Hebrews 1
The Epistle to the Hebrews, one of the most important books of the New Testament
in that it contains some of the chief doctrines of the Christian faith, is, as well, a book
of infinite logic and great beauty. To read it is to breathe the atmosphere of heaven
itself. To study it is to partake of strong spiritual meat. To abide in its teachings is to
be led from immaturity to maturity in the knowledge of Christian truth and of
Christ Himself. It is to “go on unto perfection.” E. Schuyler English
Vs. 1-4 – EXORDIUM
The introductory portion of an
oration, intimating in a succession of choice and
pregnant phrases, the drift of the Epistle; a condensed summary of
the coming
argument. It briefly anticipates the views to be set forth in the
sequel, of
the revelation of God in Christ excelling far, and being destined
to
supersede, all that had preceded it, as being the ultimate Divine
manifestation in the SON, according to the full meaning of the term
involved in ancient prophecy; — of the eternal Divinity of him who
was
thus revealed in time as SON — of his accomplishing, as such,
the reality
signified by the ancient priesthood; and of his exaltation, as
such, to his
predestined glory and dominion on high. We find in the introduction to
some of Paul’s Epistles somewhat similar adumbrations of his subject,
but
none so finished and rhetorical as this. And if its style affords an
argument, as far as it goes, against the immediate Pauline authorship
of the
Epistle, still more does it appear almost conclusive
against the view of its
being a translation. Not merely the alliteration in Πολυµερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως
–
Polumeros kai polutropos –
at sundry times and in divers
manners -
but
the Greek structure of the whole with its rhythmical flow, betokens an
original composition. The rolling music of the language cannot, of
course,
be
reproduced in an English translation.
1 “God,
who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in
time past
unto the fathers by the prophets,” Retaining the
order of the words in the
original, we may translate, In many
portions, and in many modes of old
God
having spoken to the fathers in the prophets. Πολυµερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως
as above — not a mere alliterative redundancy, denoting variously: —
the writer’s
usual choice use of words forbids this supposition. Nor is the µερῶς – meros –
of
the first adverb to be taken (as in the Authorized Version) to denote portions
of
time: — this is not the proper meaning of the compound.
Nor (for the same reason)
does it denote various degrees of prophetic inspiration, but (on
etymological as well as logical grounds) the various portions of
the
preparatory revelation to “the
fathers.” It was not one utterance, but many
utterances; given, in fact, at divers times, though it is to the
diversity of the
utterances, and not of the times, that the expression points. Then
the
second adverb denotes the various modes of the several
former revelations
— not necessarily or exclusively
the rabbinical distinction between dream,
vision, inspiration, voices, angels; or that between the visions
and dreams
of
prophets and the “mouth to mouth” revelation to Moses, referred to in
Numbers 12:6-9; but rather the various characters or forms
of the
various utterances in themselves. Some were in the way of primeval
promises; some of glimpses into the Divine righteousness, as in the
Law
given from
some of typical history and typical persons, spoken of
under inspiration as
representing an unfulfilled ideal; some of the yearnings
and aspirations, or
distinct predictions, of psalmists and of prophets. But all these were but
partial, fragmentary, anticipatory utterances, leading up to
and adumbrating
the ‘one complete, all-absorbing “speaking of God to us in the
SON,”
which is placed in contrast with them all. If the
subsequent treatment in this
Epistle of the Old Testament utterances is to be taken as a
key for
unlocking the meaning of the exordium, such ideas were in
the writer’s
mind when he thus wrote.
Πολυµερῶς pertinet ad materiam,
πολυτρόπως ad formam. ” Of old; i.e. in the ages
comprised in
the Old Testament record. Though it is true that; God has
revealed Himself
variously since the world was made to other than the saints
of the Old
Testament, and though He ceased not to speak in some way to
His people
between the times of Malachi and of Christ, yet both the
expression, “to
the fathers,” and
the instances of Divine utterances given subsequently in
the Epistle, restrict us in our interpretation to the Old
Testament canon.
Addressing Hebrews, it is from this that the writer argues.
Having spoken;
a word used elsewhere
to express all the ways in which God has made
Himself, His will, and His counsels, known (Matthew 10:20;
Luke 1:45, 70;
John 9:29; Acts 3:21; 7:6). To the fathers; the ancestors of the Jews in respect
both of race and of faith; the saints of the Old Testament.
The word had a
well-understood meaning (Matthew 23:30; Luke 1:55, 72;
11:47; and especially
Romans 9:5). For the double sense of the term “father,” thus used, see John 8:56,
“your father
Abraham;” but again, John 8:39, “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye
would do the works
of Abraham;” and also Romans ch.4 and Galatians
3:7. But
this distinction
between physical and spiritual ancestry does not
come in here. In
the prophets. The word “prophet” must be taken here in a
general sense; not confined to the prophets distinctively
so called, as in
Luke 24:44, “Moses, the
prophets, and the psalms.” For both Moses
and the psalms are quoted in the sequel, to illustrate the
ancient utterances.
προφήτης – prophaetaes – prophet
- means, both in classical and Hellenistic
Greek (as does the Hebrew aybin;, of
which προφήτης is the equivalent), not
a foreteller, but a forth teller of the mind of God, an
inspired expounder
(compare Exodus 7:1, “See
I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron
thy brother shall
be thy prophet”). Observe also the sense of προφήτεὶα
(prophets) in Paul’s Epistles (especially I Corinthians 14.). In this sense Moses,
David, and all through
whom God in any way spoke to man, were prophets.
On the exact force of
the preposition ἐν – en – in - many views have been
entertained. It does not mean “in the books of the prophets,” — the corresponding
“in
the SON” (v. 2) precludes this; nor that God by His Spirit spoke within the
prophets, — this idea does not come in naturally here; nor is “the SON” presented
afterwards as one in
whom the Godhead dwelt, so much as being Himself
a
manifestation of God; nor may we take ἐν, as
simply a Hellenism for δὶα – dia –
by - the writer does not use prepositions indiscriminately. Ἐν
differs from dia
as denoting the element in which
this speaking takes place. This use of the
preposition is found also in classical Greek and in the New
Testament, compare
Ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι
τῶν δαιµονίων
ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιµόνια
– En to
archonti ton
Daimonion ekballei ta daimonia
- in the chief of the demons he is casting out
the demons (Matthew 9:34.).
2 “Hath in
these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath
appointed heir of all things, by whom also
He made the worlds;”
In these last days. The true reading being ἐπ. ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡµερῶν τούτων –
ep eschatou ton haemeron touton – in these last days - not ἐπ. ἐσχάτων
–
ep eschaton – on last ones - as in the Textus Receptus, translate, at
the end of these days’, The
Received Text would, indeed, give the same
meaning, the position of the article denoting’ “the last of
these days,” not
“these last days.” The reference appears to be to the
common rabbinical
division of time into αἰών οὗτος – aion houtos – this age, and αἰών µέλλων
–
aion mellon – age to be; age
to come – my translation – CY – 2014), or
ἐρχόµενος – erchomenos – the former denoting the
pre-Messianic (past),
the latter the Messianic period
(future). Thus “these days” is equivalent to
αἰών οὗτος, “the present age,” and the whole expression to ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ
τῶν αἰώνων – epi sunteleia
ton aionon - at the
end of the ages (ch. 9:26);
compare I Corinthians 10:11, “for our admonition,
upon whom the ends of
the ages are come.” The term, αἰών µέλλων, is also used in ch.6:5); of. 2:5,
τὴν οἰκουµένην
τὴν µέλλουσαν
– ton oikoumenaen taen mellousan –
the world to come. For
allusions elsewhere to the two periods, compare
Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:35; Ephesians
1:21;
Titus 2:12. Cf. also in Old Testament, Isaiah 9:6, where
the
Codex Alexandrinus has πατἠρ τοῦ µέλλοντος αἰῶνος - Pataer tou
mellontos aionos - Everlasting Father . A subject of discussion
has been the
point of division between the two
ages — whether
the commencement of the
Christian dispensation was ushered in by:
·
the exaltation of
Christ, or
·
His second
advent.
The conception in the Jewish mind, founded on
Messianic prophecy, would, of
course, be undefined. It would only be
that the coming of the Messiah would
inaugurate a new order of things.
But how did the New Testament writers after
Christ’s ascension
conceive the two ages? Did they regard themselves as living at
the end of the former age or at the beginning of the new
one? The passage
before us does not help to settle the question, nor does ch. 9:26;
for the reference in both cases is to the historical
manifestation of Christ
before His ascension. But others of the passages cited
above seem certainly
to imply that “the coming age” was regarded as still future. It has been
said, indeed, with regard to this apparent inference from
some of them, that
the writers were regarding their own age from the old
Jewish standpoint
when they spoke of it as future, or only used well-known
phrases to
denote the two ages, though they were no longer strictly
applicable.
But this explanation cannot well be made to apply to such
passages as
I Corinthians 10:11 and Ephesians 1:21, or to those in the
Gospels. It would
appear from them that it was not till the (παρουσία – parousia – coming) or,
as it is designated in the pastoral Epistles, the ἐπιφἀνεια
– epiphaneia – appearing)
of Christ that “the coming
age” of prophecy was regarded as destined to
begin,
ushering in “new heavens and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness”
(II Peter 3:13). Still, though “that
day” was in the future, the first
coming of
Christ had been, as it were, its dawn, signifying its
approach and preparing
believers for meeting it. “The darkness was passing away;
the true light was
already shining”
(I John 2:8). Hence the apostolic writers sometimes speak as
if already in the “coming age;” as being already
citizens of heaven (Philippians
3:20); as already “made to sit with
Christ in the heavenly places”
(Ephesians
2:6); having already “tasted
the powers of the age to come” (ch. 6:5). In a
certain sense they felt themselves in the new order of
things,
though, strictly speaking, they still regarded their own
age as but the end of
the old one, irradiated by the light of the new. To
understand fully their
language on the subject, we should remember that they
supposed the
second advent to be more imminent than it was. Paul, at one time
certainly, thought that it might be before his own death (I
Corinthians
15:51; I Thessalonians 4:15). Thus they might naturally
speak of their
own time as the conclusion of the former age, though
regarding the second
advent as the commencement of the new one. But the
prolongation of “the
end of these days,” unforeseen by them, does not affect the
essence of their
teaching on the subject. In the Divine counsels “one
day is as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day” (II Peter 3:8). Hath spoken unto us
(more properly, spake
to us) in his Son. “His” is here properly supplied to give
the meaning of ἐν υἱῷ - en huio – in
(His) Son. The rendering, a SON, which
seems to have the advantage of literalism, would be
misleading if it suggested
the idea of one among many sons, or a son in the same sense
in which others
are sons. For though the designation, “son of God,” is
undoubtedly used in
subordinate senses — applied e.g. to Adam, to
angels, to good men, to Christians —
yet what follows in the
Epistle fixes its peculiar meaning here.
The entire
drift of the earlier part of the Epistle is to show that
the idea involved in
the word “Son,” as applied to the
Messiah in prophecy, is that of a relation
to God far above
that of the angels or of Moses, and altogether unique in
its character. This idea
must have been in the writer’s mind when he
selected the phrases of his exordium. Nor is the article
required for the
sense intended. Its omission, in fact, brings it out. ἐν τῷ υἱῷ would have
drawn especial attention to “the personage in whom
God spake; ἐν υἱῷ
does so rather to the mode of the speaking — it is
equivalent to “in one
who was SON.”
Son-revelation (as afterwards explained), is contrasted
with previous prophetic revelations (compare the omission
of the article before
υἱὸς – huios – Son
- ch. 3:6; 5:8; 7:28). Whom
He appointed (or, constituted)
heir of all things; not, as in the A.V., “hath appointed.” The verb is in the
aorist, and here the indefinite sense of the aorist should
be preserved.
“Convenienter statim sub Filii nomen memoratur haereditas.”
Two questions arise.
that the Son was appointed “Heir of all
things?”
time, if any, to be assigned to
the indefinite aorist?
In answer to question (1)
the second alternative is to be preferred.
For
a.
His eternal
pre-existence has not yet been touched upon: it is
introduced, as it were
parenthetically, in the next and following
clauses.
b.
Though the term Son is legitimately used in
theology to denote the
eternal relation to the Father expressed by
the Λόγος – Logos – Word –
of John, yet its application in this Epistle
and in the New Testament
generally (excepting,
perhaps, the µονογενής
υἱὸς – monogenaes
huios – only begotten Son - peculiar to John, is to the
Word made
flesh, to the Son
as manifested in the Christ. And hence
it is to
Him as such that we may
conclude the heirship to be here
assigned.
c.
This is the view
carried out in the sequel of the Epistle, where the SON
is represented as attaining the
universal dominion assigned to Him after,
and in consequence of, His human
obedience. The conclusion of the
exordium in itself expresses
this; for it is not till after He had made
purification of sins that He is
said to have “sat down,” etc.; i.e.
entered on His inheritance;
having become (γενόµενος - genomenos –
begotten – not ὦν – on - become) “so much better,” etc. This is the
view of Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and the Fathers generally (compare
the cognate passage, Philippians
2:9).
(2) It seems best to
refer the aorist ἔθηκεν – ethaeken - He appoints; He places –
not to any definite time, as that of the prophetic
utterances afterwards cited, or
that of the actual exaltation of Christ, but indefinitely
to the eternal counsels,
which were indeed declared and fulfilled in time, but were
themselves ἐν ἀρχῇ -
en archae – in the beginning.. A similar use of the aorist, coupled with other
aorists pointing to events in time, is found in Romans 8:29-30.
What this heirship
of all things implies will appear in the sequel, By whom also He made the worlds.
Interposed clause to complete the true conception of the
SON; showing who and
what He was originally and essentially through whom God “spake” in
time, and
who, as SON, inherited. Here certainly, and in the expressions which follow, we
have the same doctrine as that of the λόγος of John. And the testimony
of the New Testament to the pre-existence and deity of
Christ is the more
striking from our finding the same essential idea under
different forms of
expression, and in writings differing so much from each
other in character
and style. He who appeared in the world as Christ is, in
the first place, here
said (as by John 1:3) to have been the Agent of creation; compare Colossians
1:15-17, where the original creative agency of “the Son of
his love” is emphatically
set forth, as well as His
being “the Head of the body, the Church.” This cognate
passage is of weight against the view of interpreters who
would take the one
before us as referring to the initiation of the gospel
ages; with respect to which
view see also the quotation from Bull given below under v. 3. Here τοὺς αἰῶνας· -
tous aionas - is equivalent
to “the worlds,” as in the Authorized Version.
For though the primary meaning of αἰῶν – aion (eon) has reference to time —
limited in periods, or unlimited in eternity — it
is used to
denote also the whole
system of things called into being by the Creator in time and
through which alone
we are able to conceive time. Compare κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι
θεοῦ -
kataeristhai tous aionas hrmati
Theou – the worlds were framed by the word of
God (ch. 11:3; also I Corinthians 2:7,
πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων – pro ton aionon –
before the world; and πρὸ χρόνων
αἰωνίων – pro chronon aionion – before
the
world begain;
before times eonian II
Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2.
The Two Revelations (vs. 1-2)
In this sublime exordium, which strikes the keynote of his
doctrinal
teaching, the writer takes for granted:
1. The inspiration of the Scriptures. “God
hath spoken.” How awful this
truth, yet how blessed! With what a clear ringing note of
certainty the
author assumes it! The Scriptures put forth no theory of
inspiration, but
they everywhere claim to declare the mind and will of God.
2. The interdependence of the two
revelations (Old and New Testaments).
It is the same God who has “spoken” in both. The new does not ignore or
contradict the old; it rests upon it, develops it, and
completes it. The Old
Testament, no less than the New, will bear every trial to
which it may be
subjected by either the lower or the higher criticism.
Ø
Ancient. “Of old time unto the fathers.” “Since
the world began”
(Acts 3:21). For nearly four
hundred years now God had ceased
speaking; it was more than
fifteen hundred since the first part of the
Old Testament had been written;
and it was over four thousand
years at the very least since
God had begun to speak.
Ø
Given “in the
prophets.” A prophet is a
forth-speaker — a spokesman
— one who speaks for another.
The prophetic formula was, “Thus saith
Jehovah.” God’s prophets were men; He conveyed His message to His
people through human minds and
hearts. No prophet wrote as an
automaton; his own faculties
wrought, and his ink-horn was dashed
with his heart’s blood. It is
very beautiful to see the prophets rising up,
one after another, in these
far-past days. Together they form a “goodly
fellowship;” each was the
noblest spirit of his time.
Ø
Fragmentary. “By divers portions.” God had given the former
revelation part by part. He
delivered it in connection with temporary
dispensations — the Adamic, the Abrahamic, and the
Mosaic. (I
recommend Dispensational Truth by Clarence Larkin
– CY – 2014)
God gave it first by oral
communication, and latterly by Scripture. The
Old Testament grew slowly;
it took more than a millennium to complete it,
and at least twenty-seven different
writers contributed to it. The revelation,
though of priceless value,
was always fragmentary and imperfect; it was
meant to be progressive and
preparatory. God gave one truth to one age,
and another to a succeeding
age. The promises of redemption became the
longer the more definite.
Ø
Multiform. “In diverse manners”
— in manifold fashion. God spoke:
o
now by dreams,
o
now by visions,
o
now by voices,
o
now by angels,
o
now by similitudes,
o
now by Urim,
o
now by sacrifices and
lustrations,
o
now by putting a
burning word into the prophet’s soul.
How various too, is the
literature of the Old Testament Scriptures!
o
Now it is historical,
o
now biographical,
o
now legislative,
o
now prophetic,
o
now philosophic,
o
now poetical;
as varied as the fresh mind
of every contributor, and yet revealing all
through the one
eternal Mind.
THE OLD. The writer
merely suggests this contrast, leaving its details to
be wrought out in the meditation
of his readers. Unlike the Old, the New
Testament revelation is:
Ø
Recent and final. “At the
end of these days unto us.” This
refers to the
close of the Mosaic economy.
Judaism, like the older dispensations
which preceded it, had got worn
out, and in its turn had passed away;
but the
Christian dispensation is the final one, to be consummated
only at the Second Advent of Jesus Christ! So, the new economy
shall be ever present and always
new, because not to be superseded
so long as the world lasts.
Ø
Given “in His
Son.” What an element of stupendous
contrast! The
prophets were only inspired men;
this is a DIVINE PERSON! The
prophets were only servants;
this is the
SON. The prophets were only
God’s spokesmen; this is GOD HIMSELF SPEAKING! The SON
is the Logos — the “Word,” the manifested God. What a view is
presented in the following clauses of His
Divine dignity and His
mediatorial majesty!
This first grand sentence of the Epistle reminds
us of the scene on the holy
mount. It points us away from Moses and
Elijah, as did the voice from
the excellent glory, saying to our souls,
“This is my beloved Son: hear ye Him.” (Matthew 17:5)
Ø
Complete and perfect. The New Testament
presents the truth, not
fragmentarily, as the Old
Testament did, but in finished form and in
undivided
fullness. It was entirely written by
eight or nine men belonging
to one generation (We often
think of those born from 1910-1925 or so
as being The Greatest Generation. Can
any generation compare with
those faithful ones in the
generation of Jesus Christ? CY –
2014)
It contains a richer revelation
of more developed truth than that which
is found in the Hebrew
Scriptures. In the Son of God, speaking
to us through His apostles and
evangelists, we see revelation full-orbed
at last. For twenty centuries
now the canon has been complete; and, thus,
progress in theology can be made
only as the result of better under-
standing of what God
has already given us.
.
Ø
Simple and clear. The Old Testament
revelation was multiform — like a
painted window, covered over
with many-colored and beautiful emblems;
that of the New Testament is
like a window of pure clear glass, through
which we gaze upon the unveiled
glory of heaven. The water of life
trickled through the Old Testament in a variety of tiny streamlets;
it runs
in the New Testament with the flow of a broad pellucid river.
Christ and
His apostles “use great plainness of speech.” The New Testament is much
shorter than the Old, but it is
more inward, evangelical, and spiritual. It is
a better revelation as well as a later one; for it contains
the substance
rather than the shadows — the heavenly things rather than only
their
patterns. Preaching is a
very simple ordinance. The two sacraments
constitute the entire Christian ritual. The Old Testament “vail is done
away in Christ.” (II
Corinthians 3:14)
Let us conclude:
1. Great as were the privileges of the ancient Hebrews (Romans
9:4-5), how much
higher are ours (Matthew 13:16-17)!
2. How much heavier, accordingly, are our responsibilities (ch. 12:25)!
What
base ingratitude in any one not to listen to the Son of God,
and
to refuse to shape his life in accordance with the complete and
glorious circle of Christian truth!
God’s Revelation of Redemptive Truth to Man
(vs. 1-2)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners,” etc. God has spoken to
man. A very significant
fact. It suggests the Divine interest in His
human
creatures. It teaches that man is capable of receiving
communications from
the infinite Mind. He can understand, appreciate, and appropriate to
his
unspeakable advantage the thoughts of God concerning him. He is under
obligations to do so. Man’s attitude towards
the communications of God
should be that of devout attention and earnest
investigation. Our text
teaches that God’s revelation of redemptive truth to man:
fathers by the
prophets;” Revised Version, “in the prophets.” The prophets
were not simply predictors of
future events; the word is applied to the
sacred lawgiver, historians,
poets, etc. God spake in them and through
them to the fathers. It was the
very condition of the prophet’s
inspiration that he should be one with the people. So far
from making
him superhuman, it made him more
man. He felt with more exquisite
sensitiveness all that belongs
to man, else he could not have been
a prophet. His insight into
things was the result of that very weakness,
sensitiveness, and
susceptibility so tremblingly alive. He burned with their
thoughts, and expressed them. He
was obliged by the very sensitiveness of
his humanity to have a more
entire dependence and a more perfect
sympathy than other men. (And at last God spoke through His Son
who took upon Himself our form
and was in all points tempted like
we are, yet without sin - ch. 4:15; Philippians 2:8 – CY – 2014)
He was more man, just because more Divine —
more a Son of man,
because more a Son of God.”
divers portions.” The
revelation was given piecemeal, by fragments, in and
by various persons, and in
different ages. Very gradual was the revelation
of redemptive truth to man.
God’s first communication (Genesis 3:15)
was like the evening star,
serene and solitary; the fuller communications of
the patriarchal age were like
the starry hosts of night; the revelations made
to Moses were like the
light of the fair and full-orbed moon, in which that
of the stars is lost; and those
made by succeeding prophets were like the
dawn of the day, when the moon
grows pale and dim; and the supreme
revelation through Jesus Christ was like the radiance of the sun shining
in noontide
splendor. This gradualness of revelation may be seen in
many
things, e.g.:
Ø
The character of
God. Very gradual was the unfolding of
the nature
and character of the Divine
Being to man. The measure of the
revelation was adapted to
the measure of the human capacity.
Jesus, the Son,
revealed the essence and heart of the Father.
“God is a
Spirit.” (John 4:24)
“He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father.” (Ibid. ch. 14:9)
Ø
The salvation of
man and its method.
Ø
True human
character and blessedness (compare
Deuteronomy
28:1-14 with Matthew
5:1-12).
Ø
The immortality of
man. We find in the Bible longings for
immortality, inquiries
after it, hints concerning it, anticipations of it,
but not until the
final revelation IN CHRIST was it
brought
into clear and assured light (II Timothy 1:10). This gradualness
of the Divine unfolding
should be remembered
by us as we study
the Divine communications.
Let us not expect to find in the earlier
portions what the later
alone can contain, or put to Moses inquiries
which only the Son can
reply to.
Ø
Of God’s communications to the prophets. He communicated with
them by Urim
and Thummim, by dreams, visions, ecstasies, by
quickening and directing
their thoughts, etc. God is not
limited as
to His modes of
access to and influence over the minds of men.
He can call them into
active exercise, impress them with deep
convictions, etc.
Ø
Of the communications of the prophets to men. They spoke:
o
in prose and poetry,
o
in parable and
proverb,
o
in history and
prediction,
o
in forcible reasoning
and glowing eloquence.
Each prophet also has his
own style. God’s revelations in the
Bible
and in nature are alike in
this, that they are characterized by endless
and delightful variety. In
nature we have the majestic mountain and
the lowly valley, the
massive oak and the modest daisy, the serene
stars and the storm-driven
clouds, the booming ocean and the rippling
rivulet. Equally great and beautiful
is the variety in the sacred Scriptures.
divers portions
and in divers manners;” it came
through different men and
in widely distant ages; yet all the portions are in substantial agreement. The
voices are many and various, but
they meet and combine in one sweet and
sublime harmony. In the
different portions of the revelation we discover:
Ø
unity of character
— every portion is spiritual, pure, sacred;
Ø
unity of direction
— every portion points to the last great revelation,
the Divine Son;
Ø
unity of purpose —
to make man “wise unto
salvation.”
(II Timothy 3:15)
We conclude, then, that while
the speakers were many, the inspiring
Mind
was One only. Or, keeping more closely
to the phraseology of the text,
though the voices were many, the Speaker was but one. In this marvelous
unity in such great diversity,
we have the basis of a cogent argument for
THE DIVINE ORIGIN
of the sacred Scriptures.
unto us by His
Son;” Revised Version, “hath
at the end of these days
spoken unto us in His Son.” The revelations made in and by the prophets
were imperfect. “They were
various in nature and form, fragments of the
whole truth, presented in
manifold forms, in shifting lines of separated
color. Christ is the full revelation of God, Himself the pure
Light, uniting in
His one Person
the whole spectrum. It is quite appropriate that
the perfect
revelation should be made in
and through
the Divine Son. The
Son will be perfectly acquainted
with the Father, and therefore able to
declare His will. The Son will
resemble the Father, and therefore be able to
manifest Him. “No
man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
He hath declared
Him!” (John 1:18) No one knoweth “the
Father, save the
Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27);
“He that hath
seen me hath seen the Father.” (John 14:9) The Divine
revelations of redemptive truth to man culminate in Him. No new or further
revelations will be granted unto us; but to the devout, patient, and earnest
student, new and brighter light will stream forth from the revelations already
given. Many of the utterances of the Son are as yet only very partially and
imperfectly understood even by His most advanced pupils. His words are of
inexhaustible significance (“the law of the Lord is perfect” –
Psalm 19:7);
and that significance will
become increasingly manifest to the prayerful and
patient inquirer.
revelation of God, this clearest
utterance of His will concerning us and our
salvation. Let us heartily accept this revelation. It is truly accepted only
when it is acted
upon; i.e. when we have received THE
SON OF GOD
as OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR!
Jesus Inheritor of All Things (v. 2)
One position suggests another. The idea of sonship naturally leads on to
the
idea of inheritance. Among the Israelites especially would this be so,
for
inheritance is much spoken of in the Old. Testament.
The son looks
forward to inherit and control the father’s possessions. Thus,
while the
individual cannot defy death, the race can in a modified kind of way.
And
so
this passion of man for transmitting his property to his posterity is here
used to begin that glorifying description of Jesus which runs through this
Epistle. Jesus
is a Son, and if a Son, then an Heir. Moreover, inheritance is
according to the father’s possessions. Jesus
is Heir of all things, because
His Father is Maker of all things. We shall do well also, in considering this
word “heir” inserted in this particular place, to bear in mind the
parable of
the
wicked husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-41). There is little doubt that it
was
in the mind of the writer, and the slightest hint to the wise is enough.
Thoughtful readers of the Epistle who knew their Gospels
would be quick
enough to take the hint. For when thus a mention had been made of
God
speaking in the prophets, and then speaking in the Son, there was
obviously further suggested how these
prophets had been treated, and
finally how the Son himself had been treated. As to how the prophets were
treated, see ch.11:32-40.
once brought face to Face with a claim. We are not allowed time to plume
ourselves on privileges, in that, while former generations had only
prophets to
speak to them, WE HAVE THE
SON! The
claim is the same, whether it be
made through the humblest of the prophets — even through a murmuring Jonah —
or
through Jesus, the Son of God. It is a claim on us for the result of our work
in
the great inheritance. Jesus is Heir of all things, therefore Heir of that
little
section in which we have been working. Let it also be recollected that Jesus,
in being
Heir of all things, makes us as children of God — JOINT-HEIRS!
Every one who lives for Christ enriches all the sons of
God. Jesus is Heir of all
things that He may make believers in Him sharers with Him according
to the
widest of their capacities and opportunities. What a glorious picture of deep,
exhaustless satisfaction is here, and how much beyond the dreams, generous
as
they are often reckoned to be, of an earthly communism!
3 “Who
being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His
person, and upholding all things by the
word of His power, when He
had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on
the right hand of the
Majesty on high:” Who, being, etc. The participle ὦν – on – become -
not γενόµενος - genomenos – begotten) as in v. 4 —
denotes (as does still
more forcibly ὑπάρχων
– huparchon – in one’s own power - in the cognate
passage, Philippians 2:6) what the Son is in Himself
essentially and
independently of His manifestation in time. This
transcendent idea is
conveyed by two metaphorical expressions, differing in the
metaphors
used, but concurrent in meaning. The brightness of His glory.
The word
δόξης – doxae (translated glory), though not in classical Greek
carrying with it the
idea of light, is used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew dwObK;,
which denotes the
splendor surrounding God; manifested on
holies, in the visions of Ezekiel, etc.; and regarded as
existing eternally
“above the
heavens” (compare Exodus 24:15; 40:34;
I Kings 8:11;
Ezekiel 8:4; Psalm 24:7-8, etc.). But the full blaze of
this glory,
accompanying “the face” of
God, even Moses was not allowed to
see; for
no man could see Him
and live. Moses was hidden in a
cleft of the rock
while the God’s glory passed by, and saw only its
outskirts, i.e. the
radiance left behind after it; had passed; hearing
meanwhile a proclamation
of the moral attributes of Deity, by a perception of which
he might best see
God (Exodus 33:18, etc.). Similarly in the New Testament.
There also,
as on Sinai, in the tabernacle, and in prophetic vision,
the glory of God is
occasionally manifested under the form of an unearthly radiance; as in the
vision of the shepherds (Luke 2:9), the Transfiguration
(Luke 9:28-35,
etc.), the ecstasy of Stephen (Acts 7:55). But in itself,
as it surrounds
“the face” of God, it is still invisible and
unapproachable; compare John 1:18,
“No man hath seen God at any time;” I John 1:5, “God is Light;”
I
Timothy 6:16, “Dwelling in
the light which no man can approach unto
(φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον – phos oikon aprositon
– light which no man can
Approach; in light making His home inaccessible), whom no man hath
seen nor
can see.” It denotes
really, under the image of eternal,
self-existent, unapproachable
light, THE INEFFABLE DIVINE PERFECTION, THE ESSENCE OF DEITY
which is beyond human ken.
“Sempiterna ejus virtus et divinitas” (Bengel).
Of this glory the SON is the ἀπαύγασµα
- apaugasma – image; reflection— a word
not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, but used by
the Alexandrian
writers. The verb ἀπαύγάζω -apaugazo – to radiate; to beam forth brightness; and
ἀπαύγασµα – apaugasma
- according to the proper meaning of nouns so formed,
should mean He brightness
beamed forth — this rather than its
reflection from
another object, as the sun’s light is reflected
from a cloud. So the noun is used in
Wisdom of Solomon 7:26, as applied to
Σοφία – Sophia – wisdom
- which is there
personified in a manner suggestive of the doctrine of the Λόγος. Ατμὶς
γάρ ἐστιν τῆς
τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀπόρροια τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος
δόξης εἰλικρινής
……
ἀπαύγασμα
γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀϊδίου - Atmis gar estin taes tou
Theou dunameos
kai aporroia taes tou
pantokratoros doxaes eilikrinaes…….apaugasma gar estin
photos aidiou - For she is the
breath of the power of God, and a pure influence
flowing from the glory of the Almighty:……. the image
of His goodness. As, then,
the eradiated brightness is to the source of light, so is
the SON, in His eternal
being, to the Father. It is, so to speak, begotten of the
source, and of one substance
with it, and yet distinguishable from it; being that
through which its glory is made
manifest, and through which it enlightens all things. The Person of the Son
is thus represented, not as of one apart from God,
irradiated by His glory,
but as Himself the sheen of His
glory; compare John 1:14, “We beheld His
glory, the glory
as of the only begotten of the Father;”
also Ibid. vs.:4; 9.
The above is the view taken by
the Fathers generally, and expressed in
the
Church’s Creed, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς – phos ek photos – Light
from Light. And
express Image of
His substance; not “of His person,” as in the Authorized
Version. The latter
rendering is due to the long-accepted
theological use of
the word ὑποστάσῖς – hupostasis – substance – in the sense
of personal subsistence,
as applied to each of the Three in One. What the Latins called persona
the Greeks
at length agreed to call hypostasis, while the Greek οὐσία – ousia – substance
(equivalent to essentia)
and the Latin substantia (though the
latter word
etymologically corresponds with hypostasis) were
used as equivalents in meaning.
But it was long after the apostolic age that this scientific
use of the word became
fixed. After as well as before the Nicene Council usia was sometimes used to
denote what we mean by person, and hypostasis to denote what we mean
by
the substance of the Godhead; and hence came
misunderstandings during the
Arian controversy. The definite doctrine of the Trinity,
though apparent in the
New Testament, had not as yet come under discussion at the
time of the writing
of this Epistle, or been as yet scientifically formulated;
and hence we must take
the word in its general and original sense, the same as
that now attached to its
etymological equivalent, substantia.
It means literally, “a standing under,”
and is used:
(1) in a physical
sense, for “foundation,” as in Psalm
69:2, “I sink in
deep mire where there is no standing,” where the Septuagint
has ὑποστάσῖς.
(2) metaphorically,
for “confidence” or “certainty,” as below, in 3:15 and
II Corinthians 9:4;
(3) metaphysically,
for that which underlies the phenomena of things and
constitutes their essential being. Of the substance, understood
in the last
sense, of God the Son is the, which word expresses a
similar
kind of relation to the Divine substance as ἀπαύγασµα does to the Divine
glory. Derived from χαράσσω – charasso - (equivalent
to “mark,” “grave,”
or “stamp,”with an engraven or imprinted character), its proper meaning is the
perceptible image on the material so stamped or engraved,
of which it thus
becomes the χαρακτὴρ – charaktaer - image. Thus the “image and superscription”
on a coin is its χαρακτὴρ, manifesting what the
coin is. The instance of the tribute
money (Matthew 22:20) at once occurs to us: our Lord pointed
to the
χαρακτὴρ, on the coin as manifesting its ὑποστάσῖς, as being Caesar’s
money. Thus also the lineaments of a countenance are called
its , χαρακτὴρ
as in Herod., 1:116, O
χαρακτὴρ τοῦ πρόσώποu – O charaktaer tou prosopou –
behave towards; deal with . A passage in Philo is illustrative of the sense
intended; and it is to be observed (both with regard to the
expression before
us and to the preceding ἀπαύγασµα) that the Alexandrian theologians are
important guides to the interpretation of phrases in this
Epistle, their influence
on its modes of thought and expression being perceptible.
He says
(‘De Plant. Nee.,’ § 5) that Moses called the rational soul
the image (εἰκὼνα)
of the Divine and Invisible, as being – ousiotheisan kai tupotheisan sphragidi
Theou, haes ho charaktaer estin ho aidios logos. (the essence and image of
God sealed in the character/image is the Eternal Word
[Jesus] – my translation? –
CY – 2014). Here, be
it observed, is used χαρακτὴρ for the form or lineament
of the Divine seal itself, not for the copy stamped on the
plastic material. And
it is applied, as here, to the “Eternal
Word,” as being the manifestation of
what
the unseen Godhead is. Hence it would be wrong to
understand the word, as
some have done, as denoting the form impressed by one
substance on another —
as though the impression left on the wax were the χαρακτὴρ of the seal. This
misconception would mislead (as might also ἀπαύγασµα, if rendered
“reflection”)
in that it would seem to represent the Son as distinct from
God, though stamped
with his likeness and irradiated by His glory. Arian views
about the SON, or even
mere humanitarian views about the Christ, might thus seem
countenanced.
The two words ἀπαύγασµα (image; reflection) and χαρακτὴρ (image), as has been
said, express a similar relation to δόξα (glory) and ὑποστάσῖς (substance) respectively,
and convey the same general idea of the Son’s eternal
relation to the Father. But
both are, of course, but figures, each necessarily inadequate, OF THE
INSCRUTABLE REALITY! If we may distinguish between them, it may be
said that the former especially intimates the view of the operation and energy
of
the Godhead being through the Son, while the latter more distinctly
brings out the
idea of the Son being the Manifestation of what the Godhead is,
and especially
of what it is to us. And
upholding all things. We have here still the
present participle, denoting the intrinsic operation of Him
who was revealed
as Son. Though the word , φέρειν - pherin, in the sense of upholding or sustaining
creation, does not occur elsewhere in the, New Testament,
it can hardly
have any other meaning here, considering the context. We
find a similar
use of it in Numbers 11:14; Deuteronomy 1:9, “to bear (φέρειν)
all this people alone.” And in the later Greek and
rabbinical writers
parallels are found. Chrysostom
interprets , φέρων
as meaning kubernw~n
ta<diapi>ptonta sugkratw~n, which comes to the
same thing as
“upholding” or “sustaining.” The meaning is that not only
were “the
worlds” made
through Him; in His Divine nature He ever “upholds” the “all
things” which
were made through Him, and of which, as SON, He was
appointed “Heir;” compare Colossians 1:17, “And in
Him all things consist.”
And this upholding operation must not be supposed to have
been in
abeyance during the period of His humiliation. He was still what He had
been eternally, though He had “emptied himself” of the state and
prerogatives of Deity (Philippians 2:7); compare John 3:13,
“The
Son of man,
which is in
heaven.” By the word (ῥήµατι – rhemati - word) of His power is an
expression elsewhere used of the voluntas
efficax of Deity — the utterance of
Divine power; compare ch. 11:3, “The worlds were
framed by the Word (ῥήµατι)
of God.” The
writer could hardly have used it in this connection, if speaking
of a created being. As to the reference of “His” before ”power,” whether to
the subject of the sentence or to God, there is the same
ambiguity in the
Greek as in the English translation. Even if be intended,
and not αὐτοῦ - autou –
of Him, (and the former is most likely, since the pronoun, though
it be
reflective, is not emphatically so), it may with
grammatical propriety refer
either, like the previous αὐτοῦ, to God, or to Him who thus upholds all
things. In either case the general meaning of the clause
remains the same.
When He had made
purification of sins. (So, according
to the best-supported
and now generally accepted text.) The aorist is now
resumed, denoting an act in
time — the act
accomplished by Him as incarnate SON, previous to and
necessary for His entering on the inheritance appointed to
Him as such. This
act, the grand purpose of the Incarnation, was ATONEMENT! There can
be
no doubt that the cleansing effected by atonement, and not
the mere moral
reformation of believers, is meant here by purification
of sins. The sequel
of the Epistle, being, as aforesaid, the lull expression of
the drift of the
exordium, is sufficient proof of this. For in it Christ is exhibited at great
length as the true High Priest of humanity, accomplishing truly what the
Jewish priesthood signified; and as having “sat
down at the right hand of
the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,” in virtue of His
accomplished
atonement (ch.8:1; 10:12). Nor would the Hebrew readers to
whom the Epistle
was addressed be likely to understand καθαρισµὸν – katharismon – purification –
in any other sense than this. The verb καθαριζεῖν – katharizein – purify - is the
Septuagint equivalent for the Hebrew rh"mi, frequent in the Old Testament for
ceremonial cleansing, the result of atoning sacrifice; in
which sense it is
accordingly used in ch. 10. of
this Epistle. The theory of the Jewish
ceremonial law was that the whole congregation, including
the priests
themselves, were too much polluted by sin to approach the
holy God who
dwelt between the cherubim. Therefore sacrifices were
ordained to make
atonement for them. The word for “making atonement for” (Greek,
ἱλάσκεσθαι – hilaskesthai – make
reconciliation for; to be making a
propitiatory-shelter for) is in Hebrew rp"k;,
which means properly “to cover;” i.e.
to cover sin from the sight of God. And the result of such atonement was
called “purification,” or “cleansing.” This appears clearly
in Leviticus 16.,
where the ceremonies of
the great Day of Atonement are detailed.
After an
account of the various sacrifices of atonement, for the
high priest and his
house, for the people, and for the holy place itself
polluted by their sins, we
read (Ibid. v. 19), “And he shall sprinkle of the blood
upon it [i.e. the altar]
with his finger seven times, and (καθαριεῖ - kathariei - cleanse) it, and hallow it
from (τῶν ἀκαθαρσιῶν
– ton akatharsion - the uncleanness) of the
children of
And finally (v. 30), “For
on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to
cleanse you (καθαρισαι – katharisai - cleanse), that ye may be clean from all your
sins before the Lord.” It is to be observed, further, that
it is especially the meaning of
the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement that Christ is
spoken of afterwards
in the Epistle as having fulfilled. For the phrase, ποιησάµενος καθαρισµὸν
ἁµαρτιῶν –
poiaesamenos katharismon hamartion – purged
our sins; literally making cleansing
of sins, compare Job 7:21, ….διὰ τί οὐκ ἐποιήσω τῆς ἀνομίας μου λήθην καὶ
καθαρισμὸν
τῆς ἁμαρτίας μου - dia ti
ouk epoiaeso taes anomies mou laethaen kai
katharismon taes hamartias mou - …why do you not pardon my disobedience
and take away mine iniquity? Its meaning in the Epistle may be that Christ,
by
His death, brought into being and
established A PERMANENT PURIFICATION
OF SINS — “a
fountain open for sin and for
uncleanness” (Zechariah 13:1) —
in His blood,
which is regarded as now
ever offered at the heavenly mercy-seat
(ch. 9:12) and sprinkled on the redeemed below (Ibid. vs.14, 22). Thus the
distinction, observed above, between the atonement (ἱλάσµὸς – hilasmos –
propitiation),
of sacrifice and its application for (καθαρισµὸς – katharismos –
cleansing) would be preserved (compare I
John 1:7 and Revelation 7:14).
Sat down; i.e. entered on His
inheritance of all things; not simply in the sense of
resuming His pristine glory, but
of obtaining the preeminence denoted in prophecy
as appointed to the Son, human as well as Divine, and won by
obedience and
accomplished atonement. And this His supreme exaltation (as will be seen
hereafter) carries
with it the idea of an exaltation of humanity, of which He
was the High Priest and Representative. But be it observed
that there is no
change in the subject; of the sentence. He who “sat down on high” after
making purification is the same with Him through whom the
worlds were
made, and whose eternal Divinity has been expressed by the
present
participles. On the right hand of the Majesty on high. The expression is taken
from Psalm 110:1, afterwards cited in this Epistle,
and prominently referred to in
like manner by Paul. The figure is suggested by the
custom of Oriental
kings, who placed at the right hand of the throne a son
whom they
associated with themselves in the prerogatives of royalty.
Occurring as it
does first in a Messianic psalm, the phrase is never
applied to the Son’s
original relation to the Father “before the ages,” but only to his
exaltation
as the Christ.
The same idea seems expressed by our Lord’s own words,
“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18).
But in the end, according to Paul (I Corinthians
15:24, 28), this peculiar “kingship”
of the SON will cease, the redemptive purpose being accomplished. It is to be
observed that, both here and afterwards (ch.8:1), a fine
periphrasis is used for
“righthand of God;” “the right
hand of the Majesty on high” and “the right
Hand of the throne
of the Majesty in the heavens.” This
may be regarded, not
only as characteristic of the eloquent style of the
Epistle, but also as
implying an avoidance of too local or physical a view of
the session spoken
of. It is apparent elsewhere how the writer sees in the
figures used to
denote heavenly things only signs,
level to our comprehension, of
CORRESPONDING REALITIES beyond our ken.
IN THE HOLY
SCRIPTURES GOD HAS SPOKEN TO MAN. “He spake…
He hath spoken.” We might expect God to speak because a
revelation is necessary.
The world:
Ø
needs God,
Ø
perishes without
Him, and
Ø
cries out after Him.
The world cannot find God; to the utmost earthly wisdom He
is unknown.
God is a God of goodness and love; his works declare it; then
God must reveal
Himself to man.
affirm this of the Old Testament. You cannot believe in Christ
without
accepting the Old Testament as an infallible declaration of the
Divine will;
for so He accepted it. They also affirm this of their
own teaching in the
New Testament: “We
speak not in the words which man’s wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” (I Corinthians
2:13)
As the apostles proved their
mission by “signs, and wonders, and divers
miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost,” so does the Bible; that
it is A
DIVINLY INSPIRED
UTTERANCE is proved by Divine results.
It:
Ø
meets the
complicated needs of human nature,
Ø
satisfies the
heart,
Ø
opens blind
eyes,
Ø
casts out evil
spirits,
Ø
transforms the
character,
Ø
regenerates the
world, and
Ø
turns the wilderness into paradise.
It does what only God can do;
then God is in it.
IN THE LORD
JESUS CHRIST WE HAVE GOD’S PERFECT UTTERANCE
TO
MAN. “God… hath in these
last days spoken unto us by His Son.”
If God has
spoken, His Word must be man’s ultimate authority.
Then find your creed in it, and base your life on it,
making it in all matters the final
and authoritative court of appeal. It must be madness to oppose by personal opinion
or
expediency to what the Lord says.
and shame. “God hath spoken!”
Ø
Then with what
solemnity should we listen to His voice;
Ø
with what constancy
should we draw near to this temple
to hear His will; and
with what awe, taking our shoes from our feet, as on holy
ground!
Think of God speaking, and no “Speak, Lord, for
thy servant
heareth,” rising from our heart! Are you
neglecting Scripture? Remember
God has no other voice after
this; CHRIST
IS HIS LAST APPEAL TO
MEN! “Having,
therefore, one Son, His well-beloved, he sent Him last
unto them, saying, They will reverence my Son.” (Matthew 21:37)
“God hath in these last days spoken unto
us by His Son;”
to be deaf to that last appeal is to have GOD SPEECHLESS TO US
FOREVER!
Jesus as the Brightness of God’s Glory (v.
3)
dependence upon God are exalted by our perception of Him upon whom
we depend. It is not as if a hand stretched out of the
unseen, laying before
us our daily bread, and then withdrawing itself, as if it
concerned us
nothing to know the Giver provided only we got the gift. God is desirous
that we should both know him, the Giver, and as much of His glory as
it is
possible for man to know.
“The
glory of God.” could not have been an
unfamiliar phrase to Hebrew Christians. The glory of Jehovah appeared
to
the children of
Also on
tabernacle was completed the glory of Jehovah so filled it that Moses
was
not able to enter (Ibid. ch. 40:35).
When Solomon built a house for
Jehovah, the glory of Jehovah so
filled the house that the priests could not
stand to minister. (I Kings 8:10-11) Consider also the crowns of Isaiah and
Ezekiel. Every created thing
has its glory, and though there are times when
that glory may be in retirement, yet there are other times when
the glory
comes forth into full manifestation. How much more, then, must
there be
a suitable and sufficient
manifestation of THE GLORY OF GOD
HIMSELF!
The expression here, “brightness,”
or rather “effulgence,” is in harmony
with all those numerous passages in which light is connected
with the
revelation of God in Christ Jesus. The light which we see is but the
expression of an invisible existence behind it. We speak of the rays
of the
sun; but what is the sun itself but condensed radiance? And so
when we
come to Jesus and. think of the
light streaming forth from Him upon human
ignorance, misery, and despair, we are reminded by the way in which He is
here spoken of that Jesus is not to be considered by Himself. By Him the
INVISIBLE is made
VISIBLE. The love of the Father
becomes a radiant,
communicable emotion in the incarnate life of the Son. All those bursts
of
intolerable light which filled the tabernacle were but SYMBOLS OF THAT
TRUE LIGHT, the
effulgence of the Divine glory, which lighteth every
man coming into the world, and which has dwelt among us in flesh as in a
tabernacle. Blessed are those
who can see this Divine effulgence, and discern
the difference between it and the effulgence of other lights.
The dwellers in
the immediate district where Jesus had been brought up never
thought of
explaining the wonders of His life by the fact that He was the ἀπαύγασµα –
apaugasma – image;
reflection of the Divine glory. Many thought
it a
sufficient explanation to say that He was Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one of the
prophets. Consider in connection the words of Paul in II Corinthians 4:3-4),
where he speaks of the god of this world blinding the minds of unbelievers,
so that there should not shine unto them the illumination of the gospel of the
glory of Christ who is the
Image of God; and then he goes on to
speak of how
the God who commanded
light to shine out
of darkness has shined in
our
hearts, to illuminate
them with the knowledge of the glory of God IN THE
FACE JESUS CHRIST! (Ibid. v. 6)
The Transcendent Glory of the Son of God
(vs. 2-3)
“His Son, whom he hath appointed Heir of all things,” etc. The Divine Son,
the last and brightest revelation of God to man, is here
set before us as
supremely glorious
in several respects.
heir of all
things.” Because He is the Son of God
He is constituted Heir of
all things. The whole universe is His. “He is Lord of all.” (Acts 10:36)
“All things that
the Father hath are mine; (John 16:15) “All
mine are
thine, and thine are mine? (Ibid. ch.
17:10) His lordship is universal.
His possessions are unlimited.
His wealth is infinite. What
an
encouragement we have in this to trust in Him! “The unsearchable riches
of Christ” (Ephesians 3:8) are available for the supply of all who follow
Him.
Ø
He is the Creator of all things. “By whom also he
made the worlds.”
The innumerable worlds in the
universe of God were made by the
Divine Son as the acting Power and personal Instrument of the
Father. The universe, as well in its
great primeval conditions — the
reaches of space and the ages of
time, as in all material objects and all
successive events, which furnish
out and people space and time, God
made by Christ.
He “laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens
are the works of His hands.” (Job 38:4; Psalm 104:5; Isaiah 48:13;
Epheisans 1:4) “All things were made by Him, and without Him was
not anything
made that hath been made;” (John 1:3) “In Him were
all things created,
in the heavens and upon the
earth,” etc. (Colossians
1:16). All creatures in all
worlds were created by Him. Creation is a
revelation of HIS
MIND and MIGHT! The glory of creation, rightly
understood, is the glory of the Creator — the Son of God.
Ø
He is the Sustainer of all things. “And upholding all things
by the word
of his power.” The universe which He created is upheld and preserved in
being by the expression of His
almighty power. “In Him all
things
consist;” (Ibid.
v. 17) they are held together by Him. The universe is
neither self-sustaining nor is it forsaken by God. It is not a
great piece
of mechanism constructed by the Creator, and then left to
work of itself,
or to be worked by others. His almighty energy is always and everywhere
present in it. “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” (John 5:17)
How stupendous the conception
that the boundless universe, with its
countless worlds and much more countless inhabitants, is constantly
sustained in existence and in beautiful order by the word which
utters
HIS POWER!
Ø
He is the Savior from sin. “He BY HIMSELF purged our sins;” (v. 3)
Revised Version, “He made purification of sins.” This does not mean
purification by the moral
influence of His teaching and example. There is
a reference to the
purifications of the Levitical law, by which
ceremonial
uncleanness was typically
removed. “According to the Law, I may almost
say, all things
are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding
of blood
there is NO
REMISSION. (ch. 9:22) He put away sin by
the sacrifice
of Himself.” (Ibid. v. 26) In the atonement, in the gracious covering of
the guilt of sin, consists purification in the scriptural sense. So that an
Israelitish reader, a Christian Jew, would never, on reading the words
καθαρισµὸν ποιησάµενος – katharismon poiaesamenos – cleansing
making – think on
what we commonly call ‘moral
amelioration,’
which, if not springing out
of the living ground of a heart reconciled to
God, is mere self-deceit, and
only external avoidance of evident
transgression; but the καθαρισµὸς
– katharismos -
cleansing - which
Christ brought in would, in the
sense of our author and his readers,
only be understood of that gracious atonement for ALL GUILT OF
SIN OF ALL MANKIND which Christ our
Lord and Savior HAS
COMPLETED for us by His sinless sufferings and
death; and out of
which flows forth to us, as from
a fountain, all power to love in return,
all love to Him, our heavenly Pattern,
and all hatred of sin which caused
His death.” This atonement is COMPLETED! It admits of no repetition;
and nothing
can be added unto it. “When
he had made purification of
sins.” The purification is
finished, and it is perfect. Thus
we see that in
His works, as Creator,
Sustainer, and Savior, our Lord is SUPREMELY
GLORIOUS!
His glory, and
the express Image of His person;
Revised Version, “the
effulgence of His glory, and the
very Image of His substance.” These words
suggest:
Ø
That the Son is of one essence with the Father. That he
is one with God as having
streamed forth eternally from the Father’s
essence, like a ray of light
from the parent fire with which it is
unbrokenly joined, is implied in the expression ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης -
apaugasma taes doxaes. Let us not think of this glory as a material thing.
It is moral and spiritual. Moses
prayed, “I beseech thee, show me thy
glory. And He
said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee,” etc.
(Exodus 33:18-19). Beyond this, perhaps,
it becomes us not to speak
of the glory of the Divine essence;
it is
mysterious, ineffable. Jehovah
said to Moses, “While
my glory passeth by, I will put thee in a cleft of
the rock, and will cover thee with my hand
while I pass by,” (Ibid. v. 22)
(compare I Timothy 6:16).
Ø
That the Son is the perfect revelation of the Father. He is “the
very
Image of His
substance,” or essential being. The
word χαρακτὴρ –
charaktaer
– image - signifies the impression produced by a stamp,
a seal, or a die. As the
impression on the wax corresponds with the
engraving on the seal, so the Divine Son is the perfect likeness of
the essence
of the Father. Hence he said, “He that beholdeth me
beholdeth Him that sent me.” (John
12:45) “He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father.” (Ibid. ch. 14:9) And Paul, “He
is the Image
of the invisible
God.” (Colossians 1:15)
Ø
That the Son is personally distinct from the Father. As the impression
on the wax is quite distinct
from the seal by which it was made, so the
figure suggests that our Lord is
“personally distinct from Him of whose
essence He is the adequate
imprint.”
hand of the Majesty
on high.”
Ø
Here is a glorious position. “At the right hand
of the Majesty on high.”
This is spoken of His exaltation
as the Messiah and in His human nature,
after the completion of His work
upon earth and His ascension into
heaven. “For the joy that was set before him, he
endured the cross,” etc.
(ch.
12:2). “Being in the form of God, he counted it not a prize to
be of an equality
with God,” etc. (Philippians 2:6-11).
Ø
Here is the highest realm. “On high;” i.e. in heaven. “Christ entered,
into heaven
itself” (ch.
9:24). Heaven, in Holy Scripture,
signifies… usually, that sphere
of the created world of space and time,
where the union of God with the
personal creature is not severed by sin,
where no death reigns, where the
glorification of the body is not a mere
hope of the future. Into that
sphere our Lord in His crucified but
now risen and glorified humanity
has entered, and is enthroned “on the
right hand of God,
angels and authorities and powers being made
subject unto Him” (I Peter 3:22).
Ø
Here is a waiting attitude. “Sat down.” “Sit
thou on my right hand until
I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (Psalm 110:1) He is waiting for
all things to be subjected unto
Him, (I Corinthians 15:28) in the majestic
certainty of His
triumph over all who shall oppose the advance of His
kingdom.
THE CHURCH. This is
to be seen in His superiority to all preceding
teachers who were sent by the
Divine Spirit to make known the will of
God. He was
the Son:
Ø
In His resemblance to His Fatherr
in creative energy. “Without Him
was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:3)
Ø
In resemblance of sustaining power, by which He
upholds all law,
preserves all
harmony in creation, and maintains all life, from the
highest seraphs
to the humblest believers, and even to the lowest
forms of
existence.
Ø
Resemblance in personal glory. Jesus Christ is the Brightness of the
Father’s glory,
and the express Image of His person;
the latter idea
drawn from the monarch’s
portrait stamped upon golden coin. Such
words are the best human
language supplies; and the treasures of these
Divine ideas are put in the
earthen vessels of our speech (II Corinthians
4:7), and fall infinitely below
the sublime reality. Our Lord’s condition
on the holy mount best
illustrates the thought of His resemblance to the
glory of His Father, when the
ineffable resplendence which streamed
from Himself appeared to add
emphasis to the words, “He that hath
seen me hath seen the Father.” (John 14:9)
Ø
Resemblance of power of enjoyment. He is to be “Heir of all things.”
Abraham was to be heir of the
world; but here is a wider inheritance,
which no finite mind can ever
grasp. Jesus Christ is to be the Heir of
all the results of His:
o
incarnation,
o
ministry, and
o
sacrifice.
He is to see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied (Isaiah 53:11)
and through eternal
ages He will receive the gratitude and adoration
of a “NUMBER
WHICH NO MAN CAN NUMBER!” (The
question today is “Reader,
Are you in that number of the saved of
the earth through
all ages? If not, I
recommend How
to Be Saved” –
# 5 – this web site – CY – 2014)
All judgment is committed to Him,
and on His head are many crowns. (Revelation 19:12)
There is here a suggested
contrast to priests of the Jewish Law. It is said
HE PURGED OUR
SINS BY HIMSELF - then He stands before us as
the One in opposition to the many
who did not continue by reason of death.
Aaron, Eli, Zadok,
and Joshua successively disappear. There is a contrast
Between other priests and our
Lord, who did not offer victims, as sheep,
goats, lambs, and kids; BUT OFFERED HIMSELF THROUGH
THE
ETERNAL
SPIRIT! (ch. 9:14) There is unlikeness
inasmuch as the
services of the ancient priests
did not purify the conscience; but the sacrifice
of our Lord
cleanses by faith from all sin, restores to
the Divine favor,
and imparts the
enjoyment of Christian hope. There
is a contrast between
the priests of the old Law in
respect of dignity. The
ancient ministers of the
temple had to offer for their own sins,
and then for the sins of the people
(ch. 7:27); OUR LORD was “holy, harmless, separate from sinners.”
(Ibid. v. 26) The descendants of
Aaron had to minister in the holy of holies
when it was darkened by the
smoke of sweet incense, and none dare to sit
down near the
mercy-seat; but the Redeemer sits down “at the right hand
of the Majesty on
high.” (ch.
1:3; 8:1) Once more, the Jewish high priests
ministered for their own nation,
while other populations in
and
priest upon His
throne, and a multitude of all nations, and kindreds,
and
people, and
tongues enjoy the benefit and blessing of His ministry.
(Revelation 21:24-26)
Savior, who is essentially Divine and let us render the full homage
of our
heart and life.
4 “Being
made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance
obtained a more excellent name than they.” Having become by so much better
than the angels as
He hath inherited a
more excellent name than they (διαφορώτερον
παρ. αὐτοὺς
– diaphoroteron par autous – more
excellent than they). (For the same
Greek form of comparison, see ch.
1:9; 3:3). This verse, though, in respect of
grammatical construction,
is the conclusion of the exordium, serves as the thesis
of the first section of the argument to follow, the drift
of which is to show the
SON’S superiority to the angels. The mention of the angels comes naturally after
the allusion to Psalm 110., viewed and quoted as it is afterwards in
connection
with Psalm 8., in which “a little lower than the angels”
is taken to denote the state
previous to the
exaltation; and it is preparatory also for the argument that
follows. The more distinguished name, expressing the
measure of
superiority to the angels, is (as the sequel shows) the
name of SON,
assigned (as aforesaid) to the Messiah in prophecy, and so,
with all that it
implies, “inherited” by Him in time according to the Divine purpose.
Observe the perfect, “hath inherited,” instead of the
aorist as hitherto,
denotes, with the usual force of the Greek tense, the
continuance of the
inheritance obtained. If we have entered into the view all
along taken by
the writer, we shall see no difficulty in the SON being said to have become
better than the angels at the time of His exaltation, as
though He had been
below them before. So He had in respect of His assumed
humanity, and it is
to the SON denoted in
prophecy to be humanly manifested in time that the
whole sentence in its main purport refers. As such, having
been, with us,
lower than the angels, He became greater, the
interposed references to His
eternal personality retaining their full force
notwithstanding. But why
should the name of SON in
itself imply superiority to the angels? Angels
themselves are, in the Old Testament, called “sons of God.” It
has been
suggested that the writer of the Epistle was not aware of
the angels being
so designated, since the Septuagint, from which he
invariably quotes, renders
μylia, ynip] by άγγελοι – angeloi
– angels. But this is not so invariably. In
Genesis 6:2; Psalm 29:1; and 89:7, we find υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ - huioi tou Theou
–
sons of God.
And, whatever be the application of the
words in each of these
passages, they at any rate occur in the Septuagint as
denoting others than the
Messiah. Nor, in any case, would it be easily supposable
that one so versed in
biblical lore as the writer must have been had been thus
misled in so important
a point of his argument. The fact is that his argument,
properly understood, is
quite consistent with a full knowledge of the fact that others
as well as the
Messiah are so designated. For it is not merely the term
“Son” as applied to
the Messiah in prophecy, but the unique manner in which it
is so applied,
that is insisted on in what follows. The form of his
commencement shows this.
He does not say, “Whom, except the Messiah, did He ever
call Son?” but, “To
which of the angels did He ever speak as follows, Thou art
my Son; this day
have I begotten thee?” In language generally the meaning of a word may
depend very materially on the context in which it occurs
and other
determining circumstances. Indeed, the mere use of the
title in the singular,
“my Son,” carries
with it a different idea from its use in the plural of a class
of beings. But this is not all. A series of passages from
the Old Testament
is adduced by way of expressly showing that the sonship assigned to the
Messiah carries with it the idea of a relation to God
altogether beyond any
ever assigned to angels. Such is the position of the writer. We shall see in
the sequel how He makes it good.
The Glory of the God-Man (vs. 2-4)
So soon as the apostle mentions the “SON,” there spreads out before his mind a vast
expanse of the territory of revelation — the loftiest
shining table-land of truth which
the Scriptures open to our gaze. Indeed, this sentence supplies a sublime basis for all
true Christology. It describes at once:
1. the Redeemer’s essential glory as the preexistent One, and
2. His mediatorial
glory as the INCARNATE MESSIAH!
which speak of this solemnize us
by their mystery, and dazzle us by their
splendor.
Ø
He is the Son of God. (v. 2.) “Son”
is not merely an official title; it
designates the natural and eternal relation of the Second Person of the
Godhead to the First. Christ is God’s “only-begotten
Son” — His
Son
in a sense absolutely unique,
as implying SAMENESS OF ESSENCE
WITH THE FATHER!
Ø
He is the Manifestation of God. (v. 3.) “The effulgence of His
glory;”
— i.e. Christ is an
eternal radiation of splendor from the majesty of
THE ABSOLUTE
JEHOVAH! He is “Light of [from] light.” The
rays which stream from the sun
reveal the sun itself; so Christ is the
ever-visible
radiance of THE UNAPPROACHABLE LIGHT!
We have but to look to Him who is “the
Word” for a display of
the attributes and perfections of Deity.
Ø
He is the Counterpart of God. (v. 3.) “The very image of His
substance,” i.e. the adequate imprint of His substantial
essence. The
Shechinah in the tabernacle had not the personal form of God; but
the SON bears His
real and perfect likeness. Christ has upon
Himself
THE EXACT IMPRESS
OF DEITY! . He is the Father’s alter ego —
His very image. “In Him dwelleth all the
fullness of the Godhead
bodily.” (Colossians 2:9) So perfectly does the Son bear the impress
of God, that He could say, “He
that hath seen me hath seen the
Father.” (John 14:9)
What is said on this point
proves His Deity, the very same acts and
prerogatives being elsewhere ascribed
to God.
Ø
He is its Creator. (v. 2.) The life of
the God-Man did not begin only
twenty centuries ago. He is Himself “the Beginning” — the Alpha —
the Firstborn
before every creature (Colossians
1:15-18). He made the
natural universe — every star that
adorns the arch of night. He ordained:
o
all periods and
dispensations (“ages”,)
o
all geological formations,
o
all historical eras,
and
o
all economies of
religion.
Ø
He is its Sustainer. (v. 3.) It is His
fiat that holds the universe
together. “In Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17).
On His
fingers hang the suns and
systems of immensity. It is the Lord Christ
who adjusts and governs all the
tremendous forces:
o
physical,
o
intellectual,
o
and spiritual,
which operate throughout
creation. The pulses of universal life are
regulated by the throbbing
of His mighty heart. He is the Soul of
providence, and the Center
of history.
Ø
He is its Possessor. “Whom He appointed Heir of all
things.” (v. 2.)
As the Son of God, Christ received
this appointment and gift in the
past eternity. As the God-Man, His Father has constituted Him, by
another deed of gift, THE MEDIATORIAL MONARCH OF THE
UNIVERSE! The keys of death and of Hades hang at his
girdle
(Revelatioin 1:18). He is the Lord of
angels. He has “authority over
all flesh” (John
17:2). His own
people are His peculiar inheritance —
the very jewels of His
crown. (I recommend Deuteronomy ch32 v9 –
God’s Inheritance by Arthur Pink – this website – CY – 2014)
Lord’s mediatorial
honors have cast a new luster over even His original
renown.
Ø
He is its Prophet. (v. 2.) It is as the
Teacher of the Church that the
writer introduces His name in
this magnificent prologue. The eternal
“Logos” — the manifestation and counterpart of God — has become
“the light of
the world.” When on earth He taught
His followers by
Personal instruction; and now
that He is in heaven, He enlightens the
Church by His Word and by the
influences of HIS SPIRIT!
Ø
He is its Priest. (v. 3.) Jesus is more than a
teacher, and His gospel is
more than simply a philosophy.
Mankind, being sinners, have not liberty
of access to God; we need some
one to approach God on our behalf.
We require a priest, and an
altar with a sacrifice on it, in order to the
“purification of
sins.” Now, Christ is our Priest. He
made
“purification” twenty centuries ago by His life in
death on
objective
atonement. And the efficacy of His sacrifice is chiefly
due to the infinite dignity of
His person as “the
effulgence of God’s
glory, and the very image of His substance.”
Ø
He is its King.
(v. 3.) This royalty is the reward of His work of
“purification.” Having made perfect satisfaction for human sin, he
ascended on high and sat down upon the throne of sovereign
authority.
From the right hand of the
Father, as the place of super-eminent
dignity and
power, He rules His people by the
might of His cross. The
“Heir of all things” is fully qualified to be the Head of the Church,
and Head over all for the
advantage of the Church. The loftiest seraph
is immeasurably His inferior. Jesus
has been raised as high above Michael
and Gabriel as He was eternally above
them, and as He therefore inherited
a more illustrious name than they (v.
4). In conclusion, why does the
apostle expatiate thus upon the greatness
and glory of the Prophet of the
New Testament? Not merely because he
delights to do so; but rather, also,
to attract our hearts to the love and worship and service
of the Lord
Jesus, whose creatures we are, and
to whom we belong by THE
PURCHASE OF HIS BLESSED
BLOOD!
THE SON
Here the argumentation of the Epistle begins, the thesis of
the
first section of the argument having been given, as
aforesaid, in the
preceding verse, that “the
SON is superior to the angels.” The
second
section begins at ch. 3:1, the
thesis being that “the SON is
superior to Moses.” Through angels and Moses the Law was given:
“Ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator” (Galatians 3:19),
the “mediator” being Moses. To show that the Son, in the
Old Testament
itself, is represented as above both, is to show, what it
is the main purpose
of the whole Epistle to establish, that the gospel, given through the SON, is
above the Law, and intended to supersede it. The conclusion is that the
gospel stands in the same relation to the Law as does the
Son to angels,
who are but “ministering
spirits,” and to Moses, who was but a “servant.”
With regard to the agency of angels in the giving of the
Law, we do not
find it so evident in the Old Testament as might have been
expected from
the references to it in the New. The “angel of Lord,”
who appeared to
Moses (Exodus 3:2) and went before the people (Ibid.
ch.14:19; 23:20, etc.),
seems in the earlier books of the Bible to signify a
certain
presence and manifestation of the Lord Himself, rather than
a created
minister of His will (see Genesis 16:7, 13; 22:15, 16;
Exodus 3:2, 4;
23:20-21; compare Acts 7:31, 35, 38); and this has been
identified by
theologians with the Word, not yet incarnate,
through whom all Divine
communications have been made to men. It is to be observed,
however,
that, after the sin of the golden calf, a distinction seems
to be made
between the presence of the Lord with his people and
that of the angel to
be thenceforth sent before them (Exodus 33:2-3). Ebrard sees in the
“angel of the LORD” generally, though understood as signifying a Divine
presence, a justification of the statement that the Law was
given “through
angels,” on the ground that, though
God did so manifest Himself, it was not
a direct manifestation, as IN THE SON, but through forms
borrowed from the
sphere of the angels. It
was an angelophany, denoting an unseen Divine
presence, not a true theophany. The only distinct
allusion to “angels,” in
the plural, in connection with the giving of the Law, is in
Deuteronomy
33:2, “He came with ten
thousands of saints;” with which
compare Psalm
68:17. But there is no doubt that it came afterwards to be
the accepted
rabbinical view that the dispensers of the Law were angels
— whether as
attendants on the Divine Majesty, or as agents of the fiery
phenomena on
utterers of the voice that was heard. And the writers of the New Testament
plainly recognize this view (see below, ch.2:2; Acts 7:53;
Galatians 3:19).
Hence our author takes for granted that his readers will
understand and
recognize it, and so implies it in his argument,
expressing, as it does, a true
conception of the nature of the Mosaic dispensation, and
especially of its
relation to the gospel. To resume our view of the argument
that follows.
The first section (as aforesaid) is from ch. 1:5 to 3:1, having for
its thesis THE SUPERIORITY OF THE SON to
angels. The
second section
is from ch. 3:1 to 5:1, having
for its thesis THE SUPERIORITY
OF THE SON
to Moses. Each section
consists of two main divisions, between which in each
case an appropriate exhortation is interposed; the first
division in each case
treating of what the Son is in His own person, the second
of His work for
man; and both sections
leading separately to the conclusion that HE
IS
THE HIGH PRIEST OF
HUMANITY!
Then, in ch. 5, the subject of His
Priesthood is taken up. Ebrard
happily illustrates the symmetrical plan of the
Argument thus: “The author, having thus been led from these
two different
Starting points to the idea of the ἀρχιερεῖς – archiereus – high
priest, now
proceeds to place on the two first parts, which may be
viewed as the pillars
of the arch, the third part, which forms the keystone.” In
this third part it
begins to be shown, at ch.5:1, how Christ fulfilled in His
humanity the
essential idea of priesthood. But, for reasons that will
appear, the full doctrine
of His eternal priesthood is not entered upon till ch. 7:1 to ch.10:19, which may
be called the central portion of the whole Epistle. The
remainder
(ch. 10:20 to the end) may be
distinguished from the rest as being
the distinctly hortatory part (though hortation
has been frequently
interposed in the argument), being mainly devoted to
practical application
of the doctrine that has been established. The following
plan of the
argument of the first two sections, showing the parallelism
between them,
may assist us in entering into it as it proceeds:
SECTION I.
Thesis: Christ superior
to the angels.
Division 1 (ch.
1:5-2:1).
The name SON, as applied to the typical theocratic kings,
and in its final
reference and full meaning (as you all acknowledge)
pointing to the
Messiah, expresses a position altogether above any assigned
anywhere to
angels. The Son is
represented as one associated with God in His majesty, a
sharer of His everlasting
throne. Angels are referred to only as
ministering
spirits or attendant worshippers at the Son’s advent.
Interposed
exhortation (ch. 2:1-5). This being so, beware of not
appreciating THE REVELATION
NOW GIVEN IN THE SON!
In transgression of the Law given through angels was so
severely visited,
what will be the consequence of neglecting this, accredited to us as
it has been?
Division 2 (ch.
2:5-3:1).
The Son also, but never angels, is denoted in prophecy as Lord of the
coming age. For Psalm 8 (based on
and carrying out the idea of
the account in Genesis of the original creation) assigns a supremacy over
all created things to man. Man, as he is now, does not
fulfill the ideal of his
destiny. But Christ, as Son of man, in His exaltation, does. And IN HIM man
attains his destined dignity forfeited through
sin. His
humiliation, suffering
and death were for the purpose of thus RAISING MAN. His humiliation with
this and was a design worthy of God, and in accordance with the purport
of Messianic prophecy. For such prophecy
intimates association and
SYMPATHY OF THE MESSIAH with His human brethren. Thus Christ,
the SON, is THE SYMPATHIZING HIGH PRIEST OF HUMANITY!
SECTION II.
Thesis- Christ superior
to Moses.
Division 1 (ch.3:1-7).
Moses is represented in the Old Testament as but a servant in the house of
God. The SON IS LORD OVER THE HOUSE!
Interposed
exhortation (ch.3:7-4:1). This being so, beware of
hardening your hearts,
like the Israelites under Moses. If they
failed,
through unbelief, of entering into the rest offered to them,
you may
similarly fail of entering into the rest intended for you.
Division 2 (ch.
4:1-5:1).
A rest, symbolized
by that of the promised land, is still offered to you, AND
YOU MAY ENTER INTO IT!
Psalm 90 shows that the rest into which
Joshua led the Israelites was not the final one intended for
God’s people.
The true rest is the rest of God himself (“ my rest,”
Psalm 90.), spoken of
in the account of the creation — the sabbath rest of eternity. Christ, after
sharing our human trials, has passed into that eternal
rest, and WON AN
ENTRANCE INTO IT FOR US!
Thus, again, a renewed exhortation being
interposed, Christ, the SON,
IS AGAIN SET FOR AS THE SYMPATHIZING
HIGH PRIEST OF HUMANITY!
5 “For
unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art my Son,
this day have I begotten thee? And again, I
will be to Him a Father,
and He shall be to me a Son?” For to which of the angels said
he at any time.
Observe the form of the question, which has been already noticed. It is
not, “
When were angels ever called sons?” but to this effect: “To
which of them did He
ever speak (individually) in the following remarkable
terms?” The first
quotation is from Psalm 2:7; the second from II Samuel
7:14. The
second having had undoubtedly a primary reference to
Solomon, and the
first presumably to some king of
properly pause to consider the principle of the application
of such passages
to Christ. It must be allowed that, not only in this
Epistle, but in the New
Testament generally, sayings which had a primary reference
to events or
personages in the past, are applied directly to Christ; and
in some cases
where the justness of the application may not be to all of
us at first sight
obvious. But such
applications are plainly not arbitrary. They
rest on a principle of interpretation which it is of
importance for us to
understand. First, we may observe that the method was not
originated by
the New Testament writers; it was one received among the
Jews of their
time, who saw throughout the Old Testament anticipations of
the Messiah.
This appears both from rabbinical literature and also from
the New
Testament itself. For instance, the priests and scribes
consulted by Herod
(Matthew 2:5) referred Micah 5:2 as a matter of course to
the
Messiah; and the Pharisees (Matthew 22:44) never thought of
disputing
the application of Psalm 110 to him. And not only so. The
Old Testament
itself suggests and exemplifies such applications. For
students of the
prophetic writings must be aware how utterances that had a
primary
fulfillment in one age are sometimes taken up in a
subsequent one as
though yet to be fulfilled, their scope enlarged, and their
final reference
often thrown forward to “that day” — the Messianic
age — which alone
terminates the view of the later prophets. Now, it has been
said, in
explanation of this mode of treatment, that prophecy often
had a double
meaning, referring partly to one thing and partly to
another; or several
meanings, with reference to several different things. But
this way of putting
the matter is unsatisfactory. Bacon better hit the mark,
when, in a well-known
passage in his ‘Advancement of Learning’ (bk. 2.), he spoke
of
“that latitude which is agreeable and familiar unto Divine
prophecies, being
of the nature of their Author, with whom a thousand years
are but as one
day, and therefore are not fulfilled punctually at once,
but have springing
and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages; though
the height
or fullness of them may refer to some one age.” We may put
it thus: It was
of the nature of prophetic inspiration to lift the seer
above and beyond his
immediate subject to the contemplation of some grand ideal, which it
suggested to his vision, and more or less perfectly
fulfilled. He has, for
instance, as the basis of his vision, a David, a Solomon, a
Hezekiah, or a
Zerubbabel; he has as its framework the circumstances of his own time
or
of the time near at hand; but we find his language, as he
proceeds, rising far
above his vision’s original scope, and applicable to those
comprised within
it only so far as they embody and realize the ideal which
they represent to
his mind. Hence the taking up of old prophecies by
succeeding prophets,
their enlargement and reapplication to new fulfillments;
and this, too, in
terms transcending the reality of these new fulfillments;
as, for instance,
when Isaiah, taking up the idea of Nathan’s message to
David (II Samuel
7.), applies it apparently to a son and a reign to be
looked for in his own
age, but at length in language which can have no other than
a Messianic
reference (Isaiah 9:6, etc.; 11:1, etc.; compare Jeremiah
33:15). Hence,
lastly, the application in the New Testament of all such
ancient utterances
at once to Christ, as
being the final and complete fulfillment of the ideal of
prophecy, the true Antitype of all the types. A clear perception of this view
of the drift of prophecy will remove difficulties that have
been felt as to the
application of many quotations from the Old Testament, in
this Epistle and
elsewhere, to Christ. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;
a
quotation from Psalm 2:7. This psalm is expressly quoted as
David’s in
Acts 4:25, and has internal evidence of being his, and of
having had
primary reference to his reign. For the mention of
an earlier date, while the circumstances of warfare alluded
to do not agree
with the peaceful reign of Solomon, nor the picture of
undivided empire
with any period after the secession of the ten tribes.
Further, the rising and
consequent subjugation by David of subject races, described
in II Samuel
8., presents to us a state of things very likely to have
suggested the psalm;
and to this period of David’s reign it is usually referred
with probability by
modern commentators. But the question of date and
authorship is not
material to our view of the prophetic meaning of the psalm.
Taking it to be
David’s, we find as follows: There is a rebellious
confederation of subject
kings against the dominion of the King of Israel, who is
spoken of as “the
Anointed” of the
LORD. In view of their hostile preparations, the LORD
in heaven is conceived as laughing to scorn their devices
against Him whom
He Himself had enthroned on
decree [or, ‘I will tell
of a decree’]; the Lord said unto me, Thou art my
Son; this day
have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the
nations for thine inheritance, and for thy possession the ends of the
earth.”
Then follows an admonition to the rebels to do homage to this
SON,
submission to whom is submission to the Lord, and whose
anger is as the
LORD’S anger. Now, it is evident that the language used
transcends literal
application to any earthly king. Hence some commentators
have been led
to suppose that it had no even primary reference to one,
being simply
prophetic of the Messiah, though suggested by the
circumstances of
David’s day. Thus Ebrard,
supporting his view by the assumption (which is
usually made) of the message of Nathan to David (II Samuel
7:14)
being the “decree” referred to in the psalm, and the
foundation of the
confidence expressed in it. He argues that it was not to
David, but to his
posterity ([r"z,), that the position of sonship
was assigned, and eternal
dominion promised; and hence that David in this psalm
(which he considers
to have been certainly by him) must have been speaking, not
in his own
name, but in that of his seed after him, looking adoringly
forward to the
fulfillment of that glorious hope in the distant future (Ibid.
v.19).
Thus, he concludes, the insurrection of the Syrians forms
merely the
occasion, but not the object
and import, of the second psalm. But, even if
the message of Nathan were certainly the basis of the idea
of the psalm, we
find an instance of the express application of that message
to David
himself; as well as to his posterity, in Psalm 89. (see vs.
20-28). It may
be, however, that the reference in the psalm is to some
Divine intimation,
possibly to some prophecy or oracular utterance, delivered
to David
himself at the time of the inauguration of his own
sovereignty, and long
before Nathan’s message. In any case, it is in accordance
with the genius of
prophecy, as above explained, that the words should have
had a primary
reference to David himself, so far forth as he imperfectly fulfilled
their
meaning (See II Samuel 23:5 – CY – 2014). The main thing to be observed
is that they represent an ideal of sonship
and unlimited sovereignty beyond
any that could, as a matter of fact, be considered as fulfilled
in David. And this
view of its meaning,
suggested by the psalm itself, is confirmed by the use made
of it in later Scripture. For it is evident that this
psalm, together with the passage
from II Samuel 7. (to be cited next) is made the basis of a
long series of
Messianic prophecies (compare II Samuel 23:1, etc.; Psalms 110.; 89.; 132.;
Isaiah 7-9.; 11:1,10; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Micah 4.-5.;
Zechariah 6:12, etc.).
Its application to Christ in the New Testament is distinct
and
frequent (compare Acts 4:25; 13:33; Rev. 2:27; 12:5;
19:15). As to the
phrase, “This day
have I begotten thee,” there is a difference of view
among both ancient and modern expositors. The word
“begotten”
(γεγέννηκά - gegennaeka – have
begotten) naturally suggests µονογενῆς
-
monogenaes – only
child, and is hence taken by some as referring to
the
eternal generation of the Son; in which case it can have had
no application in any conceivable sense to the human type. “This day” has
also in this case to be explained as denoting the ever-present today of
eternity. So Origen, in a striking passage, “It is said to Him by God,
to
whom it is always today. For God has no evening, nor (as I
deem) any
morning, but the time which is coextensive with His own unbegotten and
eternal life is (if I may so speak) the day in which the
Son is begotten, there
being thus found no beginning of His generation, as neither
is there of the
day.” The main objection to it is the inapplicability of
such a meaning of the
words, even in a subordinate sense, to David or any other
king of
Alford, indeed, urges that this meaning agrees best with
the context in the
Epistle, on the ground that the eternal being of the Son,
having been stated
in the exordium, might be expected to be referred to in the
proof. But this is
hardly to the point. The writer has now begun his argument
from the Old
Testament, and is engaged in showing the idea involved in
the term Son as
applied therein to the Messiah. This, therefore, and not
what he has said
previously, is what we have to regard in our
interpretation; and the most
obvious view of the phrase, as it occurs in the psalm
itself, is to regard it as a
figure denoting forcibly the paternity of God; compare Jeremiah
2:27,
“They say to the
wood, Thou art my father; to the stone, Thou hast begotten me.”
It expresses the idea that the “Son of God”
spoken of derives His existence as
such from Him, and not from human ancestry. Chrysostom, among the
ancients,
understands the phrase
as thus referring to the sonship assigned to the
Messiah in
time, and not to His
eternal being. This view being taken, “this
day,” in reference
to the king, may
mean the day of the “decree,” or that of his enthronement on
Mount
time of his incarnation, or resurrection, or ascension. If
it be thought
necessary to assign any definite time to it in its
application to Christ, the
view of its being the day of the resurrection is supported
by such passages
as Colossians 1:18, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν
νεκρῶν – prototokos ek
ton nekron –
the firstborn from
the dead; and Romans 1:4, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος
υἱοῦ θεοῦ
ἐν
δυνάµει ….ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν
– tou horisthentos huiou Theou en dunamei
……ex anastaseos nekron – And
declared to be the Son of God with power…..
by the resurrection from the dead - compare Acts 2:30
and13:32, etc., “The
promise that was
made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same
unto their
children, in that
He hath raised up Jesus again: as it is also written in the second
psalm, Thou art my
Son; this day have I begotten thee.” This
last text, be it
observed, is almost conclusive against the eternal
generation being
understood as referred to; as is also the application of
the same text infra,
here ch. 5:5, where it is quoted in proof of Christ’s appointment
to the
eternal priesthood. [“ The title of begetting is oft
times in sacred language
to be measured, not by the scale of philosophers’ or
naturalists’ dialect, but
of moral or civil language or interpretation. For they that
are sons by
adoption only, or next heirs by reversion to a crown or
dignity, are said to
be begotten of those which adopt them, or of whom they be
the immediate
heirs or successors: and in this sense in the sacred
genealogy (Matthew
1:12) Jeconiah is said to have
begotten Salathiel. So that David upon his
own occasions (whether upon his anointing to the crown of
of himself, ‘I will
preach the law whereof the Lord hath said unto me, Thou
art my son; this
day have I begotten thee.’ For David to
call the day of his
coronation, or of his designation to the crown of
birthday, or begetting
of God, by whose special power and providence he
was crowned, is not so harsh as some haply would deem it
that either
know not or consider not that it was usual in other states
or kingdoms
beside
birthdays in honor of their kings and emperors: the one
they called diem
natalem imperatoris, the other diem natalem imperii; the one the birthday
of the emperor when he was born of his natural mother, the
other the
birthday of him as he was emperor, which we call the coronation
day. The
reason might hold more peculiar in David than in any other
princes,
because he was the first of all the seed of Abraham that
took possession of
the hill of Zion, and settled the
father Jacob, upon himself and his posterity Thus Ego hodie genuite, with
submission of my opinion to better judgment, is a
prediction typically
prophetical, which kind of prediction, as hath been
observed before, is the
most concludent; and this one of
the highest rank in that kind; that is, an
oracle truly meant of David according to the literal sense,
and yet fulfilled
of Christ, the Son of God, by His resurrection from the
dead, both
according to the most exquisite literal and the mystical
and principally
intended sense” (T. Jackson’s ‘Works,’ bk. 9. Hebrews 31:6,
7,
edition, 1844, vol. 8. p. 411).] And again, I will be to Him a Father, and
He shall be to me
a Son (II Samuel 7:14); from Nathan’s
message to
David, which has been spoken of above. The words do not in
themselves
express so unique a sonship as
those used in the psalm; but, viewed in
connection with the psalm, with their own context, and with
subsequent
prophecy, they suggest the same meaning. David had formed
the design of
building a temple; Nathan, by the word of the Lord, forbids
his doing so,
but tells him that his “seed”
after him should build a house for the LORD’S
Name, and that the Lord would establish the throne of His
kingdom for
ever.” Then comes the text, “I will be to Him a father, and he shall be to me
a son;” followed by, “If he
commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod
of men ... but my
mercy shall not depart away from him And thine house
and thy kingdom
shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall
be established for
ever.” Now, there can be no doubt that
there was a
primary and partial fulfillment of this promise in Solomon,
who built the
temple after David’s death. He took it to himself, so far
as it was applicable
to him, after his completion of the temple (I Kings 8:17,
etc.). But it is
equally evident that its meaning could not be exhausted in
him. The eternity
assigned to the throne of the kingdom points to a distant as well as an
immediate fulfillment, and the word translated “seed” (Hebrew, [r"z,),
though applicable in a concrete sense to an individual
offspring (Genesis
4:25; I Samuel 1:11), is properly a collective noun,
denoting
“posterity,” and thus naturally lends itself to a
far-reaching application. The
consideration, however, of especial weight in support of
such application is
that psalmists and prophets cease not to make this original
promise the
basis of Messianic prophecy. See, not only Psalm 2.,
which may or may
not refer to it, but also Psalm 89, and 132., together with
other passages
which have been referred to in connection with the second
psalm. Thus we
may properly apply to this particular passage the view of
the meaning of
prophecy which has been set forth in general terms above,
according to
which we must regard Solomon, with respect to the sonship assigned to
him as well as to his kingdom and the house which he was
to build, as but a
type and imperfect realization of a grand ideal to be
in due time fulfilled.
The
Exaltation of the Son of God above the Angels of God (vs. 4-5)
“Being made so much better than the angels,” etc. The angels of God are
great and exalted beings. Our Lord spake
of them as “holy angels”
(Matthew 25:31). David said they “excel in strength”
(Psalm 103:20).
Paul designates them “His
mighty angels’ (II Thessalonians 1:7).
Deeds involving stupendous power are ascribed to them
(Isaiah 37:36;
Acts 12:7-11). They are said to be “full of eyes,” to
indicate their great
intelligence (Revelation 4:6, 8). They are represented as
occupying a
most exalted position and. offering the highest worship
(Isaiah 6:1-3).
In their ranks the highest order of created beings is to be
found
(Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16). But our Lord is greater
than the angels.
excellent name
than they.”
Ø
The pre-eminent name — the Son of God. This appears from v.
5,
“For unto which of
the angels,” etc.? The first quotation
is from Psalm 2,
which is generally regarded as
Messianic. The second is from II Samuel
7:14, which is applicable
primarily to Solomon, but principally to Him
Who is both “the Root and the Offspring of David.” (Revelation 22:16)
Angels are called “sons of God” in the
sacred Scriptures (Job 1:6; 2:1;
38:7); so also are true
Christians (John 1:12; I John 3:1-2). But to
One
only is given the title THE SON OF GOD even to “the only begotten
Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father,” (John 1:18)
and of whom
the Father speaks as “my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
(Matthew 3:17). It is probable that in this name there is:
o
a depth of
significance,
o
a height of
dignity, and
o
a fullness of
glory
of which at present we have
little or no conception.
Ø
The
acquisition of this name. “He hath by inheritance obtained” it.
“He hath inherited”
it:
o
Because of His
relation to the Father. It belongs to
Him by His
very Being, by virtue of His
Divine filiations. Angels may be,
in an
inferior sense, the sons of God by creation; but
they cannot
inherit that title, for this
plain reason, that they are created, not
begotten; whilst our Lord inherits the ‘more
excellent name,’
because He is begotten, not
created.”
o
Because it was
promised to Him in the Old Testament
Scriptures;
as in the passages quoted
in our text.
Names and titles in the sacred
writings, generally speaking, are neither
given for their euphony, nor are
they merely complimentary, but they
express realities in the
circumstances, or character, or calling of the person
to whom they are applied. This is especially the case in respect to THE
SON OF GOD! The
dignity of His titles is indicative of His essential
rank. He is called the Son of God because He is the Son of God in a
peculiar and
exclusive sense. The name is indicative of His nature,
which is essentially Divine.
“Being made so
much better than the angels, as He hath,” etc.; Revised
Version, “Having become by
so much better than the angels,” etc. The
“having become” refers to the
exaltation of our Lord in His humanity. In
like manner it seems to us that
the “This day have I begotten thee” (Psalm 2:7)
refers to His resurrection from
the dead. Paul certainly applied the words thus
(Acts 13:32-33). And he writes, God’s “Son, who was born of the
seed, of David
according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of
God with power,
by the resurrection of the dead, even Jesus Christ our
Lord.” And John speaks
of “Jesus Christ, the First-begotten of the
dead” (Revelation 1:5). We conclude, then, that “begotten” is
used
figuratively, and that by it is
intended the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead, by which He was
declared to be the Son of God with power, and
His exaltation to His mediatorial throne. And this brings us to our present
point, which the fourth verse
teaches us, that the exaltation of our Lord
consequent upon the completion
of His redemptive work upon earth is
commensurate with the exaltation
of His essential nature; or, that His glory
as Mediator corresponds with the
dignity of His name and nature.
Observe, that the κρείττων γενόµενος - kreitton genomenos
– being
made better;
becoming is not identical with the κεκληρονόµηκεν –
keklaeronomaeken
– inheritance; He enjoys the allotment - but in proportion
to it:
the triumphant issue of His mediation is consonant to the glorious name
which is His by inheritance; but which, in the
fullness of its present
inconceivable glory, has been
put on and taken up by Him in the historical
process of His mediatorial humiliation and
triumph.” THE
REDEMPTION
OF HUMANITY was an undertaking beyond all human power, and
transcending even angelic wisdom, love, and
might. Its
accomplishment
demanded THE RESOURCES OF THE GODHEAD! Our Lord has
redeemed man in a manner worthy
of Himself as Son of God (“by
Himself”), and His exaltation as Redeemer corresponds with the
preeminence
of His transcendent Name. And
more, this “exaltation must be conceived of as
belonging, not to His humanity
only, but to the entire undivided person of
Christ, NOW RESUMING THE GLORY AND FULNESS OF THE
GODHEAD (John 17:5), and in
addition to this having taken into the
Godhead the manhood, now
glorified by His obedience, atonement, and
victory (see Ephesians 1:20-22;
Philippians 2:6-9; Acts 2:36; I Peter 3:21-22).
The Son of God before His
incarnation was Head over creation; but after His
work in the flesh He had become
also Head of creation, inasmuch as His
glorified body, in which He
triumphs sitting at God’s right hand, is itself
created, and is the sum and the
center of creation.
confidence
in Him as our Savior. May His pre-eminence inspire us with
adoring reverence towards
Him.
6 “And again, when He bringeth
in the first begotten into the world, He
saith, And let all the angels of God worship
Him.” The most obvious translation
of the Greek here seems at first sight to be, “But whenever He
[i.e. God] shall again
bring [or, ‘bring back’] the Firstborn into the
inhabited world, he saith;” ὅταν …
εἰσαγάγῃ - hotan….eisagagae
– when….He bringeth - denoting the indefiniteness of
future time, and the position of πάλιν – palin – again
- connecting it most
naturally with εἰσαγάγῃ. If such be the force of πάλιν the reference must
be to the second advent; which, however, is not suggested
by the context,
in which there has been no mention of a first advent, but
only of the
assignation to the Messiah of the name of Son. This
supposed reference to
a second advent may be avoided by disconnecting πάλιν in sense from
εἰσαγάγῃ, and taking it (as in
the verse immediately preceding, and
elsewhere in the Epistle) as only introducing a new
quotation. And the
Greek will bear this interpretation, though the order of
the words (ὅταν δὲ
πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ), taken by themselves, is against it. The “Firstborn”
(πρωτότοκον – prototokon - firstborn) is evidently the
Son previously spoken of; the word is so applied (Psalm
89:27) in a
passage undoubtedly founded on the text last quoted. The
same word is
applied in the New Testament to Christ, as “the Firstborn among many
brethren,” “the Firstborn of every creature,” “the
Firstborn from the dead”
(Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18). And the idea conveyed
by
these passages may have been in the writer’s mind, and
intended to be
understood by his Christian readers. But for the immediate
purpose of his
argument he may be supposed to refer only to this
designation as applied in
the Old Testament to the
SON already spoken of. Thus the
meaning may
be, “But, again, with reference to the time when He shall
introduce this
SON, the Firstborn, into our inhabited world, He speaks thus of
the
angels.” Or it may be, “But whenever He shall bring a
second time into the
world the Firstborn who has already once appeared, He
speaks thus of the
angels.” But the first meaning seems more suitable to the general
context.
The force of the writer’s argument is the same, whichever
view we take;
the point being that, at the time of the advent of the SON
whatever advent
may be meant, the angels appear only as attendant
worshippers. As to the
understood nominative to “saith,” we may suppose it to be “God,” as in
v. 5. But it is to be observed that λέγει – legei – saith - without an expressed
nominative, is a usual formula for introducing a scriptural
quotation. The
question remains — What is the text quoted, and how can it
be understood
as bearing the meaning here assigned to it? In the Hebrew
Bible we find
nothing like it, except in Psalm 97:7, “Worship Him, all ye gods,” Authorized
Version; where the Septuagint has προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι θεοῦ -
proskunaesate auto pantes oi angeloi
Theou - worship Him,
all ye gods. But in
Deuteronomy 32:43 we find in the Septuagint, though not in
the Masoretic text,
προσκυνήσατεωσαν .......καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν
αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ - kai
enischusatosan auto pantes angeloi Theou - the very words, including the
introductory καὶ - kai - and, which are quoted. Hence, the quotations in this
Epistle being mainly from the Septuagint, we may conclude
that this is the
text referred to. It occurs towards the end of the Song of Moses, in connection
with its concluding
picture of the LORD’S final triumph, in which the nations
are called upon to rejoice with His people, when He would
avenge the blood
of His servants, and render vengeance to His adversaries,
and make atonement
for (Greek, ἐκκαθαριεῖ - ekkathariei – expiation) His land and for His people.
Viewed in the light of later prophecy, this triumph is identified with that of the
Messiah’s kingdom, and is therefore that of the time of bringing “the Firstborn
into the world.” Compare Romans 15:10, where “Rejoice,
ye Gentiles,” etc.,
from the same passage, is applied to the time of Christ. It is no
objection to the
quotation that, as it stands in the Epistle, “the Firstborn,”
though not mentioned
in the original, seems to be regarded as the object of
the angels’ worship. The
passage is simply cited as it stands, the reader being left
to draw his own
inference; and the main point of it is that the angels in “that day” are not,
like the Son, sharers of the throne, but only worshippers.
The
Son of God the Recipient of the Worship of the Angels (v. 6)
“And again, when he bringeth in
the First-begotten,” etc. This verse,
as is
unquestionably one of the most difficult in the whole
Epistle.” We have in it:
1. An august
relationship. “His First-begotten.” This title is appropriately
applied to the Son of God:
creation’ (Colossians
1:15); “In the beginning was the Word.” (John 1:1)
Firstborn,” etc. (Psalm 89:27).
Luke 1:30-35).
D. Because of His resurrection from the dead “He is
the Firstborn from
the dead” (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). And it may well be
that in this place all these
applications of the title are combined in setting
forth the unique and august
relation of the Divine Son to the God and
Father.
2. A remarkable epoch. “And again, when
He bringeth in the First-begotten
into the world.” There is much diversity of opinion as to what event in the
history of the Son of God is referred to here. Some take it
as denoting the
resurrection of our Lord. Others, His second coming; others
His incarnation.
It cannot be ‘a second bringing in of the Firstborn into
the world’ that is here
spoken of, seeing that nothing has been said of a first.”
This seems to us the
correctinterpretation. It is very significant that the heavenly intelligences
should be
summoned to worship Him “even when He was entering upon his
profound
self-humiliation.” The angel Gabriel foretold His birth
(Luke 1:26), the
angel of the Lord announced it, and a multitude of the
heavenly host
celebrated it in joyful worship-song (Ibid. ch.2:9-14).
This introduction of
the First-begotten into the inhabited world is the greatest
epoch in history.
Antecedent ages looked onward to it; subsequent ages date
from it, and
have been influenced by it to a degree far surpassing human
conception.
3. A significant command. “He saith, And let all the
angels of God worship
Him.” Whether
these words are quoted from Deuteronomy 32:43
(Septuagint) or >Psalm 97:7, or whether both
passages were in the mind
of the writer, we shall not attempt to determine. To us it
seems most
probable that he quotes from Deuteronomy. But we turn to
the homiletic
suggestions of the quotation.
ALL INTELLIGENT BEINGS. Angels are the highest created beings. If
worship is necessary for them,
it is necessary for those also who are less in
their faculties and lower in
their positions, yet capable of reverent approach
to the Supreme Being. Man needs worship for the
right and harmonious
development of
his being. Without
worship the highest powers of his
nature will decline and die
for want of exercise, and its holiest possibilities
will not even be
attempted. Moreover, since worship is
appropriate and
becoming in the angels of God,
it is not less so in his human creatures. No
attitude is more befitting in us
than that of adoration.
WORTHY OF THE WORSHIP OF ALL INTELLIGENT BEINGS.
We make this statement on the
following grounds:
Ø Angels, by virtue of their intelligence, are capable of
estimating
His claims to
their worship.
Ø Angels, because of their holiness, would not pay their
worship to one
who was not worthy of it. Hence, in worshipping
the First-begotten
of the Father, they
are an example to us. Their worship attests
HIS WORTHINESS!
THEREFORE HE IS WORTHY OF THE WORSHIP OF EVEN
THE HIGHEST CREATURES.
Angels even of the highest rank
worship Him (Isaiah 6:1-3; I Peter 3:22; Revelation 5:11-14). Hence
we infer that the most intelligent, the
wisest, the mightiest, the most
exalted of men should worship Him. (Jeremiah 9:23-26)
OF GOD, BUT MAN IS UNDER
MORE AND MIGHTIER
OBLIGATIONS TO WORSHIP HIM. Angels are commanded to worship
Him. “He saith,
Let all the angels,” etc. They worship Him because of what
He is in Himself; because He is essentially Divine, and supremely, infinitely
perfect — “ the effulgence of the Father’s glory,” etc. They worship Him
also because of what He is in
relation to them. He is their
Creator and
Sustainer. These reasons for worshipping the Son apply to us as much
as
to these heavenly intelligences;
and, in addition to these, we are impelled to
worship Him by a motive more
tender in its character and more mighty in
its constraining force than any
of these. HE IS OUR SAVIOUR! He gave
Himself for us.
He died for us. He redeemed us with His own precious blood.
And now “He ever liveth
to make intercession for us.” How sacred and strong,
then, are the
obligations which bind us to worship Him! “Worthy is the
Lamb that hath
been slain to receive the power,” etc.
(Revelation 5:12);
(I recommend Agnus Dei by Michaels Smith on You Tube on the web –
CY – 2014) “O come let us sing unto the Lord,” etc. (Psalm 95:1-7)
7 “And of the angels He saith,
Who maketh His angels spirits, and His
ministers a flame of fire.” A further intimation
of the position assigned in the
Old Testament to angels, contrasted by means of µὲν – men – indeed
and δὲ -
de - yet with further
quotations with reference to the SON. A difficulty
has
been felt with regard to this passage (cited, as usual,
from the Septuagint) on
the ground of the original Hebrew being supposed not to
bear the meaning
assigned to it. Hence the writer of the Epistle is said to
have made use of
an erroneous rendering for the purpose of his argument.
Certainly the
context of Psalm 104,
in which God is represented as arraying Himself in the
glories and operating through the powers of nature,
suggests no other
meaning than that He uses the winds as His messengers,
etc., in the same
poetical sense in which He was said in the preceding verse
to make the
clouds his chariot; compare Ibid.ch. 148:8, “Fire
and hail, snow and vapors,
stormy wind fulfilling His word.” If so, there is no necessary reference in
the original psalm to angels. But it is to be observed, on
the other hand,
that the structure of Ibid. ch.
104:4 is not in the Hebrew identical with that
of “He maketh the clouds His
chariot” in v. 3, and hence, in itself,
suggests
some difference of
meaning. For:
(1) a different verb is used; and
(2) the order of the accusatives following the verb is reversed;
in both
which respects the Septuagint
correctly follows the Hebrew.
In v. 3 the verb is μwc (in
the Septuagint.), the primary meaning of which is
“to set,” “to place,” and, when followed by two accusatives
as object and
predicate, denotes” to constitute or render a person or
thing what the predicate
expresses.” In v. 4 the verb is hc;[; (ὁ ποιῶν – ho poion – He maketh - in the
Septuagint), the primary meaning of which, when used
actively, is “to form,”
“to fabricate.” It is used of God making the heaven and the
earth (Genesis 1:7,
16; 2:2, etc.). When elsewhere, as here, it is followed by
two accusatives, one
of them (which may come either first or second in order) is
found to denote
the material out of which anything is formed. Thus Exodus
38:3, “He
made all the
vessels (of) brass” (compare Ibid. ch.30:25; 36:14; 37:15, 23).
Hence an obvious meaning of v. 4, so far as the mere
language is
concerned, would be, “He maketh [or, ‘formeth’] His messengers [or,
‘angels’] of winds, and His ministers of a flaming fire.” (Winds
certainly,
not spirits, because of the context. But here the
Greek πνεύµατα - pneumata –
spirits is, in
itself, as ambiguous as the Hebrew twOjWr and
was as probably
meant to denote winds.) According to this rendering,
the meaning of the verse
would seem to be that, out of the natural elements of wind
and fire, some
special agencies are called into being or operation; not
simply that winds
and fire generally are used for God’s purposes. The change
of phraseology
between vs. 3 and 4 (Psalm 104) certainly suggests some
change in the idea
of the psalmist. What, then, are these agencies? What is
meant by the
“messengers” and “ministers” connected with the elements of
wind and
fire? The author of the Epistle (and probably the
Septuagint too, though the
words ἄγγελοι (angels)
and λειτουργοι – leitourgoi – ministers are, in
themselves,
as ambiguous as the Hebrew) saw in these words a reference
to the angels, who
are denoted by the same two words in Psalm 103:20-21, and
who are undoubtedly
spoken of elsewhere in the Old Testament as operating in
the forces of
nature (as in the death of the Egyptian firstborn, the
pestilence in the time
of David, and the destruction of Sennacherib’s army), and
seem, in some
sense, to be identified with the winds themselves in Psalm
18:10, “He
rode upon a
cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the
wind;” and in Psalm 35:5, “Let
them be as chaff before the wind; and
let the angel of
the LORD chase them.” We say that the
Septuagint, as well as
the author of the Epistle, probably intended to express
this meaning. It is,
indeed, more than probable; for, ambiguous as may be the words ἄγγελοι
and λειτουργοι
in themselves, the
structure of the Greek sentence (in
which “His angels” and “His ministers” are the objects, arid “winds” and
“flames of fire”
the predicates), seems to necessitate this meaning, which is
further probable from what we know of Alexandrian
angelology. It may
thus well be that, whether or not the Septuagint
(rendering, as it does, the
Hebrew word for word) gives the exact force of the original
phrase, it hits
its essential meaning, as intimating
angelic agency in nature. And the
learned Jews of Alexandria, followed as they are by the
later rabbis
generally, and by the writer of this Epistle, were, to say
the least, as likely
to understand the Hebrew as any modern scholars. The
question, however,
is not, after all, of great importance. For let us grant
that the writer of the
Epistle unwittingly adduced an erroneous rendering in the
course of his
argument. What then? It is not necessary to suppose that
the inspiration of
the sacred writers was such as to enlighten them in matters
of Hebrew
criticism. If it guarded them from erroneous teaching, it
was sufficient for
its purpose. And in this case the passage, as cited, at any
rate expresses
well the general doctrine of the Old Testament about
angels, viz. that,
unlike the Son,
they are but subordinate agents of the Divine purposes, and
connected especially with the operations of nature. It is
to be observed,
too, that the quotations generally in this Epistle are
adduced, not as
exhaustive proofs, but rather as suggestive of the general
teaching of the
Old Testament, with which the readers are supposed to be
familiar.
In vs. 8-13, we have two more quotations from the psalms
with reference to the
SON adduced in contrast.
8 “But
unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever:
a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 “Thou hast
loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, even thy God,
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows.”
But unto the Son He saith. The preposition here translated “unto” is
πρὸς – pros - as in v. 7, there
translated “of.” As is evident from
its use
in ver. 7, it does not imply of
necessity that the persons spoken of are
addressed in the
quotations, though it is so in this second case. The force
of the preposition itself need only be “in reference to.”
The first quotation
is from Psalm 45:6-7. The psalm was evidently written
originally as an
epithalamium on the occasion of the marriage of some king
of
some foreign princess. The general and probable opinion is
that the king
was Solomon. His marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter may have
been the
occasion. The view taken by some, that the psalm had no
original
reference to an actual marriage, being purely a Messianic
prophecy,
is inconsistent both with its own contents and with the
analogy
of other Messianic psalms (see what was said on this head
with reference
to Psalm 2.). Those who enter into the view of Messianic
prophecy that
has been given above, will have no difficulty in perceiving
the justness of
the application of this psalm to Christ, notwithstanding
its primary import.
Like Psalm 2, it presents (in parts at least) an ideal
picture, suggested only
and imperfectly realized by the temporary type; an ideal of
which we find
the germ in II Samuel 7., and the amplification in later
prophecy. Further,
the title, “For the precentor” (“
To the chief musician,” A.V.), shows that
the psalm was used in the temple services, and thus,
whatever might be the
occasion of its composition, was understood by the Jews of
old as having
an ulterior meaning. (I recommend Psalm 45 – this website –
by Charles
Haddon Spurgeon – as all the Psalms on this site are taken
from his
Treasury of David
– CY – 2014) Further, there is possibly
a
reference to the psalm as Messianic in Isaiah 61:1-3, where
“the
Servant of Jehovah,” “the Anointed,” gives the “oil of gladness”
for
mourning; and in (Ibid. ch.9:6, where the words of the
psalm, “God”
(45:6)
and “mighty” (v. 3) are compounded for a designation of the Messiah;
also in
Zechariah 12:8, where it is prophesied that in the latter
days “the house
of David” shall
be “as God.” The Messianic interpretation is undoubtedly
ancient. The Chaldee paraphrast (on v. 3) writes, “Thy beauty, O King
Messiah, is
greater than that of the sons of men.” Thy
throne, O God, is
for ever and ever. Attempts have
been made to evade the conclusion that
the king is here addressed as “God,”
(1) by taking the clause as a parenthetic address to God
Himself;
(2) by regarding “God” as appended to “throne,” or as the predicate of the
sentence; i.e. translating either “Thy throne of God is,” etc. (according
to
the sense of I Chronicles 29:23, “Solomon sat on the throne of the
LORD as king”), or “Thy throne is God [i.e.
Divine] for ever and ever.”
As to:
(1), the context repudiates it. As to
(2), it is a question whether the Hebrew is patient of the
supposed
construction.
At any rate, “God” is understood as a vocative in the
Septuagint
as well as in the Epistle, in which the Septuagint is quoted (for the use of the
nominative form, ὁ θεός – ho Theos – God
- , in a vocative sense, compare
Luke 18:11, 13; Matthew 27:29; Mark 9:25; Luke 8:54;
12:32);’ and in the
Chaldee paraphrase, and all ancient versions, it is understood so
also.
Probably no other interpretation would have been thought of
but for the
difficulty of supposing an earthly king to be thus
addressed. It is to be
observed, however, that the other rendering would express
essentially the
same idea, and be sufficient for the argument. In either
case the throne of
the SON is represented as GOD’S THRONE, AND ETERNAL!
. The only
difference is that the vocative rendering makes more marked
and manifest the
ideal view of his subject taken by the psalmist. For it is
most unlikely that a bard
of the sanctuary, a worshipper of the jealous God of
Israel, would have so
apostrophized any earthly king except as prefiguring “a greater than
Solomon” to come.
It is true that kings are elsewhere called “gods”
in the
plural (as in Psalm 82:6, referred to by our Lord, John
10:35); but
the solemn addressing of an individual king by this title
is (if the vocative
rendering be correct) peculiar to this psalm. The passage
(I Samuel 28:13)
adduced in abatement of the significance of the title,
where the
apparition of Samuel is described by the witch of Endor as “Elohim
ascending out of
the earth,” is not a parallel case. The
word “Elohim” has a
comprehensive meaning, depending on context for its precise
significance.
If vocatively used in a solemn address to a king sitting
upon an everlasting
throne, it surely implies the assigning of Divine honors to
the king so
addressed. In this case still more is implied than in Psalm
2., where the
King is spoken of as God’s Son, enthroned on Zion, the Son
being here
addressed as Himself “Elohim.” It
may be that the inspiring Spirit suggested
language to the psalmist beyond his own comprehension at
the time of
utterance (see II Peter 1:10-11). It may be added that the
ultimate
Messianic reference of the expression is confirmed by
Isaiah 9:6, where
the title El-Gibber (“Mighty God,” Authorized
Version) distinctly used of God
Himself in Ibid. ch.10:21 (compare Deuteronomy 10:17;
Jeremiah 32:18;
Nehemiah 9:32; Psalm 24:8), is applied to the Messiah. A scepter of righteousness
is the scepter of
thy kingdom. In this and the
following clause is expressed
the important idea that the ideal throne of the SON is founded on
RIGHTEOUSNESS,
whence
comes also His peculiar unction with “the oil
of
gladness.” Only
so far as Solomon or other theocratic kings exemplified
the Divine righteousness, did they approach the ideal
position assigned to
the Son. Compare the
latter part of v. 14 in the original promise, II Samuel 7.,
and especially II Samuel 23:3, etc., in the “last words of David.” Observe
also the prominence of the idea in Psalm 72. and in later
prophecy (compare
Isaiah 9:7; 11:2, etc.). Therefore, God, even thy God. The first “God”
here may be again in the vocative, as in the preceding
verse, or it may be as
the Authorized Version takes it (compare Psalm 43:4; 50:7).
Hath anointed thee
with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows. The primary
reference is, not to the
king’s coronation (as in Psalm 89:20), but to unction as
symbolical of
blessing and joy, connected with the custom of anointing
the head at feasts
(compare Deuteronomy 28:40; Psalm 23:5; 92:10; Song of
Solomon 1:12;
Matthew 6:17). “Thy fellows,” in its original
reference, seems most naturally to
Mean “thy associates in royalty,” “other kings;” compare
Psalm 89:27, “I will
make Him my Firstborn, higher than the kings of the
earth.” Or it might mean
the companions of the bridegroom, the παρανύµφιοι – paranumphioi. The latter
reference lends itself readily to the fulfillment in Christ, the Bridegroom of the
Church, whose παρανύµφιοι the redeemed are;
themselves also being,
after their measure, χρῖστοι – christoi - anointed (compare I John 2:20, 27).
But they are also made “kings and priests unto God” by
Christ (Revelation
1:6; 5:10); so that either of the supposed original
references may be shown to
be typical, if it be thought necessary to find a definite
fulfillment of all the
details of the address to the theocratic king. The view
that in the fulfillment the
angels are to be understood as Christ’s µετόχοι
– metochoi – partners - is
inadmissible. There is nothing in the psalm to suggest the
thought of them,
nor does the way in which they are contrasted with the SON
in this chapter
admit of their being here spoken of as His µετόχοι. Men, in the next chapter,
are so spoken of.
The Son and the Angels (vs. 7-9)
“And of the angels He saith, Who maketh His angels,”
etc. Here are two
quotations from the Psalms; the first from Psalm 104:4, the
second
from ch. 45:6-7. Whether the
latter Psalm applied primarily to
Solomon or any other king of ancient
clear that it applies to the ideal King, the Messiah. Our
text presents
additional illustrations of the
great superiority of the Son to the angels.
HIMSELF GOD. They are messengers who execute His behests. “His
angels do his
commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word”
(compare Daniel 9:21; Luke 1:19,
26). But the Son is called God by the
Father. “Unto the Son he saith, Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”
Since God the Father thus
addresses Him He must really be God; for He
calls persons and things by
names which correspond to their natures. There
is a wide interval between the most honored messenger and the only
begotten Son and
Heir of the Father, between the
highest of created beings
and the uncreated God.
They are “His ministers.”
They serve Him swiftly and joyfully. All their
service is religious in its
spirit. Their work is indeed worship. But, however
important the nature of their
service, however exalted its spirit, however
perfect its performance, they
are still servants and subjects. But the Son is
the Sovereign. The Father saith unto Him, “Thy throne, O
God, is for ever
and ever,” etc. The throne and scepter are symbols of royal
authority. “All
authority hath
been given unto me,” said our Lord, “in heaven
and on
earth;”(Matthew
28:18) “I sat down with my Father in His throne;”
(Revelation 3:21) “His kingdom ruleth
over all.”
NATURE, THE SON REIGNS
RIGHTEOUSLY IN A SPIRITUAL
EMPIRE. “Who maketh His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of
fire.” These words are variously interpreted. Dean Perowne (on Psalm
104:4) says, “He clothes His
messengers with the might, the swiftness, the
all-pervading subtlety of wind
and fire.” Alford’s exposition is different:
“He makes His messengers winds, i.e.
He causes His messengers to act in or
by means of the winds; His
servants flames of fire, i.e. commissions them to
assume the agency or form of
flame for His purposes.” And Ebrard:
“Throughout the New Testament
(for example, Romans 8:38; I Peter 3:22)
the angels, at least a class of
them, are regarded as δυνάµεις - dunameis –
powers - of God, i.e. as personal creatures furnished with
peculiar powers,
through whom God
works wonders in the kingdom of nature, and whom He
accordingly makes to be
storm-winds and flames of fire,’ in as far as He lets
them, so to speak, incorporate
themselves with these elements and
operations of nature. It is a
truth declared in the Holy Scriptures of great
speculative importance, that the
miracles of nature, for example the
lightnings and trumpet-sounds on Sinai, are not wrought immediately
and
directly by God, the Governor of
the world, but are called forth at His will
by exalted
creatures specially qualified for this work. This position the
angels hold; they are there to work
terrible wonders in the sphere of nature
before the eyes of a yet
uncultivated people.” But the relation of the Son to
man is spiritual, and His rule is supremely righteous. The eighth verse gives
us three ideas concerning his
government.
Ø
It is perfectly righteous. “The
scepter of uprightness is the scepter of
thy
kingdom.”
o
His rule over man as
an individual is righteous. All His
requirements are IN HARMONY WITH and TEND TO
PROMOTE OUR WELL BEING! In keeping His
commandments “there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:11)
o
His rule over man in
His social relations is righteous. What
could be more equitable or
more wise than the great rule
laid down by our Lord for
the regulation of our conduct
toward each other? — “All
things whatsoever ye would
that men should do
to you, do ye even so to them.”
(Matthew 7:12)
o
His rule over man in
his relations to God is righteous.
He requires us to obey,
reverence, and love God. Is it
not reasonable and
equitable that the most excellent and
gracious Being should be
loved? that the greatest and
most glorious Being should be
reverenced? that our
Creator, Sustainer, and
Sovereign should be obeyed?
“The Law is holy, and the commandment is
holy and just; and good.” (Romans 7:12)
His reign is not only
equitable, but benevolent.
Ø
It is perfectly righteous because of His love of
righteousness. He reigns
in uprightness, not as a matter
of policy, but of principle; this grand
feature of His government
springs from Hhis own infinite affection
for righteousness, and the
perfect righteousness of His character.
“Thou hast loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity;” (v.
9)
“The righteous
Lord loveth righteousness.” (Psalm
11:7)
Ø
It is perpetual because it is perfectly righteous. “Thy throne, O God,
is
for ever and ever.”
(v. 8) His reign is eternal because it is equitable.
“The throne is
established by righteousness.” Earthly
“Empires wane and wax,
Are founded, flourish, and decay.”
But “of the increase
of his government and peace there shall be
no end,” etc. (Isaiah 9:7). “He shall reign
over the house of Jacob
for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1:33)
THE SON. “Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil
of
gladness above
thy fellows” (v. 9). Notice:
Ø
The nature of this anointing. “Anointed thee with the oil of gladness.”
This anointing does not indicate
the inauguration of our Lord to His
mediatorial office. The figure is taken from the custom of
anointing
the head of the guests at
festivals (Psalm 23:5), and is intended to
set forth the supreme joy of the Son upon the completion of
HIS REDEMPTIVE
WORK and His exaltation to “the right
hand of the Majesty
on high.”
Ø
The reason of this anointing. “Thou hast loved righteousness,
and hated
iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.”
Because of the perfection of
His character, and of His life and
work upon earth, the Father has blessed Him
with supreme joy.
Ø
The extent of this anointing. “Above thy
fellows,” or associates.
Since the design of the
writer is to exhibit the superiority of the Son
to the angels, we must, I
think, take µετόχους
– metochous – fellows;
pardners - as representing other heavenly beings, partakers in the
same
glorious and sinless state
with Himself, though not in the strict sense
His ‘fellows.’” His joy is
deeper, higher, greater, intenser than that of
any angel. Behold, then, how much greater is the Son than the angels
n all the points
which have come under our notice!
10 “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid
the foundation of the
earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:” 11 “They
shall perish;
but thou remainest;
and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;”
12 “And as a vesture shalt
thou fold them up, and they shall be
changed: but thou art the same, and thy
years shall not fail.”
And, Thou, Lord,
in the beginning, etc. The bearing of
this quotation (from Psalm 102:25-27) on the argument in
hand is not
at first sight obvious; since, in the psalm, the address is
plainly to God,
without any mention of, or apparent reference to, the Son.
The psalm is
entitled, “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is
overwhelmed, and poureth
out his complaint before the LORD.” It seems likely, from
its contents, to
have been written by some suffering saint during the
Babylonian captivity:
for its purport is a prayer, rising into confident
expectation for deliverance
from a state of deep affliction, Israel being in captivity
and Jerusalem in
ruins. The prayed-for and expected deliverance, portrayed
in vs. 16-24,
corresponds so closely, both in thought and expression,
with that pictured
in the latter chapters of Isaiah (beginning at ch. 40.),that we cannot
hesitate in assigning the same meaning to both. There is,
for instance, the
looking down of the Lord from. heaven to behold the
affliction of His
people (compare Isaiah 63:15); the setting free of captives
(Ibid. ch.
42:7; 61:1); the rebuilding and restoration of
this the conversion of the Gentiles to serve the Lord) with
40. — 66.; and especially ch.59:19; 60:2). These are
specimens of
the general correspondence between the two pictures, which
must be
evident to all who have studied both. But the ultimate
reference of Isaiah’s
prophecy is certainly Messianic: wherefore that of the
psalm may be
concluded to be the same. And thus we have made one step in
explanation
of the applicability of this quotation to the argument of
the Epistle in
confirming its ultimate reference to the Messiah’s advent;
to the final
realization of the ideal of the Son, typified by theocratic
kings. But we have
still to account for the apparent application to the Son of
what, in the
original psalm, shows no sign of being addressed to Him.
One view is that
there is no intention in the Epistle of quoting it as
addressed to Him, the
phrase, πρὸς τὸν
υἱόν – pros ton huion – unto the son
(as has been seen) not of
necessity implying such intention. According to this view,
the point of the
quotation is that the Messianic salvation is made to rest
solely on the eternity
and immutability of God — of Him who, as He created all at
first, so, though
heaven and earth should pass away, remains unchanged. And
the character of the
salvation, thus regarded, is conceived to carry with it the
transcendent
super-angelic dignity of its accomplisher, the SON. So, in effect, Ebrard,
who dwells on this as one example of the general character
of apostolical
exegesis, as opposed to rabbinical, in that, instead of
drawing inferences,
often arbitrary, from isolated words or phrases, the
apostolic interpreters
draw all their arguments from the spirit of the
passages considered in their
connection and this
with a depth of intuition peculiar to themselves. Other
commentators consider it more consistent with both the
context and the
argument to see, in the Epistle at least, an intended
address to the SON. If
this be so, our conclusion must be that this application of
the psalmist’s
words is the inspired writer’s own; since it is certainly
not apparent in the
psalm. It by no means follows that the writer of the
Epistle foisted,
consciously or unconsciously, a false meaning into the
psalm. Even apart
from the consideration of his being an inspired contributor
to the New
Testament canon, he was too learned in Scripture, and too
able a reasoner,
to adduce an evidently untenable argument. He may be understood
as
himself applying the passage in a way which he does not
mean to imply
was intended by the psalmist. His drift may be, “You have
seen how in
Psalm 45. the Son is addressed as God, and as having an
eternal throne.
Yea, so Divine is He that the address to the everlasting
God Himself in
another psalm prophetic of His advent may be truly
recognized as an
address to Him.” Whichever view we take of this difficult
passage, this at
any rate is evident — that the inspired writer of the
Epistle, apart from the
question of the relevancy of quotation in the way of
argument, associated
CHRIST in his own mind
with THE UNCHANGEABLE CREATOR OF
ALL THINGS!
The Son and the Universe (vs. 10-12)
“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundation,” etc. The
main subject of the writer is still the same — the
superiority of the Son to
the angels; and he here adduces further proofs of His
superiority by setting
forth the relations of the Son to the universe, in words
which he quotes
from Psalm 102:25-27.
the beginning hast
laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are
the works of thy
hands.” Notice here:
Ø
His existence before the universe. In the beginning He
laid the
foundation of the earth. When
was that? Six thousand years ago? Nay,
millions of years ago. The
expression takes us “back to the fathomless
abyss of ages of ages.” Yet the
existence of the Son takes us back
beyond that, to us,
incomprehensibly remote period. As the artist
must have existed before the
picture which he painted, and the architect
before the edifice which he
designed, so the Son existed before the
universe which He
made. “His goings forth have been from of old,
from
everlasting.” (Micah 5:2)
Ø
His agency in the creation of the universe. He “laid the
foundation of
the earth,” etc. (v. 10) The
heavens and the earth have not always existed;
they had a beginning. They were
not self-originated, but were made by
Another. In the strict sense of the word, they
were created by OUR
LORD! He did not merely arrange or form the heavens
and the earth
out of pre-existent materials;
He created them. He “laid the foundation.”
He began at the beginning, etc.
all shall wax old
as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold
them
up, and they shall
be changed.” (vs. 11-12) Changes are ever going on in the
universe. Spring with its fresh and youthful beauty
passes into the glowing
and gorgeous summer, etc. There
are changes in the earth and in the seas.
Even the mountains, which seem
so stable and immutable, are subject to
change. Suns and stars also are mutable. The heavens
and the earth are
growing old; they have had their
infancy and. youth, etc. These changes are
not effected by blind,
unintelligent forces or laws. The Son of God
superintends all
of them. He is the Framer of all the
laws of Nature, and the
Force of all her forces. He is
the Sustainer as well as the Creator of the
universe. To the thoughtful and
devout man this fact imparts a deeper,
tenderer interest and attraction to the changes which take place in
nature.
Our gracious
Savior and Lord is also the Superintendent
and Sovereign
of the universe.
UNIVERSE. “But thou art the same.” (v. 12) He is the
same in His being
and character, in His will and
purposes. Presiding over a universe in which
all
things are continually
changing, yet with Him there “is no variableness
or
shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)
Ø
He is “the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.” (ch.
13:8)
Ø
He is the same in
knowledge.
Ø
His understanding is
infinite, and He knoweth all things.
Ø
He is the same in
purpose.
The writer of this Epistle speaks
of “the
immutability of His counsel.”
(ch.
6:17) “He is of one mind.” (Job 23:13)
He is the same in
affection. “The mountains shall depart, and
the hills be removed, but my
kindness shall not
depart from thee, nor shall the covenant of my peace be
removed.” (Isaiah
54:10) “Having loved His own which were
in the world,
He loved them unto
the end.” (John 13:1) What an inspiration this supplies
to trust in Him! It was thus, indeed,
that these words were originally employed
by the psalmist; for it is not
“His unchangeableness as the immaterial Spirit
that is spoken of (in Psalm
102:27), but the unchangeableness of
Jehovah in His acts, in His
relation to
covenant faithfulness.” And upon this the
psalmist bases his hope of the
restoration of prosperity to
and purposes and relation to His
people, we may safely confide in Him. “He
abideth faithful; for He cannot deny himself.” (II Timothy 2:13)
shall perish; but thou remainest .... And thy
years shall not fail.” We do not
think that the annihilation of
the heavens and earth is taught here, but that
their present form and aspect
shall pass away. Their substance will remain,
but their present appearance
will perish. “The day of the Lord will come as
a thief; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the
elements shall be
dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works
that are therein shall
be burned up.” (II Peter 3:10)
“The
cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn
temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all
which it inherit, shall dissolve;
And, like
this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a
rack behind.” (Shakespeare.)
But the Lord shall
remain forever and ever. As he existed before the
universe, so shall
he exist when its present forms have disappeared forever.
He is “from everlasting to everlasting.” (Psalm 90:2) “I am the First and
the Last, and the
Living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for
evermore.” (Revelation 1:17-18)
angels! They could not create a
world; but He created the entire universe.
They have no sovereign control
over the transformations of any world; but
He is the supreme Agent
effecting all the changes in every province of all
worlds. They change; their
knowledge changes by way of increase, and
with new
discoveries they have new admirations;
their affections also
change, growing more deep and
intense; but He is superior to all change —
THE IMMUTABLE! They are not
essentially immortal; their continued
existence depends upon Him; but He is essentially immortal — “the living
One,” the Eternal. Seeing
that the Son of God is immutable and eternal,
we have the strongest
encouragement to trust in Him at all times. (Psalm
62:8) Both in His power and in His willingness to
save He is ever the same,
and ”He ever
liveth.” (ch. 7:25) His “years shall not fail.” (v. 12)
13 “But to which of the
angels said he (properly, hath he said)
at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool?” A final and crowning quotation is thus adduced, in the form
in
which the first quotation referring to the SON (v. 5) had been
introduced, to complete the view of his superiority to the
angels. The
quotation is from Psalm 110., the reference of which to the
Messiah is
settled beyond controversy to Christian believers, not only
by its being
quoted or alluded to more frequently than any other psalm
with that
reference in the New Testament (Acts 2:34; 7:55-56; Romans
8:34;
Ephesians 1:20-22; I Peter 3:22; vs.3, 13-14 here; ch.8:1;
10:12-13), and
by the introduction of its language into the Church’s
earliest Creeds, but also
by the authority of our Lord Himself, as recorded by all
the three synoptical
evangelists (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke
20:39-44). Hence readers
of this commentary will not require a confutation of the
arguments of any modern
rationalistic critics who have disputed the Messianic
meaning of the psalm.
Their arguments rest really on their a priori denial
of a “spirit of prophecy” in
the psalms generally; in their refusal to recognize, what
the later prophets recognized,
an unfulfilled ideal in what the psalmists wrote of
theocratic kings. Let us once
recognize this, and we shall perceive in this psalm
peculiar marks of the spirit of
prophecy, reaching beyond any contemporary fulfillment, not
only in the
assignment to the King of a seat the right hand of the heavenly
throne,
but also in His remarkable designation as a “Priest after the order of
Melchizedek,” of which more will be said under chps.
5. and 7. of this
Epistle. It is to be observed also how prophets, long after
the psalm was
written, regarded its ideal as still awaiting fulfillment; e.g.
Daniel
(Daniel 7:13, etc.), whose vision of the Son of man brought
near before
the Ancient of days, and having an everlasting dominion
given Him, is
referred to by our Lord (Matthew 26:64) in connection with
the psalm,
as awaiting fulfillment in Himself; and Zechariah
(6:12-13), who takes up
the idea of the psalm in speaking of the Branch, who was to unite in
Himself royalty and priesthood. The psalm is entitled, “A psalm of David.”
Though this title is prefixed to some psalms the contents
of which suggest
a later date, and is not, therefore, considered proof of
authorship, it proves
at least the tradition and belief of the Jews when the Hebrew
Psalter was
arranged in its existing form. But we have in this case
evidence in the three
Gospels of its universal acceptance as a psalm of David by
the Jews in the
time of our Lord; and, what is of more weight, of His
having Himself
referred to it as such. The whole point of His argument
with the Pharisees
depends on the acknowledgment of David being the speaker,
as well as of
the Messiah being the Person spoken of. None of the
Pharisees thought of
disputing either of these premises; they were evidently
received as
indisputable. Nor,
further, is there in the psalm itself any internal evidence
against its Davidic authorship, though, but for the above
testimony to the contrary,
it might have been the composition of a prophet of
David’s day, or written by
David for use by his people — the term, “my lord,” having
thus a primary
reference to him. In either of these cases we might suppose
the original
conception of v. 1 to have been that of David himself being
enthroned on
while v. 4 might possibly have been suggested by
David’s organization of
the services of the tabernacle, and by the personal part he
took in the ritual
when the ark was removed to
the purpose of the argument according to the view of the
drift of Messianic
psalms which has been explained above. But, even
independently of the
distinct import of our Lord’s words, there are reasons
(pointed out by
Delitzsch) against the supposition of even a primary reference to
David in
the words, “my lord.” Two may be mentioned:
(1) that the
assignment of sacerdotal functions to an earthly king is
contrary to the whole spirit of the Old Testament;
(2) that God’s own
throne is elsewhere represented as, not in
above the heavens.
Now, the conclusion thus arrived at, that David himself
is speaking throughout the psalm of another than himself,
gives a peculiar
force to this final quotation, in that the Antitype is
distinguished from and
raised above the type more evidently than in other
Messianic psalms. In
others (as we have regarded them) the typical king himself
is the primary
object in view, though ideally glorified so as to
foreshadow One greater
than himself; here the typical king seems to have a
distinct vision of the
Messiah apart from himself, and speaks of Him as his Lord.
It does not
follow that David’s own position and circumstances did not
form a basis
for his vision. We perceive traces of them in “the rod of thy strength out of
after warfare and slaughter. But vs. 1 and 4 point still to
another than
himself whom he foresees in the spirit of prophecy. The
psalm begins,
literally translated, “The
voice [or, ‘oracle,’ Hebrew μaun]] of Jehovah
to
my lord, Sit thou
on my right hand,” etc. This sounds like
more than a
mere echo of Nathan’s message, the language being different
and still more
significant. And that such a vision of a future fulfillment
of the promise was
not foreign to the mind of David appears from his “last words” (II Samuel
23:1-5), where also the significant word saun] is
used. And now, mark
what the language of this “oracle” implies — not merely the enthronement
of the Son on
God Himself, i.e. “at the right hand of
the Majesty on high;” God’s own
throne being ever (as has been said above) regarded as
above the heavens,
or, if on earth, above the cherubim. Such, then, being the
meaning of the
“oracle” (and it is the meaning uniformly given it
in the New Testament),
well may it be adduced as the final and crowning proof of
the position
above the angels assigned to the SON
in prophecy.
The contrast between our Lord and the angels in the impressive quotation from
Psalm 110:1, is so entirely Messianic that it is alluded to no less than ten times
in the New Testament. It affirms the superiority and supremacy of our Lord in so
conclusive a manner that no ingenuity of perverse interpretation can
successfully apply it to any monarch, priest, or warrior whatsoever. All
enemies who steadfastly resist his claim must be overthrown by His
righteous and sovereign might. Some have been brought down and are
now under His feet. Rebellious
idolatries have left their witness to His power in broken columns and
deserted temples. Hereafter systems of evil, false
philosophies corrupt
institutions, impenitent and irreconcilable men, and
nations,
must yield to His judicial sentence and final punishment. Some things He
will dash in pieces like a potter’s vessel. He sits at the right hand of the
Father; but the angels are ministering spirits, and go forth at His bidding to
assist and protect those who shall in time enjoy the
fullness of salvation.
14 “Are
they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them
who shall be heirs of
salvation? Are they not all, etc.?
A final expression,
adduced in contrast, of the
position and office of the angels, as seen above.
The Authorized Version suggests the idea,
not conveyed by the Greek, of
guardian angels. The more
correct translation is, Are they not all
(λειτουργικὰ - leitourgika - ministering) spirits, (εἰς διακονίαν
–
eis diakonian – to minister;
for service ) sent forth, on account of those who
are to (διὰ τοὺς µέλλοντας – dia tous mellontas
– for them who shall) inherit
salvation? The allusion is generally to their office of subordinate ministration
in furtherance of the DIVINE PURPOSES OF
HUMAN SALVATION!
the continuance of such office
being denoted by the present participle,
ἀποστελλόµενα – apostellomena – sent
forth; being commissioned.
Christ Greater than the Angels (vs. 4-14)
The Jews used to boast that their Law had been given at
Sinai by the
instrumentality of angels; and they concluded from this
that the Mosaic
dispensation would continue as long as the world itself.
But the apostle
asserts here that the
Lord Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, is
immeasurably greater than the angels; and he supports his
assertion with
abundant evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures. V. 4 supplies
us with the
key to this whole passage. The quotations which follow
illustrate from the
Old Testament the two statements of that verse, while they
also justify the
glorious titles and prerogatives directly ascribed to the
Redeemer in vs. 2-3.
HIGHER THAN THE ANGELS.
“He hath inherited a more excellent
name than they.” Names in modern times are generally quite inexpressive
— mere labels affixed to
individuals to distinguish them from others; but
among the Jews it was otherwise.
The names of God, especially,
symbolized attributes of His
character. So, Christ’s “Name” expresses
His nature.
Ø
He is God’s Son. (v. 5.) In Psalm 2.
we hear His own voice rehearsing
from His Father’s counsel the decree
of His eternal sonship. That decree
dates from everlasting; but it
was to be “declared” again and again, and
particularly by the event of His
resurrection (Romans 1:4). Even Nathan
the prophet had proclaimed it to
David (II Samuel 7:14) in his prophecy
respecting Solomon and “a greater than Solomon.”
Ø
He is Elohim. (vs. 8, 9.) The two
highest Old Testament names of
God are Elohim and Jehovah: none are more distinctive of Deity than
these. So Psalm 45:6 is one of
the great proof-texts for the supreme
divinity of
Christ. There the psalmist addresses
the coming mediatorial
King as God Himself, by-and-by
to be clothed in human nature. He was
to fulfill all righteousness for
man, and to be invested as the God-Man
with the scepter of supreme authority above all His brethren of mankind.
Ø
He is Jehovah. (vs. 10-12.) The idea conveyed by
this Divine name is
that of self-existence. Now, the apostle does
not hesitate here to apply to
Christ the language of Psalm
102. — a Jehovistic psalm — in celebration
of the eternity and
majesty of the Eternal. The
Covenant-Deliverer of
captive
universe; and HE SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED! — the everlasting
Stay and Strength
of His children — after the heavens
shall be no more.
For He is the I AM. (Exodus 3:14) Immutability is one of His glories.
Contrast now with this the name
and nature of the angels. God nowhere
addresses any one of them as His
“Son.” No angel is called Jehovah.
None receives the name Elohim in the
way in which this appellation is
given to Christ. Instead of that, the angels are created beings (v. 7).
They are servants
of God, who in their qualities and uses resemble the
winds and the
lightning. The cherubim fly swiftly
like the “winds;”
the seraphim burn with holy
ardor like a “flame of fire.” The
Son of God is not the peer of the
angels: He is
Jehovah Elohim; and
the loftiest spirits in the
heavenly hierarchy are His creatures.
(I recommend Genesis
17; Genesis 22; Exodus 17; Psalm 19;
Psalm
105; Jeremiah 23:6;Ezekiel 48; Names of God by Nathan Stone –
this website
– CY – 2014)
PROPORTIONATELY HIGHER OFFICIAL POSITION. “Having
become by so much
better than the angels.” He became superior
to the
angels in His official capacity
as the God-Man Mediator — as much
superior as He had been from the
beginning in His essential nature. His
mediatorial preeminence began clearly to appear two thousand years
ago, in connection both with His
humiliation and His exaltation.
Ø
When on earth, Jesus received angelic worship. (v. 6.) This had
been
predicted in Psalm 97. And,
accordingly, when Christ became incarnate,
angels thronged round His
manger-cradle, proclaiming His advent, and
celebrating it in a burst of choral
praise. Angels ministered to Him after
the temptation, and sustained
Him under his great agony. Angels
attended at His resurrection,
and haunted for a time His empty tomb.
Angels encompassed him in his
final ascension to glory.
Ø
Now, in heaven, He sits on God’s right hand. (v. 13.) His official
exaltation had been predicted
in Psalm 110. God never said, “Sit thou on
my right hand” to any angel, i.e.
to any creature. Therefore the illustrious
Priest-King of that psalm is not
a creature; and, if not a creature, He must
be the Creator. The session of
the Mediator at the right hand of Jehovah
implies that the
entire universe is subject to His scepter. (“a scepter of
righteousness is
thy scepter.” (Psalm 45:6) He
employs the
holy angels, and He controls and
restrains the “spiritual hosts of
wickedness.” Contrast now with this the official position of the
angels
(v.14).
o
They are “ministering
spirits” to the Mediator of the new
covenant. They stand before the throne upon which He
sits —
awaiting His
commands, and eager to do His pleasure.
o
He employs their
service on behalf of those “that
shall inherit
salvation.” The angels:
§
encamp round about
believers;
§
they watch over little
children;
§
they are instruments
of good to the poor and the forsaken;
§
they carry away the
spirits of the departed into Abraham’s
bosom;
§
they will gather the
saints at the final judgment.
The Sovereignty of the Son and the Service
of the Angels (vs. 13-14)
“But to which of the angels said he at any time,” etc.? The writer is still
treating of the preeminence of the Son over the angels; and
he shows it in
the facts that Christ is a Sovereign and they are servants.
angels said He at
any time, sit on my right hand until I make thine
enemies
thy footstool?” This quotation the writer makes from Psalm 110. This
psalm is confessedly Messianic.
It is frequently quoted in the New
Testament as applying to our
Lord. No psalm more clearly finds its
ultimate
reference and completion only in Christ.”
The quotation teaches
that:
Ø
The Son is exalted to the mediatorial
throne. “Sit
thou on my right
hand.” “He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
(See our notes on “The exaltation
of His position” as stated in v. 3.)
Ø
He is exalted by the highest will. “But to which of
the angels said He at
any time,” etc.? “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
hand,”
etc.; (Psalm 110:1) “Him God exalted with His right hand to
be a Prince and a Savior.” (Acts 5:31)
Ø
He is exalted with the sublimest
expectation. “Till I make thine
enemies the
footstool of thy feet.” Here are
several points.
o Our Lord has enemies; e.g. ignorance, superstition,
unbelief, vice,
crime, wicked men, etc.
o
These enemies will
certainly be subjugated to Him. Their
subjugation is guaranteed
by the Most High: “Till I make,” etc.
o
These enemies will be
completely subjugated to Him. “Thine
Enemies the
footstool of thy feet.” The reference is
to the ancient
custom of conquerors
placing their feet upon the necks of
vanquished nobles or princes
in token of their complete subjection
(compare Joshua 10:24).
o
He is waiting their
subjugation with assured expectation.
ministering
spirits,” etc.? Notice:
Ø
The
nature of the angels. “Spirits.” We do
not enter upon the question
whether angels are pure spirits
or not. It seems to us that they are not
without some form or vesture;
that they are not “unclothed, but clothed
upon.” Their bodies are
spiritual. “There is a natural body, there is also a
spiritual body.” (I Corinthians 15:44)
Angelic forms are not gross
and
material, but refined and
ethereal. They do not impede their activities or
clog their aspirations, but are
the exquisite vesture of their being and the
suitable vehicle of their power.
(On the qualities of these spirits, see
introduction of our homily on
vs. 3-4.)
Ø
The
office of the angels. “Ministering spirits.”
o They are servants of God. The διακονία – diakonia – ministry –
is not a waiting upon men, but a
fulfillment of their office as
διακονοἰ - diakonoi – ministers of
God. They are not the
servants of the Church, but
the servants of Christ for the
benefit of the
Church.” They are “ministers of His
that do
His pleasure” (Psalm 103:20-21).
o
They are servants
of God on behalf of His people. “Sent forth to
minister for
them who shall be heirs of salvation;”
or, “Sent forth
for ministry on account of those
who shall be heirs of salvation.”
Christians are called “heirs
of salvation” because they “are children
of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
and JOINT-
HEIRS WITH CHRIST” (Romans 8:14-17). And the salvation
which they shall
inherit is not mere deliverance from danger or
release from the
penalty of sin; but COMPLETE AND EVER-
LASTING SALVATION; transformation
into the image and
participation in
the blessedness of the Lord. (Romans 12:2)
Unto these children
of God angels minister. The nature of their
ministry in ancient times we are
able to gather from the Bible, e.g.
§
to
§
to Elijah (I Kings
19:4-8);
§
to Elisha (II Kings
6:16-17);
§
to Daniel (Daniel
6:22; 9:20-27; 10:10-21);
§
to Zacharias (Luke
1:11-20);
§
to Mary (Ibid.
vs.26-38);
§
to the shepherds
(Ibid. ch. 2:9-14);
§
to Mary Magdalene and
other women (Ibid.
ch.24:4-7;
John 20:11-13);
§
to the apostles
immediately after the Ascension (Acts 1:10-11);
§
to the apostles in
prison (Ibid. ch.5:19-20);
§
to Peter (Ibid.
ch.12:7-10); and,
§
to Paul (Ibid. ch. 27:23-24).
They also ministered to our
Lord after His temptation in the
wilderness (Matthew 4:11),
and in His agony in
(Luke 22:43). And there are
statements of Holy Scripture which
bear upon their ministry. “The angel of the Lord encampeth
round about them that fear Him,” etc. (Psalm 34:7); “He shall
give His angels
charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy
ways.
They shall bear
thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy
foot against a
stone.” (Ibid. ch. 91:11-12). They
minister to us
now chiefly by their
influence upon our spirits. They
quicken
within us true thoughts and
pure feelings; they help us to
detect Satanic suggestions and
to repel Satanic solicitations;
they inspire the timid with courage,
and whisper hope to the
despondent —
“ And the
wearied heart grows strong,
As an angel strengthened him,
Fainting in the garden dim
‘Neath the world’s vast woe and wrong.”
(Johann Rist.)
They suggest caution and watchfulness
to the unwary; by their
serene invisible presence
they solace the sufferer; and they
serve about the dying bed
of the saint, and convey the
emancipated spirit to its
heavenly rest. “Lazarus… was carried
by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.”
(Luke 16:22)
o
They are commissioned
by God for this service. He appoints to
each one his sphere of
ministry; and by Him they are “sent forth”
to fulfill their
commissions.
“Oh, th’ exceeding grace
Of highest
God that loves His creatures so,
And all His
works with mercy doth embrace,
That
blessed angels He sends to and fro.
To serve
to wicked man, to serve his wicked foe.
“How oft
do they their silver bowers leave,
To come to
succor us that succor want!
How oft do
they with golden pinions cleave
The flitting
skies, like flying pursuivant,
Against
foul fiends to aid us militant!
They for
us fight, and 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?”
(Spenser.)
Ø
The dignity of the Christian. Angels minister unto him. God cares for
him; for He sends forth the
angels to promote his interests.
Ø
The dignity of service. Angels, the highest
orders of created beings,
serve God by ministering unto
little children, distressed Christians,
and afflicted saints.
Ø
The supreme dignity of the Son of God. He “came not to be
ministered
unto, but to
minister, and to give his life a ransom for many;”
(Mark 10:45) and now He “is on the right hand of God, having gone
into heaven;
angels and authorities and powers being made subject
unto Him,” (I Peter 4:22) When we survey
Almighty God surrounded
by His holy
angels, His thousand thousands of ministering spirits, and
ten thousand
times ten thousand standing before Him, the idea of His
awful majesty
rises before us more powerfully and impressively. We
begin to see how
little we are, how altogether mean and worthless in
ourselves, and how high He
is and fearful. The very lowest of His
angels is
indefinitely above us in this our present state; HOW HIGH,
THEN, MUST BE THE
LORD OF ANGELS! The very
seraphim hide their
faces BEFORE
HIS GLORY while they praise
Him; HOW SHAMEFACED THEN should sinners be when
they
come into HIS PRESENCE!
The
spirits, literally, “liturgical spirits.” The work of the
priests and Levites in
connection with tabernacle and temple was known as a liturgical work.
Again and again in the
Septuagint the work of Aaron and his subordinates
is indicated by this verb, (λειτουργείν – leitourgein - ministering). As the
angels are called liturgical spirits, so the priest and his subordinates
might
have been called liturgical men. They were the men who, on
behalf of all
the people, managed things pertaining to the worship of
Jehovah. So in
several passages the officials connected with the court of a king
are known
as liturgi — liturgical
men. And if we would see what is meant
by calling
the angels liturgical spirits, we cannot do better than
consider, first of all,
Isaiah 6:2-3. There we read of
the six-winged seraphim, who cried one to
another and said, “Holy, holy, holy,
is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth
is full of his glory.”
Saying this,
they were engaged in liturgical service.
Then turn to Revelation 4:8, where we read of
the four living things, each,
like the seraphim, six-winged, who rest not day and night, saying,
“Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty,
which was, and is, and is to come.”
These four living things were also engaged
in liturgical services. What priest
and Levite were on earth, angels were and are in heaven. Nor
angels alone.
The spirits of the
just made perfect are joined to
seraphim, and all others
of the heavenly host by whatever name they may be called, in liturgical
service.
are sent forth on errands of helpfulness to God’s people on earth in their
times of emergency. They
are sent forth to minister to those who shall be
heirs of salvation — heirs of salvation, but not yet rejoicing
in a deliverance
from every sort of evil. We are saved by hope; we are in
process of
salvation, but the process involves trials and sufferings. We are
not without
notable instances of what is meant by angelic service to the heirs
of
salvation. Jesus Himself was, in a certain sense, an heir of
salvation. He had
to be saved from this body of death, if not from this body of
sin. And
concerning Him we read how, at the close of the temptation, angels
came
and ministered to Him. (Matthew 4:11) Then, more important still, because
the service is more definitely indicated, is the opening of
the prison doors to
liberate the apostles (Acts 5:19), and the after-opening to deliver
Peter from
the hands of Herod (Ibid. ch.12:7). And though comparatively
few such
instances of διακονία – diakonia – service - be recorded, that is
not to say
that only a few happened. (I know of a time or two in my own
life, where
that nothing else could have explained what happened! - CY – 2014)
Nor is it to be said that
angelic service has ceased. Angels may
render very important and comforting services to men, although
they
themselves may not be seen.
find their habitual employ in adoring God, in serving Him in
heavenly
worship. But from worship they may at any moment be turned to
work,
and work most agreeable to the will and pleasure of their
Master, doing
something which will be felt as a help by some one who is dear to
Christ.
The λειτουργία – leitourgia - public;
divine service -
fits for the διακονία –
diakonia – ministry
- , and
διακονία , faithfully rendered, sends back
with
fresh zest to the λειτουργία. There is a place for both; and we, who have
also to go forth to minister to the heirs of salvation, shall find our
ministry
all the more effectual if only it can be truly said of us, in
the best sense of
the word, that we are liturgical Christians. That man
whose reading of the
Scriptures has in it not only
quantity but quality, not only
recollection of words
but increasing perception of meaning,
who reads that he may understand and
obey — such a one is a liturgical
Christian. He is constantly enriching his heart,
getting nearer to God,
and, as a matter of course, better able to
serve men. We
must always be serving God,
whether in those things which have the formal
look of Divine service, or
in those which may look nothing more than a
temporal ministry to men. We may at the same time be towards God λειτουργοι
(ministers)
and διακονοι (servants) towards men; we can pray without
ceasing,
and also follow in the footsteps of Him who came, not to be ministered to,
but to minister. (Matthew 20:28)
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All
rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.