Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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;

3. the brightness ] The substitution of “effulgence” for “brightness” in the Revised Version is not, as it has been contemptuously called, “a piece of finery,” but is a rendering at once more accurate and more suggestive. It means “efflux of light” “Light of (i.e. from) Light” (“ effulgentia ” not “ repercussus ”) Grotius. It implies not only resemblance which is all that is involved in the vague and misleading word “brightness,” which might apply to a mere reflexion: but also “origin” and “independent existence.” The glory of Christ is the glory of the Father just as the sun is only revealed by the rays which stream forth from it. So the “Wisdom of Solomon” (Heb 7:26) which offers many resemblances to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and which some have even conjectured to be by the same author speaks of wisdom as “the effulgence of the everlasting light.” The word is also found in Philo where it is applied to man. This passage, like many others in the Epistle, is quoted by St Clement of Rome ( ad Cor. 36).

of his glory ] God was believed in the Old Dispensation to reveal Himself by a cloud of glory called “the Shechinah,” and the Alexandrian Jews, in their anxious avoidance of all anthropomorphism and anthropopathy i.e. of all expressions which attribute the human form and human passions to God often substituted “the Glory” for the name of God. Similarly in 2Pe 1:17 the Voice from God the Father is a Voice “from the magnificent glory.” Comp. Act 7:55; Luk 2:9. St John says “God is Light,” and the indestructible purity and impalpable essence of Light make it the best of all created things to furnish an analogy for the supersensuous light and spiritual splendour of the Being of God. Hence St John also says of the Word “we beheld His glory” (Joh 1:14); and our Lord said to Philip “he who hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (Joh 14:9). Comp. Luk 9:29.

the express image ] Rather, “the stamp” ( charactr). The R. V. renders this word by “very image” (after Tyndale), and in the margin by “impress.” I prefer the word “stamp” because the Greek “ charactr ” like the English word “stamp,” may, according to its derivation, be used either for the impress or for the stamping-tool itself. This Epistle has so many resemblances to Philo that the word may have been suggested by a passage (Opp. i. 332) in which Philo compares man to a coin which has been stamped by the Logos with the being and type of God; and in that passage the word seems to bear this unusual sense of a “stamping-tool,” for it impresses a man with the mark of God. Similarly St Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians (Col 1:15) which most resembles this Epistle in its Christology called Christ “the image ( eikn) of the invisible God;” and Philo says, “But the word is the image ( eikn) of God, by Whom the whole world was created,” De Monarch, (Opp. ii. 225).

of his person ] Rather, “of His substance” or “essence.” The word hypostasis, substantia (literally that which “ stands under ”) is, in philosophical accuracy, the imaginary substratum which remains when a thing is regarded apart from all its accidents. The word “person” of our A. V. is rather the equivalent to prospon. Hypostasis only came to be used in this sense some centuries later. Perhaps “Being” or “Essence,” though it corresponds more strictly to the Greek ousia, is the nearest representative which we can find to hypostasis, now that “substance,” once the most abstract and philosophical of words, has come (in ordinary language) to mean what is solid and concrete. It is only too possible that the word “substance” conveys to many minds the very opposite conception to that which was intended and which alone corresponds to the truth. Athanasius says, “ Hypostasis is essence ” ( ); and the Nicene Council seems to draw no real distinction between the two words. In fact the Western Church admitted that, in the Eastern sense, we might speak of three hypostaseis of the Trinity; and in the Western sense, of one hypostasis, because in this sense the word meant Essence. For the use of the word in the LXX. see Ps. 38:6, 88:48. It is curiously applied in Wis 16:21 . In the technical language of theology these two clauses represent the Son as co-eternal and co-substantial with the Father.

upholding all things ] He is not only the Creative Word, but the Sustaining Providence. He is, as Philo says, “the chain-band of all things,” but He is also their guiding force. “In Him all things subsist” (Col 1:17). Philo calls the Logos “the pilot and steersman of everything.”

by the word of his power ] Rather, “by the utterance ( rhemati) of His power.” It is better to keep “word” for Logos, and “utterance” for rhema. We find “strength” ( ) and “force” ( ) attributed to Christ in Eph 6:10, as “power” ( ) here.

when he had by himself purged our sins ] Rather, “after making purification of sins.” The “by Himself” is omitted by some of the best MSS. ( , A, B), and the “our” by many. But the notion of Christ’s independent action (Php 2:7) is involved in the middle voice of the verb. On the purification of our sins by Christ (in which there is perhaps a slight reference to the “Day of Atonement,” called in the LXX. “the Day of Purification,” Exo 29:36), see Heb 9:12, Heb 10:12 ; 1Pe 2:24; 2Pe 1:9 (comp. Job 7:21, LXX.).

sat down ] His glorification was directly consequent on His voluntary humiliation (see Heb 8:1, Heb 10:12, Heb 12:2; Psa 109:1), and here the whole description is brought to its destined climax.

on the right hand ] As the place of honour comp. Heb 8:1; Psa 110:1; Eph 1:20. The controversy as to whether “the right hand of God” means “everywhere” which was called the “Ubiquitarian controversy” is wholly destitute of meaning, and has long fallen into deserved oblivion.

of the Majesty ] In Heb 10:12 he says “at the right hand of God.” But he was evidently fond of sonorous amplifications, which belong to the dignity of his style; and also fond of Alexandrian modes of expression. The LXX. sometimes went so far as to substitute for “God” the phrase “the place ” where God stood (see Exo 24:10, LXX.).

on high ] Literally, “in high places;” like “Glory to God in the highest,” Luk 2:14 (comp. Job 16:19); and “in heavenly places,” Eph 1:20 (comp. Psa 93:4; Psa 112:5). The description of Christ in these verses differed from the current Messianic conception of the Jews in two respects. 1. He was divine and omnipotent. 2. He was to die for our sins.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Who being the brightness of his glory – This verse is designed to state the dignity and exalted rank of the Son of God, and is exceedingly important with reference to a correct view of the Redeemer. Every word which is employed is of great importance, and should be clearly understood in order to a correct apprehension of the passage. First, in what manner does it refer to the Redeemer? To his divine nature? To the mode of his existence before he was incarnate? Or to him as he appeared on earth? Most of the ancient commentators supposed that it referred to his divine dignity before he became incarnate, and proceed to argue on that supposition on the mode of the divine existence. The true solution seems to me to be, that it refers to him as incarnate, but still has reference to him as the incarnate Son of God. It refers to him as Mediator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as divine – thus, in his incarnation, being the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of God. That this is the correct view is apparent, I think, from the whole scope of the passage. The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as he has spoken to us Heb 1:1, and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God – the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him as he actually is – the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh; and this leads the writer to dwell on his divine, character, and to argue from that; Heb 1:8, Heb 1:10-12. I have no doubt, therefore, that this description refers to his divine nature, but it is the divine nature as it appears in human flesh. An examination of the words used will prepare us for a more clear comprehension of the sense. The word glory – doxa – means properly a seeming, an appearance; and then:

(1)Praise, applause, honor:

(2)Dignity, splendor, glory;

(3)Brightness, dazzling light; and,

(4)Excellence, perfection, such as belongs to God and such as there is in heaven.

It is probably used here, as the word – kaabowd – is often among the Hebrews, to denote splendor, brightness, and refers to the divine perfections as resembling a bright light, or the sun. The word is applied to the sun and stars, 1Co 15:40-41; to the light which Paul saw on the way to Damascus, Act 22:11; to the shining of Moses face, 2Co 3:7; to the celestial light which surrounds the angels, Rev 18:1; and glorified saints, Luk 9:31-32; and to the dazzling splendor or majesty in which God is enthroned; 2Th 1:9; 2Pe 1:17; Rev 15:8; Rev 21:11, Rev 21:23. Here there is a comparison of God with the sun; he is encompassed with splendor and majesty; he is a being of light and of infinite perfection. It refers to all in God that is bright, splendid, glorious; and the idea is, that the Son of God is the brightness of it all.

The word rendered brightness – apaugasma – occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means properly reflected splendor, or the light which emanates from a luminous body. The rays or beams of the sun are its brightness, or that by which the sun is seen and known. The sun itself we do not see; the beams which flow from it we do see. The meaning here is, that if God be represented under the image of a luminous body, as he is in the Scriptures (see Psa 84:11; Mal 4:2), then Christ is the radiance of that light, the brightness of that luminary – Stuart. He is that by which we perceive God, or by which God is made known to us in his real perfections; compare Joh 1:18; Joh 14:9. – It is by him only that the true character and glory of God is known to people. This is true in regard to the great system of revelation but it is especially true in regard to the views which people have of God. Mat 11:27 – no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

The human soul is dark respecting the divine character until it is enlightened by Christ. It sees no beauty, no glory in his nature – nothing that excites wonder, or that wins the affections, until it is disclosed by the Redeemer. somehow it happens, account for it as people may, that there are no elevating practical views of God in the world; no views that engage and hold the affections of the soul; no views that are transforming and purifying, but those which are derived from the Lord Jesus. A man becomes a Christian, and at once he has elevated, practical views of God. He is to him the most glorious of all beings. He finds supreme delight in contemplating his perfections. But he may be a philosopher or an infidel, and though he may profess to believe in the existence of God, yet the belief excites no practical influence on him; he sees nothing to admire; nothing which leads him to worship him; compare Rom 1:21.

And the express image – The word used here – charakter – likewise occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is that from which our word character is derived. It properly means a engraving-tool; and then something engraved or stamped – a character – as a letter, mark, sign. The image stamped on coins, seals, wax, expresses the idea: and the sense here is, that if God be represented under the idea of a substance, or being, then Christ is the exact resemblance of that – as an image is of the stamp or die. The resemblance between a stamp and the figure which is impressed is exact; and so is the resemblance between the Redeemer and God; see Col 1:15. Who is the image of the invisible God.

Of his person – The word person with us denotes an individual being, and is applied to human beings, consisting of body and soul. We do not apply it to anything dead – not using it with reference to the body when the spirit is gone. It is applied to man – with individual and separate consciousness and will; with body and soul; with an existence separate from others. It is evident that it cannot be used in this sense when applied to God, and that this word does not express the true idea of the passage here. Tyndale renders it, more accurately, substance. The word in the original – hupostasis – whence our word hypostasis, means, literally, a foundation, or substructure. Then it means a well-founded trust, firm expectation, confidence, firmness, boldness; and then reality, substance, essential nature. In the New Testament, it is rendered confident, or confidence 2Co 9:4; 2Co 11:17; Heb 3:14; substance Heb 11:1; and person in the passage before us. It is not used elsewhere. Here it properly refers to the essential nature of God – what distinguishes him from all other beings, and which, if I may so say, constitutes him God; and the idea is, that the Redeemer is the exact resemblance of that. This resemblance consists, probably, in the following things – though perhaps the enumeration does not include all – but in these he certainly resembles God, or is his exact image:

(1) In his original mode of being, or before the incarnation. Of this we know little. But he had a glory with the Father before the world was; Joh 17:5. He was in the beginning with God, and was God; Joh 1:1. He was in intimate union with the Father, and was one with Him, in certain respects; though in certain other respects, there was a distinction. I do not see any evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrine of eternal generation, and it is certain that that doctrine militates against the proper eternity of the Son of God. The natural and fair meaning of that doctrine would be, that there was a time when he had not an existence, and when he began to be, or was begotten. But the Scripture doctrine is, that he had a strict and proper eternity. I see no evidence that he was in any sense a derived being – deriving his existence and his divinity from the Father. The Fathers of the Christian church, it is believed, held that the Son of God as to his divine, as well as his human nature, was derived from the Father. Hence, the Nicene creed speaks of him as begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made – language implying derivation in his divine nature. They held, with one voice, that he was God (divine); but it was in this manner; see Stuart, Excursus III. on the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this is incredible and impossible. A derived being cannot in any proper sense be God; and if there is any attribute which the Scriptures have ascribed to the Saviour with special clearness, it is that of proper eternity; Rev 1:11, Rev 1:17; Joh 1:1.

(Perhaps the doctrine of Christs natural or eternal Sonship had been as well understood without the help of the term generation, which adds nothing to our stock of ideas on the subject, and gives rise, as the above remarks prove, to objections which attach altogether to the word, and from which the doctrine itself is free. In fairness however, it should be remembered that, like many other theological terms, the term in question, when applied to Christs Sonship, is not to be understood in the ordinary acceptation, as implying derivation or extraction. It is used as making some approach to a proper term only, and in this case, as in others of like nature, it is but just to respect the acknowledged rule that when human phraseology is employed concerning the divine nature, all that is imperfect, all that belongs to the creature, is to be rejected, and that only retained which comports with the majesty of the Creator. It is on this very principle that Prof. Stuart, in his first excursus, and Trinitarians generally, have so successfully defended the use of the word person to designate a distinction in the Godhead. Overlooking this principle, our author deduces consequences from the doctrine of eternal generation, which do not properly belong to it, and which its advocates distinctly repudiate.

That doctrine cannot militate against the proper eternity of the Son, since, while it uses the term generation, not more human, but with every thing of human informity separated from it, it supplies also the adjunct eternal. Whatever some indiscreet advocates of the eternal Sonship may have affirmed, it should never be forgotten, that the ablest friends equally with the author, contend that there is no Derivation or communication of essence from the Father to the Son. Although the terms Father and Son indicate a relation analogous to that among people, yet, as in the latter case, it is a relation between two material and separate beings, and in the former, is a relation in the same Spiritual essence, the one can throw no light upon the other; and to attempt to illustrate the one by the other is equally illogical and presumptuous. We can conceive the communication of a material essence by one material being to another, because it takes place in the generation of animals; but the communication of a spiritual, indivisible, immutable essence is altogether inconceivable, especially when we add, that the supposed communication does not constitute a different being, but takes place in the essences communicating.

Dicks Theology, vol. 2, page 71. It is readily allowed that the Fathers, and many since their times, have written unguardedly on this mysterious subject: but their errors, instead of leading us to reject the doctrine entirely, should lead us only to examine the Scriptures more fully, and form our opinions on them alone. The excellent author already quoted has well remarked: I cannot conceive what object they have in view who admit the Divinity, but deny the natural Sonship of our Saviour, unless it be to get rid of the strange notions about communication of essence and subordination which have prevailed so much; and in this case, like too many disputants, in avoiding one extreme, they run into the other.)

It may have been that it was by him that the perfections of God were made known before the incarnation to the angelic world, but on that point the Scriptures are silent.

(2) On earth he was the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of his person:

1. It was by him, eminently, that God was made known to human beings – as it is by the beams of the sun that that is made known.
1. He bore an exact resemblance to God. He was just such a being as we should suppose God to be were he to become incarnate, and to act as a man.

He was the embodied representation of the Deity. He was pure – like God. He was benevolent – like God. He spake to the winds and storms – like God. He healed diseases – like God. He raised the dead – like God. He wielded the power which God only can wield, and he manifested a character in all respects like what we should suppose God would evince if he appeared in human flesh, and dwelt among people and this is saying much. It is in fact saying that the account in the Gospels is real, and that the Christian religion is true. Uninspired men could never have drawn such a character as that of Jesus Christ, unless that character had actually existed. The attempt has often been made to describe God, or to show how be would speak and act if he came down to earth.

Thus, the Hindus speak of the incarnations of Vishnu; and thus Homer, and Virgil, and most of the ancient poets, speak of the appearance of the gods, and describe them as they were supposed to appear. But how different from the character of the Lord Jesus! they are full of passion, and lust, and anger, and contention, and strife; they come to mingle in battles, and to take part with contending armies, and they evince the same spirit as men, and are merely men of great power, and more gigantic passions; but Christ is God in human nature. The form is that of man; the spirit is that of God. He walks, and eats, and sleeps as a man; he thinks, and speaks, and acts like God. He was born as a man – but the angels adored him as God. As a man he ate; yet by a word he created food for thousands, as if he were God. Like a man he slept on a pillow while the vessel was tossed by the waves; like God be rose, and rebuked the winds and they were still. As a man he went, with affectionate interest, to the house of Martha and Mary. As a man he sympathized with them in their affliction, and wept at the grave of their brother; like God he spoke, and the dead came forth to the land of the living. As a man he traveled through the land of Judea. He was without a home. Yet everywhere the sick were laid at his feet, and health came from his touch, and strength from the words of his lips as if he were God. As a man he prayed in the garden of Gethsemane; he bore his cross to Calvary; he was nailed to the tree: yet then the heavens grew dark, and the earth shook and the dead arose as if he were God. As a man he slept in the cold tomb – like God he rose, and brought life and immortality to light.

He lived on earth as a man – he ascended to heaven like God. And in all the life of the Redeemer, in all the variety of trying situations in which he was placed, there was not a word or action which was inconsistent with the supposition that he was the incarnate God. There was no failure of any effort to heal the sick or to raise the dead; no look, no word, no deed that is not perfectly consistent with this supposition; but on the contrary, his life is full of events which can be explained on no other supposition than that he was the appropriate shining forth of the divine glory, and the exact resemblance of the essence of God. There are not two Gods – as there are not two suns when the sun shines. It is the one God, in a mysterious and incomprehensible manner shining into the world in the face of Jesus Christ. See note on 2Co 4:6. As the wax bears the perfect image of the seal – perfect not only in the outline, but in the filling up – in all the lines, and features, and letters, so is it with the Redeemer. There is not one of the divine perfections which has not the counterpart in him, and if the glory of the divine character is seen at all by people, it will be seen in and through him.

And upholding all things by the word of his power – That is, by his powerful word, or command. The phrase word of his power is a Hebraism, and means his efficient command. There could not be a more distinct ascription of divinity to the Son of God than this. He upholds or sustains all things – that is, the universe. It is not merely the earth; not only its rocks, mountains, seas, animals and human beings, but it is the universe – all distant worlds. How can he do this who is not God? He does it by his word – his command. What a conception! That one simple command should do all this! So the world was made when God spake and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast; Psa 33:9. So the Lord Jesus commanded the waves and the winds, and they were still Mat 8:26-27; so he spoke to diseases and they departed, and to the dead land they arose; compare Gen 1:3. I do know how people can explain away this ascription of infinite power to the Redeemer. There can be no higher idea of omnipotence than to say that he upholds all things by his word; and assuredly he who can hold up this vast universe so that it does not sink into anarchy or into nothing, must be God. The same power Jesus claimed for himself; see Mat 28:18.

When he had by himself purged our sins – By himself – not by the blood of bulls and lambs, but by his own blood. This is designed to bring in the grand feature of the Christian scheme, that the purification made for sin was by his blood, instead of the blood which was shed in the temple-service. The word rendered here purged means purified or expiated; see notes on Joh 15:2. The literal rendering is, having made purification for our sins. The purification or cleansing which he effected was by his blood; see 1Jo 1:7 The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. This the apostle here states to have been the great object for which he came, and having done this, he sat down on the right hand of God; see Heb 7:27; Heb 9:12-14. It was not merely to teach that he came; it was to purify the hearts of people, to remove their sins, and to put an end to sacrifice by the sacrifice of himself.

Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high – Of God; see the notes on Mar 16:19; Eph 1:20-23.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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

The express image of his person] . The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied.

From these words it is evident, 1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the , or proceeding splendour, must be the same with the , or inherent splendour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Israelites murmured against Moses and against God, and provoked the heavy displeasure of the Most High; and would have been consumed had not Aaron made an atonement for them, by offering victims and incense. But Jesus not only makes an atonement for Israel, but for the whole world; not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with his own blood: hence it is said that he purged our sins , by himself his own body and life being the victim. It is very likely that the apostle had all these things in his eye when he wrote this verse; and takes occasion from them to show the infinite excellence of Jesus Christ when compared with Moses; and of his Gospel when compared with the law. And it is very likely that the Spirit of God, by whom he spoke, kept in view those maxims of the ancient Jews, concerning the Messiah, whom they represent as being infinitely greater than Abraham, the patriarchs, Moses, and the ministering angels. So Rabbi Tanchum, on Isa 52:13, Behold my servant shall deal prudently, says, Zeh melek hammashiach, this is the King Messiah; and shall be exalted, and be extolled, and be very high. “He shall be exalted above Abraham, and shall be extolled beyond Moses, and shall be more sublime than the ministering angels-.”See the preface.

The right hand of the Majesty on high] As it were associated with the supreme Majesty, in glory everlasting, and in the government of all things in time and in eternity; for the right hand is the place of the greatest eminence, 1Kgs 2:19. The king himself, in eastern countries, sits on the throne; the next to him in the kingdom, and the highest favourite, sits on his right hand; and the third greatest personage, on his left.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Who being the brightness; the same gospel minister, Gods Son, was, as to his person, , a brightness shining out: which word sets forth the natural eternal generation of God the Son, discovering both the rise and flux of his being, and the beauteous and glorious excellency of it. It is the same in the sight of it with the Fathers, the brightness of glory, light of light, glory of glory to perfection, streaming from his Father incessantly; as beams issue from the sun, or the mental word is the invisible brightness of that spiritual light the intellect.

Of his glory; essential glory. Light is a faint, visible resemblance of Gods essence, his manifestation of himself in glory hath been by light; to Moses, Exo 33:18-23; 34:5,29-31; to Isaiah, Isa 6:1-4; to Ezekiel, Eze 1:4-28, and Eze 10:1-22; to Daniel, Dan 10:5,6,8,16-19; to John, Rev 1:1-20,4:1-11, and Rev 5:1-14. And so Christ represented that of his person at his transfiguration, Mat 17:1-7. If created light be glorious in the sun, in angels; how much more Gods essential glory! Purity, beauty, light, how pleasant! But what are these to God? However the being of God be conceived, as wisdom, holiness, goodness, justice, power, the excellency of these above all created beings is this glory. No being is glory but Gods; this fundamental excellency shines no where as in this Son, Joh 1:14. By this are Father and Son declared distinct relations, subsisting together and co-eternal.

And the express image; as the beams are with the sun the same in time, yet are weaker, therefore the Holy Ghost adds, he is his very image; carakthr is an engraven image of the Father, every way like him; the word signifieth a sculpture, print, engraving, or seal; intimating its distinction from what impressed it, and its likeness or parity to it: so is the Sons a distinct relation, yet naturally and integrally having all that might liken him to his Father, Col 1:15.

Of his person; thv upostasewv autou, of his subsistence. He is not the character of the Godhead, or of the Divine essence, but of the Father, the personal subsistence in the Deity. He is one and the same God with the Father, but his character as God is a Father, so that who seeth him seeth his Father, Joh 14:9; he is the visible representation of him, Col 2:9.

And upholding; the whole work of Providence is set out by upholding; ferwn imports sustaining, feeding, preserving, governing, throwing down, raising up, comforting, and punishing, &c. All would have fallen in pieces on mans sin, had not he interposed, and stopped the world when it was reeling back into nothing, Col 1:17; and to this instant he preserveth and ruleth all, Isa 9:6; Joh 5:22.

All things; ta panta, a full, universal, comprehensive all, persons and things, angels, men, creatures good and bad, small and great, with all events, Act 17:24-31.

By the word of his power; not by an articulate voice, but his beck, will, or powerful command, whereby he doth whatsoever he pleaseth; his absolute, powerful, irresistible word; he acts as easily as others speak; there is no distinguishing between this word and power, they went together in the creation, Gen 1:3,6,7, and do so in his providence, Psa 33:9; 148:8.

When he had by himself; when this God-man, as the great gospel High Priest, so styled, Heb 2:17, had by himself alone, being altar and sacrifice, as well as Priest, the sole efficient of this work without any assistance. He, by his eternal Spirit, offered up a sacrifice propitiatory to God, his human nature hypostatically united to his Divine, and expiring his soul, he immediately entered with the blood of the covenant the holy of holiest in heaven, and presenting it before the eternal Judge, made full satisfaction and expiation for sins, Heb 7:17; 9:11,12,14,24,26; 10:10,12,14.

Purged; by his satisfaction and merit, removing both the guilt and stain of sin; so as God, the injured Lawgiver, could be just as well as merciful in pardoning it; and justifying those who believe and plead it from the condemnation they were liable to for it, Rom 3:24-26; 1Jo 1:7,9; and mortifying and killing sin in them by his purchased Spirit, Rom 10:10,12,14,18; compare 1Co 6:11; Eph 5:25-27.

Our sins; the sins of men, and not of angels; and the consequents of them, removing guilt, stain, and punishment, which they would fasten on us by his self-sacrifice, Heb 2:16.

Sat down; after his atoning for sinners, at the forty days end he ascended in his human nature, immortal in body and soul, and entered the second time the holy of holiest in heaven; and then , made himself to sit as High Priest in the most honourable and immovable state and condition. He did not stand, as the typical high priest before Gods ark, but sat; and in this co-operated with his Father, and obeyed him, Psa 110:1; angels, and men, and creatures, all subjected to him, Eph 1:20-22. He doth sit quietly, Act 3:21, and surely; there is no shaking him from his ever-interceding for his, Heb 7:25.

On the right hand; a similitude expressing the height of glory that this God-man is advanced to; alluding to the state of the greatest king on his throne in his majesty, Eze 1:4,26-28; Da 7:9-14; 1Ti 1:17. He is exalted by the royal Father as his eldest Son, invested with Godlike power, majesty, and glory, as Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12; 12:2; there enjoying all that happiness, blessedness, all those dignities and pleasures, Psa 16:11; fulness of honour and glory, Heb 2:7; of government, rule, and dominion, Mat 28:18; of all royal and glorious abilities and endowments for the managing all things; he enjoyeth all these as the Father himself doth, who ordereth all by him, so as no creature is capable of it, Heb 1:13. All the power of doing all things in all worlds is lodged in his hands.

Of the Majesty on high; in the highest heaven is this possessed by him, and there is he to display his glory in ordering all, Heb 7:26; Heb 8:1; Eph 4:10; as in the happiest, so in the highest place is he to rule for ever; our advantage is by it, Eph 2:6, as to best of places and states.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3. Who beingby pre-existentand essential being.

brightness of hisgloryGreek, the effulgence of His glory. “Lightof (from) light” [Nicene Creed]. “Who is sosenseless as to doubt concerning the eternal being of the Son? Forwhen has one seen light without effulgence?” [ATHANASIUS,Against Arius, Orations, 2]. “The sun is never seenwithout effulgence, nor the Father without the Son”[THEOPHYLACT]. It isbecause He is the brightness, c., and because Heupholds, &c., that He sat down on the right hand, &c.It was a return to His divine glory (Joh 6:62Joh 17:5; compare Wisdom 7:25,26, where similar things are said of wisdom).

express image“impress.”But veiled in the flesh.

The Sun of God in glorybeams

Too bright for us toscan;

But we can face the lightthat streams

For the mild Son ofman. (2Co 3:18)

of his personGreek,“of His substantial essence”; “hypostasis.“

upholding all thingsGreek,“the universe.” Compare Col 1:15;Col 1:17; Col 1:20,which enumerates the three facts in the same order as here.

by the wordThereforethe Son of God is a Person; for He has the word [BENGEL].His word is God’s word (Heb11:3).

of his power“Theword” is the utterance which comes from His (the Son’s) power,and gives expression to it.

by himselfomitted inthe oldest manuscripts.

purgedGreek,“made purification of . . . sins,” namely, in Hisatonement, which graciously covers the guilt of sin. “Our”is omitted in the oldest manuscripts. Sin was the great uncleannessin God’s sight, of which He has effected the purgation by Hissacrifice [ALFORD]. Ournature, as guilt-laden, could not, without our great High Priest’sblood of atonement sprinkling the heavenly mercy seat, come intoimmediate contact with God. EBRARDsays, “The mediation between man and God, who was present in theMost Holy Place, was revealed in three forms: (1) In sacrifices(typical propitiations for guilt); (2) In the priesthood (the agentsof those sacrifices); (3) In the Levitical laws of purity (Leviticalpurity being attained by sacrifice positively, by avoidance ofLevitical pollution negatively, the people being thus enabled to comeinto the presence of God without dying, De5:26)” (Le16:1-34).

sat down on the right hand ofthe Majesty on highfulfilling Ps110:1. This sitting of the Son at God’s fight hand was by the actof the Father (Heb 8:1; Eph 1:20);it is never used of His pre-existing state co-equal with the Father,but always of His exalted state as Son of man after His sufferings,and as Mediator for man in the presence of God (Ro8:34): a relation towards God and us about to come to an end whenits object has been accomplished (1Co15:28).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Who being the brightness of his glory,…. Or “of glory”; of God the Father, the God of glory, and who is glory itself; so called on account of his glorious nature and perfections and because of the glorious manifestations of them in his works of creation and providence, and in the various dispensations of his grace, and especially in his Son; and because he is the author of all glory, in the creatures, in the whole world, in Christ as man and Mediator, and in his own people. Now Christ is the “brightness” of this, as he is God; he has the same glorious nature and perfections, and the same glorious names, as Jehovah, the Lord of glory, c. and the same glory, homage, and worship given him: the allusion is to the sun, and its beam or ray: so some render it “the ray of his glory” and may lead us to observe, that the Father and the Son are of the same nature, as the sun and its ray; and that the one is not before the other, and yet distinct from each other, and cannot be divided or separated one from another: so the phrase , “the brightness of his glory”, is used of the divine Being, in the Chaldee paraphrases r; see the Apocrypha.

“For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.” (Wisdom 7:26)

And the express image of his person; this intends much the same as the other phrase; namely, equality and sameness of nature, and distinction of persons; for if the Father is God, Christ must be so too; and if he is a person, his Son must be so likewise, or he cannot be the express image and character of him;

[See comments on Col 1:15].

And upholding all things by the word of his power; the Syriac version renders it, “by the power of his word”, to the same sense, only inverting the words. The Targumist on 2Ch 2:6 uses a phrase very much like this, of God, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain; because, adds he, , “he bears”, or “sustains all things by the arm of his power”; and the words are to be understood not of the Father, upholding all things by his essential and powerful Word, his Son; but of the Son himself, who upholds all creatures he has made; bears up the pillars of the universe; preserves every creature in its being, and supports it, and supplies it with the necessaries of life; rules and governs all, and providentially orders and disposes of all things in the world, and that by his all powerful will; which makes it manifest, that he is truly and properly God, and a very fit person to be a priest, as follows:

when he had by himself purged our sins; the Arabic and Ethiopic versions seem to refer this to God the Father, as if he, by Christ, made the expiation of sin, and then caused him to sit down at his right hand; but it belongs to the Son himself, who of himself, and by himself alone, and by the sacrifice of himself, made atonement for the sins of his people; which is meant by the purgation of them: he took their sins upon himself, and bore them, and removed them far away, and utterly abolished them, which the priests under the law could not do: and when he had so done,

he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; by “Majesty” is meant God the Father, to whom majesty belongs; who is clothed with it, and which is before him: and his “right hand” designs his power, greatness, and glory, and is expressive of the high honour Christ, as man, is possessed of; for his sitting here denotes the glorious exaltation of him in human nature, after his sufferings, and death, and resurrection from the dead; and shows that he had done his work, and was accepted, and was now enjoying rest and ease, honour and glory, in which he will continue; and the place of his session, as well as of the habitation of God, at whose right hand he sits, is on high, in the highest heavens.

r Targum in 2 Sam xxii. 13. & in Cant. v. 10.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Being (). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of ) in contrast with in verse 4 like in Joh 1:1 (in contrast with in 1:14) and like and in Php 2:6f.

The effulgence of his glory ( ). The word , late substantive from , to emit brightness (, in 2Co 4:4), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom 7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in John 12:45; John 14:9. “The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos” (Moffatt). The meaning “effulgence” suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (Joh 1:1), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in 2Co 4:6.

The very image of his substance ( ). is an old word from , to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending =) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by (Acts 17:29; Rev 13:16). Menander had already used (Moffatt) in the sense of our “character.” The word occurs in the inscriptions for “person” as well as for “exact reproduction” of a person. The word for the being or essence of God “is a philosophical rather than a religious term” (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In 11:1 is like the “title-deed” idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used Heb 1:1-4 in his controversy with Arius. Paul in Php 2:5-11 pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul’s simpler phrase (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of in Joh 1:1-18 is parallel to Heb 1:1-4.

And upholding ( ). Present active participle of closely connected with (being) by and like Col 1:17 in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented.

By the word of his power ( ). Instrumental case of (word). See 11:3 for (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here refers to God’s Son as in 1:2.

Purification of sins ( ). is from , to cleanse (Matt 8:3; Heb 9:14), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, 2Pet 1:9; Job 7:21. Note middle participle like in 9:12. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle.

Sat down (). First aorist active of , “took his seat,” a formal and dignified act.

Of the Majesty on high ( ). Late word from , only in LXX (Deut 32:3; 2Sam 7:23, etc.), Aristeas, Heb 1:3; Heb 8:1; Judg 1:25. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (Joh 17:5). The phrase occurs in the Psalms (Ps 93:4), here only in N.T., elsewhere in the highest (Matt 21:9; Luke 2:14) or in the heavenlies (Eph 1:3; Eph 1:20). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Being [] . Representing absolute being. See on Joh 1:1. Christ ‘s absolute being is exhibited in two aspects, which follow : The brightness of his glory [ ] . Of God ‘s glory. For brightness rend. effulgence. jApaugasma, N. T. o. LXX, only Wisd. 7 26. o Class. It is an Alexandrian word, and occurs in Philo. 165 Interpretation is divided between effulgence and reflection. 166 Effulgence or outraying accords better with the thought of the passage; for the writer is treating of the preincarnate Son; and, as Alford justly remarks, “the Son of God is, in this his essential majesty, the expression and the sole expression of the divine light; not, as in his incarnation, its reflection.” The consensus of the Greek fathers to this effect is of great weight. The meaning then is, that the Son is the outraying of the divine glory, exhibiting in himself the glory and majesty of the divine Being. “God lets his glory issue from himself, so that there arises thereby a light – being like himself” (Weiss). Doxa glory is the expression of the divine attributes collectively. It is the unfolded fullness of the divine perfections, differing from morfh qeou form of God (Phi 2:6), in that morfh is the immediate, proper, personal investiture of the divine essence. Doxa is attached to deity. morfh is identified with the inmost being of deity Doxa is used of various visible displays of divine light and splendor, as Exo 24:17; Deu 5:24; Exo 40:34; Num 14:10, 15; Num 19:42; Eze 10:4; Eze 43:4. 5; Eze 50:28, in 23; Lev 9:23, etc. We come nearer to the sense of the word in this passage in the story of Moses ‘s vision of the divine glory, Exo 33:18 – 23; Exo 34:5, 7.

The express image of his person [ ] Rend the very image (or impress) of his substance The primary sense of uJpostasiv substance is something which stands underneath; foundation, ground of hope or confidence, and so assurance itself. In a philosophical sense, substantial nature; the real nature of anything which underlies and supports its outward form and properties. In N. T., 2Co 9:4, 11, 17, Heb 3:14; Heb 11:1, signifying in every instance ground of confidence or confidence In LXX, it represents fifteen different words, and, in some cases, it is hard to understand its meaning notably 1Sa 13:21 In Rut 1:12, Psa 37:8, Eze 19:5, it means ground of hope. in Jud 6:4, Wisd. 16 21, sustenance in Psa 38:5; Psa 136:15, the substance or material of the human frame : in 1Sa 13:23; Eze 26:11, an outpost or garrison : in Deu 11:6; Job 22:20, possessions. The theological sense, person, is later than the apostolic age. Here, substantial nature, essence. Carakthr from carassein to engrave or inscribe, originally a graving – tool; also the die on which a device is cut. It seems to have lost that meaning, and always signifies the impression made by the die or graver. Hence, mark, stamp, as the image on a coin (so often) which indicates its nature and value, or the device impressed by a signet. N. T. o. LXX, Lev 13:28; 2 Macc. 4 10; 4 Macc. 14 4. The kindred caragma mark, Act 17:29; Rev 13:16, 17. Here the essential being of God is conceived as setting its distinctive stamp upon Christ, coming into definite and characteristic expression in his person, so that the Son bears the exact impress of the divine nature and character.

And upholding all things [ ] . Rend. maintaining. Upholding conveys too much the idea of the passive support of a burden. “The Son is not an Atlas, sustaining the dead weight of the world” (quoted by Westcott). Neither is the sense that of ruling or guiding, as Philo (De Cherub. 11), who describes the divine word as “the steersman and pilot of the all.” It implies sustaining, but also movement. It deals with a burden, not as a dead weight, but as in continual movement; as Weiss puts it, “with the all in all its changes and transformations throughout the aeons.” It is concerned, not only with sustaining the weight of the universe, but also with maintaining its coherence and carrying on its development. What is said of God, Col 1:17, is here said or implied of Christ : ta panta ejn aujtw sunesthken all things (collectively, the universe) consist or maintain their coherence in him. So the Logos is called by Philo the bond [] of the universe; but the maintenance of the coherence implies the guidance and propulsion of all the parts to a definite end. All things [ ] collectively considered; the universe; all things in their unity. See ch. Heb 2:10; Rom 8:32; Rom 11:36; 1Co 8:6; Eph 1:10; Col 1:16.

By the word of his power [ ] . The phrase N. T. o., but comp Luk 1:37. and see note. The word is that in which the Son’s power manifests itself. jAutou his refers to Christ. Nothing in the context suggests any other reference. The world was called into being by the word of God (ch. 11. 3), and is maintained by him who is “the very image of God ‘s substance.”

When he had by himself purged our sins [ ] . Omit by himself; 167 yet a similar thought is implied in the middle voice, poihsamenov, which indicates that the work of purification was done by Christ personally, and was not something which he caused to be done by some other agent. Purged, lit. having made purification The phrase N. T. o LXX, Job 7:21. Kaqarismov purification occurs in Mark, Luke John, 2nd Peter, o P., and only here in Hebrews. The verb kaqarizein to purify is not often used in N. T of cleansing from sin. See 2Co 7:1; 1Jo 1:7, 9 Of cleansing the conscience, Heb 9:14. Of cleansing meats and vessels, Mt 23:25, 26, Mr 7:19, Act 10:15; Act 11:9. Of cleansing the heart, Act 14:9. The meaning here is cleansing of sins. In the phrase “to cleanse from sin,” always with ajpo from. In carrying on all things toward their destined end of conformity to the divine archetype, the Son must confront and deal with the fact of sin, which had thrown the world into disorder, and drawn it out of God ‘s order. In the thought of making purification of sins is already foreshadowed the work of Christ as high priest, which plays so prominent a part in the epistle.

Sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high [ ] Comp. Psa 110:1, ch. Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12; Heb 12:2; Eph 1:20; Rev 3:21. The verb denotes a solemn, formal act; the assumption of a position of dignity and authority The reference is to Christ ‘s ascension. In his exalted state he will still be bearing on all things toward their consummation, still dealing with sin as the great high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. This is elaborated later. See ch. Heb 8 Rev 9:12 ff. Megalwsunh majesty, only here, ch. 8 1; Jude 1:25. Quite often in LXX There is suggested, not a contrast with his humiliation, but his resumption of his original dignity, described in the former part of this verse. jEn uJyhloiv, lit. in the high places. Const. with sat down, not with majesty. The phrase N. T. o. LXX, Psa 92:4; Psa 112:5. jEn toiv uJyistoiv in the highest [] , in the Gospels, and only in doxologies. See Mt 21:9; Mr 11:10; Luk 2:14. jEn toiv ejpouranioiv in the heavenly [] , only in Ephesians See Heb 1:3, 20; Heb 2:6; Heb 3:10; Heb 6:12.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Who being the brightness of his glory,” (hos on apaugasma tes dokses) “Who being (existing as) the radiance of his glory;” This radiance was perhaps reflected in Christ most fully before men on the mount of transfiguration, . It was described by Paul as reflected in his children, 2Co 4:6, and by John, Rev 1:13-16.

2) “And the express image of his person,” (kai charakter tes hupostaseos autou) “And the representation of his reality of being;” The very character and attributes of God’s existence were visibly, audibly, and physically expressed in the person of Jesus Christ, so that Jesus declared, “I and my Father are one,” one in nature and essence of essential being or existence, Joh 1:14; 1Ti 3:16; Joh 17:22.

EXPRESS IMAGE

For the phrase “express image” there is a single word in the original, a word transferred and familiar in our own language, viz., character. It is formed from a word signifying to sharpen, then to scratch or furrow with a sharp instrument, to write, to engrave. Our term, therefore, means a writing or engraving, and in this sense we often use it. So, also, as a form is engraven on a seal, and then stamped upon wax, the word indicates a figure stamped upon wax or soft metal. The figure impressed is precisely like the graving which determines it. The word accordingly signifies likeness. Then, from the notion of likeness it extends to that of sameness, so that we say of one’s combined qualities, they constitute his character, and more emphatically the character is the man, It is the man revealed and known. The son of God is, then, the revelation of the person of God. And to this term person, in the language of the New Testament, we do not attach the later metaphysical notion. It is simply equivalent to self.” We have now the whole thought in this pregnant phrase: Jesus Christ is God’s very Self revealed and known. He could say of Himself truly, as He said, “He that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me.” – – Duryea.

3) “And upholding all things by the word of his power,” (pheron te ta panta to hremati tes dunames autou) ”As well as continually bearing, supporting, or sustaining all things by the word of his dynamic power,” in whom men live, move, and have their being, Act 7:12; Col 1:17. It is by this resurrected living redeemer all things consist or hold together.

4) “When he had by himself purged our sins,” (katharismon ton hamartion poiesamenos) “When he had made a cleansing or purging of (our) sins;- through his voluntary, sacrificial, substitutionary death, he made himself to be or became a sin- purger for our sins, to meet the demands of an Holy God, Isa 53:11; 1Pe 2:24; Joh 10:17-18; Heb 9:12; Luk 23:46.

5) “Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,” (ekathisen en deksia tes megalosunes en hupselois) ‘He sat down on (at) the right hand of the greatness (central throne of God) in high (elevated) places;” at the right hand of his Father in heaven, awaiting the hour of His earthly heirship, while now making intercession for his children to the Father, against Satan and his accusers, Eph 1:20, 1Jn 2:1-2; Heb 7:25; Heb 8:1; Heb 8:7: Rev 12:7-12.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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 ἀπαύγασμα means here nothing else but visible light or refulgence, such as our eyes can bear; and χαρακτὴρ 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 ῦποστάσις 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 ( οὐσία) 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 ῥη̑μα, saying, but λόγος, 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. (Phi 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.” Joh 14:9; “He that hath seen me hath seen him that sent me.” (Joh 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 Appendix A.

(14) Stuart following Chrysostom, renders the words φέραν, “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 Exo 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 1Jo 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, (Eph 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.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(3) Who being the brightness . . .Who being the effulgence of His glory and the exact image of His substance. The first figure is familiar to us in the words of the Nicene Creed (themselves derived from this verse and a commentary upon it), God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God. Again striking parallels to the language present themselves in Philo, who speaks of the spirit breathed into man at his creation as an effulgence of the Blessed and Thrice-blessed Nature; and in the well-known passage of the Book of Wisdom, She (Wisdom) is the effulgence of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness (Wis. 7:26). In the Old Testament the token of the divine presence is the Shechinah, the cloud of glory (called the glory in Rom. 9:4; comp. Heb. 9:5 in this Epistle); here it is the divine nature itself that is denoted by the glory. Of the relation between this word and that which follows (substance) it is difficult to speak, as the conceptions necessarily transcend human language; but we may perhaps say (remembering that all such terms are but figurative) that the latter word is internal and the former external,the latter the essence in itself, the former its manifestation. Thus the Son in His relation to God is represented here by light beaming forth from light, and by exact impressthe perfect image produced by stamp or seal. These designations, relating to the essential nature of the Son, have no limitation to time; the participle being must be understood (comp. Php. 2:6; Joh. 1:1) of eternal, continuous existence. The word person is an unfortunate mistranslation in this place. Most of the earlier English versions have substance, person being first introduced in the Genevan Testament in deference to Beza.

By the word.The thought seems suggested by Genesis 1. (Psa. 33:9); the spoken word was the expression of His power. What is said above of being applies to upholding, except that the latter implies a previous creative act.

When he had by himself purged our sins.The older MSS. omit by Himself and our, so that the words must be rendered, when He had made purification of sins. At first the change may seem a loss; but it is easily seen that the simpler statement is more majestic, and also more suitable in this place; the more complete explanation of the truth belongs to a later stage (Hebrews 9). To make purification of sins is an unusual phrase (comp. Mat. 8:3, his leprosy was cleansed), meaning, to make purification by the removal of sins (Joh. 1:29; 1Jn. 3:5; 2Pe. 1:9).

Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.See Heb. 8:1; Heb. 12:2; Mat. 26:64; Mar. 14:62; also Heb. 1:13, and Heb. 10:12. This figure, which we meet with more than twenty times in the New Testament, is throughout derived from the first words of Psalms 110, which are descriptive of the exaltation of the Messiah. Jehovahs investiture of the Son of Man with unlimited dominion (Dan. 7:14) and supreme dignity (Eph. 1:20-21); the Saviours rest after the accomplishment of His work on earth (Heb. 8:1); His waiting for the complete and final subjection of His enemies, are the ideas signified. On the Psalm see below (Heb. 1:13).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

3. Brightness glory The relation of the Father to the Son is indicated as that of an essential glory to a brightness, or forth-beaming radiation. Hence the Nicene Creed styles the Son, “Light of light,” ( , literally, light out from light,) and pronounces the Father and Son to be of one substance, “consubstantial,” as light and light are one. Stuart asks if the sun and the rays proceeding from him are “consubstantial?” The reply is, that the body of the sun is material, whereas the glory, the pure “light,” is the very essence of God, and its radiations being also luminosity, are consubstantial with it. In place of the dark, material, central body of the sun, issuing its rays, is the central divine Essence, which, in the Miltonic phrase, is “dark with excessive bright,” yet unfolding its visible effulgence in the Son.

Brightness The Greek thus rendered is , which may signify either, 1. A ray actually darting forth from the glory or luminosity; 2. A bright spot shed upon a surface upon which it alights; or, 3. A light-form; being the shape assumed by the collected beams in combination: a second emanative luminosity repeating the first luminosity. That this last is the meaning here is clear from such phrases as, (Col 1:4,) “image of the invisible God;” (Php 2:5,) “form of God,” on which passages see notes. This emanative nature of the is ground for the use of the terms Son, Word, and, in the present epistle, Apostle. Heb 3:1, where see note.

Express image The image, here, is literally the figure or letters made upon a surface by a stamp. Hence, the relation between the Father and Son is here indicated by that between the stamp and the impress it fixes. This illustration, of course, touches only the two points of derivation and oneness.

Person More properly, substance; same word as in Heb 11:1, where see note. The eternal Son is the express image of the Father’s basis-reality, his essential being. The one is God permanent, and the other is God emanant.

Upholding As the ineffable Essence is the background, so the Word is its revelation in executive action. This Word is the eternal medium between the Essence and all external creations, both in bringing and maintaining them in existence.

Word of his power A more energetic phrase than “his powerful word,” as it is sometimes rendered.

The emphasis is on his power, and its word is its expression in act. The Socinian explanation, referring it to the “Gospel,” is entirely out of place. As executive of the divine essential God, the Word is “the plastic Power” by which all the natural and typical forms of things in nature are shaped and endowed with properties and powers; and, assuming humanity, the Word becomes the shaping agent of all the primary realities of the moral realm. In the former he is incarnated as immanent deity in the material world; in the latter he is incarnated as immanent deity in the material body of a human person. Mr. Bushnell somewhere says, in effect, it is no more impossible for God to be incarnated in Christ than for him to be in-worlded in the cosmos. As Word, the divine Apostle is Lord of nature; as Son, he is King of nations and Head of the Church.

Purged sat Transition now from the Son’s pre-existent state and being, to his incarnate manifestation and doings. Thus far the Son has been an emanation, an eternal apostle; now he becomes not only incarnate apostle, but HIGH PRIEST, Heb 3:1. Purged, more literally, having wrought a purification; that is, a purifying by his atonement as our priest. That purification is wrought by him potentially, once for all; it is actually appropriated in the individual by act of faith.

By himself And not, as symbolically under the old dispensation, by victims and sacrifices.

Right hand Note on Rom 8:34 and Act 7:55. The image, derived, doubtless, from Psalms 110, alludes to the Oriental custom by which a prince or premier, or other most exalted subject, sits at the right side of the throne. The phrase is never applied to the pre-existent Son, but always implies his incarnation and his exaltation in his glorified humanity.

On high Greek, ‘ ‘ , in high regions, the third heavens. On the heavens, see our note on 2Co 12:2. On relative locality of Father and Son, note, Act 7:55-56.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Who being the outshining of his glory, and the exact representation of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power.’

The ‘being’ of the coming Mighty One is now described. ‘Being’ (n), speaks of absolute and timeless existence (the present active participle of eimi) in contrast with genomenos (having become) in Heb 1:4. Compare ‘was’ (n) in Joh 1:1, in contrast with ‘became, was made’ (egeneto) in Joh 1:14, and ‘being, subsisting’ (huparchn) and ‘having become’ (genomenos) in Php 2:6-7. This is thus describing the ‘being’ of God’s Son, what God’s Son essentially was, in contrast with what He ‘became’.

He ‘is’ the ‘outshining’ of the glory of God, the ‘effulgence of his glory’ (apaugasma ts doxs). Thus could John say, ‘we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Son of the Father’ (Joh 1:14). The word apaugasma, is a late substantive from apaugaz, which means to ‘emit brightness’, to ‘illuminate’, in 2Co 4:4, and apaugasma is found only here in the New Testament. But it is found in the Wisdom of Solomon Heb 7:26 where it refers to the outshining of wisdom, and in Philo, when expressing the relationship of the Logos (the eternal reason) to God. Thus it speaks of ‘revealing the essence of’. It can sometimes indicate reflected brightness, but even then it indicated the reflection of the real, for such reflections were not seen scientifically but as ‘revealing the true nature of’. So its meaning here is of the outshining of light from an original light body, and thus as being of the same nature as the light body. These ideas had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos, of which they were partially true. But they are even more appropriate here.

For ‘outshining’ is more consonant of Christ in His relationship to God than reflected brightness. See Joh 1:4 with Joh 5:21; Joh 5:26; Joh 3:16 with Joh 3:9; Joh 12:45; Joh 14:9. The meaning “outshining” suits the context best. This is not a clinical analysis but an expression of worship. Compare ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ (2Co 4:6) where the parallel of the glory on the face of Moses was not a reflection but the essential light of God. It was the outshining of what God essentially is.

‘And the exact representation of His substance’ (charaktr ts hupostases). Charaktr comes from charass, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It was first used of the tool that did the marking, then of the mark or impress which it made, the exact reproduction; compare charagma in Act 17:29. It was used of the ‘stamped out image’ on coins, and of the impression that was reproduced by seals and dies. It thus indicates an exact representation.

The word hupostasis is used philosophically for the substantial nature, thus for the actual being or essence of God. Etymologically it is used, for example, of the sediment or foundation under a building, as that which forms the basis underneath, that which supports all, from which it came to mean the essence of a thing, what a thing is ‘underneath’. Thus the whole phrase means the exact reproduction of what God essentially is. It means that ‘what God was, the Word was’ (Joh 1:1).

‘And upholding (‘bearing’) all things by the word of his power.’ He not only fully represents and reveals God, He fulfils His responsibility to creation. By His powerful word, His creative and active word, He upholds all things. In Him all things consist (hold together) – Col 1:17. He did not just create and leave it to function on its own, He continued His activity in maintaining its functioning. It should be noted that the impression given is that this process continued even while He was on earth revealing the fullness of God. The thought of ‘bearing’ is not that of carrying a weight, but of moving all things forward so that the world does not go into decline.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

‘When he had himself made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.’

And this One Who was of the nature of an only Son, appointed the heir of all things, creator of the world, the outshining of God’s glory and the exact reproduction of what He is, ‘Himself made purification of sins’ (middle voice – He was intimately involved). We later discover that this was by the sacrifice and offering of Himself (Heb 10:10). He suffered, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God (1Pe 3:18). He was indeed both priest and sacrifice.

In the words of the hymnwriter,

‘Tis mystery all, the immortal dies.

Who can explore this strange design?

In vain the firstborn seraph tries,

To sound the depths of grace divine.’

‘Purification for sins.’ (katharismon tn hamartin). Katharismos is from kathariz, to cleanse (see Heb 9:14; 1Jn 1:7; 1Jn 1:9) and is also found in the same sense of cleansing from sins in 2Pe 1:9; Job 7:21 LXX. He made possible, through His sacrifice of Himself, the total and complete cleansing and purifying, of all who responded to Him, by which He has perfected for ever those who are sanctified (Heb 9:14; Heb 10:10; Heb 10:14; Heb 10:17-18).

And having accomplished purification of sin He ‘sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high’. His work of atonement accomplished once for all, He took His seat of authority and power (compare Heb 10:12), receiving again the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (Joh 17:5). He became the One Who sat on the throne, the Lamb ‘in the midst’ of the throne (Rev 5:6). The ‘right hand’ simply indicates the hand of power, the ruling hand. The earthly language (there is neither physical throne nor physical right hand) represents the fact that having accomplished His saving work He rejoined His Father in exercising His absolute power and authority (Rev 3:21). The fact that He sat down indicates that His work, including His priestly work, was now complete. He has returned to His rightful glory (Joh 17:5).

‘Of the Majesty on high.’ (ts megalosuns en hupslois). Coming from megas (great) megalosuns is found in Deu 32:3 LXX; Psa 79:11 LXX; Psa 145:3 LXX; and often in LXX; and in Heb 8:1; Jud 1:25. We could thus call God ‘His Supreme Greatness’. And having offered Himself Christ resumed his original greatness and glory (Joh 17:5). The phrase ‘on high’ (en hupslois) occurs in the Psalms (Psa 93:4 LXX), but only here in the New Testament. Having fulfilled His ministry of Priesthood in the offering of Himself, Jesus is here portrayed as receiving His Kingship as both Lord and Christ in Heaven (Act 2:34-36) and enjoying the restoration of His previously manifested glory (Joh 17:5).

Jesus is therefore Son, heavenly High Priest in an intercessory sense (His sacerdotal work having been completed as evidenced by the fact that He is now seated) and King.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Heb 1:3. Who, being the brightness, &c. Who, being a beam of his glory, and the express image of his substance. The word , which we render brightness, signifies that splendor or ray which proceeds from a luminous body. The words therefore represent the Father as Light, which is agreeable to other places of scripture: see 1Jn 1:5. But to raise their thoughts of the matter, the apostle sets forth this Light, by which he describes the Father, under the title of Glory; the design of which is, to express the purity, perfection, and lustre of all his attributes. Suitably to this account of God the Father, he represents the Son, as a splendor or ray eternally and essentially derived or proceeding from the Father: and as the beams or rays cannot be separated from the sun, that great fund of light, so neither can the nature and the glory of the divine Son be separated from that of the Father: he is “Light of Light, very God of very God.” The word , rendered express image, signifies an engraved or impressed mark,an impress; and is a most emphatical word, since nothing can be more exactly and minutely represented, than byits impress on wax or metal. “Christ (says Leigh) answers to the divine perfections, as the impression of the wax does to the engraving of the seal.” It is observable that Philo the Jew calls the Logos , “the character and image of God.” The word ‘, signifies subsistence, existence; or, as the Greek fathers, before the council of Nice, frequently applied the word, “a distinct person in the Godhead.” Comp. Col 1:15. Upholding all things by the word of his power seems plainly to express, that as the Son gave being to all the creatures, so he maintains them all in being. The same thing seems designed, Col 1:17.By him all things consist. In both places the same works are attributed to him. See Mat 11:27; Mat 28:18. Joh 3:35; Joh 13:3.When he had by himself purged our sins, refers to the expiation of our sins by his death; nor can there be any question that the apostle refers to the death of Christ, considering what is here said to have followed immediately upon his purging our sins,that he sat down at the right-hand of the

Majesty on high. The words by himself are very expressive: for as (Ch. Heb 9:12; Heb 9:26.) Christ is spoken of as making expiation by himself, and his ownblood, and not by the blood of bulls and of goats, so here it seems to be intended, that Christ alone, without any assistance or concurrence ofangels, or any other beings, made a perfect expiation of our sins. See Isa 63:3. 1Pe 3:22. Eph 1:20.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 1:3 . Continued description of the dignity of the Son. The main declaration of the verse, , is established on the grounds presented in the preceding participles . The grounding, however, is a twofold one, inasmuch as the participles present still relate to Christ as the , and describe His nature and sway, while the participle aorist has as its contents the redeeming act of the . Of the two present participles, the first corresponds to the former half of the proposition, Heb 1:2 , and the second to the latter half.

] not: quum esset, but: quum sit ., or as . For the . . . and . . ., which was appropriate to the Son of God in His prehuman form of existence, has, after the exaltation or ascension has taken place, become again appropriate to Him. [31]

] an Alexandrian word, occurring Wis 7:26 , and frequently with Philo, but only here in the N. T. It is explained either (1) as a beaming forth or radiance, i.e. as a ray which flows forth from the light, e.g. , of the sun. So Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, and Hofmann, after the example of Clarius, Jac. Cappellus, Gomar., Schlichting, Gerhard, Calov, Owen, Rambach, Peirce, Calmet, Heumann, Bhme, Reiche. Or (2) as image, reflected radiance, i.e. as a likeness formed by reflex rays, reflection . So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wittich, Limborch, Stein, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. Kirch.-Z . 1857, No. 29, p. 661, and in his Lexic. N. T . p. 36), Nickel (Reuter’s Repert . 1857, Oct., p. 17), Moll, and others; so substantially also Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 279). In favour of the former interpretation it may be advanced that Hesychius paraphrases by ; and in Lexic. Cyrilli ms. Brem . are found the words: , , as accordingly also Chrysostom and Theophylact explain by , the latter with the addition ; and Theodoret observes: , , . But without reason does Bleek claim, in favour of this first interpretation, also the usage of Philo and Wis 7:26 . For in the passage of Philo, de Speciall. legg . 11 (ed. Mangey, II. p. 356), which Bleek regards as “particularly clear” ( [Gen 2:7 ] , ), there is found no ground of deciding either for or against this acceptation of the word. The other two passages of Philo, however, which are cited by Bleek, tell less in favour of it than against it. For in the former of these is explained by [ impression ] and [ shred ] as synonyms, in the latter by [ copy ]. ( De Opific. Mundi , p. 33 D, in Mangey, I. p. 35: , , .

De plantat. No , p. 221 C, Mang. I. p. 337: , .) Finally, there are found also, Wis 7:26 , as kindred expressions, besides , the words and . ( . ) The decision is afforded by the form of the word itself. Inasmuch as not , but is written, an active notion, such as would be required by Bleek’s acceptation, cannot be expressed by it, but only a passive one. Not the ray itself, but the result thereof must be intended. For as denotes that which is produced by the , the resonance or echo, and that which is produced by the , the shadow cast by an object, so does denote that which is produced by the . is therefore to be rendered by reflected radiance , and a threefold idea is contained in the word (1) the notion of independent existence, (2) the notion of descent or derivation, (3) the notion of resemblance.

] of His (the divine) glory or majesty. For the following belongs equally to as to .

] and as impress of His essential being , so that the essential being of the Father is printed forth in the Son, the Son is the perfect image and counterpart of the Father. Comp. Philo, de plantat. No , p. 217 A (ed. Mangey, I. p. 332), where the rational soul ( ) is called a coin which stands the test, , . In the N. T. the word is found only in this place. To interpret , however, in the sense of , or “Person” (Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, Calvin [in the exposition], Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Calov, Sebastian Schmidt, Bellarmin, Braun, Brochmann, Wolf, Suicer), is permitted only by later usage, not by that of the apostolic age. For the rest, that which is affirmed by the characteristic , the Apostle Paul expresses, Col 1:15 , by , and, Phi 2:6 (comp. 2Co 4:4 ), by .

] and as He who upholds the whole creation by the word of His power . Comp. Col 1:17 : ; Philo, de Cherub . p. 114 (ed. Mang. I. p. 145): .

is not to be limited, with the Socinians, to the kingdom of grace, but is identical with ; and , Heb 1:2 , thus denotes the complex of all created things. On in the signification: to uphold anything , so that its continued existence is assured, comp. Plutarch, Lucull . 6 : ; Valerius Maximus, xi. 8. 5 : Humeris gestare salutem patriae; Cicero, pro Flacco , c. 38: Quam (rempublicam) vos universam in hoc judicio vestris humeris, vestris inquam humeris, judices sustinetis; Seneca, Ep . 31: Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia; Herm. Past. iii. 9. 14: Nomen Filii Dei magnum et immensum est et totus ab eo sustentatur orbis.

] more emphatic than if were written, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield would, without reason, make the words equivalent. Oecumenius: . Theophylact: .

Not the gospel , however, is meant by ; but as by the word of Omnipotence the world was created (comp. Heb 11:3 ), so is it also by the word of Omnipotence upheld or preserved.

] goes back to , thus to the Son, not to God (Grotius, Peirce, Reiche, Paulus).

] after He had accomplished a cleansing from the sins . Progress of the discourse to the dignity of the Son as the eternal Logos incarnate , or the Redeemer in His historic appearing on earth. The nearer defining of the sense conveyed by the declaration: , with regard to the grammatical expression of which LXX. of Job 7:21 , 2Pe 1:9 , may be compared, was naturally presented to the readers. As the object on which the was wrought was understood as something self-evident, the world of mankind , which until then was under the defiling stain of sins, without possessing the power for its own deliverance; as the means, however, by which the was accomplished, the atoning death of Christ. [Owen compares the lustrations , i.e. purifications by sacrifice, and cites Lucian’s , “We shall cast him down headlong for an expiation of the army.”] To conceive of the themselves as a direct object to , to which Bleek and Winer, Gramm . 5th ed. p. 214 (differently, 6th ed. p. 168, 7th ed. p. 176), were inclined, and in favour of which Delitzsch and Alford (comp. also Hofmann ad loc .) pronounce themselves with decision, in such wise that these are thought of as the disease of the human race, which is healed or put away by Christ, is not at all warranted by the isolated and less accurate form of expression: , Mat 8:3 . Nor is it requisite to supply before , and assume a pregnancy of expression, since and its derived words are not only connected by , but likewise, with equal propriety, by the bare genitive. See Khner, II. p. 163.

] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high . Culminating point of the description. Characteristic of the dignity of the Son after the completed work of redemption , in the period of His return to the Father, which followed the period of His self-abasement. The sitting at the right hand of God is a well-known figure, derived from Psa 110:1 , in order to designate supreme honour and dominion over the world (Rom 8:34 , al .).

] Comp. Psa 93:4 ; Psa 113:5 ; tantamount to , Heb 8:1 ; or , Eph 1:20 ; or , Luk 2:14 ; Luk 19:38 , al . The addition belongs not to (Beza, Bhme, Bleek, Ebrard, Alford), since otherwise the article would be repeated, but to . The plural is explained from the supposition of several heavens, in the highest of which the throne of the Divine Majesty was placed.

[31] Hofmann ( Schriftbew . I. p. 159 f., 2d ed.; comp. also his remarks in the Commentary, p. 64 ff.) believes that the . . . and the . . . must be referred exclusively to the exalted Christ, but on untenable grounds. For from the consideration that “forms the most unambiguous contrast to the condition of Christ’s life in the flesh,” nothing is to be argued in favour of this view; because this contrast is equally to be supposed, when we understand these words alike of the premundane as of the exalted Christ. The further assertion, however, that in the case of a referring of . . . to that which Christ is apart from His humanity, the declaration ver. 3 must have been connected by means of instead of , is lacking in all grammatical support. For, so far as concerns the sense, there is no difference whatever between and ; only regard for rhetorical euphony and the due rounding off of the periods determined the author upon expressing himself as he did.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 2268
CHRISTS ASCENSION TO GLORY

Heb 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.

A REVELATION of God, by whatever means or instrument it may be communicated, demands our solemn attention. But Christianity requires the highest possible degree of reverence, because the Messenger, by whom it was promulgated, as far surpassed all other instruments in excellence, as the truths delivered by him are of deeper and more mysterious import. It is in this view that the Apostle introduces this sublime description of Christ; in which we may notice,

I.

The dignity of his person

We cannot conceive any expressions more grand than these which are here applied to Christ, and which set forth,

1.

His essential dignity

[The Father is the fountain, and the archetype of all perfection. Of him Jesus is a perfect copy. As the impression on the wax corresponds with all the marks and lineaments of the seal, so is Jesus the express image of the Father in every particular, insomuch that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father [Note: Joh 14:9.]. But the Father is, in himself, invisible to mortal eyes [Note: 1Ti 1:17; 1Ti 6:16.]; it is in Christ only that he is seen: on which account Christ is called the image of the invisible God [Note: Col 1:15.]. And as all the glory of the sun is seen in the bright effulgence of its rays, so is all the glory of the Godhead seen in the face of Jesus Christ [Note: Col 2:9. 2Co 4:6.].]

2.

His official dignity

[It was Jesus who made the worlds [Note: ver. 2 and Joh 1:3.]: and he it is who upholds them by the same powerful word that first spake them into existence [Note: Col 1:17.]. By him all things maintain their proper courses, and the order first assigned them. Nor is there any thing that happens either in the kingdom of providence or of grace, which does not proceed from his will, or tend to his glory. There is nothing so small but it occupies his attention, nothing so great but it is under his controul [Note: Mat 10:29-30.]. Every thing that is good owes its existence to his immediate agency, and every thing that is evil, to his righteous permission.]

Intimately connected with this is,

II.

The diversity of his ministrations

As in the Church there are diversities of administrations and of operations [Note: 1Co 12:4-6.] under Christ, who is the author of them, so in the work of Christ himself there is a diversity of ministrations.

1.

He purged our sins by his blood on earth

[Sin needed an atonement, and such an atonement as no created being could offer. Jesus therefore, the Creator himself, undertook to make an atonement for us, and such an one as should satisfy divine justice on our behalf, and put honour on that law which we had violated. For this end he assumed that nature which had sinned, and endured the curse due to our iniquities. When he had only to create or to uphold the universe, his word was sufficient: but when he came to redeem the world, nothing would suffice but his own precious blood. Other priests offered the blood of bulls and of goats as typical expiations: but, to make a true and proper atonement, Jesus was forced to offer up himself. His prayers and tears were insufficient: if he would purge away our sins, he must do it by himself, by pouring out his soul unto death.

This is what Jesus undertook to do; nor did he ever draw back till he could say, It is finished.]
He ascended to complete his work in heaven
[The high-priest, after offering the sacrifice, entered within the vail, to present it there. Thus Jesus passed into the heavens, the place where he was to finish his ministrations. In the presence of all his disciples he ascended thither, giving thereby a decisive evidence that nothing further remained for him to do on earth. But a further evidence of this arises from the posture in which he ministers in heaven. The priests under the law stood, because they needed to repeat the same sacrifices continually: but Jesus having offered one sacrifice once for all, sat down at the right hand of God, the place of supreme dignity and power. From this we inter the perfection of his sacrifice on earth [Note: Heb 10:11-12.]; and are assured, that whatever remains to be done by him within the vail, is transacted in an authoritative manner, all power being given to him to save to the uttermost them that trust in him.]

We may learn from hence,
1.

The security of those who believe in Christ

[Who is it that interests himself for them? Jehovahs Fellow [Note: Zec 13:7.]. Who bought them with his blood? The God of heaven and earth [Note: Act 20:28.]. Who has undertaken to keep them? He that upholdeth all things by his word [Note: Col 1:17-18]. Who is continually engaged in completing their salvation? He that is constituted Head over all things for this very purpose [Note: Eph 1:22-23.]. What then have they to fear either from their past guilt, or their present weakness? Let them only be strong in faith, and none shall ever pluck them out of his hand [Note: Joh 10:28.].]

2.

The danger of those who are yet in unbelief

[In proportion to the dignity of this adorable Saviour must be the guilt of rejecting him. This is frequently insisted on in this epistle [Note: Heb 2:3-4; Heb 10:28-29.]. Let us lay it to heart. To neglect this Jesus is such a mixture of folly and ingratitude, of impiety and rebellion, as involves in it the highest degree of criminality, and subjects us to the heaviest condemnation [Note: Deu 18:18-19.]. Let those who are guilty of this neglect remember that the enemies of Jesus shall all become his footstool: and let them kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and they perish without a remedy [Note: Psa 2:6; Psa 2:9-10; Psa 2:12.].]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

(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;

The Holy Ghost by his servant hath here given a further description of the infinite dignity of Christ’s Person. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his Person; and upholding all things by the word of his power. I pray the Reader to mark, with due attention, those glorious distinctions of character, by which the Person of Christ is here revealed. He is said, to be the brightness of his Father’s glory. Not made so, but being so: Consequently the same oneness of nature, and essence with the Father. And when it is added, the express image of his Person; meaning, that by virtue of the Son of God, assuming manhood, he becomes the visible representation, of what without this medium, was, and is, and cannot but be agreeably to that blessed scripture, that in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Col 2:9 . And in relation to his upholding all things by the word of his power, nothing can he more plain, than that, as God-Man Mediator, he hath power given him over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given him, Joh 17:2 . And no less, doth he uphold the whole of Creation, which he hath made; being the natural, and immediate result, for which God in his threefold character of Persons, went forth in acts of creation, by Jesus Christ, that he, as the visible Jehovah, it all Covenant transactions, should reign, and control all things, in all the departments of nature, providence, grace, and glory, Dan 4:34-35 ; Eph 1:10 . Reader! pause before you proceed further and contemplate the glories of his Person, as here drawn, by the Holy Ghost. Well might Paul desire to relinquish all other knowledge, for the knowledge of Christ, Phi 3:8-9 . And well might he pray for the Church, that this, above all other blessings, might be their portion, Eph 1:15 to the end. And yet, Reader! this is He whom man despiseth! This is He whom the nation abhorreth, Isa 49:7 . What man? What nation? Yea, every man, and every nation, unacquainted with his mysterious Person, God-Man! And is not the present, as well as the nation of the Jews of old, a Christ-despising generation? But concerning those to whom God the Holy Ghost hath revealed him, Jesus thus speaks; Father! I will, that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me, Joh 17:24 .

But the scripture proceeds, When he had by himself, purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Reader! pray observe, what an emphasis, God the Holy Ghost, lays on this account of Christ. The purging our sins, is made to appear, a greater work in the Heir of all things; than even the creation of the worlds by him. For the one was simply the act of his Almighty power: But the other, is not only the act of his Almighty power, and his Almighty love; but the giving of himself in the purging our sins by himself. Not merely, an exertion of power: not the gift of his property, his works, or actions, or will, or design: not giving his creation, and all the creatures he had given life unto, in calling them into being; not these; but himself, his Person, his whole human nature as he himself calleth it, my flesh which I will give for the life of the world! Joh 6:51 . The preciousness of the work; the love of Him that performed it; and the extensiveness of the efficacy of it; none but God himself, can form any idea thereof. It is said, that his very name is such, that no man knew but he himself, Rev 19:12 . And if so, what must be his work: and such a work, as that of purging our sins by himself? Reader! I know not how to leave the sweet meditation. Jesus by himself purged our sins! It was himself, his own proper Person; himself, both Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice. He made himself an offering for sins; yea, to sum up all, as this sweet scripture hath it, for none can be more full, or more expressive: by himself purged our sins! Oh! the love of God which passeth knowledge! The Father gave his Son, his elect in whom his soul delighteth. The Son gave himself, and by himself purged our sins. And God the Holy Ghost confirms the whole by regeneration, to his redeemed for in the whole manifestations of grace, he was justified in the Spirit, 1Ti 3:16 .

But we must not stop here. When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. There is a vast deal of importance in those scriptures, connected together: and it is plain, that they are joined here by the Holy Ghost, purposely for the comfort and joy of the Church, on this account. It is, as if the Lord had said, by way of confirmation, that Jesus by himself, hath purged and done away all your sins; and he is returned to heaven, and is sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having finished the work the Father gave him to do, Paul in one scripture, and Peter in another, make this return of Christ to heaven, as the most complete answer to all the accusations of hell, and the sinner’s conscience; yea, to all the demands of God’s law, and justice on account of sin. Who (saith Paul) shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; yea, rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, Rom 8:39Rom 8:39 . As much as to say; what fears can now arise, to distress the Lord’s redeemed ones? God the Father hath received him, at the heavenly Court, and said unto him; sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool, Psa 110:1 . And Peter following up the same blessed truth, with a rapture of holy joy and triumph, tells the Church, that Christ is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God: angels, and authorities, being made subject unto him, 1Pe 3:22 . Reader! do not lose sight of these blessed things, for they are most blessed. Your Jesus would never have returned to his Father, had his work been unfinished, He hereby proved that he had by himself purged our sins. Hence this act, most fully certified, that not only sin, with all its tremendous consequences, was forever done away: but that justification to life, was also secured, by his entrance into heaven. Hence that sweet scripture: he was delivered for our offences, and raised again for out justification, Rom 4:25 . Neither is this all, For Christ’s sitting down, at the right hand of the Majesty on high, is spoken of in another scripture, as contrasted to the actions of those Priests who daily stand to minister in sacrifices. For every priest, standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sin. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God: from henceforth expecting, till his enemies be made his footstool: (according to God’s word and oath, Psa 110 ) for by one offering, he hath perfected, forever, them that are sanctified, Heb 10:11-14 . Nothing can be more beautiful and decisive, on this ground than those different actions of standing and sitting. The priests of old stood, while in their ministry, in proof that they had no power to finish it: and their daily labors, as daily carried conviction with them, that they were only, the shadow of good things to come, Heb 10:1 . But Jesus when he had by himself purged our sins, returned to glory, and sat down, in proof, that he had entered into his rest once for all, having obtained eternal redemption for us, Heb 9:11-12 . Once more, the Holy Ghost is express also to teach the Church, that in this entrance of Christ into heaven, it is as our fore-runner; Heb 6:20 . And where his redeemed must follow. Nay, we are said already by faith to sit together with Christ in heavenly places, Eph 2:6 , so that the justified believer in Christ is now by faith, already in heaven, with his glorious Head: and shortly will be there in person. For so the promise runs: Where I am; there shall ye be also, Joh 14:1-3 . To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me in my throne; even as I also overcame, and am sat down with my Father in his throne, Rev 3:20 . Reader! think what precious things, are contained in the bosom of this short, but comprehensive scripture, concerning our glorious Lord: when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on he right hand of the Majesty on high.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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;

Ver. 3. Who being the brightness of his glory, &c. ] A beam of that sun, and the express image of his person, a stamp of that seal. This is somewhat, but who can declare his generation? Some glimpses we may have by such similitudes; the full understanding of this inconceivable mystery we must wait for till we come to heaven. The word signifieth the glittering refulgency.

Upholding all things ] Both in respect of being excellencies and operations. Seneca, rendering the reason why Jupiter was by the ancient Romans surnamed Stator, saith it was quia eius beneficio stant omnia, because all things are upheld by him. How much better may this be said of Christ! Sin had hurled confusion over the world, which would have fallen about Adam’s ears (saith one) had not Christ undertaken the shattered condition thereof, to uphold it. He keeps the world together, as the hoops do the barrel. He also keeps all in order; disponens etiam membra culicis et pulicis, disposing of everything even to the least and lightest circumstance. (Aug.) Hence that of our Saviour, “The Father worketh hitherunto, and I also work,” Joh 5:17 ; hence that of the orator, Curiosus est et plenus negotii Deus, God taketh care of all, and is full of business. (Cic. lib. 1 de Nat. Deor.)

Purged our sins ] By his merit and spirit.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

3 .] “The Son of God now becomes Himself the subject. The ‘verbum finitum’ belonging to the relative is not found till at the end of the verse. But the intermediate participial clauses do not stand in the same relation to the main sentence. The first members, , still set forth those attributes of the Son of God which are of a permanent character, and belonging to Him before the Incarnation: whereas the following member, the last participial clause, stands in nearer relation to the main sentence, expressing as it does the purification of mankind from sin, wrought by the incarnate Son of God, as one individual historical event, as the antecedent of that exaltation of Him to the right hand of God, which the main sentence enounces.” Bleek.

Who (the represents, it will be evident, rather the pr-existent than the incarnate Logos. But it is perhaps a mistake to let this distinction be too prominent, and would lead to the idea of a change having taken place in the eternal relation of the Son to the Father, when He subjected himself to the conditions of space and time. Even then He could say of himself, . See Ebrard’s note), being (cf. , Phi 2:6 , also of His pr-existent and essential being. This comparison seems decisive against Hofmann, who (Schriftbeweis, i. 140 ff.) takes and according to his theory that all the attributes of the Son of God spoken of in the N. T. are adduced in connexion with and as manifested by His work of Redemption. See against this view Delitzsch, h. l. p. 7. But it must also be remembered that and are present participles. They must not be rendered utpote qui , or cum esset and ferret , but kept to their essential and timeless sense, ‘ being ,’ and ‘ bearing ’) the brightness ( effulgentia , not “ repercussus , qualis est in nube qu dicitur ,” as Grot., Calv. (“splendor ex illius lumine refulgens, refulgentia”), al. This latter would be legitimate, but does not seem to have been the ordinary usage. Bl. cites from Philo de Concupiscent. 11, vol. ii. p. 356, ( Gen 2:7 ) , , where the sense clearly is, that the breath breathed into man was as it were a ray of the divine nature itself. See also id. de Opif. Mund. 51, vol. i. p. 35; de Plant. No, 12, p. 154. Cf. Wis 7:26 , where wisdom is called an . And this (which, as Delitzsch remarks, is represented by the of the Church) seems to have been universally the sense among the ancients: no trace whatever being found of the meaning ‘ reflexion .’ Nor would the idea be apposite here: the Son of God is, in this his essential majesty, the expression, and the sole expression, of the divine Light, not, as in his Incarnation, its reflexion. So Thdrt.: , , . . (Cf. Athanasius contra Arianos Orat. i. (ii.) 12, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 328: , ; 😉 And Thl.: . . , , , , . , . And Origen, tom. xxxii. in Joann. 18, vol. iv. p. 450: , , . Hesychius gives as the meaning of , : and the MS. Lexicon of Cyril, . See also Clem-rom. in reff. and several other authorities cited in Bleek) of His glory (not simply His light : nor need be confined to such literal sense: cf. Clem.-rom. as above. His glory, in its widest and amplest reference.

It has been attempted to give to . the meaning splendor gloriosus , and to make below refer, not to the Father, but to . But to this Bleek answers after Seb.-Schmidt, that never is found without a genitive of the , which genitive here can be no other than ( , i. e. ). Again, Owen (vol. i. p. 85 f.) supposes the Shechinah to be alluded to; Akersloot, the Urim and Thummim. It is hardly probable that in a preliminary description, couched in the most general and sublime terms, any such particular allusion should be intended. Notice again the anarthrous predicate, to which the same remarks will apply as to above.

Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier genannt wird, sondern die bersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfet ) and impress (“ figura ,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word , which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device , and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. Thus sch. Suppl. 279, . “Aristot. c. ii. p. 689, : id. Pol. i. 6, where is to stamp coin, and it is said, . Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, , . Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished. Herod. i. 116, . . Diod. Sic. i. 82, , the lines of the countenance. Lucian, de Amoribus, p. 1061, calls mirrors , and ib. p. 1056, . . Demosth. (in Stephan.), , . Philo, de Mund. Opif. 4 (vol. i. p. 4), , to impress on the mind the lines and forms of an intended city: id. Legg. Allegor. i. 18 (vol. i. p. 55), , : id. de Mundi Opif. 23 (p. 15), (the likeness of man to God) , ib. 53 (p. 36), (viz. of God and the creation) (scil. man, while he was alone) : and, 2. of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed, which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die. So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the imparted by God to man , Moses naming the same , to shew , : De Plant. No, 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul , . , . Here the is designated as the impress of the seal of God, by the impression of which in like manner on the human soul, this last receives a corresponding figure, as the image of the unseen and divine. Compare also Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33, . , . Hence the usage of here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’s Lex.

, , , . . , , . Thdrt.) of His substance (substantial or essential being: “ substance ,” Wicl., Tynd., Cranm., Rheims: “ person ,” Geneva, and E. V.: Wesen, Luther, &c., De Wette, Bleek, al.: das der Erscheinung unterliegende Wesen, der Wesensgrund , Delitzsch. The various meanings of are well traced by Bleek, from whom, as so often in this Epistle, I take the account. Etymologically, the word imports the lying or being placed underneath: and this is put in common usage for, 1. substratum or foundation fundamentum . Diod. Sic. i. 66, : id. xiii. 82, : Eze 43:11 , . . . : Psa 68:2 , . . Nearly connected with this is, 2. establishment , or the state of being established: hence . firmness , to which idea the word approaches in the last citation: but especially in reference to firmness of spirit, confidence: see more on ch. Heb 3:14 , . substantial existence, reality , in contradistinction to that which exists only in appearance or idea: Aristot. de Mundo iv. 19, , : Artemidor. Oneirocrit. iii. 14, , : Diog. Laert. ix. 91, , : id. vii. 135, . Hence . generally, consistence or existence . So Philo, de Incorrupt. Mund. 18, vol. i. p. 505, , : Psa 38:5 , : Ps. 88:47, (in both places for the existence of man, Heb. : hence also, as , for possessions or goods , as Deu 11:6 ; Jer 10:17 ). Hence also . it imports the especial manner of being , the peculiar essence of an object. Thus 1Ki 13:21 , . : Wis 16:21 , ( . ) . And this last seems to be the best meaning in our place: His essential being , His substance . For in regarding the history of the word, we find that the well-known theological meaning ‘ person ’ was not by any means generally received during the first four centuries. We have it indeed in Origen, tom. ii. in Joann. 6, vol. iv. p. 61 ( , , . , . , . . .): but the usage is by no means constant. The Nicene council itself uses and in the same sense, and condemns the deriving the Son from the Father (cited in Bleek, p. 60, note): and so usually (in the genuine works: e. g. Ep. ad Afros, c. 4, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 714: , . . . See Gieseler, Kirchengesch. 1Pe 2 , p. 63) Athanasius. The fact was, that the Easterns most commonly used to designate the three separate Persons (cf. e. g. Chrys. de Sacerdot. iv. 4, vol. i. p. 410 A, . . . . . , , &c., and especially Basil, whom Gieseler regards as the representative of this view: Ep. 236. 6, vol. iv. p. 363, . , . See other passages in Gieseler, ubi supra) in distinction from Sabellianism, which acknowledged three , but not three , i. e. self-subsisting personalities: whereas the Westerns continued to regard as = , and assumed but one : and the Western bishops, assembled with Athanasius at the council of Sardica in 347, distinctly pronounced the assumption of three hypostases heretical, i. e. Arian. Their words, as cited by Suicer from Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. ii. 6, are very decisive: , , . , . , . . . , . . . , , , , . , . . Subsequently however to this, in the Synod assembled at Alexandria in 362, at which Athanasius, and bishops of Italy, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya were present, the Easterns and Westerns agreed, on examination of one another’s meaning, to acknowledge one another as orthodox, and to allow indifferently of the use of signifying ‘Persons,’ and signifying ‘substance,’ ‘essence,’ . The Epistle from this synod to the bishops of Antioch is among the works of Athanasius, vol. ii. p. 615 ff., and is a very interesting document. But it attempted conciliation in vain, the Miletian schism at Antioch, which began on this point, having been confirmed and perpetuated by external causes. See on the whole subject, Bleek’s note: Jerome, Epist. 15 (al. 57) ad Damasum, 4, vol. i. p. 40; and on the use made of this description by orthodox and heretics in early times, Bleek, Chrys. in loc.: Calvin’s note, where he gives some excellent cautions against the speculative pressing of each expression: “Nam hoc quoque notandum est, non hic doceri frivolas speculationes, sed tradi solidam fidei doctrinam. Quare debemus in usum nostrum hc Christi elogia applicare, sicuti ad nos relationem habent.”

On all grounds it will be safer here to hold to the primitive meaning of the word, and not to introduce into the language of the apostolic age a terminology which was long subsequent to it), and ( couples closely clauses referring to the same subject, and following as matter of course on one another) upholding (we have this sense of in reff. and in the later Greek writers, e. g. Plut. Lucull. 6, . So in Latin, Val. Max. xi. 8.5, “humeris gestare salutem patri:” Cic. pro Flacco, c. 38, “quam (remp.) vos universam in hoc judicio vestris humeris. judices, sustinetis:” Senec. Ep. 31, “Deus ille maximus potentissimusque vehit omnia.” But the usage is principally found in the Rabbinical writings, as appears from the extracts in Schttgen, e. g. Sohar Chadasch, fol. ix. 1, “Creator benedictus portans omnes mundos robore suo ( ),” &c. Chrys. says, , , : and so Thl.: “Sursum tenet, ne decidant, et in nihilum revertantur,” Ps.-Anselm) the universe (the same as designated by above: not that the art. expressly refers back to that word, for is the ordinary expression for the aggregate of all things. The meaning attempted to be given by some Socinian expositors, “the whole kingdom of grace,” is wholly beside the purpose: see reff., esp. Col 1:17 , : Job 8:3 , : Rev 4:11 , ) by the word ( expressed command : cf. ch. Heb 11:3 , ) of his (Whose? His own, or the Father’s? The latter is held by Cyrilalex. contra Julian. viii. vol. ix. p. 259 C, . . , . And so Grot., al. But Chrys., Thdrt., Thl., and the great body of Commentators understand to refer to the Son. That it may do so, it is not necessary to write , as is done in the cursive mss. (the uncial MSS. being mostly without accents) and in many modern editions. Bleek in his note (vol. i. p. 69) makes it probable that the abbreviated writing for had not been adopted in the days of the N. T. Even if it had, his rule seems a good one; that should never be written unless in cases where, if speaking in the 1st or 2nd person, we should use or , i. e. never except where emphatic. Now here, supposing the words addressed to the Son, and not would evidently be the word used: and consequently in expressing the same sentence in the 3rd person, , not ( ) ought to be written. The interpretation therefore is independent of this distinction. But the question recurs, which is the right one? The strict parallelism of the clauses would seem to require, that here should designate the same person, as it does before, after . But such parallelism and consistency of reference of demonstrative pronouns is by no means observed in the N. T., e. g. Eph 1:20 ; Eph 1:22 , (of the Father), (of the Son). In every such case the reference must be determined by the circumstances, and the things spoken of. And applying that test here, we find that in our former clause, . . , it is quite out of the question that should be reflective, referring, as it clearly does, to another than the subject of the sentence. But when we proceed to our second clause, . . , we find no such bar to the ordinary reflective sense of , but every reason to adopt it as the most obvious. For we have here an action performed by the Son, who . Whereby? : where we may certainly say, 1. that had another than the subject of the sentence been intended, such intention would have been expressed: and, 2. that the assertion would be after all a strange and unexampled one, that the Son upholds all things by the word of the Father’s power. So that, on all accounts, this second seems better to be referred to the Son) power (not to be weakened into the comparatively unmeaning . His Power is an inherent attribute, whether uttered or not: the is that utterance, which He has been pleased to give of it. It is a “powerful word,” but much more is here stated that it is the word of, proceeding from, giving utterance to, His power), having made (the vulg. “ faciens ” is an unfortunate mistranslation, tending to obscure the truth of the completion of the one Sacrifice of the Lord. The words can hardly be retained in the text, in the face of their omission in the three most ancient MSS., joined to their internal character as an explanatory gloss. Dr. Bloomfield’s strong argument in their favour, that they “are almost indispensable,” in fact, pronounces their condemnation. The hypothesis of homoteleuton suggests itself: but it is hardly likely in so solemn an opening passage, and weighs little against the probability the other way. Meanwhile, the gloss is a good and true one. It was , in the fullest sense) purification of sins (as Bleek observes, there is no occasion to suppose the genitive here equivalent to , seeing that we may say , as we read, Mat 8:3 , . Sin was the great uncleanness, of which He has effected the purgation: the disease of which He has wrought the cure. This must be understood by the subsequent argument in the Epistle: for that which the Writer had it in his mind to expand in the course of his treatise, he must be supposed to have meant when he used without explanation a concise term, like this. And that we know to have been, the purifications and sacrifices of the Levitical law, by which man’s natural uncleanness in God’s sight was typically removed, and access to God laid open to him. Ebrard’s note here is so important that, though long, I cannot forbear inserting it: “ answers to the Heb. , and its ideal explanation must be sought in the meaning which suits the Levitical cleansing in the O. T.cultus. Consequently, they are entirely wrong, who understand of moral amelioration, and would so take in this place, as if the author wished to set forth Christ here as a moral teacher, who by precept and example incited men to amendment. And we may pronounce those in error, who go so far indeed as to explain the of the propitiatory removal of the guilt of sin, but only on account of later passages in our Epistle, as if the idea of scriptural were not already sufficiently clear to establish this, the only true meaning. The whole law of purification, as given by God to Moses, rested on the assumption that our nature, as sinful and guilt-laden, is not capable of coming into immediate contact with our holy God and Judge. The mediation between man and God present in the most holy place, and in that most holy place separated from the people, was revealed in three forms; . in sacrifices, . in the Priesthood, and . in the Levitical laws of purity. Sacrifices were (typical) acts or means of propitiation for guilt; Priests were the agents for accomplishing these acts, but were not themselves accounted purer than the rest of the people, having consequently to bring offerings for their own sins before they offered for those of the people. Lastly, Levitical purity was the condition which was attained, positively by sacrifice and worship, negatively by avoidance of Levitical pollution, the condition in which the people was enabled, by means of the priests, to come into relation with God ‘without dying’ ( Deu 5:26 ); the result of the cultus which was past, and the postulate for that which was to come. So that that which purified, was sacrifice: and the purification was, the removal of guilt. This is most clearly seen in the ordinance concerning the great day of atonement, Lev 16 . There we find those three leading features in the closest distinctive relation. First, the sacrifice must be prepared ( Lev 16:1-10 ): then, the high priest is to offer for his own sins ( Lev 16:11-14 ): lastly, he is to kill the sin-offering for the people ( Lev 16:15 ), and with its blood to sprinkle the mercy-seat and all the holy place, and cleanse it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel ( Lev 16:19 ); and then he is symbolically to lay the sins of the people on the head of a second victim, and send forth this animal, laden with the curse, into the wilderness. For ( Lev 16:30 ) ‘on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.’ In the atonement, in the gracious covering ( , Lev 16:30 ) of the guilt of sin, consists purification in the scriptural sense. (And so also were those who had become levitically unclean, e. g. lepers, Lev 14 , cleansed by atoning sacrifices.) So that an Israelitish reader, a Christian Jew, would never, on reading the words , 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 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 Saviour 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. To speak these words of Scripture with the mouth, is easy: but he only can say Yea and Amen to them with the heart who, in simple truthfulness of the knowledge of himself, has looked down even to the darkest depths of his ruined state, natural to him, and intensified by innumerable sins of act, and, despairing of all help in himself, reaches forth his hand after the good tidings of heavenly deliverance.” It is truly refreshing, in the midst of so much unbelief, and misapprehension of the sense of Scripture, in the German Commentators, to meet with such a clear and full testimony to the truth and efficacy of the Lord’s great Sacrifice. And I am bound to say that Bleek, De Wette, Lnemann, and Delitzsch, recognize this just as fully: the two former however referring on further in the Epistle for the explanation of the expression, and holding it premature to specify or explain it here. Observe now again, before passing on, the mistake of the vulgate in rendering “ faciens .” The purification is completed , before the action next described takes place: this all seem to acknowledge here, and to find an exception to the ordinary rule that an aorist participle connected with an aorist verb, is contemporary with it. The reason seems to be principally pragmatic that such session could not well be brought in until such purification had been accomplished: see above), sat down ( is always used intransitively in this Epistle, and always of this act of Christ. In fact it is always intransitive in the N. T., except in the two places, 1Co 6:4 , , and Eph 1:20 , ) on the right hand (‘ in the right hand ,’ scil. portion or side . The expression comes doubtless originally from Psa 110:1 ( Psa 109:1 ), cited below. Bleek, in the course of a long and thorough discussion of its meaning as applied to our Lord, shews that it is never used of his pr-existent coequality with the Father, but always with reference to His exaltation in his humanity after his course of suffering and triumph. It is ever connected, not with the idea of His equality with the Father and share in the majesty of the Godhead, but with His state of waiting, in the immediate presence of the Father, and thus highly exalted by Him, till the purposes of his mediatorial office are accomplished. This his lofty state is, however, not one of quiescence; for ( Act 2:33 ) He shed down the gift of the Spirit, and ( Rom 8:34 ) He maketh intercession for us: and below (ch. Heb 8:1 ff.) He is, for all purposes belonging to that office, our High Priest in Heaven. This ‘ sitting at the right hand of God ’ is described as lasting until all enemies shall have been subdued unto Him, i. e. until the end of this state of time, and His own second coming: after which, properly and strictly speaking, the state of exaltation described by these words shall come to an end, and that mysterious completion of the supreme glory of the Son of God shall take place, which St. Paul describes, 1Co 15:28 . On the more refined questions connected with the expression, see Delitzsch’s and Ebrard’s notes here) of majesty ( , said to belong to the Alexandrine dialect, is often found in the LXX, and principally as referring to the divine greatness: see reff.) on high ( in high places , i. e. in heaven . Cf. Psa 92:4 , , and Psa 112:5 , : and the singular , Isa 33:5 ; , Isa 32:15 ; Jer 32:30 ( Jer 25:30 ). In the same sense we have , Luk 2:14 ; Luk 19:38 ; Job 16:20 ; , Sir 26:16 ; and ., Mat 21:9 ; Mar 11:10 . Cf. Ebrard: “HEAVEN, in Holy Scripture, signifies never unbounded space, nor omnipresence, but always either the starry firmament, or, more 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 has the Firstling of risen and glorified manhood entered, as into a place, with visible glorified Body, visibly to return again from thence.” There is a question whether the word should be joined with , or with : which again occurs at ch. Heb 8:1 , where we have . The strict grammarians contend for the connexion with the verb, on account of the omission of the art. . But the order of the words in both places makes the other connexion the more natural; and no scholar versed in N. T. diction will object to it. Cf. , Eph 6:5 , and note, also Joh 6:32 . The omission of the art. here gives majesty and solemnity its insertion would seem to hint at other in the background).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Heb 1:3 . . “Who being effulgence of His glory and express image of His nature.” The relative finds its antecedent in , its verb in ; and the interposed participles prepare for the statement of the main verb by disclosing the fitness of Christ to be the revealer of God, and to make atonement. The two clauses, , are closely bound together and seem intended to convey the impression that during Christ’s redemptive activity on earth there was no kenosis, but that these Divine attributes lent efficacy to His whole work. [On the difficulty of this conception see Gore’s Bampton Lec. , p. 266, and Carpenter’s Essex Hall Lec. , p. 87.] may mean either what is flashed forth, or what is flashed back: either “ray” or “reflection”. Calvin, Beza, Thayer, Mngoz prefer the latter meaning. Thus Grotius has, “repercussus divinae majestatis, qualis est solis in nube”. The Greek fathers, on the other hand, uniformly adopt the meaning “effulgence”. Thus Theodoret , , : , . So in the Nicene Creed . “The word ‘efflulgence’ seems to mean not rays of light streaming from a body in their connection with that body or as part of it, still less the reflection of these rays caused by their falling upon another body, but rather rays of light coming out from the original body and forming a similar light-body themselves” (Davidson). So Weiss, who says that the “Strahlenglanz ein zweites Wesen erzeugt”. Philo’s use of the word lends colour to this meaning when he says of the human soul breathed into man by God that it was are . So in India, Chaitanya taught that the human soul was like a ray from the Divine Being; God like a blazing fire and the souls like sparks that spring out of it. In the Arian controversy this designation of the Son was appealed to as proving that He is eternally generated and exists not by an act of the Father’s will but essentially. See Suicer, s.v. As the sun cannot exist or a lamp burn without radiating light, so God is essentially Father and Son. . God’s glory is all that belongs to him as God, and the Son is the effulgence of God’s glory, not only a single ray but as Origen says: . Therefore the Son cannot but reveal the Father. Calvin says: “Dum igitur audis filium esse splendorem Paternae gloriae, sic apud te cogita, gloriam Patris esse invisibilem, donec in Christo refulgeat”. As completing the thought of these words and bringing out still more emphatically the fitness of the Son to reveal, it is added . , as its form indicates, originally meant the cutting agent [ ], the tool or person who engraved. In common use, however, it usurped the place of and denoted the impress or mark made by the graving tool, especially the mark upon a coin which determined its value; hence, any distinguishing mark, identifying a thing or person, character . “Express image” translates it well. The mark left on wax or metal is the “express image” of the seal or stamp. It is a reproduction of each characteristic feature of the original. rendered “person” in A.V.; “substance,” the strict etymological equivalent, in R.V. To the English ear, perhaps, “nature” or “essence” better conveys the meaning. It has not the strict meaning it afterwards acquired in Christian theology, but denotes all that from which the glory springs and with which indeed it is identical. [We must not confound the with the as Hofmann and others do. The is the nature, the its quality, the its manifestation.] There is in the Father nothing which is not reproduced in the Son, save the relation of Father to Son. Menegoz objects that though a mirror perfectly reflects the object before it and the wax bears the very image of the seal, the mirror and the wax have not the same nature as that which they represent. And Philo more than once speaks of man’s rational nature as , and the of that blessed nature, see Quod deter, insid. , c. xxiii.; De Opif. Mundi , c. li. All that he means by this is, that man is made in God’s image. But while no doubt the primary significance of the terms used by the writer to the Hebrews is to affirm the fitness of Christ to reveal God, the accompanying expressions, in which Divine attributes are ascribed to Him, prove that this fitness to reveal was based upon community of nature. The two clauses, to , have frequently been accepted as exhibiting the Trinitarian versus the Arian and Sabellian positions; the Sabellians accepting the as representing their view of the modal manifestation of Godhead, the Arians finding it possible to accept the second clause, but neither party willing to accept both clauses separate or individual existence of the Son being found in the figure of the seal, while identity of nature seemed to be affirmed in . [ was derived from the Stoics who used it as the equivalent of , that which formed the essential substratum, , of all qualities. The Greek fathers, however, understood by it what they termed and affirmed that there were in the Godhead three . The Latin fathers translating by substantia could not make this affirmation. Hence arose confusion until Gregory Nazianzen pointed out that the difference was one of words not of ideas, and that it was due to the poverty of the Latin language. See Suicer, s.v.; Bleek in loc .; Bigg’s Christian Platonists , p. 164 5; Dean Strong’s Articles in J.T.S . for 1901 on the History of the Theological term Substance; Calvin Inst. , i., 13, 2; Loofs’ Leitfaden , p. 109 note and p. 134.]

“and upholding all things by the word of His power”. The meaning of is seen in such expressions as that of Moses in Num 11:14 , where the idea of being responsible for their government and guidance is involved. So in Plutarch’s Lucullus , 6, of governing the city. In Latin Cicero ( pro Flac. , 37) reminds his judges “sustinetis rempublicam humeris vestris”. See Bleek. In Rabbinic literature, as Schoettgen shows, God is commonly spoken of as “portans mundum,” the Hebrew word being . In Philo, the Logos is the helmsman and pilot of all things ( De Cherub .) , by the expression of His power, by making His will felt in all created nature. The present, , seems necessarily to involve that during the whole of His earthly career, this function of upholding nature was being discharged. Probably the clause is inserted not merely to illustrate the dignity of the Son, but to suggest that the whole course of nature and history, when rightly interpreted, reveals the Son and therefore the Father. The responsibility of bringing the world to a praiseworthy issue depends upon Christ, and as contributing to this work His earthly ministry was undertaken. For the notable thing He accomplished as God’s Son, the use He made of his dignity and power, is expressed in the words, . “having accomplished purification of the sins”. This was as essential to the formation of the covenant as the ability rightly to represent God’s mind and will. This itself was the supreme revelation of God, and it was only after accomplishing this He could sit down at God’s right hand as one who had finished the work of mediating the eternal covenant. , the mid. voice, supersedes the necessity of . The aorist part. implies that the cleansing referred to was a single definite act performed before He sat down, and in some way preparatory to that Exaltation. The word receives explanation in subsequent passages of the Ep. vii. 27, ix. 12 14. as used in LXX suggests that the cleansing referred to means the removal of guilt and its consciousness. The worshippers were fitted by cleansing to appear before God.

“sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”. seems to denote that the work undertaken by the Son was satisfactorily accomplished; while the sitting down . . . denotes entrance upon a reign. The source of the expression is in Psa 110:1 (cited Heb 5:13 ) where the Lord says to Messiah , and this not only as introducing Him to the place of security and favour, but also of dignity and power. “The King’s right hand was the place of power and dignity, belonging to the minister of his authority and his justice, and the channel of his mercy, the Mediator in short between him and his people” (Rendall). Cf. Psa 80:17 . In contrast to the ever-growing and never complete revelation to the fathers, which kept the race always waiting for something more sufficing, there came at last that revelation which contained all and achieved all. But the expression not only looks backward in approval of the work done by the Son, but forward to the result of this work in His supremacy over all human affairs. is ascribed to God in Jud 1:25 and in Deu 32:3 . Cf. also Clem., Ep. , xvi. Here it is used to denote the sovereign majesty inherent in God ( cf. Heb 12:2 ; Mar 14:62 ). The words are connected by Westcott and Vaughan with . It is better, with Beza and Bleek, to connect them with , for while in Heb 10:12 and Heb 12:2 , where it is said He sat down on the throne of God , no further designation is needed; in Heb 8:1 , as here, where it is said that He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty, it is felt that some further designation is needed and is added. No local region is intended, but supreme spiritual influence, mediation between God, the ultimate love, wisdom and sovereignty, and this world. This writer and his contemporary fellow-Christians, had reached the conviction here expressed, partly from Christ’s words and partly from their own experience of His power.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

brightness = effulgence. Greek. apaugasma. Only here. Compare Wisdom Heb 7:26.

glory. See p. 1511.

express image. Greek. charakter. Only here. The word means the exact impression as when metal is, pressed into a die, or as a seal upon wax.

parson = substance. Greek. hupostasis. See 2Co 9:4.

word Greek. rhema. See Mar 9:32.

power. Greek. dunamis. App-172.

when, &c. = having made purification of.

by Himself. The texts omit.

our. The texts omit.

sins. Greek. hamartia. App-128.

Majesty. Greek. megalosune. Only here, Heb 8:1. Jud 1:25.

high. Compare Psa 93:4; Psa 113:4.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

3.] The Son of God now becomes Himself the subject. The verbum finitum belonging to the relative is not found till at the end of the verse. But the intermediate participial clauses do not stand in the same relation to the main sentence. The first members, , still set forth those attributes of the Son of God which are of a permanent character, and belonging to Him before the Incarnation: whereas the following member, the last participial clause, stands in nearer relation to the main sentence, expressing as it does the purification of mankind from sin, wrought by the incarnate Son of God, as one individual historical event,-as the antecedent of that exaltation of Him to the right hand of God, which the main sentence enounces. Bleek.

Who (the represents, it will be evident, rather the pr-existent than the incarnate Logos. But it is perhaps a mistake to let this distinction be too prominent, and would lead to the idea of a change having taken place in the eternal relation of the Son to the Father, when He subjected himself to the conditions of space and time. Even then He could say of himself, . See Ebrards note), being (cf. , Php 2:6, also of His pr-existent and essential being. This comparison seems decisive against Hofmann, who (Schriftbeweis, i. 140 ff.) takes and according to his theory that all the attributes of the Son of God spoken of in the N. T. are adduced in connexion with and as manifested by His work of Redemption. See against this view Delitzsch, h. l. p. 7. But it must also be remembered that and are present participles. They must not be rendered utpote qui, or cum esset and ferret, but kept to their essential and timeless sense,-being, and bearing) the brightness (effulgentia, not repercussus, qualis est in nube qu dicitur , as Grot., Calv. (splendor ex illius lumine refulgens,-refulgentia), al. This latter would be legitimate, but does not seem to have been the ordinary usage. Bl. cites from Philo de Concupiscent. 11, vol. ii. p. 356, (Gen 2:7) , ,-where the sense clearly is, that the breath breathed into man was as it were a ray of the divine nature itself. See also id. de Opif. Mund. 51, vol. i. p. 35; de Plant. No, 12, p. 154. Cf. Wis 7:26, where wisdom is called an . And this (which, as Delitzsch remarks, is represented by the of the Church) seems to have been universally the sense among the ancients: no trace whatever being found of the meaning reflexion. Nor would the idea be apposite here: the Son of God is, in this his essential majesty, the expression, and the sole expression, of the divine Light,-not, as in his Incarnation, its reflexion. So Thdrt.: , , . . (Cf. Athanasius contra Arianos Orat. i. (ii.) 12, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 328: , ; 😉 And Thl.: . . , , , , . , . And Origen, tom. xxxii. in Joann. 18, vol. iv. p. 450: , , . Hesychius gives as the meaning of , : and the MS. Lexicon of Cyril, . See also Clem-rom. in reff. and several other authorities cited in Bleek) of His glory (not simply His light: nor need be confined to such literal sense: cf. Clem.-rom. as above. His glory, in its widest and amplest reference.

It has been attempted to give to . the meaning splendor gloriosus, and to make below refer, not to the Father, but to . But to this Bleek answers after Seb.-Schmidt, that never is found without a genitive of the , which genitive here can be no other than (, i. e. ). Again, Owen (vol. i. p. 85 f.) supposes the Shechinah to be alluded to;-Akersloot, the Urim and Thummim. It is hardly probable that in a preliminary description, couched in the most general and sublime terms, any such particular allusion should be intended. Notice again the anarthrous predicate, to which the same remarks will apply as to above.

Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier genannt wird, sondern die bersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfet) and impress (figura, vulg.: figure, Wiclif and Rheims: very image, Tyndal and Cranmer: ingraved forme, Geneva: express image, E. V. The word , which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device , and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. Thus sch. Suppl. 279, . Aristot. c. ii. p. 689, : id. Pol. i. 6, where is to stamp coin, and it is said, . Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, , . Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished. Herod. i. 116, . . Diod. Sic. i. 82, , the lines of the countenance. Lucian, de Amoribus, p. 1061, calls mirrors , and ib. p. 1056, . . Demosth. (in Stephan.), , . Philo, de Mund. Opif. 4 (vol. i. p. 4), , to impress on the mind the lines and forms of an intended city: id. Legg. Allegor. i. 18 (vol. i. p. 55), , : id. de Mundi Opif. 23 (p. 15), (the likeness of man to God) , ib. 53 (p. 36), (viz. of God and the creation) (scil. man, while he was alone) :-and, 2. of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,-which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die. So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the imparted by God to man , Moses naming the same , to shew , : De Plant. No, 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul , . , . Here the is designated as the impress of the seal of God, by the impression of which in like manner on the human soul, this last receives a corresponding figure, as the image of the unseen and divine. Compare also Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33, . , . Hence the usage of here will be easily understood. Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rosts Lex.

, , , . . , , . Thdrt.) of His substance (substantial or essential being: substance, Wicl., Tynd., Cranm., Rheims: person, Geneva, and E. V.: Wesen, Luther, &c., De Wette, Bleek, al.: das der Erscheinung unterliegende Wesen, der Wesensgrund, Delitzsch. The various meanings of are well traced by Bleek, from whom, as so often in this Epistle, I take the account. Etymologically, the word imports the lying or being placed underneath: and this is put in common usage for, 1. substratum or foundation-fundamentum. Diod. Sic. i. 66, : id. xiii. 82, : Eze 43:11, . . . : Psa 68:2, . . Nearly connected with this is, 2. establishment, or the state of being established: hence-. firmness,-to which idea the word approaches in the last citation: but especially in reference to firmness of spirit, confidence: see more on ch. Heb 3:14,-. substantial existence, reality, in contradistinction to that which exists only in appearance or idea: Aristot. de Mundo iv. 19, , : Artemidor. Oneirocrit. iii. 14, , : Diog. Laert. ix. 91, , : id. vii. 135, . Hence-. generally, consistence or existence. So Philo, de Incorrupt. Mund. 18, vol. i. p. 505, , : Psa 38:5, : Ps. 88:47, (in both places for the existence of man, Heb. : hence also, as , for possessions or goods, as Deu 11:6; Jer 10:17). Hence also-. it imports the especial manner of being, the peculiar essence of an object. Thus 1Ki 13:21, . : Wis 16:21, (. ) . And this last seems to be the best meaning in our place: His essential being, His substance. For in regarding the history of the word, we find that the well-known theological meaning person was not by any means generally received during the first four centuries. We have it indeed in Origen, tom. ii. in Joann. 6, vol. iv. p. 61 ( , , . , . , …): but the usage is by no means constant. The Nicene council itself uses and in the same sense, and condemns the deriving the Son from the Father (cited in Bleek, p. 60, note): and so usually (in the genuine works: e. g. Ep. ad Afros, c. 4, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 714: , . . . See Gieseler, Kirchengesch. i. pt. 2, p. 63) Athanasius. The fact was, that the Easterns most commonly used to designate the three separate Persons (cf. e. g. Chrys. de Sacerdot. iv. 4, vol. i. p. 410 A, . . . . . , , &c., and especially Basil, whom Gieseler regards as the representative of this view: Ep. 236. 6, vol. iv. p. 363, . , . See other passages in Gieseler, ubi supra) in distinction from Sabellianism, which acknowledged three , but not three , i. e. self-subsisting personalities: whereas the Westerns continued to regard as = , and assumed but one : and the Western bishops, assembled with Athanasius at the council of Sardica in 347, distinctly pronounced the assumption of three hypostases heretical, i. e. Arian. Their words, as cited by Suicer from Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. ii. 6, are very decisive: , , . , . , . . . , . . . , , , , . , . . Subsequently however to this, in the Synod assembled at Alexandria in 362, at which Athanasius, and bishops of Italy, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya were present, the Easterns and Westerns agreed, on examination of one anothers meaning, to acknowledge one another as orthodox, and to allow indifferently of the use of signifying Persons, and signifying substance, essence, . The Epistle from this synod to the bishops of Antioch is among the works of Athanasius, vol. ii. p. 615 ff., and is a very interesting document. But it attempted conciliation in vain, the Miletian schism at Antioch, which began on this point, having been confirmed and perpetuated by external causes. See on the whole subject, Bleeks note: Jerome, Epist. 15 (al. 57) ad Damasum, 4, vol. i. p. 40; and on the use made of this description by orthodox and heretics in early times, Bleek, Chrys. in loc.: Calvins note, where he gives some excellent cautions against the speculative pressing of each expression: Nam hoc quoque notandum est, non hic doceri frivolas speculationes, sed tradi solidam fidei doctrinam. Quare debemus in usum nostrum hc Christi elogia applicare, sicuti ad nos relationem habent.

On all grounds it will be safer here to hold to the primitive meaning of the word, and not to introduce into the language of the apostolic age a terminology which was long subsequent to it), and ( couples closely clauses referring to the same subject, and following as matter of course on one another) upholding (we have this sense of in reff. and in the later Greek writers, e. g. Plut. Lucull. 6, . So in Latin, Val. Max. xi. 8.5, humeris gestare salutem patri: Cic. pro Flacco, c. 38, quam (remp.) vos universam in hoc judicio vestris humeris. judices, sustinetis: Senec. Ep. 31, Deus ille maximus potentissimusque vehit omnia. But the usage is principally found in the Rabbinical writings, as appears from the extracts in Schttgen,-e. g. Sohar Chadasch, fol. ix. 1, Creator benedictus portans omnes mundos robore suo ( ), &c. Chrys. says, , , : and so Thl.: Sursum tenet, ne decidant, et in nihilum revertantur, Ps.-Anselm) the universe (the same as designated by above: not that the art. expressly refers back to that word, for is the ordinary expression for the aggregate of all things. The meaning attempted to be given by some Socinian expositors, the whole kingdom of grace, is wholly beside the purpose: see reff., esp. Col 1:17, : Job 8:3, : Rev 4:11, ) by the word (expressed command: cf. ch. Heb 11:3, ) of his (Whose? His own, or the Fathers? The latter is held by Cyrilalex. contra Julian. viii. vol. ix. p. 259 C, . . , . And so Grot., al. But Chrys., Thdrt., Thl., and the great body of Commentators understand to refer to the Son. That it may do so, it is not necessary to write , as is done in the cursive mss. (the uncial MSS. being mostly without accents) and in many modern editions. Bleek in his note (vol. i. p. 69) makes it probable that the abbreviated writing for had not been adopted in the days of the N. T. Even if it had, his rule seems a good one;-that should never be written unless in cases where, if speaking in the 1st or 2nd person, we should use or ,-i. e. never except where emphatic. Now here, supposing the words addressed to the Son, and not would evidently be the word used: and consequently in expressing the same sentence in the 3rd person, , not () ought to be written. The interpretation therefore is independent of this distinction. But the question recurs, which is the right one? The strict parallelism of the clauses would seem to require, that here should designate the same person, as it does before, after . But such parallelism and consistency of reference of demonstrative pronouns is by no means observed in the N. T., e. g. Eph 1:20; Eph 1:22, (of the Father), (of the Son). In every such case the reference must be determined by the circumstances, and the things spoken of. And applying that test here, we find that in our former clause, . . , it is quite out of the question that should be reflective, referring, as it clearly does, to another than the subject of the sentence. But when we proceed to our second clause, . . , we find no such bar to the ordinary reflective sense of , but every reason to adopt it as the most obvious. For we have here an action performed by the Son, who . Whereby? : where we may certainly say, 1. that had another than the subject of the sentence been intended, such intention would have been expressed: and, 2. that the assertion would be after all a strange and unexampled one, that the Son upholds all things by the word of the Fathers power. So that, on all accounts, this second seems better to be referred to the Son) power (not to be weakened into the comparatively unmeaning . His Power is an inherent attribute, whether uttered or not: the is that utterance, which He has been pleased to give of it. It is a powerful word, but much more is here stated-that it is the word of, proceeding from, giving utterance to, His power), having made (the vulg. faciens is an unfortunate mistranslation, tending to obscure the truth of the completion of the one Sacrifice of the Lord. The words can hardly be retained in the text, in the face of their omission in the three most ancient MSS., joined to their internal character as an explanatory gloss. Dr. Bloomfields strong argument in their favour, that they are almost indispensable, in fact, pronounces their condemnation. The hypothesis of homoteleuton suggests itself: but it is hardly likely in so solemn an opening passage, and weighs little against the probability the other way. Meanwhile, the gloss is a good and true one. It was , in the fullest sense) purification of sins (as Bleek observes, there is no occasion to suppose the genitive here equivalent to , seeing that we may say , as we read, Mat 8:3, . Sin was the great uncleanness, of which He has effected the purgation: the disease of which He has wrought the cure. This must be understood by the subsequent argument in the Epistle: for that which the Writer had it in his mind to expand in the course of his treatise, he must be supposed to have meant when he used without explanation a concise term, like this. And that we know to have been, the purifications and sacrifices of the Levitical law, by which mans natural uncleanness in Gods sight was typically removed, and access to God laid open to him. Ebrards note here is so important that, though long, I cannot forbear inserting it:- answers to the Heb. , and its ideal explanation must be sought in the meaning which suits the Levitical cleansing in the O. T.cultus. Consequently, they are entirely wrong, who understand of moral amelioration, and would so take in this place, as if the author wished to set forth Christ here as a moral teacher, who by precept and example incited men to amendment. And we may pronounce those in error, who go so far indeed as to explain the of the propitiatory removal of the guilt of sin, but only on account of later passages in our Epistle, as if the idea of scriptural were not already sufficiently clear to establish this, the only true meaning. The whole law of purification, as given by God to Moses, rested on the assumption that our nature, as sinful and guilt-laden, is not capable of coming into immediate contact with our holy God and Judge. The mediation between man and God present in the most holy place, and in that most holy place separated from the people, was revealed in three forms; . in sacrifices, . in the Priesthood, and . in the Levitical laws of purity. Sacrifices were (typical) acts or means of propitiation for guilt; Priests were the agents for accomplishing these acts, but were not themselves accounted purer than the rest of the people, having consequently to bring offerings for their own sins before they offered for those of the people. Lastly, Levitical purity was the condition which was attained, positively by sacrifice and worship, negatively by avoidance of Levitical pollution,-the condition in which the people was enabled, by means of the priests, to come into relation with God without dying (Deu 5:26); the result of the cultus which was past, and the postulate for that which was to come. So that that which purified, was sacrifice: and the purification was, the removal of guilt. This is most clearly seen in the ordinance concerning the great day of atonement, Leviticus 16. There we find those three leading features in the closest distinctive relation. First, the sacrifice must be prepared (Lev 16:1-10): then, the high priest is to offer for his own sins (Lev 16:11-14): lastly, he is to kill the sin-offering for the people (Lev 16:15), and with its blood to sprinkle the mercy-seat and all the holy place, and cleanse it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel (Lev 16:19); and then he is symbolically to lay the sins of the people on the head of a second victim, and send forth this animal, laden with the curse, into the wilderness. For (Lev 16:30) on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. In the atonement, in the gracious covering (, Lev 16:30) of the guilt of sin, consists purification in the scriptural sense. (And so also were those who had become levitically unclean, e. g. lepers, Leviticus 14, cleansed by atoning sacrifices.) So that an Israelitish reader, a Christian Jew, would never, on reading the words , 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 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 Saviour 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. To speak these words of Scripture with the mouth, is easy: but he only can say Yea and Amen to them with the heart who, in simple truthfulness of the knowledge of himself, has looked down even to the darkest depths of his ruined state, natural to him, and intensified by innumerable sins of act,-and, despairing of all help in himself, reaches forth his hand after the good tidings of heavenly deliverance. It is truly refreshing, in the midst of so much unbelief, and misapprehension of the sense of Scripture, in the German Commentators, to meet with such a clear and full testimony to the truth and efficacy of the Lords great Sacrifice. And I am bound to say that Bleek, De Wette, Lnemann, and Delitzsch, recognize this just as fully: the two former however referring on further in the Epistle for the explanation of the expression, and holding it premature to specify or explain it here. Observe now again, before passing on, the mistake of the vulgate in rendering faciens. The purification is completed, before the action next described takes place: this all seem to acknowledge here, and to find an exception to the ordinary rule that an aorist participle connected with an aorist verb, is contemporary with it. The reason seems to be principally pragmatic-that such session could not well be brought in until such purification had been accomplished: see above), sat down ( is always used intransitively in this Epistle, and always of this act of Christ. In fact it is always intransitive in the N. T., except in the two places, 1Co 6:4, , and Eph 1:20, ) on the right hand (in the right hand, scil. portion or side. The expression comes doubtless originally from Psa 110:1 (Psa 109:1), cited below. Bleek, in the course of a long and thorough discussion of its meaning as applied to our Lord, shews that it is never used of his pr-existent coequality with the Father, but always with reference to His exaltation in his humanity after his course of suffering and triumph. It is ever connected, not with the idea of His equality with the Father and share in the majesty of the Godhead, but with His state of waiting, in the immediate presence of the Father, and thus highly exalted by Him, till the purposes of his mediatorial office are accomplished. This his lofty state is, however, not one of quiescence; for (Act 2:33) He shed down the gift of the Spirit,-and (Rom 8:34) He maketh intercession for us: and below (ch. Heb 8:1 ff.) He is, for all purposes belonging to that office, our High Priest in Heaven. This sitting at the right hand of God is described as lasting until all enemies shall have been subdued unto Him, i. e. until the end of this state of time, and His own second coming: after which, properly and strictly speaking, the state of exaltation described by these words shall come to an end, and that mysterious completion of the supreme glory of the Son of God shall take place, which St. Paul describes, 1Co 15:28. On the more refined questions connected with the expression, see Delitzschs and Ebrards notes here) of majesty (, said to belong to the Alexandrine dialect, is often found in the LXX, and principally as referring to the divine greatness: see reff.) on high (in high places, i. e. in heaven. Cf. Psa 92:4, , and Psa 112:5, : and the singular , Isa 33:5; , Isa 32:15; Jer 32:30 (Jer 25:30). In the same sense we have , Luk 2:14; Luk 19:38; Job 16:20; , Sir 26:16; and ., Mat 21:9; Mar 11:10. Cf. Ebrard: HEAVEN, in Holy Scripture, signifies never unbounded space, nor omnipresence, but always either the starry firmament, or, more 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 has the Firstling of risen and glorified manhood entered, as into a place, with visible glorified Body, visibly to return again from thence. There is a question whether the word should be joined with , or with : which again occurs at ch. Heb 8:1, where we have . The strict grammarians contend for the connexion with the verb, on account of the omission of the art. . But the order of the words in both places makes the other connexion the more natural; and no scholar versed in N. T. diction will object to it. Cf. , Eph 6:5, and note, also Joh 6:32. The omission of the art. here gives majesty and solemnity-its insertion would seem to hint at other in the background).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 1:3. -, who-on high) This is the third of those glorious predicates, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Again, three points of importance are introduced into this predicate, by the three participles. Paul mentions these points in the same order, Col 1:15; Col 1:17; Col 1:20. The first participle and likewise the second, from the finite verb , sat down, being the aorist, have the meaning of an imperfect tense, and may be resolved into because, , , because (inasmuch as) He was, because (inasmuch as) He was upholding (comp. , ch. Heb 5:8); but the third, as being without the particle , and, cohering more closely with the same finite verb, is to be resolved into after that: , after that He made.– , because [inasmuch as] He was-and upheld) That glory, on which the Son entered when He was exalted to the right hand of the Father, no angel was capable of taking, but the Son took it; for He also had it formerly in respect of God, whose glory shines refulgently in Him, and in respect of all things, which He upholds; Joh 6:62; Rev 1:18.-, the brightness) Wis 7:25-26 : For she (wisdom) is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the GLORY () of the Almighty: therefore no defiled thing falls into her. For she is the BRIGHTNESS () of the everlasting light, and the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness. has in this compound word an intensive power-as in , , , ,-not the power of diminishing. It does not imply less or greater, but propagation [extension of the Fathers glory].- , of the glory) Glory denotes the nature of God revealed in His brightness, the same as His eternal power and Godhead, Rom 1:20.-, the impress, the express image) Whatever the hypostasis (personal essence) of the Father has, that is represented in the Son, as His express image.-, of His hypostasis) [of His personal essence]. If we gather from the LXX. the meaning of this word, variously used by them-never however concerning GOD-it denotes here the immoveable everlastingness of the Divine life and power; comp. Heb 1:11. Therefore the parallels are , the glory, always undefiled [incorruptible], Rom 1:23, and , the hypostasis or personal essence, which always holds as it were the same place. It was with this feeling that the old Rabbins, as it would seem, called God , Place, or rather State.- , all things) [the universe]. The article is to be referred to , of all things, Heb 1:2. , by the word) The Son of GOD is a person; for He has the word.-) The same as in the next clause.- ) by Himself, i.e. without the external Levitical instrumentality or covenant. This power of His shines forth from the titles already given.-, purification) There lies hidden here an anticipation.[5] When Christ lived in the flesh, it did not appear that so majestic things should be predicated of Him; but the apostle replies, that His sojourn in the weakness of the flesh was only for a time, for the purging of our sins. In this chapter he describes the glory of Christ, in that light chiefly, as He is the Son of GOD; then subsequently he describes the glory of Christ as man, ch. Heb 2:6. He mentions the actual glory of the Son of GOD before His humiliation in a summary manner; but His glory after His exaltation, most fully; for it was from this exaltation in particular, and not before, that the glory which He had from eternity began to be most clearly seen. And the purging of our sins, and subsequent sitting on the right hand of the Majesty, are most fully treated of in ch. 7, etc.-, He sat down) by the will of the Father; comp. , He appointed, Heb 1:2. On this sitting, see Heb 1:13-14. The ministering priests stood; the sitting therefore denotes the accomplishment of the sacrifice, and the glorious kingdom begun. By this finite verb, sat down, after the participles, is implied the scope, subject, sum of the epistle; comp. Heb 8:1.- ) of the Majesty, i.e. of GOD.- , on high) in the heavens, Heb 8:1.

[5] Occupatio. An anticipation of an objection that might be raised, and which is therefore answered beforehand. See Append.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

The apostle, in the pursuit of his argument, proceeds in the description of the person of Christ; partly to give a further account of what he had before affirmed concerning his divine power in making the worlds; and partly to instruct the Hebrews, from their own typical institutions, that it was the Messiah who was figured and represented formerly unto them, in those signs and pledges of Gods glorious presence which they enjoyed. And so by the whole he confirmeth the proposition he had in hand concerning the excellency and eminency of Him by whom the gospel was revealed, that their faith in him and obedience unto him might not be shaken or hindered.

Heb 1:3. , , , .

is wanting in MS. T.; but the sense requires the words, and all other ancient copies retain them. is wanting in some copies; and one or two for have , which hath nothing whereunto it should relate. Some also read, , taken from Heb 12:2, where the word is used. , qui est, qui cum sit, qui existens; who is, who when he is, or was; who existing: as Php 2:6, , Who being in the form of God.

Who being , splendor, radius, jubar, effulgentia, refulgentia, relucentia; the splendor ray, beam, effulgency, or shining forth of glory. Syr., , germen; so Boderius; the branch. Tremellius and De Dieu, splendor, the Arabic concurring.

is lux, light, particularly the morning light: Act 20:11, , He talked until the break of day, or the beaming of the morning light. , Gloss. Vet., jubar solis the sun-beam. And sometimes it denotes the day itself. It is also sometimes used for the light that is in burning iron. is of the same signification; properly splendor lucis, the brightness, shining, beauty, glory or lustre of light. Hence is , to a shine forth, to shine into to irradiate: 2Co 4:4, , That the light of the gospel should not irradiate (shine) into them. is of the same importance; and from thence . The word is nowhere used in the New Testament save in this place only; nor doth it occur in the Old of the LXX. Only we have it, Wis 7:26. Wisdom is said to be , a beam of eternal light; to which place the margin of our translation refers. And it is so used by Nazianzen: , A little beam of a great light. It answers exactly to the Hebrew , or that is; that is, The morning light: Pro 4:18, The path of the righteous , ut lux splendoris, Jerome; as the light of brightness, that is, of the morning, , Act 20:11. And it is also applied to the light of fire, or fire in iron, Isa 4:5, , The light of fire; and the fiery streaming of lightning, Hab 3:11.

The brightness, shining, ray, beam, , of glory. Some look on this expression as a Hebraism, , the beam of glory, for , a glorious beam; but this will not answer the design of the apostle, as we shall see afterwards.

Our translators have supplied his, the brightness of his glory, by repeating from the end of the sentence; perhaps, as we shall find, not altogether necessarily, in which case alone such supplements unto the text are allowed in translations.

, character. Imago, forma, figura, expressa forma, figura expressa, , Syr.; the character, image, form, figure, express form, express figure: so variously is the word rendered by translators, with little difference. It is nowhere used in the New Testament but only in this place. In other authors it hath many significations. Sometimes they use it properly and naturally; sometimes metaphorically and artificially, as when it denotes several forms of speech or orations. Properly, from or , to engrave with a tool or style, is and which is firstly and properly the note or mark cut by a tool or instrument into wood, or any other subject capable of such impression, or the stamp and sign that is left in the coining of money. The mark or scar also left by a wound is by the LXX. termed , Lev 13:28. It is in general an express representation of another thing, communicated unto it by an impression of its likeness upon it, opposed unto that which is umbratile and imaginary.

, substantiae, subsistentiae, personae. Syr., , substantiae ejus; hypostasis, substance, subsistence, person. The word is four times used in the New Testament, thrice in this epistle, in this place, and Heb 3:14, and Heb 11:1, as also 2Co 9:4, everywhere in a different sense; so that the mere use of it in one place will afford no light unto the meaning of it in another, but it must be taken from the context and subject treated of. The composition of the word would denote

substantia, but so as to differ from and to add something unto , substance, or being; which in the divine nature can be nothing but a special manner of subsistence. But the controversy that hath been about the precise signification of these words we shall not here enter into the discussion of.

, agens, regens, moderans; acting, disposing, ruling, governing. Also portans, bajulans, sustinens; bearing, supporting, carrying, upholding. Which of these senses is peculiarly intended we shall afterwards inquire into.

, by the word of his power, by his powerful word. Syr., , by the power of his word,

changing the order of the words, but not the meaning of them: By the power of his word, or, the word of his power; that is, his powerful word. ; some would read it , and refer it unto the Father, By the powerful word of him; that is, of the Father, by whose power, they say, the Son disposed of all things. But all copies with accents have constantly, none , nor will the disposition of the words bear that reference.

, by himself, in his own person.

, purgationem faciens, purgatione facta; having purged, cleansed, expiated or purified (us from) our sins. Having made a purgation or purification of our sins.

. is used both neutrally and actively, answering to both in Kal and Hiphil, signifying to sit down, and to cause to sit down. Chrysostom seems to have understood the word in the latter sense, referring it to God the Father causing the Son to sit down. But it is hard to find any antecedent word whereby it should be regulated, but only , who, in the beginning of the verse, that is, he himself; and, as Erasmus observes, in the following words, will not grammatically admit of this construction; for if be to be understood actively and transitively, it must have been . And the apostle clears the neutral sense of the word, Heb 8:1. It is well, then, rendered by our translators, he sat, or sat down.

. Psa 110:1, . LXX., , in the plural number. So is the same thing expressed, Act 7:55; and by Mark, , Mar 16:5. Our apostle constantly keepeth the singular number, with , Heb 8:1; Heb 12:2. The same thing in both expressions is intended; only that of , or , in the plural number, is more eminently destructive of the folly of the Anthropomorphites; for they cannot hence pretend that God hath a right hand, unless they will grant that he hath many, which were not only to turn the glory of the invisible God into the likeness of a man, but of a monster. And Austin well observes that in the psalm where that expression is first used, Sit on my right hand, it is added, . The Lord on thy right hand, at the right hand of him who sat on his right hand; which removes all carnal apprehensions from the meaning of the words.

. This word is seldom used in other authors: twice in this epistle, here, and Heb 8:1; once by Jude, Jud 1:25; and nowhere else in the New Testament; by the LXX. not at all. The apostle evidently expresseth by it or not as they are used appellatively for glory, power, or majesty, but as they are names and denote the essential glory of God, The glorious God. So that

is God himself; not absolutely considered, but with reference unto the revelation of his glory and majesty in heaven, God on his throne; as our apostle declareth, Heb 8:1.

, in the highest. is ; that is, , the Highest, God himself. See Luk 1:35. [3]

[3] ED. VARIOUS READINGS. Owen, though perhaps it is a misprint, reads after both in the text of the verse and in the subsequent explanation of the words; the textus receptus has . He reads in agreement with the textus receptus; Tischendorf here gives . The words are omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf; who, together with Hahn, omit also. EXPOSITION. . . . plainly means the same as the Hebrew , namely, splendor, brightness. Comp. Luk 2:9, etc. Stuart. The idea that God in the finds and reflects himself as in his counterpart is expressed by Paul when, 2Co 4:4, Col 1:15, he calls the Logos , denotes the splendor which surrounds God, Luk 2:9. Tholuck. Nouns ending in denote not the act as continuing, but the result of the act as finished. . denotes not the brightness received from another body, and thrown back as a reflection or a mirrored image, not the light continually proceeding from a shining body, as a light streaming out and losing itself in space; but a light radiated from another light, in as far at it is viewed as now become an independent light. It is more than a mere ray, more than a mere image, a sun produced from the original light. ., the eternal essential glory of the Father. According to the explanation which refers it to the Shechinah, the Son would be degraded beneath the Old Testament imperfect typical form of the divine manifestation; seeing that he would be represented as an of the latter, which was not even itself an ., but a mere reflection. Ebrard. . . . . plainly retains the more ancient meaning of substance or essence…. Christ is the development of that substance to our view, the delineation of it…. Ancient Greek annotators, and after them most of the modern ones, have applied these words to the divine nature of Christ. In the opinion that the verse now under consideration relates to the incarnate Messiah, I find that Scott and Beza concur. Stuart. . means being, essence. Many expositors, offended at the Son being called only the copy of the Being, took . in the sense adopted by the church, of Person. Tholuck. signifies the essence of the Father,with reference to the glory in which he represents himself before the eyes of the suppliant creature; ., this essence as essence, and without regard to its outward manifestation. . is here used in the sense of a form cut out or engraven. The represents itself in a form composed of rays, a sun; the . stamps itself out in a manifest figure. These appositions belong more properly to the Logos qua eternally pre-existent. Ebrard.

. corresponds to the Hebrew Isa 46:3; Isa 66:9, curo, conservo, to sustain, to preserve, as a mother does her child. . . . ., by his own powerful word, the word of the Son, not the word of God, as would mean. Stuart. According to Bleek, corresponds to of the first person, to . If the former, the emphasis being on self, the phrase would be, By the word of his own power. There is no occasion for this emphasis here.

applies in a reflexive sense to the Son, and not to the Father. Ebrard. ., purification; in Hellenistic Greek expiation, e.g., Exo 29:36; Exo 30:10 not purification by moral means, because it is joined with , which is explained in Heb 2:14 by ; in Heb 9:12 by ; and in Heb 9:26 by . Stuart. The purification in the Biblical sense consists in the atonement, the gracious covering ( Lev 16:30) of guilt. Ebrard. . corresponds to the Hebrew ; which applied to God and to kings, does not mean simply to sit, but to sit enthroned, Psa 2:4. Stuart. As man, and continuing to be man, he was exalted to a participation in the divine government of the world. Ebrard. TRANSLATIONS. . . . . the radiance of his glory and the exact image of his substance. Stuart. An emanation of his glory and an express image of his substance. Conybeare and Howson. The radiance of his glory and the impress of his substance. Craik. The brightness of his glory and the exact impression of his manner of existence. Pye Smith. The refulgence of his glory and the impression of his essence. De Wette. The ray of his glory and the stamp of his substance. Turner. . . . Controlling all things by his own powerful word. Stuart. . . After he had made expiation. Stuart. Having made expiation. Bloomfield. When he had made purification. Conybeare and Howson. When he had made atonement. Craik. After he had by himself purified us from sins by making an expiation. Turner.

Heb 1:3. Who being the brightness of glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding [or, disposing of] all things by the word of his power, having by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; The apostle proceeds in his description of the person in whom God spake in the revelation of the gospel, ascending unto such a manifestation of him as that they might understand his eminency above all formerly used in the like ministrations; as also how he was pointed out and shadowed by sundry types and figures under the Old Testament.

Of this description there are three parts; the first declaring what he is; the second, what he doth, or did; and the third, the consequent of them both, in what he enjoyeth.

Of the first part of this description of the Messiah there are two branches, or it is two ways expressed: for he affirms of him, first, that he is the brightest beam, or splendor of the glory; and, secondly, the express image, or character of his Fathers person.

In the second also there are two things assigned unto him, the former relating unto his power, as he is the brightness of glory, he sustaineth, or ruleth and disposeth of all things by the word of his power; the latter unto his love and work of mediation, by himself, or in his own person, he hath purged our sins.

His present and perpetual enjoyment, as a consequent of what he was and did, or doth, is expressed in the last words: He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Some of these expressions may well be granted to contain some of those , things hard to be understood, which Peter affirms to be in this epistle of Paul, 2Pe 3:16; which unstable and unlearned men have in all ages wrested unto their own destruction. The things intended are unquestionably sublime and mysterious; the terms wherein they are expressed are rare, and nowhere else used in the Scripture to the same purpose, some of them not at all, which deprives us of one great help in the interpretation of them; the metaphors used in the words, or types alluded unto by them, are abstruse and dark: so that the difficulty of discovering the true, precise, and genuine meaning of the Holy Ghost in them is such as that this verse, at least some part of it, may well be reckoned among those places which the Lord hath left in his word to exercise our faith, and diligence, and dependence on his Spirit, for a right understanding of them. It may be, indeed, that from what was known and acknowledged in the Judaical church, the whole intention of the apostle was more plain unto them, and more plainly and clearly delivered than now it seemeth unto us to be, who are deprived of their advantages. However, both to them and us the things were and are deep and mysterious; and we shall desire to handle (as it becometh us) both things and words with reverence and godly fear, looking up unto Him for assistance who alone can lead us into all truth.

We begin with a double description given us of the Lord Christ at the entrance of the verse, as to what he is in himself. And here a double difficulty presents itself unto us; first, In general unto what nature in Christ, or unto what of Christ, this description doth belong; secondly, What is the particular meaning and importance of the words or expressions themselves.

For the first, some assert that these words intend only the divine nature of Christ, wherein he is consubstantial with the Father. Herein as he is said to be God of God, and Light of Light, an expression doubtless taken from hence, receiving, as the Son, his nature and subsistence from the Father, so fully and absolutely as that he is every way the same with him in respect of his essence, and every way like him in respect of his person; so he is said to be the brightness of his glory, and the character of his person on that account, This way went the ancients generally; and of modern expositors very many, as Calvin, Brentius, Marlorat, Rollock, Gomar, Pareau, Estius, Tena, a Lapide, Ribera, and sundry others.

Some think that the apostle speaks of him as incarnate, as he is declared in the gospel, or as preached, to be the image of God, 2Co 4:4. And these take three ways in the explication of the words and their application of them unto him:

First, Some affirm that their meaning is, that whereas God is in himself infinite and incomprehensible, so that we are not able to contemplate on his excellencies, but that we are overpowered in our minds with their glory and majesty, he hath in Christ the Son, as incarnate, contemperated his infinite love, power, goodness, grace, greatness, and holiness, unto our faith, love, and contemplation, they all shining forth in him, and being eminently expressed in him. So Beza.

Secondly, Some think that the apostle pursues the description that he was entered upon, of the kingly office of Jesus Christ as heir of all; and that his being exalted in glory unto power, rule, and dominion, expressing and representing therein the person of his Father, is intended in these words. So Cameron.

Thirdly, Some refer these words to the prophetical office of Christ, and say that he was the brightness of Gods glory, etc., by his revealing and declaring the will of God unto us, which before was done darkly only and in shadows. So the Socinians generally, though Schlichtingius refers the words unto all that similitude which they fancy to have been between God and the man Christ Jesus whilst he was in the earth; and therefore renders the participle , not by the present, but preterimperfect tense, who was; that is, whilst he was on the earth, though, as he says, not exclusively unto what he is now in heaven.

I shall not examine in particular the reasons that are alleged for these several interpretations, but only propose and confirm that sense of the place which on full and due consideration appears, as agreeable unto the analogy of faith, so expressly to answer the design and intendment of the apostle; wherein also the unsoundness of the two last branches or ways of applying the second interpretation, with the real coincidence of the first, and first branch of the latter exposition, will be discovered. To this end the following positions are to be observed:

First, It is not the direct and immediate design of the apostle to treat absolutely of either nature of Christ, his divine or human, but only of his person. Hence, though the things which he mentioneth and expresseth may some of them belong unto, or be the properties of his divine nature, some of his human, yet none of them are spoken of as such, but are all considered as belonging unto his person. And this solves that difficulty which Chrysostom observes in the words, and strives to remove by a similitude, namely, that the apostle doth not observe any order or method in speaking of the divine and human natures of Christ distinctly one after another, but first speaks of the one, then of the other, and then returns again to the former, and that frequently. But the truth is, he intends not to speak directly and absolutely of either nature of Christ; but treating ex professo of his person, some things that he mentions concerning him have a special foundation in and respect unto his divine nature, some in and unto his human, as must every thing that is spoken of him. And therefore the method and order of the apostle is not to be inquired after in what relates in his expressions to this or that nature of Christ, but in the progress that he makes in the description of his person and offices; which alone he had undertaken.

Secondly, That which the apostle principally intends in and about the person of Christ, is to set forth his dignity, pre-eminence, and exaltation above all; and that not only consequentially to his discharge of the office of mediator, but also antecedently, in his worth, fitness, ability, and suitableness to undertake and discharge it, which in a great measure depended on and flowed from his divine nature.

These things being supposed, we observe,

Thirdly, That as these expressions are none of them singly, much less in that conjunction wherein they are here placed, used concerning any other but Christ only, so they do plainly contain and express things that are more sublime and glorious than can, by the rule of Scripture or the analogy of faith, be ascribed unto any mere creature, however raised or exalted. There is in the words evidently a comparison with God the Father: he is infinitely glorious, eternally subsisting in his own person; and the Son is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. Angels are called the sons of God, are mighty in power, and excellent in created glory; but when they come to be compared with God, it is said they are not pure in his sight; and he charged them with folly, Job 4:18; and they cover their faces at the brightness of his glory, Isa 6:2 : so that they cannot be said so to be. Man also was created in the image of God, and is again by grace renewed thereinto, Eph 4:23-24 : but to say a man is the express image of the person of God the Father, is to depress the glory of God by anthropomorphitism. So that unto God asking that question, Whom will ye compare unto me? and whom will ye liken me unto? we cannot answer of any one who is not God by nature, that he is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.

Fourthly, Though the design of the apostle in general be to show how the Father expressed and declared himself unto us in the Son, yet this could not be done without manifesting what the Son is in himself and in reference unto the Father; which both the expressions do in the first place declare. They express him such an one as in whom the infinite perfections and excellencies of God are revealed unto us. So that the first application of the words, namely, to the divine nature of Christ, and the first branch of the second, considering him as incarnate, are very well consistent; as a Lapide grants, after he had blamed Beza for his interpretation. The first direction, then, given unto our faith in these words, is by what the Son is in respect of the Father, namely, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person; whence it follows that in him, being incarnate, the Fathers glory and his person are expressed and manifested unto us.

Fifthly, There is nothing in these words that is not applicable unto the divine nature of Christ. Some, as we have showed, suppose that it is not that which is peculiarly intended in the words; but yet they can give no reason from them, nor manifest any thing denoted by them, which may not be conveniently applied thereunto. I say, whatever can be proved to be signified by them or contained in them, if we will keep ourselves within the bounds of that holy reverence which becomes us in the contemplation of the majesty of God, may be applied unto the nature of God as existing in the person of the Son. He is in his person distinct from the Father, another not the Father; but yet the same in nature, and this in all glorious properties and excellencies. This oneness in nature, and distinction in person, may be well shadowed out by these expressions, He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. The boldness and curiosity of the schoolmen, and some others, in expressing the way and manner of the generation of the Son, by similitudes of our understanding and its acts, declaring how he is the image of the Father, in their terms, are intolerable and full of offense. Nor are the rigid impositions of those words and terms in this matter which they or others have found out to express it by, of any better nature. Yet I confess, that supposing with some that by the first expression here used, The brightness of glory, the apostle intends to set forth unto us the relation of the Son to the Father by an allusion unto the sun and its beams, or the light of fire in iron, some relief may thence be given unto our weak understandings in the contemplation of this mystery, if we observe that one known rule, whose use Chrysostom urgeth in this place, namely, that in the use of such allusions every thing of imperfection is to be removed, in their application unto God. A few instances we may give unto this purpose, holding ourselves unto an allusion to the sun and its beams

1. As the sun in comparison of the beam is of itself, and the beam of the sun; so is the Father of himself, and the Son of the Father.

2. As the sun, without diminution or partition of its substance, without change or alteration in its nature, produceth the beam; so is the Son begotten of the Father.

3. As the sun in order of nature is before the beam, but in time both are co- existent; so is the Father in order of nature before the Son, though in existence both co-eternal.

4. As the beam is distinct from the sun, so that the sun is not the beam, and the beam is not the sun; so is it between the Father and the Son.

5. As the beam is never separate from the sun, nor can the sun be without the beam, no more can the Son be from the Father, nor was the Father ever without the Son.

6. As the sun cannot be seen but by the beam, no more can the Father but in and by the Son.

I acknowledge that these things are true, and that there is nothing in them disagreeable unto the analogy of faith. But yet as sundry other things may be affirmed of the sun and its beam, whereof no tolerable application can be made to the matter in hand, so I am not persuaded that the apostle intended any such comparison or allusion, or aimed at our information or instruction by them. They were common people of the Jews, and not philosophers, to whom the apostle wrote this epistle; and therefore either he expresseth the things that he intends in terms answering unto what was in use among themselves to the same purpose, or else he asserts them plainly in words as meet to express them properly by as any that are in use amongst men. To say there is an allusion in the words, and that the Son is not properly, but by a metaphor, the brightness of glory, is to teach the apostle how to express himself in the things of God. For my part, I understand as much of the nature, glory, and properties of the Son, in and by this expression, He is the brightness of glory, as I do by any of the most accurate expressions which men have arbitrarily invented to signify the same thing. That he is one distinct from God the Father, related unto him, and partaker of his glory, is clearly asserted in these words; and more is not intended in them.

Sixthly, These things, then, being premised, we may discern the general importance of these expressions. The words themselves, as was before observed, being nowhere else used in the Scripture, we may receive a contribution of light unto them from those in other places which are of their nearest alliance. Such are these and the like: We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, Joh 1:14. He is the image of the invisible God, Col 1:15. The glory of God shines forth in him, 2Co 4:6. Now in these and the like places, the glory of the divine nature is so intimated, as that we are directed to look unto the glory of the absolutely invisible and incomprehensible God in him incarnate. And this in general is the meaning and intendment of the apostle in these expressions: The Son, in whom God speaks unto us in the revelation of the gospel, doth in his own person so every way answer the excellencies and perfections of God the Father, that he is in him expressly represented unto our faith and contemplation.

It remaineth, then, in the second place, that we consider the expressions severally, with the reasons why the apostle thus expresseth the divine glory of Jesus Christ: Who being the brightness (light, lustre, majesty) of glory. The apostle, in my judgment (which is humbly submitted unto consideration), alludes unto and intends something that the people were instructed by typically under the old testament, in this great mystery of the manifestation of the glory of God unto them in and by the Son, the second person in the Trinity. The ark, which was the most signal representation of the presence of God amongst them, was called his glory. So the wife of Phinehas, upon the taking of the ark, affirmed that the glory was departed: 1Sa 4:22, The glory is departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken. And the psalmist, mentioning the same thing, calls it his glory absolutely: Psa 78:61, He delivered his glory into the enemys hand; that is, the ark. Now, on the filling of the tabernacle with the signs of Gods presence in cloud and fire, the Jews affirm that there was a constant , a , or majestic shining glory, resting on the ark; which was the , the splendour of the glory of God, in that typical representation of his presence. And this was to instruct them in the way and manner whereby God would dwell amongst them. The apostle, therefore, calling them from the types, by which in much darkness they had been instructed in these mysteries, unto the things themselves represented obscurely by them, acquaints them with what that typical glory and splendor of it signified, namely, the eternal glory of God, with the essential beaming and brightness of it in the Son, in and by whom the glory of the Father shineth forth unto us. So that the words seem to relate unto that way of instruction which was of old granted unto them.

Besides, they were wont to express their faith in this mystery with words unto this purpose: , glory, is sometimes put for God himself: Psa 85:9, , That glory may dwell in our land; that is, the God of glory, or glorious God. This glory the Targum calls ; and the majesty of that glory, . See Hag 1:8. Psa 44:24, they render these words, , Why hidest thou thy face? , Why takest thou away the majesty of thy glory? as both the Venetian and Basle Bibles read the place: for the Regia have only , omitting . And in the vision of Isaiah, Isa 6:1, they say it was , so Kimchi; , so Rashi; , so the Targum. And they affirm that it was the same which came down and appeared on mount Sinai, Exo 19:20; where these words, , And the LORD descended on mount Sinai, are rendered by Onkelos, , The majesty of God was revealed; which words, from Psa 68:18, are applied by our apostle unto the Son, Eph 4:8. , then, is nothing else but , or , the essential presence or majesty of the glorious God. This, saith he, is Christ the Son. And thus of old they expressed their faith concerning him.

The words, as was showed before, denote the divine nature of Christ, yet not absolutely, but as God the Father in him doth manifest himself unto us. Hence he is called , or , or . The word is from , he dwelt. Elias in Tishbi gives us somewhat another account of the application of that name, in the root: , The rabbins of blessed memory called the Holy Ghost Shechinah, because he dwelt upon the prophets. But that this is not so may be observed throughout the Targum, wherein the Holy Ghost is always expressly called ; and the Shechinah is spoken of in such places as cannot be applied unto him. But as the fullness of the Godhead is said to dwell in the Lord Christ , Col 2:9, and he, as the only-begotten Son of God, to dwell amongst us, Joh 1:14; so is he said in the same sense to be , or , the majesty, presence, splendor of the glory, or the glorious God.

This, then, is that whereof the apostle minds the Jews: God having promised to dwell amongst them by his glorious presence, from whence the very name of Jerusalem was called, The LORD is there, Eze 48:35, he who in and under that name was with them, as sent by Jehovah, Zec 2:8, was the Son, in whom he had now spoken unto them in these latter days. And this must needs be of weight with them, being instructed that he who had revealed the will of God unto them was none other but he who had dwelt among them from the beginning, representing in all things the person of the Father, being typically revealed unto them as the brightness of his glory.

The apostle adds, that he is , the express figure (or image) of his person; that is, of the person of God the Father. I shall not enter into any dispute about the meaning of the word , or the difference between it and . Many controversies about these words there were of old. And Jerome was very cautious about acknowledging three hypostases in the Deity, and that because he thought the word in this place to denote substantia; and of that mind are many still, it being so rendered by the Vulgar translation. But the consideration of these vexed questions tending not to the opening of the design of the apostle and meaning of the Holy Ghost in this place, I shall not insist upon them.

1. The hypostasis of the Father is the Father himself. Hereof, or of him, is the Son said to be the express image. As is the Father, so is the Son. And this agreement, likeness, and conveniency between the Father and Son, is essential; not accidental, as those things are between relations finite and corporeal. What the Father is, doth, hath, that the Son is, doth, hath; or else the Father, as the Father, could not be fully satisfied in him, nor represented by him.

2. By character two things seem to be intended:

(1.) That the Son in himself is , in the likeness of God, Php 2:6.

(2.) That unto us he is , the image of God, representing him unto us, Col 1:15. For these three words are used of the Lord Christ in respect unto God the Father, , , . And their use seems thus to difference them:

(1.) It is said of him, , Php 2:6, Being (existing, subsisting) in the form of God: that is, being so, essentially so; for there is no , or form, in the Deity but what is essential unto it. This he was absolutely, antecedently unto his incarnation, the whole nature of God being in him, and consequently he being in the form of God.

(2.) In the manifestation of God unto us, he is said to be ., Col 1:15, The image of the invisible God; because in him, so partaker of the nature of the Father, do the power, goodness, holiness, grace, and all other glorious properties of God, shine forth, being in him represented unto us, 2Co 4:6. And both these seem to be comprised in this word, ; both that the whole nature of God is in him, as also that by him God is declared and expressed unto us.

Neither were the Jews of old ignorant of this notion of the Son of God. So Philo expresseth their sense, de Confusione Linguarum:

, , , , , , ,

If any one be not yet worthy to be called the son of God, yet endeavor thou to be conformed unto his first-begotten Word, the most ancient angel, the archangel with many names; for he is called The beginning,The name of God,The man according to the image of God,The seer of Israel.

And again,

,

For if we are not meet to be called the sons of God, let us beso of his eternal image, the most sacred Word; for that most ancient Word is the image of God.

Thus he, expressing some of their conceptions concerning this eternal character of the person of the Father. We have seen what it is that is intended in this expression, and shall only add thereunto a consideration of that from whence the expression is taken. The ordinary engraving of rings, or seals, or stones, is generally thought to be alluded unto. It may be also that the apostle had respect unto some representation of the glory of God by engraving amongst the institutions of Moses. Now, there was scarcely any thing of old that more gloriously represented God than that of the engraving of his name on a plate of gold, to be worn on the front of the mitre of the high priest; at the sight whereof the great conqueror of the east fell down before him. Mention of it we have Exo 28:36, Thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, , Holiness of Jehovah, or to Jehovah. Here was that name of God which denotes his essence and being characterized and engraven, to represent his holiness and glory to his people.

And Aaron was to wear this engraven name of God on his forehead, that he might bear the iniquity of the holy things and gifts of the children of Israel; which could really be done only by him who was Jehovah himself. And thus, also, when God promiseth to bring forth the Son as the cornerstone of the church, he promiseth to engrave upon him the seven eyes of the Lord, Zec 3:9, or the perfection of his wisdom and power, to be expressed unto the church in him. There having been, then, this representation of the presence of God, by the character or engraving of his glorious name upon the plate of gold, which the high priest was to wear that he might bear iniquities; the apostle lets the Hebrews know, that in Christ the Son is the real accomplishment of what was typified thereby, the Father having actually communicated unto him his nature, denoted by that name, whereby he was able really to bear our iniquities, and most gloriously represent the person of his Father unto us.

And this, with submission to better judgments, do I conceive to be the design of the apostle in this his description of the person of Jesus Christ. It pleased the Holy Ghost herein to use these terms and expressions, to mind the Hebrews how they were of old instructed, though obscurely, in the things now actually exhibited unto them, and that nothing was now preached or declared but what in their typical institutions they had before given their assent unto.

We have been somewhat long in our explication of this description of the person of the Son of God; yet, as we suppose, not any longer than the nature of the things treated of and the manner of their expression necessarily required us to be. We shall therefore here stay a while, before we proceed to the ensuing words of this verse, and take some observations, from what hath been spoken for our direction and refreshment in our passage.

I. All the glorious perfections of the nature of God do belong unto and dwell in the person of the Son. Were it not so, he could not gloriously represent unto us the person of the Father; nor by the contemplation of him could we be led to an acquaintance with the person of the Father. This the apostle here teacheth us, as in the explication of the words we have manifested. Now, because the confirmation of this allusion depends on the proofs and testimonies given of and unto the divine nature of Christ, which I have elsewhere largely insisted on and vindicated from exceptions, I shall not here resume that task, especially considering that the same truth will again occur unto us.

II. The whole manifestation of the nature of God unto us, and all communications of grace, are immediately by and through the person of the Son. He represents him unto us; and through him is every thing that is communicated unto us from the fullness of the Deity conveyed.

There are sundry signal instances wherein God reveals himself, and communicates from his own infinite fullness unto his creatures, and in all of them he doth it immediately by the Son:

1. In the creation of all things;

2. In their providential rule and disposal;

3. In the revelation of his will and institution of ordinances;

4. In the communication of his Spirit and grace: in none of which is the person of the Father any otherwise immediately represented unto us than in and by the person of the Son.

1. In the creation of all things, God both gave them their being and imparted unto them of his goodness, and manifested his nature unto those that were capable of a holy apprehension of it. Now, all this God did immediately by the Son; not as a subordinate instrument, but as the principal efficient, being his own power and wisdom. This we have manifested in our explication of the last words of the verse foregoing. In express testimony hereunto, see Joh 1:3; Col 1:16; 1Co 8:6. The Son, as the power and wisdom of the Father, made all things; so that in that work the glory of the Father shines forth in him, and no otherwise. By him was there a communication of being, goodness, and existence unto the creation.

2. In the providential rule and disposal of all things created, God further manifests himself unto his creatures, and further communicates of his goodness unto them. That this also is done in and by the Son, we shall further evidence in the explication of the next words of this verse.

3. The matter is yet more plain as to the revelation of his will, and the institution of ordinances from first to last. It is granted that after the entrance of sin, God did not graciously reveal nor communicate himself unto any of his creatures but by his Son. This might fully be manifested by a consideration of the first promise, the foundation of all future revelations and institutions, with an induction of all ensuing instances. But whereas all revelations and institutions springing from the first promise are completed and finished in the gospel, it may suffice to show that what we assert is true with peculiar reference thereunto. The testimonies given unto it are innumerable. This is the substance and end of the gospel: to reveal the Father by and in the Son unto us; to declare that through him alone we can be made partakers of his grace and goodness, and that no other way we can have either acquaintance or communion with him. See Joh 1:18. The whole end of the gospel is to give us the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, 2Co 4:6; that is, the glory of the invisible God, whom none hath seen at any time, 1Ti 6:16; 1Jn 4:12. That is to be communicated unto us, But how is this to be done? absolutely and immediately, as it is the glory of the Father? No, but as it shines forth in the face of Jesus Christ, or as it is in his person manifested and represented unto us; for he is, as the same apostle says in the same place, 2Co 4:4, the image of God. And herein also, as to the communication of grace and the Spirit, the Scripture is express, and believers are daily instructed in it. See Col 1:19; Joh 1:16; especially 1Jn 5:11; 1Jn 5:14. Now, the grounds of this order of things lie,

1. In the essential inbeing of the Father and Son. This our Savior expresseth, Joh 10:38, The Father is in me, and I in him. The same essential properties and nature being in each of the persons, by virtue thereof their persons also are said to be in each other. The person of the Son is in the person of the Father, not as such, not in or by its own personality, but by union of its nature and essential properties, which are not alike, as the persons are, but the same in the one and the other. And this inbeing of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in him, our Savior affirms to be manifested by the works that he wrought, being wrought by the power of the Father, yet as in him, and not as in the Father immediately. See to the same purpose Joh 14:10-11, and Joh 17:21.

2. The Father being thus in the Son, and the Son in the Father, whereby all the glorious properties of the one do shine forth in the other, the order and economy of the blessed Trinity in subsistence and operation require that the manifestation and communication of the Father unto us be through and by the Son; for as the Father is the original and fountain of the whole Trinity as to subsistence, so as to operation he works not but by the Son, who, having the divine nature communicated unto him by eternal generation, is to communicate the effects of the divine power, wisdom, and goodness, by temporary operation. And thus he becomes the brightness of his Fathers glory, and the express image of his person, namely, by the receiving his glorious nature from him, the whole and all of it, and expressing him in his works of nature and grace unto his creatures.

3. Because in the dispensation and counsel of grace God hath determined that all communication of himself unto us shall be by the Son as incarnate. This the whole gospel is given to testify. So that this truth hath its foundation in the very subsistence of the persons of the Deity, is confirmed by the order, and operation, and voluntary disposition in the covenant of grace.

And this discovers unto us, first, the necessity of coming unto God by Christ. God in himself is said to be in thick darkness, as also to dwell in light, whereunto no creature can approach; which expressions, though seeming contrary, yet teach us the same thing, namely, the infinite distance of the divine nature from our apprehensions and conceptions, no man having seen God at any time. But this God, invisible, eternal, incomprehensibly glorious, hath implanted sundry characters of his excellencies and left footsteps of his blessed properties on the things that he hath made; that, by the consideration and contemplation of them, we might come to some such acquaintance with him as might encourage us to fear and serve him, and to make him our utmost end. But these expressions of God in all other things, besides his Son Christ Jesus, are all of them partial, revealing only something of him, not all that is necessary to be known that we may live unto him here and enjoy him hereafter; and obscure, not leading us unto any perfect stable knowledge of him. And hence it is that those who have attempted to come unto God by the light of that manifestation which he hath made of himself any other way than in and by Christ Jesus, bare all failed and come short of his glory. But now, the Lord Christ being the brightness of his glory, in whom his glory shines out of the thick darkness that his nature is enwrapped in unto us, and beams out of that inaccessible light which he inhabits; and the express image of his person, representing all the perfections of his person fully and clearly unto us, in him alone can we attain a saving acquaintance with him. On this account he tells Philip, Joh 14:9, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; the reason of which assertion, taken from the mutual inbeing of Father and Son, and his expression of his mind and glory, he asserts in the next verses. He, then, is the only way and means of coming unto the knowledge and enjoyment of God, because in and by him alone is he fully and perfectly expressed unto us.

And therefore this, secondly, is our great guide and direction in all our endeavors after an acceptable access unto Him. Would we come to that acquaintance with the nature, properties, and excellencies of the Father, which poor, weak, finite creatures are capable of attaining in this world, which is sufficient that we may love him, fear him, serve him, and come unto the enjoyment of him? would we know his love and grace? would we admire his wisdom and holiness? let us labor to come to an intimate and near acquaintance with his Son Jesus Christ, in whom all these things dwell in their fullness, and by whom they are exhibited, revealed, unfolded unto us; seek the Father in the Son, out of whom not one property of the divine nature can be savingly apprehended or rightly understood, and in whom they are all exposed to our faith and spiritual contemplation. This is our wisdom, to abide in Christ, to abide with him, to learn him; and in him we shall learn, see, and know the Father also.

. After the description of the person, the apostle returns unto an assertion of the power of Christ, the Son of God, and therein makes his transition from the kingly and prophetical unto his sacerdotal office; on all which he intends afterwards to enlarge his discourse. He showed before that by him the worlds were created; whereunto, as a further evidence of his glorious power, and of his continuance to act suitably unto that beginning of his exercise of it, he adds that he also abides to uphold, or rule and dispose of all things so made by him.

For the explication of these words, two things are to be inquired after; first, How, or in what sense, Christ is said to uphold or rule all things; secondly, How he doth it by the word of his power. is taken by expositors in a double sense, and accordingly variously rendered in translations.

1. Some render it by upholding, supporting, bearing, carrying. And these suppose it to express that infinite divine power which is exerted in the conservation of the creation, keeping it from sinking into its original of confusion and nothing. Hereof our Savior saith, My Father worketh hitherto, , (or yet,) and I work; that is, in the providential sustentation of all things made at the beginning. And this, saith Chrysostom on this place, is a greater work than that of the creation. By the former all things were brought forth from nothing; by the latter are they preserved from that return unto nothing which their own nature, not capable of existence without dependence on their First Cause, and their perpetual conflict by contrariety of qualities, would precipitate them into.

2. Some take the word to express his ruling, governing, and disposing of all things by him made, and (which is supposed) sustained; and so it may denote the putting forth of that power over all things which is given unto the Son as mediator; or else that providential rule over all which he hath with his Father, which seems rather to be intended, because of the way expressed whereby he exerciseth this rule, namely, by the word of his power.

The use of the word is not so obvious in this latter sense as it is in the former; as in the proverb, , . But I see no reason why we should suppose an inconsistency in these senses, and not rather conclude that they are both of them implied; for as absolutely it is the same divine power and providence which is exercised in the upholding and the ruling or disposing of all things, so all rule and government is a matter of weight and burden. And he who rules or governs others is said to bear or carry them. So Moses expresseth his rule of the people in the wilderness, Num 11:11-12 : Thou hast put, saith he, , the weight (or burden) of this people upon me; and thou hast said, , bear (or carry) them in thy bosom. And hence from , to bear or carry, is , a prince or ruler; that is, one that carries and bears the burden of the people, that upholds and rules them. To bear, then, or uphold, and to rule and dispose, may be both well intended in this word; as they are both expressed in that prophecy of Christ, Isa 9:6, The rule (or government) shall be upon his shoulder, that together with his power and rule he may sustain and bear the weight of his people. Only, whereas this is done amongst men with much labor and travail, he doth it by an inexpressible facility, by the word of his power. And this is safe, to take the expression in its most comprehensive sense.

But whereas the phrase of speech itself is nowhere else used in the New Testament, nor is applied unto any such purpose elsewhere (though once be taken for actus or agitatus, 2Pe 1:21), we may inquire what word it was among the Hebrews that the apostle intended to express, whereby they had formerly been instructed in the same matter.

1. It may be he intended , a participle from , to sustain, to bear, to endure, as Mal 3:2. It signifies also to feed, nourish, and cherish, 1Ki 4:7; Rth 4:15; Zec 11:16. , that is, , sustinens, nutriens omnia, sustaining and cherishing all things But this word hath no respect unto rule or disposal. And in this sense, as the work of creation is eminently ascribed unto the Father, who is said to make all things by the Son, so that of the preservation and cherishing of all things is here peculiarly assigned unto the Son. And this is not unsuitable unto the analogy of faith: for it was the power of God that was eminently exalted and is conspicuously seen in the work of creation, as the apostle declares, Rom 1:20, although that power was accompanied also with infinite wisdom; and it is the wisdom of God that is most eminently manifested in the preservation of all things, though that wisdom be also exercised in power infinite. At least, in the contemplation of the works of the creation, we are led, by the wonder of the infinite power whereby they were wrought, to the consideration of the wisdom that accompanied it; and that which in the works of providence first presents itself unto our minds is the infinite wisdom whereby all things are disposed, which leads us also to the admiration of the power expressed in them. Now, it is usual with the Scripture to assign the things wherein power is most eminent unto the Father, as those wherein wisdom is most conspicuously exalted unto the Son, who is the eternal Wisdom of the Father. And this sense is not unsuitable unto the text.

2. is another word that may be intended; and this denotes a bearing like a prince in government, as . And in this sense the word ought to be referred unto Christ as mediator, intrusted with power and rule by the Father. But neither the words nor context will well bear this sense: for,

(1.) It is mentioned before, where it is said that he is appointed heir of all; and it is not likely that the apostle, in this summary description of the person and offices of the Messiah, would twice mention the same thing under different expressions.

(2.) The particle added unto refers us to the beginning of this verse, ,….. , Who being the brightness of glory,….. and bearing all things. So that these things must necessarily be spoken of him in the same respect: and the former, as we have showed, relateth unto his person in respect of his divine nature; so therefore doth the latter, and his acting therein.

3. There is yet another word, which I suppose the apostle had a principal aim to express, and this is . is properly to ride, to be carried, to be carried over; and it is frequently, though metaphorically, used concerning God himself: as Deu 33:26, , riding on the heavens; on the clouds, Isa 19:1; on the wings of the wind, Psa 18:10, and Psa 68:5; whereby his majesty, authority, and government are shadowed out unto us. And hence also the word signifies to administer, dispose, govern or preside in and over things.

Thus in Ezekiels vision of the glorious providence of God in ruling the whole creation, it is represented by a chariot () of cherubim (). The , cherubim, with their wheels, made that chariot, over which sat the God of Israel, in his disposing and ruling of all things. And the words themselves have that affinity in signification which is frequently seen among the Hebrew roots, differing only in the transposition of one letter. And the description of Him who sat above the chariot of providence, Ezekiel 1, is the same with that of John, Revelation 4. Now, God in that vision is placed , as governing, ruling, influencing all second causes, as to the orderly production of their effects, by the communication of life, motion, and guidance unto them. And though this divine administration of all things be dreadful to consider, the rings of the wheels being high and dreadful, Rev 1:18, and the living creatures ran as the appearance of a flash of lightning, Rev 1:14; as also full of entanglements, there being to appearance cross wheels, or wheels within wheels, Rev 1:16, which are all said to be rolling, Rev 10:11; yet it is carried on in an unspeakable order, without the least confusion, Rev 1:17, and with a marvellous facility, by a mere intimation of the mind and will of Him who guides the whole; and that because there was a living, powerful spirit passing through all, both living creatures and wheels, that moved them speedily, regularly, and effectually, as he pleased; that is, the energetical power of divine Providence, animating, guiding, and disposing the whole as seemed good unto him.

Now, all this is excellently expressed by the apostle in these words. For as that power which is in Him that sits over the chariot, influencing and giving existence, life, motion, and guidance unto all things, is clearly expressed by , upholding and disposing of all things, that is, ; so is the exercise and issuing of it forth by the spirit of life in all things, to guide them certainly and regularly, by these words, , by the word of his power: both denoting the unspeakable facility of omnipotent power in its operations. And Kimchi on the 6th of Isaiah affirms that the vision which the prophet had was of the glory of God, that glory which Ezekiel saw in the likeness of a man; which we find applied unto the Lord Christ, Joh 12:41.

I shall only add, that in Ezekiels vision the voice of the quadriga, of the living creatures, in its motion, was as the voice , omnipotentis, praepotentis, sibi sufficientis, of the Almighty, the powerful, the all or self-sufficient; which is also fully expressed in this of the apostle, bearing, upholding, disposing of all things

Our next inquiry is after the manner whereby the Son thus holdeth and disposeth of all things. He doth it by the word of his power, . in the New Testament is used in the same latitude and extent with in the Old. Sometimes it denotes any matter or thing, be it good or evil, as Mat 5:11; Mat 12:36; Mat 18:16; Mar 9:32; Luk 1:37; Luk 2:15; Luk 18:34; a word of blessing by Providence, Mat 4:4; any word spoken, Mat 26:75; Mat 27:14; Luk 9:45; of promise, Luk 1:38; and , blasphemous words, Act 6:11; the word of God, the word of prophecy, Luk 3:2; Rom 10:17; Eph 5:26; Eph 6:17; 1Pe 1:25; an authoritative command, Luk 5:5. In this epistle it is used variously. In this only it differs from , that it never denotes the eternal or essential Word of God. That which in this place is denoted by it, with its adjunct of , the , or the divine power, executing the counsels of the will and wisdom of God, or the efficacy of Gods providence, whereby he worketh and effecteth all things according to the counsel of his will. See Gen 1:3; Psa 147:15; Psa 147:18; Psa 148:8; Isa 30:31. And this is indifferently expressed by and . Hence the same thing which Paul expresseth by the one of them, Heb 11:3, , By faith we know that the worlds were made by the word of God, Peter doth by the other, 2Pe 3:5, .

Now, this efficacy of divine Providence is called the word of God, to intimate that as rulers accomplish their will by a word of command, in and about things subject to their pleasure, Mat 8:9, so doth God accomplish his whole mind and will in all things by his power. And therefore , of his power, is here added by way of difference and distinction, to show what word it is that the apostle intends. It is not , the essential Word of God, who is the person spoken of; nor , the word spoken by him in the revelation of himself, his mind and will; but a word that is effectual and operative, namely, the putting forth of his divine power, with easiness and authority accomplishing his will and purpose in and by all things.

This in the vision of Ezekiel is the communication of a spirit of life to the cherubs and wheels, to act and move them as seems good to Him by whom they are guided; for as it is very probable that the apostle in these words, setting forth the divine power of the Son in ruling and governing the whole creation, did intend to mind the Hebrews that the Lord Christ, the Son, is he who was represented in the form of a man unto Ezekiel, ruling and disposing of all things, and the , the Almighty, whose voice was heard amongst the wheels, so it is most certain that the same thing is intended in both places. And this expression of upholding (or disposing of) all things by the word of his power, doth fully declare the glorious providence emblematically expressed in that vision. The Son being over all things made by himself, as on a throne over the cherubim and wheels, influenceth the whole creation with his power, communicating unto it respectively subsistence, life, and motion, acting, ruling, and disposing of all according to the counsel of his own will.

This, then, is that which the apostle assigns unto the Son, thereby to set out the dignity of his person, that the Hebrews might well consider all things before they deserted his doctrine. He is one that is partaker essentially of the nature of God, being the brightness of glory and the express image of his Fathers person, who exerciseth and manifesteth his divine power both in the creation of all things, as also in the supportment, rule, and disposal of all, after they are made by him. And hence will follow, as his power and authority to change the Mosaical institutions, so his truth and faithfulness in the revelation of the will of God by him made; which it was their duty to embrace and adhere unto.

The several passages of this verse are all of them conjoined by the apostle, and used unto the same general end and purpose; but themselves are of such distinct senses and importance, considered absolutely and apart, that we shall in our passage take out the observations which they singly afford unto us.

And from these last words we may learn:

I. Our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, hath the weight of the whole creation upon his hand, and disposeth of it by his power and wisdom.

II. Such is the nature and condition of the universe, that it could not subsist a moment, nor could any thing in it act regularly unto its appointed end, without the continual supportment, guidance, influence, and disposal of the Son of God.

We may briefly consider the sum of both these jointly, to manifest the power and care of Christ over us, as also the weak, dependent condition of the whole creation in and by itself. The things of this creation can no more support, act, and dispose themselves, than they could at first make themselves out of nothing. The greatest cannot conserve itself by its power, or greatness, or order; nor the least by its distance from opposition. Were there not a mighty hand under them all and every one, they would all sink into confusion and nothing; did not an effectual power influence them, they would become a slothful heap. It is true, God hath in the creation of all things implanted in every particle of the creation a special natural inclination and disposition, according unto which it is ready to act, move, or work regularly; but he hath not placed this nature and power absolutely in them, and independently of his own power and operation. The sun is endued with a nature to produce all the glorious effects of light and heat that we behold or conceive, the fire to burn, the wind to blow, and all creatures also in the like manner; but yet neither could sun, or fire, or wind preserve themselves in their being, nor retain the principles of their operations, did not the Son of God, by a constant, continual emanation of his eternal power, uphold and preserve them; nor could they produce any one effect by all their actings, did not he work in them and by them. And so is it with the sons of men, with all agents whatever, whether natural and necessary, or free and proceeding in their operations by election and choice. Hence Paul tells us that in God we live, and move, and have our being, Act 17:28. He had before asserted that he had made of one blood all nations, Act 17:26; that is, all men of one, whom he first created. To which he adds, that we may know that he hath not so left us to stand by ourselves on that first foundation as that we have any power or ability, being made, to do or act any thing without him, that in him, that is, in his power, care, providence, and by virtue of his effectual influence, our lives are supported and continued, that we are acted, moved, and enabled thereby to do all we do, be it never so small, wherein there is any effect of life or motion. So Daniel tells Belshazzar that his breath and all his ways were in the hand of God, Dan 5:23; his breath, in the supportment and continuance of his being; and his ways, in his effectual guidance and disposal of them. Peter speaks to the same purpose in general concerning the fabric of the heavens, earth, and sea, 2Pe 3:5.

Now, what is thus spoken of God in general is by Paul particularly applied unto the Son: Col 1:16-17, All things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. He did not only make all things, as we have declared, and that for himself and his own glory, but also he continues at the head of them; so that by him and by his power they consist, are preserved in their present state and condition, kept from dissolution, in their singular existence, and in a consistency among themselves. And the reason hereof is taken, first, from the limited, finite, dependent condition of the creation, and the absolute necessity that it should be so. It is utterly impossible, and repugnant to the very nature and being of God, that he should make, create, or produce any thing without himself, that should have either a self-subsistence or a self-sufficiency, or be independent on himself. All these are natural and essential properties of the divine nature. Where they are, there is God; so that no creature can be made partaker of them. When we name a creature, we name that which hath a derived and dependent being. And that which cannot subsist in and by itself cannot act so neither.

Secondly, The energetical efficacy of Gods providence, joined with his infinite wisdom in caring for the works of his own hands, the products of his power, requires that it should be so. He worketh yet. He did not create the world to leave it to an uncertain event, to stand by and to see what would become of it, to see whether it would return to its primitive nothing (of which cask it always smells strongly), or how it would be tossed up and down by the adverse and contrary qualities which were implanted in the severals of it; but the same power and wisdom that produced it doth still accompany it, powerfully piercing through every parcel and particle of it. To fancy a providence in God, without a continual energetical operation; or a wisdom without a constant care, inspection, and oversight of the works of his hands; is not to have apprehensions of the living God, but to erect an idol in our own imaginations.

Thirdly, This work is peculiarly assigned unto the Son, not only as he is the eternal power and wisdom of God, but also because by his interposition, as undertaking the work of mediation, he reprieved the world from an immediate dissolution upon the first entrance of sin and disorder, that it might continue, as it were, the great stage for the mighty works of Gods grace, wisdom, and love, to be wrought on. Hence the care of the continuance of the creation and the disposal of it is delegated unto him, as he that hath undertaken to bring forth and consummate the glory of God in it, notwithstanding the great breach made upon it by the sin of angels and men. This is the substance of the apostles discourse, Col 1:15-20. Having asserted him to be the image of God, in the sense beforeopened and declared, and to have made all things, he affirms that all things have also their present consistency in him and by his power, and must have so, until the work of reconciliation of all things unto God being accomplished, the glory of God may be fully retrieved and established for ever.

1. We may see from hence the vanity of expecting any thing from the creatures, but only what the Lord Christ is pleased to communicate unto us by them. They that cannot sustain, move, or act themselves, by any power, virtue, or strength of their own, are very unlikely by and of themselves to afford any real assistance, relief, or help unto others. They all abide and exist severally, and consist together, in their order and operation, by the word of the power of Christ; and what he will communicate by them, that they will yield and afford, and nothing else. In themselves they are broken cisterns that will hold no water; what he drops into them may be derived unto us, and no more. They who rest upon them or rest in them, without the consideration of their constant dependence on Christ, will find at length all their hopes disappointed, and all their enjoyments vanish into nothing.

2. Learn hence also the full, absolute, plenary self-sufficiency and sovereignty of the Son, our Savior. We showed before the universality of his kingdom and moral rule over the whole creation; but this is not all. A king hath a moral rule over his subjects in his kingdom: but he doth not really and physically give them their being and existence; he doth not uphold and act them at his pleasure; but every one of them stands therein upon the same or an equal bottom with himself. He can, indeed, by the permission of God, take away the lives of any of them, and so put an end to all their actings and operations in this world; but he cannot give them life or continue their lives at his pleasure one moment, or make them so much as to move a finger. But with the Lord Christ it is otherwise. He not only rules over all the whole creation, disposing of it according to the rule and law of his own counsel and pleasure, but also they all have their beings, natures, inclinations, and lives from him; by his power are they continued unto them, and all their actions are influenced thereby. And this, as it argues an all-sufficiency in himself, so an absolute sovereignty over all other things. And this should teach us our constant dependence on him and our universal subjection unto him.

3. And this abundantly discovers the vanity and folly of them who make use of the creation in an opposition unto the Lord Christ and his peculiar interest in this world. His own power is the very ground that they stand upon in their opposition unto him, and all things which they use against him consist in him. They hold their lives absolutely at the pleasure of him whom they oppose; and they act against him without whose continual supportment and influence they could neither live nor act one moment: which is the greatest madness and most contemptible folly imaginable.

Proceed we now with our apostle in his description of the person and offices of the Messiah.

This beginning of the epistle, as hath been declared, contains a summary proposition of those things which the apostle intends severally to insist upon throughout the whole; and these all relate to the person and offices of the Messiah, the principal subject of this epistle. Having, therefore, first declared him to be the great prophet of the new testament; and, secondly, the lord, ruler, and governor of all things, as also manifested the equity of the grant of that universal sovereignty unto him, from the excellency of his person on the account of his divine nature, and the operations thereof in the works of creation and providence; he proceeds to finish and close his general proposition of the argument of the epistle by a brief intimation of his priestly office, with what he did therein, and what ensued thereon, in the remaining words of this verse.

And this order and method of the apostle is required by the nature of the things themselves whereof he treats; for the work of purging sins, which as a priest he assigns unto him, cannot well be declared without a previous manifestation of his divine nature. For it is opus , a work of him who is God and man; for as God takes it to be his property to blot out our sins, so he could not have done it by himself had he not been man also.

And this is asserted in the next words:

Having by himself purged our sins.

The Vulgar Latin renders these words, Purgationem peccatorum faciens, not without sundry mistakes. For, first, these words, , by himself, and , our, are omitted; and yet the emphasis and proper sense of the whole depend upon them. Secondly, , having made, is rendered in the present tense, making; which seems to direct the sense of the words to another thing and action of Christ than what is here intended. And therefore the expositors of the Roman church, as Thomas, Lyranus, Cajetan, Estius, Ribera, a Lapide, all desert their own text, and expound the words according to the original. The ancients, also as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and OEcumenius, lay the chief weight of their whole exposition of this place on the words omitted in that translation.

The doctrine of purging our sins by Christ is deep and large, extending itself unto many weighty heads of the gospel; but we shall follow our apostle, and in this place pass it over briefly and in general, because the consideration of it will directly occur unto us in our progress.

Two things the apostle here expresseth concerning the Messiah; and one, which is the foundation of both the other, he implieth or supposeth:

First, He expresseth what he did, he purged our sins;

Secondly, How he did it, he did it by himself.

That which he supposeth, as the foundation of both these, is, that he was the great high priest of the church; they with whom he dealt knowing full well that this matter of purging sins belonged only unto the priest.

Here, then, the apostle tacitly enters upon a comparison of Christ with Aaron, the high priest, as he had done before with all the prophetical revealers of the will of God; and as he named none of them in particular, no more doth he here name Aaron: but afterwards, when he comes more largely to insist on the same matter again, he expressly makes mention of his name, as also of that of Moses.

And in both the things here ascribed unto him as the great high priest of his church doth he prefer him above Aaron: First, In that he purged our sins, that is, really and effectually before God and in the conscience of the sinner, and that for ever; whereas the purgation of sins about which Aaron was employed was in itself but typical, external, and representative of that which was true and real: both of which the apostle proves at large afterwards. Secondly, In that he did it by himself, or the offering of himself; whereas whatever Aaron did of this kind, he did it by the offering of the blood of bulls and goats, as shall be declared.

And hence appears also the vanity of the gloss of a learned man on these words. Postquam, saith he, morte sun causam dedisset ejus fidei per quam a peccatis purgamur, quod nec Moses fecerat nec prophetae. For as we shall see that Christs purging of our sins doth not consist in giving a ground and cause for faith, whereby we purge ourselves, so the apostle is not comparing the Lord Christ in these words with Moses and the prophets, who had nothing to do in the work of purging sin, but with Aaron, who by office was designed thereunto.

Let us then see what it is that is here ascribed unto the Lord Christ: . doth most frequently denote real actual purification, either of outward defilements, by healing and cleansing, as Mar 1:40; Mar 7:19, Luk 5:12; or from spiritual defilements of sin, by sanctifying grace, as Act 15:9, 2Co 7:1, Eph 5:26. But it is also frequently used in the same sense with and , to purge by expiation or atonement, as Heb 9:22-23. And in the like variety is also used. But , to make a purgation, or purification of our sins, cannot here be taken in the first sense, for real and inherent sanctifying: First, Because it is spoken of as a thing already past and perfected, Having purged our sins, when purification by sanctification is begun only in some, not all at any time, and perfected in none at all in this world. Secondly, Because he did it , by himself alone, without the use or application of any other medium unto them that are purged; when real inherent sanctification is with washing of water by the word, Eph 5:26; or by regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Tit 3:5. And the gloss above mentioned, that Christ should purge us from our sins in his death, by occasioning that faith whereby we are cleansed, is excluded, as was in part showed before, by the context. That is assigned unto the death of Christ, as done really and effectually thereby, which was done typically of old in the legal sacrifices by the priests; as is evident from the antithesis couched in that expression, By himself. But this was not the way whereby sins were of old purged by sacrifices, namely, by the begetting a persuasion in the minds of men that should be useful for that purpose, and therefore no such thing is here intended.

, then, is such a purging as is made by expiation, lustration, and atonement; that is, or , , propitiatio, atonement, propitiation. So is that word rendered by the LXX., Exo 29:36 : , , the day of atonement, or expiation. They do, indeed, mostly render by , and , to propitiate, to appease, to atone; but they do it also by , to purge, as Exo 29:37, and Exo 30:10. So also in other authors, is used for , ; that is, expiatio, expiamentum, piaculum, expiation, atonement, diversion of guilt. So Lucian:

We cast him down headlong, for an expiation of the army; or, as one that by his death should expiate, bear, take away the guilt of the army. And such lustrations were common among the heathen, when persons devoted themselves to destruction, or were devoted by others, to purge, lustrate, bear the guilt of any, that they might go free. Such were Codrus, Menoeceus, and the Decii; whose stories are known. This purging, then, of our sins, which the apostle declareth to have been effected before the ascension of Christ and his sitting down at the right hand of God, consisteth not in the actual sanctification and purification of believers by the Spirit, in the application of the blood of Christ unto them, but in the atonement made by him in the sacrifice of himself, that our sins should not be imputed unto us. And therefore is he said to purge our sins, and not to purge us from our sins. And wherever sins, not sinners, are made the object of any mediatory act of Christ, that act immediately respecteth God, and not the sinner, and intends the removal of sin, so as that it should not be imputed. So Heb 2:17 of this epistle: He is a merciful high priest, , to reconcile the sins of the people; that is, , to make atonement (or reconciliation with God) for the sins of the people. And again: He underwent death, for the redemption of transgressions under the first covenant; that is, to pay a price for them, that transgressors might be set free from the sentence of the law. So that , is as much as, Having made atonement for our sins.

And this the apostle further declareth by manifesting the way whereby he did it; that is, , by himself, that is, by the sacrifice and offering of himself, as Heb 9:12; Heb 9:14; Eph 5:2. The high priest of old made atonement, and typically purged the sins of the people, by sacrificing of beasts according unto the appointment of the law, Leviticus 16; this high priest, by the sacrifice of himself, Isa 53:10; Heb 9:12. Of the nature of propitiatory or expiatory sacrifices we must treat at large afterwards. We keep ourselves now unto the apostles general proposition, expressing briefly the sacerdotal office of Christ, and the excellency of it, in that he really purged our sins, and that by the sacrifice of himself. And this was in and by his death on the cross, with his antecedent preparatory sufferings. Some distinguish between his death and the oblation of himself. This, they say, he performed in heaven, when, as the high priest of his church, he entered into the holiest not made with hands, whereunto his death was but a preparation. For the slaying of the beast, they say, was not the sacrifice, but the offering of its blood upon the altar, and the carrying of it into the holy place. But this utterly overthrows the whole sacrifice of Christ; which, indeed, is the thing by them aimed at. It is true, the slaying of the beast was not the whole sacrifice, but only an essential part of it; as was also the offering of its blood, and the sprinkling of it in the most holy place, in the anniversary sacrifice of atonement, but not in any other. And the reason why the whole sacrifice could not consist in any one action, arose merely from the imperfection of the things and persons employed in that work. The priest was one thing, the beast to be sacrificed another, the altar another, the fire on the altar another, the incense added another, each of them limited and designed unto its peculiar end; so that the atonement could not be made by any one of them, nor the sacrifice consist in them. But now in this sacrifice of Christ all these meet in one, because of his perfection. He himself was both priest, sacrifice, altar, and incense, as we shall see in our progress; and he perfected his whole sacrifice at once, in and by his death and blood-shedding, as the apostle evidently, declares, Heb 9:12; Heb 9:14.

Thus by himself did Christ purge our sins, making an atonement for them by the sacrifice of himself in his death, that they should never be imputed unto them that believe.

And this part of this verse will afford us also this distinct observation: So great was the work of freeing us from sin, that it could no otherwise be effected but by the self-sacrifice of the Son of God.

Our apostle makes it his design, in several places, to evince that none of those things from whence mankind usually did, or might, with any hopes or probabilities, expect relief in this case, would yield them any at all.

The best that the Gentiles could attain, all that they had to trust unto, was but the improvement of natural light and reason, with an attendance unto those seeds and principles of good and evil which are yet left in the depraved nature of man. Under the conduct and in obedience unto these they sought for rest, glory, and immortality. How miserably they were disappointed in their aims and expectations, and what a woeful issue all their endeavors had, the apostle declares and proves at large, Rom 1:18, unto the end.

The Jews, who enjoyed the benefit of divine revelations, having lost, for the most part, the true spiritual import of them, sought for the same ends by the law, and their own diligent observation of it. They rested in the law, Rom 2:17, namely, that by it they should obtain deliverance from sin and acceptance with God; and followed after it, Rom 9:31; that is, to attain righteousness and salvation by it. And this seemed to be a sufficient bottom and foundation for them to build upon; for having lost the spiritual understanding, the use and end of the law, as renewed unto them in the covenant of Horeb, they went back unto the primitive use and end of it upon its first giving in innocency, and foolishly thought, as many more yet do, that it would do the same things for sinners that it would have done for men if they had not sinned in Adam; that is, have given them acceptance with God here and eternal life hereafter. Wherefore the apostle in many places takes great pains to undeceive them, to rectify their mistake, and to prove that God had no such design in giving them the law as that which they would impose upon him.

And, first, he asserts and proves in general, that the law would deceive their expectations, that by the deeds of the law no flesh should be justified, Rom 3:20; and that it would not give them life, Gal 3:21, or righteousness. And that they might not complain that then God himself had deceived them, in giving a law that would not serve the turn for which it was given, he declares, secondly, that they had mistaken the end for which the law was renewed unto them; which was, not that it might give them life, or righteousness, but that it might discover sin, exact obedience, and by both drive and compel them to look out after some other thing that might both save them from their sin and afford them a righteousness unto salvation. And furthermore, he, thirdly, acquaints them whence it was that the law was become insufficient for these ends; and that was, because it was become weak through the flesh, Rom 8:3. The law was able to continue our acceptance with God in that condition wherein at first we were created; but after that man by sin became flesh, to have a principle of enmity against God in him, bringing forth the fruits of sin continually, the law stood aside, as weakened and insufficient to help and save such a one. And these things the apostle expressly and carefully insists upon in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. But, thirdly, Though the law, and an earnest endeavor after the observation of it in general, would not serve to save us from our sins, yet there were especial institutions of the law that were appointed for that end and purpose, as, namely, the sacrifices in particular, which were designed to make atonement for the delivery of sinners, and to procure their reconciliation with God. These the Jews principally rested on and trusted unto. And, indeed, to expect righteousness and justification by the Mosaical sacrifices, as they did, was far more rational than to expect them by the works of the moral law, as some now do; for all good works whatever are required in the law, and so far are works of the law. For in the sacrifices there was a supposition of sin, and an appearance of a compensation to be made, that the sinner might go free; but in the moral law there is nothing but absolute, universal, and exact righteousness required or admitted, without the least provision of relief for them who come short therein. But yet our apostle declares and proves that neither were these available for the end aimed at, as we shall see at large on the ninth and tenth chapters of this epistle.

Now, within the compass of these three, natural light or reason, with ingrafted principles of good and evil, the moral law, and the sacrifices thereof, do lie and consist all the hopes and endeavors of sinners after deliverance and acceptance with God. Nothing is there that they can do, or put any confidence in, but may be referred unto one of these heads. And if all these fail them, as assuredly they will (which we might prove by reasons and demonstrations innumerable, though at present we content ourselves with the testimonies above reported), it is certain that there is nothing under heaven can yield them in this case the least relief.

Again, This is the only way for that end which is suited unto the wisdom of God. The wisdom of God is an infinite abyss, which, as it lies in his own eternal breast, we cannot at all look into. We can only adore it as it breaks forth and discovers itself in the works that outwardly are of him, or the effects of it. Thus David, in the consideration of the works of God, falls into an admiration of the wisdom whereby they were made, Psa 104:24; Psa 136:5. The wisdom of God opens and manifests itself in its effects; and thence, according unto our measure, do we learn what doth become it and is suitable unto it. But when the Holy Ghost cometh to speak of this work of our redemption by Christ, he doth not only call us to consider singly the wisdom of God, but his various and manifold wisdom,

Eph 3:10; and affirms that all the treasures of wisdom are hid in it, Col 2:3; plainly intimating that it is a work so suited unto, so answering the infinite wisdom of God in all things throughout, that it could no otherwise have been disposed and effected; and this as well upon the account of the wisdom of God itself absolutely considered, as also as it is that property whereby God designs and effects the glorifying of all other excellencies of his nature, whence it is called various, or manifold: so that we may well conclude that no other way of deliverance of sinners was suited unto the wisdom of God.

Secondly, This way alone answered the holiness and righteousness of God. He is an holy God, who will not suffer the guilty to go free, of purer eyes than to behold iniquity; and his judgment is, that they who commit sin are worthy of death. Sin is contrary to his nature, and his justice requireth that it go not unpunished. Besides, he is the great and supreme governor of all; and whereas sin breaketh and dissolveth the dependence of the creature upon him, should he not avenge that defection his whole rule and government would be disannulled. But now, if this vengeance and punishment should fall on the sinners themselves, they must perish under it eternally; not one of them could escape or ever be freed or purged from their sins. A commutation, then, there must be, that the punishment due to sin, which the holiness and righteousness of God exacted, may be inflicted, and mercy and grace showed unto the sinner. That none was able, fit, or worthy to undergo this penalty, so as to make a compensation for all the sins of all the elect; that none was able to bear it, and break through it, so as that the end of the undertaking might be happy, blessed, and glorious on all hands, but only the Son of God, we shall further manifest in our progress, and it hath been elsewhere declared. And this,

1. Should teach us to live in a holy admiration of this mighty and wonderful product of the wisdom, righteousness, and goodness which had found out and appointed this way of delivering sinners, and have gloriously accomplished it in the self-sacrifice of the Son of God. The Holy Ghost everywhere proposeth this unto us as a mystery, a great and hidden mystery, which none of the great, or wise, or disputers of the world, ever did or could come to the least acquaintance withal. And three things he asserts concerning it:

(1.) That it is revealed in the gospel, and is thence alone to be learned and attained; whence we are invited again and again to search and inquire diligently into it, unto this very end, that we may become wise in the knowledge and acknowledgment of this deep and hidden mystery.

(2.) That we cannot in our own strength, and by our own most diligent endeavors, come to a holy acquaintance with it, notwithstanding that revelation that is made of it in the letter of the word, unless moreover we receive from God the Spirit of wisdom, knowledge, and revelation, opening our eyes, making our minds spiritual, and enabling us to discover these depths of the Holy Ghost in a spiritual manner.

(3.) That we cannot by these helps attain in this life unto a perfection in the knowledge of this deep and unfathomable mystery, but must still labor to grow in grace and in the knowledge of it, our thriving in all grace and obedience depending thereon. All these things the Scripture abounds in the repetition of. And, besides, it everywhere sets forth the blessedness and happiness of them who by grace obtain a spiritual insight into this mystery; and themselves also find by experience the satisfying excellency of it, with the apostle, Php 3:8. All which considerations are powerful motives unto this duty of inquiring into and admiring this wonderful mystery; wherein we have the angels themselves for our associates and companions.

2. Consider we may, also, the unspeakable love of Christ in this work of his delivering us from sin. This the Scripture also abundantly goeth before us in, setting forth, extolling, commending this love of Christ, and calling us to a holy consideration of it. Particularly, it shows it accompanied with all things that may make love expressive and to be admired; for,

(1.) It proposeth the necessity and exigency of the condition wherein the Lord Christ gave us this relief. That was when we were sinners, when we were lost, when we were children of wrath, under the curse, when no eye did pity us, when no hand could relieve us. And if John mourned greatly when he thought that there was none found worthy, in heaven or earth, to open the book of visions, and to unloose the seals thereof, how justly might the whole creation mourn and lament if there had been none found to yield relief, when all were obnoxious to this fatal ruin! And this is an exceeding commendation of the love of Christ, that he set his hand to that work which none could touch, and put his shoulders under that burden which none else could bear, when all lay in a desperate condition.

(2.) The greatness of this delivery. It is from wrath, and curse, and vengeance eternal. Not from a trouble or danger of a few days continuance, not from a momentary suffering; but from everlasting wrath, under the curse of God, and power of Satan in the execution of it, which necessarily attend sin and sinners. And,

(3.) The way whereby he did it; not by his word, whereby he made the world; not by his power, whereby he sustains and rules the things that he hath made; not by paying a price of corruptible things; not by revealing a way unto us only whereby we ourselves might escape that condition wherein we were, as some foolishly imagine: but by the sacrifice of himself, making his soul an offering for sin, and offering up himself unto God through the eternal Spirit, by laying down his life for us; and greater love can no man manifest than by so doing. And,

(4.) The infinite condescension that he used, to put himself into that condition wherein by himself he might purge our sins; for to this purpose, when he was in the form of God, he emptied himself of his glory, made himself of no account, was made flesh, took on him the form of a servant, that he might be obedient unto death, the death of the cross. And,

(5.) The end of his undertaking for us, which was the bringing of us unto God, into his love and favor here, and the eternal enjoyment of him hereafter. All these things, I say, doth the Scripture insist frequently and largely upon, to set forth the excellency of the love of Christ, to render it admirable and amiable unto us. And these things should we lay up in our hearts, and continually ponder them, that we may give due acceptance and entertainment to this wonderful love of the Son of God.

The apostle having thus asserted in general the sacerdotal office of Christ, and the sacrifice that he offered, with the end of it, because that could not be done without the greatest dejection, humiliation, and abasement of the Son, that we may not conceive that he was left in, or doth yet abide under, the same condition, adds the blessed event and consequent of his great work and undertaking: He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

These words we have already opened, as to their sense and importance. The design and meaning of the Holy Ghost in them is nextly to be considered. The things to be inquired after to this end are, first, The scope of the apostle in these words; secondly, The manner of his expressing his intendment, and the particulars therein intended; thirdly, What he referred unto in the Mosaical economy, whereby he strengthened the argument which he had in hand.

Two things the apostle in general designs in these words:

1. That the Lord Christ, undertaking to purge our sins, did by the one offering of himself perfectly effect it, so discharging the whole work of his priesthood, as to the making atonement for sinners. This the blessed issue of his undertaking doth demonstrate. Immediately upon his work, he entered into the glorious condition here expressed, a signal pledge and evidence that his work was perfected, and that God was fully satisfied and well pleased with what he had done.

2. The blessed and glorious condition of the Lord Jesus after his humiliation is expressed in these words. His Spirit did of old signify both his sufferings and the glory that should follow, 1Pe 1:11; as himself interpreted the Scriptures unto his disciples, Luk 24:26. And this, upon the close of his work, he requested, as due unto him upon compact and promise, Joh 17:5. These are the things in general designed by the apostle in these words.

Secondly, The manner of his expression of the glory and blessed condition of the Son of God after his purging our sins, and what is particularly intimated therein, is to be considered. Some mistakes or groundless curiosities must first be removed, and then the real importance of the words declared.

Some contend that the left hand of old was most honorable; so that the placing of Christ at the right hand of God, as it denotes his honor and glory, so also an inferiority unto the Father. To this purpose they produce some sayings out of some ancient writers among the heathen, giving the preference of place or dignity unto the left hand: and these sayings are made use of by the Romanists to answer an objection of very little moment against Peters supremacy, taken from some ancient episcopal seals, whereon the figure of Paul was placed on the right hand of that of Peter. But this conjecture may be easily disproved by testimonies innumerable out of approved authors among the Gentiles; and in Scripture the right hand doth constantly denote dignity and pre-eminence. The instance of Jacobs blessing Josephs children testifies also the constant usage of those ancient times, from the intimation of nature itself, Gen 48:17-19; and the disposal of the sheep and goats at the last day to the right hand and left gives the privilege to the former. So Basil: The right hand place denoteth a quality of dignity. And Chrysostom: If he would have signified any lessening or diminution, he would not have said, Sit on my right hand,but on my left. So that it is honor and glory which is signified by this expression, and that only.

Some, granting the right hand to denote the most honorable place, inquire whether this be spoken in reference unto God the Father himself, or unto others that do or may be supposed to sit on his left hand. For the first sense contends Maldonate on Mat 16:19; for saith he, Though it be impossible that the Son in absolute or essential glory should be preferred before or above the Father, yet as to his immediate rule over the church he may more show forth his power and glory in the rule and government of all things Others contend that it is spoken with respect unto others sitting at the left hand, above which this is preferred. But this whole inquiry is both curious and groundless: for,

1. Though sitting at the right hand be a token of great glory and dignity, yet, as the apostle speaks in this very case, it is manifest that He is excepted who put all things under him, 1Co 15:27, he who thus exalted him over all at his right hand is excepted; and,

2. Here is no comparison at all, or regard to sitting on the left hand, nor is there so wherever that expression is used, but only the glory of Christ the mediator is absolutely declared.

And this may be cleared by other instances. Solomon placed his mother when she came unto him on his right hand, a token of exceeding honor; but he himself sat down on the throne of the kingdom, 1Ki 2:19. The church is said to be at the right hand of Christ, Psa 45:9; which, as it prefers her above all others, so it takes not off her subjection unto Christ. Nero, in Suetonius, when Tiridates, king of Armenia, came to Rome, placed him for his honor on his right hand, himself sitting on the throne of rule. And where three sit together, the middle seat is the place of chiefest honor. Hence Cato in Africa, when Juba would have placed himself in the midst between him and Scipio, removed himself to the left hand of Scipio, that Juba might not have the place of pre-eminence above Roman magistrates. It is not unlikely but that there may be an allusion in this expression unto the Sanhedrin, the highest court of judicature among the Jews. He who presided in it was called , or , The father of judgment, or, Father of the house of judgment, and sat at the right hand of the , or prince of the Sanhedrin, next unto him unto whom belonged the execution of the sentence of the court. Of this ab din mention is made in the Targum, Son 7:4, ; The father of the house of judgment, who judgeth thy judgments; agreeable to that, The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.

The whole expression, then, is plainly metaphorical, and taken from what is or was in use amongst men, and thence translated to signify the state and condition of Christ in heaven. And this is that which the apostle in general intimates in these words, that as the greatest honor that can be done unto any one among the sons of men is for the chief ruler to set him next himself on his right hand, so is the Son, as mediator, made partaker of the greatest glory that God hath to bestow in heaven. It is not, then, the essential, eternal glory of the Son of God, that he hath equally with the Father, which in these words is expressed, and whereof the apostle had spoken before, but that glory and honor which is bestowed on him by the Father, after and upon the sacrifice of himself for the expiation of sin. So, then, the right hand of God is not here taken absolutely, as in other places, for the power and strength of God; but with the adjunct of sitting at it, it shadows out a place and eminency of glory, as he is considered on his throne of majesty; and therefore it is here termed the right hand of majesty, and not of omnipotency or power.

In particular, two things are intended in this expression:

1. The security of Christ from all his adversaries and all sufferings for the future. The Jews knew what he suffered from God and man. Hereof he lets them know what was the reason, it was for the purging of our sins; and moreover declares that now he is everlastingly secured from all opposition, for where he is, thither his adversaries cannot come, as Joh 7:34. He is above their reach, beyond their power, secure in the throne and presence of God. Thus the fruit of the church, being secured from the rage and persecution of Satan, is said to be caught up unto God, and to his throne, Rev 12:5. Hence though men do and will continue their malice and wrath against the Lord Christ to the end of the world, as though they would crucify him afresh, yet he dies no more, being secure out of their reach at the right hand of God.

2. His majesty and glory inexpressible; all that can be given of God in heaven. God on his throne is God in the full manifestation of his own majesty and glory; on his right hand sits the Mediator, yea, so as that he also is in the midst of the throne, Rev 5:6. How little can our weak understandings apprehend of this majesty! See Php 2:9; Mat 20:21; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Eph 1:20.

These are the things which the apostle sets forth in this expression. And they are plainly intimated in the context of the psalm from whence the words are taken, Psalms 110. So that it is not his rule and authority, but his safety, majesty, and glory, which accompany them, that are here intended.

Thirdly, We are to inquire what it was that the apostle had respect unto, in this ascription of glory and majesty unto Christ, in the old church-state of the Jews, and so what it is that he preferreth him above.

It is thought by many that the apostle in these words exalteth Christ above David, the chiefest king among the Jews. Of him it is said that God would make him his first-born, higher than the kings of the earth, Psa 89:27. His throne was high on the earth, and his glory above that of all the kings about him; but for the Lord Christ, he is incomparably exalted above him also, in that he is sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. But, as was said, these words denote not the rule, power, or authority of Christ, typed by the kingdom of David, but his glory and majesty, represented by the magnificent throne of Solomon. Besides, he is not treating of the kingly power of Christ, but of his sacerdotal office, and the glory that ensued upon the discharge thereof.

That, therefore, which in these words the apostle seems to have had respect unto was the high priests entrance into the holy place, after his offering of the solemn anniversary sacrifice of expiation. Then alone was he admitted into that holy place, or heaven below, where was the solemn representation of the presence of God, his throne and his glory. And what did he there? He stood with all humility and lowly reverence ministering before the Lord, whose presence was there represented. He did not go and sit down between the cherubim, but worshipping at the footstool of the Lord, he departed. It is not, saith the apostle, so with Christ; but as his sacrifice was infinitely more excellent and effectual than Aarons, so upon the offering of it he entered into the holy place, or heaven itself above, and into the real, glorious presence of God, not to minister in humility, but to a participation of the throne of majesty and glory. He is a king and priest upon his throne, Zec 6:13.

Thus the apostle shuts up his general proposition of the whole matter, which he intends further to dilate and treat upon. In this description of the person and offices of the Messiah he coucheth the springs of all his ensuing arguments, and from thence enforceth the exhortation which we have observed him constantly to pursue. And we also may hence observe:

I. That there is nothing more vain, foolish, and fruitless, than the opposition which Satan and his agents yet make unto the Lord Christ and his kingdom. Can they ascend into heaven? Can they pluck the Lord Christ from the throne of God? A little time will manifest this madness, and that unto eternity.

II. That the service of the Lord Christ is both safe and honorable. He is, as a good, so a glorious master, one that sits at the right hand of God.

III. Great is the spiritual and eternal security of them that truly believe in Christ. Of all which severally afterwards.

Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

Sat Down

There is a Man in glory! There is a Man risen, exalted, and seated upon the throne of God. Do you realize what that means? Does not the Word of God ask, How can he (a man) be clean, that is born of woman? We read in the Book of God, It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Yet, the Holy Spirit here declares that there is a Man in glory, a Man who, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high!

No Ordinary Man

This Man is no ordinary man. This Man is himself God. He is the God-man. He became a man that he might redeem men. He lived in this world as the Representative Man, the Representative of Gods elect. He lived the full age of a man in perfect obedience to the will and law of God to establish righteousness for men, even the righteousness of God, by magnifying the law and making it honorable. Then, when his hour had fully come, this Man, the God-man, our Lord Jesus Christ, died upon the cursed tree as our Substitute, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Now, this Man, who as a man put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, is seated upon the very throne of God in glory, accepted as a man, with God! Hear the good news of that fact. — Since there is a Man in glory, accepted of God, there may be another, and another, and another! Because this Man, the God-man is in glory, He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him!

Who is he?

This man, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the brightness of Gods glory and the express image of his person. Christ is both God himself and the singular revelation and expression of the glory of God. The reference, Henry Mahan wrote, is to the sun and its rays. The Father and the Son are the same as the sun and its rays. One is not before the other, and they cannot be divided or separated. He is the perfect revelation and the exact image and character of the Father (Isa 9:6; Joh 1:1-3; Joh 10:30; Joh 14:8-10; Mat 1:21-23).

What has he done?

Much needs to be said in answer to this question; but allow me stick with the words of this text, and simply declare that which is the essence of all our Savior did as the God-man, our Mediator. The Lord Jesus Christ has by himself purged our sins! The Lord Jesus, of himself, by himself alone, and by the sacrifice of himself, made atonement for all the sins of Gods elect. He took our sins upon himself, bore them and died under the penalty of them, thereby abolishing them completely and forever (2Co 5:21; Heb 9:26; Col 1:19-22; Isa 53:4-6).

Where is he now?

He is yonder in glory, where, two thousand years ago, he sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high. The Majesty on high is God the Father to whom majesty belongs and who is clothed with majesty. His right hand is the place of power, greatness, acceptance, and glory. There sits the Man, Christ Jesus, and all his elect in him. We have been made to sit down with him in heavenly places!

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

the brightness: Joh 1:14, Joh 14:9, Joh 14:10, 2Co 4:6

image: 2Co 4:4, Col 1:15, Col 1:16

upholding: Psa 75:3, Joh 1:4, Col 1:17, Rev 4:11

the word: Ecc 8:4, Rom 1:16, 2Co 4:7

by himself: Heb 7:27, Heb 9:12-14, Heb 9:16, Heb 9:26, Joh 1:29, 1Jo 1:7, 1Jo 3:5

sat: Heb 4:14, Heb 8:1, Heb 10:12, Heb 12:2, Psa 110:1, Mat 22:24, Mar 16:19, Luk 20:42, Luk 20:43, Act 2:33, Act 7:56, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20-22, Col 3:1, 1Pe 1:21, 1Pe 3:22, Rev 3:21

Majesty: 1Ch 29:11, Job 37:22, Mic 5:4, 2Pe 1:16, Jud 1:25

Reciprocal: Gen 5:1 – in the likeness Exo 30:10 – Aaron Exo 39:30 – the plate Lev 4:19 – General Lev 4:20 – an atonement Lev 4:31 – a sweet Lev 4:35 – and the priest shall make Lev 14:6 – the living bird Lev 15:15 – an atonement Lev 16:17 – no man Num 12:8 – similitude Deu 4:15 – of similitude Deu 16:6 – at even Jdg 13:20 – when the flame 1Sa 2:8 – the pillars 1Ki 10:18 – a great throne 1Ch 16:30 – stable Neh 9:6 – preservest Psa 33:9 – and it stood Psa 45:2 – fairer Psa 45:3 – glory Psa 68:18 – for men Psa 93:1 – world Psa 96:6 – Honour Psa 96:10 – the world Isa 40:5 – the glory Isa 40:18 – General Isa 46:5 – General Isa 52:13 – he shall Isa 60:2 – the Lord Isa 66:2 – For all those Jer 11:11 – which Jer 30:21 – and I Jer 32:17 – thou Jer 51:15 – hath made Eze 8:4 – General Mat 22:44 – The Lord Mat 25:33 – his Mat 26:64 – the right Mar 1:41 – I Mar 14:62 – the Son Luk 10:11 – notwithstanding Luk 22:69 – on Luk 24:51 – he was Joh 1:3 – General Joh 1:10 – was in Joh 5:17 – My Joh 8:19 – if Joh 12:41 – saw Joh 12:45 – General Joh 13:32 – shall Joh 14:7 – ye Joh 14:28 – Father Joh 16:5 – I Joh 17:5 – glorify Joh 17:11 – I am Act 7:2 – The God Act 7:55 – standing Act 17:28 – in him Rom 10:6 – to bring 1Co 8:6 – and we by 1Co 11:12 – but Gal 4:5 – redeem Eph 3:9 – created Phi 2:6 – in 1Ti 3:16 – God Heb 1:13 – Sit Heb 4:10 – he that Heb 6:20 – for Heb 7:26 – made Heb 9:14 – purge Heb 9:24 – but Jam 2:1 – the Lord 1Pe 4:19 – a faithful 2Pe 1:3 – his Rev 1:18 – was

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Heb 1:3. Thayer defines brightness by “reflected brightness,” meaning that when Jesus was on earth he reflected the glory of his Father. Express image is from CHARAKTER which Thayer defines at this place, “A mark or figure burned in or stamped on, an impression; the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect.” God is not composed of substance as that word is commonly used, hence the word person as in the King James Version is a good translation. It means that when Christ was on earth, he had the form or image of his Father. That is one reason why He said, “he that hath seen me hath seen the father” (Joh 14:9). All of this agrees with the words of God that the man was to be created in “our” (God’s and Christ’s) image (Gen 1:26). Upholding all things by the word of his power. All power (or authority) being given to Christ (Mat 28:18), the arrangement of all things pertaining to the new system of salvation was disposed of according to His will and direction. By himself purged our sins. This took place when He died on the cross, thereby making the supreme sacrifice that was sufficient to purge all men from their sins who would accept it. By the death on the cross, the plan was made completely efficient, which is why He said “it is finished” (Joh 19:30). By coming alive from the grave, Jesus validated the purchase price of man’s salvation, and then He was ready to return to his Father. He did so and was seated at the right hand of the throne of God, having been welcomed by the angelic hosts in the city of everlasting glory. (See the wonderful reception given Christ in Psa 24:7-10.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 1:3. The brightnessthe effulgenceof the divine glory, with allusion probably to the visible glory of the Shekinah over the mercy-seat, though the meaning is deeper. Light of (i.e emanating from Him who is the) light.

The express image, the impress or stamp wherein and whereby the divine essence is made manifest: and all this He is in His own nature, so the Greek implies (being, comp. Joh 1:1), not that He became so by incarnation. Image of his person is not felicitous. The earlier rendering, substance (Tyndale, essence or nature), is more accurate.

And bearing, upholding and directing all things by the word, the fiat of His power, when (rather after) he had made purification of sins, i.e had atoned for them, sat down, etc.

What higher honour can be given to our Lord? He is the glorythe love and holiness of God made visible; the very essence, the nature of the Father in loving embodiment. He therefore that has the Son has the Father also.

Note that God not only acted in creating all things; He acts still in upholding them. A creation regulated by dead law alone is not Scripture teaching (see Act 17:24-25, He is giving to all life and all things, Act 17:27-28). And it is in and through Christ this is done.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our apostle here proceeds in describing the Divinity of Christ’s person, by whom the Father has made known his will to us under the gospel. He declares, 1. What he is. 2. What he does, or did. 3. The consequent of both, or what he now enjoyeth.

Observe, 1. Our apostle declares who, and what Christ was, and is, namely, The brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. As the brightness of the sun is of the same nature with the sun, and of as long continuance as the sun and cannot be separated from the sun and yet the sun, and the brightness of the sun, are really distinct from each other.

In like manner the Father and the Son are of one and the same essence, co-eternal and inseparable, yet the person of the one is distinct from the other. And as the sun communicates its light and influence to us by its beams, so doth God communicate his goodness, and manifest himself to us by Jesus Christ.

Learn hence, That the Son is of the same essence with the Farther, yet a person really distinct from the Father brightly shines forth in Christ his Son.

That is, the express character of God the Father’s person, his natural image, and essential likeness; all the perfections shining forth in God the Father, are substantially in Christ the Son: Is the Father eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent? so is the Son, whose Character he is, whose resemblance and imager he bears; Joh 10:38

The father is in me and I in him; the same essential properties and nature being in each person, by virtue thereof their persons are said to be in each other. All the glorious perfections of the nature of God do belong unto, and dwell in the person of the Son of God.

Observe 2. Our apostle having declared what Christ is, next declares what he does; namely, that he up holdeth all things by the word of his power; that is, he exerts and puts forth the some omnipotent power in the work of preservation, which he did in the work of creation, keeping it from sinking into its original chaos of confusion. This work of conservation, say some, is a greater act of omnipotency than that of creation; by the former, all things were brought out of nothing, by the latter, they are preserved from returning into nothing, which their own nature, and their perpetual conflict, by contrariety of qualities, would necessarily precipitate them into.

Learn hence, 1. That such is the nature and condition of the universe, that it cannot subsist one moment without continual support; such is the dependent condition of the whole creation.

Learn, 2. That our Lord Jesus Christ has the weight of the whole creation on his hand, he upholdeth what himself created: and as well as creation of all things by the word of his power, do prove him truly and really God.

Observe, 3. A further evidence and proof of the Divinity of Christ, produced here by our apostle; as he made the world by his omnipotent power, and upholds it by his wonderful providence, so he redeemed it by his blood, He by himself purged our sins. He that made the heavens, bowed the heavens, and came down from heaven, and became a sacrifice for sin on earth, and by himself alone, by himself without a partner, by himself without a comforter, expiated the guilt of sin, and satisfied the justice of God for sin, suffering as he was man, and satisfying as he was God, who by himself purged our sins.

Learn hence, That so great was the work of expiation of sin, that it could no otherwise by really effected and accomplished, than by the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ, who was truly and really God.

Observe, 4. THe consequent of all that Christ did or his glorious condition after his humiliation, having purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

That is, God the Father clothed him with the highest honour, and endowed him with the greatest power that heaven itself could afford; the right hand is the place both of dignity and honour, and also of superiority and power: Christ’s sitting at God’s right hand imports his exaltation to the highest authority and most supreme dominion.

Learn hence, That when our Lord Jesus Christ had finished his sufferings upon earth, he was placed in the seat of the highest honour and authority at the right hand of God his Father in heaven, even to be the object of adoration both to angels and men, as the following verses declare in which our apostle thus speaks:

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Shining With the Glory of God

That Jesus was, and is, God come down to earth must be. His glory was testified to by the Father and the Holy Spirit at His baptism ( Mat 3:13-17 ). He shines forth with the glory that is the glory of the Father ( Col 1:15 ; Joh 1:14 ). Jesus is God’s “express image” like the exact imprint of a seal in wax ( Heb 1:3 ).

Lightfoot sees “upholding all things by the word of His power” as referring to Jesus’ responsibility for the “providential government” of the universe and His direction of its destiny. Also, Jesus is our redeemer ( Joh 3:16-17 ). It is in the likeness of His death, burial and resurrection that we are able to put away our old lives of sin. We thereby begin to live a new life ( Rom 6:1-23 ). Jesus was made a purification for our sins. He exercised His priestly office in offering His own blood in sacrifice for our sins.

Jesus told His disciples He would go to be with His Father. He also said He planned to build a place for His people ( Joh 14:1-6 ). The Hebrew writer declares, with the Psalmist (110:1), that Jesus is on the right hand of God in heaven. It is declared elsewhere in the Bible as well ( Eph 1:20 ; Col 3:1 ; 1Pe 3:21-22 ). His place at God’s right hand is pointed to as a glorious hope of His coming again to receive us.

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

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

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

3. Who being the brightness of His glory and the character of His person…. The Greek word for express image is character. Since that word has been transferred into the English language, it should not be translated. Hence, in the life of Jesus, faithfully delineated by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, his inspired biographers, we see the very character of God. Therefore, we find that God is meek and lowly in heart, going about doing good. Therefore, if you would go up and live with God in heaven you must be like Him, i.e., meek and lowly in heart, doing good, and no harm. Having made the expurgation of sins He sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high. You see from this statement that Jesus completely and forever settled the awful sin-problem, so far as this world is concerned. When He died on the cross He perfectly and eternally satisfied the violated law, and swept every conceivable difficulty completely out of the way; so the vilest sinner on the whole earth has nothing to do but totally, radically and unconditionally abandon sin and Satan world without end, look away to Calvary, and shout victory over the world, the flesh and the devil, now and through all eternity. Nothing but stubborn unbelief can ever keep a soul out of heaven. The very fact of the Fathers royal congratulation and glorious coronation of Jesus on the mediatorial throne a His right hand is an indisputable and eternal recognition of His perfect and satisfactory approval of the expiation and redemption Jesus came on the earth to execute. He is this day Mediatorial King, interceding at Gods right hand, in behalf of a guilty world.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1:3 Who being the {e} brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his {f} person, and {g} upholding all things by the word of his power, {3} when he had by himself purged our sins, {h} sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(e) He in whom the glory and majesty of the Father shines, who is otherwise infinite, and cannot be under obligation.

(f) His Father’s person.

(g) Sustains, defends and cherishes.

(3) The third part of the same proposition: The same Son executed the office of the High Priest in offering up himself, and is our only and most mighty Mediator in heaven.

(h) This shows that the savour of that his sacrifice is not only most acceptable to the Father, but also is everlasting, and furthermore how far this High Priest surpasses all the other high priests.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes