Hebrews 1

ἩΠΡῸςἙΒΡΑΊΟΥςἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΉ

A B K à have merely ΠρὸςἙβραίους. Simplest and probably earliest superscription.

CHAPTER 1

Hebrews 1:1. ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου] Elz.: ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων. Against A B D E K L M à, most min., Vulg. Copt, al., and many Fathers. The plural ἐσχάτων arose from the τῶν immediately following.

Hebrews 1:2. In place of καὶτοὺςαἰῶναςἐποίησεν of the Recepta, A B D* D*** E M à, 17, 37, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. al., Patres Gr. et Lat. m. have καὶἐποίησεντοὺςαἰῶνας. Already recommended by Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. In addition to the strong attestation, this position of the words is favoured by the internal ground that in this order the emphasis falls, as was required, upon ἐποίησεν, instead of falling upon τοὺςαἰῶνας.

Hebrews 1:3. Before καθαρισμόν, Elz. Wetst. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Bloomf.

Tisch. 7, Reiche (Commentarius Criticus in N. T., t. III. p. 6 sq.), with D***, almost all min. Syr. utr. (Aeth.?) Ath. p. 362, Chrys. in text, et comm. dis., Oec. Theoph. Aug. (?) add διʼ ἑαυτοῦ.

But διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, instead of which διʼ αὐτοῦ (according to Theodoret’s express observation to be read as διʼ αὐτοῦ) is found with D* 137, Copt. Clar. Germ. Cyr. (semel) Didym. Theodoret, in t. et comm. Euthal.

Damasc. in textu, is wanting in A B D** à, 17, 46* 47, 80, Vulg. Arm. Cyr. (saepe) Cyr. Hieros. pseudo-Athanas. (ed. Bened. ii. 337), Damasc. (comm.) Sedul. Cassiod.

Bede. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 991). Rightly deleted as a gloss by Bleek, de Wette, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, and Alford. For although the addition διʼ ἐαυτοῦ (by Himself, i.e. by the offering of Himself, inasmuch as He was at the same time High Priest and Victim) is in perfect keeping with the after deductions of the epistle, it is nevertheless not indispensable; and though it is conceivable that διʼ ἐαυτοῦ was taken up into the preceding αὐτοῦ, yet it is, on the other hand, hardly credible, seeing the endeavour of the author after linguistic euphony, that he should have placed the words αὐτοῦ, διʼ ἑαυτοῦ (αὑτοῦ) in immediate juxtaposition the one with the other.

Instead of ποιησάμενοςτῶνἁμαρτιῶν, Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford read: τῶνἁμαρτιῶνποιησάμενος. In favour of the latter decides the preponderant attestation on the part of A B D E M à, 37, 46, al., Vulg. It. Cyr. Cyr. Hieros. Athan. Did. ps.-Athan. Dam. (comm.).

τῶνἁμαρτιῶν] Elz. Matth. Scholz: τῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν. But ἡμῶν is wanting in A B D* E* M à*, 67** al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Cyr. utr. Nyss. Didym. Damasc. Aug. Sedul. Cassiod. al. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 496) and Griesb. Rightly rejected by Lachm., Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Reiche, Alford. It was added as a dogmatic precaution, in order to guard against a referring of the words also to the own ἁμαρτίαι (of the subject.

Hebrews 1:8. ῥάβδοςεὐθύτητοςἡῥάβδοςτῆςβασιλείαςσου] Instead of that, Lachm. in the edit, stereot. (as likewise Tisch. 8) read: καὶ (A B D* E* M à, 17, Aeth. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. Cyr.) ἡ (A B M à, Cyr.) ῥάβδοςτῆς (A B M à** Cyr.) εὐθύτητοςῥάβδος (A B M à** Cyr.) τῆςβασιλείαςσου. In the later larger edition, vol.

II., on the other hand, he has adopted καὶῥάβδοςτῆςεὐθύτητοςῥάβδοςτῆςβασιλείαςσου. The καί at the beginning is, as also Bleek and Alford decide, to be looked upon as original, but in other respects the Recepta is to be retained, inasmuch as the ἡ before the first ῥάβδος (in the first edition of Lachmann) would be a variation from the text presented by the LXX., such as could hardly be ascribed to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, considering the closeness with which he follows that translation in other cases, and the purity in other respects of his Greek expression.

Hebrews 1:9. ἀνομίαν] A à, 13, 23, al., Cyr. Chron. Alex. Eus. Chrys. ms. ἀδικίαν; preferred by Bleek, since it is also found in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. Adopted also by Tisch. 8. But ἀνομίαν might easily be changed into ἀδικιαν, since the latter formed a more direct opposite to the preceding δικαιοσύνην.

Hebrews 1:12. ἐλίξεις] Beza, Bengel, Tisch. 8 : ἀλλάξεις. Only insufficiently supported by D* à* 43, Vulg. (not Harl.*) It. Tert.

αὐτούς] Lachm.: αὐτούς, ὡςἱμάτιον, after A B D* E à, Aeth. Arm. Clar. Germ. Spite of the strong authority, an apparent gloss, explanatory of ὡσεὶπεριβόλαιον.

Hebrews 1:1-4

Hebrews 1:1-4. Without beginning with the ordinary salutation, with the omission even of any kind of preface, the author proceeds at once to place the revelation of God in Christ in contrast with the revelations of God under the Old Covenant, inasmuch as he characterizes the revelations under the Old Covenant as imperfect, while he shows the perfection of this new revelation by a description of the incomparable dignity of its Mediator. With Hebrews 1:1-3 the author strikes the keynote for all that which he is subsequently to disclose to the readers. The utterances of these three verses afford the theme of his whole epistle. For the later dogmatic disquisitions are only the more full unfolding of the same; and for the later paraeneses they form the motive and fundamental consideration. To Hebrews 1:4, however,—which combines grammatically with that which precedes into the unity of a well-ordered, rhetorically vigorous and majestic period,

Hebrews 1:1-3 stand related as the universal to the particular, since that which was before expressed in a more general way is in Hebrews 1:4 brought into relief on a special side, which finds in the sequel its detailed development, in such wise that then Hebrews 1:4 in turn forms, as regards its contents, the theme for the first section of the epistle (Hebrews 1:4 to Hebrews 2:18).

On Hebrews 1:1-3 comp. L. J. Uhland, Dissert. Theol. ad Hebr. i. 1–3, Pars I., II., Tubing. 1777, 4.

G. M. Amthor, Commentatio exegetico-dogmatica in tres priores versus epistolae ad Hebraeos scriptae (Coburg), 1828, 8.—(J. G. Reiche), In locum epist. ad Hebr. i. 1–3 observationes, Gotting. (Weihnachts-programm) 1829, 4.

Hebrews 1:2-4

Hebrews 1:2-4. The author unfolds the idea of superiority contained in υἱῷ, Hebrews 1:1, in sketching a brief portraiture in full of the Son of God, and setting vividly before the readers the incomparable dignity of this Son, as manifested in each single one of the various periods of His life.

Hebrews 1:3

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

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

ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ] an Alexandrian word, occurring Wis 7:26, and frequently with Philo, but only here in the N. T. It is explained either (1) as a beaming forth or radiance, i.e. as a ray which flows forth from the light, e.g., of the sun. So Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, and Hofmann, after the example of Clarius, Jac. Cappellus, Gomar., Schlichting, Gerhard, Calov, Owen, Rambach, Peirce, Calmet, Heumann, Böhme, Reiche. Or (2) as image, reflected radiance, i.e. as a likeness formed by reflex rays, reflection.

So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wittich, Limborch, Stein, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. Kirch.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 661, and in his Lexic. N. T. p. 36), Nickel (Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct., p. 17), Moll, and others; so substantially also Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 279). In favour of the former interpretation it may be advanced that Hesychius paraphrases ἀπαύγασμα by ἩΛΊΟΥΦΈΓΓΟς; and in Lexic.

Cyrilli ms. Brem. are found the words: ἀπαύγασμαἀκτὶςἡλίου, ἡπρώτητοῦἡλιακοῦφωτὸςἀποβολή, as accordingly also Chrysostom and Theophylact explain ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ by ΦῶςἘΚΦΩΤΌς, the latter with the addition ΤῸἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑἘΚΤΟῦἩΛΊΟΥΚΑῚΟὐΧὝΣΤΕΡΟΝΑὐΤΟῦ; and Theodoret observes: ΤῸΓᾺΡἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑΚΑῚἘΚΤΟῦΠΥΡΌςἘΣΤΙΚΑῚΣῪΝΤῷΠΥΡΊἘΣΤΙΚΑῚΑἼΤΙΟΝΜῈΝἜΧΕΙΤῸΠῦΡ, ἈΧΏΡΙΣΤΟΝΔΈἘΣΤΙΤΟῦΠΥΡΌςἘΞΟὟΓᾺΡΤῸΠῦΡ, ἘΞἘΚΕΊΝΟΥΚΑῚΤῸἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ. But without reason does Bleek claim, in favour of this first interpretation, also the usage of Philo and Wis 7:26. For in the passage of Philo, de Speciall. legg. § 11 (ed. Mangey, II. p. 356), which Bleek regards as “particularly clear” (Τὸδʼ ἐμφυσώμενον [Genesis 2:7] ΔῆΛΟΝὩςΑἸΘΈΡΙΟΝἮΝΠΝΕῦΜΑΚΑῚΕἸΔΉΤΙΑἸΘΕΡΊΟΥΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟςΚΡΕῖΤΤΟΝ, ἍΤΕΤῆςΜΑΚΑΡΊΑςΚΑῚΤΡΙΣΜΑΚΑΡΊΑςΦΎΣΕΩςἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ), there is found no ground of deciding either for or against this acceptation of the word. The other two passages of Philo, however, which are cited by Bleek, tell less in favour of it than against it.

For in the former of these ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is explained by ἘΚΜΑΓΕῖΟΝ [impression] and ἀπόσπασμα [shred] as synonyms, in the latter by μίμημα [copy]. (De Opific. Mundi, p. 33 D, in Mangey, I. p. 35: πᾶςἄνθρωποςκατὰμὲντὴνδιάνοιανᾠκείωταιθείῳλόγῳ, τῆςμακαρίαςφύσεωςἐκμαγεῖονἢἀπόσπασμαἢἀπαύγασμαγεγονώς, κατὰδὲτὴντοῦσώματοςκατασκευὴνἅπαντιτῷκόσμῳ.

De plantat. Noë, p. 221 C, Mang. I. p. 337: Τὸδὲἁγίασμαοἷονἁγίωνἀπαύγασμα, μίμημαἀρχετύπουἐπεὶτὰαἰσθήσεικαλὰκαὶνοήσεικαλῶνεἰκόνες.) Finally, there are found also, Wis 7:26, as kindred expressions, besides ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ, the words ἜΣΟΠΤΡΟΝ and ΕἸΚΏΝ. (ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑΓΆΡἘΣΤΙΦΩΤῸςἈΪΔΊΟΥΚΑῚἜΣΟΠΤΡΟΝἈΚΗΛΊΔΩΤΟΝΤῆςΤΟῦΘΕΟῦἘΝΕΡΓΕΊΑςΚΑῚΕἸΚῺΝΤῆςἈΓΑΘΌΤΗΤΟςΑὐΤΟῦ.) The decision is afforded by the form of the word itself. Inasmuch as not ἈΠΑΥΓΑΣΜΌς, but ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is written, an active notion, such as would be required by Bleek’s acceptation, cannot be expressed by it, but only a passive one. Not the ray itself, but the result thereof must be intended. For as ἀπήχημα denotes that which is produced by the ἈΠΗΧΕῖΝ, the resonance or echo, and ἈΠΟΣΚΊΑΣΜΑ that which is produced by the ἈΠΟΣΚΙΆΖΕΙΝ, the shadow cast by an object, so does ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ denote that which is produced by the ἈΠΑΥΓΆΖΕΙΝ. ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is therefore to be rendered by reflected radiance, and a threefold idea is contained in the word—(1) the notion of independent existence, (2) the notion of descent or derivation, (3) the notion of resemblance.

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

ΚΑῚΧΑΡΑΚΤῊΡΤῆςὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩςΑὐΤΟῦ] and as impress of His essential being, so that the essential being of the Father is printed forth in the Son, the Son is the perfect image and counterpart of the Father. Comp. Philo, de plantat. Noë, p. 217 A (ed. Mangey, I. p. 332), where the rational soul (ἡλογικὴψυχή) is called a coin which stands the test, ΟὐΣΙΩΘΩΕῖΣΑΚΑῚΤΥΠΩΘΕῖΣΑΣΦΡΑΓΊΔΙΘΕΟῦ, ἯςὉΧΑΡΑΚΤΉΡἘΣΤΙΝἈΐΔΙΟςΛΌΓΟς. In the N.

T. the word ΧΑΡΑΚΤΉΡ is found only in this place. To interpret ὙΠΌΣΤΑΣΙς, however, in the sense of ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ, or “Person” (Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, Calvin [in the exposition], Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Calov, Sebastian Schmidt, Bellarmin, Braun, Brochmann, Wolf, Suicer), is permitted only by later usage, not by that of the apostolic age. For the rest, that which is affirmed by the characteristic ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑΤῆςΔΌΞΗςΚΑῚΧΑΡΑΚΤῊΡΤῆςὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩςΑὐΤΟῦ, the Apostle Paul expresses, Colossians 1:15, by ΕἸΚῺΝΤΟῦΘΕΟῦΤΟῦἈΟΡΆΤΟΥ, and, Philippians 2:6 (comp. 2 Corinthians 4:4), by ἘΝΜΟΡΦῇΘΕΟῦὙΠΆΡΧΩΝ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ἐνὑψηλοῖς] Comp. Psalms 93:4; Psalms 113:5; tantamount to ἘΝΤΟῖςΟὐΡΑΝΟῖς, Hebrews 8:1; or ἘΝΤΟῖςἘΠΟΥΡΑΝΊΟΙς, Ephesians 1:20; or ἘΝὙΨΊΣΤΟΙς, Luke 2:14; Luke 19:38, al. The addition belongs not to μεγαλωσύνης (Beza, Böhme, Bleek, Ebrard, Alford),—since otherwise the article would be repeated,—but to ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕΝ. The plural ἘΝὙΨΗΛΟῖς is explained from the supposition of several heavens, in the highest of which the throne of the Divine Majesty was placed.

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

Hebrews 1:4

Hebrews 1:4. The author has first, Hebrews 1:1-3, instituted a parallel between the mediators of the Old Testament revelations in general or in pleno, and the Mediator of the Christian revelation. But among the revelations of God under the Old Covenant, none attained in point of glory to the Mosaic; inasmuch as this was given not only through the medium of a man enlightened by the Spirit of God,—i.e. by one of the προφῆται, mentioned Hebrews 1:1,—but, according to the universal Jewish belief (vid. ad ii. 2), was given by the instrumentality not only of Moses, but also of angels. As, therefore, the author has maintained the superiority of Christ, as the Son of God, over the προφῆται, so is he now naturally further led to show the superiority of Christ over the angels also. This is done in the declaration, Hebrews 1:4, which in a grammatical sense is closely connected with that which precedes, and serves for the completing of the description of Christ’s characteristic qualifications; at the same time, however, logically regarded, affords the theme for the following disquisition, which constitutes the first section of the epistle (Hebrews 1:5 to Hebrews 2:18).

The supposition of Tholuck, that the addition of Heb 1:4 “has an independent object,” i.e. is occasioned by polemic reference to the opinion spread abroad among the Jews, in addition to other conceptions with regard to the person of the Messiah, that He was an intermediate spirit or angel,[32] is entirely erroneous. It finds no countenance whatever in the reasoning of the author, and is opposed to the whole scope of the epistle, that of showing in detail the inferiority of the Old Covenant as compared with the New, and of influencing in a corresponding manner the conduct of the readers.

The oratorical formula of comparison: τοσούτῳ … ὅσῳ, which recurs Hebrews 7:20-22, Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 10:25, is found likewise with Philo, but never with Paul.

ΚΡΕΊΤΤΩΝ] better, or more excellent, namely, in power, dignity, and exaltedness; comp. Hebrews 7:19; Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 9:23, Hebrews 10:34, Hebrews 11:16; Hebrews 11:35; Hebrews 11:40, Hebrews 12:24.

γενόμενος] marks the having begun to be in time, whereas ὤν, Hebrews 1:3, expressed the timeless eternal existence. ΚΡΕΊΤΤΩΝΤῶΝἈΓΓΈΛΩΝ did Christ become just at that time when, having accomplished the work of redemption, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. The ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς thus closely attaches itself to the ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕΝ, Hebrews 1:3, and is more fully explained by the fact that Christ, by virtue of His incarnation, and so long as He dwelt on earth, was made lower than the angels; comp. Hebrews 2:7; Hebrews 2:9.

The comparative ΔΙΑΦΟΡΏΤΕΡΟΝ, found in the N. T. only here and Hebrews 8:6, serves, since even the positive ΔΙΆΦΟΡΟΝ would have sufficed for the indication of the superiority, for the more emphatic accentuating of the signification of the word. The opinion of Hofmann, that the comparative is chosen because the name ἌΓΓΕΛΟς is in itself an ὌΝΟΜΑΔΙΆΦΟΡΟΝ, when the author contrasts the spirits of God with men living in the flesh, is quite remote from the idea of the passage.

ΠΑΡΆ] after a comparative is very common in our epistle; cf. Hebrews 3:3, Hebrews 9:23, Hebrews 11:4, Hebrews 12:24. Comp. also Luke 3:13; 3 Esdr. 4:35; Thucyd. i. 4:23: ἩΛΊΟΥΤΕἘΚΛΕΊΨΕΙς, ΑἻΠΥΚΝΌΤΕΡΑΙΠΑΡᾺΤᾺἘΚΤΟῦΠΡῚΝΧΡΌΝΟΥΜΝΗΜΟΝΕΥΌΜΕΝΑΞΥΝΈΒΗΣΑΝ; Herod. 7. 103; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 225. With Paul it never occurs. Similar is ὑπέρ with the accusative, Hebrews 4:12; Luke 16:8.

ὌΝΟΜΑ] must not, with Beza, Calov, Wittich, Storr, Valckenaer, Zachariae, Heinrichs, be altered into the notion of “dignity.” For this ὌΝΟΜΑ never signifies in itself, and its substitution would in our passage, in relation to ΚΡΕΊΤΤΩΝΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς, bring about only a tautology. The name of pre-eminence above the angels, which Christ has obtained as an inheritance, is the name ΥἹΌς, Son of God,—comp. Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:1,—while the angels by their name are characterized only as messengers and servants of God. Contrary to the context, Delitzsch says: the name ΥἹΌς suffices not to express the thought in connection with ὌΝΟΜΑ. The supra-angelic name, to which the author refers, lies beyond the notionally separating and sundering language of men. It is the heavenly total-name of the Exalted One, His שֵׁם הַמְּפֹרָשׁ, nomen explicitum, which in this world has entered into no human heart, and can be uttered by no human tongue, the ὄνομαὃοὐδεὶςοἶδενεἰμὴαὐτός, Revelation 19:12.

The following words of Scripture are, he supposes, only upward pointing signs, which call forth in us some foreboding as to how glorious He is. But this is opposed to the connection. For even though it be true, as advanced by Delitzsch in support of his view, that in the following O. T. passages there occur also, in addition to υἱός, the wider appellations θεός and κύριος; yet, on the other hand, not merely ἐνυἱῷ, Hebrews 1:1, as likewise Hebrews 1:5 with its proof-giving γάρ, but also the antithesis πρὸςμὲντοὺςἀγγέλους and πρὸςδὲτὸνυἱόν, Hebrews 1:7-8, shows that υἱός is the main conception, to which the words of address: ὁθεός and κύριε, Hebrews 1:8; Hebrews 1:10, stand in the relation of subordination, inasmuch as they are already contained in this very idea of Son.

The perfect κεκληρονίμηκεν, however, not the aorist ἐκληρονόμησεν, is employed by the author; because Christ did not first obtain this name at the time of the καθίζεινἐνδεξιᾷτῆςμεγαλ., Hebrews 1:3, but had already as pre-existing Logos obtained it as an abiding portion and possession. We have not, in connection with κεκληρονόμηκεν, to think “quite in general of the O. T. time, in which the future Messiah received in the Word of God the name of Son,” as is asserted by Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 274), whose statement is endorsed by E. Woerner.[33] For this view is contradicted by the διʼ οὗκαὶἐποίησεντοὺςαἰῶνας, Hebrews 1:2, in its relation to ἐνυἱῷ, Hebrews 1:1, according to which Christ already existed as the Son before all time. The declarations of Heb 1:5, which Riehm has urged in favour of the construction put by him on our passage, have only the object of affording vouchers for a condition of things already existing.

The difficulty raised, for the rest, that the name of Son is here insisted on as a distinguishing characteristic of Christ, while, nevertheless, in single passages of the O. T. (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Genesis 6:2; Genesis 6:4; Psalms 29:1; Psalms 89:7; Daniel 3:25), angels too are called sons of God, is already disposed of by the reflection that this is not the characteristic name for the angels as such. There is no need, therefore, of the justification of the author made by Bleek, that this writer, since he was not at home in the Hebrew text of the O. T., but only in the Alexandrine version thereof, which latter freely renders the majority of those passages by ἄγγελοιτοῦθεοῦ, may easily have overlooked, or perhaps have otherwise interpreted, those passages in which the literal translation is found in the LXX. (Psalms 29:1; Psalms 89:7 [Genesis 6:2; Genesis 6:4?]).

[32] That the defective view with regard to Christ, which saw in Him only an angel, must have called for rectification, has likewise been thought probable by Schneckenburger, who sought further to confirm this probability. Comp. the “Observations on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” contributed by Riehm from Schneckenburger’s remains, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, H. 3, p. 544 ff.

[33] Der Brief St. Pauli an die Hebräer, Ludwigsb. 1876.

Hebrews 1:5-14

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

Hebrews 1:6

Hebrews 1:6. Ὅταν, with the conjunctive aorist, takes the place of the Latin futurum exactum. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 289. Ὅτανεἰσαγάγῃ cannot consequently mean, as was still assumed by Bleek I., and recently by Reuss:[35] “when He brings in,” but only: “when He shall have brought in.” To take πάλιν, however, with the Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Hammond, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, Valckenaer, Schulz, Kuinoel, Bleek, Stengel, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Reuss, alii, as Hebrews 1:5, i.e. merely as the formula for linking on a new citation, is forbidden by the position of the words. It must then have been written: πάλινδέ, ὅτανεἰσαγάγῃ … λέγει. The possibility of an inversion of the ΠΆΛΙΝ is defended, it is true, by Bleek, after the precedent of Carpzov, on the authority of two passages in Philo (Legg. Allegor. iii. p. 66; ed.

Mangey, p. 93). But neither of these presents a case analogous to the one before us, nor does an inversion of the πάλιν at all take place in them. For in both ΠΆΛΙΝ has the signification in turn, or on the other hand, inasmuch as in the former two classes of persons (ὁδὲνοῦντὸνἴδιονἀπολείπων and ὉΔἙΠΆΛΙΝἈΠΟΔΙΔΡΆΣΚΩΝΘΕΌΝ), in the latter two classes of ΔΌΞΑΙ or opinions (ἩΜῈΝΤῸΝἘΠῚΜΈΡΟΥς, ΤῸΝΓΕΝΝΗΤῸΝΚΑῚΘΝΗΤῸΝἈΠΟΛΙΠΟῦΣΑ and ἩΔῈΠΆΛΙΝΘΕῸΝἈΠΟΔΟΚΙΜΆΖΟΥΣΑ), are compared together by way of contrast, in such wise that in both ΠΆΛΙΝ only serves for bringing the ΔΈ into stronger relief, and in both has occupied its legitimate place. By virtue of its position, ΠΆΛΙΝ, in our passage, can be construed only with ΕἸΣΑΓΆΓῌ, in such wise that a bringing again of the First-born into the world, which is an event still belonging to the future, is spoken of. In the former member of Heb 1:6 the reference can accordingly be neither to the time of the Incarnation of the Son (Chrysostom, Primasius, Calvin, Owen, Calov, Bengel, Storr, Kuinoel [Stuart: or beginning of His ministry], Bleek II. alii); nor to the time of the Resurrection and Exaltation to heaven (Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Wittich, Braun, Wetstein, Rambach, Peirce, Whitby, and others); nor, as Bleek I. supposed, to a moment yet preceding the Incarnation of Christ, in which the Father had, by a solemn act as it were, conducted forth and presented the Son to the beings created by Him, as the First-born, as their Creator and Ruler, who was to uphold and guide all things,[36]—which in any case would be an entirely singular thought in the N. T.,—but simply and alone to the coming again of Christ to judgment, and the accomplishment of the Messianic kingdom.

So, rightly, Gregory Nyssen, contra Eunom. Orat. iii. p. 541; Cornelius a Lapide, Cameron [Mede: for the inauguration of His millennial kingdom], Gerhard, Calmet, Camerarius, Estius, Gomar, Böhme, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 172, 2d ed.), Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 306, 617), Alford, Conybeare, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Woerner. The objection brought by Bleek and Ebrard against this interpretation of the former member, required as it is by the exigencies of the grammar, viz. that the discourse could not turn on the bringing again of the First-born into the world, unless an earlier bringing in of the same into the world, or at least a former being of the Son ἐντῇοἰκουμένῃ had been explicitly spoken of, is invalidated by Hebrews 1:1; Hebrews 1:3, where certainly the discourse was already of the historic appearing of the Son on earth, and thus of a first bringing in of the same into the world. The additional objection of Bleek, however, that the author would hardly have limited the scope of a divine summons to the angels to do homage to the First-born to a time even in his day future, is set aside by the consideration that, according to Hebrews 2:9, Christ was during His earthly life humbled to a condition beneath the angels, and only the Parousia itself is the epoch at which His majesty will be unfolded in full glory.

ΤῸΝΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟΝ] in the N. T. only here without more precisely defining addition; comp. however, Psalms 89:28 (27). That the expression must not be regarded as equivalent to ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΉς, as is done by Primasius, Oecumenius (ΤῸΔῈΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟΝΟὐΚἘΠῚΔΕΥΤΈΡΟΥΛΈΓΕΙἈΛΛʼ ἘΠῚἙΝῸςΚΑῚΜΌΝΟΥΤΟῦΓΕΝΝΗΘΈΝΤΟςἘΚΤΟῦΠΑΤΡΌς), Clarius, and even now by Stengel, is self-evident. But neither is it identical with the ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟςΠΆΣΗςΚΤΊΣΕΩς, Colossians 1:15, in such wise that the temporal priority of Christ, as the eternal Logos, over all creatures, and the notion of His precedence over all creatures, necessarily resulting therefrom, should be contained in the word (Bleek, Grimm in the Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z., No. 29, p. 662; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 292 f.; Kurtz, Ewald, and others).

For this interpretation is excluded by the absoluteness of the expression in our passage. Rather is Christ called the First-born with respect to Christians, who are His brethren (Hebrews 2:11 f.), and therefore likewise υἱοί of God (Hebrews 2:10). Comp. also Romans 8:29.

As, for the rest, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews terms Christ the First-born Son of God; so does Philo also term the Logos the First-born Son. Comp. de Agricultura, p. 195 B (ed. Mangey, I. p. 308): τὸνὀρθὸναὑτοῦλόγον, πρωτόγονονυἱύν. De Confus. Ling. p. 329 (ed. Mang. I. p. 415): τοῦτονμὲνγὰρπρεσβύτατονυἱὸνὃτῶνὄντωνἀνέτειλεπατήρ, ὅνἐτέρωθιπρωτόγονονὠνόμασεν, al.

ἡοἰκουμένη] the world, not in the widest sense (equivalent to οἱαἰῶνες, Bleek; or to ἩΟἸΚΟΥΜΈΝΗἩΜΈΛΛΟΥΣΑ, Böhme); but, since the former member has reference to the Parousia, the habitable earth.

λέγει] sc. ὁθεός, not ἩΓΡΑΦΉ (Grotius, Clericus, Böhme, and others). The present is chosen, because the utterance of God, which shall infallibly be made in the future, stands already noted down in the Scripture.

The citation is not derived from Psalms 97:7, but from Deuteronomy 32:43. For, in the former passage, the LXX. have a reading divergent from that of our text, in the words: καὶπροσκυνήσατεαὐτῷπάντες [οἱ] ἄγγελοιαὐτοῦ, whereas in the Codex Vaticanus of Deu 32:43, the words occur as in our text; while the ΚΑΊ, taken up by the author into his citation, manifestly points—seeing that it is without any importance for his reasoning—to the verbatim reproduction of an O. T. utterance. Now, it is true our author follows in other cases a form of the Sept. text which bears affinity less to that contained in the Codex Vaticanus than to that in the Codex Alexandrinus, and the latter displays the variation from the Cod. Vat. Deuteronomy 32:43, in so far as ΥἹΟῚΘΕΟῦ is found therein in place of ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙΘΕΟῦ.

But the Song of Moses, of which Deuteronomy 32:43 forms the conclusion, is communicated anew, in many MSS. of the LXX., and so also in the Codex Alexandrinus, in a second recension, having its place after the Psalms; and in this second recension the Codex Alexandrinus, too, reads ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙΘΕΟῦ, only the article ΟἹ has been interpolated between ΠΆΝΤΕς and ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ. It is probable, therefore, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not take the citation direct from Deuteronomy 32:43, but mediately, i.e. from that second recension of the hymn.

It remains to be said that the words of the citation are wanting in the Hebrew; they are found only in the LXX.

προσκυνεῖν] with the dative only in the case of later classic authors, whereas the earlier combine the accusative with this verb. Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 463; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 113, 266. The N. T. has both constructions, as besides them the Hebraizing turns προσκυνεῖνἐνώπιον, or ἜΜΠΡΟΣΘΈΝΤΙΝΟς, or ΤῶΝΠΟΔῶΝΤΙΝΟς. See the Lexicons.

ΑὐΤῷ] That this pronoun of the third person was to be referred to the Messiah naturally suggested itself, inasmuch as Jehovah is the subject speaking immediately before in the Song.

[35] Comp. Reuss, L’épître aux Hébreux. Essai d’une traduction accompagnée d’un commentaire (Nouvelle Revue de Théologie, vol. v. 4e, 5e, et 6e livraison, Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 199).

[36] In like manner Reuss, l.c. p. 201: “Il est plus naturel de songer au moment, où le monde nouvellement crיי était sommé de reconnaître le Fils comme créateur. A ce moment, les anges seuls étaient les êtres formant pour ainsi dire l’Eglise du Verbe (comme Hebrews 12:22), et qui pouvaient recevoir l’ordre de Dieu d’adorer le Fils.”

Hebrews 1:7-12

Hebrews 1:7-12. Contrastful comparison of a declaration of Scripture characterizing the angels, and two declarations characterizing the Son.

Hebrews 1:8-9

Hebrews 1:8-9 derived from Psalms 45:7-8 (6, 7). The psalm is an epithalamium, a wedding-song. But even by Rabbins like Aben Esra, Kimchi, and others, it is Messianically interpreted.

Hebrews 1:8. The nominative ὁθεός is taken by our author in the sense of the vocative (comp. e.g. Colossians 3:18 ff.; Luke 8:54; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 172; Kühner, II. p. 155), thus as an apostrophe to the Messiah.[38] In the Hebrew words: כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עו̇לָם וָעֶד, אֱלֹהִים is not vocative, but to be translated either after the analogy of Lev 26:42 (וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יַעֲקו̇á, I will remember my Jacob’s-covenant, i.e. the covenant made by me with Jacob), with Bleek, de Wette, and Kurtz: “thy throne of God,” i.e. “thy divine throne;” or, with Ewald (ad loc. and Gramm. § 547): “thy throne is (throne) of God or divine.” The Greek ὁθεός, too, it has been thought by Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 662) and Ewald (das Sendschr. an d. Hebr. p. 55), ought not to be explained in the sense of a vocative. According to Grimm, the words are to be taken in the acceptation: “Thy throne, i.e. the foundation of Thy throne, is God;” according to Ewald, they say that “the throne of the Messiah for everlasting ages is God Himself, so that where He reigns, there God Himself is virtually ever present.” But the argument urged by Grimm in favour of this construction—that, since Philo, as frequently also the Christian Alexandrians, makes a sharp distinction between ὁθεός (with the article) as a designation of God, and θεός (without an article) as designation of the Logos, it is hardly to be regarded as probable that a man of Alexandrian culture, like our author, would have called Christ as to His divine nature ὉΘΕΌς—would have had weight only if that designation, in place of being met with in a citation, had occurred in our author’s own discourse.

ΕἸςΤῸΝΑἸῶΝΑΤΟῦΑἸῶΝΟς] sc. ἐστίν. So LXX., Cod. Alex.; Cod. Vatican.: εἰςαἰῶνααἰῶνος. The same (merely Hellenistic) formula, strengthening the simple εἰςτὸναἰῶνα (Hebrews 5:6, and often), also Tob. 2:18; Psalms 83:18, al. In independent discourse the author uses in place thereof ΕἸςΤῸΔΙΗΝΕΚΈς. Comp. Hebrews 7:3, Hebrews 10:1, Hebrews 12:14.

ῬΆΒΔΟςΕὐΘΎΤΗΤΟς] a sceptre of uprightness, i.e. of righteousness. εὐθύτης, in the N. T. only here; but comp. LXX. Psalms 9:9; Psalms 67:5; Psalms 96:10; Psalms 98:9. Comp. also Aeschylus, Persae, ver. 1:726 f. (according to the division in Hartung’s edition, Leipzig 1853):

[38] Against the peculiar opinion of Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 168 f. 2 Aufl.), that, vv. 8, 9, it is not Christ who is addressed; that, on the contrary, the author of the epistle leaves it to the reader “to take the words: ὁθρόνοςσουὁθεός, as an address to Jehovah, or with a right understanding of the connection כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים as an address to the king, the anointed of Jehovah,” see Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrהerbr. p. 286, Remark.

ἝΝʼ ἌΝΔΡʼ ἉΠΆΣΗςἈΣΊΔΟςΜΗΛΟΤΡΌΦΟΥ

ταγεῖν, ἔχοντασκῆπτρονεὐθυντήριον.

Hebrews 1:9

Hebrews 1:9. Ἠγάπησαςδικαιοσύνηνκ.τ.λ.] Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst wrong. In the Hebrew the corresponding verbs have a present signification: thou lovest justice and hatest wrong. Our author, however, refers the aorists of the LXX. to the historic life of the Son of God upon earth.

διὰτοῦτο] therefore, i.e. as a reward for the ἀγαπᾶνδικαιοσύνηνκαὶμισεῖνἀνομίαν. Comp. διό, Philippians 2:9. Erroneously Augustine (in Ps.), Thomas Aquinas, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Brochmann, Schöttgen, and others: for this cause, that thou mightest love righteousness, etc.

ἔχρισένσε, ὁθεός, ὁθεόςσουἔλαιονκ.τ.λ.] O God, Thy God hath Thee anointed with oil of gladness above Thy companions. Here, too, the author takes ὁθεός as an apostrophe,[39] whereas in the Hebrew אֱלֹהִים is the subject to משָׁחֲךָ, and is taken up again into the discourse, and more nearly defined by אֱלֹהֶיךָ. The anointing with the oil of joy in the psalm is a figurative designation of the blessing and abundance given by God. Our author, however, understands it of the anointing to be king, as a figure of the divine glory with which the Son, after His life upon earth and His exaltation to heaven, has been crowned. Comp. also Acts 4:27; Acts 2:36. The sense of the author is departed from when the Fathers and earlier expositors interpret the expression of the anointing of the Son with the Holy Ghost.

On the double accusative combined with ἜΧΡΙΣΕΝ (Revelation 3:18), see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 212. As an analogon, comp. also Aristophanes, Acharn. 114: ἽΝΑΜΉΣΕΒΆΨΩΒΆΜΜΑΣΑΡΔΙΝΙΑΚΌΝ.

ΠΑΡᾺΤΟῪςΜΕΤΌΧΟΥςΣΟΥ] refers in the original to the contemporary kings, the rulers of other lands. But what our author understood by it in the application is obscure. Kuinoel, Ebrard, Delitzsch, and Moll suppose the author, like the Psalmist, to intend the other kings; Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 306), all earthly and heavenly princes; Wittich, Braun, Cramer, the kings, high priests, and prophets of the O. T., inasmuch as they were anointed as types of Christ; Klee, all the creatures; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, and Bisping, men in general; Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Piscator, Schlichting, Maier, Kurtz, the Christians specially [Owen hesitates between all believers and prophets and apostles]; Bleek, Olshausen, Alford, and Ewald finally, after the precedent of Peirce and others, the angels, “as beings which do not indeed appear as sitting at the right hand of God, but yet as existing in immediate proximity to the divine throne.” The last supposition is the most probable. It is true de Wette regards it as the least conceivable, because the author has “placed the angels in no other position than deeply below Christ,” and Ebrard even thinks the author must have been “beside himself” if he had referred the words to the angels. But (1) it is a question throughout the whole section of a comparison of Christ with the angels; the renewed indication of this point of comparison also in Hebrews 1:9 cannot therefore in itself be found unsuitable. (2) If shortly before (Hebrews 1:7) the angels are placed deeply below Christ, so it will be admitted their inferiority is likewise expressly intimated by means of παρά in our passage. (3) The angels were, in the conception of the author, the next in rank after Christ; for they are exalted above men.

To whom, therefore, could the author more fittingly apply the designation μέτοχοι than precisely to them? The objection of Delitzsch, finally, that after all angels are not anointed ones, would be of weight only if the author were obliged of necessity to think of the μέτοχοι too as anointed; he finds, on the contrary, in the anointing only of the Son, a fact expressed, from which the exaltedness of the same above His companions, i.e. of those who of all others stand nearest to Him in dignity, is necessarily deduced. For ΠΑΡΆ is used here not in the sense of the quantity arising from the notion of comparison, but denotes the part accruing to one to the exclusion of others.

[39] On account of ver. 8 this construction is more natural than the supposition of Grimm, l.c. p. 602; Alford, and Ewald (to which Delitzsch also leaves the choice open), that we have to explain in accordance with the Hebrew: “God, even Thy God.”

Hebrews 1:10-12

Hebrews 1:10-12. A second citation—co-ordinate with the Scripture testimony adduced, Hebrews 1:8-9—derived from Psalms 102:26-28 (25–27) according to the LXX. The psalm is a lamentation, belonging probably to the first century after the Captivity. The words of address refer in the original to God. The author, however, mainly indeed misled[40] by the κύριε in the LXX., which was the ordinary appellation of Christ in apostolic time, takes the utterance as an address to Christ, the Son of God. This interpretation must the more have appeared to him unquestionable, inasmuch as the scope of the utterance fully harmonized with his own conception of the Son of God as the premundane Logos.

Comp. Hebrews 1:2-3. When, for the rest, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 169 f., 2 Aufl.) supposes that the author found no address whatever to Christ designed in the κύριε of the psalm, but only meant to say in the words of Scripture what was true of Jesus according to his own belief and that presupposed in the readers, this is a freak of fancy without anything to justify it, and even opposed to the context (comp. πρὸςδὲτὸνυἱόν, Hebrews 1:8). For the author can have been concerned only about this very object of proving the higher attestation given to his assertion by the Scriptures.

Καί] not a constituent part of the citation, but a brief formula of connecting, when a further passage of Scripture is linked to that which precedes, comp. Acts 1:20.

σὺκατʼ ἀρχάς, κύριε, τὴνγῆνἐθεμελίωσας] LXX. Cod. Alex.: κατʼ ἀρχὰς, σύ, κύριε, τὴνγῆνἐθεμελίωσας; Cod. Vatic.: κατʼ ἀρχὰς, τὴνγῆνσύ, κύριε, ἐθεμελίωσας. It is probable the author changed the position of the words in order to make σύ the more emphatic.

κατʼ ἀρχάς] in the beginning. With the LXX. elsewhere only Psalms 119:152, instead of the more usual ἐνἀρχῇ or ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, but frequently met with in Philo and the classics (see Raphel, Wetstein, and Munthe ad loc.). In the Hebrew stands the more general לְפָּנִים, “formerly,” or “of old.”

[40] According to Delitzsch, indeed, it would be “a poor look-out” if that were “true.” But when, following in Hofmann’s steps, he objects against it that “we may already see from Hebrews 8:8 ff., Hebrews 12:6 ff., that the author is far from everywhere understanding Christ to be intended by the O. T. κύριος,” these passages naturally prove nothing, since the usual practice is never the constant and invariable practice. When Delitzsch further adds: “such perversity originating in ignorance is not to be laid to the charge of an author who shows so deep an insight into the innermost core of the O. T.,” that is a prejudiced verdict, arising from subjectivity and dogmatic partiality, to the establishing of which it would have been necessary first of all to bring forward the proof that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in reality possessed an accurate knowledge not only of the Greet text of the LXX., but also of the original text of the O. T.,—a proof which even Delitzsch has not been able to afford.

Hebrews 1:11

Hebrews 1:11. Αὐτοί] refers back not to earth and heaven, Hebrews 1:10, taken together (Kuinoel, Stuart, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Kurtz), but, as is evident from the following πάντες, and in particular from ἑλίξεις, Hebrews 1:12, only to οἱοὐρανοί.

ἀπολοῦνται] shall perish. Comp. Isaiah 34:4; Isaiah 51:6; Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 20:11; Revelation 21:1.

σὺδὲδιαμένεις] but Thou abidest for evermore (throughout all duration of time, διά). On account of the environment of futures, and because the future is used here in the Hebrew, Bleek, after the example of Luther, Cornelius a Lapide, Peirce, Bengel, Wetstein, alii, accentuates: διαμενεῖς. So also the Vulgate (permanebis). Hardly in the sense of the author. For, since he employed only the LXX., not the Hebrew original, he surely took σὺδὲδιαμ. as a parallel member to σὺδὲὁαὐτὸςεἶ, Hebrews 1:12, consequently also construed the former as a present.

ὡςἱμάτιονπαλαιωθήσονται] will grow old like a garment, which by long use is worn out and laid aside, to be replaced by a new and better one. Comp. Isaiah 50:9; Isaiah 51:6; Sir 14:17.

Hebrews 1:12

Hebrews 1:12. Καὶὡσεὶπεριβόλαιονἑλίξειςαὐτοὺςκαὶἀλλαγήσονται] and as a cloak (something flung about one) wilt Thou roll them up, and they shall become changed. In the original: As the vesture dost Thou change them, and they are changed. This sense of the original is rendered by the LXX. according to the reading of the Cod. Vat.: καὶὡσεὶπεριβόλαιονἀλλάξειςαὐτοὺςκαὶἀλλαγήσονται; whereas the Cod. Alex. presents ἑλίξεις; and this is also most probably the reading followed by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in our passage.

οὐκἐκλείψουσιν] will know no end.

Hebrews 1:13

Hebrews 1:13. Further citation from Psalms 110:1, according to the LXX. The psalm was looked upon universally in the time of Christ (comp. Matthew 22:44 ff.; Mark 12:35 ff.; Luke 20:41 ff.), and also in later times by many Rabbins (see Wetstein on Matthew 22:44), as a prophecy relating to the Messiah; inasmuch as on the ground of the superscription לְדָוִד David himself was regarded as the author of it, and in connection with this view the reference to the Messiah was easily proved on the ground of the words at the beginning: “to my Lord speaketh Jehovah,” according to which David acknowledges, in addition to his God, also a Lord over him. The superscription לְדָוִד, nevertheless, indicates not the writer, but the subject of the psalm. It is in its historic sense an oracle pronounced to David, when the latter was preparing for war against his powerful foes. See Ewald on the Psalm.

πρὸςτίναδέ] δέ he in the third place, as often occurs after prepositional combinations. Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 378 f.; Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 190 f.; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. I. p. 397; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 519.

The sitting at the right hand, figure of the highest honour and dominion, see on Hebrews 1:3.

ὑποπόδιοντῶνποδῶνσου] the footstool of Thy feet. There lies in the expression an allusion to the custom of the victor of placing his foot upon the neck of the vanquished, in token of the complete subjection of the latter; comp. Joshua 10:24.

ὑποπόδιον] first used in the Greek of a later age. Comp. Sturz, de dial. Alex. et Maced. p. 199.

Hebrews 1:14

Hebrews 1:14. Confirmation of the πρὸςτίναδὲτῶνἀγγέλωνεἴρηκένποτε, showing the inconceivableness of such a thing by a reference to the nature of the angels, and with this the termination of the present train of thought.

The emphasis rests upon πάντες and λειτουργικά: are not all (alike, whether they belong to a lower or higher class of angels) ministering spirits [spirits in waiting]? πνεύματα here in a different sense from Hebrews 1:7.

εἰςδιακονίαν] for service, sc. which they render to God, not to the men who shall inherit the σωτηρία; otherwise, in place of διὰτοὺςμέλλοντας, the dative τοῖςμέλλουσικληρονομεῖνσωτηρίαν (1 Corinthians 16:15) or the genitive τῶνμελλόντωνκ.τ.λ. would have been placed.

The participle present ἀποστελλόμενα brings out the permanent, habitual character of the action expressed by the verb.

διὰτοὺςκ.τ.λ.] for the sake of those who shall inherit (everlasting) salvation (this is intended by σωτηρίαν, although without the article, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 114; not: deliverance from peril, as Michaelis, Schleusner, Böhme, Kuinoel assume), i.e. in order, by means of the offices in which they are employed by God, to bring it in for the same.