrelevant. Why, in an argument designed to prove that the Son of God was superior to the angels, should the writer break out in an address to JEHOVAH, in view of the fact that he had laid the foundations of the world, and that he himself would continue to live when the heavens should be rolled up and pass away? Such is not the manner of Paul, or of any other good writer; and it is clear that the writer here designed to adduce this as applicable to the Messiah. Whatever difficulties there may be about the principles on which it is done, and the reason why this passage was selected for the purpose, there can be no doubt about the design of the writer. He meant to be understood as applying it to the Messiah, beyond all question, or the quotation is wholly irrelevant, and it is inconceivable why it should have been made.
Thou, Lord. This is taken from Ps 102:25-27. The quotation is made from the Septuagint, with only a slight variation, and is an accurate translation of the Hebrew. In the Psalm, there can be no doubt that JEHOVAH is intended. This is apparent on the face of the Psalm, and particularly because the name JEHOVAH is introduced Ps 102:1,12, and because he is addressed as the Creator of all things, and as immutable. No one, on reading the Psalm, ever would doubt that it referred to God; and, if the apostle meant to apply it to the Lord Jesus, it proves most conclusively that he is divine. In regard to the difficult inquiry, why he applied this to the Messiah, or on what principle such an application can be vindicated, we may perhaps throw some light by the following remarks. It must be admitted, that probably few persons, if any, on reading the Psalm, would suppose that it referred to the Messiah; but
(1.) the fact that the apostle thus employs it, proves that it was understood, in his time, to have such a reference, or, at least, that those to whom he wrote would admit that it had such a reference. On no other principle would he have used it in an argument. This is at least of some consequence, in showing what the prevailing interpretation was.
(2.) It cannot be demonstrated that it had no such reference—for such was the habit of the sacred writers in making the future Messiah the theme of their poetry, that no one can prove that the writer this Psalm did not design that the Messiah should be the subject of his praise here.
(3.) There is nothing in the Psalm which may not be applied to the Messiah; but there is much in it that is peculiarly applicable to him. Suppose, for example, that the Psalmist, Ps 102:1-11, in his complaints, represents the people of God, before the Redeemer appeared, as lowly, sad, dejected, and afflicted, speaking of himself as one of them, and as a fair representative of that people, the remainder of the Psalm will well agree with the promised redemption. Thus, having described the sadness and sorrow of the people of God, he speaks of the fact that God would arise and have mercy upon Zion, (Ps 102:13,14,) that the heathen would fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth would see his glory, (Ps 102:15,) and that when the Lord should build up Zion he would appear in his glory, Ps 102:16. To whom else could this be so well applied as to the Messiah? To what time so well as to his time? Thus, too, in Ps 102:20, it is said that the Lord would look down from heaven "to hear the groaning of the prisoner, and to loose them that are appointed to death"— language remarkably resembling that used by Isaiah, Isa 61:1 which the Saviour applies to himself, in Lu 4:17-21. The passage then quoted by the apostle (Ps 102:25-27) is designed to denote the immutability of the Messiah, and the fact that in him all the interests of the church were safe. He would not change. He had formed all things, and he would remain the same. His kingdom would be permanent, amidst all the changes occurring on earth, and his people had no cause of apprehension or alarm, Ps 102:28.
(4.) Paul applies this language to the Messiah, in accordance with the doctrine which he had stated, (Heb 1:2,) that it was by him that God "made the worlds." Having stated that, he seems to have felt that it was not improper to apply to him the passages occurings in the Old Testament that speak of the work of creation. The argument is this. "He was, in fact, the Creator of all things. But, to the Creator, there is applied language in the Scriptures which shows that he was far exalted above the angels. He would remain the same, while the heavens and the earth should fade away. His years are enduring and eternal. Such a Being MUST be superior to the angels; such a Being must be divine." The words "Thou, Lord" su kurie are not in the Hebrew of the Psalm, though they are in the Septuagint. In the Hebrew, in the Psalm, (Ps 102:24,) it is an address to God—"I said, O my God"—but there can be no doubt that the Psalmist meant to address JEHOVAH, and that the word God is used in its proper sense, denoting divinity. See Ps 102:1,12, of the Psalm.
In the beginning. See Ge 1:1. When the world was made. Comp. See Barnes "Joh 1:1, where the same phrase is applied to the Messiah —"In the beginning was the Word."
Hast laid the foundation of the earth. Hast made the earth. This language is such as is common in the Scriptures, where the earth is represented as laid on a foundation, or as supported. It is figurative language, derived from the act of rearing an edifice. The meaning here is, that the Son of God was the original Creator or Founder of the universe. He did not merely arrange it out of pre-existing materials, but he was properly its Creator or Founder.
And the heavens art the works of thine hands. This must demonstrate the Lord Jesus to be divine. He that made the vast heavens must be God. No creature could perform a work like that; nor can we conceive that power to create the vast array of distant worlds could possibly be delegated. If that power could be delegated, there is not an attribute of Deity which may not be, and thus all our notions of what constitutes divinity would be utterly confounded. The word "heavens" here must mean all parts of the universe except the earth, see Ge 1:1. The word hands is used, because it is by the hands that we usually perform any work.
{a} "Thou Lord" Ps 102:25
Verse 11. They shall perish. That is, the heavens and the earth. They shall pass away; or they shall be destroyed. Probably no more is meant by the phrase here, than that important changes will take place in them, or than that they will change their form, Still, it is not possible to foresee what changes may yet take place in the heavenly bodies, or to say that the present universe may not at some period be destroyed, and be succeeded by another creation still more magnificent. He that created the universe by a word, can destroy it by a word; and he that formed the present frame of nature can cause it to be succeeded by another, not less wonderful and glorious. The Scriptures seem to hold out the idea, that the present frame of the universe shall be destroyed. See 2 Pe 3:10-13; Mt 24:35.
But thou remainest. Thou shalt not die, or be destroyed, What a sublime thought! The idea is, that though the heavens and earth should suddenly disappear, or though they should gradually wear out and become extinct, yet there is one infinite Being who remains unaffected, and unchanged. Nothing can reach or disturb him. All these changes shall take place under his direction, and by his command. See Le 20:11. Let us not be alarmed, then, at any revolution. Let us not fear, though we should see the heavens rolled up as a scroll, and the stars falling from their places. God, the Creator and Redeemer, presides over all. He is unchanged, He ever lives; and though the universe should pass away, it will be only at his bidding, and under his direction.
And they all shall wax old. Shall grow or become old. The word wax is an old Saxon word, meaning to grow, or increase, or become. The heavens here are compared with a garment-meaning, that as that grows old and decays, so it will be with the heavens, and the earth. The language is evidently figurative; and yet who can tell how much literal truth there may be couched under it? Is it absurd to suppose that that sun which daily sends forth so many countless millions of beams of light over the universe, may, in a course of ages, become diminished in its splendour, and shine with feeble lustre? Can there be constant exhaustion, a constant burning like that, and yet no tendency to decay at some far distant period? Not unless the material for its splendour shall be supplied from the boundless resources of the Great Source of Light—God; and when he shall choose to with. hold it, even that glorious sun must be dimmed of its splendour, and shine with enfeebled beams.
{*} "wax old" "shall become old"
Verse 12. And as vesture, A garment;—literally something thrown around—peribolaion,—and denoting properly the outer garment, the cloak or mantle. See Barnes "Mt 5:40".
Shalt thou fold them up. That is, the heavens. They are represented in the Scriptures as an expanse, or something spread out, (Heb. in Ge 1:7;) and a curtain, or tent, (Isa 40:22,) and as a scroll that might be spread out or rolled up like a book or volume, Isa 34:4; Re 6:14. Here they are represented as a garment or mantle that might be folded up—language borrowed from folding up and laying aside garments that are no longer fit for use.
And they shall be changed. That is, they shall be exchanged for others, or they shall give place to the new heavens and the new earth. 2 Pe 3:13. The meaning is, that the present form of the heavens and the earth is not to be permanent, but is to be succeeded by others, or to pass away, but that the Creator is to remain the same.
Thou art the same. Thou wilt not change.
And thy years shall not fail. Thou wilt exist for ever unchanged. What could more clearly prove that he of whom this is spoken is immutable? Yet it is indubitably spoken of the Messiah, and must demonstrate that he is divine. These attributes cannot be conferred on a creature; and nothing can be clearer, than that he who penned the epistle believed that the Son of God was divine.
Verse 13. But to which of the angels. The apostle adduces one other proof of the exaltation of the Son of God above the angels. He asks where there is an instance in which God had addressed any one of the angels, and asked him to sit at his right hand until he should subdue his enemies under him? Yet that high honour had been conferred on the Son of God; and he was therefore far exalted above them.
Sit on my right hand. See Barnes "Heb 1:3".
This passage is taken from Ps 90:1—a Psalm that is repeatedly quoted in this epistle as referring to the Messiah, and the very passage before us is applied by the Saviour to himself, in Mt 22:43,44, and by Peter it is applied to him in Ac 2:34,35. There can be no doubt, therefore, of its applicability to the Messiah.
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Until I reduce them to entire subjection. A footstool is what is placed under the feet when we sit on a chair; and the phrase here means that an enemy is entirely subdued. Comp. See Barnes "1 Co 15:25".
The phrase, to make an enemy a footstool, is borrowed from the custom of ancient warriors, who stood on the necks of vanquished kings, on the occasion of celebrating a triumph over them, as a token of their complete prostration and subjection. See Barnes "Isa 10:6".
The enemies here referred to are the foes of God and of his religion; and the meaning is, that the Messiah is to be exalted until all those foes are subdued. Then he will give up the kingdom to the Father. See Barnes "1 Co 15:24, seq. The exaltation of the Redeemer, to which the apostle refers here, is to the mediatorial throne. In this he is exalted far above the angels. His foes are to be subdued to him, but angels are to be employed as mere instruments in that great work.
{a} "Sit on my right hand" Ps 90:1
Verse 14. Are they not all. There is not one of them that is elevated to the high rank of the Redeemer. Even the most exalted angel is employed in the comparatively humble office of a ministering spirit, appointed to aid the heirs of salvation.
Ministering spirits. A ministering spirit is one that is employed to execute the will of God. The proper meaning of the word here— leitourgika (whence our word liturgy) is, pertaining to public service, or the service of the people (laov;) and is applied particularly to those who were engaged in the public service of the temple. They were those who rendered aid to others; who were helpers or servants. Such is the meaning as used here. They are employed to render aid or assistance to others—to wit, to Christians.
Sent forth. Appointed by God for this. They are sent; are under his control; are in a subordinate capacity. Thus Gabriel was sent forth to convey an important message to Daniel. Da 9:21-23.
To minister. For the aid or succour of such. They come to render them assistance and, if employed in this humble office, how much inferior to the dignity of the Son of God—the Creator and Ruler of the worlds!
Who shall be heirs of salvation. To the saints; to Christians. They are called "heirs of salvation," because they are adopted into the family of God, and are treated as his sons. See Barnes "Ro 8:14, seq. The main point here is, that the angels are employed in a much more humble capacity than the Son of God; and, therefore, that he sustains a far more elevated rank. But while the apostle has proved, that he has incidentally stated an exceedingly interesting and important doctrine, that the angels are employed to further the salvation of the people of God, and to aid them in their journey to heaven. In this doctrine there is nothing absurd. It is no more improbable that angels should be employed to aid man, than that one man should aid another; certainly not as improbable as that the Son of God should come down, "not to be ministered unto, but to minister," (Mt 20:28,) and that he performed on earth the office of a servant, Joh 13:1-15. Indeed, it is a great principle of the Divine administration, that one class of God's creatures are to minister to others; that one is to aid another—to assist him in trouble, to provide for him when poor, and to counsel him in perplexity. We are constantly deriving benefit from others, and are dependent on their counsel and help. Thus, God has appointed parents to aid their children; neighbours to aid their neighbours; the rich to aid the poor; and all over the world the principle is seen, that one is to derive benefit from the aid of others. Why may not the angels be employed in this service? They are pure, benevolent, powerful; and as man was ruined in the fall by the temptation offered by one of an angelic, though fallen nature, why should not others of angelic, unfallen holiness, come to assist in repairing the evils which their fallen, guilty brethren have inflicted on the race? To me there seems to be a beautiful propriety in bringing aid from another race, as ruin came from another race; and that as those endowed with angelic might, though with fiendish malignity, ruined man, those with angelic might, but heavenly benevolence, should aid in his recovery and salvation. Farther, it is, from the necessity of the case, a great principle, that the weak shall be aided by the strong; the ignorant by the enlightened; the impure by the pure; the tempted by those who have not fallen by temptation. All over the world we see this in operation; and it constitutes the beauty of the moral arrangements on the earth; and why shall not this be extended to the inhabitants of other abodes? Why shall not angels, with their superior intelligence, benevolence, and power, come in to perfect this system, and show how much adapted it is to glorify God? In regard to the ways in which angels become ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, the Scriptures have not fully informed us; but facts are mentioned, which will furnish some light on this inquiry. What they do now may be learned from the Scripture account of what they have done—as it seems to be a fair principle of interpretation, that they are engaged in substantially the same employment in which they have ever been. The following methods of angelic interposition in behalf of man are noted in the Scripture.
(1.) They feel a deep interest in man. Thus the Saviour says, "There is joy in heaven among the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth," Lu 15:10.
(2.) Thus also he says, when speaking of the "little ones" that compose his church, "In heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven," Mt 18:10.
(3.) They feel a special interest in all that relates to the redemption of man. Thus Peter says of the things pertaining to redemption, "which things the angels desire to look into," 1 Pe 1:12. In accordance with this they are represented as praising God over the fields of Bethlehem, where the shepherds were to whom it was announced that a Saviour was born, (Lu 2:13;) an angel announced to Mary that she would be the mother of the Messiah, (Lu 1:26;) an angel declared to the shepherds that he was born, (Lu 2:10;) the angels came and ministered to him in his temptation, (Mt 6:11;) an angel strengthened him in the garden of Gethsemane, (Lu 22:43;) angels were present in the sepulchre where the Lord Jesus had been laid, to announce his resurrection to his disciples, (Joh 20:12;) and they re-appeared to his disciples on Mount Olivet, to assure them that he would return, and receive his people to himself, Ac 1:10.
(4.) They appear for the defence and protection of the people of God. Thus it is said, (Ps 34:7,) "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them." Thus two angels came to hasten Lot from the cities of the Plain, and to rescue him from the impending destruction, Ge 19:1,15. Thus an angel opened the prison doors of the apostles, and delivered them when they had been confined by the Jews, Ac 5:19. Thus the angel of the Lord delivered Peter from prison, when he had been confined by Herod, Ac 12:7,8.
(5.) Angels are sent to give us strength to resist temptation. Aid was thus furnished to the Redeemer in the garden of Gethsemane, when there "appeared an angel from heaven strengthening him," Lu 22:43. The great trial there seems to have been somehow connected with temptation; some influence of the power of darkness, or of the prince of evil, Lu 22:53; comp. Joh 14:30. In this aid which they rendered to the tempted Redeemer, and in the assistance which they render to us when tempted, there is a special fitness and propriety. Man was at first tempted by a fallen angel. No small part—if not all the temptations in the world—are under the direction now of fallen angels. They roam at large, "seeking whom they may devour," 1 Pe 5:8. The temptations which occur in life, the numerous allurements which beset our path, all have the marks of being under the control of dark and malignant spirits. What, therefore, can be more appropriate, than for the pure angels of God to interpose and aid man against the skill and wiles of their fallen and malignant fellow-spirits ? Fallen angelic power and skill—power and skill far above the capability and the strength of man—are employed to ruin us; and how desirable is it for like power and skill, under the guidance of benevolence, to come in to aid us!
(6.) They support us in affliction. Thus an angel brought a cheering message to Daniel; the angels were present to give comfort to the disciples of the Saviour, when he had been taken from them by death, and when he ascended to heaven. Why may it not be so now, that important consolations, in some way, are imparted to us by angelic influence? And
(7.) they attend dying saints, and conduct them to glory. Thus the Saviour says of Lazarus, that-when he died he "was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom," Lu 16:22. Is there any impropriety in supposing that the same thing may be done still? Assuredly, if anywhere heavenly aid is needed, it is when the spirit leaves the body. If anywhere a guide is needed, it is when the ransomed soul goes up the unknown path to God. And if angels are employed on any messages of mercy to mankind, it is proper that it should be when life is closing, and the spirit is about to ascend to heaven. Should it be said that they are invisible, and that it is difficult to conceive how we can be aided by beings whom we never see, I answer—I know that they are unseen. They no longer appear, as they once did, to be the visible protectors and defenders of the people of God. But no small part of the aid which we receive from others comes from sources unseen by us. We owe more to unseen benefactors than to those whom we see; and the most grateful of all aid, perhaps, is that which is furnished by a hand which we do not see, and from quarters which we cannot trace. How many an orphan is benefited by some unseen and unknown benefactor! So it may be a part of the great arrangements of Divine Providence, that many of the most needed and acceptable interpositions for our welfare should come to us from invisible sources, and be conveyed to us from God by unseen hands.
1. The Christian religion has a claim on the attention of man. God has spoken to us in the gospel by his Son, Heb 1:1,2. This fact constitutes a claim on us to attend to what is spoken in the New Testament. When God sent prophets to address men, endowing them with more than human wisdom and eloquence, and commanding them to deliver solemn messages to mankind, that was a reason why men should hear. But how much more important is the message which is brought by his own Son! How much more exalted the Messenger! How much higher his claim to our attention and regard! Comp. Mt 21:37. Yet it is lamentable to reflect, how few attended to him when he lived on the earth, and how few comparatively regard him now. The great mass of men feel no interest in the fact, that the Son of God has come and spoken to the human race. Few take the pains to read what he said, though all the records of the discourses of the Saviour could be read in a few hours. A newspaper is read; a poem; a novel; a play; a history of battles and sieges; but the New Testament is neglected, and there are thousands, even in Christian lands, who have not even read through the sermon on the Mount! Few, also, listen to the truths which the Redeemer taught when they are proclaimed in the sanctuary. Multitudes never go to the place where the gospel is preached; multitudes, when there, are engaged in thinking of other things, or are wholly inattentive to the truths which are proclaimed. Such a reception has the Son of God met with in our world! The most wonderful of all events is, that he should have come from heaven to be the Teacher of mankind; next to that, the most wonderful event is, that when he has come men feel no interest in the fact, and refuse to listen to what he says of the unseen and eternal world. What a man will say about the possibility of making a fortune, by some wild speculation, will be listened to with the deepest interest; but what the Redeemer says about the certainty of heaven, and eternal riches there, excites no emotion. What one from the dead might say about the unseen world would excite the profoundest attention, what He has said, who has always dwelt in the unseen world, and who knows all that has occurred there, and all that is yet to occur, awakens no interest, and excites no inquiry. Such is man. The visit, too, of an illustrious stranger—like Lafayette to America—will rouse a nation, and spread enthusiasm everywhere; the visit of the Son of God to the earth, on a great errand of mercy, is regarded as an event of no importance, and excites no interest in the great mass of human hearts.
2. Christ is divine. In the view of the writer of this epistle, he was undoubtedly regarded as equal with God. This is so clear, that it seems wonderful that it should ever have been called in question. He who made the worlds; who is to be worshipped by the angels; who is addressed as God; who is said to have laid the foundation of the earth, and to have made the heavens, and to be unchanged when all these things shall pass away, must be divine. These are the attributes of God, and belong to him alone. These things could not be spoken of a man, an angel, an archangel. It is impossible to conceive, that attributes like these could belong to a creature. If they could, then all our notions of what constitutes the distinction between God and his creatures are confounded, and we can have no intelligible idea of God.
3. It is not improbable, that Christ is the medium of communicating the knowledge of the Divine essence and perfections to all worlds. He is the brightness of the Divine glory—the showing forth—the manifestation of God, Heb 1:3. The body of the sun is not seen—certainly not by the naked eye. We cannot look upon it. But there is a shining, a brightness, a glory, a manifestation, which is seen. It is in the sunbeams, the manifestation of the glory and the existence of the sun. By his shining the sun is known. So the Son of God—incarnate or not—may be the manifestation of the Divine Essence. And, from this illustration, may we not, without irreverence, derive an illustration of the doctrine of the glorious Trinity? There is the body of the sun—to us invisible —yet great and glorious, and the source of all light, and heat, and life. The vast body of the sun is the source of all this radiance, the fountain of all that warms and enlivens. All light, and heat, and life, depend on him, and should he be extinct all would die. Thus may it not be with God the Father—God the eternal and unchanging essence—the Fountain of all light and life in the universe? In the sun there is also the manifestation—the shining —the glorious light. The brightness which we see emanates from that—emanates at once, continually, always. While the sun exists, that exists, and cannot be separated from it. By that brightness the sun is seen; by that the world is enlightened. Without these beams there would be no light, but all would be involved in darkness. What a beautiful representation of the Son of God—the brightness of the Divine glory; the medium by which God is made known; the source of light to man, and, for aught we know, to the universe! When he shines on men, there is light; when He does not shine, there is as certain moral darkness as there is night when the sun sinks in the west. And, for aught we can see, the manifestation which the Son of God makes may be as necessary in all worlds, to a proper contemplation of the Divine Essence, as the beams of the sun are to understand its nature. Then there are the warmth, and heat, and vivifying influences of the sun—an influence which is the source of life and beauty to the material world. It is not the mere shining —it is the attendant warmth and vivifying power. All nature is dependent on it. Each seed, and bud, and leaf, and flower; each spire of grass, and each animal on earth, and each bird on the wing, is dependent on it. Without that, vegetation would decay at once, and animal life would be extinct, and universal death would reign. What a beautiful illustration of the Holy Spirit, and of his influences on the moral world! "The Lord God is a Sun," (Ps 84:11;) and I do not see that it is improper thus to derive from the sun an illustration of the doctrine of the Trinity. I am certain we should know nothing of the sun but for the beams that reveal him, and that enlighten the world; and I am certain that all animal and vegetable life would die, if it were not for his vivifying and quickening rays. I do not see that it may not be equally probable that the nature, the essence of God would be unknown, were it not manifested by the Son of God; and I am certain that all moral and spiritual life would die, were it not for the quickening and vivifying influences of the Holy Spirit on the human soul.
4. Christ has made an atonement for sin, Heb 1:3. He has done it by "himself." It was not by the blood of bulls and of goats; it was by his own blood. Let us rejoice that we have not now to come before God with a bloody offering; that we need not come leading up a lamb to be slain, but that we may come confiding in that blood which has been shed for the sins of mankind. The great Sacrifice has been made. The Victim is slain. The blood has been offered which expiates the sin of the world. We may now come at once to the throne of grace, and plead the merits of that blood. How different is our condition from that of the ancient Jewish worshippers! They were required to come leading the victim that was to be slain for sin, and to do this every year, and every day. We may come with the feeling, that the one great Sacrifice has been made for us; that it is never to be repeated; and that in that Sacrifice there is merit sufficient to cancel all our sins. How different our condition from that of the heathen. They, too, lead up sacrifices to be slain on bloody altars. They offer lambs, and goats, and bullocks, and captives taken in war, and slaves, and even their own children! But, amidst these horrid offerings, while they show their deep conviction that some sacrifice is necessary, they have no promise—no evidence whatever—that the sacrifice will be accepted. They go away unpardoned. They repeat the offering with no evidence that their sins are forgiven, and at last they die in despair! We come assured that the "blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin,"—and the soul rejoices in the evidence that all past sins are forgiven, and is at peace with God.
5. Let us rejoice that the Lord Jesus is thus exalted to the right hand of God, Heb 1:3,4. He has gone into heaven. He is seated on the throne of glory. He has suffered the last pang, and shed the last drop of blood that will ever be necessary to be shed for the sins of the world. No cold tomb is again to hold him; and and glorious in heaven. The angels there render him homage, (Heb 1:6,) and the universe is placed under his control.
6. It is right to worship the Lord Jesus. When he came into the world the angels were required to do it, (Heb 1:6,) and it cannot be wrong for us to do it now. If the angels in heaven might properly worship him, we may. If they worshipped him, he is divine. Assuredly God would not require them to worship a fellow-angel or a man! I feel safe in adoring where angels adore; I do not feel that I have a right to withhold my homage where they have been required to render theirs.
7. It is right to address the Lord Jesus as God, Heb 1:8. If he is so addressed in the language of inspiration, it is not improper for us so to address him. We do not err when we adhere closely to the language of the Bible; nor can we have a stronger evidence that we are right, than that we express our sentiments and our devotions in the very language of the sacred Scriptures.
8. The kingdom of the Redeemer is a righteous kingdom. It is founded in equity, Heb 1:8,9. Other kingdoms have been kingdoms of cruelty, oppression, and blood. Tyrants have swayed an iron sceptre over men. But not thus with the Redeemer in his kingdom. There is not a law there which is not equal and mild not a statute Which it would not promote the temporal and eternal welfare of man to obey. Happy is the man that is wholly under his sceptre; happy the kingdom that yields entire obedience to his laws!
9. The heavens shall perish; the earth shall decay, Heb 1:10,11. Great changes have already taken place in the earth—as the researches of geologists show; and we have no reason to doubt that similar changes may have occurred in distant worlds. Still greater changes may be expected to occur in future times, and some of them we may be called to witness. Our souls are to exist for ever; and far on in future ages—far beyond the utmost period which we can now compute—we may witness most important changes in these heavens and this earth. God may display his power in a manner which has never been seen yet; and, safe near his throne, his people may be permitted to behold the exhibition of power of which the mind has never yet had the remotest conception.
10. Yet, amidst these changes, the Saviour will be the same, Heb 1:12. He changes not. In all past revolutions, he has been the same. In all the changes which have occurred in the physical world, he has been unchanged; in all the revolutions which have occurred among kingdoms, he has been unmoved. One change succeeds another: kingdoms rise and fall, and empires waste away one generation goes off, to be succeeded by another; but he remains the same. No matter what tempests howl, or how wars rage, or how the pestilence spreads abroad, or how the earth is shaken by earthquakes—still the Redeemer is the same. And no matter what are our external changes, he is the same. We pass from childhood to youth, to manhood, to old age, but he changes not. We are in prosperity or adversity; we may pass from affluence to poverty, from honour to dishonour, from health to sickness; hut he is the same. We may go and lie down in the cold tomb, and our mortal frames may decay; but he is the same during our long sleep, and he will remain the same, till he shall return and summon us to renovated life. I rejoice that in all the circumstances of life I have the same Saviour. I know what he is. I know, if the expression may be allowed, "where he may be found." Man may change by caprice, or whim, or by some new suggestion of interest, of passion, or ambition. I go to my friend to-day, and find him kind and true —but I have no absolute certainty that I shall find him such to-morrow. His feelings, from some unknown cause, may have become cold towards me. Some enemy may have breathed suspicion into his ear about me, or he may have formed some stronger attachment, or he may be sick, or dead. But nothing like this can happen in regard to the Redeemer. He changes not. I am sure that he is always the same. No one can influence him by slander; no new friendship can weaken the old; no sickness or death can occur to him, to change him; and though the heavens be on fire, and the earth be convulsed, he is THE SAME. In such a Saviour I may confide; in such a friend why should not all confide? Of earthly attachments it has been too truly said,
"And what is friendship but a name;
A charm that lulls to sleep;
A shade that follows wealth or tame,
But leaves the wretch to weep?"
But this can never be said of the attachment formed between the Christian and the Redeemer. That is unaffected by all external changes; that shall live in all the revolutions of material things, and when all earthly ties shall be severed; that shall survive the dissolution of all things.
11. We see the dignity of man, Heb 1:13,14. Angels are sent to be his attendants. They come to minister to him here, and to conduct him home "to glory." Kings and princes are surrounded by armed men, or by sages called to be their counsellors; but the most humble saint may be encompassed by a retinue of beings of far greater power, and more elevated rank. The angels of light and glory feel a deep interest in the salvation of men, They come to attend the redeemed; they wait on their steps; they sustain them in trial; they accompany them when departing to heaven. It is a higher honour to be attended by one of those pure intelligences, than by the most elevated monarch that ever swayed a sceptre, or wore a crown; and the obscurest Christian shall soon be himself conducted to a throne in heaven, compared with which the most splendid seat of royalty on earth loses its lustre and fades away.
And is there care in heaven? and is there love
In heavenly spirits to these creatures base,
That may compassion of their evils move?
There is; else; much more wretched were the case
Of men than beasts. But oh! the exceeding grace
Of Highest God, that loves his creatures so,
And all his works of mercy doth embrace,
That blessed angels he sends to and froTo serve to wicked man, to serve his wicked foe!
How oft do they their silver bowers leave,
To come to succour us that succour want!
How do they, with golden pinions, cleave
Against foul fiends, to aid us militant!
They for us fight; they watch and duly ward,
And their bright squadrons round about us plant;
And all for love, and nothing for reward:
Oh, why should heavenly God to men have such regard!
Spencer's Faery Queen, B. II. Canto viii. 1, 2
12. What has God done for the salvation of man! He formed an eternal plan. He sent his prophets to communicate his will. He sent his Son to bear a message of mercy, and to die the just for the unjust. He exalted him to heaven, and placed the universe under his control, that man may be saved, he sent his Holy Spirit, his ministers, and messengers for this. And last, to complete the work, he sends his angels to be ministering spirits; to sustain his people; to comfort them in dying; to attend them to the realms of glory. What an interest is felt in the salvation of a single Christian! What a value he has in the universe! And how important it is that he should be holy! A man who has been redeemed by the blood of the Son of God should be pure. He who is an heir of life should be holy. He who is attended by celestial beings, and who is soon—he knows not how soon—to be translated to heaven, should be holy. Are angels my attendants? Then I should walk worthy of my companionship. Am I soon to go and dwell with angels? Then I should be pure. Are these feet soon to tread the courts of heaven? Is this tongue soon to unite with heavenly beings in praising God? Are these eyes soon to look on the throne of eternal glory, and on the ascended Redeemer? Then these feet, and eyes, and lips, should be pure and holy, and I should be dead to the world, and should live only for heaven.
THE main object of this chapter is to show that we should attend diligently to the things which were spoken by the Lord Jesus, and not suffer them to glide away from us. The apostle seems to have supposed, that some might be inclined to disregard what was spoken by one of so humble appearance as the Lord Jesus; and that they would urge that the Old Testament had been given by the interposition of angels, and was therefore more worthy of attention. To meet this, he shows that important objects were accomplished by his becoming a man; and that, even as a man, power and dignity shall been conferred on him, superior to that of the angels. In illustration of these points, the chapter contains the following subjects:—
(1.) An exhortation not to suffer the things which had been spoken to slip from the mind—or, in other words, to attend to them diligently and carefully. The argument is, that if what was spoken by the angels under the old dispensation claimed attention, much more should that be regarded which was spoken by the Son of God, Heb 2:1-4.
(2.) Jesus had been honoured, as incarnate, in such a way as to show that he had a right to be heard, and that what he said should receive the profound attention of men, Heb 2:5-9. The World to come had not been put under the angels, as it had been under him, (Heb 2:5;) the general principle had been stated in the Scriptures, that all things were put under man (Heb 2:6,7,) but this was fulfilled only in the Lord Jesus, who had been made a little lower than the angels, and, when so made, crowned with glory and honour, Heb 2:9. His appearance as a man, therefore, was in no way inconsistent with what had been said of his dignity, or his claim to be heard.
(3.) The apostle then proceeds to show why he became a man, and why, though he was so exalted, he was subjected to so severe sufferings; and with this the chapter closes, Heb 2:10-18. It was because this was proper, from the relation which he sustained to man., The argument is, that the Redeemer and his people were identified; that he did not come to save angels, and that, therefore, there was a propriety in his assuming the nature of man, and being subjected to trials like those whom he came to save. In all things it behoved him to be made like his brethren, in order to redeem them, and in order to set them an example, and show them how to suffer. The humiliation, therefore, of the Redeemer—the fact that he appeared as a man, and that he was a sufferer—so far from being a reason why he should not be heard, was rather an additional reason why we should attend to what he said. He had a claim to the right of being heard, not only from his original dignity, but from the friendship which he has evinced for us in taking upon himself our nature, and suffering in our behalf.
Verse 1. Therefore. Gr. "On account of this" dia touto that is, on account of the exalted dignity and rank of the Messiah, as stated in the previous chapter. The sense is, "Since Christ, the Author of the new dispensation, is so far exalted above the prophets, and even the angels, we ought to give the more earnest attention to all that has been Spoken."
We ought. It is fit or proper that we should attend to those things. When the Son of God speaks to men, every consideration makes it appropriate that we should attend to what is spoken.
To give the more earnest heed. To give the more strict attention.
To the things which we have heard. Whether directly from the Lord Jesus, or from his apostles. It is possible, that some of those to whom the apostle was writing had heard the Lord Jesus himself preach the gospel; others had heard the same truths declared by the apostles.
Lest at any time. We ought to attend to those things at all times. We ought never to forget them; never to be indifferent to them. We are sometimes interested in them, and then we feel indifferent to them; sometimes at leisure to attend to them, and then the cares of the worlds, or a heaviness and dulness of mind, or a cold and languid state of the affections, renders us indifferent to them and they are suffered to pass out of the mind without concern. Paul says, that this ought never to be done! At no time should we be indifferent to those things. They are always important to us, and we should never be in a state of mind when they would be uninteresting. At all times; in all places; and in every situation of life, we should feel that the truths of religion are of more importance to us than all other truths, and nothing should be suffered to efface their image from the heart.
We should let them slip. Marg, Run out as leaking vessels. Tindal renders this, "lest we be split." The expression here has given rise to much discussion as to its meaning; and has been very differently translated. Doddridge renders it, "lest we let them flow out of our minds." Prof. Stuart, "lest at any time we should slight them." Whitby, "that they may not entirely slip out of our memories." The word here used pararrew —occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The Septuagint translators have used the word but once. Pr 3:21, "Son, do not pass by, mh pararruhv but keep my counsel;" that is, do not pass by my advice by neglect, or suffer it to be disregarded. The word means, according to Passow, to flow by, to flow over; and then, to go by, to fall, to flow away. It is used to mean, to flow near, to flow by—as of a river; to glide away, to escape—as from the mind, i.e. to forget; and to glide along—as a thief does by stealth. See Robinson's Lex. The Syriac and Arabic translators have rendered it, that we may not fall. After all that has been said on the meaning of the word here, (compare Stuart, in loc.,) it seems to me, that the true sense of the expression is that of flowing or gliding by—as a river; and that the meaning here is, that we should be very cautious that the important truths spoken by the Redeemer and his apostles should not be suffered to glide by us without attention, or without profit. We should not allow them to be like a stream that glides on by us without benefiting us; that is, we should endeavour to secure and retain them as our own. The truth taught is, that there is great danger, now that the true system of religion has been revealed, that it will not profit us, but that we shall lose all the benefit of it. This danger may arise from many sources—some of which are the following:—
(1.) We may not feel that the truths revealed are important; and before their importance is felt, they may be beyond our reach. So we are often deceived in regard to the importance of objects; and before we perceive their value, they are irrecoverably gone. So it is often with time, and with the opportunities of obtaining an education, or of accomplishing any object which is of value. The opportunity is gone before we perceive its importance. So the young suffer the most important period of life to glide away before they perceive its value; and the opportunity of making much of their talents is lost, because they did not embrace the suitable opportunities.
(2.) By being engrossed in business. We feel that that is now the most important thing. That claims all our attention. We have no time to pray, to read the Bible, to think of religion, for the cares of the world engross all the time—and the opportunities of salvation glide insensibly away, until it is too late.
(3.) By being attracted by the pleasures of life. We attend to them now, and are drawn along from one to another, until religion is suffered to glide away with all its hopes and consolations; and we perceive, too late, that we have let the opportunity of salvation slip for ever. Allured by those pleasures, the young neglect it; and new pleasures, starting up in future life, carry on the delusion, until every favourable opportunity for salvation has passed away;
(4.) We suffer favourable opportunities to pass by without improving them. Youth is by far the best time, as it is the most appropriate time, to become a Christian—and yet how easy is it to allow that period to slip away, without becoming interested in the Saviour! One day glides on after another, and one week, one month, one year passes away after another—like a gently-flowing stream—until all the precious time of youth has gone, and we are not Christians. So a revival of religion is a favourable time—and yet many suffer this to pass by without becoming interested in it. Others are converted, and the heavenly influences descend all around us, but we are unaffected; and the season, so full of happy and heavenly influences, is gone, to return no more.
(5.) We let the favourable season slip, because we design to attend to it at some future period of life. So youth defers it to manhood—manhood to old age—old age to a death-bed, and then neglects it—until the whole of life has glided away, and the soul is not saved. Paul knew man. He knew how prone he was to let the things of religion slip out of the mind; and hence the earnestness of his caution that we should give heed to the subject now, lest the opportunity of salvation should soon glide away. When once passed, it can never be recalled. Learn hence,
(1.) The truths of religion will not benefit us, unless we give heed to them. It will not save us that the Lord Jesus has come and spoken to men, unless we are disposed to listen. It will not benefit us that the sun shines, unless we open our eyes. Books will not benefit us, unless we read them; medicine, unless we take it; nor will the fruits of the earth sustain our lives, however rich and abundant, they may be, if we disregard and neglect them. So with the truths of religion. There is truth enough to save the world—but the world disregards and despises it.
(2.) It needs not great sins to destroy the soul. Simple neglect will do it as certainly as atrocious crimes. Every man has a sinful heart that will destroy him, unless he makes an effort to be saved. And it is not merely the great sinner, therefore, who is in danger. It is the man who neglects his soul—whether a moral or an immoral man, a daughter of amiableness, or a daughter of vanity and vice.
{1} "let them slip" "run out, as leaking vessels"
Verse 2. For if the word spoken by angels. The revelation in the Old Testament. It was indeed given by Jehovah; but it was the common opinion of the Hebrews, that it was by the ministry of angels. See Barnes "Ac 7:38" See Barnes "Ac 7:53, and See Barnes "Ga 3:19, where this point is fully considered. As Paul was discoursing here of the superiority of the Redeemer to the angels, it was to the point to refer to the fact that the law had been given by the ministry of angels.
Was steadfast. Was firm— bebaiov—settled, established. It was not vacillating and fluctuating. It determined what crime was, and it was firm in its punishment. It did not yield to circumstances; but, if not obeyed in all respects, it denounced punishment. The idea here is not that everything was fulfilled, but it is, that the law so given could not be violated with impunity. It was not safe to violate it, but it took notice of the slightest failure to yield perfect obedience to its demands.
And every transgression. Literally, going beyond, passing by. It means every instance of disregarding the law.
And disobedience. Every instance of not hearing the law parakoh and hence every instance of disobeying it. The word here stands opposite to hearing it, or attending to it—and the sense of the whole is, that the slightest infraction of the law was sure to be punished. It made no provision for indulgence in sin; it demanded prompt, implicit, and entire Obedience.
Received a Just recompense of reward. Was strictly punished. Subjected to equal retribution. This was the character of the law. It threatened punishment for each and every offence, and made no allowance for transgression in any form. Comp. Nu 15:30,31.
{*} "reward" "A just retribution"
Verse 3. How shall we escape. How shall we escape the just recompense due to transgressors? What way is there of being saved from punishment, if we suffer the great salvation to be neglected, and do not embrace its offers ? The sense is, that there is no other way of salvation, and the neglect of this will be followed by certain destruction. Why it will, the apostle proceeds to show, by stating that this plan of salvation was proclaimed first by the Lord himself, and had been confirmed by the most decided and amazing miracles.
If we neglect. It is not merely if we commit great sins; not if we are murderers, adulterers, thieves, infidels, atheists, scoffers. It is, if we merely neglect this salvation—if we do not embrace it—if we suffer it to pass unimproved. Neglect is enough to ruin a man. A man who is in business need not commit forgery or robbery to ruin himself; he has only to neglect his business, and his ruin is certain. A man who is lying on a bed of sickness need not cut his throat to destroy himself; he has only to neglect the means of restoration, and he will be ruined. A man floating in a skiff above Niagara, need not move an oar or make an effort to destroy himself; he has only to neglect using the oar at the proper time, and he will certainly be carried over the cataract. Most of the calamities of life are caused by simple neglect. By neglect of education, children grow up in ignorance; by neglect, a farm grows up to weeds and briars; by neglect, a house goes to decay; by neglect of sowing, a man will have ho harvest; by neglect of reaping, the harvest would rot in the fields. No worldly interest can prosper where there is neglect; and why may it not be so in religion? There is nothing in earthly affairs, that is valuable, that will not be ruined if it is not attended to; and why may it not be so with the concerns of the soul? Let no one infer, therefore, that because he is not a drunkard, or an adulterer, or a murderer, that therefore he will be saved. Such an inference would be as irrational as it would be for a man to infer, that because he is not a murderer his farm will produce a harvest, or that because he is not an adulterer, therefore his merchandise will take care of itself. Salvation would be worth nothing if it cost no effort; and there will be no salvation where no effort is put forth.
So great salvation. Salvation from sin and from hell. It is called great, because (1) its Author is great. This is perhaps the main idea in this passage. It "began to be spoken by the Lord;" it had for its author the Son of God, who is so much superior to the angels; whom the angels were required to worship, (Heb 1:6;) who is expressly called God, (Heb 1:8;) who made all things, and who is eternal, (Heb 1:10-12.) A system of salvation promulgated by him must be of infinite importance, and have a claim to the attention of man.
(2.) It is great, because it saves from great sins. It is adapted to deliver from all sins, no matter how aggravated. No one is saved who one feels that his sins are small, or that they are of no consequence. Each sees his sins to be black and aggravated; and each one who enters heaven, will go there feeling and confessing that it is a great salvation which has brought such a sinner there. Besides, this salvation delivers from all sin—no matter how gross and aggravated. The adulterer, the murderer, the blasphemer, may come and be saved; and the salvation which redeems such sinners from eternal ruin is great.
(3.) It is great, because it saves from great dangers. The danger of an eternal hell besets the path of each one. All do not see it; and all will not believe it when told of it. But this danger hovers over the path of every mortal. The danger of an eternal hell! Salvation from everlasting burnings! Deliverance from unending ruin! Surely that salvation must be great which shall save from such a doom! If that salvation is neglected, that danger still hangs over each and every man. The gospel did not create that danger it came to deliver from it. Whether the gospel be true or false, each man is by nature exposed to eternal death—just as each one is exposed to temporal death, whether the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection be true or false. The gospel comes to provide a remedy for dangers and woes—it does not create them; it comes to deliver men from great dangers—not to plunge them into them. Lacking the gospel, and before it was preached at all, men were in danger of everlasting punishment; and that system which came to proclaim deliverance from such a danger is great.
(4.) The salvation itself is great in heaven. It exalts men to infinite honours, and places on their heads an eternal crown. Heaven, with all its glories, is offered to us; and such a deliverance, and such an elevation to eternal honours, deserves to be called GREAT. If that is neglected, there is no other salvation; and man must be inevitably destroyed.
(5.) It is great, because it was effected by infinite displays of power, and wisdom, and love. It was procured by the incarnation and humiliation of the Son of God. It was accomplished amidst great sufferings and self-denials. It was attended with great miracles. The tempest was stilled, and the deaf were made to hear and the blind to see, and the dead were raised, and the sun was darkened, and the rocks were rent. The whole series of wonders connected with the incarnation and death of the Lord Jesus, was such as the world had not elsewhere seen, and such as was fitted to hold the race in mute admiration and astonishment. If this be so, then religion is no trifle. It is not a matter of little importance, whether we embrace it or not. It is the most momentous of all the concerns that pertain to man; and has a claim on his attention which nothing else can have. Yet the mass of men live in the neglect of it. It is not that they are professedly Atheists, or Deists, or that they are immoral or profane; it is not that they oppose it, and ridicule it, and despise it; it is that they simply neglect it. They pass it by, They attend to other things. They are busy with their pleasures, or in their counting-houses-in their workshops, or on their farms; they are engaged in politics or in book-making; and they neglect religion NOW as a thing of small importance—proposing to attend to it hereafter, as if they acted on the principle, that everything else was to be attended to before religion.
Which at the first. Gr. Which received the beginning of being spoken. The meaning is correctly expressed in our translation. Christ began to preach the gospel; the apostles followed him. John prepared the way, but the Saviour was properly the first preacher of the gospel.
By the Lord. By the Lord Jesus. See Barnes "Act 1:24".
And was confirmed unto us, etc. They who heard him preach—that is, the apostles—were witnesses of what he said, and certified us of its truth. When the apostle here says "us," he means the church at large. Christians were assured of the truth of what the Lord Jesus spake, by the testimony of the apostles; or the apostles communicated it to those who had not heard him in such a manner, as left no room for doubt.
{a} "How shall" Heb 4:1,11
{b} "which at the first" Mr 1:14
Verse 4. God also bearing them witness. By miracles. Giving them the sanction of his authority, or showing that they were sent by him. No man can work a miracle by his own power. When the dead are raised, the deaf made to hear, and the blind to see, by a word, it is the power of God alone that does it. He thus becomes a witness to the Divine appointment of him by whose instrumentality the miracle is wrought; or furnishes an attestation that what he says is true. See Barnes "Ac 14:3".
With signs and wonders. These words are usually connected in the New Testament. The word rendered signs shmeion— means any miraculous event that is fitted to show that what had been predicted by a prophet would certainly take place. See Mt 12:38. Compare See Barnes "Isa 7:1".
A wonder —terav— denotes a portent, or prodigy—something that is fitted to excite wonder or amazement-and hence a miracle. The words together refer to the various miracles which were performed by the Lord Jesus and his apostles, designed to confirm the truth of the Christian religion.
And with divers miracles. Various miracles—such as healing the sick, raising the dead, etc. The miracles were not of one class merely, but were various, so that all pretence of deception should be taken away.
And gifts of the Holy Ghost. Marg. Distributions, The various influences of the Holy Spirit enabling them to speak different languages, and to perform works beyond the power of man. See Barnes "1 Co 12:4-11".
According to his own will. As he chose. He acted as a sovereign in this. He gave them where he pleased, and imparted them in such measure as he chose. The sense of this whole passage is—"The gospel has been promulgated to man in a solemn manner. It was first published by the Lord of glory himself. It was confirmed by the most impressive and solemn miracles. It is undoubtedly a revelation from heaven; was given in more solemn circumstances than the law of Moses, and its threatenings are more to be dreaded than those of the law. Beware, therefore, how you trifle with it, or disregard it. It cannot be neglected with safety; its neglect or rejection must be attended with condemnation."
{c} "God also" Ac 14:2
{1} "gifts" "distributions"
Verse 5. For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection. In this verse the apostle returns to the subject which he had been discussing in Chapter 1—the superiority of the Messiah to the angels. From that subject he had been diverted, (Heb 2:1-4,) by showing them what must be the consequences of defection from Christianity, and the danger of neglecting it. Having shown that, he now proceeds with the discussion, and shows that an honour had been conferred on the Lord Jesus which had never been bestowed on the angels—to wit, the supremacy over this world. This he does by proving, from the Old Testament, that such a dominion was given to man, (Heb 2:6-8,) and that this dominion was in fact exercised by the Lord Jesus, Heb 2:9. At the same time, he meets an objection which a Jew would be likely to make. It is, that Jesus appeared to be far inferior to the angels. He was a man of a humble condition. He was poor, and despised. He had none of the external honour which was shown to Moses—the founder of the Jewish economy; none of the apparent honour which belonged to angelic beings. This implied objection he removes, by showing the reason why he became so. It was proper, since he came to redeem man, that he should be a man, and not take on himself the nature of angels; and, for the same reason, it was proper that he should be subjected to sufferings, and be made a man of sorrows, Heb 2:10-17. The remark of the apostle in the verse before us is, that God had never put the world in subjection to the angels, as he had to the Lord Jesus. They had no jurisdiction over it; they were mere ministering spirits; but the world had been put under the dominion of the Lord Jesus. The world to come. The word here rendered world oikoumenh means, properly, the inhabited or inhabitable world. See Mt 24:14; Lu 2:1; 4:5; 21:27, (Gr.;) Ac 11:28; 17:6, 31; 19:27; 24:5; Ro 10:18; Heb 1:6; Re 3:10; 12:9; 16:14
-in all which places, but one, it is rendered world. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The proper meaning is, the world or earth considered as inhabitable—and here the jurisdiction refers to the control over man, or the dwellers on the earth. The phrase, "the world to come," occurs not unfrequently in the New Testament. Comp. Eph 2:7; 1 Co 10:11; Heb 6:5.
The same phrase, "the world to come" occurs often in the Jewish writings. According to Buxtorf (Lex. Ch. Talm. Rub.) it means, as some suppose, "the world which is to exist after this world is destroyed, and after the resurrection of the dead, when souls shall be again united to their bodies." By others it is supposed to mean "the days of the Messiah, when he shall reign on the earth." To me it seems to be clear that the phrase here means, the world under the Messiah— the world, age, or dispensation which was to succeed the Jewish, and which was familiarly known to them as "the world to come;" and the idea is, that that world, or age, was placed under the jurisdiction of the Christ, and not of the angels. This point the apostle proceeds to make out. See Barnes "Isa 2:2".
Whereof we speak. "Of which I am writing;" that is, of the Christian religion, or the reign of the Messiah.
Verse 6. But one in a certain place testified. The apostle was writing to those who were supposed to be familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, and where it would be necessary only to makes reference in general, without mentioning the name. The place which is quoted here is Ps 8:4-6. The argument of the apostle is this—that there stood in the sacred Scriptures a declaration, that "all things were placed under the control and jurisdiction of MAN," but that that had not yet been accomplished. It was not true (Heb 2:8) that all things were subject to him; and the complete truth of that declaration would be found only in the jurisdiction conferred on the Messiah—THE MAN, by way of eminence—the incarnate Son of God. It would not occur to any one probably in reading the Psalm, that the verse here quoted had any reference to the Messiah. It seems to relate to the dominion which God had given man over his works in this lower world, or to the fact that he was made lord over all things. That dominion is apparent, to a considerable extent, everywhere, and is a standing proof of the truth of what is recorded in Ge 1:26, that God originally gave dominion to man over the creatures on earth—since it is only by this supposition that it can be accounted for, that the horse, and the elephant, and the ox, and even the panther and the lion, are subject to the control of man. The argument of Paul seems to be this:— "Originally this control was given to man. It was absolute and entire. All things were subject to him, and all obeyed. Man was made a little lower than the angels, and was the undisputed lord of this lower world. He was in a state of innocence. But he rebelled, and this dominion has been in some measure lost. It is found complete only in the second man, the Lord from heaven, (1 Co 15:47,) the Lord Jesus, to whom this control is absolutely given. He comes up to the complete idea of man—man as he was in innocence, and man as he was described by the Psalmist, as having been made a little lower than the angels, and having entire dominion over the world." Much difficulty has been felt by commentators in regard to this passage, and to the principle on which it is quoted. The above seems to me to be that which is most probably true. There are two other methods by which an attempt has been made to explain it. One is, that Paul uses the words here by way of allusion, or accommodation, (Doddridge;) as words that will express his meaning, without designing to say that the Psalm originally had any reference to the Messiah. Most of the later commentators accord with this opinion. The other opinion is, that David originally referred to the Messiah—that he was deeply and gratefully affected in view of the honour that God had conferred on him; and that in looking down by faith on the posterity that God had promised him, (see 2 Sa 7:14,) he saw one among his own descendants to whom God would give this wide dominion, and expresses himself in the elevated language of praise. This opinion is defended by Prof. Stuart. See his Com. On the Hebrews, Excursus IX.
What is man, etc. What is there in man that entitles him to so much notice? Why has God conferred on him so signal honours? Why has he placed him over the works of his hands? He seems so insignificant; his life is so much like a vapour; he so soon disappears, that the question may well be asked why this extraordinary dominion is given him? He is so sinful, also, and so unworthy; so much unlike God, and so passionate and revengeful; is so prone to abuse his dominion, that it may be well asked why God has given it to him? Who would suppose that God would give such a dominion over his creatures to one who was so prone to abuse it, as man has shown himself to be? He is so feeble, also, compared with other creatures—even of those which are made subject to him-that the question may well be asked why God has conceded it to him? Such questions may be asked when we contemplate man as he is. But similar questions may be asked, if, as was probably the case, the Psalm here be supposed to have had reference to man as he was created. Why was one so feeble, and so comparatively without strength, placed over this lower world, and the earth made subject to his control? Why is it that, when the heavens are so vast and glorious, (Ps 8:3,) God has taken such notice of man? Of what consequence can he be amidst works so wonderful? "When I look on the heavens, and survey their greatness and their glory," is the sentiment of David, "why is it that man has attracted so much notice, and that he has not been wholly overlooked in the vastness of the works of the Almighty? Why is it, that instead of this he has been exalted to so much dignity and honour?" This question, thus considered, strikes us with more force now, than it could have struck David. Let any one sit down, and contemplate the heavens as they are disclosed by the discoveries of modern astronomy, and he may well ask the question, "What is man that he should have attracted the attention of God, and been the object of so much care?" The same question would not have been inappropriate to David, if the Psalm be supposed to have had reference originally to the Messiah, and if he was speaking of himself particularly as the ancestor of the Messiah. "What is man; what am I; what can any of my descendants be, who must be of mortal frame, that this dominion should be given him? Why should any of a race so feeble, so ignorant, so imperfect, be exalted to such honour?" We may ask the question here, and it may be asked in heaven with pertinency and with power, "Why was man so honoured, as to be united to the Godhead? Why did the Deity appear in the human form? What was there in man that should entitle him to this honour of being united to the Divinity, and of being thus exalted above the angels?" The wonder is not yet solved; and we may well suppose that the angelic ranks look with amazement —but without envy—on the fact, that man, by his union with the Deity in the person of the Lord Jesus, has been raised above them in rank and in glory.
Or the son of man. This phrase means the same as man, and is used merely to give variety to the mode of expression. Such a change or variety in words and phrases, when the same thing is intended, occurs constantly in Hebrew poetry. The name "son of man" is often given to Christ, to denote his intimate connexion with our race, and the interest which he felt in us, and is the common term which the Saviour uses when speaking of himself. Here it means man, and may be applied to human nature everywhere—and therefore to human nature in the person of the Messiah.
That thou visitest him. That thou shouldst regard him, or treat him with so much honour. Why is he the object of so much interest to the Divine Mind?
{a} "What is man" Ps 8:4
Verse 7. Thou madest him a little lower than the angels. Marg. A little while inferior to. The Greek may here mean, a little inferior in rank, or inferior for a little time. But the probable meaning is, that it refers to inferiority of rank. Such is its obvious sense in Ps 8, from which this is quoted. The meaning is, that God had made man but little inferior to the angels in rank. He was inferior, but still God had exalted him almost to their rank. Feeble, and weak, and dying as he was, God had exalted him, and had given him a dominion and a rank almost like that of the angels. The wonder of the Psalmist is, that God had given to human nature so much honour—a wonder that is not at all diminished, when we think of the honour done to man by his connexion with the Divine nature in the person of the Lord Jesus. If, in contemplating the face as it appears; if, when we look at the dominion of man over the lower world, we are amazed that God has bestowed so much honour on our nature, how much more should we wonder that he has honoured man by his connexion with the Divinity. Paul applies this to the Lord Jesus. His object is to show that he is superior to the angels. In doing this, he shows that he had a nature given him in itself but little inferior to the angels, and then that that had been exalted to a rank and dominion far above theirs. That such honour should be put on man is what is fitted to excite amazement, and well may one continue to ask why it has been done? When we survey the heavens, and contemplate their glories, and think of the exalted rank of other beings, we may well inquire why has such honour been conferred on man? Thou crownedst him with glory and honour. That is, with exalted honour. Glory and honour here are nearly synonymous. The meaning is, that elevated honour had been conferred on human nature. A most exalted and extended dominion had been given to man, which showed that God had greatly honoured him. This appeared eminently in the person of the Lord Jesus, "the exalted Man," to whom this dominion was given in the widest extent.
And didst set him over, etc. Man has been placed over the other works of God
(1.) by the original appointment, (Ge 1:26;)
(2.) man at large—though fallen, sinful, feeble, dying;
(3.) man, eminently in the person of the Lord Jesus, in whom human nature has received its chief exaltation. This is what is particularly in the eye of the apostle—and the language of the Psalm will accurately express this exaltation.
{1} "a little" "a little while inferior to"
Verse 8. Thou hast put all things in subjection, etc. Ps 8:6. That is, all things are put under the control of man, or, thou hast given him dominion over all things.
For in that he put all in subjection. The meaning of this is, that "the fair interpretation of the passage in the Psalm is, that the dominion of man, or of human nature over the earth, was to be absolute and total. Nothing was to be excepted. But this is not now the fact in regard to man in general, and can be true only of human nature in the person of the Lord Jesus. There the dominion is absolute and universal." The point of the argument of the apostle may be this:—"It was the original appointment (Ge 1:26) that man should have dominion over this lower world, and be its absolute lord and sovereign. Had he continued in innocence, this dominion would have been entire and perpetual. But he fell, and we do not now see him exerting this dominion. What is said of the dominion of man can be true only of human nature in the person of the Lord Jesus, and there it is completely fulfilled."
But now we see not yet all things put under him. That is, "It is not now true that all things are subject to the control of man. There is indeed a general dominion over the works of God, and over the inferior creation. But the control is not universal. A large part of the animal creation rebels, and is brought into subjection only with difficulty. The elements are not entirely under his control; the tempest and the ocean rage; the pestilence conveys death through city and hamlet; the dominion of man is a broken dominion. His government is an imperfect government. The world is not yet put wholly under his dominion, but enough has been done to constitute a pledge that it will yet be done. It will be fully accomplished only in him who sustains our nature, and to whom dominion is given over the worlds."
{a} "now we see" 1 Co 15:24
Verse 9. But we see Jesus. "We do not see that man elsewhere has the extended dominion of which the Psalmist speaks. But we see the fulfillment of it in Jesus, who was crowned with glory and honour, and who has received a dominion that is superior to that of the angels." The point of this is, not that he suffered, and not that he tasted death for every man; but that on account of this, or as a reward for thus suffering, he was crowned with glory and honour, and that he thus fulfilled all that David (Ps 8) had said of the dignity and honour of man. The object of the apostle is to show that he was exalted, and in order to this he shows why it was—. to wit, because he had suffered death to redeem man. Comp. Php 2:8,9.
Who was made a little lower than the angels. That is, as a man, or when on earth. His assumed rank was inferior to that of the angels. He took upon himself, not the nature of angels, Heb 2:16, but the nature of man. The apostle is probably here answering some implied objections to the rank which it was claimed that the Lord Jesus had, or which might be urged to the views which he was defending. Those objections were mainly two: first, that Jesus was a man; and, secondly, that he suffered and died. If that was the fact, it was natural to ask how he could be superior to the angels? How could he have had the rank which was claimed for him? This he answers by showing, first, that his condition as a man was voluntarily assumed—" he was made lower than the angels;" and, secondly, by showing that, as a consequence of his sufferings and death, he was immediately crowned with glory and honour. This state of humiliation became him in the great work which he had undertaken, and he was immediately exalted to universal dominion—and, as Mediator, was raised to a rank far above the angels.
For the suffering of death. Marg. By. The meaning of the preposition here rendered "for," (dia, here governing the accusative,) is, "on account of; "that is, Jesus, on account of the sufferings of death, or in virtue of that, was crowned with glory and honour. His crowning was the result of his condescension and sufferings. See Barnes "Php 2:8,9".
It does not here mean as our translation would seem to imply, that he was made a little lower than the angels in order to suffer death, but that as a reward for having suffered death be was raised up to the right hand of God.
Crowned with glory and honour. That is, at the right hand of God. He was raised up to heaven, Ac 2:33; Mr 16:19. The meaning is, that he was crowned with the highest honour on account of his sufferings. Comp. Php 2:8,9; Heb 12:2; 5:7-9; Eph 1:20-23.
That he. Or rather, "since he by the grace of God tasted death for every man." The sense is, that after he had thus tasted death, and as a consequence of it, he was thus exalted. The word here rendered "that" opwv —means usually and properly, that, so that, in order that, to the end that, etc. But it may also mean, when, after that, after. See Barnes "Ac 3:19".
This is the interpretation which is given by Prof. Stuart, (in loc,) and this interpretation seems to be demanded by the connexion. The general interpretation of the passage has been different. According to that, the sense is, "We see Jesus, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, so as that, by the grace of God, he might taste of death for every man." See Robinson's Lex. on the word opwv, and Doddridge on the place. But it is natural to ask when Jesus was thus crowned with glory and honour? It was not before the crucifixion —for he was then poor and despised. The connexion seems to require us to understand this of the glory to which he was exalted in heaven, and this was after his death, and could not be in order that he might taste of death. I am disposed, therefore, to regard this as teaching that the Lord Jesus was exalted to heaven in virtue of the atonement which he had made—and this accords with Php 2:8,9; Heb 12:2.
It accords both with the fact in the case, and with the design of the apostle in the argument before us.
By the grace of God. By the favour of God, or by his benevolent purpose towards men. It was not by any claim which man had, but was by his special favour.
Should taste death. Should die; or, should experience death. See Mt 16:28. Death seems to be represented as something bitter and unpalatable—something unpleasant—as an object may be to the taste. Or the language may be taken from a cup—since to experience calamity a. For all uper pantov— for each and all —whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free, high or low, elect or non-elect. How could words affirm more clearly, that the atonement made by the Lord Jesus was unlimited in its nature and design? How can we express that idea in more clear or intelligible language? That this refers to the atonement is evident—for it says that he "tasted death" for them. The friends of the doctrine of general atonement do not desire any other than Scripture language in which to express their belief. It expresses it exactly— without any need of modification or explanation. The advocates of the doctrine of limited atonement cannot thus use Scripture language to express their belief. They cannot incorporate it with their creeds, that the Lord Jesus "tasted death for EVERY MAN." They are compelled to modify it, to limit it, to explain it, in order to prevent error and misconception. But that system cannot be true which requires men to shape and modify the plain language of the Bible, in order to keep men from error. See Barnes "2 Co 5:14, where this point is considered at length. Learn hence, (Heb 2:6-9,) from the incarnation of the Son of God, and his exaltation to heaven, what an honour has been conferred on human nature. When we look on the weakness and sinfulness of our race, we may well ask, What is man, that God should honour him or regard him? He is the creature of a day. He is feeble and dying. He is lost and degraded. Compared with the universe at large, he is a speck, an atom. He has done nothing to deserve the Divine favour or notice; and when we look at the race at large, we can do it only with sentiments of the deepest humiliation and mortification. But when we look at human nature in the person of the Lord Jesus, we see it honoured there to a degree that is commensurate with all our desires, and that fills us with wonder. We feel that it is an honour to human nature; that it has done much to elevate man—when we look on such a man as Howard or Washington. But how much more has that nature been honoured in the person of the Lord Jesus!
(1.) What an honour to us it was, that he should take our nature into intimate union with himself—passing by the angelic hosts, and becoming a man!
(2.) What an honour it was, that human nature there was so pure and holy; that man—everywhere else so degraded and vile—could be seen to be noble, and pure, and god-like!
(3.) What an honour it was, that the Divinity should speak to men in connexion with human nature, and perform such wonderful works; that the pure precepts of religion should come forth from human lips—the great doctrines of eternal life be uttered by a man; and that from human hands should go forth power to heal the sick, and to raise the dead!
(4.) What an honour to man it was, that the atonement for sin should be made in his own nature, and that the universe should be attracted to that scene where one in our form, and with flesh and blood like our own, should perform that great work.
(5) What an honour it is to man, that his own nature is exalted far above all heavens! That one in our form sits on the throne of the universe! That adoring angels fall prostrate before him! That to him is entrusted all power in heaven and on earth!
(6.) What an honour to man, that one in his nature should be appointed to judge the worlds! That one in our own form, and with a nature like ours, shall sit on the throne of judgment, and pronounce the final doom on angels and men! That assembled millions shall be constrained to bow before him, and receive their eternal doom from his hands! That prince and potentate, the illustrious dead of all past times, and the mighty men who are yet to live, shall all appear before him, and all receive from him there the sentence of their final destiny! I see, therefore, the most honour done to my nature as a man— not in the deeds of proud conquerors; not in the lives of sages and philanthropists; not in those who have carried their investigations farthest into the obscurities of matter and of mind; not in the splendid orators, poets, and historians of other times, or that; now live—much as I may admire them, or feel it an honour to belong to a race which has produced such illustrious men—but in the fact, that the Son of God has chosen a Body like my own in which to dwell; in the expressible loveliness evinced in his pure morals, his benevolence, his blameless life; in the great deeds that he performed on earth; in the fact, that it was this form that was chosen in which to make atonement for sin; in the honours that now cluster around him in heaven, and the glories that shall attend him when he shall come to judge the world.
Princes to his imperial name
Bend their bright sceptres down;
Dominions, thrones, and powers rejoice
To see him wear the crown.
Archangels sound his lofty praise
Through every heavenly street;
And lay their highest honours down,
Submissive at his feet.
Those Soft, those blessed feet of his,
That once rude iron tore,
High on a throne of light they stand,
And all the saints adore.
His head, the dear, majestic head,
That cruel thorns did wound;
See—what immortal glories shine,
And circle it around!
This is the Man, the exalted Man,
Whom we, unseen, adore;
But when our eyes behold his face,
Our hearts shall love him more.
{b} "who was made" Php 2:8,9
{2} "for" or "by"
{c} "crowned" Ac 2:33
Verse 10. For it became him. There was a fitness or propriety in it. It was such an arrangement as became God to make, in redeeming many, that the great agent by whom it was accomplished, should be made complete in all respects by sufferings. The apostle evidently means by this to meet an objection that might be offered by a Jew to the doctrine which he had been stating—an objection drawn from the fact, that Jesus was a man of sorrows, and that his life was a life of affliction. This he meets by stating that there was a fitness and propriety in that fact. There was a reason for it —a reason drawn from the plan and character of God. It was fit, in the nature of the case, that he should be qualified to be a complete or perfect Saviour—a Saviour just adapted to the purpose undertaken, by sufferings. The reasons of this fitness the apostle does not state. The amount of it probably was, that it became him, as a Being of infinite benevolence—as one who wished to provide a perfect system of redemption—to subject his Son to such sufferings as should completely qualify him to be a Saviour for all men. This subjection to his humble condition, and to his many woes, made him such a Saviour as man needed, and qualified him fully for his work. There was a propriety that he who should redeem the suffering and the lost should partake of their nature; identify himself with them; and share their woes, and the consequences of their sins.
For whom are all things. With respect to whose glory the whole universe was made; and with respect to whom the whole arrangement for salvation has been formed. The phrase is synonymous with "the Supreme Ruler;" and the idea is, that it became the Sovereign of the universe to provide a perfect scheme of salvation—even though it involved the humiliation and death of his own Son.
And by whom are all things. By whose agency everything is made. As it was by his agency, therefore, that the plan of salvation was entered into, there was a fitness that it should be perfect. It was not the work of fate or chance, and there was a propriety that the whole plan should bear the mark of the infinite wisdom of its Author.
In bringing many sons unto glory. To heaven. This was the plan—it was to bring many to heaven who should be regarded and treated as his sons. It was not a plan to save a few—but to save many. Learn hence,
(1.) that the plan was full of benevolence.
(2.) No representation of the gospel should ever be made which will leave the impression that a few only, or a small part of the whole race, will be saved. There is no such representation in the Bible, and it should not be made. God intends, taking the whole race together, to save a large part of the human family. Few in ages that are past, it is true, may have been saved, few now are his friends and are travelling to heaven; but there are to be brighter days on earth. The period is to arrive when the gospel shall spread over all lands; and during that long period of the millennium, innumerable millions will be brought under its saving power, and be admitted to heaven. All exhibitions of the gospel are wrong which represent it as narrow in its design, narrow in its offer, and narrow in its result.
To make the captain of their salvation. The Lord Jesus, who is represented as the leader or commander of the army of the redeemed— "the sacramental host of God's elect." The word "captain" we apply now to an inferior officer—the commander of a "company" of soldiers. The Greek word —archgov—is a more general term, and denotes, properly, the author or source of any thing; then a leader, chief, prince. In Ac 3:15, it is rendered prince—" and killed the prince of life." So in Ac 5:31—"Him hath God exalted to be a prince and a Saviour." In Heb 12:2, it is rendered author: "Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." Comp. See Barnes "Heb 12:2".
Perfect through sufferings. Complete by means of sufferings; that is, to render him wholly qualified for his work, so that he should be a Saviour just adapted to redeem man. This does not mean that he was sinful before, and was made holy by his sufferings; nor that he was not in all respects a perfect man before;—but it means, that by his sufferings he was made wholly fitted to be a Saviour of men; and that therefore the fact of his being a suffering man was no evidence, as a Jew might have urged, that he was not the Son of God. There was a completeness, a filling up, of all which was necessary to his character as a Saviour, by the sufferings which he endured. We are made morally better by afflictions, if we receive them in a right manner—for we are sinful, and need to be purified in the furnace of affliction; Christ was not made better, for he was before perfectly holy, but he was completely endowed for the work which he came to do, by his sorrows. Nor does this mean here precisely that he was exalted to heaven as a reward for his sufferings, or that he was raised up to glory as a consequence of them—which was true in itself—but that he was rendered complete, or fully qualified to be a Saviour by his sorrows, he was rendered thus complete,
(1.) because his suffering in all the forms that flesh is liable to, made him an example to all his people who shall pass through trials. They have before them a perfect model to show them how to bear afflictions. Had this not occurred, he could not have been regarded as a complete or perfect Saviour—that is, such a Saviour as we need.
(2.) He is able to sympathize with them, and to succour them in their temptations, Heb 2:18.
(3.) By his sufferings an atonement was made for sin. He would have been an imperfect Saviour—if the name Saviour could have been given to him at all—if he had not died to make an atonement for transgression. To render him complete as a Saviour, it was necessary that he should suffer and die; and when he hung on the cross in the agonies of death, he could appropriately say, "It is finished." The work is complete, All has been done that could be required to be done; and man may now have the assurance that he has a perfect Saviour—perfect not only in moral character, but perfect in his work, and in his adaptedness to the condition of men." Comp. Heb 5:8,9; See Barnes "Lu 13:32.
{b} "became him" Lu 24:26,46
{c} "for whom" Ro 11:36
{a} "captain" Isa 45:4
{b} "Perfect" Lu 13:22
Verse 11. For both he that sacramental. This refers evidently to the Lord Jesus. The object is to show that there was such a union between him and those for whom he died, as to make it necessary that he should partake of the same nature, or that he should be a suffering man, Heb 2:14. He undertook to redeem and sanctify them. He called them brethren, he identified them with himself. There was, in the great work of redemption, a oneness between him and them, and hence it was necessary that he should assume their nature—and the fact, therefore, that he appeared as a suffering man, does not at all militate with the doctrine that he had a more exalted nature, and was even above the angels. Prof. Stuart endeavours to prove that the word sanctify here is used in the sense of, to make expiation or atonement, and that the meaning is, "he who maketh expiation, and they for whom expiation is made." Bloomfield gives the same sense to the word, as also does Rosenmuller. That the word may have such a signification it would be presumptuous in any one to doubt, after the view which such men have taken of it; but it may be doubted whether this idea is necessary here. The word sanctify is a general term, meaning, to make holy or pure; to consecrate, set apart, devote to God; to regard as holy, or to hallow. Applied to the Saviour here, it may be used in this general sense—that he consecrated, or devoted himself to God—as eminently the consecrated or holy one —the Messiah, (See Barnes "Joh 17:19":) applied to his people, it may mean that they, in like manner, were the consecrated, the holy, the pure on earth. There is a richness and fairness in the word when so understood, which there is not when it is limited to the idea of expiation; and it seems to me that it is to be taken in its richest and fullest sense, and that the meaning is, "the great consecrated Messiah—the Holy One of God—and his consecrated and holy followers, are all of one."
All of one. Of one family; spirit; Father; nature. Father of these significations will suit the connexion, and some such idea must be understood; The meaning is, that they were united, or partook of something in common, so as to constitute a oneness, or a brotherhood; and that since this was the case, there was a propriety in his taking their nature. It does not mean that they were originally of one nature or family; but that it was understood in the writings of the prophets that the Messiah should partake of the nature of his people, and that therefore, though he was more exalted than the angels, there was a propriety that he should appear in the human form. Comp. Joh 17:21.
For which cause. That is, because he is thus united with them, or has undertaken their redemption.
He is not ashamed. As it might be supposed that one so exalted and pure would be. It might have been anticipated that the Son of God would refuse to give the name brethren to those who were so humble, and sunken, and degraded, as those whom he came to redeem. But he is willing to be ranked with them, and to be regarded as one of their family.
To call them brethren. To acknowledge himself as of the same family, and to speak of them as his brothers. That is, he is so represented as speaking of them in the prophecies respecting the Messiah—for this interpretation the argument of the apostle demands. It was material for him to show that he was so represented in the Old Testament. This he does in the following verses.
{c} "all of one" Joh 17:21
Verse 12. Saying. This passage is found in Ps 22:22. The whole of that Psalm has been commonly referred to the Messiah; and in regard to such a reference there is less difficulty than attends most of the other portions of the Old Testament that are usually supposed to relate to him. The following verses of the Psalm are applied to him, or to transactions connected with him, in the New Testament, Ps 22:1,8,18; and the whole Psalm is so strikingly descriptive of his condition and sufferings, that there can be no reasonable doubt that it had an original reference to him. There is much in the Psalm that cannot be well applied to David; there is nothing which cannot be applied to the Messiah; and the proof seems to be clear, that Paul quoted this passage in accordance with the original sense of the Psalm. The point of the quotation here is not that he would "declare the name" of God, but that he gave the name brethren to those whom he addressed.
I will declare thy name. I will make thee known. The word "name" is used, as it often is, to denote God himself. The meaning is, that it would be a part of the Messiah's work to make known to his disciples the character and perfections of God—or to make them acquainted with God. He performed this. In his parting prayer (Joh 17:6) he says, "I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world." And again, John 17:26, "And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it."
Unto my brethren. The point of the quotation is in this. He spoke of them as brethren. Paul is showing that he was not ashamed to call them such. As he was reasoning with those who had been Jews, and as it was necessary, as a part of his argument, to show that what he maintained respecting the Messiah was found in the Old Testament, he makes his appeal to that, and shows that the Redeemer is represented as addressing his people as brethren. It would have been easy to appeal to facts, and to have shown that the Redeemer used that term familiarly in addressing his disciples, (comp. Mt 12:48,49; 25:40; 28:10; Lu 8:21; Joh 20:17,) but that would not have been pertinent to his object. It is full proof to us, however, that the prediction in the Psalm was literally fulfilled.
In the midst of the church. That is, in the assembly of my brethren. The point of the proof urged by the apostle lies in the first part of the quotation. This latter part seems to have been adduced, because it might assist their memory to have the whole verse quoted; or because it contained an interesting truth respecting the Redeemer—though not precisely a proof of what he was urging; or because it implied substantially the same truth as the former member. It shows that he was united with his church; that he was one of them; and that he mingled with them as among brethren.
Will I sing praise. That the Redeemer united with his disciples in singing praise, we may suppose to have been in the highest degree probable—though, I believe, but a single case is mentioned—that at the close of the Supper which he instituted to commemorate his death, Mt 26:30. This, therefore, proves what the apostle intended—that the Messiah was among them as his brethren, that he spoke to them as such, and mingled in their devotions as one of their number.
{d} "Saying" Ps 22:22
Verse 13. And again. That is, it is said in another place, or language is used of the Messiah in another place, indicating the confidence which he put in God, and showing that he partook of the feelings of the children of God, and regarded himself as one of them.
I will put my trust in him. I will confide in God; implying
(1.) a sense of dependence on God, and
(2.) confidence in him. It is with reference to the former idea that the apostle seems to use it here—as denoting a condition where there was felt to be need of Divine aid. His object is to show that he took part with his people, and regarded them as brethren; and the purpose of this quotation seems to be, to show that he was in such a situation as to make an expression of dependence proper. He was one with his people, and shared their dependence and their piety—using language which showed that he was identified with them, and could mingle with the tenderest sympathy in all their feelings. It is not certain from what place this passage is quoted. In Ps 18:3, and the corresponding passage in 2 Sa 22:3, the Hebrew is "I will trust in him;" but this Psalm has never been regarded as having any reference to the Messiah, even by the Jews— and it is difficult to see how it could be considered as having any relation to him. Most critics therefore, as Rosenmuller, Calvin, Koppe, Bloomfield, Stuart, etc., regard the passage as taken from Isa 8:17. The reasons for this are,
(1.) that the words are the same in the Septuagint as in the epistle to the Hebrews;
(2.) the apostle quotes the next verse immediately as applicable to the Messiah;
(3.) no other place occurs where the same expression is found. Isa 8:17, is "I will wait for him," or I will trust in him — rendered by the Septuagint pepoiywv esomai ep autw— the same phrase precisely as is used by Paul—and here can be no doubt that he meant to quote it here. The sense in Isaiah is, that he had closed his message to the people; he had been directed to seal up the testimony; he had exhorted the nation to repent, but he had done it in vain; and he had now nothing to do but to put his trust in the Lord, and commit the whole cause to him. His only hope was in God; and he calmly and confidently committed his cause to him. Paul evidently designs to refer this to the Messiah; and the sense as applied to him is—"The Messiah in using this language expresses himself as a man. It is men who exercise dependence on God; and by the use of this language he speaks as one who had the nature of man, and who expressed the feelings of the pious, and showed that he was one of them, and that he regarded them as brethren." There is not much difficulty in the argument of the passage; nor it is seen that in such language he must speak as a man, or as one having human nature; but the main difficulty is on the question how this and the verse following can be applied to the Messiah? In the prophecy they seem to refer solely to Isaiah, and to be expressive of his feelings alone— the feelings of a man who saw little encouragement in his work, and who having done all that he could do, at last put his sole trust in God. In regard to this difficult and yet unsettled question, the reader may consult my introduction to Isaiah, & 7. The following remarks may serve in part to remove the difficulty.
(1.) The passage in Isaiah (Isa 8:17,18) occurs in the midst of a number of predictions relating to the Messiah—preceded and followed by passages that had an ultimate reference undoubtedly to him. See Isa 7:14; 9:1-7 and Notes on those passages.
(2.) The language, if used of Isaiah, would as accurately and fitly express the feelings and the condition of the Redeemer. There was such a remarkable similarity in the circumstances, that the same language would express the condition of both. Both had delivered a solemn message to men; both had come to exhort them to turn to God, and to put their trust in him, and both with the same result. The nation had disregarded them alike; and now their only hope was to confide in God; and the language here used would express the feelings of both—" I will trust in God. I will put confidence in him, and look to him."
(3.) There can be little doubt that, in the time of Paul, this passage was regarded by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. This is evident, because
(a.) Paul would not have so quoted it as a proof-text, unless it would be admitted to have such a reference by those to whom he wrote; and
(b.) because, in Ro 9:32,33, it is evident that the passage in Isa 8:14, is regarded as having reference to the Messiah, and as being so admitted by the Jews. It is true that this may be considered merely as an argument ad hominem—or an argument from what was admitted by those with whom he was reasoning, without vouching for the precise accuracy of the manner in which the passage was applied—but that method of argument is admitted elsewhere, and why should we not expect to find the sacred writers reasoning as other men do, and especially as was common in their own times? The apostle is showing them, that according to their own Scripture, and in accordance with principles which they themselves admitted, it was necessary that the Messiah should be a man and a sufferer; that he should be identified with his people, and be able to use language which would express that condition. In doing this, it is not remarkable that he should apply to him language which they admitted to belong to him, and which would accurately describe his condition.
(4.) It is not necessary to suppose that the passage in Isaiah had an original and primary reference to the Messiah. It is evident from the whole passage that it had not. There was a primary reference to Isaiah himself, and to his children as being emblems of certain truths. But still there was a strong resemblance, in certain respects, between his feelings and condition and those of the Messiah. There was such a resemblance, that the one would not unaptly symbolize the other. There was such a resemblance that the mind—probably of the prophet himself, and of the people—would look forward to the more remote, but similar event—the coming and the circumstances of the Messiah. So strong was this resemblance, and so much did the expressions of the prophet here accord with his declarations elsewhere pertaining to the Messiah, that in the course of time they came to be regarded as relating to him in a very important sense, and as destined to have their complete fulfillment when he should come. As such they seem to have been used in the time of Paul; and no one can PROVE that the application was improper. Who can demonstrate that God did not intend that those transactions referred to by Isaiah should be designed as symbols of what would occur in the time of the Redeemer? They were certainly symbolical actions—for they are expressly so said to have been by Isaiah himself, (Isa 8:18;) and none can demonstrate that they might not have had an ultimate reference to the Redeemer.
And again. In another verse, or in another declaration; to wit, Isa 7:18.
Behold I and the children which God hath given me. This is only a part of the passage in Isaiah, and seems to have been partially quoted, because the point of the quotation consisted in the fact, that he sustained to them somewhat of the relation of a parent towards his children—as having the same nature, and being identified with them in interest and feeling. As it is used by Isaiah, it means that he and his children were "for signs and emblems" to the people of his time—to communicate and confirm the will of God, and to be pledges of the Divine favour and protection. See Barnes "Isa 7:18".
As applied to the Messiah, it means that he sustained to his people a relation so intimate, that they could be addressed and regarded as his children. They were of one family; one nature. He became one of them, and had in them all the interest which a father has in his sons, He had, therefore, a nature like ours; and though he was exalted above the angels, yet his relation to man was like the most tender and intimate earthly connexions, showing that he took part in the same nature with them. The point is that he was a man; that since those who were to be redeemed partook of flesh and blood, he also took part of the same, (Heb 2:14,) and thus identified himself with them.
{a} "I will put my trust" Ps 18:2
{b} "again" Isa 8:18
{c} "God hath given me" Joh 17:6-12
Verse 14. Forasmuch then. Since; or because.
As the children. Those who were to become the adopted children of God; or who were to sustain that relation to him.
Are partakers of flesh and blood. Have a human and not an angelic nature. Since they are men, he became a man. There was a fitness or propriety that he should partake of their nature. See Barnes "1 Co 15:50; See Barnes "Mt 16:17".
He also himself, etc. He also became a man, or partook of the same nature with them. See Barnes "Joh 1:14".
That through death. By dying. It is implied here,
(1.) that the work which he undertook of destroying him that had the power of death was to be accomplished by his own dying; and
(2.) that, in order to this, it was necessary that he should be a man. An angel does not die, and therefore he did not take on him the nature of angels; and the Son of God, in his Divine nature, could not die, and therefore he assumed a form in which he could die—that of a man. In that nature the Son of God could taste of death; and thus he could destroy him that had the power of death.
He might destroy. That he might subdue, or that he might overcome him, and destroy his dominion. The word destroy here is not used in the sense of closing life, or of killing, but in the sense of bringing into subjection, or crushing his power. This is the work which the Lord Jesus came to perform—to destroy the kingdom of Satan in the world, and to set up another kingdom in its place. This was understood by Satan to be his object. See Barnes "Mt 8:29" See Barnes "Mr 1:24".
That had the power of death. I understand this as meaning that the devil was the cause of death in this world, he was the means of its introduction, and of its long and melancholy reign. This does not affirm anything of his power of inflicting death in particular instances—whatever may be true on that point—but that death was a part of his dominion; that he introduced it; that he seduced man from God, and led on the train of woes which result in death. He also made it terrible. Instead of being regarded as falling asleep, or being looked on without alarm, it becomes, under him, the means of terror and distress. What power Satan may have in inflicting death in particular: instances no one can tell. The Jewish Rabbins speak much of Samuel, "the angel of death"— HEBREW—who they supposed had the control of life, and was the great messenger employed in closing it. The Scriptures, it is believed, are silent on that point. But that Satan was the means of introducing "death into the world, and all our woe," no one can doubt; and over the whole subject, therefore, he may be said to have had power. To destroy that dominion; to rescue man; to restore him to life; to place him in a world where death is unknown; to introduce a state of things where not another one would ever die, was the great purpose for which the Redeemer came. What a noble object! What enterprise in the universe has been so grand and noble as this! Surely an undertaking that contemplates the annihilation of DEATH; that designs to bring this dark dominion to an end, is full of benevolence, and commends itself to every man as worthy of his profound attention and gratitude. What woes are caused by death in this world! They are seen everywhere. The earth is "arched with graves." In almost every dwelling death has been doing his work of misery. The palace cannot exclude him; and he comes unbidden into the cottage. He finds his way to the dwelling of ice in which the Esquimaux and the Greenlander live; to the tent of the Bedouin Arab, and the wandering Tartar; to the wigwam of the Indian, and to the harem of the Turk; to the splendid mansion of the rich, as well as to the abode of the poor. That reign of death has now extended near six thousand years, and will travel on to future times—meeting each generation, and consigning the young, the vigorous, the lovely, and the pure, to dust. Shall that gloomy reign continue forever? Is there no way to arrest it? Is there no place where death can be excluded? Yes: heaven —and the object of the Redeemer is to bring us there.
{a} "he himself also" Joh 1:14
{b} "through death" 1 co 15:54
Verse 15. And deliver them. Not all of them in fact, though the way is open for all. This deliverance relates
(1.) to the dread of death. He came to free them from that.
(2.) From death itself—that is, ultimately to bring them to a world where death shall be unknown. The dread of death may be removed by the work of Christ, and they who had been subject to constant alarms on account of it may be brought to look on it with calmness and peace; and ultimately they will be brought to a world where it will be wholly unknown. The dread of death is taken away, or they are delivered from that, because
(a.) the cause of that dread—to wit, sin—is removed. See Barnes "1 Co 15:54, See Barnes "1 Co 15:55".
(b.) Because they are enabled to look to the world beyond with triumphant joy. Death conducts them to heaven. A Christian has nothing to fear in death; nothing beyond the grave. In no part of the universe has he any thing to dread, for God is his friend, and he will be his protector everywhere. On the dying bed; in the grave; on the way up to the judgment; at the solemn tribunal; and in the eternal world, he is under the eye and the protection of his Saviour—and of what should he be afraid?
Who through fear of death. From the dread of dying —that is, whenever they think of it, and they think of it so often as to make them slaves of that fear. This obviously means the natural dread of dying, and not particularly the fear of punishment beyond. It is that indeed which often gives its principal terror to the dread of death; but still the apostle refers here evidently to natural death—as an object which men fear. All men have, by nature, this dread of dying— and perhaps some of the inferior creation have it also. It is certain that it exists in the heart of every man, and that God has implanted it there for some wise purpose. There is the dread
(1.) of the dying pang, or pain.
(2.) Of the darkness and gloom of mind that attends it.
(3.) Of the unknown world beyond—the "evil that we know not of."
(4.) Of the chilliness, and loneliness, and darkness of the grave.
(5.) Of the solemn trial at the bar of God.
(6.) Of the condemnation which awaits the guilty—the apprehension of future woe. There is no other evil that we fear so much as we do DEATH, and there is nothing more clear than that God intended that we should have a dread of dying. The REASONS why he designed this are equally clear.
(1.) One may have been to lead men to prepare for it— which otherwise they would neglect.
(2.) Another, to deter them from committing self-murder where nothing else would deter them. Facts have shown that it was necessary that there should be some strong principle in the human bosom to prevent this crime, and even the dread of death does not always do it. So sick do men become of the life that God gave them; so weary of the world; so overwhelmed with calamity; so oppressed with disappointment and cares, that they lay violent hands on themselves, and rush unbidden into the awful presence of their Creator. This would occur more frequently by far than it now does, if it were not for the salutary fear of death which God has implanted in every bosom. The feelings of the human heart on this subject were never more accurately or graphically drawn than in the celebrated Soliloquy of Hamlet—
to die;—to sleep—.
No more;—and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to,—'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die—to sleep—
To sleep.—perchance to dream;—ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause :—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long a life:
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,.
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin. Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life;
But that the dread of something after death—
The undiscovered country from whose bourne
No traveller returns—puzzles the will;
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of ?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale east of thought;
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
God designed that man should be deterred from rushing uncalled into his awful presence, by this salutary dread of death, and his implanting this feeling in the human heart is one of the most striking and conclusive proofs of a moral government over the world. This instinctive dread of death can be overcome only by religion —and then man does not NEED it to reconcile him to life. He becomes submissive to trials, he is willing to bear all that is laid on him. He resigns himself to the dispensations of Providence, and feels that life, even in affliction, is the gift of God, and is a valuable endowment. He now dreads self-murder as a crime of deep dye, and religion restrains him and keeps him by a more mild and salutary restraint than the dread of death. The man who has true religion is willing to live or to die; he feels that life is the gift of God, and that he will take it away in the best time and manner; and feeling this, he is willing to leave all in his hands, We may remark,
(1.) how much do we owe to religion! It is the only thing that will effectually take away the dread of death, and yet secure this point—to make man willing to live in all the circumstances where God may place him. It is possible that philosophy or stoicism may remove, to a great extent, the dread of death—but then it will be likely to make a man willing to take his life if he is placed in trying circumstances. Such an effect it had on Cato in Utica; and such an effect it had on Hume, who maintained that suicide was lawful, and that to turn a current of blood from its accustomed channel was of no more consequence than to change the course of any other fluid!
(2.) In what a sad condition is the sinner! Thousands there are who never think of death with composure, and who, all their life long, are subject to bondage through the fear of it. They never think of it if they can avoid it; and when it is forced upon them, it fills them with alarm. They attempt to drive the thought away. They travel; they plunge into business; they occupy the mind with trifles; they drown their fears in the intoxicating bowl: but all this tends only to make death more terrific and awful when the reality comes. If man were wise, he would seek an interest in that religion which, if it did nothing else, would deliver him from the dread of death; and the influence of the gospel in this respect, if it exerted no other, is worth to a man all the sacrifices and self-denials which it would ever require.
All their life-time subject to bondage. Slaves of fear; in a depressed and miserable condition, like slaves under a master. They have no freedom; no comfort; no peace. From this miserable state Christ comes to deliver man. Religion enables him to look calmly on death and the judgment, and to feel that all will be well.
{c} "through fear" Lu 1:74
Verse 16. For verily. Truly. He took not on him the nature of angels. Marg., He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. The word here used—epilambanetai; means, to take hold upon; to seize; to surprise; to take hold with a view to detain for one's self. Robinson. Then it means to take hold of one as by the hand—with a view to aid, conduct, or succour, Mr 8:23; Ac 23:19. It is rendered took, Mr 8:23; Lu 9:47; Lu 14:4; Ac 9:27; 17:19; 18:17; 21:30,33; 23:19; Heb 8:9; caught, Mt 14:31; Ac 16:19; take hold, Lu 20:20,26; lay hold, and laid hold, Lu 23:26; 1 Ti 6:12. The general idea is that of seizing upon, or laying hold of any one—no matter what the object is—whether to aid, or to drag to punishment, or simply to conduct. Here it means to lay hold with reference to aid, or help; and the meaning is, that he did not seize the nature of angels, or take it to himself, with reference to rendering them aid, but he assumed the nature of man in order to aid him. He undertook the work of human redemption, and consequently it was necessary for him to be a man.
But he took on him the seed of Abraham. He came to help the descendants of Abraham, and consequently, as they were men, he became a man. Writing to Jews, it was not unnatural for the apostle to refer particularly to them as the descendants of Abraham, though this does not exclude the idea that he died for the whole human race. It was true that he came to render aid to the descendants of Abraham, but it was also true that he died for all. The fact that I love one of my children, and that I make provision for his education, and tell him so, does not exclude the idea that I love the others also, and that I may make to them a similar appeal when it shall be proper.
{1} "verily" "he taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.
17. Wherefore in all things. In respect to his body; his soul; his rank and character. There was a propriety that he should be like them, and should partake of their nature. The meaning is, that there was a fitness that nothing should be wanting in him in reference to the innocent propensities and sympathies of human nature.
It behoved him. It became him; or there was a fitness and propriety in it. The reason why it was proper, the apostle proceeds to state.
Like unto his brethren. Like unto those who sustained to him the relation of brethren; particularly as he undertook to redeem the descendants of Abraham, and as he was a descendant of Abraham himself, there was a propriety that he should be like them. He calls them brethren; and it was proper that, he should show that he regarded them as such by assuming their nature.
That he might be a merciful and faithful high priest.
(1.) That he might be merciful; that is, compassionate. That he might know how to pity us in our infirmities and trials, by having a nature like our own.
(2.) That he might be faithful; that is, perform with fidelity all the functions pertaining to the office of high priest. The idea is, that it was needful that he should become a man; that he should experience, as we do, the infirmities and trials of life; and that, by being a man, and partaking of all that pertained to man except his sins, he might feel how necessary it was that there should be fidelity in the office of high priest. Here were a race of sinners and sufferers. They were exposed to the wrath of God. They were liable to everlasting punishment. The judgment impended over the race, and the day of vengeance hastened on. All now depended on the Great High Priest. All their hope was in his fidelity to the great office which he had undertaken. If he were faithful, all would be safe; if he were unfaithful, all would be lost. Hence the necessity that he should enter fully into the feelings, fears, and dangers of man; that he should become one of the race, and be identified with them, so that he might be qualified to perform with faithfulness the great trust committed to him.
High priest. The Jewish high priest was the successor of Aaron, and was at the head of the ministers of religion among the Jews. He was set apart with solemn ceremonies—clad in his sacred vestments—and anointed with oil, Ex 29:6-9; Le 8:2. He was by his office the general judge of all that pertained to religion, and even of the judicial affairs of the Jewish nation, De 17:8-12; 19:17; 21:5; 33:9,10.
He only had the privilege of entering the most holy place once a year, on the great day of expiation, to make atonement for the sins of the whole people, Le 16:2, etc. He was the oracle of truth—so that, when clothed in his proper vestments, and having on the Urim and Thummim, he made known the will of God in regard to future events. The Lord Jesus became, in the Christian dispensation, what the Jewish high priest was in the old; and an important object of this epistle is to show that he far surpassed the Jewish high priest, and in what respects the Jewish high priest was designed to typify the Redeemer. Paul, therefore, early introduces the subject, and shows that the Lord Jesus came to perform the functions of that sacred office, and that he was eminently endowed for it.
In things pertaining to God. In offering sacrifice; or in services of a religious nature. The great purpose was to offer sacrifice, and make intercession; and the idea is, that Jesus took on himself our nature that he might sympathize with us; that thus he might be faithful to the great trust committed to him—the redemption of the world. Had he been unfaithful, all would have been lost, and the world would have sunk down to woe.
To make reconciliation. By his death as a sacrifice. The word here used— ilaskomai—occurs but in one other place in the New Testament, (Lu 18:13,) where it is rendered, "God be merciful to me a sinner;" that is, reconciled to me. The noun ilasmov— propitiation) is used in 1 Jo 2:2; 4:10. The word here means, properly, to appease, to reconcile, to conciliate; and hence to propitiate AS TO SINS; that is, to propitiate God in reference to sins, or to render him propitious. The Son of God became a man, that he might so fully enter into the feelings of the people as to be faithful, and that he might be qualified, as a high priest, to perform the great work of rendering God propitious in regard to sins. How he did this is fully shown in the subsequent parts of the epistle.
{a} "merciful" Ge 19:15,16
Verse 18. For in that he himself,etc. Because he has suffered, he is able to sympathize with sufferers.
Being tempted. Or, being tried. The Greek word here used is more general in its meaning than the English word tempted. It means to put to the proof; to try the nature or character of; and this may be done either
(1.) by subjecting a person to afflictions or sufferings, that his true character may be tried—that it may be seen whether he has sincere piety and love to God; or
(2.) by allowing one to fall into temptation—properly so called—where some strong inducement to evil is presented to the mind, and where it becomes thus a trial of virtue. The Saviour was subjected to both these in as severe a form as was ever presented to men. His sufferings surpassed all others; and the temptations of Satan (Mt 4) were presented in the most alluring form in which he could exhibit them. Being proved or tried in both these respects, he showed that he had a strength of virtue which could bear all that could ever occur to seduce him from attachment to God; and at the same time to make him a perfect model for those who should be tried in the same manner.
He is able to succour, etc. This does not mean that he would not have had power to assist others if he had not gone through these sufferings, but that he is now qualified to sympathize with them from the fact that he has endured like trials.
"He knows what sore temptations mean,
For he has felt the same."
The idea is that one who has himself been called to suffer, is able to sympathize with those who suffer; one who has been tempted, is able to sympathize with those who are tempted in like manner; one who has been sick is qualified to sympathize with the sick; one who has lost a child, can sympathize with him who follows his beloved son or daughter to the grave; one who has had some strong temptation to sin urged upon himself, can sympathize with those who are now tempted; one who has never been sick, or who has never buried a friend, or been tempted, is poorly qualified to impart consolations in such scenes. Hence it is, that ministers of the gospel are often—like their Master—much persecuted and afflicted, that they may be able to assist others, Hence they are called to part with the children of their love; or to endure long and painful sicknesses; or to pass through scenes of poverty and want, that they may sympathize with the most humble and afflicted of their flock. And they should be willing to endure all this; for
(1.) thus they are like their Master, (comp. Col 1:24; Php 3:10;) and
(2.) they are thus enabled to be far more extensively useful. Many a minister owes a large part of his usefulness to the fact that he has been much afflicted; and for those afflictions, therefore, he should unfeignedly thank God. The idea which is here expressed by the apostle; that one is enabled to sympathize with others from having himself suffered, was long since beautifully expressed by Virgil:—
Me quoque per multos similis fortuna labores.
Jactatam, hac demum voluit consistere terra.
Non ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco.
AEn. I. 628.
For I myself, like you, have been distressed,
Till heaven afforded me this place of rest:
Like you, an alien in a land unknown,
I learn to pity Woes so like my own.
Dryden.
Jesus is thus able to alleviate the sufferer. In all our temptations and trials let us remember
(1.) that he suffered more—infinitely more—than we can do, and that in all our sorrows we shall never reach what he endured. We enter no region of trial where he has not gone beyond us; we tread no dark and gloomy way where he has not gone before us.
(2.) Let us remember that he is to us a brother, for he "is not ashamed to call us brethren." He had a nature like ours; he condescended to appear as one of our race, with all the innocent propensities and passions of a man. What matchless condescension! And what an honour for us to be permitted to address him as an "elder brother," and to know that he feels a deep sympathy in our woes!
(3.) Let us then, in all times of affliction, look to him. Go not, suffering Christian, to philosophy; attempt not to deaden your feelings by the art of the Stoic; but go at once to the Saviour—the great, sympathizing High Priest, who is able to succour you—and rest your burdens on him. \-
His heart is made of tenderness,
His soul is fill'd with love.
Touched with a sympathy within,
He knows our feeble frame;
He knows what sore temptations mean,
For he has felt the same.
Then let our humble faith address
His mercy and his power;
We shall obtain delivering grace,
In every trying hour.
| This article is provided as a ministry of Third Millennium Ministries (Thirdmill). If you have a question about this article, please email our Theological Editor. If you would like to discuss this article in our online community, please visit the RPM Forum. |
Subscribe to RPM
RPM subscribers receive an email notification each time a new issue is published.
Notifications include the title, author, and description
of each article in the issue, as well as links directly to the articles.
Like RPM itself, subscriptions are free.
Click here to subscribe.
|