Back to the Bible - Meet With God - “The Very Best”

1. How many different traits and titles of Jesus can you list from these verses?
2. Why is this writer mentioning angels so much?
3. How does God speak to you when you read His Word?
4. When was the last time you really listened to what God had to say to you?

Hebrews 1:1 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:2 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;
Hebrews 1:3 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;
Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Hebrews 1:5 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?
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Hebrews 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Hebrews 1:12 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.
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Several years ago, a financial institution ran a successful series of TV ads set in a loud and busy restaurant. Servers bustled, china rattled and customers ordered—chaos. After a few seconds, the camera zoomed in on one table just in time to hear a man say, “Well, that’s what my broker says. What does yours say?” His partner leaned in, “Well, my broker is _____ And he says…”

At that moment we realize that the entire scene has suddenly stopped—mid-step, mid-bite and mid-sentence. Everyone within earshot was leaning toward the speaker, waiting for the next words. As the scene fades, we hear the tag line, “When ____ talks, people listen!” That company found a clever way to state its confidence in its ability to offer financial advice.

This week, we’re looking at a brief description of God’s communication plan. God knew what He was doing. He had truth and guidance to offer people, and He used “various ways” to get His message through. God spoke and people listened. Well, a few people listened. Actually, the prophets proclaimed, but for the most part the people ignored them.

When we speak and others don’t listen, we usually decide to be silent. God didn’t. He kept talking. He continued to communicate. Instead of backing away, God came near. Eventually, God came here!

As humans, we have a longstanding problem. It isn’t that God hasn’t spoken; it’s that we haven’t listened. This is just one of the amazing things about grace—that God would continue to talk to those who refused to hear. In fact, God has spoken as clearly as He can. He didn’t finally speak through Jesus because everything else He tried failed. God never “tries”; God never fails. He came to earth because that was His plan all along.

We can be amazed about grace because even though people have always had enough clues and reasons to listen to God (see Rom. 1), God gave us even more! We know God loves us. We know how much God loves us. He created us and then “re-created” us by taking care of the sin that had “ruined” us. God did all that through Jesus. That’s why, when Jesus speaks, we should always listen!

We often fill up our lives with so much noise and activity that it’s difficult to really hear anything going on around us. And when we pray, we can also spend most of our time talking to God rather than listening to Him. Make an appointment this week to really listen to God. Get in a quiet place where you’ll have no interruptions. Ask God to speak to you, and then just be still before Him. You might be amazed at what you hear!

Take a moment and re-read Hebrews 1:10–12. Look around at all that will eventually “be changed,” including you. Jesus knows exactly where you are. You’re in His plan. Read the verses aloud as a prayer, echoing the psalmist’s praise for Jesus.

GOOD EVENING SAINTS!

COMMENTARIES

ON THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE HEBREWS

CHAPTER 1
__________________________________________________________________

Hebrews 1:1-2

1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past
unto the fathers by the prophets,

1. Deus olim multifariam multisque modis loquutus patribus per
prophetas,

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;

2. Extremis hisce diebus loquutus est nobis per Filium, quem constituit
haeredem omnium, per quem etiam secula condidit.

God formerly, etc. This beginning is for the purpose of commending the
doctrine taught by Christ; for it shows that we ought not only
reverently to receive it, but also to be satisfied with it alone. That
we may understand this more clearly, we must observe the contrast
between each of the clauses. First, the Son of God is set in opposition
to the prophets; then we to the fathers; and, thirdly, the various and
manifold modes of speaking which God had adopted as to the fathers, to
the last revelation brought to us by Christ. But in this diversity he
still sets before us but one God, that no one might think that the Law
militates against the Gospel, or that the author of one is not the
author of the other. That you may, therefore, understand the full
import of this passage, the following arrangement shall be given, —

God spake

Formerly by the Prophets

Now by the Son;

Then to the Fathers

But now to us;

Then at various times

Now as at the end of the times.

This foundation being laid, the agreement between the Law and the
Gospel is established; for God, who is ever like himself, and whose
word is the same, and whose truth is unchangeable, has spoken as to
both in common.

But we must notice the difference between us and the fathers; for God
formerly addressed them in a way different from that which he adopts
towards us now. And first indeed as to them he employed the prophets,
but he has appointed his Son to be an ambassador to us. [7] Our
condition, then, in this respect, is superior to that of the fathers.
Even Moses is to be also classed among the prophets, as he is one of
the number of those who are inferior to the Son. In the manner also in
which revelation was made, we have an advantage over them. For the
diversity as to visions and other means adopted under the Old
Testament, was an indication that it was not yet a fixed state of
things, as when matters are put completely in order. Hence he says,
multifariously and in many ways”. God would have indeed followed the
same mode perpetually to the end, had the mode been perfect and
complete. It hence follows, that this variety was an evidence of
imperfection.

The two words I thus understand: I refer multifariously to a diversity
as to times; for the Greek word polumeros which we may render, “in many
parts,” as the case usually is, when we intend to speak more fully
hereafter; but polutropos points out a diversity, as I think, in the
very manner itself. [8] And when he speaks of the last times, he
intimates that there is no longer any reason to expect any new
revelation; for it was not a word in part that Christ brought, but the
final conclusion. It is in this sense that the Apostles take the last
times and the last days. And Paul means the same when he says, “Upon
whom the ends of the world are come.” (1 Corinthians 10:11.) If God
then has spoken now for the last time, it is right to advance thus far;
so also when you come to Christ, you ought not to go farther: and these
two things it is very needful for us to know. For it was a great
hindrance to the Jews that they did not consider that God had deferred
a fuller revelation to another time; hence, being satisfied with their
own Law, they did not hasten forward to the goal. But since Christ has
appeared, an opposite evil began to prevail in the world; for men
wished to advance beyond Christ. What else indeed is the whole system
of Popery but the overleaping of the boundary which the Apostle has
fixed? As, then, the Spirit of God in this passage invites all to come
as far as Christ, so he forbids them to go beyond the last time which
he mentions. In short, the limit of our wisdom is made here to be the
Gospel. [9]

2. Whom he has appointed, heir, etc. He honors Christ with high
commendations, in order to lead us to show him reverence; for since the
Father has subjected all things to him, we are all under his authority.
He also intimates that no good can be found apart from him, as he is
the heir of all things. It hence follows that we must be very miserable
and destitute of all good things except he supplies us with his
treasures. He further adds that this honor of possessing all things
belongs by right to the Son, because by him have all things been
created. At the same time, these two things [10] are ascribed to Christ
for different reasons.

The world was created by him, as he is the eternal wisdom of God, which
is said to have been the director of all his works from the beginning;
and hence is proved the eternity of Christ, for he must have existed
before the world was created by him. If, then, the duration of his time
be inquired of, it will be found that it has no beginning. Nor is it
any derogation to his power that he is said to have created the world,
as though he did not by himself create it. According to the most usual
mode of speaking in Scripture, the Father is called the Creator; and it
is added in some places that the world was created by wisdom, by the
word, by the Son, as though wisdom itself had been the creator, [or the
word, or the Son.] But still we must observe that there is a difference
of persons between the Father and the Son, not only with regard to men,
but with regard to God himself. But the unity of essence requires that
whatever is peculiar to Deity should belong to the Son as well as to
the Father, and also that whatever is applied to God only should belong
to both; and yet there is nothing in this to prevent each from his own
peculiar properties.

But the word heir is ascribed to Christ as manifested in the flesh; for
being made man, he put on our nature, and as such received this
heirship, and that for this purpose, that he might restore to us what
we had lost in Adam. For God had at the beginning constituted man, as
his Son, the heir of all good things; but through sin the first man
became alienated from God, and deprived himself and his posterity of
all good things, as well as of the favor of God. We hence only then
begin to enjoy by right the good things of God, when Christ, the
universal heir, admits to a union with himself; for he is an heir that
he may endow us with his riches. But the Apostle now adorns him with
this title, that we may know that without him we are destitute of all
good things.

If you take all in the masculine gender, the meaning is, that we ought
all to be subject to Christ, because we have been given to him by the
Father. But I prefer reading it in the neuter gender; then it means
that we are driven from the legitimate possession of all things, both
in heaven and on earth, except we be united to Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

[7] The absence of the definite article before huio is not unusual in
the New Testament, it being often omitted before all sorts of nouns. In
many instances it is Hebrewism, and so here; for Chrysostom in his
comment supplies it, and mentions that en here is dia, which is another
Hebrewism. — Ed.

[8] Some of the fathers, such as Chrysostom, regarded the two words as
meaning the same thing; but there is no reason for this. On the
contrary, each word has a distinct meaning; one expresses a variety as
to parts or portions, and the other variety as to the mode or manner.
The “parts” clearly refer to the different portions of revelation
communicated to “holy men” in different ages of the world. Hence the
meaning, though not the literal rendering, is given in our version, “at
sundry time;” or “often”, as by Stuart; or “at many times”, as by
Doddridge. A more literal version is given by Macknight, “in sundry
parts”. Most agree as to the second word, that it designates the
various modes of communication, — by visions, dreams, interposition of
angels, and speaking face to face, as the case was with Moses; see
Numbers 12:6-8. And there was another variety in the manner, sometimes
in plain language, and at another time in similitudes and parables. —
Ed.

[9] It is said that the MSS, are in favor of eschatou “in the last of
these days.” Were it not for “these”, this might be allowed, as the
literal rendering of these Hebrew words often used, B+#X+R+J+T+
H+M+J+M%, “at the extremity of the days”, (see Isaiah 2:2; Hosea 3:5,
etc.) but the sentence, as changed by Griesbach and others, makes no
sense, and is inconsistent with the words as elsewhere used by Paul;
see 2 Timothy 3:1. A mere majority of MSS, is no sufficient authority
for a reading. — Ed.

[10] That is, heirship and creation.
__________________________________________________________________

Hebrews 1:3

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.

3. Qui quum sit splendor gloriae et character substantiae ejus,
portetque omnia verbo suo potenti, peccatorum nostrorum purgatione per
seipsum facta, considit in dextera magnificentiae in excelsis.

3. Who being the brightness of his glory, etc. These things are said of
Christ partly as to his divine essence, and partly as a partaker of our
flesh. When he is called the brightness of his glory and the impress of
his substance, his divinity is referred to; the other things appertain
in a measure to his human nature. The whole, however, is stated in
order to set forth the dignity of Christ.

But it is for the same reason that the Son is said to be “the
brightness of his glory”, and “the impress of his substance:” they are
words borrowed from nature. For nothing can be said of things so great
and so profound, but by similitudes taken from created things. There is
therefore no need refinedly to discuss the question how the Son, who
has the same essence with the Father, is a brightness emanating from
his light. We must allow that there is a degree of impropriety in the
language when what is borrowed from created things is transferred to
the hidden majesty of God. But still the things which are indent to our
senses are fitly applied to God, and for this end, that we may know
what is to be found in Christ, and what benefits he brings to us.

It ought also to be observed that frivolous speculations are not here
taught, but an important doctrine of faith. We ought therefore to apply
these high titles given to Christ for our own benefit, for they bear a
relation to us. When, therefore, thou hear that the Son is the
brightness of the Father’s glory, think thus with thyself, that the
glory of the Father is invisible until it shines forth in Christ, and
that he is called the impress of his substance, because the majesty of
the Father is hidden until it shows itself impressed as it were on his
image. They who overlook this connection and carry their philosophy
higher, weary themselves to no purpose, for they do not understand the
design of the Apostle; for it was not his object to show what likeness
the Father bears to the Son; but, as I have said, his purpose was
really to build up our faith, so that we may learn that God is made
known to us in no other way than in Christ: [11] for as to the essence
of God, so immense is the brightness that it dazzles our eyes, except
it shines on us in Christ. It hence follows, that we are blind as to
the light of God, until in Christ it beams on us. It is indeed a
profitable philosophy to learn Christ by the real understanding of
faith and experience. The same view, as I have said is to be taken of
“the impress;” for as God is in himself to us incomprehensible, his
form appears to us only in his Son. [12]

The word apaugasma means here nothing else but visible light or
refulgence, such as our eyes can bear; and charakter is the vivid form
of a hidden substance. By the first word we are reminded that without
Christ there is no light, but only darkness; for as God is the only
true light by which it behaves us all to be illuminated, this light
sheds itself upon us, so to speak, only by irradiation. By the second
word we are reminded that God is truly and really known in Christ; for
he is not his obscure or shadowy image, but his impress which resembles
him, as money the impress of the die with which it is stamped. But the
Apostle indeed says what is more than this, even that the substance of
the Father is in a manner engraven on the Son. [13]

The word upostasis which, by following others, I have rendered
substance, denotes not, as I think, the being or essence of the Father,
but his person; for it would be strange to say that the essence of God
is impressed on Christ, as the essence of both is simply the same. But
it may truly and fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the
Father is exhibited in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is
in the Father. And in this sense do the orthodox fathers take this
term, hypostasis, considering it to be threefold in God, while the
essence (ousia) is simply one. Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word
substance for person. But though it be not the Apostle’s object in this
place to speak of what Christ is in himself, but of what he is really
to us, yet he sufficiently confutes the Asians and Sabellians; for he
claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and also refers to two
distinct persons, as to the Father and the Son. For we hence learn that
the Son is one God with the Father, and that he is yet in a sense
distinct from him, so that a subsistence or person belongs to both.

And upholding (or bearing) all things, etc. To uphold or to bear here
means to preserve or to continue all that is created in its own state;
for he intimates that all things would instantly come to nothing, were
they not sustained by his power. Though the pronoun his may be referred
to the Father as well as to the Son, as it may be rendered “his own,”
yet as the other exposition is more commonly received, and well suits
the context, I am disposed to embrace it. Literally it is, “by the word
of his power;” but the genitive, after the Hebrew manner, is used
instead of an adjective; for the perverted explanation of some, that
Christ sustains all things by the word of the Father, that is, by
himself who is the word, has nothing in its favor: besides, there is no
need of such forced explanation; for Christ is not wont to be called
rhema, saying, but logos, word. [14] Hence the “word” here means simply
a nod; and the sense is, that Christ who preserves the whole world by a
nod only, did not yet refuse the office of effecting our purgation.

Now this is the second part of the doctrine handled in this Epistle;
for a statement of the whole question is to be found in these two
chapters, and that is, that Christ, endued with supreme authority,
ought to be head above all others, and that as he has reconciled us to
his Father by his own death, he has put an end to the ancient
sacrifices. And so the first point, though a general proposition, is
yet a twofold clause.

When he further says, by himself, there is to be understood here a
contrast, that he had not been aided in this by the shadows of the
Mosaic Law. He shows besides a difference between him and the Levitical
priests; for they also were said to expiate sins, but they derived this
power from another. In short, he intended to exclude all other means or
helps by stating that the price and the power of purgation were found
only in Christ. [15]

Sat down on the right hand, etc.; as though he had said, that having in
the world procured salvation for men, he was received into celestial
glory, in order that he might govern all things. And he added this in
order to show that it was not a temporary salvation he has obtained for
us; for we should otherwise be too apt to measure his power by what now
appears to us. He then reminds us that Christ is not to be less
esteemed because he is not seen by our eyes; but, on the contrary, that
this was the height of his glory, that he has been taken and conveyed
to the highest seat of his empire. The right hand is by a similitude
applied to God, though he is not confined to any place, and has not a
right side nor left. The session then of Christ means nothing else but
the kingdom given to him by the Father, and that authority which Paul
mentions, when he says that in his name every knee should bow.
(Philippians 2:10) Hence to sit at the right hand of the Father is no
other thing than to govern in the place of the Father, as deputies of
princes are wont to do to whom a full power over all things is granted.
And the word majesty is added, and also on high, and for this purpose,
to intimate that Christ is seated on the supreme throne whence the
majesty of God shines forth. As, then, he ought to be loved on account
of his redemption, so he ought to be adored on account of his royal
magnificence. [16]
__________________________________________________________________

[11] The fathers and some modern divines have held that these words
express the eternal relation between the Father and the Son. But
Calvin, with others, such as Beza, Dr. Owen, Scott and Stuart, have
regarded the words as referring to Christ as the Messiah, as the Son of
God in human nature, or as Mediator, consistently with such passages as
these, — “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” John 14:9; “He
that hath seen me hath seen him that sent me.” (John 12:45). By this
view we avoid altogether the difficulty that arises from the
expressions, “the impress of his substance,” or essence, he being so,
not as to his eternal divinity, but as a Mediator. — Ed.

[12] The remarkable wisdom of the preceding remarks must be approved by
every enlightened Christian. There is an “Excursus” in Professor
Stuart’s Commentary on this Epistle, on the same subject, which is very
valuable, distinguished for caution, acuteness, and sound judgment.
Well would it be were all divines to show the same humility on a
subject so remote from human comprehension. The bold and unhallowed
speculations of some of the fathers, and of the schoolmen, and divines
after them, have produced infinite mischief, having occasioned
hindrances to the reception of the truth respecting our Savior’s
divinity, which would have otherwise never existed. — Ed.

[13] See [2]Appendix A.

[14] Stuart following Chrysostom, renders the words pheran,
“controlling” or governing, and so does Schleusner; but the sense of
“upholding” or sustaining, or supporting, is more suitable to the words
which follow — “by the word of his power,” or by his powerful word.
Had it been “by the word of his wisdom,” then controlling or governing
would be compatible; but as it is “power”, doubtless sustension or
preservation is the most congruous idea. Besides, this is the most
obvious and common meaning of the word, and so rendered by most
expositors; among others by Beza, Doddridge, Macknight and Bloomfield.
Doddridge gives this paraphrase, — “Upholding the universe which he
hath made by the efficacious word of his Father’s power, which is ever
resident in him as his own, by virtue of that intimate but incomparable
union which renders them one.” This view is consistent with the whole
passage: “his substance” and “his power” corresponds; and it is said,
“by whom he made the world,” so it is suitable to say that he sustains
the world by the Father’s power. — Ed

[15] The word here used means properly “purification,” but is used for
expiation by the Sept.; see Exodus 30:10. The same truth is meant as
when in chapter 10:12, that Christ, “after he had offered on sacrifice
for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.” The reference
here cannot be to the actual purification of his people; for what was
done by Christ when he died is what is spoken of, even when he “put
away sin” as it is said in chapter 9:26, “by the sacrifice for
himself.” The word then, may be forgiveness proceeds from the
atonement: see 1 John 1:9. Dr. Owen gives three reasons for considering
the word in the sense of expiation or atonement, — It is so rendered
in some instances by the Septuagint; the act spoken is past, while
cleansing or purification is what is effected now; and “himself” shows
that it is not properly sanctification as that is effected by means of
the word, (Ephesians 5:26,) and by the regenerating Spirit. (Titus 3:5)
The version of Stuart is, “made expiation for our sins,” which is no
doubt the meaning. — Ed.

[16] It has been observed by some that in these verses the three
offices of Christ are to be found: the Father spoke by him as a
prophet; he made expiation for our sins as a priest; and he sits at
God’s right hand as a king. — Ed.

####################################################################################################### __________________________________________________________________

Hebrews 1:4-6

4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance
obtained a more excellent name than they.

4. Tanto praestantior angelis factus, quanto excellentius prae ipsis
sortitus est nomen.

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?

5. Cui enim inquam angelorum dixit, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui
te? Et rursus, ego illi in Patrem, et ipse erit mihi in Filium.

6. And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he
saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

6. Rursus autem quum introducit filium in orbem dicit, Et adorent eum
omnes angeli Dei.

4. Being made so much better, etc. After having raised Christ above
Moses and all others, he now amplifies His glory by a comparison with
angels. It was a common notion among the Jews, that the Law was given
by angels; they attentively considered the honorable things spoken of
them everywhere in Scripture; and as the world is strangely inclined to
superstition, they obscured the glory of God by extolling angels too
much. It was therefore necessary to reduce them to their own rank, that
they might not overshadow the brightness of Christ. And first he proves
from his name, that Christ far excelled them, for he is called the Son
of God; [17] and that he was distinguished by this title he shows by
two testimonies from Scripture, both of which must be examined by us;
and then we shall sum up their full import.

5. Thou art my Son, etc. It cannot be denied but that this was spoken
of David, that is, as he sustained the person of Christ. Then the
things found in this Psalm must have been shadowed forth in David, but
were fully accomplished in Christ. For that he by subduing many enemies
around him, enlarged the borders of his kingdom, it was some
foreshadowing of the promise, “I will give thee the heathen for thine
inheritance.” But how little was this in comparison with the amplitude
of Christ’s kingdom, which extends from the east to the west? For the
same reason David was called the son of God, having been especially
chosen to perform great things; but his glory was hardly a spark, even
the smallest, to that glory which shone forth in Christ, on whom the
Father has imprinted his own image. So the name of Son belongs by a
peculiar privilege to Christ alone, and cannot in this sense be applied
to any other without profanation, for him and no other has the Father
sealed.

But still the argument of the Apostle seems not to be well-grounded;
for how does he maintain that Christ is superior to angels except on
this ground, that he has the name of a Son? As though indeed he had not
this in common with princes and those high in power, of whom it is
written, “Ye are gods and the sons of the most”, (Psalm 50:6;) and as
though Jeremiah had not spoken as honorably of all Israel, when he
called them the firstborn of God. (Jeremiah 31:9.) They are indeed
everywhere called children or sons. Besides, David calls angels the
sons of God;

“Who,” he says, “is like to Jehovah among the sons of God?” (Psalm
84:6.)

The answer to all this is in no way difficult. Princes are called by
this name on account of a particular circumstance; as to Israel, the
common grace of election is thus denoted; angels are called the sons of
God as having a certain resemblance to him, because they are celestial
spirits and possess some portion of divinity in their blessed
immortality. But when David without any addition calls himself as the
type of Christ the Son of God, he denotes something peculiar and more
excellent than the honor given to angels or to princes, or even to all
Israel. Otherwise it would have been an improper and absurd expression,
if he was by way of excellence called the son of God, and yet had
nothing more than others; for he is thus separated from all other
beings. When it is said so exclusively of Christ, “Thou art my Son,” it
follows that this honor does not belong to any of the angels. [18]

If any one again objects and says, that David was thus raised above the
angels; to this I answer, that it is nothing strange for him to be
elevated above angels while bearing the image of Christ; for in like
manner there was no wrong done to angels when the highpriest, who made
an atonement for sins, was called a mediator. They did not indeed
obtain that title as by right their own; but as they represented the
kingdom of Christ, they derived also the name from him. Moreover, the
sacraments, though in themselves lifeless, are yet honored with titles
which angels cannot claim without being guilty of sacrilege. It is
hence evident that the argument derived from the term Son, is well
grounded. [19]

As to his being begotten, we must briefly observe, that it is to be
understood relatively here: for the subtle reasoning of Augustine is
frivolous, when he imagines that today means perpetuity or eternity.
Christ doubtless is the eternal Son of God, for he is wisdom, born
before time; but this has no connection with this passage, in which
respect is had to men, by whom Christ was acknowledged to be the Son of
God after the Father had manifested him. Hence that declaration or
manifestation which Paul mentions in Romans 1:4, was, so to speak, a
sort of an external begetting; for the hidden and internal which had
preceded, was unknown to men; nor could there have been any account
taken of it, had not the Father given proof of it by a visible
manifestation. [20]

I will be to him a Father, etc. As to this second testimony the former
observation holds good. Solomon is here referred to, and though he was
inferior to the angels, yet when God promised to be his Father, he was
separated from the common rank of all others; for he was not to be to
him a Father as to one of the princes, but as to one who was more
eminent than all the rest. By the same privilege he was made a Son; all
others were excluded from the like honor. But that this was not said of
Solomon otherwise than as a type of Christ, is evident from the
context; for the empire of the whole world is destined for the Son
mentioned there, and perpetuity is also ascribed to his empire: on the
other hand, it appears that the kingdom of Solomon has confined within
narrow bounds, and was so far from being perpetual, that immediately
after his death it was divided, and some time afterwards it fell
altogether. Again, in that Psalm the sun and moon are summoned as
witnesses, and the Lord swears that as long as they shall shine in the
heavens, that kingdom shall remain safe: and on the other hand, the
kingdom of David in a short time fell into decay, and at length utterly
perished. And further, we may easily gather from many passages in the
Prophets, that that promise was never understood otherwise than of
Christ; so that no one can evade by saying that this is a new comment;
for hence also has commonly prevailed among the Jews the practice of
calling Christ the Son of David.

6. And again, when he bringeth or introduceth [21] , etc. He now proves
by another argument that Christ is above the angels, and that is
because the angels are bidden to worship him. (Psalm 97:7.) It hence
follows that he is their head and Prince. But it may seem unreasonable
to apply that to Christ which is spoken of God only. Were we to answer
that Christ is the eternal God, and therefore what belongs to God may
justly be applied to him, it would not perhaps be satisfactory to all;
for it would avail but little in proving a doubtful point, to argue in
this case from the common attributes of God.

The subject is Christ manifested in the flesh, and the Apostle
expressly says, that the Spirit thus spoke when Christ was introduced
into the world; but this would not have been said consistently with
truth except the manifestation of Christ be really spoken of in the
Psalm. And so the case indeed is; for the Psalm commences with an
exhortation to rejoice; nor did David address the Jews, but the whole
earth, including the islands, that is, countries beyond the sea. The
reason for this joy is given, because the Lord would reign. Further, if
you read the whole Psalm, you will find nothing else but the kingdom of
Christ, which began when the Gospel was published; nor is the whole
Psalm anything else but a solemn decree, as it were, by which Christ
was sent to take possession of His kingdom. Besides, what joy could
arise from His kingdom, except it brought salvation to the whole world,
to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews? Aptly then does the Apostle say
here, that he was introduced into the world, because in that Psalm what
is described is his coming to men.

The Hebrew word, rendered angels, is Elohim — gods; but there is no
doubt but that the Prophet speaks of angels; for the meaning is, that
there is no power so high but must be in subjection to the authority of
this king, whose advent was to cause joy to the whole world.
__________________________________________________________________

[17] Some by “name” understand dignity, but not correctly, as it
appears from what follows; for the name, by which he is proved here to
be superior to angels, was that of a Son, as Calvin here states. — Ed.

[18] “If it be objected,” says Stuart, “that angels are also called
sons, and men too, the answered is easy: No one individual, except
Jesus, is ever called by way of eminence, the Son of God, i.e., the
Messiah or the King of Israel,” John 1:49. By “The Son of God” is to be
understood here His kingly office: He was a Son as one endowed with
superior power and authority; and angels are not sons in this respect.
— Ed.

[19] The foregoing is a sufficient answer to Doddridge, Stuart, and
others, who hold that the texts quoted must refer exclusively to
Christ, else the argument of the Apostle would be inconclusive. David
is no doubt called a son in the 2^nd Psalm, but as a king, and in that
capacity as a type of Christ; and what is said of him as a king, and
what is promised to him, partly refers to himself and to his
successors, and partly to Christ whom he represented. How to
distinguish these things is now easy, as the character of Christ is
fully developed in the New Testament. We now see the reason why David
was called a son, and why Solomon, as in the next quotation, was called
a son; they as kings of Israel, that is, of God’s people, were
representatives of him who is alone really or in a peculiar sense the
Son of God, the true king of Israel, an honor never allotted to angels.
(See [3]Appendix B) — Ed.

[20] Many have interpreted to-day as meaning eternity; but there is
nothing to countenance such a view. As to the type, David, his “to-day”
was his exaltation to the throne; the “to-day” of Christ, the antitype,
is something of a corresponding character; it was his resurrection and
exaltation to God’s right hand, where he sits, as it were, on the
throne of David. See Acts 2:30; 5:30, 31; 13:33. — Ed.

[21] See [4]Appendix C.
__________________________________________________________________

Hebrews 1:7-9

7. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his
ministers a flame of fire.

7. Et ad angelos quidem dicit, Qui facit angelos suos spiritus et
ministros suos flamman ignis.

8. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.

8. Ad Filium vero, Thronus tuus, O Deus, in seculum seculi; virga
directionis, virga regni tui:

9. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,
even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows.

9. Dilexisti justitiam et odisti iniquitatem; propterea unxit te Deus
tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis.

7. And to the angels, etc. To the angels means of the angels. But the
passage quoted seems to have been turned to another meaning from what
it appears to have; for as David is there describing the manner in
which we see the world to be governed, nothing is more certain than the
winds are mentioned, which he says are made messengers by the Lord, for
he employs them as his runners; so also, when he purifies the air by
lightnings, he shows what quick and swift ministers he has to obey his
orders. But this has nothing to do with angels. Some have had recourse
to an allegory, as though the Apostle explained the plain, and as they
say, the literal sense allegorically of angels. But it seems preferable
to me to consider this testimony is brought forward for this purpose,
that it might by a similitude be applied to angels, and in this way
David compares winds to angels, because they perform offices in this
world similar to what the angels do in heaven; for the winds are, as it
were, visible spirits. And, doubtless, as Moses, describing the
creation of the world, mentioned only those things which are subject to
our senses, and yet intended that higher things should be understood;
so David in describing the world and nature, represented to us on a
tablet what ought to be understood respecting the celestial orders.
Hence I think that the argument is one of likeness or similarity, when
the Apostle transfers to angels what properly applies to the winds.
[22]

8. But to the Son, etc. It must indeed be allowed, that this Psalm was
composed as a marriage song for Solomon; for here is celebrated his
marriage with the daughter of the king of Egypt; [23] but it cannot yet
be denied but that what is here related, is much too high to be applied
to Solomon. The Jews, that they may not be forced to own Christ to be
called God, make an evasion by saying, it at the throne of God is
spoken of, or that the verb “established” is to be understood. So that,
according to the first exposition, the word Elohim, God, is to be in
construction with throne, “the throne of God;” and that according to
the second, it is supposed to be a defective sentence. But these are
mere evasions. Whosoever will read the verse, who is of a sound mind
and free from the spirit of contention, cannot doubt but that the
Messiah is called God. Nor is there any reason to object, that the word
Elohim is sometimes given to angels and to judges; for it is never
found to be given simply to one person, except to God alone. [24]

Farther, that I may not contend about a word, whose throne can be said
to be established forever, except that of God only? Hence the
perpetuity of his kingdom is an evidence of his divinity.

The scepter of Christ’s kingdom is afterwards called the scepter of
righteousness; of this there were some, though obscure, lineaments in
Solomon; he exhibited them as far as he acted as a just king and
zealous for what was right. But righteousness in the kingdom of Christ
has a wider meaning; for he by his gospel, which is his spiritual
scepter, renews us after the righteousness of God. The same thing must
be also understood of his love of righteousness; for he causes it to
reign in his own people, because he loves it.

9. Wherefore God has appointed him, etc. This was indeed truly said of
Solomon, who was made a king, because God had preferred him to his
brethren, who were otherwise his equals, being the sons of the king.
But this applies more suitably to Christ, who has adopted us as his
joint heirs, though not so in our own right. But he was anointed above
us all, as it was beyond measure, while we, each of us, according to a
limited portion, as he has divided to each of us. Besides, he was
anointed for our sake, in order that we may all draw out of his
fatness. Hence he is the Christ, we are Christians proceeding from him,
as rivulet from a fountain. But as Christ received this unction when in
the flesh, he is said to have been anointed by his God; for it would be
inconsistent to suppose him inferior to God, except in his human
nature. [25]
__________________________________________________________________

[22] Many have been the explanations of this sentence; but this is the
most suitable to the passage as it occurs in Psalm 104:4, and to the
design of the Apostle; it is the one adopted by Doddridge, Stuart, and
Bloomfield. The meaning would be thus more apparent, — “Who maketh
like his angels the winds, and like his ministers the flaming fire,”
that is, the winds are subject to him as the angels are, and also the
flaming fire as his ministers or attendants. The particle B+ is
sometimes omitted in Hebrew. — Ed.

[23] It is generally admitted to be a kind of epithalamium, but not on
the occasion here specified, as there was nothing in that marriage that
in any degree correspond with the contents of the Psalm. Such was the
opinion of Beza, Dr. Owen, Scott, and Horsley. — Ed.

[24] The Hebrew will admit of no other construction than that given in
our version and by Calvin. The Greek version, the Sept., which the
Apostle adopts, seems at first view to be different, as “God” is in the
nominative case, ho Theos; but the Sept. used in commonly instead of
the vocative case. We meet with two instances in the seventh Psalm,
verses 1 and 3, and in connection with “Lord,” kurie in the vocative
case. See also Psalm 10:12; 41:1, etc. The Vulgate, following literally
the Sept., without regarding the preceding peculiarity, has rendered
“God” in the nominative, “Deus,” and not “O Deus.” — Ed.

[25] He is evidently throughout spoken of in his mediatorial character.
To keep this in view will enable us more fully to understand the
chapter. It is more agreeable to this passage, to regard “the
anointing,” not that of consecration, but that of refreshment to guests
according to a prevailing custom, see Luke 7:46. The word “gladness”
favors this, and also the previous words of the passage; Christ is
addressed as already on his throne, and his administration is referred
to; and it is on account of his just administration, that he is said to
have been anointed with the perfuming oil of gladness, see Acts 10:38.
The words, “above thy fellows,” are rendered by Calvin, “above thy
partners,” and by Doddridge and Macknight, “above thine associates.”
Christ is spoken of as king, and his associates are those in the same
office; but he is so much above them that he is the “king of kings;”
and yet his superior excellencies are here represented as entitling him
to higher honors. — Ed.
__________________________________________________________________

Hebrews 1:10-14

10. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the
earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

10. Et tu ab initio, Domine, terram fundasti; et opera manuum tuarum
sunt coeli:

11. They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old
as doth a garment;

11. Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes; et omnes quasi vestimentum
veterascent;

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.

12. Et tanquam amictum involves eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem es,
et anni tui non deficient.

13. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

13. Ad quem vero angelorum dixit inquam, Sede a dextris meis, donec
ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum?

14. Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for
them who shall be heirs of salvation?

14. Annon omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, qui in ministerium
emittuntur propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis?

10. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning, etc. This testimony at first
sight may seem to be unfitly applied to Christ, especially in a
doubtful matter, such as is here handled; for the subject in dispute is
not concerning the glory of God, but what may be fitly applied to
Christ. Now, there is not in this passage any mention made of Christ,
but the majesty of God alone is set forth. I indeed allow that Christ
is not named in any part of the Psalm; but it is yet plain that he is
so pointed out, that no one can doubt but that his kingdom is there
avowedly recommended to us. Hence all the things which are found there,
are to be applied to his person; for in none have they been fulfilled
but in Christ, such as the following, — “Thou shalt arise and have
mercy on Sion, that the heathens may fear the name, and all the kings
of the earth thy glory.” Again, — “When the nations shall be gathered
together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord.” Doubtless, in vain
shall we seek to find this God through whom the whole world have united
in one faith and worship of God, except in Christ.

All the other parts of the Psalm exactly suit the person of Christ,
such as the following, that he is the eternal God, the creator of
heaven and earth, that perpetuity belongs to him without any change, by
which his majesty is raised to the highest elevation, and he himself is
removed from the rank of all created beings.

What David says about the heavens perishing, some explain by adding,
“Were such a thing to happen,” as though nothing was affirmed. But what
need is there of such a strained explanation, since we know that all
creatures are subjected to vanity? For to what purpose is that
renovation promised, which even the heavens wait for with the strong
desire as of those in travail, except that they are now verging towards
destruction?

But the perpetuity of Christ which is here mentioned, brings no common
comfort to the godly; as the Psalm at last teaches us, they shall be
partakers of it, inasmuch as Christ communicates himself and what he
possesses to his own body. [26]

13. But to whom of the angels, etc. He again by another testimony
extols the excellency of Christ, that it might hence be evident how
much he is above the angels. The passage is taken from Psalms 110:1,
and it cannot be explained of any but of Christ. For as it was not
lawful for kings to touch the priesthood, as is testified by the
leprosy of Uzziah; and as it appears that neither David, nor any other
of his successors in the kingdom, was ordained a priest, it follows,
that a new kingdom as well as a new priesthood is here introduced,
since the same person is made a king and a priest. Besides, the
eternity of the priesthood is suitable to Christ alone.

Now, in the beginning of the Psalm he is set at God’s right hand. This
form of expression, as I have already said, means the same, as though
it was said, that the second place was given him by the Father; for it
is a metaphor which signifies that he is the Father’s vicegerent and
his chief minister in exercising authority, so that the Father rules
through him. No one of the angels bears so honorable an office; hence
Christ far excels all.

Until I make, etc. As there are never wanting enemies to oppose
Christ’s kingdom, it seems not to be beyond the reach of danger,
especially as they who attempt to overthrow it possess great power,
have recourse to various artifices, and also make all their attacks
with furious violence. Doubtless, were we to regard things as they
appear, the kingdom of Christ would seem often to be on the verge of
ruin. But the promise, that Christ shall never be thrust from his seat,
takes away from us every fear; for ho will lay prostrate all his
enemies. These two things, then, ought to be borne in mind, — that the
kingdom of Christ shall never in this world be at rest, but that there
will be many enemies by whom it will be disturbed; and secondly, that
whatever its enemies may do, they shall never prevail, for the session
of Christ at God’s right hand will not be for a time, but to the end of
the world, and that on this account all who will not submit to his
authority shall be laid prostrate and trodden under his feet

If any one asks, whether Christ’s kingdom shall come to an end, when
all his enemies shall be subdued; I give this answer, — that his
kingdom shall be perpetual, and yet in such a way as Paul intimates in
1 Corinthians 15:25; for we are to take this view, — that God who is
not known to us in Christ, will then appear to us as he is in himself.
And yet Christ will never cease to be the head of men and of angels;
nor will there be any diminution of his honor. But the solution of this
question must be sought from that passage.

14. Are they not all, etc. That the comparison might appear more
clearly, he now mentions what the condition of angels is. For calling
them spirits, he denotes their eminence; for in this respect they are
superior to corporal creatures. But the office (leitourgia) which he
immediately mentions reduces them to their own rank, as it is that
which is the reverse of dominion; and this he still more distinctly
states, when he says, that they are sent to minister. The first word
means the same, as though ale had said, that they were officials; but
to minister imports what is more humble and abject. [27] The service
which God allots to angels is indeed honorable; but the very fact that
they serve, shows that they are far inferior to Christ, who is the Lord
of all.

If any one objects and says, that Christ is also called in many places
both a servant and a minister, not only to God, but also to men, the
reply may be readily given; his being a servant was not owing to his
nature, but to a voluntary humility, as Paul testifies, (Philippians
2:7;) and at the same time his sovereignty remained to his nature; but
angels, on the other hand, were created for this end, — that they
might serve, and to minister is what belongs to their condition. The
difference then is great; for what is natural to them is, as it were,
adventitious or accidental to Christ, because he took our flesh; and
what necessarily belongs to them, he of his own accord undertook.
Besides, Christ is a minister in such a way, that though he is in our
flesh nothing is diminished from the majesty of his dominion. [28]

From this passage the faithful receive no small consolation; for they
hear that celestial hosts are assigned to them as ministers, in order
to secure their salvation. It is indeed no common pledge of God’s love
towards us, that they are continually engaged in our behalf. Hence also
proceeds a singular confirmation to our faith, that our salvation being
defended by such guardians, is beyond the reach of danger. Well then
has God provided for our infirmities by giving us such assistants to
oppose Satan, and to put forth their power in every way to defend us!

But this benefit he grants especially to his chosen people; hence that
angels may minister to us, we must be the members of Christ. Yet some
testimonies of Scripture may on the other hand be adduced, to show that
angels are sometimes sent forth for the sake of the reprobate; for
mention is made by Daniel of the angels of the Persians and the Greeks.
(Daniel 10:20.) But to this I answer, that they were in such a way
assisted by angels, that the Lord might thus promote the salvation of
his own people; for their success and their victories had always a
reference to the benefit of the Church. This is certain, that as we
have been banished by sin from God’s kingdom, we can have no communion
with angels except through the reconciliation made by Christ; and this
we may see by the ladder shown in a vision to the patriarch Jacob.
__________________________________________________________________

[26] See [5]Appendix D.

[27] There is no doubt a distinction between the two words here used,
but not exactly that which is intimated; the first, leitourgika refers
to an official appointment; and the other, diakonian, to the work which
was to be done. Angels are said to be officially appointed, and they
are thus appointed for the purpose of doing service to the heirs of
salvation; “Are they not all ministrant (or ministerial) spirits, sent
forth for service, on account dia of those who are to inherit
salvation?” Then they are spirits, having a special office allotted
them, being sent forth to do service in behalf of those who are heirs
of salvation. It hence appears that they have a special appointment for
this purpose See Acts 5:19, and 12:7. — Ed.

[28] See [6]Appendix E.

CALVIN’S COMMENTARY

5 SOLAS!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.