Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 1:5

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

5 14. Illustrations from Scripture of the superiority of Christ to Angels

5. For ] The following paragraphs prove “the more excellent name.” By His work on earth the God-man Christ Jesus obtained that superiority of place in the order and hierarchy of salvation which made Him better than the Angels, not only in intrinsic dignity but in relation to the redemption of man. In other words the universal heirship of Christ is here set forth “not as a metaphysical but as a dispensational prerogative.” That it should be necessary for the writer to enter upon a proof of this may well seem strange to us; but that it was necessary is proved by the earnestness with which he devotes himself to the task. To us the difficulty lies in the mode of proof, not in the result arrived at; but his readers were unconvinced of the result, while they would have freely admitted the validity of this method of reasoning. The line of proof has been thoroughly studied by Dr W. Robertson Smith, in some papers published in the Expositor for 1881, to which I am indebted for several suggestions. “There is nothing added,” he says, “to the intrinsic superiority of Christ’s being, but He occupies towards us a position higher than the angels ever held. The whole argument turns, not on personal dignity, but on dignity of function in the administration of the economy of salvation.” It may be due to this Epistle that we find in later Jewish books (like the Jalkut Shimeoni) such sentences as “The King Messiah shall be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the Ministering Angels” (see Schttgen, p. 905).

For unto which of the angels said he at any time ] The “He” is God. This indirect mode of reference to God is common in the Rabbinic writings. The argument here is from the silence of Scripture, as in Heb 1:13, Heb 2:16, Heb 7:13-14.

Thou art my Son ] The quotation is from Psa 2:7 (comp. Psa 89:20; Psa 89:26-27). The author does not need to pause in order to prove that this, and the other passages which he quotes, apply to the Christ; still less to prove that Christ is the Son of God. All Christians held the second point; the first point would have been at once conceded by every Jewish reader. Many of the Jews adopted the common view of the Rabbis that everything in the Old Testament prophecies might be applied to the Messiah. St Peter, in Act 13:33, also applies this verse to Christ, and the great Rabbis, Kimchi and Rashi, admit that the Psalm was accepted in a Messianic sense in ancient days. The Divinity of Christ was a truth which the writer might assume in addressing Christians.

It must therefore be observed that these passages are not advanced as proofs that Jesus was the Son of God which, as Christians, the readers in no wise disputed but as arguments ad hominem and ex concessis. In other words they were arguments to those whom the writer had immediately in view, and who had no doubt as to the premisses on which he based his reasoning. He had to confirm a vacillating and unprogressive faith (Heb 6:12, Heb 12:25), not to convince those who disputed the central truths of Christianity.

Our own conviction on these subjects rests primarily upon historical and spiritual grounds, and only depends in a very subordinate degree on indirect Scriptural applications. Yet even as regards these we cannot but see that, while the more sober-minded interpreters have always admitted that there was a primary historic meaning in the passages quoted, and that they were addressed in the first instance to David, Solomon, &c., yet (1) there is a “pre-established harmony” between the language used and its fulfilment in Christ; (2) the language is often so far beyond the scope of its immediate application that it points to an ideal and distant fulfilment; (3) it was interpreted for many centuries before Christ in a Messianic sense; (4) that Messianic sense has been amply justified by the slow progress of history. There is surely some medium between regarding these passages as soothsaying vaticinations, definitely and consciously recognised as such by their writers, and setting them aside as though they contained no prophetic element at all. In point of fact the Jews themselves rightly looked on them as mingling the present and the future, the kingly-theocratic and the Messianic. No one will enter into their real meaning who does not see that all the best Jewish literature was in the highest sense prophetic. It centred in that magnificent Messianic hope which arose immediately from the connexion of the Jews with their covenant God, and which elevated them above all other nations. The divine character of this confident hope was justified, and more than justified, by the grandeur of its fulfilment. Genuine, simple, historical exegesis still leaves room in the Old Testament for a glorious and demonstrable Christology. Although the old aphorism Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet has often been extravagantly abused by allegoric interpreters, every instructed Christian will admit its fundamental truth. The germ of a highly-developed Messianic prophecy was involved from the first in the very idea of a theocracy and a separated people.

this day have I begotten thee ] St Paul says (Rom 1:4) that Jesus was “determined” or “constituted” ( ) Son of God, with power, by resurrection from the dead. The aorist in that passage points to a definite time the Resurrection (comp. Act 13:33). In other senses the expression “to-day” might be applied to the Incarnation (Luk 1:31), or to the Ascension, or to the Eternal Generation. The latter explanation however, which explains “to-day” of “God’s eternal now” the nunc stans of eternity though adopted by Origen (who finely says that in God’s “to-day” there is neither morning nor evening) and by St Augustine is probably one of the “afterthoughts of theology.” Calvin stigmatises it as a “ frivola Augustini argutia,” but the strongest argument in its favour is that Philo has a somewhat similar conception. The words, however, originally applied to the day of David’s complete inauguration as king upon Mount Sion. No one time can apply to the Eternal Generation, and the adoption of Philo’s notion that “to-day” means “for ever,” and that “all Eternity” is God’s to-day would here be out of place. Possibly the “to-day” is only, so to speak, an accidental part of the quotation: in other words it may belong rather to the literal and primary prophecy than to its Messianic application. The Church shews that she understood the word “to-day” to apply to the Resurrection by appointing the second psalm as one of the special psalms for Easter-day.

I will be to him a Father ] 2Sa 7:14 (LXX.). The words were primarily applicable to Solomon, but the quotation would not, without further argument, have helped forward the writer’s end if he had not been able to assume with confidence that none of his readers would dispute his typological method of exegesis. It is probable that the promise to David here quoted is directly connected with the passage just adduced from Psalms 2.

he shall be to me a Son ] The quotation (comp. Philo De Leg. Allegor. iii. 8) though primarily applied to Solomon, has the wider sense of prophesying the advent of some perfect theocratic king. The “Angels” it might be objected are called “Sons of God” in Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Dan 3:25. In these passages, however, the Alexandrian manuscript of the LXX. which this author seems to have used (whereas St Paul seems to quote from another type of manuscript the Vatican), has “angels” and not “sons.” If it be further urged that in Psa 29:1; Psa 89:7, even the Alexandrian MS. also has “sons” we must suppose either that the writer means to distinguish (1) between the higher and lower senses of the word “son;” or (2) between “Sons of Elohim ” and “Sons of Jehovah,” since Elohim is so much lower and vaguer a name for God than Jehovah, that not only Angels but even human beings are called Elohim; or (3) that he did not regard the name “sons” as in any way characteristic of angels. He shews so intimate a knowledge of the Psalms that on this ground alone, not to dwell on others the supposition that he forgot or overlooked these passages is hardly admissible.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For unto which of the angels … – The object of this is, to prove that the Son of God, who has spoken to people in these last days, is superior to the angels. As the apostle was writing to those who had been trained in the Jewish religion, and who admitted the authority of the Old Testament, of course he made his appeal to that, and undoubtedly referred for proof to those places which were generally admitted to relate to the Messiah. Abarbanel says, that it was the common opinion of the Jewish doctors that the Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the angels – Stuart. There is a difficulty, as we shall see, in applying the passages which follow to the Messiah – a difficulty which we may find it not easy to explain. Some remarks will be made on the particular passages as we go along. In general it may be observed here:

(1) That it is to be presumed that those passages were in the time of Paul applied to the Messiah. He seems to argue from them as though this was commonly understood, and is at no pains to prove it.

(2) It is to be presumed that those to whom he wrote would at once admit this to be so. If this were not so, we cannot suppose that he would regard this mode of reasoning as at all efficacious, or adapted to convince those to whom he wrote.

(3) He did not apprehend that the application which he made of these texts would be called in question by the countrymen of those to whom he wrote. It is to be presumed, therefore, that the application was made in accordance with the received opinions, and the common interpretation.

(4) Paul had been instructed in early life in the doctrines of the Jewish religion, and made fully acquainted with all their principles of interpretation. It is to be presumed, therefore, that he made these quotations in accordance with the prevalent belief, and with principles which were well understood and admitted.

(5) Every age and people have their own modes of reasoning. They may differ from others, and others may regard them as unsound, and yet to that age and people they are satisfactory and conclusive. The ancient philosophers employed modes of reasoning which would not strike us as the most forcible, and which perhaps we should not regard as tenable. So it is with the Chinese, the Hindus, the Muslims now. So it was with the writers of the dark ages who lived under the influence of the scholastic philosophy. They argue from admitted principles in their country and time – just as we do in ours. Their reasoning was as satisfactory to them as ours is to us.

(6) In a writer of any particular age we are to expect to find the prevailing mode of reasoning, and appeals to the usual arguments on any subject. We are not to look for methods of argument founded on the inductive philosophy in the writings of the schoolmen, or in the writings of the Chinese or the Hindus. It would be unreasonable to expect it. We are to expect that they will be found to reason in accordance with the customs of their time; to appeal to such arguments as were commonly alleged; and if they are reasoning with an adversary, to make use of the points which he concedes, and to urge them as suited to convince him. And this is not wrong. It may strike him with more force than it does us; it may be that we can see that is not the most solid mode of reasoning, but still it may not be in itself an improper method. That the writers of the New Testament should have used that mode of reasoning sometimes, is no more surprising than that we find writers in China reasoning from acknowledged principles, and in the usual manner there, or than that people in our own land reason on the principles of the inductive philosophy. These remarks may not explain all the difficulties in regard to the proof-texts adduced by Paul in this chapter, but they may remove some of them, and may so prepare the way that we may be able to dispose of them all as we advance. In the passage which is quoted in this verse, there is not much difficulty in regard to the propriety of its being thus used. The difficulty lies in the subsequent quotations in the chapter.

Said he at any time – He never used language respecting the angels like what he employs respecting his Son. He never applied to any one of them the name Son. Thou art my Son. The name sons of God, is applied in the Scriptures to saints, and may have been given to the angels. But the argument here is, that the name, my Son has never been given to any one of them particularly and by eminence. In a large general sense, they are the sons of God, or the children of God, but the name is given to the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, in a special sense, implying a unique relation to him, and a special dominion over all things. This passage is quoted from Psa 2:1-12; – a Psalm that is usually believed to pertain particularly to the Messiah, and one of the few Psalms that have undisputed reference to him; see notes on Act 4:25; Act 13:33.

This day – see notes on Act 13:33, where this passage is applied to the resurrection of Christ from the dead: proving that the phrase this day does not refer to the doctrine of eternal generation, but to the resurrection of the Redeemer – the first-begotten of the dead: Rev 1:5. Thus, Theodoret says of the phrase this day, it does not express his eternal generation, but what is connected with time. The argument of the apostle here does not turn on the time when this was said, but on the fact that this was said to him and not to any one of the angels, and this argument will have equal force whether the phrase be understood as referring to the fact of his resurrection, or to his previous existence. The structure and scope of the second Psalm refers to his exaltation after the kings of the earth set themselves against him, and endeavored to cast off His government from them. In spite of that, and subsequent to that, he would set his king, which they had rejected, on his holy hill of Zion; see Psa 2:2-6.

Have I begotten thee – See this place explained in the notes on Act 13:33. It must, from the necessity of the case, be understood figuratively; and must mean, substantially, I have constituted, or appointed thee. If it refers to his resurrection, it means that that resurrection was a kind of begetting to life, or, a beginning of life; see Rev 1:5.

And yet though Paul Act 13:33 has applied it to the resurrection of the Redeemer, and though the name Son of God is applied to him on account of his resurrection (see notes on Rom 1:4), yet I confess this does not seem to me to come up to all that the writer here intended. The phrase, The Son of God, I suppose, properly denotes that the Lord Jesus sustained a relation to God, designated by that name, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name the Son of man. The one implied that he had a special relation to God, as the other implied that he had a special relation to man. This is indisputable. But on what particular account the name was given him, or how he was manifested to be the Son of God, has been the great question. Whether the name refers to the mode of his existence before the incarnation, and to his being begotten from eternity, or to the incarnation and the resurrection, has long been a point on which people have been divided in opinion.

The natural idea conveyed by the title the Son of God is, that he sustained a relation to God which implied more than was human or angelic; and this is certainly the drift of the argument of the apostle here. I do not see, however, that he refers to the doctrine of eternal generation, or that he means to teach that. His point is, that God had declared and treated him as a Son – as superior to the angels and to human beings, and that this was shown in what had been said of him in the Old Testament. This would be equally clear, whether there is reference to the doctrine of eternal generation or not. The sense is, he is more than human. He is more than angelic. He has been addressed and treated as a Son – which none of the angels have. They are regarded simply as ministering spirits. They sustain subordinate stations, and are treated accordingly. He, on the contrary, is the brightness of the divine glory.

He is treated and addressed as a Son. In his original existence this was so. In his incarnation this was so. When on earth this was so; and in his resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God, he was treated in all respects as a Son – as superior to all servants, and to all ministering spirits. The exact reference, then, of the phrase this day have I begotten thee, in the Psalm, is to the act of constituting him in a public manner the Son of God – and refers to Gods setting him as king on the holy hill of Zion – or making him king over the church and the world as Messiah; and this was done, eminently, as Paul shows Acts 13, by the resurrection. It was based, however, on what was fit and proper. It was not arbitrary. There was a reason why he should thus be exalted rather than a man or an angel; and this was, that he was the God incarnate, and had a nature that qualified him for universal empire, and he was thus appropriately called the Son of God.

(No doctrine is advanced, by pressing into its service, such texts as sound criticism declares not strictly to belong to it. Yet, without doubt, many advocates of the eternal Sonship have done violence to this passage, with the design of upholding their views. That doctrine, however, happily is not dependent on a single text; and ample ground will remain for its friends, even if we admit, as in candor we must, that our author has fully made out his case against this text as a proof one. It seems clear, that neither semeron nor its corresponding haayowm can denote eternity; of such signification there is no example. The sense is uniformly confined to limited duration, Psa 95:7; Heb 4:7. The order of the second Psalm, too, certainly does prove that the begetting took place after the opposition which the kings and rulers made to Christ, and not prior to it. Accordingly, the text is quoted elsewhere in reference to the resurrection of Christ, Rom 1:4; Act 13:33. Besides, the chief design of the apostle in the place is not so much to show why Christ is called the Son of God, as simply to direct attention to the fact that he has this name, on the possession of which the whole argument is founded. He inherits a name which is never given to angels, and that of itself is proof of his superiority to them, whether we suppose the ground of the title to lie in his previous existence, or, with our author, in his incarnate Deity. But on this question, it must be admitted, that the passage determines nothing.

All this is substantially allowed by Owen, than whom a more stanch supporter of the doctrine of eternal Sonship cannot be named. The apostle, in this place, says he, does not treat of the eternal generation of the Son, but of His exaltation and pre-eminence above angels. The word also, haayowm, constantly in the Scripture, denotes some signal time, one day, or more. And that expression, this day have I begotten thee, following immediately upon that other typical one, I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion, seems to be of the same import, and in like manner to be interpreted. On the general doctrine of the Sonship, the author has stated his views both here and elsewhere. That it is eternal or has its origin in the previous existence of Christ, he will not allow. It is given to the second person of the Trinity because he became God incarnate, so that but for the incarnation and the economy of redemption, he would not have had this name. But the eternal Sonship of Christ rests on a body of evidence, that will not soon or easily be set aside. See that evidence adduced in a supplementary Note under Rom 1:4. Meanwhile we would simply ask the reader, if it do not raise our idea of the love of God, in the mission of Christ, to suppose that he held the dear relation of Son previous to His coming – that being the Son, he was sent to prove what a sacrifice the Father could make, in yielding up one so near, and so dear. But this astonishing evidence of love, if not destroyed, is greatly weakened, by the supposition that there was no Sonship until the sending of Christ. See also supplementary note under Heb 1:3.)

And again, I will be to him a Father. This passage is evidently quoted from 2Sa 7:14. A sentiment similar to this is found in Psa 89:20-27. As these words were originally spoken, they referred to Solomon. They occur in a promise to David that he should not fail to have an heir to sit on his throne, or that his throne should be perpetual. The promise was particularly designed to comfort him in view of the fact that God would not suffer him to build the temple because his hands had been defiled with blood. To console him in reference to that, God promises him far greater honor than that would be. He promises that the house should be built by one of his own family, and that his family and kingdom should be established forever. That in this series of promises the Messiah was included as a descendant of David, was the common opinion of the Jews, of the early Christians, and has been of the great body of interpreters.

It was certainly from such passages as this, that the Jews derived the notion which prevailed so universally in the time of the Saviour that the Messiah was to be the son or the descendant of David; see Mat 22:42-45; Mat 9:27; Mat 15:22; Mat 20:30-31; Mar 10:47-48; Luk 18:38-39; Mat 12:23; Mat 21:9; Joh 7:42; Rom 1:3; Rev 5:5; Rev 22:16. That opinion was universal. No one doubted it; and it must have been common for the Jews to apply such texts as this to the Messiah. Paul would not have done it in this instance unless it had been usual. Nor was it improper. If the Messiah was to be a descendant of David, then it was natural to apply these promises in regard to his posterity in an eminent and special sense to the Messiah. They were a part of the promises which included him, and which terminated in him. The promise, therefore, which is here made is, that God would be to him, in a special sense, a Father, and he should be a Son. It does not, as I suppose, pertain originally exclusively to the Messiah, but included him as a descendant of David. To him it would be applicable in an eminent sense; and if applicable to him at all, it proved all that the passage here is adduced to prove – that the name Son is given to the Messiah – a name not given to angels.

That is just the point on which the argument turns. What is implied in the bestowment of that name is another point on which the apostle discourses in the other parts of the argument. I have no doubt, therefore, that while these words originally might have been applicable to Solomon, or to any of the other descendants of David who succeeded him on the throne, yet they at last terminated, and were designed to terminate in the Messiah – to whom pre-eminently God would be a Father; compare the introduction to Isaiah, section 7, iii. (3), and the notes on Isa 7:16.

(The promise, doubtless, had a special reference to the Messiah. Nay, we may safely assert, that the chief reference was to him, for in the case of typical persons and things what they adumbrate is principally to be regarded. So here, though the original application of the passage be to Solomon, the type of Christ, yet it finds its great and ultimate application in the person of the glorious antitype. However strange this double application may seem to us, it is quite in accordance with the whole system of things under the Jewish dispensation. Almost everything connected with it was constructed on this typical principle. This the apostles understood so well, that they were never stumbled by it, and what is remarkable, and of the last importance on this subject, never for a moment drawn from the ultimate and chief design of a promise or prophecy by its primary reference to the type. They saw Christ in it, and made the application solely to him, passing over entirely the literal sense, and seizing at once the ultimate and superior import. The very passage in question 2Sa 7:11-17, is thus directly applied not only here, but throughout the New Testament; Luk 1:32-33; Act 2:30, Act 2:37; Act 13:22-23. Now certainly the apostles are the best judges in matters of this kind. Their authority, in regard to the sense of passages quoted by them from the Old Testament, is just as great as in the case of the original matter of the New Testament. That Christ was indeed principally intended is further evident from the fact, that when the kingdom had passed from the house of David, succeeding prophets repeat the promise in 2 Sam. 7: as yet to be fulfilled. See Jer 33:14, Jer 33:26. Now connecting this fact with the direct assertion of the writer of the New Testament above referred to, every doubt must be removed.

It will be alleged, however, that while the direct application to the Messiah, of this and other prophecies, is obvious and authoritative, it is yet desirable, and they who deny inspiration will insist on it as essential, to prove that there is at least nothing in the original places, whence the citations are made, inconsistent with such application. Such proof seems to be especially requisite here; for immediately after the words, I will be his Father and he shall be my Son, there follows: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, 2Sa 7:14; which last sentence, it is affirmed, cannot, in any sense, be applicable to the Messiah. It has been said in reply, that though such language cannot be applied to Christ personally, it may yet refer to him as the covenant head of his people. Though there be no iniquity in him, such fallings and transgressions as disannul not the covenant, often fall out on their part for whom he undertaketh therein. In accordance with this view, it has been observed by Mr. Pierce, and others after him, that the Hebrew relative pronoun ‘^asher should be translated whosoever; in which case, the sense is, whosoever of his children, that is, the Messiahs, shall commit iniquity, etc. And to this effect indeed is the alteration of the words in Psa. 89, where the original covenant is repeated, if his children forsake my law – then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

Perhaps, however, the better solution of the difficulty is what at once admits, that the words in question cannot apply to the antitype but to the type only. It is a mistake to suppose, that in a typical passage every thing must necessarily have its antitypical reference. The reader will find some excellent and apposite remarks on this subject in Dr. Owens commentary on the place. No type, says that judicious writer, was in all things a type of Christ, but only in that particular wherein he was designed of God so to be. David was a type of Christ, but not in all things that he was and did. In his conquests of the enemies of the church, in his throne and kingdom, he was so; but in his private actions, whether as a man, or as a king, or captain, he was not so. Nay, not all things spoken of him that was a type, even in those respects wherein he was a type, are spoken of him as a type, or have any respect unto the thing signified, but some of them may belong to him in his personal capacity only. And the reason is, that he who was a type by Gods institution, might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even then and in those things wherein he was a type. And this wholly removes the difficulty connected with the words if he sin against me; for those words relating to the moral duty of Solomon, in that wherein he was a type of Christ, namely, the rule and administration of his kingdom, may not at all belong to Christ, who was prefigured by Gods institution of things, and not in any moral deportment in the observance of them.

These observations seem to contain the true principles of explication in this and similar cases. The solution of Prof. Stuart is not materially different. Did not God, says he, engage, that David should have successors on his earthly throne, and also that he should have a son who would sit on a spiritual throne, and have a kingdom of which Davids own was but a mere type? Admitting this, our difficulty is diminished if not removed. The iniquity committed is predicated of that part of Davids seed, who might commit it, that is, his successors on the national throne, while the more exalted condition predicated of his successor, belongs to Him to whom was given a kingdom over all.)

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 5. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee] These words are quoted from Ps 2:7, a psalm that seems to refer only to the Messiah; and they are quoted by St. Paul, Ac 13:33, as referring to the resurrection of Christ. And this application of them is confirmed by the same apostle, Ro 1:4, as by his resurrection from the dead he was declared-manifestly proved, to be the Son of God with power; God having put forth his miraculous energy in raising that body from the grave which had truly died, and died a violent death, for Christ was put to death as a malefactor, but by his resurrection his innocence was demonstrated, as God could not work a miracle to raise a wicked man from the dead. As Adam was created by God, and because no natural generation could have any operation in this case, therefore he was called the son of God, Lu 3:38, and could never have seen corruption if he had not sinned, so the human nature of Jesus Christ, formed by the energy of the eternal Spirit in the womb of the virgin, without any human intervention, was for this very reason called the Son of God, Lu 1:35; and because it had not sinned, therefore it could not see corruption, nor was it even mortal, but through a miraculous display of God’s infinite love, for the purpose of making a sacrificial atonement for the sin of the world and God, having raised this sacrificed human nature from the dead, declared that same Jesus (who was, as above stated, the Son of God) to be his Son, the promised Messiah; and as coming by the Virgin Mary, the right heir to the throne of David, according to the uniform declaration of all the prophets.

The words, This day have I begotten thee, must refer either to his incarnation, when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit; or to his resurrection from the dead, when God, by this sovereign display of his almighty energy, declared him to be his Son, vindicated his innocence, and also the purity and innocence of the blessed virgin, who was the mother of this son, and who declared him to be produced in her womb by the power of God. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, to which the words most properly refer, not only gave the fullest proof that he was an innocent and righteous man, but also that he had accomplished the purpose for which he died, and that his conception was miraculous, and his mother a pure and unspotted virgin.

This is a subject of infinite importance to the Christian system, and of the last consequence in reference to the conviction and conversion of the Jews, for whose use this epistle was sent by God. Here is the rock on which they split; they deny this Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and their blasphemies against him and his virgin mother are too shocking to be transcribed. The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus refutes their every calumny; proves his miraculous conception; vindicates the blessed virgin; and, in a word, declares him to be the Son of God with power.

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

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

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

The apostle here proves that Christ hath a more excellent name, and pre-eminency over angels, by Scripture texts owned by these Hebrews. He had the name of Son of God, and so had not angels; for God the Father, who hath absolute power to give and state all excellency, never said to any angel, so as to constitute him his only Son by an ordinance or word of power.

Sons he may style them, as Job 2:1; Psa 89:6; as he doth members of his church, Gen 6:2, and princes and magistrates, Psa 82:1,6; but always in the plural number, as he doth the angels, Job 38:7, noting out their power, place, and ministry. But Son is singular to Christ, and incommunicable to any other.

Thou art my Son: this is quoted out of Psa 2:7.

Thou God-man, thou thyself, thou, and thou alone, (that this was spoken of Christ truly, and of David only as a type of him, the Spirit asserts, Act 13:33), art my own Son, my ever-being Son, my Son by nature, Rom 8:32. Singularity sets out his eminency above all, and his propriety by nature in him.

This day have I begotten thee: at the day of his incarnation, Isa 9:6; Luk 1:31,32,35, but eminently at the day of his resurrection, was he declared and published to be his only begotten Son with power, Rom 1:4; and at his ascension inangurated the supreme, universal King and Priest in heaven and earth, Heb 5:5, possessed of a better name, place, and power than angels, Eph 1:20,21. What men enjoy in this kind attributed to them, is with a vast disproportion to this; born, or begotten, they are said to be, in respect of Gods operation on them, infusing Divine qualities into their souls, but this Son by a generation proper to a substantial person.

And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son: in another Scripture, as 2Sa 7:14; 1Ch 17:13; 22:10, it is declared, I his natural Father, and he my natural Son; so as they are not related to any other as they are to each other. This in the type was spoken of Solomon, but fulfilled in Christ, who was universal King and Priest over his church for ever; so David understood it, Psa 110:1; compare Psa 89:19,26-29. He was the first-born Son, born a King; the Son of the universal and supreme King, the Heir and Lord of all.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

5. Forsubstantiating Hishaving “obtained a more excellent name than the angels.”

unto whichA frequentargument in this Epistle is derived from the silence of Scripture(Heb 1:13; Heb 2:16;Heb 7:3; Heb 7:14)[BENGEL].

this day have I begottenthee (Ps 2:7). Fulfilledat the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father “declared,”that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by Hishumiliation (Act 13:33; Rom 1:4).Christ has a fourfold right to the title “Son of God”; (1)By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission,as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as “thefirst-begotten of the dead” (compare Luk 20:36;Rom 1:4; Rev 1:5);(4) By actual possession, as heir of all [BISHOPPEARSON]. The Psalm herequoted applied primarily in a less full sense to Solomon, of whom Godpromised by Nathan to David. “I will be his father and he shallbe my son.” But as the whole theocracy was of Messianic import,the triumph of David over Hadadezer and neighboring kings (2Sa 8:1-18;Psa 2:2; Psa 2:3;Psa 2:9-12) is a type ofGod’s ultimately subduing all enemies under His Son, whom He sets(Hebrew, “anointed,” Ps2:6) on His “holy hill of Zion,” as King of the Jewsand of the whole earth. the antitype to Solomon, son of David. The”I” in Greek is emphatic; I the EverlastingFather have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day ofThy being manifested as My Son, “the first-begotten ofthe dead” (Col 1:18;Rev 1:5). when Thou hast ransomedand opened heaven to Thy people. He had been always Son, but nowfirst was manifested as such in His once humbled, now exalted manhoodunited to His Godhead. ALFORDrefers “this day” to the eternal generation of theSon: the day in which the Son was begotten by the Father is aneverlasting to-day: there never was a yesterday or past timeto Him, nor a to-morrow or future time: “Nothing there is tocome, and nothing past, but an eternal NOW doth ever last”(Pro 30:4; Joh 10:30;Joh 10:38; Joh 16:28;Joh 17:8). The communication ofthe divine essence in its fulness, involves eternal generation; forthe divine essence has no beginning. But the context refers to adefinite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on theinheritance (Heb 1:4).The “bringing the first-begotten into the world” (Heb1:6), is not subsequent, as ALFORDthinks, to Heb 1:5, but anteriorto it (compare Ac 2:30-35).

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

For unto which of the angels said he at any time,…. That is, he never said to any of the angels what he has said to Christ; namely, what follows,

thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee for though angels are called the sons of God, Job 1:6 yet are never said to be begotten by him; or, with this clause annexed to it, “this day have I begotten thee”; nor are they ever so called in a proper sense, or in such sense as Christ is: this is said to Christ, and of him, in Ps 2:7 and that agreeably to the sense of the Jewish church at this time, or the apostle would never have produced it to the Hebrews in such a manner; and not only the whole psalm in general, but this verse in particular, is owned by Jewish writers t, both ancient and modern, to belong to the Messiah. Christ is the Son of God, not by Creation, nor by adoption, nor by office, but by nature; he is the true, proper, natural, and eternal Son of God; and as such is owned and declared by Jehovah the Father, in these words; the foundation of which relation lies in the begetting of him; which refers not to his nature, either divine or human: not to his divine nature, which is common with the Father and Spirit; wherefore if his was begotten, theirs must be also, being the same undivided nature, common to all three; much less to his human nature, in which he is never said to be begotten, but always to be made, and with respect to which he is without Father; nor to his office, as Mediator, in which he is not a Son, but a servant; besides, he was a Son, previous to his being a prophet, priest, and King; and his office is not the foundation of his sonship, but his sonship is the foundation of his office; or by which that is supported, and which fits him for the performance of it: but it has respect to his divine person; for as, in human generation, person begets person, and like begets like, so it is in divine generation; though care must be taken to remove all imperfection from it, as divisibility and multiplication of essence, priority and posteriority, dependence, and the like; nor can the modus, or manner of it, be conceived, or explained by us: the date of it, today, designs eternity, as in Isa 43:13, which is one continued day, an everlasting now; and this may be applied to any time and case, in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, his baptism, his transfiguration on the Mount, and his resurrection from the dead, as in Ac 13:33 and at his ascension to heaven, when he was made Lord and Christ, and his divine sonship more manifestly appeared; which seems to be the time, and case, more especially referred to here. And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a Son: which words are taken from 2Sa 7:14 and the sense is, not that he should be his son by adoption; or that he would be instead of a father to him; or that he should be as dear to him as a son is to a father; but that he was really and properly so; and he would make it manifest, and own him as such, as he did at Jordan’s river, upon the Mount, and at his resurrection and ascension; though the words are spoken of Solomon, as a type of Christ, they properly belong to the antitype, who is greater than Solomon.

t Zohar in Numb. fol. 82. 2. Maimon. in Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 11. 1. & Abarbinel, Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 37. 4. & 38. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Unto which (). “To which individual angel.” As a class angels are called sons of God (Elohim) (Ps 29:1), but no single angel is called God’s Son like the Messiah in Ps 2:7. Dods takes “have I begotten thee” ( , perfect active indicative of ) to refer to the resurrection and ascension while others refer it to the incarnation.

And again ( ). This quotation is from 2Sa 7:14. Note the use of in the predicate with the sense of “as” like the Hebrew (LXX idiom), not preserved in the English. See Matt 19:5; Luke 2:34. Like Old English “to” or “for.” See 2Cor 6:18; Rev 21:7 for the same passage applied to relation between God and Christians while here it is treated as Messianic.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The writer proceeds to establish the superiority of the Son to the angels by O. T. testimony. It is a mode of argument which does not appeal strongly to us. Dr. Bruce suggests that there are evidences that the writer himself developed it perfunctorily and without much interest in it. The seven following quotations are intended to show the surpassing excellence of Christ ‘s name as set forth in Scripture. The quotations present difficulty in that they appear, in great part, to be used in a sense and with an application different from those which they originally had. All that can be said is, that the writer takes these passages as messianic, and applies them accordingly; and that we must distinguish between the doctrine and the method of argumentation peculiar to the time and people. Certain passages in Paul are open to the same objection, as Gal 3:16; Gal 4:22 – 25.

To which [] . Note the author ‘s characteristic use of the question to express denial. Comp. ver. 14; Heb 2:3; Heb 3:17; Heb 7:11; Heb 12:7. First quotation from Psa 2:7. The Psalm is addressed as a congratulatory ode to a king of Judah, declaring his coming triumph over the surrounding nations, and calling on them to render homage to the God of Israel. The king is called Son of Jahveh, and is said to be “begotten” on the day on which he is publicly recognized as king. Words of the same Psalm are quoted Act 4:25, and these words Act 13:33.

Thou art my Son. Note the emphatic position of uiJov son. See on ver. 4. In the O. T. son is applied to angels collectively, but never individually. See Psa 29:1; Psa 89:6. Similarly, son is applied to the chosen nation, Exo 4:22; Hos 11:1, but to no individual of the nation.

Have I begotten [] . Recognized thee publicly as sovereign; established thee in an official sonship – relation. This official installation appears to have its N. T. counterpart in the resurrection of Christ. In Act 13:33, this is distinctly asserted; and in Rom 1:4, Paul says that Christ was “powerfully declared” to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. Comp. Col 1:18; Rev 1:5. 1 68 Second quotation, 2Sa 7:14. The reference is to Solomon. David proposes to build a temple. Nathan tells him that this shall be done by Solomon, whom Jahveh will adopt as his son. In 2Co 6:18, Paul applies the passage to followers of the Messiah, understanding the original as referring to all the spiritual children of David.

A father – a son [ ] . Lit. for or as a father – son. This usage of eijv mostly in O. T. citations or established formulas. See Mt 19:5; Luk 2:34; Act 19:27; 1Co 4:3.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For unto which of the angels said he at any time,” (tini gar eipen pote ton angelon) “For to which of the angels did he ever say;” which individual angel or which of the bands of angels, (either those of Michael or Gabriel), did he (God the Father) directly say, or assert, at any point in time? Answer if you can, the Inspired Written Challenges.

2) “Thou art my Son,” (huios mou ei su) “Thou art (the) Son of me,” or “you are my heir,” to inherit all my possessions, the universe- – Did God ever affirm such, make a sweeping pledge to any angel?

3) ”This day have I begotten thee,” (ego semeron gegenneka se) “Today I have begotten thee;” Did God ever say to any angel “I have begotten you?” the writer rhetorically challenges. The answer is “no;” Angels were created, but Jesus was begotten of the Father, that he might be heir-redeemer to all that the Father had, Joh 1:14; Rom 8:17.

4) “And again, I will be to him a Father,” (kai palin ego esomai auto eis patera) “And again I will be (or exist) to him for ((with reference to him as) a Father;” God is the creator of angels, but not the Father or a Father-begetter to them, granting to them heirship or inheritance rights, Eze 28:14-15; Col 1:16.

5) “And he shall be to me a Son?” (kai autos estai moi eis huion?) “And he shalI be to or toward me for a Son; ” A son is his father’s inheritor, 1Co 3:22-23. The heritage redemption and restitution of all things have been pledged to Jesus Christ by the Father. And through faith in the Son, men may become heir inheritors of all things, jointly with the Son; But angels are not heirs to such; They are only servants, Heb 1:14; ; 1Co 15:23-28; Rom 8:17, Gal 3:26.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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

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

“

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Heb. 1:5. Angels.Properly, any living being carrying out the Divine will is an angel, a messenger, a servant. But the word angel is precisely kept for such messengers as belonged to other than the earthly sphere. The angelophanies of the Old Testament were foreshadowings of the revelation in the Man Christ Jesus. Said He.The interrogation is intended to be a strong negation. Begotten Thee.Constituted Thee; but the term is designed to indicate the different relation in which Christ stands to God and the angels stand to Him. To angels He is Creator; to Christ He is Father. Three references of the term have been assigned:

(1) the eternal generation of the Son;
(2) His incarnation;
(3) His full manifestation, as the obedient Son, in His resurrection. The idea of the eternal generation of the Son is the pure offspring of the metaphysics of the Greek Fathers, rather than of New Testament teaching (Barker).

Heb. 1:6. Again.Read as R.V. when He again bringeth. First-begotten.R.V. firstborn. Another expression for Son, but adding to Son the right of primogeniture. Son and Heir. Only Son and only Heir. See Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:15; Col. 1:18; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 12:22-23. The quotation may be from Psa. 97:7, or Deu. 32:43. The latter is the more probable source, as the LXX. Version reads, Rejoice, ye heavens, along with Him, and let the angels of God worship Him.

Heb. 1:7. The difficulty of this verse lies in its setting inanimate things after animate. Delitzsch renders, Who maketh His messengers out of winds. The writers point appears to be this: As even material objects may be the messengers or angels of God, so to be an angel in the higher sense is to be no more than a minister of the Divine will. But the Son is one with the Divine will, and in doing that will does His own. Dr. Moulton explains in another way: The meaning appears to be that God, employing His messengers for His varied purposes, sends them forth in what manner He may please, clothing them with the appearance of the resistless wind or the devouring fire.

Heb. 1:8. Sceptre of righteousness.Lit. rod of straightness.

Heb. 1:10. The 102nd Psalm is not so clearly Messianic; but if the consciousness of the original writer was aware of nothing more definite than a description of the eternity of Jehovah, it is yet competent to an inspired New Testament writer to tell us that this language is applicable to our Lord.

Heb. 1:14. The word for ministering, , is not classical, but it is used in the LXX., and it implies sacred service. Heirs of salvation.Because salvation is conceived as both a present state and a final fruition: Made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Tit. 3:7). The Jewish conceptions of angels need not be made into a Christian angelology.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Heb. 1:5-14

The Service of a Servant and the Service of a Son.The essential dignity of Christ is seen in a contrast between a servant and a son. Angels are taken for the first contrast because they are the highest form of servants that man can conceive, because their work was in the world before that of Moses, and because they were directly associated as ministers with the earlier dispensation. Angels have a very prominent place in the Old Testament Scriptures. They are the servants of the Divine house, agents who do the Divine Masters bidding, ministering spirits. The contrast of angels, the servants, with Christ as the Son is a fair one, because Christ is Himself one of Gods angels, a ministering spirit. He said of Himself: I am among you as He that serveth; I came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. But the contrast between the Angel-Christ and other angels is very striking and impressive. To which of the angels has God said at any time, Thou art My son; this day have I begotten thee? Of the angels this kind of thing is said, Who maketh winds His angels, and flames of fire His ministers. Of the Son this unique kind of thing is said, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.

I. Ministry to others is common to a servant and to a son.The Scripture is full, from Genesis to Revelation, of the ministering of the angels to the sons of God. They kept the way of the Tree of Life, lest our erring first parents should stamp immortality upon their sin. They visited the patriarch Abraham, to give him knowledge of the Divine thought concerning Sodom. They went up and down that ladder of help between earth and heaven which Jacob saw in his night-visions. One mysterious angel wrestled with the anxious patriarch on Jabbok-side, through the long night unto the breaking of the day. He who came down to Sinai to give His fiery law was attended by thousands of angels. Grieved at the sin of His people, Jehovah almost withdrew His promise to go with them, and offered Moses to provide an angel-guide instead. An angel-form cheered Joshua with assurances as he entered on the invasion of Canaan. To Manoah the angel brought the tidings of the coming hero who should be born in his house. Angel-help was so fully realised by the psalmist that he could assure his heart in thisHe shall give His angels charge concerning thee, to keep thee in all thy ways: they shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. An angel with a drawn sword stood over Jerusalem when Davids presumption must be punished. An angel kept three Hebrew youths safe from harm in the very midst of the fire, and the prayerful man unharmed among the lions. Angels brought the promise of a forerunner, and of a Messiah; and with their joy-songs angels heralded Messiahs birth. Angels waited on Jesus in His time of temptation. Angels watched the place where they laid Him dead. Angels spoke the promise of His coming again. Angels led apostles out of their prison-house. Angels brought revelations in lonely Patmos. And angels are to be with Jesus when He cometh in His glory. Everywhere we may find illustrations of the many-sided truth, that God uses agents to carry out His purposes of wisdom and grace. Sometimes He uses men; sometimes the various forces of nature; sometimes He calls for the service on our behalf of these creatures of His who belong to other spheres than ours, and yet can come into our spheres, exert influence on us, and even become apprehensible to our senses. There seem to be in some of these angel-manifestations of the Old Testament foreshadowings and suggestions of the glorious incarnation of the Son of God. It is not unreasonable that we should reverently recognise the Angel-Jehovah in Abrahams visitor, and in Jacobs night-wrestler. But the work of ministering is not the work of angels alone. It is the noble side of all relationships, human and Divine. It gives the distinction between the spirit of the world and the Spirit of God. The spirit of the world is getting; the Spirit of God is serving. Seeking the good of himself is mans temptation to sin. Seeking the good of others is the sure indication of mans recovery to virtue. Only as he becomes an angel, a ministering spirit, does man enter into full kinship with God, with God in Christ. Angels are our helpers; but it is also true that angels are our teachers, our examples. We learn from them what is the noble life, what our life would become if, from us, the self-seeking of our sinfulness were wholly taken away. Ministering that is the Divine idea, for the Divine Being Himself, and for all the creatures that are made in the Divine image. We can rise no higher than that, for that is the sublime height of God Himself. God works. That is true, but His work is a ministry of blessing for His creatures. He is always about our path and our lying downthe infinite Angel, ever doing us good. Call nature-forces by some grand name of law, which takes the living will and beating heart out of them, and you make our human life poor and low indeed. Let the winds be Gods angels, and the storms Gods angels, and the spring-breathings Gods angels, and the gentle rain Gods angels. Winter snow, and spring sunshine, and summer rain, and autumn heat are God Himself ministeringthey are His own angel-service to His creatures. When God takes upon Him our human nature, shadows Himself in human form, then we see an angel, a ministering spiritthe Angel of the Covenant. The angel-mark is most plain on all the human life of Jesus. He went about doing good. Service was the characteristic of His most blessed life. His lesson on ministering was given in the upper room, when He went round and washed the disciples feet. We may call that the great angel-lesson. For the work of Christs Church will go into these few words, ministering unto the necessities of saints.

II. The ministry of a servant is doing anothers will.It is the characteristic of a servant that he does not share in his masters counsels; he knoweth not what his lord doeth. He does not understand the plan into which his work fits. Enough for him to receive definite commands without questioning, and to fulfil them without hesitation. The Lord Jesus Christ, recognising this as the characteristic of servants, lifted His relations to His personal disciples into a higher plane. He said to them, I have called you friends; for whatsoever I have heard of the Father I have made known unto you (Joh. 15:15). But confidential servants are still servants who take their commands from another. Even if they are permitted to consult with their master, the decision rests wholly with him, and his will is done, not theirs. Even angels cannot be thought of as doing their own will. There are vague allusions to some who lost their first estate because they resolved to follow their own wills. Servants are not inventive: they make no plans; they only carry out plans. Their essential attitude is figured in the seraphim of Isaiahs vision: Each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly; or, twain he held poised ready in a moment to fly, when a command came from the throne (Isa. 6:2).

III. The ministry of a son is doing his own will.Not as distinct from, or opposed to, his fathers will, but as being his fathers will. Ideally, in relation to the exercise of authority, the sons will is the same as the fathers; and our Lord continually asserted the absolute identity of His will with the Fathers. The servant puts his own will aside in order to do the masters will. The Son does His own will in doing his Fathers. This indicates an essential distinction between angels and Christ. Some help may be gained from an illustration of the sentiments entertained on a great landed estate. All the officials and servants, even up to the steward, have simply to do the noblemans will. But the son and heir is treated with the same respect as the father, and is recognised as having the same unique authority. Applying this distinction between servant and son to the mission of redemption, we see that angels and prophets executed certain parts of the mission that were entrusted to them, but were not in the secret of the connections of the parts, or of the Divine purpose; but Christ, the Divine Son, carried out a mission which was His own design, because His Fathersthe expression of His own love, because of His Fathers love; and it was wrought by His own authority, which was His Fathers. Thus in so many ways the writer of this epistle presses on attention the superiority of the Christian dispensation, in that it was administered by One who occupied so unique a position, who belonged to so different a range of beings.

The highest conception of life, then, is ministering service. However exalted in rank and station a man may be, and whatever his degree of authority may be, his true dignity lies in being, as Christ was, an angel-helper, ever waiting on his ministering.

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Heb. 1:5. Figurative Use of the Term Begotten.Gods appointment to an office, or, more exactly, His removing of all obstacles and putting a man actually into the office He has appointed for him, is called begetting him. Thus David was Divinely begotten when he was set by God as king upon the holy hill of Zion. I have this day established thee as My chosen king, and thus constituted thee My son. When this figurative use of the term is clearly apprehended, we are relieved from anxiously endeavouring to understand, what never can be understood, the mysterious eternal relations of the Divine Father and the Divine Son. Our Lord was begotten when the fulness of times had come, when preparations were completed, when obstacles were removed, and He could be put into His office, and could begin His work as Messianic Saviour. Begotten rather suggests giving birth to than conceiving.

Davids Son and Lord.Wonder not to find one and the same to be the Prince and Priest, God and man, the rod and root, the root and the offspring of David his son, and yet his Lord; for these things belong to one Person, who is both God and man; some of them as He is God, and some of them as He is man, and some as God-man.Jerome.

The Worship of the Angels.Often the idea of worship in Scripture is not offering religious homage to, but solemnly recognising the dignity of. It is often what may be understood by worthship, or recognising and acknowledging the worth or superiority of a person. That appears to be the idea of the word worship in this verse. It is not necessary to the writers argument to show that angels offer the Divine Son religious homage; it is to the point to show that they recognise His unique person, His transcendent worth, His special rights, and His extraordinary commission. There may be ranks and orders of angels, as servants, but they never for one moment think of classing Christ even with any in their highest ranks. They worship Him as one altogether beyond the angel, the servant, range.

Fatherhood apprehended through Sonship.I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son. As Son, the express image of [the Fathers] person. When Christ came into the world, He said plainly to His disciples, who were supposed to understand Him, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. We may then say that it is the work of every man to find the Father in Christ. No man has truly seen the Son who has not found the Father in Him. And if we may think of God as our Father, we shall surely have the truest and most trustful view of Him. If God is pleased to reveal Himself to any of His creatures, He must do so through the nature of those creatures. If God determined to show Himself to man, He must not come to him as a cherub or as an angel, but as a man. So we are told, Verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. But there are varieties of aspects under which man may be viewed, according to the relationships in which he stands; and besides coming as a man, God must show Himself in some particular form of man. Men are kings, or prophets, or judges, or husbands, or fathers, or sons, or brothers; and God must make choice of the one among the many forms of relationshipforms of manhoodwhich shall most perfectly represent Him. We need not assume that God has restricted Himself to just one aspect. He is indeed represented as Shepherd, Husband, Friend, Prophet, Priest, and King; but we can have only one feelingthat if God should be pleased in a special manner to choose the form and term of Father, He would come nearest to us, and give us the very tenderest and holiest suggestions concerning Himself. Many try to persuade themselves that they are bound to think of God chiefly as a King. Certain exigencies of Christian doctrine absolutely demand the conception of a Moral Governor. But surely it should not be difficult for us to recognise that the term Father involves all the righteousness, authority, and government included in kingship, and is altogether a higher and profounder conception. None of us can say that we feel our hearts at all stirred by the mention of a king. A king is a person to be feared, obeyed, and served, but not necessarily a person to be loved. But there never has been age or land in which the dearest thoughts, and tenderest memories, and most reverent feelings of mens hearts, have not gathered round the idea of father and of mother: for men everywhere parents have presented the ideals of all that was pure, and true, and reverent, and good. It must be that we shall come near to God, if He be indeed the Everlasting Father. It is sometimes said that the term Father will not do for God, because it makes Him out to be all kindness and indulgence, and shrouds all His awful attributes with a veil of love, making Him indeed to be all love. But if it does, what could be more deeply true? Do we not read, God is love? When men realise what an uncompromising, searching, holy thing love is, they will never be afraid to say of Him, God is love. But this representation of the Fatherhood of God is most imperfect and unworthy. We never for a moment think of passing by justice and authority in order to exalt love, when we call God our Father. Would it be fair to say of any good earthly father, He is all love, all indulgence; there is no justice, no reverence, no government in him? The better father he is, the more authority he exercises, the more holy fear he demands. What is God to you when you think of Him as King? Do you not feel as if He were shifted right back, out of sight, out of reachseated on a glorious throne, and you outside the gates, the great shut gates? Thoughts of majesty, glory, august power, and exact judgment, oppress you. You feel that, as a King, tremendous considerations, wide as the infinite creation, sway His decisions, amidst which you may easily become a forgotten trifle. But what is God to you in those moments when you can realise that He is a Father indeed? Is there any failing of reverence for Him? Is your sense of justice, righteousness, law, authority, weakened when you think of Him as Father? You may try to make God great by describing His Kingship; we will sit at the feet of Christ the Son, and learn from Him how rightly to know the true God and eternal life. And Christ shows us a weeping prodigal, pressing his face into a fathers bosom; heart is beating to heartthe one in all the anguish of penitence, the other in all the anguish of pitying, fatherly love. Now the fathers arms are round the restored boy; and who shall say that all highest law is not vindicated, when that father wipes away the tears, and calls for music and dancing, the best robe and the fatted calf? How deep to our hearts it goes if we may call God our Father! Who ever saw weeping rebels lying on kings bosoms? It must be that we are deeper, far deeper, into the very heart of truth about God, if He will let us think of Him as our Father in heaven. And is this truth of the Divine Fatherhood one which must be put under limitations and restrictions? Must it be anxiously guarded from possible misconceptions, and shielded round as belonging to men only under certain conditions? It is enough to reply, Christ never fenced it off. Christ never limited its application; then why should we? Christ never seemed afraid of preaching it freely everywhere. He evidently expected to bless men, to awaken a new spirit in men, the true spirit, the child-spirit, by telling them of their Father in heaven. If we follow Christ, we too will show men the Father-God everywhere in Christs life and teaching; the Father-God especially in death, sacrifice, and atonement. Believe then in the Father. Learn of Christ the Son so to believe. Then the Spirit of the Son will grow strong in you; and from Jesus, your brother, you will learn well how to be a son of the heavenly Father.

Heb. 1:6. Christs Incarnation.The doctrine of the Divinity of Christ is as important as any in the whole Bible, and it stands not on one or two doubtful passages of Scripture, but on the plainest and almost numberless declarations of the inspired writers. In the passage before us the apostle is showing the infinite superiority of Jesus above the highest orders of created beings; and he adduces a whole series, as it were, of testimonies in proof of this point. The one which we have now read is taken from the 97th Psalm, and confessedly relates to Jesus.

I. Christ is a proper object of Divine worship.

1. The command contained in the text is itself decisive upon the point. God is a jealous God, and claims Divine worship as His inalienable prerogative; yet He at the same time requires it to be given to His Son. Therefore the Son is worthy of that high honour.

2. The practice of the Christian Church confirms it beyond a doubt. Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and addressed himself to Jesus. St. Paul under buffetings of Satan applied to Jesus for relief, and was answered; for from that time he gloried in his infirmities. The whole Church of God worships Christ.

3. To worship Christ is the highest act of obedience to the Father. Every knee shall bow to Jesus. All must honour the Son, as they honour the Father.

II. His incarnation affords a special call to all, both in heaven and earth, to worship Him.

1. His incarnation affords the brightest discovery of the Divine perfections. The angels had seen Gods wisdom, power, and goodness in the creation and government of the world. But the Incarnation revealed His condescension and grace. The angels sang Glory to God in the highest, and so should we.

2. It opens a way for our reconciliation with God. When Christ was manifested in the flesh, His mediatorial work commenced; and that course of sufferings and obedience, which is the meritorious ground of our acceptance, was begun.

3. It reunites men and angels under one Head. Jesus, by becoming man, gathers together again both men and angels under Himself as their common Head. In heaven saints and angels join in one general chorus, ascribing salvation to God and to the Lamb. To enforce the injunction we would say:

(1) Welcome Him. Be not indifferent. Sing hosannas. Captious Pharisees may condemn; but if we keep silence, the very stones will cry out against us.

(2) Submit to Him. Jesus has set up His kingdom. Kiss the Son. Present your offerings before Him, in token of your allegiance and unreserved subjection to His will.

(3) Depend upon Him. Let His vicarious sufferings and obedience be the stay and support of your souls.

(4) Glory in Him. Since He is the boast of all in heaven, let Him be the boast of all on earth. Let the frame of your hearts be joyous. Exulting and triumphant, worshipping Him here, you shall be brought to worship Him for evermore in heaven above.Charles Simeon, M.A.

Heb. 1:7. Material Angels.The Hebrew words for angels and spirits (Psa. 104:4) have double meanings; the former denoting also messengers, the latter winds. The psalmist thought of those subtle but powerful agents, wind and fire, as created by God, and employed to execute His will. And in perfect accordance with the spirit of the psalmist, the verse is applied here to angels, whose inferiority to our Lord Jesus Christ is indicated by the fact that they are ranked as messengers with these subordinate physical agencies. Sir Harry Vane has this quaint remark, As man in his bodily state was made dust of the ground, so the angels were made a flame of fire in their natural constitution. The force of the passage lies in the vividness with which it presents the thought of the Most High served by angels who at His bidding speed, untiring as the wind, subtle as the fire.

Angels.

I. The nature of angels.Spirits.

II. The Lord of angels.Who maketh, etc. What must His own spirituality be who maketh spirit?

III. The ministry of angels.

1. Their office. Ministers.
2. Their activity or zeal. A flaming fire.
3. Their dependence. Made ministers.G. Rogers.

The Psalmists Figures.Who maketh His angels into winds, His ministers into flaming fire (Psa. 104:4). It is a poet who writes. His spirit, at the moment that we listen to him, is in one of its loftiest moods. His language is by no means intended to be strictly scientific or tamely prosaic. It glances, representatively, at the phenomena of storms, and especially of thunder-storms, which have always excited among men a profoundly ethical interest. The rapidity of movement in the perturbed elements, the fury of the gale rising into the hurricane or the tornado, the lurid grandeur of the flashes as they fitfully illumine the over-arching darkness, strike into an attitude of solemn and religious awe every unsophisticated spirit. The psalmist spoke as a true hierophant of nature, and of human nature, when he assumed that in these storms there is the presence and agency of God. And not His solitary presence and agency alone. He is surrounded with His spiritual attendants. And when He has designs of retributive providence to fulfil, He sends them forth on His errands, investing them for the occasion with what phenomena may be befittingthe phenomena of the hurricane, the thunder, or the gleaming bolts of fire. That is, He makes His angels tempests, His ministers a flame of fire. When we gaze on the storm-drift, and feel awed by the flashes that leap out from the darkness, lo, Gods ministers are there! His servants are working there!J. Morison, D.D.

Heb. 1:8. The Sons Kingdom is Spiritual.To convince men of this was the apparently unsuccessful endeavour of our Lords public teaching, but more especially of His esoteric teaching of His disciples. The keynote of His kingdom was righteousness. The force of His kingdom was moral goodness; and the triumphs of His kingdom were triumphs over moral evil. His dealings with physical and material evils were strictly illustrative of His true work. His kingship and kingdom are indicated in His answer to Pilate: To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice (Joh. 18:37). Righteousness belongs to character. To work righteousness is to work in mans moral and spiritual nature. The kingdom of a son is a kingdom of obediences, submissions, and services, and these are things of characterspiritual things.

(1) The Sons kingdom is a kingdom of spiritual beings.

(2) The Sons rule is a spiritual rule.

(3) The Sons aim is a spiritual aim.

(4) The Sons acceptance with the Father is based on His spiritual work of bringing sons unto glory. But the redemptive, regenerative, restorative, and sanctifying work which the Son does in souls will be sure to reach out its influence so as to embrace the body and the earthly relations. The spiritual proves to be the all-inclusive. The kingdom of God is within you. Then it is you, wherever you may be found, and in whatever relations you stand.

Heb. 1:10. The Quotation from Psalms 102.If the writer had deemed it necessary to account for the use that he makes of the passage, he might have unfolded his idea in some such manner as the following: And in truth, since it is the Son, who, as we have seen, is the manifestive effulgence of the Fathers glory, and the manifestive impress of the Fathers hidden substance; and since, consequently, it is the Son, who, in manifestation of the Father, acted in the creation of the universe, and still acts in the maintenance of all things by the word of His power,the grand words of the 102nd Psalm are truly and admirably descriptive of His super-angelic glory. We need to divest our minds of the stiff artificialities of logic which we are too apt to bring with us when we come to the unsophisticated representations of Scripture.J. Morison, D.D.

Heb. 1:10-11. The Agency of the Divine Son in Nature.The writer sees a distinct reference to the Second Person of the Divine Trinity in the allusion of the psalmist. But this must involve a Christian reading of the Old Testament Scriptures, as it would be impossible to prove that the Jews ever thought of their expected Messiah as the Second Person of a Divine Trinity. Indeed, so intense was the Jewish jealousy of their nations truththe unity of Godthat it is not conceivable that they ever accepted any formulated doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. We may find intimations of the threefoldness of God in the Old Testament, but it is important that we should recognise the doctrine of the Trinity as a Christian creation. It would seem to have been a prevailing thought of the age of the apostles, that the Divine Son was the agent in the creation of the world; for Philo represents his Logos to have been the instrument in creation. And the apostle Paul (Col. 1:15-16) makes an important point of this relation: Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation: for in Him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things have been created through Him, and unto Him: and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. We have to be equally jealous of the two truths, that of the Divine Unity and that of the Divine Trinity. We have to watch carefully lest Tritheism should get into our conceptions, under some subtle guise. Relative to the material world we may think in this way: We may associate God the Father with the design of it; God the Son with the execution of the design; God the Spirit with the quickening of the life in it, which was a part of the design. Or it may be put in this way: God, the one, is the Creator of all things. But when we think of the design of creation, it is God absolute we think of. When we think of earth actually taking shape, it is God acting in the sense-sphere we think of. When we think of that unseen, mysterious thing as associated with material beings, it is the Spirit-God, breathing life, that we think of. The distinctions in God are in our apprehension of Him, whatever else they are.

Heb. 1:12. His Unfailing Years.And thy years shall not fail. We are asked to adore and to trust this changeless One. But can we? Is He not too unlike ourselves? Must there not be some congeniality of nature, some touch in Him of oneness with us before we can enter into such a fellowship of love and trust? Yes, we do crave a real sympathy; and a real sympathy can only be felt by one who is truly, or who has been truly, in the human conditions. As we are constituted, if we knew God simply as abstract Deity, as infinite Being, with Divine qualities, but without the living, breathing, human presentation of themif He were God indeed, but not God manifest in the flesh, He would not be to us so fully and perfectly, and so much to our hearts satisfaction, the Lord our God. We need some one unlike ourselvessome one who does not change or pass away; and yet we need some one like ourselves, with all our best affections, our greatest qualities, perfectly realised and enshrined in himself. This we have in Jesus of Nazareth, and alone in Him. Who is it whose years shall not fail? He who was born into a human home, who grew up from childhood to manhood like usHe it is whom we are asked to trust. Here is our refuge, and we find a perfect security in ita security which we need at all times as mortal and as sinful creatures, but of which we feel the need especially when, by common consent, we make a barrier in our thought between the years. Where can a fountain of consolation be found for human weariness, distress, solicitude, sorrow, if not in Him who sounded all depths of mortal misery, travelled through the wide expanse of all human need, died our human death, and rose victor for us in life immortal?Alex. Raleigh. D.D.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 1

Heb. 1:11. God ever the same.On every Mohammedan tombstone the inscription begins with the words, He remains. This applies to God, and gives sweet comfort to the bereaved. Friends may die, fortune fly away, but God enduresHe remains.

Contrast of the Created and the Uncreated.The heavens and the earththose who know them best have them most, for they know best their glory; but they shall all wax old as doth a garment, and when they shall have served their purpose God shall fold them up and lay them by, and as a vesture shall He change them, and they shall be changed, but He is the same for ever and His years shall not fail. Why should they? What are years to God? Time did not make Him. He made time, and can unmake it, and then it will be eternity, not time, and a thousand years will be as one day, and, what is more, one day will be as a thousand years.C. Kingsley.

Heb. 1:14. The Ministry of Angels,Are they not all ministering spirits, says St. Paul, sent forth to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation? In this passage we are plainly taught that ministering to the saints is a standing employment of angels throughout the ages of time. Accordingly they are exhibited in Jacobs vision of a ladder as ascending and descending from heaven to earth and from earth to heaven continually in the discharge of this great duty. According to this declaration also we are furnished by the Scriptures with numerous examples of their actual ministry to the children of God. Thus angels delivered Lot from Sodom, Jacob from Esau, Daniel from the lions, his three companions from the fiery furnace, Peter from Herod and the Jewish Sanhedrim, and the nation of the Israelites successively from the Egyptians, Canaanites, and Assyrians. Thus they conducted Lot, Abraham, and the Israelites in seasons of great difficulty and danger to places and circumstances of safety and peace. Thus they conducted Gideon to the destruction of the Midianites, Joseph and Mary to Egypt, Philip to the eunuch, and Cornelius to Peter, to the knowledge of the gospel through him, and to the salvation of himself, his family, and his friends. Thus angels instructed Abraham, Joshua, Gideon, David, Elijah, Daniel, Zechariah the prophet, Zachariah the father of John the Baptist, the Virgin Mary, the apostles, and their fellow-disciples. Thus they comforted Jacob at the approach of Esau, Daniel in his peculiar sorrows and dangers, Zechariah in the sufferings of his nation, Joseph and Mary in their perplexities, Christ in His agony, the apostles and their companions after His resurrection, Paul immediately before his shipwreck, and the Church universally by the testimony and instruction given in the Revelation of St. John.Dnight.

Two Kinds of Angels.The Rabbins have a beautiful bit of teaching buried among their rubbish about angels. They say that there are two kinds of angelsthe angels of service and the angels of praise, of which two orders the latter is the higher, and that no angel in it praises God twice, but having once lifted up his voice in the psalm of heaven, then perishes and ceases to be. He has perfected his being; he has reached the height of his greatness; he has done what he was made for: let him fade away. The garb of legend is mean enough, but the thought it embodies is that ever true and solemn one without which life is nought: Mans chief end is to glorify God.A. Maclaren, D.D.

Angels.Curious and extravagant notions have been entertained about the angels. The Rabbins taught the strangest things. They say that the ministry of angels may be divided into two partsthat of praising God, and that of executing His behests. In regard to the praising there are six hundred and ninety-four thousand myriads who daily praise the name of God. From sunrise to sundown they say, Holy, holy, holy, and from sundown to sunrise, Blessed be the Glory of God from His place. Every day ministering angels are created, whose apparent destiny is only to raise the praises of God, after which they pass away into the fiery stream whence they originally issued. A new angel is created to execute every behest of God, and then he passes away. It is characteristic of the Oriental, and especially of the Semitic mind, to see in every event, even the most trivial, a direct supernatural interference, wrought by the innumerable unseen ministersboth good and evilof the Divine will.

The Sight of the Angels.As it is given us in the night of this world to behold the heavens studded with stars, great, glorious, and beautiful, in like manner has Scripture opened to our view a sight of the blessed angels. They appear as stars around us, but no unconcerned spectators in their silent watches. Michael, who is as God; Gabriel, the strength of God; Raphael, the healing of God (so their names signify). They are ministering spirits sent by Him, shadows of His presence. He has revealed to us their deep concern for our welfare, their active ministrations about us day and night, and especially their peculiar regard for those who are of a meek spirit, and despised of the world. What a dignity does this shed on our daily life!Isaac Williams, B.D.

Every Mans Angels.In a Turkish allegory every man is said to have two angelsone on his right shoulder, and another on his left. When he does anything good, the angel on the right shoulder writes it down, and seals it, because what is done is done for ever. When he does evil, the angel on the left shoulder writes it down. He waits till midnight. If before that time the man bows his head and exclaims, Gracious Allah! I have sinned; forgive me! the angel rubs it out; and if not at midnight, he seals it, and the angel upon the right shoulder weeps.

The Angels of the Grass.The Talmud says, There is not a thing in the world, not even a tiny blade of grass, over which there is not an angel set.

Ministering Angels.

They are evermore around us, though unseen to mortal sight,
In the golden hour of sunshine and in sorrows starless night,
Deepening earths most sacred pleasures with the peace of sin forgiven,
Whispering to the lonely mourner of the painless joys of heaven.
Seeing all our guilt and weakness, looking down with piteous eyes,
For the foolish things we cling to and the heaven that we despise;
They have been our guardian angels since the weary world began,
And they still are watching oer us for His sake who died for man.Anon.

The Angel-helper.How sentimental ideas of angels cling about us, and may helpfully cling, is illustrated in the story of one Theodorus, a martyr who was put to extreme torments by Julian the Apostate, and dismissed again by him when he saw him unconquerable. Rufinus, in his history, says that he met with this martyr a long time after his trial, and asked him whether the pains he felt were not insufferable. He answered that at first it was somewhat grievous, but after a while there seemed to stand by him a young man in white, who with a soft and comfortable handkerchief wiped off the sweat from his body (which through extreme anguish was little less than blood), and bade him be of good cheer, insomuch as then it was rather a punishment than a pleasure to him to be taken off the rack. When the tormentors had done, the angel was gone.

Ministrant Spirits.Angels are all, without exception, ministrant spirits. Their duties are ever liturgical, never lordly or regal. They render the service of lieges to the Lord of the universe, and are busied on the footstool, while Jesus sits on the throne. Even when charged with their highest behests, they but help, in some minor respects, the disciples of our Lord. They are sent forth to minister for themthat is, for their benefit.J. Morison, D.D.

Heaven a Place of Universal Ministry.Dr. George Macdonald makes a quaint character in Thomas Wingfold, Curate, dreamily figure the heavenly state, and, behold, all things seem to go on there even as here on earth. There is buying and selling, but there is no getting gain, because every one has learned the glory of ministering, and so each one just serves his brothereach one hoping for nothing again, each one getting everything by getting the service of his brother. Could there be a sublimer, or a more enchanting conception of heaven, the home of God, of whom we may reverently think as the infinite Angel, the glorious and eternal Ministrant, who ennobles ministry for all His creatures by His own unceasing service?

Heb. 1:14. Angel-service.Service is not an incident in the history of angels; it is their whole history. This category suits the nature of angels so far as we have the means of knowing it. They are associated with the elements and powers of natureare these under another name. They are changeable in form, appearing now as winds, now as fire. They are perishable, transient, as the pestilence and the storm, as tongues of flame, or the clouds, or the dew. They are one and many in turn: the one splitting up into the many, and the many recombining into one. They are impersonal, or imperfectly personal, lacking will and self-consciousness. Thinking, deliberating, resolving, is not their affair, but execution: Ye ministers of His, that do His pleasure. They are incapacitated for rule by the simplicity of their nature. The angel-princes cannot take a wide survey of a nations character and desert, like the prophets. They are blind partisans, mere personifications of national spirit. As a matter of course each angel-prince takes his nations side in a quarrel. A prince of Persia is on the side of Persia, and the prince of Greece on the side of Greece. A human will is the meeting-place of many forces brought into harmony; an angelic will is a single force moving in a straight line towards a point. Angels are mere manifestations or expressions of the will of God. To impute to them dominion were to infringe on the monarchy of God, it were to reinstate paganism. Angel-worship is nature-worship under another name, not improved by the change of name. No wonder the author of this epistle is so careful to connect angels with the idea of service. It is his protest against the angelolatry which had crept into Israel from Persian sources.A. B. Bruce, D.D.

Angel-succour.

How oft do they their silver bowers leave,
And come to succour us who succour want!
How oft do they with golden pinions cleave
The flitting skies like flying pursuivant,
Against foul fiends to aid us militant!
They for us fight, they watch and duly ward,
And their bright squadrons round about us plant,
And all for love and nothing for reward.
Oh! why should heavenly God for men have such regard?Spenser.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(5) For unto which of the angels . . . . God has spoken of the Messiah as His Son, a title which no angel ever receives from Him. That the appellation sons of God may be used in an inferior sense, and that thus angels may be so designated (Job. 1:6; Job. 38:7), does not affect this argument; for every reader must perceive that in these quotations Son is used of One, and in a sense that is unique The two quotations are taken from Psa. 2:7 and 2Sa. 7:14. It seems probable that the second Psalm was written by David during the troublous times of 2 Samuel 8-10, in the fresh recollection of the promises of which we read in 2 Samuel 7. In the midst of the rebellious conspiracies of kings and nations is heard Jehovahs word, Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion (Psa. 2:6). In Heb. 1:7 the Anointed King declares the divine decree, The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee; and the following verses describe the kingly dominion of the Son. The clearest comments on Heb. 1:7 are supplied by 2Sa. 7:12-14, and especially by Psa. 89:27 of the last-named Psalm, I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth, shows plainly that in their first meaningthat which relates to the royal rule of David or Davids sonthe words I have this day begotten thee signify I have this day established thee as my chosen king, and thus constituted thee my son; for to the firstborn belongs natural, though derived, rule over the kingdom of his father. At what period the people in general, guided by prophetic teaching and the discipline of history (see below), learnt in how secondary a sense such words could be used of any human king, we do not know; but we have clear evidence, both from the New Testament (Heb. 5:5; Act. 4:25-27; Act. 13:33; Rev. 2:27) and from Jewish tradition, that the second Psalm was understood to be a distinct prophecy of the Messiah; indeed, this very name Messiah and the appellation Son of God (see Joh. 1:34; Joh. 1:49) may be traced to this Psalm. The declarations of Heb. 1:6-7, are typical of the enthronement of the Messiah. St. Paul (Act. 13:33) refers the words here quoted to the period of the Resurrection. With this the language used above (Heb. 1:4) perfectly agrees. As, however, in that verse the exaltation of the Christ is declared to correspond to that essential dignity which lay in the name Son, a name which in this very context bears its highest sense (Heb. 1:1-3), we are constrained to regard the day of the Resurrection as itself typical, and to believe that this day also pointed to the eternal Nowto what Origen (on Joh. 1:1) speaks of as the day which is co-extensive with the unbegotten and everlasting life of God.

The second passage, which seems to have been the basis of the words we have just considered, occurs in the course of the divine promise that Davids seed shall be established in his kingdom, and that Davids throne shall be established for ever: the seed of David shall be received as Gods Son. With the words here quoted are closely joined others which plainly prove that Heb. 1:14 is not a simple and direct prophecy of Christ, but in the first instance belonged to an earthly ruler. Through the teaching of successive disappointments, each son of David failing to realise the hopes excited by the promise, the nation was led to look to the future King, and at once to remove from the prophecy the purely earthly limitations and to discern a higher meaning in the promise of divine sonship.

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

2. Proof of this transcendence from Old Testament texts, Heb 1:5-14.

5. For To prove this superiority of the eternal Son over the angels, our author now quotes six texts from the Old Testament. The modern interpreter, especially of the rationalistic type, finds not a little difficulty in applying these passages to Christ. But if, as in our Introduction we have indicated, the very purpose of our inspired apostle is to take the Alexandrian interpreters at their own word, and confirm all their brightest ascriptions and descriptions of the eternal Word, and affirm them of Christ, and thence show with what a glory even his humiliations are thereby irradiated, little difficulty need be felt in the interpretations here given. Says Delitzsch, “This epistle forms a link between the later Pauline epistles and the writings of John, and excels all others in the New Testament in the abundance of what cannot be merely accidental resemblances to Alexandrine modes of thought and expression. To us, indeed, it seems indisputable that the Jewish theology of the last few centuries before Christ, in Palestine, and more especially in Alexandria, did manifest many foregleams of that fuller light which was thrown on divine things in general, and on the triune nature of the Godhead in particular, by the great evangelical facts of redemption; nor can the admission that so it was prove a stumbling block to any but those who think that the long chain of divine preparations for the coming of Christ, on which the whole outward and inward history of Israel is strung, must have been broken off abruptly with the last book of the Old Testament canon. Is it, then, possible that the Book of Wisdom (Heb 7:26) should speak of the Sophia as a beaming forth of the eternal light (Philo, De Cherub) of God as , archetypal splendour; and now our author of Him who was manifested in Jesus as , without these several terms having any internal historical connexion?”

At any time Though angels are incidentally called sons, this is not their permanent name as significant of their nature. No one angel is ever mentioned or addressed as Son.

Thou Quoted from Psalm ii, where see notes. The psalm was applied by the Jewish commentators to the Messiah as well as by the Jerusalem Church. Act 4:25.

This day As addressed by the Author to a human Son, anointed to be king in Zion, the phrase is of course temporal. It means “This day [it stands true that] I have [from eternity] begotten thee.” Even here, therefore, it does not mean that the exaltation and anointing are identical in time with the begetting. And this seems to refute those who in its higher application to Christ refer the begetting to his resurrection or to his incarnation.

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

‘For to which of the angels said he at any time, “You are my Son, This day have I begotten you?” ’

‘For to which of the angels.’ Angels are only ever seen singly when on direct service for God as His messengers. Otherwise they are always seen in plurality. As a class angels can be called ‘sons of the Elohim (heavenly beings/God)’ (Psa 29:1), but ‘son’ in the singular is never used of an angel. Whereas, says the writer, the Christ (Messiah) is addressed as God’s Son in both Psa 2:7 and 2Sa 7:14.

Thus to no angel has He ever spoken in terms of true sonship. When they were thought of as ‘sons of the elohim’ it was their supernatural nature that was in mind, not their divinity. The idea was that they had the likeness of the ‘elohim’, the heavenly. To Israel the description ‘sons of -’ signified ‘likeness to’ without necessarily signifying relationship, compare the ‘sons of Belial’ (1Sa 2:12 and often).

“My son you are. This day have I begotten you?” Note the emphasis on ‘son’. Literally it is ‘Son to me you are.’ This quotation is taken from Psalms 2 which is a psalm declaring the choice and anointing of the house of David to be ‘God’s anointed’, God’s ‘chosen and set apart one’ for ever, so as to bring about world subjugation to God and final judgment, and calling on all to respond to Him.

Initially it may well have been used as a coronation Psalm, with ‘begotten’ carrying the significance of adoption by God at the crowning of each king, but the whole Psalm was intended to be a constant reminder of God’s promise of their final worldwide dominion, clearly to be fulfilled in a super-king. It was a true ‘Messianic’ psalm from the beginning, with a vision of the ‘Messianic’ future, for it spoke of the Davidic kingship in terms beyond the ordinary as ‘the anointed’ of Yahweh for the purpose of total worldwide domination. This was His purpose in ‘begetting’ the house of David, as represented in each king, until the One came in the future Who would finally achieve the dream.

Once the house of David ceased to be relevant after the time of Zerubbabel, and even before, thoughts moved forward to the necessary coming of a greater David (so that God’s promise would not fail) who would bring in God’s everlasting kingship (Isa 9:6; Eze 37:24-28). These developed into the explicit idea of a coming ‘Messiah’ (anointed one) which was already intrinsic in the Psalm. Thus the psalm undoubtedly has ‘Messianic’ reference, (compare Act 13:33), depicting the eternal kingship of the house of David, and in the end, by necessity, the coming of an eternal king Who is to be ‘God’s Son’.

The writer’s main point is that He is there emphatically called ‘my Son’, which he then links with begetting by God. And it is Jesus, Who, being of the house of David, and because He was recognised as ‘the Christ’, that he depicts as finally fulfilling this role. He must necessarily then be greater than the angels. What this ‘begetting’ is to be referred to is an open question which is much disputed. Some see it as referring to an ‘eternal begetting’, although that disagrees with the idea of ‘Today’, (although, as is pointed out by many, if we have eternal begetting we can have an eternal ‘today’). That would, however, run counter to the use of ‘today’ elsewhere in the letter where it means a specific point in time (see especially Heb 4:7).

Others therefore refer it alternately to His birth, His baptism, His resurrection or His exaltation as being the time when He is declared to be and instated as, or reinstated as, Son. All are possible. In a sense all are true, for each is a reaffirmation of His Sonship in increasing degrees, right from the beginning.

He was sent forth as the Son (Gal 4:4), His miraculous birth pointed to His Sonship (Luk 1:35), at His baptism He was declared to be the Son (Mar 1:11), in the Transfiguration He was manifested as the Son (Mar 9:7), by His resurrection He was revealed as the Son (Rom 1:4), and in His exaltation He was established as the Son, sharing His Father’s throne (Rev 3:21). In the end it resulted in Him being made the heavenly High Priest (Heb 5:5; Heb 5:9).

In Act 13:33-34 Jesus is described in terms of being ‘raised up’, and there too we have the problem as to whether ‘raised up (anistemi) Jesus’ in Act 13:33 means the incarnation, the baptism or the resurrection. We can compare Act 13:22 where it speaks of David as being ‘raised up’ (egeiro) after the rejection of Saul. But this is in contrast with, or paralleling, the raising up (anistemi) from the dead (Act 13:34). The fact is that egeiro and anistemi cross over in meaning. Both have similar varieties of meaning and both can refer to the resurrection, but in Acts 33 are probably intended to differentiate between David’s ‘raising up’ and that of Jesus as being of a different nature, both in His birth/ministry and in His resurrection.

However, the point behind all is that it is God’s unique act on this One unique ‘person’, demonstrating that He and He alone is God’s Son, that thus shows Him to be superior to the angels.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

‘And again, “I will be to him a Father, And he will be to me a Son?” ’

Or ‘And again, “I will be to him as a Father, And he will be to me as a Son.” ’ ‘And again’ (kai palin), signifies the introduction of a further witness from Scripture. This quotation is taken from 2Sa 7:14. Note the use of eis (unto) in the predicate with the sense of “as” like the Hebrew (an LXX idiom), not necessarily needing to be preserved in the English. See Mat 19:5; Luk 2:34.

The same passage is applied to the relationship between God and His people see 2Co 6:18; Rev 21:7, but not there with Messianic implications except in so far as they are spoken to the Messianic community.

These words were spoken after David had determined to build a Temple for Yahweh and God had come back with the reply that He did not want a temple, only a tent, but that in view of David’s faithfulness He would build for David an everlasting house, a living house of successive kings so that his throne would be established for ever. And this would begin with his son.

Yahweh then promised that He would be his father and would adopt him as His son (2Sa 7:5-16). And this relationship, along with the right to the throne, would then go on for ever in his descendants (2Sa 7:16). It would therefore also apply to the final everlasting king (Eze 37:25). Intrinsic within the promises is potential for the kings who follow David to have a special relationship with God as appointed by Him, with a recognition of a greater Messianic fulfilment.

Again, once the Davidic house faded this became firmly attached to the necessary idea of a future coming king (which is intrinsic in the words) which eventually resulted in the words specifically being applied Messianically (as witnessed in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Thus, says the writer, God promised to the Messiah that He would be His Father, and He would be His Son.

So in both promises we have the assurance that the Messiah would be greater than the angels for He would be God’s Son, and God would be His Father. Such a relationship is never suggested of angels, and makes clear that the Sonship is no earthly expedient.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Superiority of the Son to the Angels ( Heb 1:5 to Heb 2:14 )

He Is Now Contrasted With The Angels, the Heavenly Beings and Intermediaries between God and the world (Heb 1:5-14).

Having revealed the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ as ‘the Son’, the writer now goes on to contrast Him with all heavenly beings, although already having revealed Him as superior to the angels in His being stated by God to be ‘My Son’. He does this by means of seven quotations from the Scriptures.

There is a certain pattern to them. The first quotation affirms His crowning as God’s king and, in its context in the Psalm, also presents Him as God’s ‘Anointed’, and this leads on in the second quotation into a reign where God is His Father, and He is His Son. These two tie in with his opening statement in Heb 1:2 that He has spoken through One Who is a Son.

In parallel to this the fifth quotation emphasises His possession of His everlasting, durable throne and His further ‘anointing’ as Supreme Ruler over His ‘fellows’, and leads on in the sixth into His supremacy over creation from its beginning to its end (as in Heb 1:3) and His complete everlastingness and durability in all things.

The third affirms the homage of angels at His coming because He is God’s chosen and His heir (firstborn), and the seventh the submission of all His enemies at His coming. The fourth and central one defines the comparative status of the angels, as sandwiched on each side by three declarations of His authority and power (three being ever the number of completeness).

Thus we may picture this as follows:

1) He is God’s anointed, ‘begotten’ Son 5) He is God’s anointed Supreme Ruler 2) He is the Father’s appointed Son 6) As ‘Lord’ He is everlastingly supreme over creation 3) He receives homage from angels as God’s ‘firstborn’ 7) All His enemies are subjected to Him. Note how the first three relate to His appointment resulting in due honour, the second three to the manifestation of this in rulership and triumph. And these two ideas surround the description of angels as being closely connected with created things.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Scriptural Support for Opening Claim – The Old Testament prophets have declared Jesus Christ to be the pre-incarnate Son of God and rightful heir to the throne of God. The author of Hebrews supports his claim of Jesus’ deity and superiority to the prophets by contrasting His calling and office to the office of the heavenly angels, who are described as servants rather than sons. He draws a distinction between Jesus’ deity and His superiority over the angels (Heb 1:5-14). The author uses these Old Testament passages to contrast the preeminence of the Lord Jesus Christ as God, who is seated at the throne of God, with the office of God’s angels, who are described as servants. That is, this passage explains why Jesus’ name is more excellent than the angels and why Jesus Himself is superior. The author proves that since the birth of Jesus Christ, He has been declared the pre-incarnate Son of God, who is now seated at the throne of God.

The opening passage of the book of Hebrews (Heb 1:1-4) has introduced Jesus Christ as the Son of God, being superior to the angels and fulfilling all Old Covenant prophecies. In the rest of this passage of Scripture (Heb 1:5-14) the author explains and justifies his opening statement, or claim, by using a number of Old Testament prophecies to reveal the predestination of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and heir to His throne. Each of the prophecies in Heb 1:5-14 supports one of the divine attributes of Jesus Christ listed in Heb 1:1-4, and they are presented in that same order. For example, the first set of Old Testament prophecies declaring Jesus’ Sonship (Heb 1:5-6) support the first divine attribute of Jesus Christ, which says, “has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Heb 1:2). The second Old Testament prophecy declaring Jesus as Heir of all things (Heb 1:8-9) supports His second divine attribute, which says, “whom He has appointed heir of all things” (Heb 1:2). The third Old Testament prophecy declaring Jesus’ Christ’ role in the creation of all things (Heb 1:10-12) supports His third divine attribute, which says, “through whom also He made the worlds” (Heb 1:2). The fourth Old Testament prophecy declaring Jesus’ lordship over all things (Heb 1:13) supports His final divine attribute, which says, “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3). The Old Testament references to angels (Heb 1:7; Heb 1:14) supports his final statement in Heb 1:4 declaring Jesus Christ’s superiority over all angelic creatures. The author could have chosen to support his declaration of the other three divine attributes of Jesus Christ listed in Heb 1:1-4 through Old Testament Scripture, but he chose not to do so because of the divine principle that a matter is confirmed in the mouth of two or three witnesses (Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15, Mat 18:16 , 2Co 13:1. 1Ti 5:19, Heb 10:28), so that the three witnesses he presented from the Old Testament of Jesus’ divinity are sufficient to support all seven divine attributes contained within his opening claim that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Heb 1:1-4). In addition, the author chose these four testimonies supporting the three aspects of the deity of Jesus Christ the Son of God because they are necessary for Him to fulfill His role as our Great High Priest. He is the Son and heir of all things (Heb 1:5-6), rules in righteousness (Heb 1:8-9), He is eternal (Heb 1:10-12), and He sits at the right hand of God (Heb 1:13). Thus, he will discuss these divine attributes further in his epistle.

Divine Attribute O. T. Testimony

The Son of God 1:5-6

1. Appointed heir of all things Heb 1:8-9

2. By whom also he made the worlds Heb 1:10-12

3.  Who being the brightness of his glory

4. The express image of his person

5. Upholding all things by the word of his power

6. He by himself purged our sins

7. Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high Heb 1:13

This passage serves as the author’s initial explanation for his opening statement in Heb 1:1-4 of Jesus’ fulfillment and superiority to all previous revelation to mankind through the office of the Old Testament prophets. This superior office of Jesus makes the revelation of the Gospel superior to the office and ministry and messages of heavenly angels. The author deals with the office of angels first, since the Jews understood their ministry as the most superior revelation of God known to them.

The Office of Jesus Christ is Contrasted with the Office of Angels – Throughout the Holy Scriptures, the Old Testament prophets have declared Him to be the pre-incarnate Son of God and rightful heir to the throne of God. The author builds his argument by contrasting His calling and office to the office of the heavenly angels, who are described as servants rather than sons. He draws a distinction between Jesus’ deity and His superiority over the angels (Heb 1:5-14). The author uses these Old Testament passages to contrast the preeminence of the Lord Jesus Christ as God, who is seated at the throne of God, with the office of God’s angels, who are described as servants. That is, this passage explains why Jesus’ name is more excellent than the angels and why Jesus Himself is superior. The author proves that since the birth of Jesus Christ He has been declared the pre-incarnate Son of God, who is now seated at the throne of God.

Heb 1:5-14 establishes the Sonship of Jesus (Heb 1:5-7), which becomes the basis for His Lordship over all creation (Heb 1:8-14). Jesus alone is called the Son of God (Heb 1:5), to be worshipped by angels (Heb 1:6). While the angels were created to serve (Heb 1:7), Jesus was appointed to reign over all of creation (Heb 1:8-9). Jesus Christ is the Creator, pre-incarnate and eternal (Heb 1:10-12) who will rule over his enemies (Heb 1:13), while the angels are to serve those who partake of the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ (Heb 1:14). Thus, this office of the Son is contrasted with the office of the heavenly angels, who are described as servants rather than sons.

This passage serves as the author’s initial explanation for his opening statement in Heb 1:1-4 of Jesus’ fulfillment and superiority to all previous revelation to mankind through the office of the Old Testament prophets. This superior office of Jesus makes the revelation of the Gospel superior to the office and ministry and messages of heavenly angels. The author deals with the office of angels first since the Jews understood their ministry as the most superior revelation of God known to them.

This passage in Heb 1:5-14 clearly establishes the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He is also the eternal God. In the opening sentence of Heb 1:1-4 you can immediately sense the superiority of God speaking through His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the long-awaited earthly king of the Jews. The revelation that this King would also be God Himself must have been beyond natural reason for the Jewish mind who was hoping for an earthly king, the Son of David, who would deliver from the oppressive Roman government. They fully understood the authority of the Word of God in their lives. They understood the Old Testament Scriptures to have been delivered by the prophets of Old. They understood how angels often visited men in the Old Testament and delivered the Word of God to them. Thus, the author of Hebrews explains Jesus’ superiority over both the words of prophets (Heb 1:1-4) and the words given by angels (Heb 1:5-14). In Heb 2:2 the authority of the words given by angels is mentioned when it says, “For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward” Thus, the author is contrasting superiority of Jesus Christ to the prophets and angels, whom God used to speak the words of authority under the Old Covenant.

Heb 1:5  For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Heb 1:5 “For unto which of the angels said he at any time” – Comments The Greek conjunction (for) always introduces a subordinate clause. In this case, it introduces a doctrinal discourse to support the author’s claim made in Heb 1:1-4. In other words Heb 1:5-14 supports the claim made in Heb 1:1-4.

Heb 1:5 “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” Comments – This quote comes from Psa 2:7, “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

Paul cites Psa 2:7 as a prophecy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Act 13:33). Thus, this passage refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and not the first birth of Jesus Christ by His mother Mary.

Act 13:33, “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Jesus was made a Priest by God Himself at this time of His resurrection, as the author tells us in Heb 5:5, “So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”

Heb 1:5 “And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” Scripture References – Note:

2Sa 7:14, “ I will be his father, and he shall be my son . If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:”

1Ch 17:13, “ I will be his father, and he shall be my son : and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:”

1Ch 22:10, “He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father ; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.”

1Ch 28:6, “And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father .”

Psa 89:26, “He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father , my God, and the rock of my salvation.”

Heb 1:5 Comments – Heb 1:5 refers to Jesus’ physical birth in the statement “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” and to His deity in the words “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.” When Jesus claimed that God was His Father, the Jews sought to kill Him, because it made Jesus Christ equal to God, that is, it established the fact that Jesus Christ was deity.

Joh 5:18, “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

Heb 1:6  And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Heb 1:6 “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world” Comments – Jesus is the first one to experience eternal resurrection, so that He is called “the first born.”

Psa 89:27, “Also I will make him my firstborn , higher than the kings of the earth.”

Rom 8:29, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren .”

1Co 15:20-23, “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.”

Col 1:15, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature :”

Col 1:18, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead ; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Rev 1:5, “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead , and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,”

Rev 3:14, “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God ;”

Heb 1:6 “he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” – Comments – This quote bears a close resemblance to Psa 97:7.

Psa 97:7, “Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods .”

The LXX gives us a closer translation of this text from Psa 97:7 by using the word “angels” instead of “gods”:

Brenton reads, “Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels .” (Psa 97:7)

It can also be a quote from Deu 32:43:

Deu 32:43, “Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.” ( KJV)

However, this exact phrase is not found in the Hebrew text. But it is found in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls of Deu 32:43.

Brenton reads, “Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him ; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” (Deu 32:43)

Therefore, most scholars agree that Heb 1:6 is a quote from the LXX. Most likely, the author was quoting from a version other than the Massoretic text.

Heb 1:6 Comments – Heb 1:6 refers to the time of Jesus’ birth when it says, “when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world.” At the birth of Jesus we read in Luk 2:13-14 how all the heavenly host praised God, worshiping His Son. Jesus is to be worshipped by angels.

Luk 2:13-14, “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

Heb 1:7  And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Heb 1:7 Comments – Heb 1:7 is a quote from Psa 104:4. Here, the author is not speaking to the angels. Rather, he is quoting on Old Testament Scripture in regards to the angels’ works and their divine function, or task.

Psa 104:4, “Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire.”

“And of the angels” Comments – We can translate this phrase to read, “in reference to the angels.” There are numerous references to angels speaking to and ministering to men in the Scriptures. The angels rescue Lot and his daughters (Gen 18:1 to Gen 19:22). The angel visited Zechariah (Luk 1:11-20) and Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luk 1:28-38).

When angels confront man in the Bible, man gives them much respect. Their works are supernatural and awesome in man’s eyes. David spoke to the Lord when he saw an angel:

2Sa 24:17, “And David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house.”

Yet, these angels worship the Son, Jesus Christ.

“Who maketh his angels spirits” Comments – Angels dwell in the spiritual realm and move about supernaturally. BDAG translates the word “spirit” as “winds.” Note examples of angels being seen in the form of wind:

2Sa 5:24, “And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees , that then thou shalt bestir thyself: for then shall the LORD go out before thee, to smite the host of the Philistines.”

1Ki 19:11-12, “And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind : and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.”

“and his ministers a flame of fire” Word Study on “ministers” Vine tells us the Greek word (G3011) refers to “one who discharged a public office at his own expense,” and generally, “a public servant, minister.” In other words, it refers to a minister who represents a government or royal official rather than a household servant.

Comments – Note examples of angels being seen in the form of fire:

Gen 15:17, “And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace , and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.”

Exo 3:2, “And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.”

Act 7:30, “And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.”

Perhaps angels are in Rev 9:15-18, when the four angels destroy one third of mankind with fire, smoke, and brimstone issuing from their mouth.

In addition, angels were used in God’s hand of destruction.

2Sa 24:17, “And David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house.”

2Ch 32:21, “And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.”

Comments The role of Jesus Christ as the eternal Ruler over all creation the next verse (Heb 1:8) will be contrasted with the angels and their role as heavenly servants in Heb 1:7.

Heb 1:8-9 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – Heb 1:8-9 is a quote from Psa 45:6-7. William Lane notes that this quote has only minor variations from the LXX. [131]

[131] William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 47a, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 3.0b [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2004), comments on Hebrews 1:8-9.

Psa 45:6-7, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” ( KJV)

Brenton, “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy fellows.” (Psa 45:2-3)

Heb 1:8  But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Heb 1:8 “But unto the Son he saith” – Comments – This phrase could read two different ways:

1. “with reference to the son” ( NIV), or

2. “speaking to the Son” ( KJV).

Heb 1:8 “Thy throne” Comments – Note other Old Testament passages that refer to Jesus’ throne:

Psa 93:2, “Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.”

Isa 9:6-7, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.”

Heb 1:8 “O God” – Comments – Jesus is called God in Psa 45:6-7. He is fully divine, fully God.

Heb 1:8 “is for ever and ever” Comments – Jesus will rule and reign forever.

Heb 1:8 “a sceptre” Comments – A scepter is “a ruler’s staff” ( BDAG). In the book of Revelation this same Greek word is translated as “rod,” which is a token of authority.

Heb 1:8 “of righteousness” Comments – All of his rule will be done in the righteousness, and not wickedly like so many earthly kings.

Heb 1:8 Comments The role of Jesus Christ as the eternal Ruler over all creation (Heb 1:8) is contrasted with the angels and their role as heavenly servants in the previous verse (Heb 1:7).

Heb 1:9  Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Heb 1:9 “Thou hast loved righteousness” Scripture Reference – Note a similar verse:

Psa 33:5, “He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.”

Heb 1:9 “and hated iniquity” – Comments – God has and will always hate sin. From the fall of Satan until Jesus’ eternal reign, sin has always been punished and dealt with. God’s holiness will always remain.

Heb 1:9 “therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee” Comments – Jesus has been anointed by God for this title.

Isa 61:1, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;”

Note New Testament verses on Jesus’ anointing:

Luk 4:18, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,”

Act 4:27, “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed , both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,”

Act 10:38, “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”

Heb 1:9 “with the oil of gladness” – Comments – A reference to the Holy Ghost. One of the outward manifestations of the anointing of the Holy Spirit is joy and gladness.

Heb 1:9 “above thy fellows” Word Study on “fellows” Strong says the Greek word “fellows” “metochos” ( ) (G3353) means, “a participant, a sharer.” And it comes from the verb ( ) (G3348), which means, “to share, to participate, to belong.” The noun is used six times in the New Testament, with the other five uses listed below.

Luk 5:7, “And they beckoned unto their partners , which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.”

Heb 3:1, “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;”

Heb 3:14, “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;”

Heb 6:4, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,”

Heb 12:8, “But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers , then are ye bastards, and not sons.”

Is the author referring to us, or the angels, or both in Heb 1:9 as “fellows”? The context of the verses listed above using the word , along with the context of the following chapters in this Epistle reveals that the word “thy fellows” is a reference to believers, rather than to the angels, which are not equal to Him. In Heb 2:10-13 we are called “brethren.” The emphasis of the epistle of Hebrews is that Jesus is our brother leading us to our salvation.

Comments – Jesus’ anointing with the Holy Ghost was without measure, beyond our anointing, or that of angels, so that His work by the Holy Ghost exceeds ours.

Joh 3:34, “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.”

NIV says, “….gives the Spirit without limit.”

NASB says, “…gives the Spirit without measures.”

BDAG says, “not from a measure, without measure” (see 2b).

Col 1:19, “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;”

Jesus has the Holy Ghost without limits; but, we have received the Spirit and His gifts and ministry in part. For example, no one except Jesus Christ has walked in the full five-fold offices.

Rom 12:3, “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.”

2Co 10:13, “But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.”

Eph 4:7, “But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”

Eph 4:13, “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”

Eph 4:16, “From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

Heb 1:9 Comments – Rule and authority has not been given to the angel, but unto Jesus and his fellow heirs, the Church.

Heb 1:10-12 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – Heb 1:10-12 is a quote from Psa 102:25-27.

Psa 102:25-27, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.”

Jesus, who we see by faith, endures forever. Heaven and earth, though it looks so permanent with our eyes, are really temporal. Jesus is the Creator of heaven and earth (Heb 1:10); Jesus is immortal (Heb 1:11); Jesus is immutable or unchanging in character (Heb 1:12).

Heb 1:10-12 describes both the creation and the end destruction of the present heavens and earth.

Heb 1:10  And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Heb 1:10 Comments In the Creation Story (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3), the earth is formed and founded prior to the creation of the heavens (Heb 1:14-14), and this order is maintained in Heb 1:10. All things were created by Jesus Christ (Joh 1:3, Col 1:16).

Joh 1:3, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

Col 1:16, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”

Heb 1:11  They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

Heb 1:11 “They shall perish” Scripture References – Note similar verses:

Isa 34:4, “And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.”

Eze 32:7, “And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.”

Joe 2:31, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.”

Joe 3:15, “The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.”

Mat 24:29, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:”

2Pe 3:10, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

Rev 20:11, “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.”

“and they all shall wax old as doth a garment” – Comments The heavens and the earth fell into decay when God subjected Adam and Eve to mortality having sinned in the Garden. The earth is growing old and in decay. Around the world we observe events such as earthquakes, famine, pestilence, pollution, extinction, etc., and despair of the loss of such beauty in God’s creation.

Rom 8:20-22, “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”

Heb 1:12  And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Heb 1:12 “And as a vesture” Word Study on “vesture” – The Greek word “vesture” ( ) (G4018) literally means, “cast about.” It refers to an outer covering, a cloak, a mantle, that is thrown about one’s clothing.

Heb 1:12 “shalt thou fold them up” Comments That is, they shall be “rolled up” (Isa 34:4, Rev 6:14). Evidently, a garment was taken off and rolled up and put away in the home in ancient times. Note:

Isa 34:4, “And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll : and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.”

Rev 6:14, “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together ; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”

Heb 1:12 “and they shall be changed” Comments Strong says the Greek word (change) (G236) means, “to make different.” In other words, just like a garment is taken off and replaced by a new, clean garment, so will God “cloth” His creation with a new garment of heavens and earth (Psa 102:26-27).

Psa 102:26-27, “They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed : But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.”

In Psa 102:26-27, Holladay says the first use of the Hebrew word “change” ( ) (H2498) is the 2MS Hiphil Imperfect, “You will replace them.” The second use is the 3MP Qal Perfect (with consecutive), “They shall pass away or vanish.”

RSV, NIV agree with Holladay.

NASB, KJV use “change” and “changed.”

Heb 1:12 “but thou art the same” Comments – Note:

God:

Psa 90:2, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

The Word of God:

Psa 119:89, “LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”

YHWH:

Mal 3:6, “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”

The Father:

Jas 1:17, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

Jesus:

Heb 13:8, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”

Heb 1:12 “and thy years shall not fail” Comments That is, these years shall not “come to an end.”

Heb 1:13  But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Heb 1:13 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – This quote comes from Psa 110:1.

Psa 110:1, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”

This Old Testament verse is quoted eight times in the New Testament, second only in frequency to Lev 19:18, at nine quotes. 1Co 15:24-28 is similar to Psa 110:1.

Heb 1:13 “until I make thine enemies thy footstool” Comments – God’s Word will come to pass. Time does not stop nor make void the prophecies of God’s Word.

Gen 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel .”

Heb 1:13 Scripture Reference Note a similar verse:

Heb 10:13, “From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.”

Heb 1:14  Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Heb 1:14 Comments – Heb 1:14 offers a conclusion to this opening section of the Epistle, by telling us that God has predestined angels to minister for men within the framework of God’s redemptive plan. This verse is commonly understood to mean that God sends His angels forth on divine assignments in behalf of the saints (note Goodspeed).

Goodspeed, “Are not the angels all spirits in service, whom he sends on his errands for the good of those who are destined to possess salvation?”

However, the Greek text allows this verse to mean that believers can send the angels on divine assignments as well. The Greek text uses with the accusative case, and means, “in behalf of,” meaning the angels serve “in behalf of” them who shall be heirs of salvation. For example, Oral Roberts tells the story of a divine vision in which Jesus appeared to him along with Robert’s angel assigned to him. Jesus explained that this angel was given to him to help him. He was told to send this angel on missions of divine service for him to work in the spiritual realm, which would then be manifested in the natural realm. [132] We usually think of the phrase “heirs of salvation” to refer to our future entrance into Heaven. However, we can also interpret this phrase to apply to the sending forth of our ministering angels in order to bring “salvation” for our earthly needs day by day. In other words, as we send forth our angels on divine assignments, we can know that God is at work in our behalf as we serve Him and establishing the kingdom of God upon this earth.

[132] Richard Roberts, Angels on Assignment [on-line]; accessed 21 May 2011; available from http://www.richardroberts.org/2009/07/17/angels-on-assignment-by-richard-roberts/; Internet; see also Oral Roberts, All You Ever Wanted to Know About Angels: A Personal Handbook on the Angels that Help You (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Oral Roberts, 1994), 26.

Creflo Dollar said, “Angels are covenant enforcing agents.” [133] They enforce God’s covenant towards man. This means they will not do things that are outside the Abrahamic covenant, through which we partake of redemption through Christ Jesus.

[133] Creflo Dollar, Changing Your World (College Park, Georgia: Creflo Dollar Ministries), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.

Illustrations – Note illustrations from the Scriptures of angels ministering to the righteous:

1. Act 12:6-10 – Peter is freed from prison by an angel.

2. The angels ministered to Jesus after the 40-day fast (Mar 1:13) and during painful prayer in garden (Luk 22:43).

Mar 1:13, “And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.”

Luk 22:43, “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.”

Scripture References – Note other verses in the Scriptures referring to the ministry of angels to men:

Psa 34:7, “The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.”

Psa 91:11-12, “For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.”

Psa 103:20, “Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.”

Isa 63:9, “In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.”

Dan 3:28, “Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.”

Dan 6:22, “My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.”

Mat 18:10, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”

Luk 12:8, “Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Heb 1:5. For unto which of the angels said he, &c. The word for, shews that the sacred writer is here proceeding to his proofs. All the texts that are alleged by him, are to be considered as brought forward with this design; to shew that Christ at his resurrection was constituted, as man, infinitely superior to the angels. This amounted to a full proof, both according to the nature of things, and the notions which the Jews entertained of the angels: for, it being certainly true, and believed to be so by the Hebrews, that theangels, according to their original creation, had been made superior in their nature to other creatures; it must of necessity follow, that as he is superior to them, he must be superior to all below them: and since the highest order of creatures was made subject to him as Man, it might reasonably be supposed that the others were so too. Besides, as the Hebrews gloried in the revelations which had been made to them by angels, and were apt, upon that account, to see light by Christ; nothing could be more pertinent to the general design of the epistle, than the discourse here given upon this argument. We refer to the passages in the margin, and our notes upon them in the former part of this commentary; and also to Act 13:33.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 1:5 . ] For to which of the angels has He ever said, i.e. to none of the angels has He ever said.

The position of the words serves to put a strong accentuation at the same time upon and upon .

The subject in is , as is evident alike from the passage itself which is cited, and from our context; inasmuch as both in that which precedes (Heb 1:1-4 ) was expressly mentioned as the subject of the main proposition, and in that which follows (Heb 1:6 ) the subject of can only be God.

] is particle of time, at any time, unquam . Wrongly taken by Ch. F. Schmid, Kuinoel, and others as a mere strengthening particle, in the sense of the German doch or the Latin tandem . For then must have been placed immediately after .

The citation is from Psa 2:7 , in verbal accordance with the LXX. In its historic sense the psalm relates to an Israelite king (probably Solomon), who, just now solemnly anointed in Zion as theocratic king, in the lofty feeling of his unity with Jehovah, warns the subjugated nations, who are meditating revolt and defection, of the fruitlessness of their undertaking. The author, however, sees Christ in the person addressed, even as a referring of this psalm to the Messiah was quite usual among the Jews of that period, and in the N. T. the Messianic interpretation thereof is further met with, besides Heb 1:5 , in Act 13:33 .

] my Son, i.e. in the sense of the psalm, the king of my theocracy, my representative, the object of my fatherly love and protection The author, on the other hand, takes in the sense unfolded, Heb 1:2-3 .

] I have this day begotten thee, i.e. in the historic sense of the original: I have, by the anointing accomplished this day, installed thee as the theocratic prince. In the sense of the author, denotes the fact of having become the Son. The question is now, how he conceived of the . It is referred either to the moment in which Christ was manifested to be the Son of God, i.e. to the moment of the Resurrection or the Ascension (Hilary, in Psalmum ; Ambrose, de Sacram . 3. 1; Calvin, Cameron, Grotius, Schlichting, Limborch, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Calmet, Peirce, Storr, Bloomfield, Bisping, Maier; comp. Delitzsch, who would have the words interpreted of “the entrance of the Son into the kingly life of supra-terrestrial glory in God, of which the resurrection is the initial point”), or to the moment of the Incarnation (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Eusebius, in Psalmum, alii ; Piscator, Bhme, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Schriftbew . I. p. 123 f. of the 2d ed.; Woerner), or, finally, to the period before the creation of the world, thus to eternity (Origen in Joh. , t. i. c. 32; Athanasius, de decret. Nicen. Synod . 13; Basil, contra Eunom . 2. 24; Augustine, in Psalmum [Arnobius of Gaul, in Psalmum ]; Primasius, Theophylact, Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Calov, Wittich, Braun, Carpzov, Bleek [but with wavering; more decidedly in the lectures edited by Windrath [34] ], Stein, Alford, Kurtz, and the majority). That the author, as Bleek I., de Wette, and Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 287 f.) deem possible, attached no definite notion to the , as being without significance for his demonstration, is an unexegetical supposition. Exclusively correct, because alone in harmony with the context, is the referring of the to eternity ; since, according to Heb 1:2 , God created the world by Christ as the Son, thus Christ must already have existed as Son before the foundation of the world. With Philo, too, occurs the same interpretation of , as signifying eternity. Comp. De Profugis , p. 458 E (with Mangey, I. p. 554): , .

] and further , serves, as frequently ( e.g. Heb 2:13 , Heb 10:30 ; Rom 15:11-12 ; 1Co 3:20 ; Philo, ed. Mangey, I. p. 88, 490, al .), for the introduction of a new passage of Scripture. The . . . is not, however, to be taken as an assertory declaration, so that merely would have to be supplied (in accordance with which Lachmann punctuates); but the question is continued in such wise that the proposition is to be completed by ( ) .

This second citation is derived from 2Sa 7:14 , in verbal accordance with the LXX. Comp. also 1Ch 17 (18):13. and refer in the historic sense to Solomon. To David, who designs building a temple to Jehovah, the divine direction comes by Nathan to desist from his purpose. Not David, but his seed, who shall ascend the throne after him, is to build a temple to Jehovah; to him will Jehovah for ever establish the throne of his kingdom; to him will Jehovah be a father, and he shall be to Him a son, and, if he transgress, Jehovah will chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men. Even this latter addition (which, for the rest, is not found in the parallel passage, 1Ch 17:13 (1Ch 18:13 ) makes it impossible to refer the words to the Messiah, as, moreover, the reference to Solomon is rendered certain even from the O. T. itself by the following passages: 1 Kings 5:19 (5), 1Ki 8:17 ff.; 2Ch 6:9-10 ; as also 1Ch 22:9 (1Ch 23:9 ff)., 1Ch 28:2 (1Ch 29:2 ) ff.

] Formed after the Hebrew Comp. Heb 8:10 , al .

[34] Der Hebrerbr., erklrt von Dr. Fr. Bleek, Elberf. 1868.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Heb 1:5-14 follow the scriptural proof for Heb 1:4 , and that in such form that in the first place, Heb 1:5 , the is confirmed, and then, Heb 1:6-14 , the .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

II
Scripture proof of the elevation of Jesus Christ as Son of God, and being above the Angels

Heb 1:5-14.

5For to which of the angels said he at any time: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a 6 Son? And again: When he bringeth in [and when he shall a second time6 have introduced , 2 Aor. Subj.=Perf. Fut.] the First-begotten into the 7 world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of [in respect, indeed, to] the angels he saith, who maketh his angels spirits [winds] and his ministers 8 a flame of fire; but unto [in respect to] the Son he saith: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a [And1: a] sceptre of righteousness [rectitude ] is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9Thou hast loved [lovedst ] righteousness, and hast hated [hatedst ] iniquity7; therefore God, even thy God, [O God, thy God] hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10And, thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid [didst lay] the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands: 11they shall perish, but thou remainest,8 and they all shall wax old as doth a garment, 12and as a vesture9 shalt thou fold [roll]10 them up, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to [and in respect to] which of the angels said he at any time [hath he ever said ], sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation [for ministration for the sake of those ( ) who are to inherit salvation?]

[Heb 1:6.And when he shall have again introduced, etc. Both the position of , and the connection of the thought, point decidedly to this construction. The reference is (de W., Ln., Ebr., Del., Alf., Moll.) to the re-introduction of Christ into the inhabited world ( ) at His second coming. It may be rendered again, a second time, or back; both ideas being in fact included.

Heb 1:7.In respect indeed to=while in respect to. The force of the part, , making Heb 1:7 preparatory to Heb 1:8 is lost in Eng. ver., as in many other passages in the Epistle. In Heb 1:8 with should be rendered as in Heb 1:7. In respect to the Son. So also I think it should be (with Moll) at Heb 1:13, and so I think (as against Moll, and nearly all the Intpp.) at Heb 11:13, clearly here winds, not spirits, as demanded by the connection.

Heb 1:9.[O God, thy God, , . Even Del. is doubtful whether in Heb 1:9 the first should be rendered, as in Heb 1:8, as Voc. O God, or, as in apposition with the following: God, thy God. With Ln., Moll, etc., I think we are clearly to prefer the former construction.

Heb 1:14. for service or ministration, not to men, but to God. Their ministration or service is to God; but in His service they are sent forth on account of, for the sake of () men.K.]

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

To which of the angels said he at any time.The position of the words shows that the emphasis is to be laid immediately upon and , and that does not belong to as a strengthening particle, to whom I pray? Cui tandem? (Chr. F. Schmid, Kuinoel, etc.), but is a particle of time. The subject is God. This, however, is not so much to be drawn from Heb 1:1, as to be supplied from the connection of the thought according to usage in citing from the Old Testament. It cannot be urged in refutation of the authors reasoning, that in the Old Testament alike men and angels are sometimes called Sons of God. Schlicht., Michael., and Bhme have pointed out the difference between a collective appellative, and the name applied to an individual. This, however, does not meet the case, although the would seem to favor it. Bleeks explanation that the LXX. cited exclusively by our author, read in the Cod. Alex. Gen 6:2; Gen 6:4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Dan 3:25, not Sons () but Angels () of God, is insufficient from the fact that in the Psa 29:1; Psa 89:7, we find the expression Sons of God, and we are not at liberty to suppose that the author forgot or left out of the account these passages. The remark, too, of Primasius that, as applied to other beings, the name stands only abusively, only in a subordinate sense, explains not the real relations of the case (since the real connecting links of the thought remain unmentioned), and evades the objection, as does also the remark of Tholuck that the author presupposes that his readers would take the appellation given specially to an individual in a more exalted sense=. More relevant to the context is the explanation of Braun that men and angels bore the name not as a rightful inheritance entailed upon them in accordance with their nature, but as received only by adoption; yet even this is partly erroneous, partly imperfect. The decisive consideration is suggested by Ebr. and Del. There is, at the outset, an essential distinction between the dwelling of heavenly, yet still created beings, with Elohim, and being begotten by Jehovah. This latter form of expression which never occurs in reference to angels, indicates the relation in question as resting not on a natural, but on a theocratic basis. Precisely for this reason Jehovah can say, My Son, my first-born is Israel (Exo 4:22), and: My Father, shall ye call to me, Jer 3:14; Jer 3:19; Jer 31:20; Isa 1:3; Deu 14:1. Israels exodus was the day of His birth (Hos 2:5); and the days up to the formation of the covenant on Sinai, those days of old, and of the years of many generations (Deu 32:7; Isa 51:9), constitute the youthful period of the Church (Hos 11:1), in which Jehovah bore the Israelites as the father the son; in which He led them, and taught them to go, as a mother does her child (Hos 11:3; Amo 2:10); in which He delivered the people from the house of bondage, and brought them to His own house that they might be closely united with Him forever, Exo 3:7; Exo 20:2. This is the time of bridal tenderness and of youthful love, when Israel became the Lords possession and His first-fruit, Jer 2:2-3; Eze 16:8; since Jehovah has Himself brought His people to Himself, and borne them on eagles wings (Exo 19:6; Deu 32:12), so that they became at once an independent nation and a church of the Lord, Exo 19:3; Eze 16:4; Eze 20:5. Granting that thus not merely pious servants of Jehovah in general (Deu 14:1; Psa 73:15; Pro 14:26), but pre-eminently theocratic rulers (Psa 89:27), and specially those springing from the seed of David (2Sa 7:14) are called Sons of God, (nay, that even heathen Princes (Psa 82:6), over whom God exercises judgment, are, in their official position, called Gods and Sons of the Most High), it follows, on the one hand, that, in the theocratic sense, the name in question has never been given to an angel; and it is clear, on the other, that on this theocratic basis the specific relation of Christ to God might disclose itself as a fact of revelation, and that a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament is possible without disturbing the historical foundation of the Messianic passages.

My Sonshall be to me a Son.Through the two passages Psalms 2. and 2 Samuel 7. cited by him with like application, the author goes back to the germ of the Messianic prophecy in the narrower and stricter sense. When David designed the building of a temple on Mount Zion in fulfilment of Exo 15:17; Deu 12:5, he received, through the prophet Nathan, the divine declaration that not he, but his son, after him, was to build a temple to Jehovah; nay, that for this seed God would, on His part, build a house, and establish His throne forever; that Jehovah would be to him a father, and he should be to Him a son, 2Sa 7:14. In a prayer of David accompanying this prophetic assurance, David expresses the conviction that the complete fulfilment of this prophecy is reserved to the remote future. The following words, however (2Sa 7:19), mean not: and this in a man who shall be the Lord Jehovah Himself (Ebr. and the older interpreters), but: And this (hast Thou, spoken) after the manner of man (or as man speaks with man), Thou who art God the Lord. In this condescension of God so fully does David recognize a prerogative bestowed upon him that in the parallel passage (1Ch 17:17) he says: Thou hast regarded me as a man of very high degree. Thus a filial relation is described as that which the posterity of David will sustain to God, and this posterity conceived not merely in its aggregate or collective character, but individually. We hence refer the language immediately to Solomon who, with express reference to this prophecy, undertakes the building of the temple (1Ki 8:17 ff.), and regards himself as this promised Son (1Ki 5:5; 2Ch 6:9), as does also David, 1Ch 22:9 ff; 1Ch 29:19. But through this seed the royal dominion is to be established forever to the house of David, 2Sa 7:16. And Solomon immediately declares (1Ki 8:26-27) that this temple reared by him is not a house in which God may properly dwell, Men must of necessity, therefore, while David slept with his fathers, direct their eye farther into the future; as in of fact David himself, 1Ch 17:17, beholds the promised seed in a long and blessed succession, and there is here no mention, as 2Sa 7:14 of transgressions, which God will visit with a paternal chastisement. For the question is not of the form, as such, of the kingdom, however glorious it might be, in fulfilment of the prediction Num 24:17 : A star shall arise out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall arise out of Israel, and will dash in pieces the corners of Moab, and will destroy all the children of pride; nor is mere descent from David sufficient to ensure the receiving of the everlasting kingdom, Psa 61:7 ff., which God has confirmed to David with an oath, Ps. 18:51; Psa 89:50 ff.; Psa 132:11 ff. We have here rather to do with a theocratic kingdom under a theocratic ruler, who goes forth to battle amidst the offerings and prayers of his people (Psalms 20.), and who, with God as auxiliary, will annihilate all his enemies, but will righteously administer the princely gifts and prerogatives with which he has been entrusted, Psalms 21. Of this ruler David stands as a type, and he himself, at the close of his life, makes the declaration, 2Sa 23:4; A righteous ruler in the fear of God is as the light of the sun which arises in a morning without clouds, like the tender grass which after the rain springs forth from the earth. For this reason God builds again the fallen tabernacle of David as in the ancient times, Amo 9:1, after Israel has been sifted out as one sifts out grain, Heb 1:9. And the ruler through whom the dominion returns back to the tower of the flock of David, and to the strong hold of Zion, Mic 4:8, will not merely have his historical descent from the house of David, Mic 5:1, but as the branch, the shoot, the stem from the root of Jesse, Isa 11:1; Isa 11:10, the righteous branch (Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; Jer 33:15; Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12), whom God will raise up to David (Jer 30:9; Eze 34:23; Eze 37:24), is called even by the name of David, Jer 30:9; Eze 37:24-25; comp. Hos 3:5; and the sure mercies of David, Isa 55:3, are a designation of the Messianic salvation. As now this Majestic one, who issues from the nation itself, as a ruler from its midst, is to draw near unto Jehovah Himself, Jer 30:21, nay, is to bear the name Jehovah our Righteousness (Jer 23:6; Jer 33:16), it is clear that in the view of prophecy the Messianic salvation is linked to a son of David who is an Anointed One not merely in the sense in which even foreign kings as Cyrus, Isa 45:1, and Hazael, 1Ki 19:15, receive this name as being instruments of Jehovah, and in which the theocratic kings in general bear it, 1Sa 2:10; Psa 20:7; Psa 132:10, etc., but in a special sense which includes, besides the kingly, also the prophetic, Isa 61:1, and the priestly anointing, so that Zechariah (Heb 6:12-13) may say: Behold a man, Branch is his name, who will spring up in his place and build the temple of Jehovah,he will bear kingly adornment, and will sit and rule upon his throne, and will be priest upon his throne, and there will be harmony between the two. When, now, this Messiah is regarded as standing to God in the relation of Son to the Father, we can see in this only the full perfection of the Theocratic relation. The designating of the stock of Ephraim, Jer 31:9, as the dear son and confidential child of God, shows that this language points to an intimate relation of communion and love. But that the term referred primarily not to subjective excellence, but to an objective relation, appears from Zec 13:7, where the wicked Pekah is styled by God the man that is my fellow; and while Exo 4:22 shows that at the same time the origin of the nation in this, its peculiar relation to God, is, in the expression, First-born Son, referred back to God Himself, so Psa 89:27-28 brings out with special clearness at once the dignity of the relation, involving the manifold prerogatives of the first-born, and also the traits of trustful devotion and hope, in the language: He (David) will cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my strength, and the rock of my salvation. And I will make him my First-Born, supreme above the kings of the earth. In the application of these expressions to the Messiah, their form, indeed allows the possibility of a deeper conception of His origin and of His issuing forth from God. But this deeper conception, which finds expression in the New Testament, we are not directly to transfer to the words of the Old. We find nowhere in the Old Testament a clearly developed and conscious apprehension of the eternal and immanent relation of the Son to the Father. Even Mic 5:1 scarcely declares definitely the prexistence of the Messiah, or His eternal destination in the purpose of God; but from the completely humbled condition of the house of David, it simply assures us that beyond any known and historical record of the life and lineage of the Deliverer, who is to be born in the humble Bethlehem, we must go indefinitely back for His issuing forth, or origin, which is from ancient times, from the days of old. In a manner equally indefinite as to chronology, but significant and fraught with ominous import as to the facts, is in that passage indicated the time of His coming. For it is immediately added that Jehovah will give over the Israelites until the time when she who is with child shall bear her offspring. Among the attributes of the Messiah, too, is found, Isa 9:5, the title, Father of eternity, but not the Son of eternity. The Son, Isa 9:8, stands parallel to the child whose birth is to be looked for. Yet, on the other hand, the profounder New Testament conception has not merely the formal right of an external connection with the Old Testament form of expression, but the higher and essential right of an unfolding of those germs which the veil of the Old Testament only so conceals, that in their intrinsic nature they at the same time point beyond themselves and those present circumstances in which they had their origin. This is shown particularly in Psalms 2, here cited, which presupposes as an historical fact the prediction of Nathan, and displays its early acknowledged Messianic character in the fact that it speaks of a world-subduing power of the King whom Jehovah Himself has established upon Zion (erroneously translated by earlier scholars: anointed at Zion) and placed in the relation of Son to Jehovahthe King whom the author of the Psalms, Heb 1:12, styles the Sonand that this Son appeals for this relation, on which the futile endeavors of Princes and nations that rise up against Jehovah and His Anointed (Heb 1:2) will dash themselves to ruin, to an inviolable decree (), Heb 1:7 : Thou art my Son: I have to-day begotten Thee. Whether David (Act 4:25), or some other prophetic bard, be the author of this anonymous Psalm, at all events the author distinguishes himself from the Anointed One of Jehovah, and makes the latter come forward personally and speak in the full consciousness of his relation (Heb 1:7-9), just as previously do the raging insurgents (Heb 1:3), and the Lord enthroned in heaven, who, kindling in wrath, will thunder down upon them the voice of His indignation (Heb 1:6). We may not, therefore (with Hupfeld), regard the Psalm, whether originating in some definite historical event (as perhaps a triumphant military expedition), or, (as an independent product of the general spirit of the Theocracy), as a poetical glorification of the Israelitish kingdom in its peculiar Theocratic character, and with all the proud hopes which the national feeling associated with it,and appeal in support of our view to the Lyrico-dramatic character of the Psalm. In the view of the Psalmist the several speakers have the significance of real personalities. They express ideas, but are not personifications of ideas.

Inasmuch, now, as the prophecy of Nathan, which was given to David before Solomon was begotten (2Sa 12:24), is no fabricated declaration of God, but an actual fact of His historical revelation, and as the Anointed One in Psalms 2 appeals to an inviolable ordinance or decree of Jehovah, we are naturally led to look back to that prophecy, and to refer the to-day in its historical import to that day in which that seed was promised to David, who was to stand to God in the relation of Son, and who then on that day received his procreation, or, still better, his birth (, rarely meaning beget, but generally, to be born) as the Son of Jehovah. This destined seed of David is the Anointed One of the Psalmist, and expresses the consciousness of having been in the actual course of events introduced by Jehovah into this relation. It would not be a whit more unnatural to suppose that we have here a mere personified Messianic ideal employed in celebrating its own Divine origin, than to regard the to-day as a mere poetic element of figurative speech, or an expression indicating the certainty and reality of the Messianic idea. But neither does the to-day point to the day of the coronation of an Israelitish Prince, either Solomon (Bl.) or the Maccabean Alexander Jannus (Hitzig), appealing in these words to the Divine right of the Theocratic dominion claimed by him. It points originally to the day of the introduction of the Messiah as the Theocratic ruler from the seed of David into the knowledge and recognition of Gods people through His word of revelation. From this historical connection we may understand how Paul, Act 13:33, could apply this passage to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, especially if we compare Rom 1:4, (who was constituted Son of God in power, etc.); and with this remember, on the one hand, that the anointing as Theocratic king presupposes the bestowment of the Holy Spirit (1Sa 10:6; 1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 16:13), and that on the influence of the Spirit of God rests the Sonship, and, on the other, that Rev 1:12 conceives the issuing forth of Christ for the conquest of the kingdoms of the world, as a birth from the church in which he has his abode. From this, now, it is clear that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is justified in citing this passage to prove a special Sonship of the Messiah such as has been attributed to no angel. This is here the specially important point with the author. To refer the to-day to an eternal and metaphysical generation of the Son on the part of God (Orig., Athan., Basil, Theoph., August., Primas., the older Lutheran Intpp. generally, Stein, Ln.), or to the day of the conception of Jesus with a reference to Luk 1:31 ff. (Chrys., Theod., c., Kuin., Bhm., Hofm.), or to the entrance of Jesus Christ into His kingly life of super-terrestrial glory, whether by His resurrection or by His ascension (Hil., Ambr., Calv., Grot., Schlicht., Calm., von Gerl., Del.), is partly an interpretative application, partly a deduction which the author himself, however, has not here made. [And yet, when we consider that in the application of the Psalm in question to our Lord, it applies to no event in His career so naturally as to His glorification after His resurrection, in fact applies, properly speaking, to no other period; and that Paul so applies it, Act 13:33, as above noticed; and that the author, in the verse immediately preceding refers definitely to Christs taking His seat at the right hand of God after His resurrection, as in that immediately following he refers definitely to His second coming, it seems by no means improbable that he had in his mind that definite period in which the exalted and glorified Christ was proclaimed, and, as it were, constituted Son of God in power.K.].

Heb 1:6. And when he shall again have introduced the first-born into the world, he saith.The usage of our Epistle does not allow us to transpose and make it the introduction of a citation, as even Bleek (recently followed by Reuss, Lptre aux Hebr., p. 199 ff.) maintained after Carpz., overlooking at the same time the correspondence of the Aor. Subj. with to the Lat. perf. Fut. (Winer Gr., 6 Ed., p. 275 ff. [Hadley Gr. Gr., 747 a]). The language refers to the second introductionyet in the futureof the First-born into the world (Ln.). The (world) is the inhabited earth on which the Son has already previously lived and labored. As the author has already spoken of this sojourn, and, at the same time, expressly testified of the prexistence of the Son, the mode of expression is perfectly clear and unobjectionable. Even Greg. Nyss. (Contr. Eunom. Orat. III., p. 541) recognized the reference of the passage to the Second Coming, while Grot., Schlicht, Wetst., &c., refer it to a public and formal presentation of Christ after the Ascension; Bleek [Stuart] and Reuss to some otherwise unrecorded and like presentation previously to the incarnation; Chrys., Primas., Calv., Calov, Beng., to one accompanying the incarnation. The term is not identical in meaning with (Primas., cum.). The latter epithet represents this as an exclusive relation which no being sustains to God, except the Messiah. The former specially signalizes His preminence in the relations belonging essentially to the Messiah, whether to the creation (Col 1:15) or to the Theocratic children of God (Rom 8:29; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5; Heb 2:10), partly in respect to the mode and time of His entrance on the stage of being, partly in respect to position, dignity and power. As the word stands here with no limiting epithet, it is to be taken without any special reference as a terminus technicus, founded on Psa 89:28. To this Messianic King and Son of God, the angels, by Divine command, are to render adoring homage. Presupposing the certainty of the Second Coming, and referring exclusively to this, the author announces what God then ordains (, he saith). The Pres. tense brings before the eye as present that which is actually future, and springs from the conviction of its certainty. In the Parousia the author sees the final fulfilment of the prophecy, Deu 32:43, in which Jehovah, after a long withdrawal and concealment, when at length the power of the ungrateful people has utterly disappeared, revealing Himself in His compassion for their deliverance, is, at the same time, depicted as the God who brings fearful judgment on the heathen. To the words of the Heb. text, Praise, ye heathen, His people; for He avenges the blood of His servants, and repays vengeance to His enemies, and brings expiation to His land, His people, there is subjoined in all the MSS. of the LXX. a clause made up from Isa 44:23; Psa 97:7, and Psa 29:1 (springing probably from the liturgical use of the Song of Moses, Del.) in which the words here cited are found strictly after the Cod. Vat. and the Collection of the Old Testament Cantica appended to the Psalter in the Cod. Alex. (which in the text of Deut. has instead of .)for that the words are here given as a citation appears undeniably from the retention of the particle (And, Let all the angels, &c.). The reference of the to the Messiah, springs not from the fact that Jehovah Himself appears previously as the Speaker (Ln.); nor is it to be explained from the fact that Israel, who has previously been mentioned as the object of the praise of the heathen, bears elsewhere the designation of First-born, and thus what applies to Israel might, with abundant ease, be transferred to its Messianic King. It has its ground rather in the view, common to all the New Testament writers, that we are to apply to Christ as Sovereign of the Kingdom of God, all that in the Old Testament is in this relation declared of Jehovah. , with Dat. only in the later classical writers: earlier with Acc. (Bernh. Synt., p. 113, 266).

Heb 1:7. And in respect to the angels, indeed, he saith.In contrast with the Messiah () the subordinate position of the angels is brought out by a declaration of God in the Scripture, in a twofold relation: 1, in that they are servants; 2, in that they are changeable and perishable (Ln.). , in reference, in relation to; so frequently (Win. Gram., 49 h. [It is one of the most familiar usages of with the Acc.; see Dem. 1 Ol. 4.K.]. The connection in Psa 104:4 seems to warrant our understanding it as affirming that winds and lightnings, like nature in general, are merely servants of God. As, however, with double Acc. usually signifies not making into something ( ), but, making out of something, it were properly translated, making His messengers out of winds, and His servants out of flaming fire. Still we can hardly suppose that the Psalmist meant in this to express the idea that God, in accomplishing the work which is wrought in the world through angelic agencies, gives to the angels the elemental wind and fire as the material in which they are, as it were, to embody themselves and assume a visible form, Del.). It can, however, also be translated: making winds out of His messengers, and flaming fire out of His ministers. This reading is adopted in the Sept., which, by placing the Art. before . and ., shows that it thus regards the angels; and our author, who, perhaps, with reference to Exo 3:2, writes , instead of the of the Sept. (the of the Cod. Alex. is probably a later correction from our Epistle), evidently regards the passage as teaching that the angels have so little of substantive existence that they are obliged sometimes to clothe themselves in the changing garment of natural phenomena for the execution of the Divine commands, and, under the form of elemental agencies, to act with dynamical efficiency. Substantially parallel are Psa 34:8; Joh 5:4. Also the Rabbins call the angels =, and the Targum at Psa 104:4 paraphrases who maketh His messengers swift as winds, His ministers strong as flaming fire.

Heb 1:8. But in respect to the Son, etc.The Son is not directly addressed (Bengel), but the is to be taken as in the verse preceding. And as matter of fact the words, Psa 45:7, are not spoken to the Messiah, but were simply at an early period, as shown by the admission of the Psalm into the temple liturgy (), referred to Him. The Psalm designated in the inscription as a song of love, and celebrating the marriage of Solomon or Joram with a foreign princess, is presented by an Israelite to the king (Psa 45:2), who is addressed in Psa 45:3-10, while in Psa 45:11 ff. the discourse changes to the bride. The minstrel conceives the king, in his Theocratic position and function, as commissioner and vicegerent of Jehovah, who, by righteous and wise government, is to effect the destined coming of the Kingdom of God. Inasmuch as by the king in question this was but partially or not at all effected, the Psalm early past over as a mystical bridal song, to the marriage of the Messiah with His Church. The Messianic references also appear in the Psalm itself, in that it is said (Psa 45:7) that His throne is Elohim=Divine forever and ever, or better, that His Divine throne is forever and ever: [or, better still, I think, even in the original Heb.: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. This is certainly the most natural construction of the sentence, and need not be shrunk from, as it is in perfect keeping with the context; and as, at all events, the idea is substantially contained in the contextK.]; in that it is said further that God (Psa 45:17) will render His posterity princes over the whole earth, so that they should eclipse the splendor of their ancestors, and all nations should praise the King on account of His glory; and finally, in that some characteristic expressions of this Psalm are used in Isa 9:5; Isa 61:3, directly of the Messiah as the Servant of Jehovaha fact the more important, as , mighty God, is elsewhere a customary designation of God Himself, e.g., Deu 10:17; Jer 32:18; Neh 9:32; Psa 24:8. Since, therefore, the Theocratic King sat on the throne of Jehovah (1Ch 29:23)and the throne of God is eternal, Lam 5:19,and Zech. prophesies (Heb 12:8) that the house of David shall yet be at the head of the nation, as Elohim, as a messenger of Jehovah ( ,), the author of our Epistle is entirely justified in interpreting the Psalm not as typically or indirectly, but as prophetically and directly Messianic, and in finding a proof of the Godhead of the Messiah in the fact that He who as King was, for His love of righteousness, exalted above all His fellows, received the appellation of Elohim. For while, indeed, the Kingly government, as representative of God ruling in majesty, is sometimes named Elohim (Exo 21:6; Exo 22:7; Psalms 82.) the individual person never elsewhere receives this name. And he would all the more naturally infer the Godhead of the Messiah, inasmuch as love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity are special characteristics of the holiness of God, Psa 5:5; Isa 61:8. many erroneously explain (with August. and Thom. Aquin.) of the purpose and result of the anointing, referring it to the anointing of the Holy Spirit made in order that the anointed one might love righteousness. In the Heb. text it is a quality of the King that He loves righteousness; and this forms the ground for that fulness of joy which, as an anointing, has been poured over Him in richer measure than over His companions or fellows, i.e., the other kings of the earth. As this love of righteousness is to be conceived not as a state of passive repose, but as an active attribute, the Sept. employs the Aor. , (didst love, etc.), and from this it is still more clear that points back to this as the ground of the anointing, which also our author understands not of the crowning of Jesus, after His accomplished earthly career, as Heavenly King, and His exaltation thus above the angelic dwellers in heaven (Peirce, Olsh., Bl., Ebr., Alf., Ln.), but, in accordance with the original text, of the fulness of bliss which He, long since anointed as King of the Kingdom of God, has above His fellows. Fellows Klee erroneously refers to all creatures; Chrys., Theoph., c., Beng., to all men. The fellows () of the Messiah must certainly be anointed ones. Thus they are either Christians (Theodor., Calv., Camero, Schlicht.), or the prophets, high-priests and kings, anointed as types of Christ (Wittich, Braun, Cranm.), or, which seems best suited to the connection, Princes in general (Kuin., Ebr., Del.). The author does not develop the individual features of the passage in their possible application, but lays the whole emphasis on the repeatedly recurring term, God, which, in an equally exclusive manner with the term Son, is given in the Divine word of Scripture to the Messiah.

Heb 1:10. And: Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay, etc.The introduces in the closest connection of thought with the preceding, a citation from Psa 102:26-28 illustrating the point that all aid to the people of God must come, not through any creature instrumentality, but through God the Creator. The Psalm is a lamentation, written at a late period of the exile, in which the poet, profoundly penetrated by the wretchedness of his people, expects and entreats deliverance and preservation from God, who, as the eternal one, even amidst that change and revolution of things over which He presides, still approves Himself as unchangeably the same, as , . The Psalmist is hence so sure of deliverance that he declares that it will be told to coming generations, how God looked down from heaven, and heard the groaning of the captives (Psa 102:19 ff.). In the fact that help comes only from the eternal and unchangeable God, while even the heavens, as they were originally formed by Him, are also transformed by Him, lies our authors warrant for referring the cited words to the Son by whom God hath made the worlds. The author is not merely expressing in scriptural phraseology what, in his own belief, and, in the presumed belief of his readers, may be justly said of Jesus (Hofm., Schriftb., I. 150). There would then be wanting the connecting link which, according to the tenor of Scripture, warrants his statement. We are not at liberty to transfer to the Son all the attributes ascribed to the Father. Hence we do not say with Theod. of Mops. (ed. Fritzsche, p. 162) that the Old Test. Scripture when it speaks of God, always speaks of the Father without exclusion of the Son. Equally unsatisfactory is the explanation that the interpolated of the Sept. (wanting in the Heb.) has, as being the customary designation of Jesus in apostolic times, seduced the author into his interpretation (Bhm., Ln.); for Heb 8:8 ff; Heb 12:6 ff. forbid our charging the author with any such ignorance. The link of connection is found rather (as in all the other citations), in the fact that the original Psalm itself expressed a positive hope in that earnestly longed for revelation of the salvation of Jehovah which was to be accomplished only in the Messiah. (Similarly Hofm., Prophecy and Fulfilment, II. p. 33, Del.). , Ps. 119, 152 is not=, but corresponds to , and expresses also in the classics extension downwards in time (Khn., 605, 1. Jelf, II. 629, 2). In Heb. we have the more general =formerly. indicates the abiding in one condition through all the vicissitudes of time, Psa 119:90; 2Pe 3:4. denotes anything thrown around (1Co 12:15, probably a veil), commonly the garment thrown around like a mantle. Storr finds in the idea that the heavens, which are works of Gods hands or fingers (Psa 8:4), will be exchanged like a garment, in that God will make a new heaven and a new earth. This form of conception is certainly made prominent Isa 65:17; Isa 66:22; 2Pe 3:13; Rev 21:1; for the Scripture, while indeed it teaches a of the world, Mat 24:14, a change of its present , 1Co 7:31, a passing away of heaven and earth, Mat 5:18; Luk 21:33; 1Jn 2:17; Rev 20:11, a dissolving of the elements, 2Pe 3:12, yet by no means teaches an annihilation of its existence, but rather a regeneration, a new birth of the world, with the transformation naturally attending it. Yet here the other form of conception seems the preponderating one, which makes heaven an apparent tent-cloth spread out over the earth, Isa 40:22; Psa 104:2, without, however, requiring us with Heinrichs to resolve the into the products of the loom. Here their transformation consists in their becoming antiquated, Psa 102:27. The reading , then, involves the thought that they are rolled up, and laid aside. This rolling up, Isa 34:4; Rev 6:14, is compared with that of a book; and Isa 34:4 it is said of the heavenly hosts that they fall off as the leaves of the vine, and as the withering of the fig-tree; while in like manner in Isa 51:6 they are said to pass away like smoke. But the Lord is unchangeable in His being, and absolutely imperishable. In the Hebrew we have: And Thy years have no completion, i.e., their end never comes. In the Greek: Thy years shall never fail, i.e., they shall never cease or discontinue. is used as intransitive also in the classics.

Heb 1:13. Sit on may right hand, etc. (Heb 1:5) used of the declaration made absolutely, and once for all, (he said), and (Heb 1:6) of the declaration which is now or continuously being made (he saith, he is saying), are here exchanged for of the declaration which stands before us as fixed in Scripture (he hath said). Del.

The metabatic which stands in the third place after a preposition with its case (Hartung, Partikellehre I. p. 190) introduces as the last proofchallenging in its interrogative form the assured assent of the readerthe elevation of the Messiah to a joint sovereignty with God in absolute triumph over His foes, in contrast with angels who, though spiritual beings, have but the place and destination of servants. True, the angels, as inhabitants of heaven, also enjoy the immediate presence of God, and the proverbial expressions, he is good as an angel of God, 1Sa 29:9; he judges righteously as an angel of God, 2Sa 14:17; he is wise as an angel of God, 2Sa 14:20; 2Sa 19:27, point to their extraordinary intellectual and moral endowments. But organized as an heavenly host, 1Ki 22:19; 2Ch 18:18,whence we are told of an encampment of angels (Gen 32:1-2), and find chariots and horses assigned to them (2Ki 6:17),they encompass the throne of Jehovahpartly in the form of an advisory assemblage (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Psa 89:8); partly praising God and His works in holy joy, Psa 29:1; Psa 103:20; partly as servants standing ready to execute His commands, Job 4:18; Job 15:15, as heroes of strength, Psa 103:20; Psa 148:2, and as Jehovahs (Jos 5:14) host of the high ones, Isa 24:21. But to the Messiah is ascribed not merely sitting beside or in presence of the all-ruling God, but sitting at His right hand. The former expression would have designated Him only as theocratic ruler; as David, after the removal of the ark of the covenant to Mount Zion, had his throne in immediate proximity to the throne of Jehovah. But the latter elevates Him above every species of principality and dominion to participation in the divine majesty itself. The historical incidents in which this typical Psalm had birth, stand connected apparently (Heb 1:5 ff.) with the victory of David over the Syrians and Ammonites. But the promise of the elevation spoken of (Heb 1:1) appears as an oracular or prophetic utterance () of Jehovah, whose fulfilment is still in the future (Heb 1:4), and is directed to the Lord of the minstrel (, my Lord); we are, therefore, entirely justified in assuming a widening of the prophetic view beyond the historical and typical incidents, and in finding in the Lord not the David sung by the people (Ewald), but the Messiah whom David recognized as at once his Lord and his Son (Mat 22:41 ff.); especially as this king, whom the people, born like dew from the womb of the morning, clad in sacred garments, are to follow into the conflict (Heb 1:3), is not merely to conquer His enemies upon the whole earth (Heb 1:6), but as priestly king (Heb 1:4), is to stand in a relation (to be hereafter more fully considered), such as could be predicated of no historical ruler of Israel. The custom of setting the foot on the neck of a conquered enemy, belongs to earlier Israel, Jos 10:24; 1Ki 5:17. To later Greek belongs , and the frequent Hellenistic formula which implies the rising conspicuously above that which is on the right hand.

Heb 1:14. Are they not all ministering spirits, etc.In this summing up of the series of thoughts developed from Heb 1:4, the emphasis lies partly on , all, which includes even the angelic leaders, partly on , which designates these spirits as standing in sacred service. For the term points, not in a general way, to service obligatory by virtue of public office, but specially to that connected with the public Levitical worship, Exo 31:10; Num 4:12; Num 7:5; 2Ch 24:14. Hence also the Rabbins frequently designate certain angels as . No allusion to the heavenly sanctuary can be inferred from the choice of the expression: it simply refers back to Heb 1:7. The Pros. Part. habitually sent forth, commissioned, brings out the proper characteristic of the angels, or that habitus, that habitual form of action, which springs from their nature, and corresponds to their destination. The term refers not directly to their rendering service to men; (for, apart from the fact that the angels are not placed in subordination to men, the construction would require the Dat. (Act 11:29; 1Co 16:15), but to the ministerial relation in which they stand to God, and in which God employs them for the good of those who are to inherit the salvation procured by His Son. This special signification of (though without the article) is implied alike in the context, and in the verb , inherit. It implies neither deliverance from danger in general (Michael., Schleusn., Bhm., Kuin.); nor again the actual conferring of eternal salvation upon its inheritors through the ministrations assigned by God to the angels (Ln.); but simply the proper office of the angels, as those whom God sends forth for the benefit of godly men. The term , employed in designating this salvation, presupposes a deliverance from ruin wrought by the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Tit 2:13.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. God has not merely communicated His word to the prophets in the manifold forms of His revelations of Himself: nor has He merely in the prophets and by their mouth spoken formerly to the fathers. He also speaks to us in Holy Scripture. The development of the precise doctrine of inspiration is yet a problem for theology; but the church has to confess that in the Holy Scripture she hears God Himself speak, and that she feels herself bound, in all that respects salvation, to adhere implicitly to the Word of God as uttered in the Scripture.

2. The old canon of Scripture interpretation: Novum Testamentum in vetere latet; Vetus Testamentum in novo patet, springs from a correct apprehension of the true essential relation of the two parts of the economy of salvation. The sacred writers constantly emphasize the divine purpose, as that which determines the events of history; yet this not formally as mere purpose, which might seek its end irrespective of the course of things; but as that divine determination, which of itself, in a concrete manner, brings about its result. When this determination is prophetically uttered, this prophetic word is an expression of the divine counsel, thought and will, which is already stamped with the impress of human history, but primarily as but a form, which awaits in the future its ultimate fulfilment, and reaches this by an actual carrying out in history of the divine purpose. The historical facts which gradually lead to this final and proper fulfilment of prophecy, bear, for this reason, a typico-prophetic character. They represent typically, and for precisely this reason, but partially and defectively, the idea that is to be realized; yet they must be regarded as evidences of its truth, and of its infallible and already incipient realization. They are interwoven with historical conditions which as yet contain no adequate realization of the divine thought. It might hence be half suspected that nothing but the caprice or the unwarranted fancies of a later time had discovered this relation of purely historical facts, or of earlier oracular utterances, to those later events which they typify and predict. Unquestionably, too, we are warranted in insisting on the historical foundations of prophecy, and on its direct reference to immediate events, as against an unhistorical and, as it were, soothsaying prophecy. But the exaggeration of this feature leads to a mode of dealing with events which knows no prophecy, to a history with no positive divine guidance and control, with no real ideas, with no true future of redemption. The New Testament writers, on the other hand, see bursting through these enveloping folds of history the germs and tendencies of divine ideas, and, in their illustrative citations, mainly exhibit the symbolical facts, in a direct and immediate application to the fulfilment already effected through Christ. Hence they, on the one hand, neither take the facts and statements of the Old Testament, in their original import as referring to immediate events, nor on the other, put upon them an allegorical and mystical interpretation, which rests upon no sure basis; but so interpret them that they appear as members of that system of divine ideas and acts, by which, in the progress of revelation, the original Gospel which announced the seed of the woman, is gradually, step by step, announcing and accomplishing itself until its final and complete fulfilment in the coming of the Son of God in the flesh. The occasional use of Rabbinical forms of citation and modes of interpretation in no way destroys this essential relation, but stands connected with the national position and special culture of the respective writers: compare (from earlier times) Andr. Kesler de dictorum V. T. in N. allegatione 1627; also in Hackspan dispp. theol. et phil. syllog, p. 563 sq.: Oporinus, demonstratio N. T. ex. V. T. p. 60 sq., and Surenhusius, , in quo, secundum veterum theol. Hebr. formulas allegandi et modos interpretandi, conciliantur loca V. in N. T. allegata, Amst. 1713.

3. The true and perfect deity of Jesus Christ is to be proved a. from the name Son of God, bestowed on Him in an exclusive sense, and as designating a specific relation, which, along with essential unity, points to a hypostatical distinction of persons, for which reason He is also directly called God: b. from His works of creating, upholding, redeeming, governing, and renovating the world: c. from the perfection of the metaphysical, intellectual and moral attributes involved in that specific relation to God, and attesting themselves in all these several spheres of action: d. from the adoring worship which belongs to Him, and is rendered Him even by the Princes among the heavenly angels, a fact which, within the sphere of the monotheistic faith, is of the utmost significance.

4. The doctrine of the eternity of the world is equally to be repudiated with that of its future annihilation. Its transformation into a new and nobler form of existence is effected by means of the same Lord through whom it was created, and that according to divine purpose and will, so that its destruction also is to be referred to no exhaustion of originally supplied powers, wrought by age and the natural decay of years, nor to any regularly recurring cycles of revolution, by which, at definite intervals and according to unchangeable laws, creation is resolved into its elements, and again remoulded into new forms and combinations for other destinies.

5. The anticipated reintroduction of the First-born into the inhabited world forms the goal of the ways of God in history, and promises a revelation of glory to which, in hope and faith, we are to look; which, in the patience of the saints, we are humbly to await, and for which, in the sanctification of our persons, as children of God born anew to be brethren in Jesus Christ, and called to be fellow-heirs with Him, we are earnestly to prepare, that we may join the adoring worship of the angels.

6. The invocation of angels, as ministers to our need and mediators of salvation, is no less irrational and absurd, than the denial of their existence and of their employment in the service of God for the benefit of the heirs of salvation, is unscriptural. The position here assigned to them excludes any rendering to them of worship, and, on the other hand, their spiritual nature remits to the province of imagination and art all sensible representations of their form; while yet their employment in the service of God renders possible their transient appearance and agency on earth in the most various forms.

7. The means which God employs for the protection and support of the pious in this wicked world, are numerous in proportion as He is unfathomable in wisdom, unlimited in power, and inexhaustible in love. Besides the forces, creatures, and instrumentalities, which belong to the sphere of earth and human action, He has equally at command, for the exigencies of even our temporal life, heavenly and angelic agencies, and that in unmeasured abundance and untold variety.

8. The establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth in the form of a kingdom of grace under the regal dominion of the Messiah, who, after accomplishing the mission assigned to Him below, is now forever exalted above all powers to the throne of God, is, on the one hand, a fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies; on the other, a preparation for the consummated dominion of God over all the world, and itself again a prophecy of the kingdom of glory. The Christocracy is the fully unfolded, world-embracing form of the Theocracy; and in His consummated glory the Exalted One becomes, for all eternity, the medium of that communion with God which, as the Humiliated One, He originally procured. The language, Sit at my right hand, means, in a word: exalted highly and placed as glorious Kingnot over the towers of Jerusalem, nor over the empire of Babylon, Rome, Constantinople, or the entire earthwhich were indeed a great power;nay, not over heaven, stars, and all that our eyes can behold, but exalted to a power far higher and wider. Seat thyselfsuch is His languagebeside me on the lofty seat where I sit, and be equal to me. For by sitting beside Him, he means not, sitting at His feet, but at His right hand, in the same majesty and power with Himself, which is nothing less than a Divine power (Luth. at Psalms 110.).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The consolation of the Church of God in troublous times is: 1, Gods words of encouragement in the Holy Scripture; 2, the Government of Jesus Christ on the throne of God; 3, the inheritance of blessedness to which it is destined.The right which Jesus Christ has to us as, a. our Creator; b. our Saviour; c. our Ruler.The worship which we owe to Jesus Christ: 1, on the ground of the Divine command in the Holy Scriptures; 2, after the example of the heavenly spirits; 3, as citizens of the Kingdom of God.What summons us Christians ceaselessly to living gratitude to God? 1, the destination to bliss, which Gods word vouchsafes to us; 2, the protection which He bestows upon us by powers and servants sent forth from heaven; 3, the gracious aid which He renders to us in the Church of His Son.The dominion which Jesus Christ exercises: 1, in its character, a. as a Divine dominion; b. for the conquest of the world; c. by employing the powers and resources of the heavenly realm; 2, in its establishment by His peculiar relation, a. to God, as Son; b. to the world, as Lord of all things: c. to the Church, as Saviour.The high dignity which we Christians have: 1, as children of God, who are ransomed from the perishable nature of this world; 2, as brethren of Christ, who, as First-born, sits upon the throne of God; 3, as heirs of blessedness, for whose good angels are sent forth in the service of God.

Von Bogatzky:As God has anointed Christ for His threefold office, so are we also anointed by Christ with His Spirit: 1, that as priests of God, we may offer up ourselves, and pray for one another; 2, that as kings, we may conquer all our enemies; 3, that in the fellowship of the prophetic office of Christ we may teach and admonish one another.Laurentius:Eternal life is an inheritance, and is thus not obtained by works.If the holy angels minister to believers, how shall not one believer much more minister to his fellow?Hiller:The Church with which the Lord would betroth Himself in faith, had, in the word, the plighted vow of His eternal love and truth; in His Spirit the bridal pledge, and in the shadowy rites, the image and portrait of its King.The Sacred Scripture is Gods testimony of His Son, a. who will come into the world; b. who has come into the world; c. to bless and save sinners.This testimony of Scripture must be believed, a. because it is a testimony; b. because it is Gods testimony; c. because it is such a testimony of the Son of God.

Rieger:The more righteously a kingdom is administered, the greater is its permanency.He whose heart God inclines to righteousness, and whom He inspires with a disposition to hate unrighteousness, even though it may find a lurking place, as it will, in his own members, is by the one rendered fit for the inheritance of Gods Kingdom, and by the latter gains enlarged space for the Spirit and its glad anointing.As from the beginning of the ways of God in the creation, so also from the goal and end in which all will issue in the ultimate deliverance and renewal of the creation, we can derive much that appertains to the glory of the Son of God.

Starke:As we mortals have a changeful nature, not only material, but immaterial, which latter, in the waste and repair of sense, must experience daily an ever increasing change, we should strive all the more industriously after the true unchangeableness which Christ has brought to light by His Gospel, 2Ti 1:10.God changes neither in His being nor in His words; hence we can securely commit ourselves to Him.Christ, the Son of Man, is truly exalted upon the throne of God. If thou wilt not believe this, thou wilt hereafter see and experience it to thine eternal sorrow, Psa 2:12.Are the holy angels servants whom God sends out for our service? How, then, should we stand in fear of them, thank God for their protection, and in genuine holiness of heart render ourselves worthy of it?High honor of believers that they are ministered to by Thrones, Principalities and Powers! Praise God; grieve not the angels; lead an angelic life, and thou wilt be borne by the angels where thou wishest eternally to be, Luk 15:10; Luk 20:36.

Spener:From the Sonship of God and regeneration comes all the blessedness which we receive as an inheritance, Rom 8:16; Gal 4:7; Act 20:32; Act 26:18.

Heubner:Christ is the most blessed King. The earthly prosperity of worldly rulers bears no comparison with the heavenly delight which Christ, as the exalted Son of God, enjoys. He enjoys the bliss of being in most intimate communion with God, and of being loved and adored by hosts of ransomed souls, by all spirits.The whole spirit world is a realm of servants of God. A ruler without subjects possesses no kingdom.The pious are protegs of heaven, of the angels. Both are one under Christ.

Stier:Where remain the thrones of all kings on earth amidst the revolution of things, at the end of the days? They are swept away and removed; but the Divine throne of the One Anointed above all anointed ones continues and stands unto eternity. Where in the hands of sinful men is there a sceptre of sovereignty whose honor has not been in some way stained with unrighteousness and error? But the gracious and peaceful sceptre of the One Righteous and Blessed is truly a sceptre of rectitude.The Son rules on the eternal throne of God, Himself God and Lord: the spirits and personal powers of heaven serve as creatures. The Son has taken His seat in the reassumption of His original Divine power; the angels are sent forth from His and the Fathers seat. They are those who perform priestly ministration in all their allotted activity and service. He is and remains without end of years, the Lord whom they adoringly serve.

[Owen:Whatever our changes may he, inward or outward, yet Christ, changing not, our eternal condition is secured, and relief provided against all present troubles and miseries. The immutability and eternity of Christ are the spring of our consolation and security in every condition. Such is the frailty of the nature of man, and such the perishing condition of all created things, that none can ever obtain the least stable consolation but what ariseth from an interest in the omnipotency, sovereignty, and eternity of Jesus Christ].

Footnotes:

[6]Heb 1:8. introducing the second portion of the passage from the Psalm is found in Sin, A. B. D.* E.* M. 17. Itala according to Cod. Clarom. and Vulg. according to Cod. Amiat. In the following words the lect. Rec. should be retained.

[7]Heb 1:9.Sin. reads with the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. . The remaining MSS. except some minusc, read with the Cod. Vat. of the LXX. [ was perhaps written in accidental conformity to the preceding .K.]

[8]Heb 1:11.Instead of the pres. Bleek, following Itala., Vulg. etc., accents as future.

[9]Heb 1:12.Sin. A. B. D.* E. have further the clause after .

[10]Heb 1:12.The of the original is found also in Sin. D.* 43. The remaining Codd. read , perhaps with an indistinct reference to Isa 34:4.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Ver. 5. This day ] Either the day of eternity, and so it is meant of Christ’s eternal generation; or else the fulness of time, wherein God brought his first begotten into the world, and mightily declared him to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead, Act 13:33 ; Rom 1:4 .

I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son ] . The second person is of himself, as God; of his Father, as a Son; because the Father communicateth to him his own nature, and that by generation; whence he is called “his begotten Son;” and his “only begotten;” because by generation God hath no more sons ‘out him; he is called the “Father of spirits,” Heb 12:9 ; of all men,Mal 2:10Mal 2:10 , as he is Creator and conserver of all; and of “all good men,” by the grace of adoption and regeneration,2Co 6:182Co 6:18 ; Joh 1:12 .

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

5 13 .] Proof from Scripture of this last declaration .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

5 .] For (substantiation of . ) to whom of (among) the angels did He (God, the subject of Heb 1:1-2 ; as the subsequent citation shews) ever say (this citation from Psa 2 , has brought up in recent German Commentators the whole question of the original reference of that Psalm, and (as in Bleek) of O. T. citations in the N. T. altogether. These discussions will be found in Bleek, De Wette, and Ebrard. The latter is by far the deepest and most satisfactory: seeing, as he does, the furthest into the truth of the peculiar standing of the Hebrew people, and the Messianic import of the theocracy. Those who entirely or partially deny this latter, seem to me to be without adequate means of discussing the question. Ebrard’s view is, that the Psalm belongs to the reign of David. The objection, that Heb 1:6 will not apply to David’s anointing, inasmuch as that took place at Bethlehem in his boyhood, he answers, by regarding that anointing as connected with his establishment on Mount Zion, not as having locally taken place there, but as the first of that series of divine mercies of which that other was the completion. (Even Hupfeld gives up this objection.) He further ascribes the Psalm to that portion of David’s reign when (2Sa 8 .) Hada-dezer, and many neighbouring nations, were smitten by him: which victories he looked on as the fulfilment to him of Nathan’s prophecy, 2Sa 7:8-17 . In that prophecy the offspring of David is mentioned in the very words quoted below in this verse, and in terms which, he contends, will not apply to Solomon, but must be referred to the great promised Seed of David. He regards this triumphant occasion as having been treated by the royal Psalmist as a type and foretaste of the ultimate ideal dominion of the ‘Son of David’ over the kings of the earth. But I must refer the reader to his long note, which is well worth reading: and to Bleek’s, in which are several suggestions, valuable as notices of the way in which the present and the future, the political and Messianic ideas, are intermingled in the Psalms. See also Delitzsch, h. l. Even Hupfeld, who denies Messianic reference wherever he can, is obliged to acknowledge that the Psalm “probably applies to no particular king, but is a glorification of the theocratic kingdom in general, with poetic reference to the universal dominion promised to it:” and confesses, that this is in fact the Messianic idea. He also connects the Psalm with the prophecy in 2Sa 7 . We may observe, that the connexion here of the two, the triumphant expression of the Psalm, and the prophecy of Nathan, is a strong presumption in favour of Ebrard’s view), Thou (the seed of David, anointed in God’s counsels as king on His holy hill of Sion: see above) art my Son (according to the promise presently to be quoted, finding its partial fulfilment in Solomon, but its only entire one in the Son of David who is also the Son of God), I (emphatic: ‘I and no other:’ expressed also in the Hebrew) this day have begotten thee (First, what are we to understand by ? Bleek says, “As Sonship, in the proper sense, is dependent on the act of begetting, so may, especially by the Hebrews, ‘to beget’ be figuratively used to express the idea of ‘making any one a son,’ in which derived and figurative reference this also may be meant. And we get an additional confirmation of this meaning from Jer 2:27 , where it is said of the foolish idolatrous Israelites, , . Accordingly, the meaning here is, ‘I have made Thee my son’ (so Psa 89:20 ; Psa 89:26-27 ; ‘I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father. Also will I make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth’): namely, by setting Thee on the throne of my people: and the will most naturally be referred to the time of the anointing of the King on Zion, as the act whereby he was manifested as Son of God in this sense.” And so Calvin, whom Bl. cites, in his comm. on Psa 2 .: “David genitus a Deo fuit, dum clare apparuit ejus electio. Itaque adverbium hodie tempus illud demonstrationis notat, quia, postquam innotuit creatum divinitus regem, prodiit tanquam nuper ex Deo genitus.” The above remarks seem pertinent and unobjectionable, as long as we regard them as explaining the supposed immediate reference to David and present circumstances: but it is plain that, according to the above view of Psa 2 , and indeed to the usage of the N. T., in applying this passage to our Lord, we want another and a higher sense in which both words, and , may be applicable to Him: a sense in which I should be disposed to say that the words must in their fulness of meaning be taken, to the neglect and almost the obliteration of that their supposed lower reference. For, granting the application of such sayings to our Lord, then must the terms of them, suggested by the Holy Spirit of prophecy, which is His testimony, bear adequate interpretations as regards His person and office. It has not therefore been without reason that the Fathers, and so many modern divines, have found in this word the doctrine of the generation of the Son of God, and have endeavoured, in accordance with such reference, to assign a fitting sense to . As the subject is exceedingly important, and has been generally passed over slightly by our English expositors, I shall need no apology for gathering from Bleek and Suicer the opinions and testimonies concerning it. 1. One view refers to the eternal generation of the Son, and regards it as an expression of the “ nunc stans , as they call it” (Owen) of eternity. Thus Origen very grandly says, in Joann. tom. i. 32, vol. iv. p. 33: , , , , , , , , . And so Athanasius (de Decret. Nicn. Syn. 13, vol. i. p. 172, adv. Arian. iv. 24, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 503), Basil (contra Eunom. ii. 24, vol. i. p. 260), Aug [3] (on the Psalm: “Quanquam etiam possit ille dies in prophetia dictus videri, quo Jesus Christus secundum hominem natus est: tamen hodie quia prsentiam significat, atque in ternitate nec prteritum quidquam est, quasi esse desierit, nec futurum, quasi nondum sit, sed prsens tantum: quia quidquid ternum est, semper est: divinitus accipitur secundum id dictum Ego hodie genuite, quo sempiternam generationem virtutis et sapienti Dei, qui est unigenitus Filius, fides sincerissima et catholica prdicat”), Primasius, Thom. Aq.; of the Commentators on this place, Thl. ( , . , , ): and so Corn.-a-lap., Est., Calov., Seb.-Schmidt, Schttg., Rev 2 . A second, to the generation, in time , of the Incarnate Son of Man, when Jesus assumed the divine nature on the side of his Manhood also : so Chrys. (curiously enough using the illustration from , which Thl. afterwards, copying verbatim from him, turns to the opposite purpose: . . . as above under Thl. to ), Thdrt. ( , . And even more expressly on the Psalm: , ), Euseb., Cyr.-alex., Greg.-nyss. (see these in Suicer), c., Kuinoel, Stuart, &c. 3. A third, to the period when Jesus was manifested to men as the Son of God, i. e. by most, to the time of the Resurrection, with reference to Act 13:33 , where St. Paul alleges this citation as thus applying (so, recently, Delitzsch): by some, to that of the Ascension, when He was set at the right hand of God and entered on His heavenly High-priesthood (ch. Heb 5:5 ): so Hilary (on the Psalm, 30, vol. i. p. 48, “Id quod nunc in psalmo est, Filius meus es tu, hodie genui te, non ad virginis partum, neque ad lavacri generationem, sed ad primogenitum ex mortuis pertinere apostolica autoritas est:” and again, “Vox ergo hc Dei patris secundum Apostolum (Acts l. c.) in die resurrectionis exstitit”), Ambrose (de Sacr. iii. 3, vol. iii. p. 362: “Pulchre autem Pater dixit ad Filium: ‘Ego hodie genui te,’ hoc est, quando redemisti populum, quando ad cli regnum vocasti, quando implesti voluntatem meam: probasti meum esse te Filium”), Calv. (“Frivola Augustini argutia est, qui hodie ternum et continuum fingit. Christus certe ternus est Dei filius, quia sapientia ejus est ante tempus genita. Sed hoc nihil ad prsentem locum, ubi respectus habetur ad homines, a quibus agnitus fuit Christus pro filio Dei postquam eum Pater manifestavit. Hc igitur declaratio, cujus etiam Paulus meminit ad Rom 1:4 , species fuit tern (ut ita loquar) generationis. Nam arcana illa et interior qu prcesserat, hominibus fuit incognita, nec in rationem venire poterat, nisi eam Pater visibili revelatione approbasset”), Grot. (the Resurrection is “initium glori Christi”), al.: Schlichting and the Socinians generally, Storr, Sack, Hengstenberg, &c. Owen also takes the same view (“The eternal generation of Christ, on which His filiation or sonship, both name and thing, doth depend, is to be taken only declaratively, and that declaration to be made in His resurrection, and exaltation over all, that ensued thereon”). Of these interpretations, I agree with Bleek that the first is that which best agrees with the context. The former verses represent to us the Son of God as standing in this relation to the Father before the worlds: and Heb 1:6 , which plainly forms a contrast to this Heb 1:5 as to time, treats distinctly of the period of the Incarnation. It is natural then to suppose that this verse is to be referred to a time prior to that event. And he also remarks, that the sense of thus adopted is by no means foreign to the Alexandrine theology: Philo, de Profugis, 11, vol. i. p. 554, says, . . , . And in Leg. Allegor. iii. 8, vol. i. p. 92, , . ) ? and again (how is the ellipsis here to be supplied? Probably, ( ) : or perhaps (see below on Heb 1:6 ) merely serves to introduce a fresh citation), I will be to him as (‘for:’ so the LXX often for the Heb. : e. g. in the citation, ch. Heb 8:10 . The more ordinary Greek construction would be as in Lev 26:12 , . , ) a father, and he shall be to me as (for) a son (the citation is from the LXX, as usual. It occurs in the prophecy of Nathan to David, respecting David’s offspring who should come after him. The import of it has been above considered, and its connexion with Psa 2 . shewn to be probable. The direct primary reference of the words to Solomon, 1Ch 22:7-10 , does not in any way preclude the view which I have there taken of their finding their higher and only worthy fulfilment in the greater Son of David, who should build the only temple in which God would really dwell. See Bleek in loc., who fully recognizes this further and Messianic reference)?

[3] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Heb 1:5 . “For to which of the angels did he ever say My Son art Thou, I this day have begotten Thee?” to what individual; in the whole course of history. The angels as a class are called “Sons of Elohim” in the O.T. (Gen 6:2 ; Psa 29:1 ; Psa 89:7 ; Job 1:6 ). But this was not used in its strict sense but merely as expressive of indefinite greatness, nor was it addressed to any individual. , the subject unexpressed, as is common in citing Scripture (2Co 6:2 ; Gal 3:16 ; Eph 4:8 , etc.). Winer and Blass supply , others . Warfield, who gives the fullest treatment of the subjectless use of , , and sucb words ( Presb. and Ref. Rev. , July, 1899) holds that either subject may be supplied, because “under the force of their conception of Scripture as an oracular book it was all one to the N.T. writers whether they said ‘God says’ or ‘Scripture says’.” Here, however, the connection involves that the subject is . The words cited are from Psa 2:7 and are in verbal agreement with the LXX, which again accurately represents the Hebrew. The psalm was written to celebrate the accession of a King, Solomon or some other; but the writer, seeing in his mind’s eye the ideal King, clothes the new monarch in his robes. The King was called God’s Son on the basis of the promise made to David (2Sa 7:14 ) and quoted in the following clauses: The words do not seem to add much to the foregoing words, except by emphasising them, according to the ordinary method of Hebrew poetry. is evidently intended to mark a special occasion or crisis and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. In its original reference it meant “I have begotten Thee to the kingly dignity”. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated by , and it is as King the person addressed is God’s Son. Thus Paul, in his address to the Pisidians (Act 13:33 ), applies it to the Resurrection of Christ; cf. Rom 1:4 . The words, then, find their fulfilment in Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension and sitting down at God’s right hand as Messiah. He was thus proclaimed King, begotten to the royal dignity, and in this sense certainly no angel was ever called God’s Son.

This is more fully illustrated by another passage introduced by the usual (see Heb 10:30 , and Longinus, De Subl. , chap, iv, etc.). , words spoken in God’s name by Nathan in reference to David’s seed, and conveying to him the assurance that the kings of his dynasty should ever enjoy the favour and protection and inspiration enabling them to rule as God’s representatives. This promise is prior in history to the previous quotation, and is its source; see 2Sa 7:14 . is Hellenistic after a Hebrew model. See Blass, Gram. , p. 85.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Heb 1:5-14

5For to which of the angels did He ever say,

“You are My Son,

Today I have begotten You”?

And again,

“I will be a Father to Him

And He shall be a Son to Me?”

6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,

“And let all the angels of God worship Him.”

7And of the angels He says,

“Who makes His angels winds,

And His ministers a flame of fire.”

8But of the Son He says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.

9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;

Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You

With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”

10And,

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,

And the heavens are the works of Your hands;

11They will perish, but You remain;

And they all will become old like a garment,

12And like a mantle You will roll them up;

Like a garment they will also be changed.

But You are the same,

And Your years will not come to an end.”

13But to which of the angels has He ever said,

“Sit at My right hand,

Until I make Your enemies

A footstool for Your feet”?

14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

Heb 1:5 “you are my son”This is the first in a series of seven OT passages quoted from the Septuagint to prove the superiority of the Messiah over the angels. The first phrase comes from Psa 2:7, while the second is from 2Sa 7:14. This first phrase is used several times in the Gospels to refer to Christ:

1. at His baptism (cf. Mat 3:17; Luk 3:22)

2. at the Transfiguration (cf. Mat 17:5; Mar 9:7)

3. at the Resurrection (cf. Act 13:33; Rom 1:4)

The term “son,” used in both quotes of Heb 1:5, is from the OT where it can refer to different people/groups (see full note at Heb 2:7).

1. angels (cf. Gen 6:2; Gen 6:4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Psa 29:1, always plural)

2. the nation of Israel (cf. Hos 11:1)

3. the Israeli king (cf. 2Sa 7:14; Psa 89:27)

4. the Messiah (cf. Psa 2:7)

“today I have begotten you” Jesus has always been deity (cf. Joh 1:1-18). Therefore, this cannot refer to the essence of His nature, but to His manifestation in time (the incarnation). Some commentators relate it to the resurrection (cf. Rom 1:3-4). Some rabbis saw Psa 2:7 as the Messiah brought back to life after divine suffering (cf. Isaiah 53). The verb is a perfect active indicative means “have begotten.” This may be a rabbinical allusion to Pro 8:22-31, where “wisdom” (which is feminine in Hebrew) was the first creation of God and became God’s agent in further creation (also see Wisdom of Solomon Heb 7:1 to Heb 8:1). This is alluded to, not to bring in a feminine aspect to deity, nor to affirm Jesus as a created being, but to affirm Jesus of Nazareth as God the Father’s agent of creation (cf. Heb 1:10; Joh 1:3; 1Co 8:6; Col 1:16 which was mentioned in Heb 1:2).

“I will be a Father to Him” This is a quote from the Septuagint of 2Sa 7:14, which initially referred to Solomon. The author of Hebrews applies it to Jesus. This dual reference is similar to the “virgin birth” prophecy of Isa 7:14. Both are examples of multi-fulfillment prophecy. The NT authors under inspiration used the OT in rabbinical ways, typological ways, and word plays which are not appropriate for later interpreters. See discussion below.

SPECIAL TOPIC: ILLUMINATION

Heb 1:6

NASB”and when He again brings”

NKJV”But when He again brings”

NRSV”And again, when he brings”

TEV”But when God was about to send”

NJB”Again, when he brings”

This does not refer to a second coming of the son. It is a literary way of introducing a new quote (cf. Heb 1:5 d; Heb 2:13; Heb 4:5; Heb 10:30).

Notice that NASB, NKJV, NRSV, and NJB have “bring” while TEV has “send.” The first would emphasize the ascension of the glorified Christ; the second would refer to the incarnation at Bethlehem. Because the Father-Son analogy begins with Jesus’ incarnation, the TEV fits the context best.

“firstborn” This phrase is used

1. in the OT where the firstborn child received a double inheritance to take care of the parents

2. in Psa 89:27 to refer to the king of Israel

3. in Rabbinical Judaism it came to be a phrase for pre-imminence (cf. Rom 8:29; Col 1:15; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5).

This phrase was the heart of the Arius/Athanasius controversy. Arius asserted that Jesus was God’s highest creation, quoting this passage and Psa 89:27. Athanasius asserted that Jesus was full deity and quoted Heb 1:2-3; (4) in a figurative sense, Christ is “the first-born of a new humanity which is to be glorified, as its exalted Lord is glorified. . .one coming forth from God to found the new community of saints” (from A Greek-English Lexicon by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danken, p. 726); and (5) in the Greco-Roman world the firstborn acted as priest for the family (cf. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament by Moulton and Milligan, p. 557).

SPECIAL TOPIC: FIRSTBORN

“into the world” This implies the pre-existent Jesus, who has always been deity, but a new stage of His redemptive ministry began at Bethlehem when He took on human flesh (cf. Php 2:6-8 a). This is not the more common term kosmos, but oikoumen, which was used of the surface of the earth which was inhabited by humans. This term is also used in Heb 2:5 metaphorically as a reference to the new age.

“He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship him'” This is a quote from the Septuagint of either Deu 32:43 or Psa 97:7. The Hebrew word for “angels” used in Psa 97:7 is Elohim. From Cave #4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have a corroboration of this Septuagint translation. The term Elohimcan refer to God, angelic beings, human judges (cf. Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8-9), or even a deceased human spirit (cf. 1Sa 28:13).

This quote is not meant to teach that angels did not worship Christ until the incarnation. In context it is showing the superiority of the Son by the fact that angels worship Him.

Heb 1:7 “Who makes his angels winds” This begins a comparison between angels being changeable (cf. LXX of Psa 104:4) in contradistinction to Jesus who is permanent and unchanging (cf. Heb 1:8; Heb 1:11-12; Heb 13:8). The rabbis, quoting Lam 3:23 or Dan 7:10, said that God created the angels new every morning.

Heb 1:8 “Thy throne, O God, is forever” This is a quote from the Septuagint of Psa 45:6, which addresses the Messianic King. In the OT context the pronoun is very ambiguous and can refer to God the Father or God the Son. However, in this text it seems that this is one of the strongest affirmations of the deity of Christ found anywhere in the Scriptures (cf. Joh 1:18; Joh 20:28).

There is a significant Greek manuscript problem at this point. Some very early manuscripts (P46, , and B) have the pronoun (autou, i.e., “His throne”) which adds to the ambiguity. The United Bible Society’s fourth edition supports “your” with a “B” rating (the text is almost certain). This form is found in the uncial manuscripts A and D and is the exact quote from the Septuagint of Psa 45:6. Often ancient scribes tended to make texts more explicit, especially if they relate to Christological debates of their day (cf. Bart D. Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford Press, 1993, p. 265).

This discussion is not meant in any way to deny the full deity of Christ, but to show the tendency of ancient scribes to alter texts for theological as well as grammatical purposes. This is why the modern academic discipline of Textual Criticism judges manuscript variants based on the following.

1. the most unusual reading is probably original

2. the reading that explains the other variants is probably original

3. the reading with a wide geographical distribution (not just one family of manuscripts) is probably original

Bart Ehrman’s book also makes the point that scribes made changes to the Greek text for theological purposes, especially during the periods of conflict over Christology and the Trinity (i.e., third and fourth centuries).

“forever and ever” This obviously does not refer to a millennial reign, but the eternal reign (cf. Isa 9:8; Dan 7:14; Dan 7:18; Luk 1:33; 2Pe 1:11; Rev 11:15).

SPECIAL TOPIC: FOREVER (GREEK IDIOMS)

One Greek idiomatic phrase is “unto the ages” (cf. Luk 1:33; Rom 1:25; Rom 11:36; Rom 16:27; Gal 1:5; 1Ti 1:17), which may reflect the Hebrew ‘olam. See Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 321-319. Other related phrases are “unto the age” (cf. Mat 21:19 [Mar 11:14]; Thess. 1:55; Joh 6:58; Joh 8:35; Joh 12:34; Joh 13:8; Joh 14:16; 2Co 9:9) and “of the age of the ages” (cf. Eph 3:21). There seems to be no distinction between these idioms for “forever.” The term “ages” may be plural in a figurative sense of the rabbinical grammatical construction called “the plural of majesty” or it may refer to the concept of several “ages” in the Jewish sense of “age of innocence,” “age of wickedness,” “age to come,” or “age of righteousness.”

Heb 1:9 “you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness” This is a quote from the Septuagint of Psa 45:7 which relates to the earthly life of Jesus Christ.

SPECIAL TOPIC: RIGHTEOUSNESS

“has anointed you” The Hebrew term “anointed” (mashiach, BDB 603) is the OT word for Messiah (masiah). In the OT prophets, priests, and kings were anointed with olive oil as a symbol of God’s choice and provision for an assigned task. In this context it also refers to the cultural usage of olive oil at a time of joy and feasting (cf. Isa 53:11).

SPECIAL TOPIC: ANOINTING IN THE BIBLE (BDB 603)

“above your companions” This is a continuation of the quote from the Septuagint of Psa 45:6-7. Every detail of the Psalm should not be forced into a theological affirmation relating to Jesus. The phrase could relate to Jesus’ superiority over (1) angels; (2) Israel1 Kings: (3) worldly rulers; or (4) redeemed mankind.

Heb 1:10 “you Lord” Only the Septuagint translation of Psa 102:25 includes the word “Lord” which refers to YHWH, but in this context it refers to Jesus. This is another contextual reason why Heb 1:9 also refers to Jesus as “God.”

“laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands” This is an allusion to Heb 1:2 of Jesus being the Father’s agent in creation. See Special Topic: Arch at Heb 3:14.

Genesis 1 asserts Elohim’s creation by the spoken word (cf. Gen 1:3; Gen 1:6; Gen 1:9; Gen 1:14; Gen 1:20; Gen 1:24; Gen 1:26), while Genesis 2 affirms YHWH’s direct personal involvement, implying “hands on” fashioning of Adam and Eve from clay (cf. Gen 2:7-8; Gen 2:19; Gen 2:22). This quote (Psa 102:25) extends the personal metaphor to all physical creation.

Heb 1:11 “they will perish but you will remain; And they all will become old like a garment” This again shows the eternality of the Son. In the OT the prophets often use a court scene to communicate YHWH’s displeasure at His rebellious wife, Israel. He takes “her” (Israel) to divorce court and calls on the two required witnesses (cf. Deu 19:15)the two most permanent witnesses, “heaven and earth”to corroborate His testimony. Even these two most permanent witnesses will pass away. This quote suggests two possible scenarios: (1) the first verb (apollumi) has the connotation of violent destruction (cf. 2Pe 3:10) and (2) the second phrase implies a growing old and passing away like a piece of clothing.

This is another comparison of the instability of the created order (angels, creation) versus the permanence and stability of God’s throne and Son!

Heb 1:12 “but you are the same” This is a quote from the Septuagint of Psa 102:27. This same concept (immutability) is used in Heb 13:8 to describe the unchangingness of Jesus. Angels change, heaven and earth change, Jesus does not change, herein is mankind’s hope (cf. Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17).

“your years will not come to an end” As the previous phrase addresses the stability of Jesus’ character, this one addresses the permanence of His person.

Heb 1:13 “Sit at My right hand” This is a quote from the Septuagint of Psa 110:1. This is a wonderful Messianic Psalm quoted and alluded to often in Hebrews (cf. Heb 1:3; Heb 1:13; Heb 5:6; Heb 5:10; Heb 6:20; Heb 7:3; Heb 7:11; Heb 7:17; Heb 7:21; Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12-13; Heb 12:2). It combines the royal (Heb 1:1-3) and priestly (Heb 1:4-7) aspects of the Messiah (as do the two olive trees of Zechariah 4). Notice the two forms of “lord”; the first is YHWH, the second is Adon (Lord). David’s Lord (the Messiah) sits on YHWH’s (lord) throne, in the place of authority and power. This never, never, never happens to angels!

Heb 1:14 “Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation” Angels exist to serve God and mankind. Redeemed mankind is a higher spiritual order of creation than the angels. Believers will judge the angels (cf. 1Co 6:3). Jesus did not die to redeem the angels (cf. Heb 2:14-16).

SPECIAL TOPIC: SALVATION (GREEK VERB TENSES)

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

For . . . Thee? Figure of speech Erotesis. App-6.

begotten, &c. = brought Thee to the birth. i.e. at resurrection, when the Son became the glorified federal Head of a new order of beings. Compare Heb 5:5; Act 13:33. Rom 1:4, with 1Co 15:45, &c, and Psa 2:7 (Septuagint)

a = for (Greek. eis) a. Quoted from Psa 2:7, which, with Act 13:33, tells us that this day was the day of His resurrection. Father. App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

5-13.] Proof from Scripture of this last declaration.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 1:5. , for to which [whom]) A frequent argument in this epistle is derived from the silence of Scripture: Heb 1:13, ch. Heb 2:16, Heb 7:3; Heb 7:14.- , of the angels) For none of them took [was capable of taking] this glory.-, the Son) Act 13:33.–) So the LXX., 2Sa 7:14. That promise, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son, had regard to Solomon, but much more, considering how august the promise is, to the Messiah; otherwise Solomon also would be greater than the angels. The seed of David, or the Son of David, is one name, under which, according to the nature (relation) of the predicate, sometimes Solomon, sometimes Christ-sometimes Solomon, and at the same time, in a higher sense, Christ-is intended; an ambiguity well suited to the times of expectation, Psa 89:27-28. The apostles are the true interpreters of the Divine words, even though we should not have arrived at such an idea (such a mode of interpretation) as this without them [had it not been for their interpreting Scripture so].

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

The apostle proceedeth to the confirmation of his proposition concerning the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, and of his proof of it from the excellency of the name given unto him; and this he doth by sundry testimonies produced out of the Old Testament, two whereof are conjoined in this verse, as the verses are divided in our Bibles.

Heb 1:5. ;

. Vulg., dixit aliquando, said he sometime; for at any time. Syr., , from at any time said God. Eloah, God, is supplied needlessly, though better than those who would render impersonally, was it said at anytime; for it is express in the psalm from whence the words are taken, , The LORD said. The LORD said unto me, , Thou my Son, this day have I begotten thee. The ellipsis of the verb substantive in the original, which is perpetual, is supplied by the apostle with , Thou art my Son. Further difficulty in the grammatical sense of the words there is not. And here we shall close this verse, or at least consider this testimony by itself. [5]

[5] ,v . does not serve to strengthen the , but is independent, signifying at any time,and thus forms a marked antithesis with . This is to be extended in the following way: , To which of the angels has he at any time said, Thou art my Son? And to which has he again said, I will be to him a Father?This contains clearly the two ideas: God has used such expressions to an angel not even a single time, but to the Son not merely once, but again and again. . There is ascribed to the Messiah a relation of sonship to God such as is never applied, even approximately, to any of the angels, a relation of such a kind, that the Messiah derives his real being not from David but from God. Ebrard It may fairly be doubted whether there exists any valid evidence in favor of the declarative sense of the passage, and hence we have no alternative but to explain it according to its literal acceptation, as an absolute affirmation of the divine sonship of Christ. That this is the exposition which would most readily occur to the Jews is too evident to require any detailed proof…… Today always is….. So Clement of Alexandria happily remarks, Today is the image of an eternal age. Treffrey on the Sonship, pp. 300-302. ED.

Heb 1:5. Unto which of the angels did he at any time [or, ever] say, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? Two things are considerable in these words :

1. The manner of the apostles producing the testimony which he intended to make use of: Unto which of the angels said he at any time?

2. The testimony itself: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

In the former three things may be observed:

First, That the testimony which in a matter of faith he insisted on is that of the Scripture. He refers the Jews unto that common principle which was acknowledged between them. Men had not as yet learned in such contests to make that cavilling return which we are now used unto, How do you know those Scriptures to be the word of God?Nor, indeed, is it suitable unto common honesty for men to question the credit and prostitute the authority of their own most sacred principles, for no other end but to prejudice their adversaries. But our apostle here confidently sends the Hebrews to the acknowledged rule of their faith and worship, whose authority he knew they would not decline, Isa 8:20.

Secondly, That the apostle argues negatively from the authority and perfection of the Scripture in things relating to faith and the worship of God. It is nowhere said in the Scripture to angels; therefore they have not the name spoken of, or not in that manner wherein it is ascribed to the Messiah.This argument, saith an expositor of great name on this place, seems to be weak, and not unlike unto that which the heretics made use of in the like cases; and therefore answers that the apostle argues negatively, not only from the Scripture, but from tradition also. But this answer is far more weak than the argument is pretended to be. The apostle deals expressly in all this chapter from the testimony of Scripture, and to that alone do his words relate, and therein doth he issue the whole controversy he had in hand, knowing that the Jews had many corrupt traditions, expressly contrary to what he undertook to prove; particularly, that the law of Moses was eternally obligatory, against which he directly contends in the whole epistle. An argument, then, taken negatively from the authority of the Scripture in matters of faith, or what relates to the worship of God, is valid and effectual, and here consecrated for ever to the use of the church by the apostle.

Thirdly, That the apostle either indeed grants, or else, for arguments sake, condescends unto the apprehension of the Hebrews, that there is a distinction of degrees and pre-eminence amongst the angels themselves. To confirm, therefore, his general assertion of the dignity and pre-eminence of Christ above them all, he provokes them to instance in any one of them, which either indeed or in their apprehension was promoted above others, to whom such words as these were ever spoken: To which of the angels said he. His assertion respects not only the community of them, but any or all of the chief or princes among them. There are , Dan 10:13, chief princes among the angels. And of them Michael, the prince of the people of God, is said to be , one; that is, not in order, but the chief in dignity, their head and leader. Now, saith the apostle, to which of these, or of the rest of them, were these words spoken?

Proceed we now to the testimony itself produced. Three things are required to make it pertinent unto his purpose, and useful unto the end for which he makes mention of it :

First, That He of whom he speaks is peculiarly intended therein.

Secondly, That there be in it an assignation of a name unto him made by God himself, which thereon he might claim as his peculiar inheritance.

Thirdly, That this name, either absolutely or in its peculiar manner of appropriation unto him, is more excellent than any that was ever given unto angels, as a sign of their dignity, authority, and excellency. And these things, for the clearing of the apostles argument, must particularly be insisted on.

First, The words produced do peculiarly belong unto him to whom they are applied; that is, it is the Messiah who is prophesied of in the second psalm, from whence they are taken. This with all Christians is put beyond dispute, by the application of it in several places unto him; as Act 4:25-27; Act 13:33; Heb 5:5. It is certain, also, that the Jews always esteemed this psalm to relate unto the Messiah; they do so to this day. Hence the Targum on the psalm expressly applies it unto him, thus rendering these words: O beloved! as a son to his father, thou art pure to me as in the day wherein I created thee. So are the words perverted by the Targumist, not knowing what sense to ascribe unto them; which is frequent with him. But it is manifest that the constant opinion of the ancient Jews was that this psalm principally intended the Messiah, nor did any of them of old dissent. Some of their later masters are otherwise minded, but therein discover their obstinacy and iniquity. Thus Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, in his comment on this psalm, in the Venetian edition of the great Masoretical Bibles, affirms that whatever is sung in this psalm our masters interpreted of Messiah the king; but, saith he, according unto the sound of the words, and for the confutation of the heretics (that is, Christians), it is convenient that we expound it of David. So wickedly corrupt and partial are they now in their interpretations of the Scripture. But these words are left out in the Basle edition of the same notes and comments; by the fraud, it may be, of the Jews employed in that work, so to hide the dishonesty of one of their great masters. But the confession of the judgment of their fathers or predecessors in this matter is therein also extant. And Aben Ezra, though he would apply it unto David, yet speaks doubtfully whether it may not better be ascribed unto the Messiah.

But this was not enough for the apostle, that those with whom he dealt acknowledged these words to be spoken concerning the Messiah, unless they were so really, that so his argument might proceed ex veris as well as ex concessis, from what was true as upon what was granted. This, then, we must next inquire into.

The whole psalm, say some, seems principally, if not only, to intend David. He having taken the hill and tower of Zion, and settled it for the seat of his kingdom, the nations round about tumultuated against him; and some of them, as the Philistines, presently engaged in war against him for his ruin, 2Sa 5:17. To declare how vain all their attempts should be, and the certainty of Gods purpose in raising him to the kingdom of Israel, and for his preservation therein against all his adversaries, with the indignation of God against them, the Holy Ghost gave out this psalm for the comfort and establishment of the church in the persuasion of so great a mercy. And this is borrowed of Rashi.

But suppose the psalm to have a further respect than unto David and his temporal kingdom, and that it doth point at the Messiah under the type of David, yet then also whatever is spoken in it must firstly and properly be understood of David. So that if the words insisted on by the apostle do prove that the Lord Christ was made more excellent than the angels, they prove the same concerning David also, concerning whom they were spoken in the first place.

Ans. 1. There is no cogent reason why we should acknowledge David and his kingdom to be at all intended in this psalm. The apostles, we see, apply it unto the Lord Christ without any mention of David, and that four several times, twice in the Acts, and twice in this epistle. The Jews acknowledge that it belongs unto the Messiah. Besides, there are sundry things spoken in the psalm that could never truly and properly be applied unto David. Such are the promises, 2Sa 5:8-9, and the invitation of all men to put their trust and confidence in him, 2Sa 5:12. And we have a rule given us by the Holy Ghost, That where any thing seems to be spoken of any one to whom it doth not properly belong, there the person is not at all to be understood, but the Lord Christ himself immediately. This rule Peter gives us in his interpretation of the 16th psalm, and his application of it unto the Lord Jesus, Act 2:29-31. So that there is no necessity to grant that there is any reference in these words to any type at all. But,

2. We grant that David was a type of Christ, and that as he was king of the people of God. Hence he is not only often signally called The son of David, but David also, Jer 30:9; Eze 37:24-25; Hos 3:5. And the throne and kingdom promised to David for ever and ever, that it should be as the sun, and established for ever as the moon, Psa 89:36-37, that is, whilst the world endures, had no accomplishment but in the throne and kingdom of his Son, Jesus Christ. Thus also many other things are said of him and his kingdom, which in propriety of speech can no way be applied unto him but as he was a type of Christ, and represented him to the church. We may then grant, as that about which we will not contend, that in this psalm consideration was had of David and his kingdom, but not absolutely, but only as a type of Christ. And hence two things will follow:

(1.) That some things may be spoken in the psalm which no way respect the type at all. For when not the type, but the person or thing signified, is principally aimed at, it is not necessary that every thing spoken thereof should be applicable properly unto the type itself, it being sufficient that there was in the type somewhat that bare a general resemblance unto him or that which was principally intended. So, on the contrary, where the type is principally intended, and an application made to the thing signified only by way of general allusion, there it is not required that all the particulars assigned unto the type should belong unto or be accommodated unto the thing typed out, as we shall see in the next testimony cited by the apostle. Hence, though in general David and his deliverance from trouble, with the establishment of his throne, might be respected in this psalm, as an obscure representation of the kingdom of Christ, yet sundry particulars in it, and among them this mentioned by our apostle, seem to have no respect unto him, but directly and immediately to intend the Messiah.

(2.) If it yet be supposed that what is here spoken, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, is also to be applied unto David, yet it is not ascribed unto him personally and absolutely, but merely considered as a type of Christ. What, then, is principally and directly intended in the words is to be sought for in Christ alone, it being sufficient to preserve the nature of the type that there was in David any resemblance or representation of it. Thus, whether David be admitted as a type of Christ in this psalm or no, the purpose of the apostle stands firm, that the words were principally and properly spoken of the Messiah, and unto him. And this is the first thing required in the application of the testimony insisted on.

Secondly, It is required that in the testimony produced a signal name be given unto the Messiah, and appropriated unto him, so as that he may inherit it for ever as his own, neither men nor angels having the same interest with him in it. It is not being called by this or that name in common with others that is intended, but such a peculiar assignation of a name unto him as whereby he might for ever be distinguished from all others. Thus many may be beloved of the Lord, and be so termed, but yet Solomon only was peculiarly called , Jedidiah; and by that name was distinguished from others. In this way it is that the Messiah hath his name assigned unto him. God decreed from eternity that he should be called by that name; he spake unto him and called him by that name: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. He is not called the Son of God upon such a common account as angels and men, the one by creation, the other by adoption; but God peculiarly and in a way of eminency gives this name unto him.

Thirdly, This name must be such as either absolutely, or by reason of its peculiar manner of appropriation unto the Messiah, proves his pre- eminence above the angels. Now, the name designed is The Son of God: Thou art my Son; not absolutely, but with that exegetical adjunct of his generation, This day have I begotten thee. Chrysostom, Hom. 22, on Genesis 6, positively denies that the angels in Scripture are anywhere called the sons of God. Hence some conjecture that the translation of the LXX. is changed since that time, seeing it is evident that they are so called in the Greek Bibles now extant.

However, in the original they are called the sons of God, Job 1:6; Job 2:1, Psa 82:6. Believers are also called the sons of God, Rom 8:16; Gal 4:6; 1Jn 3:1; and magistrates gods, Psa 82:1; Psa 82:6; Joh 10:34. It doth not therefore appear how the mere assigning of this name to the Messiah doth prove his pre-eminence above the angels, who are also called by it.

Ans. Angels may be called the sons of God upon a general account, and by virtue of their participation in some common privilege; as they are by reason of their creation, like Adam, Luke 3 ult., and constant obedience, Job 1. But it was never said unto any angel personally, upon his own account, Thou art the son of God. God never said so unto any of them, especially with the reason of the appellation annexed, This day have I begotten thee. It is not, then, the general name of a son, or the sons of God, that the apostle instanceth in; but the peculiar assignation of this name unto the Lord Jesus on his own particular account, with the reason of it annexed, This day have I begotten thee, which is insisted on. So that here is an especial appropriation of this glorious name unto the Messiah.

Again, The appropriation of this name unto him in the manner expressed proves his dignity and pre-eminence above all the angels. For it is evident that God intended thereby to declare his singular honor and glory, giving him a name to denote it, that was never by him assigned unto any mere creature, as his peculiar inheritance; in particular, not unto any of the angels. Not one of them can lay any claim unto it as his peculiar heritage from the Lord.

And this is the whole that was incumbent on the apostle to prove by the testimony produced. He manifests him sufficiently to be more excellent than the angels, from the excellency of the name which he inherits, according to his proposition before laid down. There is, indeed, included in this reasoning of the apostle an intimation of a peculiar filiation and sonship of Christ. Had he not been so the Son of God as never any angel or other creature was, he never had been called so in such a way as they are never so called. But this the apostle at present doth not expressly insist upon; only, he intimates it as the foundation of his discourse.

To conclude, then, our considerations of this testimony, we shall briefly inquire after the sense of the words themselves, absolutely considered; although, as I have showed, that doth not belong directly unto the present argument of the apostle.

Expositors are much divided about the precise intendment of these words, both as they are used in the psalm, and variously applied by the apostles. But yet generally the expositions given of them are pious, and consistent with each other. I shall not insist long upon them, because, as I said, their especial sense belongeth not unto the design and argument of the apostle.

That Christ is the natural and eternal Son of God is agreed at this day by all Christians, save the Socinians. And he is called so because he is so. The formal reason why he is so called is one and the same, namely, his eternal Sonship; but occasions of actual ascribing that name unto him there are many. And hence ariseth the difficulty that is found in the words. Some think these words, This day have I begotten thee, do contain the formal reason of Christs being properly called the Son of God, and so denote his eternal generation. Others think they express only some outward act of God towards the Lord Christ, on the occasion whereof he was declared to be the Son of God, and so called. The former way went Austin, with sundry of the ancients. The , the hodie, or this day, here, was the same with them as the nunc stans, as they call it, of eternity; and the , I have begotten thee, denotes, as they say, the proper natural generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the person of the Father unto him. And this doctrine is true, but whether here intended or no is by some greatly questioned.

Others, therefore, take the words to express only an occasion of giving this name at a certain season to the Lord Christ, when he was revealed or declared to be the Son of God. And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luk 1:35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Mat 3:17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom 1:4, and Act 13:33; some to the day of his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent, and reconcilable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end, that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Act 13:33.

And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David, as a type of Christ, seeing he was said, as it were, to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. Neither, indeed, doth the apostle treat; in this place of the eternal generation of the Son, but of his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels.

The word , also, constantly in the Scripture denotes some signal time, one day or more. And that expression, This day have I begotten thee, following immediately upon that other typical one, I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion, seems to be of the same importance, and in like manner to be interpreted. Thus far, then, I choose to embrace the latter interpretation of the words, namely, that the eternal generation of Christ, on which his filiation or sonship, both name and thing, doth depend, is to be taken only declaratively; and that declaration to be made in his resurrection, and exaltation over all that ensued thereon. But every one is left unto the liberty of his own judgment herein.

And this is the first testimony whereby the apostle confirms his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the name that he inherits as his peculiar right and possession.

For the further confirmation of the same truth, he adds another testimony of the same importance, in the words ensuing :

Heb 1:5. , ;

Vulg.: Et rursum, ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium; I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son. So also the Syriac, and , in patrem, and in filium; not pro patre, and pro filio,as some render the words. Erasmus worse than they: Ego ero ei loco patris, et ille erit mihi loco filii; Instead of a father, and instead of a son, or, in the place; which agrees not with the letter, and corrupts the sense. Beza: Ego ero ei pater, et ipse erit mihi filius; who is followed by ours, And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.

, and again. That, is, in another place, or again, it is said to the Son what is nowhere spoken unto the angels. , . The prefixed doth not denote a substitution or comparison, but the truth of the thing itself. So it is said of Rebekah, , she was unto him, not for, or instead of, or in the place of, but his wife, Gen 24:67. And in the words of the covenant, Jer 31:33, I will be to them , and they shall be to me not, I will be unto them instead of God, and they shall be unto me instead of a people; but, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the same is the signification of these words, I will be his father, and he shall be my son. [6]

[6] The quotation is from 2Sa 7:14. The is Hebraistic, equivalent to . Efforts have been made to explain this passage exclusively either of Solomon or of Christ; but in vain. The context will not allow such a limitation. The seed predicted is a royal progeny, not merely an individual son, but a succession of kings; and as theMessiah is the most distinguished and glorious, whatever of dignity and of honor is asserted or implied in the context is properly attributable to him. Turner. ED.

Heb 1:5. And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?

This is the second testimony produced by the apostle to prove the pre- eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the excellency of the name given unto him. One word, one witness, the testimony being that of God, and not of man, had been sufficient to have evinced the truth of his assertion; but the apostle adds a second here, partly to manifest the importance of the matter he treated of, and partly to stir them up unto a diligent search of the Scripture, where the same truths, especially those that are of most concernment unto us, are scattered up and down in sundry places, as the Holy Ghost had occasion to make mention of them. This is that mine of precious gold which we are continually to dig for and search after, if we intend to grow and to be rich in the knowledge of God in Christ, Pro 2:3-4. Expositors do generally perplex themselves and their readers about the application of these words unto the Lord Christ.

Cajetan, for this cause, that this testimony is not rightly produced nor applied as it ought, rejects the whole epistle as not written by the apostle, nor of canonical authority. Such instances do even wise and learned men give of their folly and self-fullness every day. The conclusion that he makes must needs be built on these two suppositions:

First, That whatever any man might or could apprehend concerning the right application of this testimony, he himself might and could so do; for otherwise he might have acknowledged his own insufficiency, and have left the solution of the difficulty unto them to whom God should be pleased to reveal it.

Secondly, That when men of any generation cannot understand the force and efficacy of the reasonings of the penmen of the Holy Ghost, nor discern the suitableness of the testimonies they make use of unto the things they produce them in the confirmation of, they may lawfully reject any portion of Scripture thereon. The folly and iniquity of which principles or suppositions are manifest.

The application of testimonies out of the Old Testament in the New depends, as to their authority, on the veracity of him that maketh use of them; and as to their cogency in argument, on the acknowledgment of them on whom they are pressed. Where we find these concurring, as in this place, there remains nothing for us but to endeavor a right understanding of what is in itself infallibly true, and unquestionably cogent unto the ends for which it is used.

Indeed, the main difficulty which in this place expositors generally trouble themselves withal ariseth purely from their own mistake. They cannot understand how these words should prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, which they suppose they are produced to confirm, seeing it is from thence that he is exalted above the angels. But the truth is, the words are not designed by the apostle unto any such end. His aim is only to prove that the Lord Christ hath a name assigned unto him more excellent, either in itself or in the manner of its attribution, than any that is given unto the angels, which is the medium of this first argument to prove him, not as the eternal Son of God, nor in respect of his human nature, but as the revealer of the will of God in the gospel, to be preferred above all the angels in heaven, and consequently, in particular, above those whose ministry was used in the giving of the law.

Two things, then, are necessary to render this testimony effectual to the purpose for which it is cited by the apostle; first, That it was originally intended of him to whom he doth apply it; secondly, That there is a name in it assigned unto him more excellent than any ascribed unto the angels.

For the first of these, we must not waive the difficulties that interpreters have either found out in it, or cast upon it. The words are taken from 2Sa 7:14, and are part of the answer returned from God unto David by Nathan, upon his resolution to build him a house. The whole oracle is as followeth: 2Sa 7:11-16, The LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. (Or as 1Ch 17:11, And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired, that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.) He shall build an house for my name; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (1Ch 17:12, He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.) I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. (1Ch 17:13, I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee.) And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. (1Ch 17:14, But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.)

This is the whole divine oracle from whence the apostle takes the testimony under consideration; and the difficulty wherewith it is attended ariseth from hence, that it is not easy to apprehend how any thing at all in these words should be appropriated unto the Lord Christ, seeing Solomon seems in the whole to be directly and only intended. And concerning this difficulty there are three opinions among interpreters:

1. Some cutting that knot, which they suppose could not otherwise be loosed, affirm that Solomon is not at all intended in these words, but that they are a direct and immediate prophecy of Christ, who was to be the son of David, and to build the spiritual house or temple of God. And for the confirmation of this assertion they produce sundry reasons from the oracle itself; as,

(1.) It is said that God would raise up to David a seed, or son, intimating that he was not as yet born, being foretold to be raised up; whereas Solomon was born at the time of this prophecy.

(2.) It is also affirmed that this son or seed should reign and sit upon the throne of David after his decease, and being gathered unto his fathers; whereas Solomon was made king and sat upon the throne whilst David was yet alive, and not entered into rest with his fathers.

(3.) The throne of this son is to be established for ever, or as the same promise is expressed, Psalms 89, whilst the sun and moon continue; the throne of Solomon and his posterity failed within a few generations.

(4.) The title there given unto him who is directly prophesied of shows him, as our apostle intimates, to be preferred above all the angels; and none will say that Solomon was so, who, as he was inferior to them in nature and condition, so by sin he greatly provoked the Lord against himself and his posterity.

But yet all these observations, though they want not some appearance and probability of reason, come short of proving evidently what they are produced for, as we may briefly manifest; for,

(1.) It doth not appear that Solomon was born at the time of the giving forth of this oracle, if we must suppose that God intimated in it unto David that none of the sons which he then had should succeed him in his kingdom; yea, it is manifest from the story that he was not. Besides, raising up doth not denote the birth or nativity of the person intended, but his designation or exaltation to his throne and office, as is the usual meaning of that expression in the Scripture; so that Solomon might be intended, though now born, yea, and grown up, if not yet by the providence of God marked and taken out from amongst his brethren to be king, as afterwards he was.

(2.) Although a few days before the death of David, to prevent sedition and division about titles and pretensions to the kingdom, Solomon by his appointment was proclaimed king, or heir to the crown, yet he was not actually vested with the whole power of the kingdom until after his natural decease. Moreover, also, David being then very weak and feeble, and rendered unable for public administration, the short remainder of his days after the inauguration of Solomon needed no observation in the prophecy.

The other two remaining reasons must be afterwards spoken unto. And for the present removal of this exposition, I shall only observe, that to affirm Solomon not at all to be intended in this oracle, nor the house or temple which afterwards he built, is to make the whole answer of God by the prophet unto David to be equivocal. For David inquired of Nathan about building a house or material temple unto God. Nathan returns him answer from God that he shall not do so, but that his son should perform that work. This answer David understands of his immediate son and of a material house, and thereupon makes material provision for it and preparation in great abundance, upon the encouragement he received in this answer of God. Now, if neither of these were at all intended in it, neither his son nor the material temple, it is evident that he was led into a great mistake, by the ambiguity and equivocation of the word; but we find by the event that he was not, God approving and accepting of his obedience in what he did. It remains, then, that Solomon firstly and immediately is intended in these words.

2. Some, on the other hand, affirm the whole prophecy so to belong unto and so to be fulfilled in Solomon, and in him alone, that there is no direct respect therein unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And the reason for their assertion they take from the words which immediately follow those insisted on by the apostle, namely, If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men; which cannot be applied unto Him who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth. They say, therefore, that the apostle applies these words unto Christ only by way of an allegory. Thus he deals with the law of not muzzling the ox which treadeth out the corn, applying it to the provision of carnal things to be made for the dispensers of the gospel; as he also in another place representeth the two testaments by the story of Sarah and Hagar.

That which principally is to be insisted on for the removal of this difficulty, and which will utterly take it out of our way, will fall in with our confirmation of the third interpretation, to be proposed. For the present, I shall only answer, that as the words cited by the apostle do principally concern the person of Christ himself, yet being spoken and given out in form of a covenant, they have respect also unto him as he is the head of the covenant which God makes with all the elect in him. And thus whole mystical Christ, head and members, are referred unto in the prophecy; and therefore David, in his repetition and pleading of this oracle, Psa 89:30, changeth those words, If he commit iniquity, into If his children forsake my law. Notwithstanding, then, a supposition of transgression in him concerning whom these words are spoken, the Lord Christ may be intended in them; such failings and transgressions as disannul not the covenant often falling out on their part for whom he undertaketh therein. But I offer this only in majorem cautelam, to secure the testimony insisted on unto our apostles intention; the difficulty itself will be clearly afterwards assoiled.

3. We say, therefore, with others, that both Solomon and the Lord Christ are intended in this whole oracle; Solomon literally, and nextly as the type; the Lord Christ principally and mystically, as he who was typed, figured, and represented by him. And our sense herein shall be further explained and confirmed in the ensuing considerations:

(1.) That there never was any one type of Christ and his offices that entirely represented him and all that he was to do: for as it was impossible that any one thing or person should do so, because of the perfection of his person and the excellency of his office, which no one thing that might be appointed to prefigure him as a type, because of its limitedness and imperfection, could fully represent; so had any such been found out, that multiplication of types which God in his infinite wisdom was pleased to make use of, for the revelation of him intended in them, had been altogether useless and needless. Wherefore, according as God saw good, and as he had made them meet and fit, so he designed one thing or person to figure out one thing in him, another for another end and purpose.

(2.) That no type of Christ was in all things that he was or did a type of him, but only in that particular wherein he was designed of God so to be, and wherein he hath revealed him so to have been. David was a type of Christ, but not in all things that he was and did. In his conquests of the enemies of the church, in his throne and kingdom, he was so; but in his private actions, whether as a man, or as a king or captain, he was not so. The like must be said of Isaac, Melchizedek, Solomon, and all other personal types under the old testament, and much more of other things.

(3.) That not all things spoken of him that was a type, even therein wherein he was a type, are spoken of him as a type, or have any respect unto the thing signified, but some of them may belong unto him in his personal capacity only. And the reason is, because he who was a type of Gods institution might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even then and in those things when and wherein he was a type. Hence somewhat may be spoken of him, as to his moral performance of his duty, that may no way concern the antitype, or Christ prefigured by him. And this wholly removes the difficulty mentioned in the second interpretation of the words, excluding the Lord Christ from being directly in the oracle, upon that expression, If he commit iniquity; for these words relating to the moral duty of Solomon in that wherein he was a type of Christ, namely, the rule and administration of his kingdom, may not at all belong to Christ, who was prefigured by Gods institution of things, and not in any moral deportment in the observance of them.

(4.) That what is spoken of any type, as it was a type, and in respect of its institution to be such, doth not really and properly belong unto him or that which was the type, but unto him who was represented thereby. For the type itself, it was enough that there was some resemblance in it of that which was principally intended, the things belonging unto the antitype being affirmed of it analogically, on the account of the relation between them by Gods institution. Hence that which follows on such enunciations doth not at all respect or belong to the type, but only to the antitype. Thus, at the sacrifice of expiation, the scape-goat is said to bear and carry away all the sins of the people into a land not inhabited, not really, and in the substance of the matter, but only in an instituted representation; for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Much less may the things that ensue upon the Lord Christs real bearing and taking away of our sins be ascribed to the devoted beast. So is it in this case. The words applied by the apostle to prove the Son to have a more excellent name than the angels, and consequently to be preferred above them, do not at all prove that Solomon, of whom they were spoken merely as he was a type, should be esteemed to be preferred above all angels, seeing he did only represent Him who was so, and had these words spoken unto him, not absolutely, but with respect unto that representation. And this removes the fourth objection made in the behalf of the first interpretation, excluding Solomon from being at all intended in the prophecy; for what was spoken of him as a type required not a full accomplishment in his own person, but only that he should represent him who was principally intended.

(5.) That there is a twofold perpetuity mentioned in the Scripture, the one limited and relative, the other absolute; and both these are applied unto the kingdom of David. First, there was a perpetuity promised unto him and his posterity in the kingdom, as of the priesthood to Aaron, that is, a limited perpetuity, namely, during the continuance of the typical state and condition of that people; whilst they continued, the rule by right belonged unto the house of David. There was also an absolute perpetuity promised to the kingdom of David, to be made good only in the kingdom and rule of the Messiah. And both these kinds of perpetuity are expressed in the same words, giving their sense according as they are applied. If applied to the successors of David, as his kingdom was a type of that of Christ, they denote the limited perpetuity before mentioned, as that which respected an adjunct of the typical state of that people, that was to be regulated by it and commensurate unto it; but as they are referred to the kingdom of Christ represented in the other, so an absolute perpetuity is expressed in them. And this takes away the third reason for excluding Solomon from being intended in these words, the perpetuity promised being unto him limited and bounded.

These considerations being premised, I say, the words insisted on by the apostle, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son, belonged first and nextly unto Solomon, denoting that fatherly love, care, and protection that God would afford unto him in his kingdom, so far forth as Christ was represented by him therein; which requires not that they must absolutely and in all just consequences from them belong unto the person of Solomon. Principally, therefore, they intend Christ himself, expressing that eternal, unchangeable love which the Father bore unto him, grounded on the relation of father and son.

The Jews, I confess, of all others, do see least of typicalness in Solomon. But the reason of it is, because that his sin was the occasion of ruining their carnal, earthly glory and wealth; which things alone they lust after. But the thing was doubtless confessed by the church of old, with whom Paul had to do; and therefore we see that the writer of the Books of the Chronicles, written after the return of the people from their captivity, when Solomons line was failed, and Zerubbabel of the house of Nathan was governor amongst them, yet records again this promise, as that which looked forward, and was yet to receive its full accomplishment in the Lord Christ. And some of the rabbins themselves tell us that Solomon, because of his sin, had only the name of peace, God stirring up adversaries against him; the thing itself is to be looked for under Messiah Ben David.

The allegation of these words by the apostle being thus fully and at large vindicated, I shall now briefly inquire into the sense and meaning of the words themselves.

It was before observed, that they are not produced by the apostle to prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, nor do they signify it; nor were they urged by him to confirm directly and immediately that he is more excellent than the angels, of whom there is nothing spoken in them, nor in the place from whence they are taken. But the apostle insists on this testimony merely in confirmation of his former argument for the pre-eminence of the Son above angels taken from that more excellent name which he obtained by inheritance; which being the name of the Son of God, he hereby proves that indeed he was so called by God himself.

Thus, then, do these words confirm the intention of the apostle; for to which of the angels said God at any time, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son? The words contain a great and signal privilege; they are spoken unto and concerning the Messiah; and neither they nor any thing equivalent unto them were ever spoken of any angel; especially the name of the Son of God, so emphatically, and in way of distinction from all others, was never assigned unto any of them. And this, as hath been already showed, proves an eminency and pre-eminence in him above all that the angels attain unto. All this, I say, follows from the peculiar, signal appropriation of the name of the Son of God unto him, and his especial relation unto God therein expressed.

Briefly, we may adjoin the intention of the words as in themselves considered, and so complete the exposition of them. Now, God promiseth in them to be unto the Lord Christ, as exalted into his throne, a father, in love, care, and power, to protect and carry him on in his rule unto the end of the world. And therefore upon his ascension he says that he went unto his God and Father, Joh 20:17. And he rules in the name and majesty of God, Mic 5:4. This is the importance of the words. They intend not the eternal and natural relation that is between the Father and Son, which neither is nor can be the subject of any promise, but the paternal care of God over Christ in his kingdom, and the dearness of Christ himself unto him.

If it be asked on what account God would thus be a father unto Jesus Christ in this peculiar manner, it must be answered that the radical, fundamental cause of it lay in the relation that was between them from his eternal generation; but he manifested himself to be his father, and engaged to deal with him in the love and care of a father, as he had accomplished his work of mediation on the earth and was exalted unto his throne and rule in heaven.

And this is the first argument of the apostle, whereby he proves that the Son, as the revealer of the mind and will of God in the gospel, is made more excellent than the angels; whose glory was a refuge to the Jews in their adherence to legal rites and administrations, even because they were given unto them by the disposition of angels.

According unto our proposed method, we must in our progress draw hence also some instructions for our own use and edification; as,

I. Every thing in the Scripture is instructive. The apostles arguing in this place is not so much from the thing spoken, as from the manner wherein it is spoken. Even that also is highly mysterious. So are all the concernments of it. Nothing in it is needless, nothing useless. Men sometimes perplex themselves to find out the suitableness of some testimonies produced out of the Old Testament unto the confirmation of things and doctrines in the New by the penmen of the Holy Ghost, when all the difficulty ariseth from a fond conceit that they can apprehend the length and breadth of the wisdom that is laid up in any one text of Scripture, when the Holy Ghost may have a principal aim at those things which they are not able to dive into. Every letter and tittle of it is teaching, and every thing that relates unto it is instructive in the mind of God. And it must be so, because,

1. It proceeds from infinite wisdom, which hath put an impress of itself upon it, and filled all its capacity with its blessed effects. In the whole frame, structure, and order of it, in the sense, words, coherence, expression, it is filled with wisdom; which makes the commandment exceeding broad and large, so that there is no absolute comprehension of it in this life. We cannot perfectly trace the footsteps of infinite wisdom, nor find out all the effects and characters of it that it hath left upon the Word. The whole Scripture is full of wisdom, as the sea is of water, which fills and covers all the parts of it. And,

2. Because it was to be very comprehensive. It was to contain, directly or by consequence, one way or other, the whole revelation of God unto us, and all our duty unto him; both which are marvellous, great, large, and various. Now this could not have been done in so narrow a room, but that every part of it, and all the concernments of it, with its whole order, were to be filled with mysteries and expressions or intimations of the mind and will of God. It could not hence be that any thing superfluous should be put into it, or any thing be in it that should not relate to teaching and instruction.

3. It is that which God hath given unto his servants for their continual exercise day and night in this world; and in their inquiry into it he requires of them their utmost diligence and endeavors. This being assigned for their duty, it was convenient unto divine wisdom and goodness to find them blessed and useful work in the whole Scripture to exercise themselves about, that everywhere they might meet with that which might satisfy their inquiry and answer their industry. There shall never be any time or strength lost or misspent that is laid out according to the mind of God in and about his Word. The matter, the words, the order, the contexture of them, the scope, design, and aim of the Holy Ghost in them, all and every one of them, may well take up the utmost of our diligence, all are divine. Nothing is empty, unfurnished, or unprepared for our spiritual use, advantage, and benefit. Let us then learn hence,

(1.) To admire, and, as one said of old, to adore the fullness of the Scripture, or of the wisdom of God in it. It is all full of divine wisdom, and calls for our reverence in the consideration of it. And indeed a constant awe of the majesty, authority, and holiness of God in his Word, is the only teachable frame. Proud and careless spirits see nothing of heaven or Divinity in the Word; but the humble are made wise in it.

(2.) To stir up and exercise our faith and diligence to the utmost in our study and search of the Scripture. It is an endless storehouse, a bottomless treasure of divine truth; gold is in every sand. All the wise men in the world may, every one for himself, learn somewhat out of every word of it, and yet leave enough still behind them for the instruction of all those that shall come after them. The fountains and springs of wisdom in it are endless, and will never be dry. We may have much truth and power out of a word, sometimes enough, but never all that is in it. There will still be enough remaining to exercise and refresh us anew for ever. So that we may attain a true sense, but we can never attain the full sense of any place; we can never exhaust the whole impress of infinite wisdom that is on the Word. And how should this stir us up to be meditating in it day and night! And many the like inferences may hence be taken. Learn also,

II. That it is lawful to draw consequences from Scripture assertions; and such consequences, rightly deduced, are infallibly true and de fide. Thus from the name given unto Christ, the apostle deduceth by just consequence his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels. Nothing will rightly follow from truth but what is so also, and that of the same nature with the truth from whence it is derived. So that whatever by just consequence is drawn from the Word of God, is itself also the Word of God, and truth infallible. And to deprive the church of this liberty in the interpretation of the Word, is to deprive it of the chiefest benefit intended by it. This is that on which the whole ordinance of preaching is founded; which makes that which is derived out of the Word to have the power, authority, and efficacy of the Word accompanying it. Thus, though it be the proper work and effect of the Word of God to quicken, regenerate, sanctify and purify the elect, and the Word primarily and directly is only that which is written in the Scriptures, yet we find all these effects produced in and by the preaching of the Word, when perhaps not one sentence of the Scripture is verbatim repeated. And the reason hereof is, because whatsoever is directly deduced and delivered according to the mind and appointment of God from the Word is the Word of God, and hath the power, authority, and efficacy of the Word accompanying it.

III. The declaration of Christ to be the Son of God is the care and work of the Father. He said it, he recorded it, he revealed it. This, indeed, is to be made known by the preaching of the gospel; but that it shall be done, the Father hath taken the care upon himself. It is the design of the Father in all things to glorify the Son; that all men may honor him even as they honor the Father. This cannot be done without the declaration of that glory which he had with him before the world was; that is, the glory of his eternal sonship. This he will therefore make known and maintain in the world.

IV. God the Father is perpetually present with the Lord Christ, in love, care, and power, in the administration of his office as he is mediator, head, and king of the church. He hath taken upon himself to stand by him, to own him, to effect every thing that is needful unto the establishment of his throne, the enlargement of his kingdom, and the ruin and destruction of his enemies. And this he will assuredly do to the end of the world,

1. Because he hath promised so to do. Innumerable are the promises on record that are made unto Jesus Christ unto this purpose. God hath engaged to hold him in his hand, and to hide him as a polished shaft in his quiver, to give him a throne, a glorious kingdom, an everlasting rule and government, and the like. Now, what he hath promised in love and grace, he will make good with care and power. See Isa 49:5-9; Isa 50:7-9.

2. All these promises have respect unto the obedience of the Lord Christ in the work of mediation; which, being performed by him rightly and to the utmost, gives him a peculiar right unto them, and makes that just and righteous in the performance which was mere sovereign grace in the promise. The condition being absolutely performed on the part of Christ, the promise shall be certainly accomplished on the part of the Father. By this is the covenant of the Redeemer completed, ratified, and established.

The condition of it on his part being performed unto the uttermost, there shall be no failure in the promises, Isa 53:10-12.

3. The Lord Christ makes it his request that he may enjoy the presence and power of his Father with him in his work and the administration of his mediation; and the Father always hears him. Part of his covenant with his Father was like that of Barak (who was a type of him) with Deborah the prophetess, who spake in the name of the Lord, Jdg 4:8 : If thou wilt go with me, I will go, against all the enemies of the church, Isa 50:8-9. And accordingly, upon his engagement to go with him, he requests his presence; and in the assurance of it professeth that he is not alone, but that his Father is with him, Joh 8:16. To this purpose see his requests, John 17.

4. The nature of his work and kingdom requires it. God hath appointed him to reign in the midst of his enemies, and mighty opposition is made on all hands to his whole design, and a very particular act of it. The whole work of Satan, sin, and the world, is both to obstruct in general the progress of his kingdom, and to ruin and destroy every particular subject of it; and this is carried on continually with unspeakable violence and unsearchable stratagems. This makes the presence of the authority and power of the Father necessary to him in his work. This he asserts as a great ground of consolation to his disciples, Joh 10:28-29. There will be a great plucking, a great contending to take believers out of the hand of Christ, one way or other, to make them come short of eternal life; and though his own power be such as is able to preserve them, yet he lets them know also, for their greater assurance and consolation, that his Father, who is over all, is greater, more powerful than all, greater than he himself, in the work of mediation, Joh 14:28, is also engaged with him in their defense and preservation. So also is he as to the destruction of his adversaries, all opposing power whatever, Psa 110:5-6. The Lord stands by him, on his right hand, to smite and tread down his enemies,

all that arise against his design, interest, and kingdom. Be they never so many, never so great, he will ruin them, and make them his footstool every one. See Mic 5:4.

Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

Thou: Heb 5:5, Psa 2:7, Act 13:33

I will: 2Sa 7:14, 1Ch 17:13, 1Ch 22:10, 1Ch 28:6, Psa 89:26, Psa 89:27

Reciprocal: Pro 8:24 – I was Joh 1:14 – the only Joh 1:34 – this Rom 8:29 – that he might Col 1:18 – in all Col 3:17 – God Heb 1:2 – spoken Heb 1:6 – And again Heb 1:13 – to Heb 5:8 – he were 1Jo 4:9 – only

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE FATHER AND THE SON

I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son.

Heb 1:5

The question appropriately suggests itself: How was this prophecy fulfilled? How was God a Father to Christ?how was Christ a Son to God? I shall only suggest one or two lines of thought.

I. God had it, in His eternal purpose, to give exceeding glory to His Son.Let us never forget that, in tracing the life of Christ from the cradle to the grave. It is the clue to all. There was a far design to make Christ infinitely happy; happier than He could have been had He never passed His sad life upon this earth.

II. But see how God dealt with Him.He humbled him in the very dust. It pleased the Lord to bruise Him. And this, this was the way in which God fulfilled His great undertaking to His own Son: I will be to Him a Father. But the Cross led to the Crown.

III. And now the other side. How was Christ a Son?For ever it was in His heart to do His Fathers will. How willing! Lo, I come! He set His face as a flint, and was not ashamed. Never, never did He turn back! From a little child, He must be about His Fathers business. He, who might, at any moment, have called for more than twelve legions of angels, never raised one look to avert one duty or to escape one pain! With that Fatherwhile He was smiting HimHe always was in the closest communion. Into that Fathers ear He poured all His sorrows; and never, for an instant, mistrusted Him.

IV. There is yet one more deep meaning lying in these words.The whole mystery of our salvation is wrapped up in it. When Christ was born, this day, He was born not a Son only, but a Representative Son. God sees all believers in that Holy Child Jesus. There is not one birth only. As Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He is born in humble hearts. And then what God is to Christ, He is to them. Therefore, to every one of us, by virtue of our union to Christ, God says it even as He says it to Jesus, I will be to you a Father.

Rev. James Vaughan.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

Heb 1:5. The more excellent name mentioned in the preceding verse is that of Son, as we may observe by the argument of this verse. God never said Thou art my San to a single one of the angels, as he did to Jesus. This day have I begotten thee occurred when Mary conceived of God by the services of the Holy Spirit (Luk 1:27-38). The angels were not brought into being by any personal relations between God and another being as was Jesus, but was created directly by the power of God. The rest of this verse restates the same relationship already mentioned.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 1:5. My Son. Again by position the emphasis is on this name, and on the relation it describes: My Son art thou, today have I begotten thee. These words have been referred to the incarnation, when the holy thing born of the Virgin was called Son of God (Luk 1:35); or to His resurrection and exaltation, when He is marked out as Son of God in regal dignity, in power as Messianic King (Rom 1:4). This last view is favoured by Act 13:32-33, where this identical promise is said to be fulfilled unto us when God raised up Jesus. Others refer the words to the essential nature of our Lord, as Son of the Father by eternal generation, as it is called. God sent the Son, it is said, and so He had dignity before His incarnation and before His resurrection. The fact is, the word Son describes His relation to the Father, both personal and official; and I have begotten thee applies to every state to which the word Son appliesHis original nature, His incarnation, and His kingship. In the following verse He is called the first-begottena title not given to Him in connection with His incarnation, but describing His dignity and rights. He is called first-begotten, never first-created, for all things belong to Him, as all things were made by Him. This expression, the first-begotten, is peculiar in this figurative sense to Pauls writings (Rom 8:29; Col 1:15; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5; comp. Heb 12:23).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

God’s Statements Show Christ Is Superior

Christ’s superiority to the angels can be seen in statements God has made about Him. For instance, Psa 2:7 is quoted by the writer of Hebrews in 1:5 and by Paul in Act 13:33 . In Act 13:1-52 , Paul points to the resurrection as the time Jesus was begotten of the Father. Joh 3:16 and Rom 8:3 tell us God sent His only begotten Son to rid us of sin. Rom 1:4 says, “and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” As another instance, 2Sa 7:14 is quoted. The writer says this is another verse recording God’s words to Jesus, His true Son. All of these facts combined make Jesus greater than the angels who were involved in the transmission of the law of Moses ( Gal 3:19 ; Act 7:53 ).

In Heb 1:6 , we find a quotation from Deu 32:43 , which is taken from the LXX (or Septuagint translation). The Psalmist said something very similar in 97:7. Since the angels are commanded by God to worship Christ, He is obviously superior. Jesus was the “firstborn” in several senses. There can certainly be no doubt He was the firstborn from the dead. “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence” ( Col 1:18 ; Rev 1:5 ; Rom 8:29 ).

As Thompson writes, “In the Old Testament, the firstborn son was the recipient of special favors and privileges (cf. Gen 48:18 ; Gen 43:33 ). Thus, the term came to apply to one who is specially favored (cf. Heb 12:23 .) In Psa 89:27 the king is referred to as God’s firstborn . Thus when Jesus is called the firstborn, the author is referring to his pre-eminence as one who has a unique and favored relationship to God.” Notice Psa 89:20 says God anointed David, yet he was the youngest of Jesse’s sons ( 1Sa 16:11 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

5. This verse describes what theologians call the eternal generation of the Son.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Heb 1:5 to Heb 2:18. The Son is Superior to the Angels.For this theme the way has been prepared in the closing words of Heb 1:14. The section may possibly be directed against angel-worship, which in some churches, as we know from Colossians, was encroaching on the faith in Christ. More probably the writers aim is simply to enforce the supremacy of Christ as compared with even the highest of created beings. In Heb 1:5-14 he collects a number of Scripture texts which illustrate the relative worth of Christ and the angels. These texts are interpreted by the allegorical methodi.e. they are taken not in their historical meaning, but as symbolic utterances which have to be spiritually discerned. Two quotations (Heb 1:5), the former taken from Psa 2:7, the latter from 2Sa 7:14, which declare Christ to be the Son are followed by another, apparently taken from the LXX version of the Song of Moses (cf. Psa 97:7), in which the angels are commanded to worship Him. This command (Heb 1:6) is referred to some moment in eternity when God first revealed His Son to the assembled hosts of heaven. In the quotations given in Heb 1:7-12, taken from Psa 104:4; Psa 45:6 f., Psa 102:25-27; Psa 110:1, a special aspect of the contrast with the angels is emphasizedviz. that the angels are subject to change, while the Son remains the same for ever. This idea is obtained by supposing Psa 104:4 to mean at will Thou changest the forms of the angels, making them now winds, now flames. Against this text, which tells how the angels assume the shapes of variable elements, are set others which describe the Son as always supreme and steadfast. The final quotation (Heb 1:13) has been used already in Heb 1:3, and is taken from the passage (Psa 110:1-4) which determines the whole thought of the epistle. Christ as the Son is throned at Gods right hand, while the angels, as their name implies, are only servants, inferior in some sense to Gods earthly saints, to whose welfare they minister.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

1:5 {5} For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, {k} this day have I begotten thee? {6} And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

(5) He proves and confirms the dignity of Christ revealed in the flesh, by these six evident testimonies by which it appears that he far surpasses all angels, so much so that he is called both Son, and God in Heb 1:5-8; Heb 1:10; Heb 1:13 .

(k) The Father begat the Son from everlasting, but that everlasting generation was revealed and represented to the world in his time, and therefore he added this word “Today”

(6) He proves and confirms the dignity of Christ revealed in the flesh, by these six evident testimonies by which it appears that he far surpasses all angels, so much so that he is called both Son, and God in Heb 1:5-8; Heb 1:10; Heb 1:13 .

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

B. The Superiority of God’s SON 1:5-14

The writer proceeded to explain the exaltation of Jesus Christ to help his readers appreciate the fact that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy concerning the Son of David. He did this so they would appreciate Him properly and not overemphasize the importance of angels. Angels were very important in Judaism primarily because multitudes of them assisted God in giving the Mosaic Law at Mount Sinai (cf. Deu 33:2; Psa 68:17; Act 7:53; Gal 3:19). They also appeared occasionally to make very important announcements (e.g., Gen 16:9; Gen 31:11; Exo 3:2; et al.).

"The internal structure of the first major segment of the address (Heb 1:5 to Heb 2:18) exhibits the writer’s customary style of alternating between two types of literary genre, exposition and exhortation. The chain of OT passages demonstrating the superiority of the Son to angels (Heb 1:5-13) is expository in character and lays the foundation for the solemn appeal in Heb 2:1-4." [Note: Ibid., p. 22.]

The "hook-word" that connects these two sections of the epistle (Heb 1:1-4 and Heb 1:5-14) is "angels." Lane provided the following helpful comparisons. [Note: Ibid.]

Parallels between Hebrews 1:1-4 and Hebrews 1:5-13

Hebrews 1:1-4	Hebrews 1:5-13
A    Appointment as royal heir (Heb 1:2 b)	A’    Appointment as royal Son and heir (Heb 1:5-9)
B    Mediator of the creation (Heb 1:2 c)	B’    Mediator of the creation (Heb 1:10)
C    Eternal nature and pre-existent glory (Heb 1:3 a-b)	C’    Unchanging, eternal nature (Heb 1:11-12)
D    Exaltation to God’s right hand (Heb 1:3 c)	D’    Exaltation to God’s right hand (Heb 1:13)

"Christology is the central focus in all the theology of Hebrews, and two titles of Christ are central to its Christology: Son of God and High Priest. Around these two focal points all the major ideas in Hebrews concerning Christ’s person and work can be located. Christ as High Priest is actually the more distinctive and important idea in the theology of the book, but Christ as Son of God is foundational." [Note: Buist M. Fanning, "A Theology of Hebrews," in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 370.]

Bibliology (specifically the writer’s uses of the Old Testament), eschatology, and soteriology (specifically progressive sanctification and perseverance) are also major theological emphases in Hebrews. [Note: Trotter, pp. 185-222.]

The writer cited seven Old Testament passages to prove Jesus’ superiority over the angels (Heb 1:4). As mentioned previously, the number seven was especially significant to the Jews as representing the completeness of something (e.g., the work of creation, etc.). Probably the writer used seven facts in Heb 1:2-3 and seven passages in Heb 1:5-13 to impress completeness strongly on his original readers.

"The author has an unusual method of citation; he almost always neglects the human author of his OT quotations (exceptions are Heb 4:7; Heb 9:19-20), though throughout the rest of the NT the human author is often noted. Instead, without actually saying ’God says,’ he normally ascribes the passage he quotes to God, except, of course, where God is addressed, as in Heb 2:6. Twice he attributes words in the OT to Christ (Heb 2:11-12; Heb 10:5 ff.) and twice to the Holy Spirit (Heb 3:7; Heb 10:15). No other NT writer shares this way of quoting the OT. . . . The effect is to emphasize the divine authorship of the whole OT." [Note: Morris, p. 7.]

"Unlike Paul, who shows a preference for the introductory formula kathos gegraptai ["as it is written"], the writer of Hebrews never introduces a quotation from the OT with a form of the verb graphein, ’to write.’ His preference is for the verb legein, ’to say,’ especially in the form of the present participle legon, ’saying.’ The text of the OT is presented dynamically. The writer is persuaded that God continues to speak today in the biblical passages that are cited. . . ." [Note: Lane, p. cxvii. See also his discussion of the writer’s use of the Old Testament, pp. cxii-cxxiv.]

The writer’s contrast of Jesus Christ’s authority and name with that of the angels suggests that his original readers may have regarded the angels too highly. This was true of certain first-century sects within Judaism, one of which was the Essene community that lived at Qumran. The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed that this group had a highly developed angelology and regarded angels with more veneration than they should have. Nevertheless all the Jews regarded angels highly because God had given the Mosaic Law and other special information to them through angelic mediation (cf. Deu 33:2; Act 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2). [Note: See ibid., p. liv.]

What the writer said about angelic mediators applies to those who claim to mediate knowledge concerning God and the after-life to humankind. Such self-proclaimed mediators today include leaders of some cults, some New Age proponents, Shirley MacLaine, and other advocates of reincarnation. Finding one’s spiritual "guide" and "channeling" to the unseen world through that being is popular in some circles. This also applies to people who claim to reveal how human beings can find God and secure His acceptance while denying biblical revelation on these subjects.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The phrase "to which of the angels" opens and closes this section of the text (cf. Heb 1:13). This literary device (an inclusio) marks off a literary unit by using the same word or phrase at the beginning and at the end of a discussion (cf. Heb 2:5-16; Heb 3:1 to Heb 4:14; Heb 5:1-10; Heb 5:11 to Heb 6:12; Heb 7:1-10; Heb 12:14 to Heb 13:20).

David prophetically referred to Jesus Christ as God’s Son in Psa 2:7, the verse the writer quoted first. [Note: See. Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms , 1:95-97.] The Old Testament writers referred to angels collectively as the "sons of God" (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7), but they did not refer to any one of them as the Son of God. "Son of God" is a title that referred to the Davidic kings (2Sa 7:14) and specifically to Jesus Christ, God the Son (Mar 1:11; Luk 1:32). "Today" evidently refers to Jesus Christ’s entrance into heaven. This happened after His resurrection and at His ascension.

The eternal Son of God ". . . entered into the full exercise of all the prerogatives implied by His Sonship when, after His suffering had proved the completeness of His obedience, He was raised to the Father’s right hand." [Note: Bruce, p. 13. Cf. Heb 1:3.]

Another less probable view, I think, is that this day was the day of Jesus’ resurrection. [Note: Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 54-55; Pentecost, p. 48.]

"The writer is clearly more concerned to demonstrate the significance of the begetting in terms of the Son’s status, rather than to tie it down to a specific occasion." [Note: Guthrie, p. 73.]

The second quotation, from 2Sa 7:14 or 1Ch 17:13, like the first, ties in with the Davidic Covenant and advances the previous point. Not only is Jesus the Son of God, He is also the promised son of David (Luk 1:32-33; Luk 1:68-69; Rom 1:3). Even though Jesus Christ was always God’s eternal Son, He became the Son prophesied to rule over David’s house. He received permission to rule the whole earth after His ascension (cf. Psa 2:8).

To summarize, the title "Son" refers to Jesus in three separate respects. He was always the pre-existent Son (Heb 1:3 a-b; cf. Heb 5:8), He became the incarnate Son at His birth (Heb 1:2 a), and He became the exalted Son when He returned to heaven. [Note: See Lane, pp. 25-26.]

Note the chiastic style of the quotations, which begin and end with references to the Son surrounding references to the Father. This has the effect of stressing the Father but uniting the Son closely with Him.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)