Hebrews 1

CHAPTER I

THE FIRST MAIN PART

The Incarnate Son Supreme 1:1 to 2:4

Incomparably Supreme in His Being, Work, and Position, v. 1–3

Incomparably Supreme over All Angels in His Exaltation, v. 4–14

The Warning: How Shall We Escape if We Neglect so Great Salvation? 2:1–4

———

The Incarnate Son, Incomparably Supreme in His Being, Work, and Position, v. 1–3

Hebrews 1:1

1 Chapter one is a connected unit. When we divide it at v. 3, this is done because the rest of the chapter is attached as a special elaboration. Διὰτοῦτο, “for this reason,” adds the warning voiced in 2:1–4 to chapter one. This forms the first part of the letter which is an independent unit. Some include more, but a second great unit begins at 2:5. Throughout the letter the expository or didactic sections are followed by specific hortations.

Hebrews resembles the First Epistle of St. John by dispensing with a greeting. John, however, begins with the personal “we” and “you” (1:1–5) while Hebrews begins with a majestic objective statement and does not reach the personal note until 2:1, etc., where the writer then includes himself with the readers in “we.” This is most impressive. The bearer of the letter named its sender when he delivered it. When it was first read in public, the assembly was told whose letter this was.

The ancients supposed that Hebrews originally had a greeting, and that this was omitted when copies of the letter were made. They naturally tried to explain the excision but did not do so in a convincing way. Following the same supposition, other and more recent explanations for the excision are equally unconvincing. It is better to suppose that Hebrews never began with a greeting from the writer to his readers. The opening sentence makes that impression.

This leaves us the equally difficult question as to why the writer begins as he does. We are told that some letters were written in this way; some perhaps were, yet this was never the custom. All that we are able to say is what we see and feel—a powerful impression which is increased by the omission of even the briefest greeting.

When the letter was later copied and published for other Christians, this omission robbed them and us of the name of the writer and the identity of the original recipients so that the long search for both began with the uncertain results discussed in our introduction. This letter won its place among the inspired writings of the canon by its own inherent inspired quality.

The perfect form of the first sentence strikes the grammarians; R. 422 notes the balance and the rhythm, B.-D. 464 the two members forming a period and also the eight additions with the rhetorical asyndetic anaphora (B.-D. 489) plus the wirklich rednerische, gewaehlte Wortstellung (473, 2). Luke 1:1–4 is comparable, but Hebrews is full of such noble sentences and such fine rhetoric, all of which were written without special effort by one who was able and eloquent. Effortless alliteration meets us again and again, for instance, the opening words: Πολυμερῶςκαὶπολυτρόπωςπάλαι, three adverbs at that.

In many portions and in many ways in olden times God, having spoken to the fathers in the person of the prophets, at the end, during these days, spoke to us in the person of (his) Son, whom he placed as heir of all things, through whom he made the eons; who, as being his glory’s effulgence and his being’s impress, and as bearing all the (existing) things by means of the uttered word of his power, after having wrought for himself cleansing from the sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high; etc.

The master organist strikes the fundamental chords of his entire composition. Their grandeur falls upon the ears and the heart of the reader and the hearers. This must have had a powerful effect. These former Jews who were now half-inclined to revert to their former Judaism because they were discouraged by persecution and by the difficulties of the Christian life, in the very first solemn clause hear an acknowledgment and a confession of the whole inspired Old Testament, which no Jew could outdo. Every Jewish heart must give unconditional consent: God did speak in content and in a manner so manifold to the Israelite fathers in the person of the prophets in those olden times!

The Old Testament is no less than the voice of God himself. The fathers heard that voice of God, among whom were all the greatest Old Testament saints. The present sons of those fathers still hear that voice in every line that is read to them from the sacred Old Testament scrolls.

God spoke in the person of the prophets (ἐν used with persons, R. 587), Moses, the greatest of them all, Samuel, and all the other mighty names down to Malachi.

So richly and abundantly, so variously God spoke in those olden times by the pens of all the ancient holy writers in order to preserve all that future generations were to know, all that the readers of this very letter know so well. It sounds as though Paul’s voice, Peter’s voice were again speaking to them with the old convincing power in new eloquence.

We have no discounting of the Old Testament here. The two adverbs “in many portions and in many ways” have been understood to mean “in many parts” but only in fragments and not in completeness; “in many ways” but all of them inferior. But these adverbs convey the opposite sense: the first refers to quantity—so rich the varied contents; the second to quality—so rich the variety of form.

The Old Testament is history that covers ages, but history as God wanted it written with true, spiritual intent for our learning (Rom. 15:4), God’s voice speaking in every historical line. The Old Testament is revelation which makes known the thoughts, plans, and purposes of God. It is prophecy in the narrow sense, promises yet to be fulfilled, judgments yet to come, which unveil the future to the very end of the world. It tells of the Messiah and of his reign of grace and glory in an everlasting kingdom. It contains the experience of the saints in psalms of praise, prayers, agonies, and exaltation, yet as God wants all this for our hearts. Here is simple prose beside supreme poetry (none grander than Isa. 40–66). Here is type, symbol, literalness, apocalypsis.

As to completeness, this is present at every stage from Adam, to Malachi. God spoke to every generation what each needed to know. First the bud, then the gradual increase step by step with the promise of the coming full flower—no imperfection at any stage save that the stages advanced.

The one point to be noted is the fact that this clause is participial: λαλήσας (“God having spoken”), pointing forward to the main verb with its aorist of finality: ἐλάλησεν, “God spoke.” The Old Testament itself speaks in the same way. God spoke in Moses who wrote the first part of the Old Testament, yet God promised to send another Prophet like unto Moses but one who was to be vastly greater than even Moses, the greatest of all the prophets: “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him; and it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him,” Deut. 18:18, 19; compare John 8:28; 12:49, 50; 17:8. There is no danger of placing the Old Testament on too high a level or of making it seem too grand; for the more it is exalted, the more it itself is made to exalt the Son and all that God spoke in the person of the Son, the whole New Testament.

Hebrews 1:2

2 In perfect balance with πάλαι, “in olden times,” there follows ἐπʼ (temporal, B.-P. 445) ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτων, which does not mean “at the end of these days” and is not the same as the expressions used in 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:3; Jude 18, for which days are “these days,” and what would be their “end”? We have a double designation of time, the second being an apposition of time within: “at the end—during (within) these days,” i. e., at the end of the Old Testament period, during the recent past. After speaking so fully and so wondrously in the distant and the extended past God recently finished his speaking: “he spoke to us in the person of (his) Son”—once “to the fathers,” now “to us”—to them “in the person of the prophets,” to us “in the person of (his) Son.” This latter speaking crowns the former even as Deut. 18:18 foretold. The R. V. margin, which has the Greek ἐνυἱῷ = “a Son,” is inadequate. The article is omitted in order to indicate the quality expressed in “Son,” yet “Son” is most definite in the Greek, it is made so by the relative clauses.

We cannot duplicate this in English, especially not the qualitativeness. The point is that “the prophets,” exalted though they were, are not the limit for God who finally used his “Son.”

Ἐν is not instrumental, not = διά (Luther and others)—where the latter is the thought διά is used (second relative clause; 2:2; etc.); not a Hebraism, but when it is used with persons means “in the case of,” or “in the person of,” R. 587. Διά would make “the prophets” and the “Son” God’s means or instruments. It is often used thus: “that spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,” etc. (Matt. 1:22). Ἐν is only a variation of this conception: “in” the speaking of those named God spoke, and they who heard them heard God. Deut. 18:18: “I (Yahweh) will put my words in his (the Prophet-Messiah’s) mouth.” Compare Matt. 10:20; also and notably Luke 10:16.

Here we have the fact of inspiration: God spoke in the person of the prophets—God spoke in the person of his Son: God was the real speaker, the prophets and the Son were the persons employed by God; what these uttered God uttered. Add the apostles. The Son wrote nothing, the prophets, the apostles wrote down what they spoke orally. How God inspired them is not told us, that he did this is a fact. The result lies before us today. There is no theory of inspiration, can be none; it is wrong to theorize—the Germans have removed the great fact by theorizing about it, and many have followed them. This has left us mere human words that are errant, unreliable, with which liberties have then been taken. See the interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16.

The remarkable fact is the statement that the Son himself is said to have been inspired of God. Yet this is what Deuteronomy states, what Jesus himself restates in John 8:28; 12:49, 50; 17:8; Rev. 1:1. The Son spoke on earth “as man” (Phil. 2:8); his disciples and men generally heard him. The writer of Hebrews says: “God spoke in the person of (his) Son to us.” Yet he and the readers of this letter did not hear Jesus’ voice; “to us” is nevertheless correct—read 2:3, 4. The great point to be noted is the way in which “the prophets” and the “Son” are paralleled. This is not the Son ἄσαρκος but ἔνσαρκος, the Logos who became flesh (John 1:14). This is so important because all the relative clauses that follow are predicated of the incarnate Son in whose person, while he was here on earth, God spoke “to us.”

One additional thought should not be overlooked. There is no one beyond the incarnate Son whom God might use for his speaking to us. This means that now, having spoken in the person of his Son, we have the ultimate Word and revelation of God. No more and nothing further will God ever say to men. They who look for more and for new revelation will never find it; 2:3 is God’s answer to them; likewise Deut. 18:19. This is certain also because the Old Testament promises of redemption have been fulfilled by the incarnate Son. Only one thing will yet follow, namely the judgment, Rev. 1:7.

Yes, the Jewish Christians to whom this is written have all the Old Testament prophets, all that the fathers had and heard, but they have also all the blessedness which many prophets and righteous have desired to see and to hear and did not get to see and to hear (Matt. 13:17), namely the incarnate Son’s own work and word.

The incomparable greatness, power, and majesty of this incarnate Son are now set forth in relative clauses. The first two clauses are brief, preliminary to the third which is fully elaborated. This “Son” is he “whom God placed as heir of all things, through whom God also made the eons.” Note the asyndeton in the three relative clauses. Yet καί, “also,” indicates a special relation between the first two. Because God made his Son “heir of all things” he “also” made the eons as he did, namely “through the Son,” διά to indicate the personal medium.

It is essential to understand that the incarnate Son is referred to; we shall otherwise not grasp how he could be set or placed as “heir of all things.” It makes no difference whether we date the historical aorist in eternity or in time. Ἔθηκε is the proper word, for “to place” as an heir involves a testament, a διαθήκη (which is derived from this very verb τίθημι). From all eternity and thus at the very creation when the eons of time began God made his Son the heir of all things, not according to his deity which could inherit nothing, but according to his humanity which could and did inherit all things. When the Son in his human nature came to earth incarnate and as a man completed his great saving work, then this mighty inheritance was paid out to him, the inheritance now being in the hands of the heir.

Here belong all those great passages like Dan. 7:13, 14: “There was given to him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,” etc.; Matt. 11:27: “All things are delivered unto me of my Father”; 28:18: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”; Luke 1:32: “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end”; so also 10:22; John 3:35; 5:22; 13:3; 17:2; Rom. 14:9; 1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:10, 21; Phil. 2:9, 10; Heb. 2:8; 1 Pet. 2:22. Given to him, delivered unto him, etc., refer to the Son’s human nature. “This is the heir” (Matt. 17:38); we are joint heirs with this heir (Rom. 8:17); he inherits from the Father (John 3:38); he is the seed and thus the heir (Gal. 3:16). Heir “of all things” is without restriction or limitation. The church is his, but all other things are likewise his, for he governs these in the interest of his church. The fact that the human nature of the Son could have and could administer this vast inheritance is possible only in virtue of its personal union with the divine.

Thus already at the beginning God made the eons “through him,” namely with a view to the Son’s being the heir in the fulness of time to have the vast inheritance as a man. Ποιεῖν is the same as barah (Gen. 1:1), to bring into being. “All things διʼ αὐτοῦ (the same phrase) ἐγένετο, through him came into existence; and without him there came into existence not a single thing that has come into existence (and thus exists),” John 1:3. The eternal deity of the Son is fully revealed. As God’s creative act is beyond all human powers of comprehension, so also is this διά, this working of the one person “through” the other. Διʼ οὗ is not the same as ἐνυἱῷ; we could not exchange the prepositions. The point is not our comprehension of the divine act of creation but an apprehension of the true nature of the Son, who is one in essence, omnipotence, and glory with the Father, and thus his Sonship, partnership, and heirship that were involved at creation.

The statement is not that through the Son God made πάντα or τὰπάντα. (v. 3), which repeats heir “of all things”; it is τοὺςαἰῶνας “the eons.” “The worlds” used in our versions would lead us to think of many worlds or heavenly bodies. G. K. 204 wants “Welten, Weltraeume to be spacially conceived”; he regards them as a substitute for κόσμος. C.-K. retains the temporal conception. Like the later Hebrew plural ’olamim, “the eons” are used metonymically in the Greek and mean, not merely vast periods of time as mere time, but “eons” with all that exists as well as all that transpires in them, complexcus eorum quae temporibus continenter. We have no multiplicity of worlds or world spaces but the cosmos in its entire time-extent with all that fills and forms one eon after another; in brief: heaven and earth and all that has its being in them.

Hebrews 1:3

3 A third relative clause, which is built more grandly because it contains three participial elaborations, reveals still more: not only the infinite exaltation and the incomparable glory of the Son but, woven into this, the blessedness of the redemptive work which makes him more than the supreme Prophet (Deut. 18:18), namely our eternal High Priest and King. The structure is beautiful: three relatives and three participles in the third. The first two participles are closely connected with τε, the third stands out by itself.

It is still the incarnate Son “who as being his glory’s effulgence and his (God’s) being’s impress and as bearing all the (existing) things by means of the uttered word of his power,” etc. This is the Son in whose person God eventually spoke to us. The first two participles are durative presents and denote continuous condition and action.

Ἀπαύγσαμα is the result of ἀπαυγάζειν, the result of sending out the αὐγή. The word occurs only here in the New Testament. Chrysostom defines it as φῶςἐκφωτός, “light out of light,” a sun shining out from the original light but participating in its essence and viewed by itself. The eternal, timeless generation of the Son lies back of this word. Some of Philo’s uses of the word might make us think of “reflex,” light that falls on a medium and is reflected from it as the light of the sun is reflected from the moon; yet no reflecting medium is conceivable. Hence the active meaning Aus-strahlung, “effulgence,” is best. The inscrutable glory of God streams forth in the Son who is the effulgence of that glory.

Δόξα is not merely the shining forth of one of the divine attributes but the shining forth of all of them; αὐτοῦ, which is placed after ὑποστάσεως, belongs also to δόξης: “the effulgence of his (God’s) glory”; the genitive makes “effulgence” definite. As the effulgence of God’s glory the Son is God in essence and has every divine attribute, yet not in the light to which no man can approach, which no man hath seen nor can see (1 Timothy 6:16), but in the light we are to see (John 1:4, 5). As we cannot see the sun without the light and the radiance which it sends forth, so God is hidden from us without the Son, the effulgence of his glory (John 14:9; 12:45; Col. 1:15, “the image of the invisible God”).

The second predicate advances the description of the deity of the Son in his relation to God. Not a temporary, passing effulgence of God’s glory is the Son, in whose person God spoke to us, but “his being’s impress.” We note that “effulgence” and “impress” correspond save that the former blazes forth from God, the latter terminates in the Son himself. “His glory” and his “being” also correspond, but again God’s glory is the shining forth of the effulgence of his attributes while his being is God himself, of whom the Son is the very counterpart. Thus the first predicate rests on the second.

Ὑπόστασις is used in a variety of meanings, but since it is here predicated of God it denotes the reality or actuality of his being. To “his glory,” which is the revelation of his being, it adds the Wirklichkeit, the existence, the being itself (compare C.-K. 540). The English has no comparable term, hence the A. V. uses “person,” the R. V., “substance,” both of which only approach the Greek term. The philosophical use of hypostasis is foreign to our passage; also Philo’s non-personal use of the word. The theological idea of hypostasis: that which exists in and by itself whether it be a person or not originated much later although the word was then applied to the three persons in the Trinity. See the uses of the word in 3:14 and 11:1.

Χαρακτήρ, from Χαράσσειν, “to engrave or inscribe,” means both the tool for such work and the impress or image made by the tool. Note that the word is not Χάραγμα, the result of an impression, which is used with reference to a sign or a symbol and is thus an unsuitable word. The word used means Gepraege, Aus-praegung (C.-K. 1131), not what Christ has received from God, but what he is for us and for the world as the expression of the very being, essence, reality of God. Language fairly groans with the weight of meaning. Our poor human tongue and mind, which are occupied so much with the things that are beneath us, strain to rise to the heights of the divine persons. But these mighty expressions form the rock bottom of our Christian faith, the essence of the sweet gospel realities. If the Son in whose person God drew nigh to us were less than is said here, in Col. 1:15; Phil. 2:6; John 14:9; 20:28; etc., our faith and our hope would be vain indeed.

Τέ, like the Latin-que, connects closely and adds something that is self-evident: “and as bearing all the (existing) things by means of the uttered word of his power.” The incarnate Son’s relation to God involves his relation to the world. He was placed as the heir of all things, the very eons were created through him, the Son, the effulgence of glory and the impress of God’s being; he, indeed, bears τὰπάντα (here with the article), “all the things which exist,” all these eons in their course with all that they contain. Not, however, as an Atlas with the world or the universe as a dead weight upon his shoulders, who merely keeps all things from sinking into nothingness; he bears all things so that his will and his purpose are fulfilled. We need not argue as to whether φέρων means only “sustaining” (“upholding,” our versions), the conservatio, or “bearing” in the sense of administering or ruling, for there is no reason for restricting the term. Jewish theology combined the thought of resisting disruptive forces with bringing to the designed goal, and both are included here.

All that the Son needs for this is “the ῥῆμα of his power” (which is stronger than “his powerful word”), the mere “utterance” of his will. This is not his gospel word but the utterance of his omnipotence. He commands, and it stands fast (Col. 1:17). During the days of his humiliation he uttered many words of omnipotent power when he was working his miracles.

The third participle is an aorist to denote one past historical act; it is introduced without a connective and thus stands out by itself: “after having wrought for himself cleansing from the sins.” The A. V. retains διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, “by himself” purged, etc., which the best texts and the R. V. omit. When he was dealing with the world the Son encountered “the sins” of the world. What did he do? This terse statement answers: “He wrought for himself cleansing from sins.” The middle voice implies that the act was in some way reflected on himself; we know how—by his sacrificial death. The genitive after καθαρισμός is not unusual, especially since καθαρός and its derivatives are followed by the objective genitive about as often as by the preposition ἀπό.

This expression recalls the work of the Jewish high priest on the great Day of Atonement. “On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord,” Lev. 17:30. The expression speaks of the Son as the High Priest, and the rest of this epistle will speak of him in this function at length. This statement takes the incarnation for granted; in fact, its real purpose is here brought out: to enable the Son to accomplish this purification by his blood and sacrifice. The cleansing here referred to is the objective atonement for sin, which was made once for all on Calvary, which each individual sinner must now appropriate unto himself by faith.

The Son, having effected the cleansing, “sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high” in one formal, all-glorious act. The ascension was visible to the disciples until a cloud hid the Savior’s form. In that instant he was transferred timelessly into the heavenly world where God, the angels, and the saints dwell, to the sessio ad dextram. Ἐνδεξιᾷ (feminine: χειρί is not a circumscribed locality in heaven as Zwingli, Calvin, and others think when they deny the possibility of Christ’s bestowing his body and his blood in, with, and under the bread and the wine in the Sacrament. We dismiss all ideas of time and of space and of limitations when we are thinking of the heavenly world; they do not apply there, nor does an argument that is based on such ideas. What timelessness (eternity) and spacelessness are no human mind is able to conceive.

Instead of saying only “at the right (hand) of God,” we have the grander expression “at the right (hand) of the majesty.” This abstract term “the majesty” denotes the omnipotent glory of God, and it is folly to imagine that it has either a right or a left side. The term “majesty” makes this the clearest of the pertinent passages: Ps. 77:10; 118:16; Exod. 15:6; Isa. 48:13; Matt. 26:64; etc. “The majesty” or “greatness” is infinite; to sit down at its right is taken from Ps. 110:1: “Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” The Biblical description is found in Eph. 1:20–22. To be seated thus is to exercise “the majesty” and to do this in all its infinitude.

We do not construe ἐνὑψηλοῖς with “the majesty” as naming the place where it exists but with the verb: “he sat down in the high places” (= ἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς, “in the heavens”), far above all the earthly regions (compare Ps. 93:3; 113:5; Isa. 57:15). Angels and men stand before the throne, the Son sits, not in idleness, but in active power and rule. Riggenbach notes that Ps. 110 was interpreted with reference to the Messiah by the ancient Jews; that traces of this interpretation are still left after Judaism rejected Christianity; that Jesus significantly employed this psalm (Matt. 22:44; 26:64); that a number of thoughts that are developed in Hebrews are expositions of this psalm, the first thought being found here; in 1:13; in 8:1; the fourth in 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1–25.

Our Confessions note that this exaltation refers to Christ’s human nature. “God’s right hand is everywhere, at which Christ is placed in deed and in truth according to his human nature, being present, rules, and has in his hands and beneath his feet everything that is in heaven and on earth, where no man else, nor angels, but only the Son is placed.” C. Tr. 811. The reason is stated in 821: “Hence we believe, teach, and confess that the Son of man is realiter, that is in deed and truth, exalted according to his human nature to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God, because he (that man) was assumed into God when he was conceived of the Holy Ghost in his mother’s womb, and his human nature was personally united with the Son of the Highest.” This includes the fact that the human nature of Christ “did receive, apart from, and over and above its natural, essential, permanent properties, also special, high, great, supernatural, inscrutable, ineffable, heavenly, praerogativas and excellencies in majesty, glory, power, and might above everything that can be named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come” (1033, 51). Hence, “that also according to his assumed human nature and with the same, he can be, and also is, present where he will, and especially that in his Church and congregation on earth he is present as Mediator, Head, King, and High Priest, not in part or one-half of him only, but the entire person of Christ is present, to which both natures belong, the divine and the human.… Even as he instituted his Holy Supper for the certain assurance and confirmation of this, that also according to that nature according to which he has flesh and blood he will be with us, and dwell, work, and be efficacious in us” (1043, etc., 78).

The Incarnate Son Incomparably Supreme Over All Angels in His Exaltation, v. 4–14

Hebrews 1:4

4 We make a division at this point because of the thought, which makes a comparison with the angels, and not because of the construction, for this continues with another aorist participle which is followed by elucidations.

Addressed to Jewish Christians who are inclined to drop back into Judaism, the first three verses are sure of producing a tremendous effect, something like that which was produced on Saul when Jesus appeared to him in all his glory on the road near Damascus. These three verses concentrate the great glory rays upon the Jewish readers in one mighty focus. That is why so many terse clauses are brought together in a unit statement and end with the exaltation: “he sat down at the right of the majesty on high.” Verses 1–3 are certainly a unit.

When eleven verses follow, all of which contain a comparison with the angels although they are participially attached to v. 1–3, it should be obvious that we now come to a specific subject, the supreme exaltation of Jesus above all the angels. In other words, from the concentrated thematic statement made in v. 1–3 one specific line of thought is singled out and elaborated in detail, at the end of which 2:1–4 brings an effective warning.

That raises the question as to why this section on the Son and the angels has been introduced in writing to these Jewish Christians. No polemical intent is evident as though the readers held false views about the angels, as though they were to be worshipped. The Jews never worshipped angels. These eleven verses are not placing angels beside “the prophets” mentioned in v. 1. Our question is answered in v. 7 and at the end of the section in v. 14. Among the agents and ministrants whom God employs the heavenly angels, pure spirit beings, rank highest in every way. Yet incomparably higher stands Jesus.

Since they are thoroughly versed in Scripture, which is also the ultimate authority for both the writer and the readers, God’s own Word (v. 1) is allowed to speak. No reader would think of contradicting or raising objection. We should see the force of the participle: it indicates that what follows is not independent but is subjoined as elaborating one line of thought contained in v. 1–3. Thus, letting the thought speak for itself in its connection with the foregoing, the writer continues: having gotten to be by so much better than the angels by how much more superior a name than they he has inherited. His very name expresses his infinite superiority in comparison with the angels. Ὄνομα is not a mere designation to distinguish one individual from others who are like him but a name that reveals what this person really is. The revealing effect of ὄνομα should not be overlooked.

Τοσούτῳ … ὅσῳ, which is never used by Paul, occurs several times in Hebrews; κρείττων, which is rarely used by Paul and then only in the neuter and in an adverbial sense, appears thirteen times in Hebrews and also in Peter. “BETTER, BETTER!” together with other great comparatives rings through Hebrews as its keynote. None of the excellence of the others is denied; yea, their very excellence shows how much better Christ is. Διάφορος implies comparison, the comparative διαφορώτερος intensifies this. Originally meaning “different,” the word indicates a difference that marks superiority; the comparative denotes: different from the angels because of an altogether greater superiority. Παρά after the comparative, which is frequently found in Hebrews = beside or in comparison with.

The supreme “name” referred to is not the one mentioned in Rev. 19:12, which no man’s tongue can utter but, as the following shows, the name “Son” which was mentioned already in v. 2. But the aorist participle states that he who is named here “got” or “got to be” as much better than the angels as he “has inherited” a name that is more superior than theirs, namely the name “Son.” There is no reference in these tenses to the Son’s deity, which is eternal. The perfect tense “has inherited” explains the aorist “got to be.” In the incarnation the human nature of Jesus inherited the name “Son,” (Luke 1:32) which belonged to his person from all eternity, which, in reference to his human nature, was given to him already in the Old Testament; the perfect tense implies that what he inherited remains his ever since. The incarnation ushered him into this world for his great work. This work Jesus wrought through his human nature and in accomplishing his work proved himself vastly superior to the angels. They, indeed, also do God’s will and may thus be compared with Jesus; but none of them could possibly have done this work that Jesus did and hence could possibly ever have inherited the name “Son.” Compare 10:5–9a: Jesus carried out God’s will by means of the sacrifice of his body; add Mark 14:42; John 4:34; 5:30; Matt. 3:17: “This is my Son,” etc.

When the angels are called “sons of God” in the Old Testament, this is done only in a generic way; so Israel, too, is called a son (Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos. 11:1), Solomon likewise (2 Sam. 7:12–14), and we are “all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus,” Gal. 3:27. But the name “Son” belongs to Jesus in a way that is different from and altogether superior to that of any creature, namely by an inheritance (compare “heir” in v. 2), i. e., by virtue of the personal union of his human nature to the divine, and by virtue of the work he did in and through his human nature in this union. The only-begotten Son was the “Son” also in his human nature which is now exalted at the right hand of the majesty.

Hebrews 1:5

5 “For” substantiates the fact that this inheritance of the name “Son” has taken place. For to whom of the angels did he ever say:

Son of mine art thou!

I on my part have begotten thee?

And again:

I on my part will be to him Father,

And he will be to me Son?

The rhetorical questions call for the answer: “Never did God say such a thing to any angel.” He spoke thus only to this one person. Not merely once did God call him “Son” in the most exalted sense but many times. Not only in one way but in more than one. All that lies in God’s calling him “Son” has already been made manifest, and what remains will yet be manifested.

The first quotation is taken from Ps. 2:7, and in answer to the critics we note that Peter attributes this psalm to David (Acts 4:25). The Hebrew and the LXX agree. The reference is to 2 Sam. 7, especially to 7:14, 16, to the seed of David who should reign in the Davidic kingdom and on the Davidic throne forever. It is this everlasting King himself who in the psalm quotes Yahweh as having said to him: “Son of mine art thou!” etc. This word is echoed in the New Testament when at Jesus’ baptism God said to him: “Thou art my beloved Son!” Luke 3:22. That was the time when Jesus assumed his great office. This declaration was repeated at the transfiguration of Jesus, Luke 9:35.

Although these two declarations are verbally almost identical with the one found in Ps. 2, they are quite often overlooked in the interpretation of this passage and of Acts 13:33. We take this statement prophetically—David was one of “the prophets” mentioned in v. 1, in whose person God spoke of old—that God spoke thus already in the Old Testament. “I myself have begotten thee” is figurative for God’s placing David’s Son, the heir of all things (v. 2), on his everlasting throne in the eternal kingdom. The inauguration of such a King is for Yahweh the begetting of a Son who rules like Yahweh himself. This inauguration is attested throughout the Old Testament and culminates, as Paul says in Acts 13:33, in the resurrection of Jesus.

The passage quoted from the psalm does not speak of the generatio aeterna; not of the inner Trinitarian relation of the two persons although this is involved; not of σήμερον, “today,” as eternity but as time, and involves the incarnation, the human nature, and the redemptive work of Jesus, who purged away the sins of the world (v. 3). The idea is not that we may restrict “have begotten thee” to the incarnation, or to the baptism, or to the transfiguration. Even the resurrection must include all that preceded as well as the exaltation at the right hand of the majesty.

The question continues: To whom of the angels did God ever say what he said in 2 Sam. 7:14: “I on my part will be to him Father” in the supreme sense, “and he shall be to me Son”? As in the psalm the Messianic statement pertained to David, so this second Messianic statement pertained to Solomon. In both Yahweh looked far beyond both men to the eternal Solomon, the ultimate heir (v. 2), in whom alone 2 Sam. 7:16 could be fulfilled: “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever.” See Luke 1:33.

In both quotations ἐγώ is emphatic: “I myself” or “I on my part.” After “I shall be,” “he shall be” the predicate nominative is expressed by εἰς with the accusative (so in the LXX), B.-D. 145, 1; R. 481. But we do not translate: “I shall be a Father, he shall be a Son”; but simply “Father—Son.” This passage doubles the idea of “Son” by adding that of “Father.” All that lies in “I have begotten thee” for the exaltation of the Son, who became incarnate for his work and his office, appears in the addition of “Father” to “Son.”

In brief, (1) the Son in his deity, one in essence with the Father, (2) is the Son through whom and for whom in the eternal counsel of the Trinity as the heir of all things the eons were to be and then actually were created, (3) he to be the incarnate Savior to cleanse, the incarnate King to rule at his Father’s side. All this is present to the writer’s mind; his careful Jewish Christian readers felt and perceived it all.

Hebrews 1:6

6 Moreover, when he shall again bring in the First-begotten into the inhabited earth he declares:

And let all God’s angels worship him!

Δέ adds this somewhat different point. Ps. 2:7 and 2 Sam. 7:14 show what Yahweh called Jesus, namely “Son,” he himself being this Son’s “Father,” and the writer notes the important fact that Yahweh never did such a thing for any angel. This third quotation brings out the fact as to what the position of the angels really is in respect to the Son. Yahweh himself demands that all the angels prostrate themselves in worship (προσκυνέω) before the Son.

The point of this would amount to very little if it meant no more than that the angels are called upon to bow in worship before the deity of the Son. The fact that all creatures must bow before the persons of the Godhead was a truism to all Jews. Moreover, we should know that all Jews of Old Testament times and of apostolic times were Trinitarians; Jewish unitarianism developed later as a result of Jewish hostility to Christianity. In order to bring out the real point of this third quotation the writer of Hebrews prefaces Yahweh’s word with the clause: “when he shall again bring in the First-begotten into the inhabited earth he says,” etc. Then, when Yahweh brings him in again, he demands that all the angels cast themselves down in worship before the Son as the First-begotten. Once before Yahweh has brought the First-begotten into the οἰκουμένη (sc. γῆ), into the earth that is inhabited by men.

That was at the time of the incarnation and in the redemptive mission of the incarnate Son, when he wrought the cleansing of the world from its sins (v. 3). Then, too, God’s angels worshipped him (over Bethlehem’s fields, at the end of the forty days of the temptation, etc.) although this worship is not mentioned here. He who was brought in once shall be brought in again, which must occur at the end of the world, when he will execute the final judgment. Then all the angels of God shall accompany him, and then they shall worship him, and not only in his deity, but equally as the Son of man in his humanity, in which the heavenly host worshipped him already at his incarnation.

That is why the writer calls the incarnate Son “the First-born.” So much lies in this term. For one thing, the very Sonship of which the writer speaks—the First-born is the supreme Son. For another, he is the heir of all things (v. 2). For a third, the thought already expressed in “thee” as explained in v. 5. The main point in the term “the Firstborn” is the human nature of the Son; he is “the Son of man” who shall come again for the final judgment (Matt. 25:31), he who on the cross cleansed the world from the sins (v. 3), he shall return in glory, him all God’s angels will worship, before him every knee must bow (Phil. 2:10).

Jesus is called “the First-born of all creation” in Col. 1:15; “the First-born from the dead” in Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5; “the First-born among many brethren” in Rom. 8:29; these brethren are called “the church of the first-born” in Heb. 12:23. “First-born” does not refer to time but to dignity, to “pre-eminence in all respects” (Col. 1:18: “get to be first ἐνπᾶσιν, in all respects,” adverbial). In our passage we have “the First-born” without modification. This surely means that the term is to be taken in the broadest sense, so as to include the four parallel passages. Some exclude Col. 1:15; but is this First-born not the heir of all things? They restrict it to Rom. 8:29 and let “First-born” in our passage imply that there are others who were born later; but the term is not temporal—it refers to dignity. See the exegesis of Col. 1:15. “First-born” covers all the eons (v. 2), all creation from its beginning to its end in time, from eternity to eternity—and this for the Incarnate One, the Son of man, through whom the eons were wrought, who bears all that exists, who wrought the redemptive cleansing, who shall judge all things at his Parousia. Him all God’s angels must worship.

Πάλιν is not “carelessly placed.” We translate “when he shall again bring in” and not “and again … he says” (A. V. and R. V. margin), which would require the reading πάλινδὲὅτανκτλ. The aorist subjunctive = “shall again bring in,” the aorist is used because a single act is referred to; not: “shall again have brought in” as some translate. Πάντες is at times used without the article (R. 773); here, however, Θεοῦ makes ἄγγελοι definite. It is noted that “he says” (present tense) does not agree with “shall bring in” (the subjunctive referring to the future); but this only seems so. Yahweh said this about his angels in the distant past, yet not as something that applied to the moment of his speaking only but as something that we may quote at any time with the verb λέγει, “he says,” since it applies to any time. We use “God says” in the same way.

The words quoted do not appear in the Hebrew Masoretic text, of which our versions are a translation. In the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1–43) the LXX amplified v. 43. The LXX Vaticanus has the wording found in Hebrews; the Alexandrinus has “sons of God” in Deut. 32:43 but in the Song of Moses, which appears again at the close of the Psalms, it has πάντεςοἱἄγγελοιΘεοῦ. This addition found in Deuteronomy is apparently borrowed from Ps. 97:7, where, however, we have “all (ye) gods,” kol-’elohim, although the words refer to angels. Since Hebrews retains καί in the quotation it quotes from Deuteronomy, where this connective appears; it is absent in Ps. 97. Delitzsch thinks that the addition to the Song of Moses was made when it came into liturgical use among the ancient Jews.

The fact that Yahweh said what this quotation contains is above doubt. In Ps. 97:7 these words follow the confounding of the idolaters; in the Song of Moses they likewise follow the vengeance upon Yahweh’s adversaries. So in Hebrews they are also referred to the final judgment of the last day.

Regarding this whole subject of the quotations found in Hebrews it must be said that, while the LXX is used, we never find the Jewish rabbinical manipulations of Scripture words; never is a foreign meaning introduced. But there is a penetration into the full depth and the bearing of the Old Testament words. This is due to the original inspiration of the Old Testament prophets and their words (v. 1) and to the inspiration of the writer of Hebrews, who is led and guided by the Holy Spirit to see God’s intention in the Old Testament utterances. Thus the quotations are neither made in a mechanical and slavish manner, as some critics think they are made, nor are they used in a mechanical manner. The Spirit guided the writer in using the words that were originally written under his (the Spirit’s) divine guidance; he directed the way in which he wished them to be quoted, what combination of passages to make, what interpretative restatements to employ, and the true interpretations he desired to be recorded for the New Testament readers. The Holy Spirit is his own interpreter despite those who deny inspiration or those who fail to adopt his interpretation.

Hebrews 1:7

7 The writer continues with a second comparison: what God says “in regard to the angels” and what he says in contrast “in regard to the Son.” In v. 4–6 he alone is God’s Son and not the angels, they must bow in the dust before him. Now in v. 7–14, which starts with a chiasm and ends with another, the incomparable supremacy of the Son is shown by comparing the height to which the angels attain with the height which belongs to the Son—they are λειτουργοί, God’s ministrants and no more, the Son is the everlasting King. We cannot agree with the view that in v. 7–12 there is a comparison regarding the Wesen, nature or being, of the angels and of the Son; this is the point of comparison in v. 4–6. And in regard, on the one hand, to the angels he says:

The One making his messengers winds,

And his officials fire-flame.

They are able to attain to no greater height. Note the correlation of μέν with the δέ used in v. 8. The two πρός phrases occurring in v. 7 and 8 = “in regard to” (R. 626), for in v. 7 the psalmist is not speaking “to” the angels.

The correctness of the Greek translation of the Hebrew of Ps. 104:4 has been challenged on the basis of the claim that this must be: “The One making winds his messengers and fire-flame his officials”—these poetic lines do not speak of angels at all. Delitzsch (Die Psalmen, 4th ed.) says that this rendering is possible but that the one given here has equal right. Even a third is possible: “The One making his messengers out of winds,” etc. We certainly do not hesitate a moment to accept the rendering of the LXX which is quoted by the writer of Hebrews, who himself states that these lines speak of the angels. An inspired Hebrew poet wrote Ps. 104, the great Creation Hymn, yet here λέγει makes God the speaker who says this about the angels. The solution is found in v. 1: God spoke in the person of the prophets.

In the line quoted from the psalm τοὺςἀγγέλουςαὐτοῦ has its original Greek meaning “his messengers,” and it should not be translated “his angels” (our versions) although the psalmist himself says that “the angels” are referred to. Our word “angel” is merely an adoption of the Greek word, but we have lost the idea of a messenger. So we should not translate the predicative πνεύματα “spirits” (A. V. and R. V. margin); the word means “winds,” which is the original sense of the word; its parallel in the next line is “flame of fire” (a singular because the Hebrew ’esh, “flame,” has no plural).

The psalmist says that God makes his angel-messengers fleet as winds, his angel-officials destructive as the consuming flame of fire. The point is not merely the predicate accusatives “winds” and “flame” but still more the designations “messengers” and “officials.” To be this is to attain the greatest height and function to which angels may rise, for which God makes them swift in the one function, destructive in the other. They carry God’s messages as Gabriel did when he was sent from God to Mary (Luke 1:26)—these are errands for a good purpose. Again they function as God’s λειτουργοί, “officials,” to execute his judgments (the word means those who function in an office) like the angel mentioned in Exod. 12:29 who slew the first-born in Egypt, the angel mentioned in 2 Kings 19:35 who smote the camp of the Assyrians, the angel referred to in Acts 12:23 who smote Herod. All these were acts of consuming destruction.

The interpretation which considers only the predicates “winds” and “flame of fire” and then claims that the angels are variable in their being, at one time being this, again that, cannot be accepted. No angel ever became a wind or a flame. Neither did God in the fiery bush become fire or flame. Jewish views are sometimes introduced to the effect that the Jews saw angel powers in all the phenomena of nature: “the angels of the spirit of the winds, and the angels of the spirit of the clouds, and of darkness, and of snow, and of hail, and of hoar frost, and the angels of the voices of the thunder and of the lightning, and the angels of the spirits of cold and of heat, and of winter, and of spring,” etc. Book of Jubilees, 2:2. But such fictions do not illumine the truth.

Hebrews 1:8

8 In regard, on the other hand, to the Son (he says):

Thy throne, God, (is) for the eon of the eon,

And the scepter of straightforwardness scepter of thy royal rule.

Thou didst love righteousness and didst hate lawlessness.

For this reason, God, thy God, did anoint thee

With oil of gladness beyond thy associates.

We cannot reproduce the delicate μέν and δέ save by the bulky “on the one hand—on the other hand.” Ps. 45:6, 7 pictures the height on which the Son moves. The Messianic character of the whole psalm lies on the surface; the writer of Hebrews quotes these lines as being spoken “in regard to the Son.” Λέγει is omitted, yet here, too, as v. 1 shows, God speaks in the singer’s person who addresses the Son as follows: “Thy throne, O God, for the eon of the eon!” Here we have a vocative even in the Hebrew as well as in the LXX and in Hebrews, and only the unwillingness of commentators to have the Son addressed so directly as ’Elohim, ὁΘεός (the article with the nominative is used as a vocative), “God,” causes the search for a different construction.

When in his Psalmen Delitzsch justifies this ’Elohim he reduces its meaning by pointing to governmental authorities who are also called ’Elohim (he might have pointed to Ps. 97:7 which is discussed under v. 6 where the word is applied to angels) and by pointing to “God, thy God,” in the following lines as if this placed “God” when it is applied to the Son beneath “his God.” But such interpretations are inadequate: the Son is “God” in the fullest sense of the word.

Yet the point to be emphasized here is not essence and being in contrast to the angels who are creatures but position, office, function, and what a height angels have in this respect as compared with the supreme height of the Son in the corresponding respect. The Son occupies his throne for the eon of the eon, the Greek expression meaning “for all eternity” (the plural is sometimes used: “for the eon of the eons”). “Thy throne” implies that the Son is King. In v. 3 he sat down at the right of the majesty on high as a king also in his human nature. Luke 1:32, 33. See also v. 13 below. The angels are messengers, officers who have wondrous power, but never is one of them “God” who has a throne eternal. Jesus is this.

The second line adds the scepter to the throne: “and the scepter of straightforwardness scepter of thy royal rule.” The LXX construes the article with the second ῥάβδος: “a scepter of straightforwardness thy scepter of thy royal rule,” which appears also as a variant reading in Hebrews but with αὐτοῦ in place of σου. The difference is immaterial: either may be subject, either predicate, the meaning is the same. For the point is that with “thy throne” there goes this “scepter” and this βασιλεία, “kingdom,” not territory, not subjects, but “royal rule,” Koenigsherrschaft. Unlike earthly kingdoms which make and also unmake their kings, this King makes his kingdom: wherever he wields his scepter, there is his Basileia.

Since this second line, like the rest of the quotation, only amplifies the incomparably high royal position of the Son, the great point in this line is not the quality of the scepter as being straightforward (A. V. margin “rightness,” “straightness”; R. V., “uprightness”), for this King could not have a scepter of any other kind. The Hebrew word, too, means “straightness”; it is not deflected from the true, level line by either partiality or prejudice as is many a scepter of earthly kings. Such kings debase their royal authority; the straight scepter of this eternal King ever keeps the exalted height of his royal authority. So this line, too, describes his absolute and unvarying exaltation. The whole Old Testament proclaims this fact. Jer. 23:5; Ps. 72:1, 2; also Rev. 15:3.

Hebrews 1:9

9 The next line corroborates this by stating what has been in this King’s heart: “Thou didst love righteousness and didst hate lawlessness”; his whole reign proclaims this love of his and its corresponding hate.

Therefore, because he is the King that he is, “God, thy God, did anoint thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy associates.” One may hesitate between this rendering and the one which has a vocative as was the case in the first line in v. 8: “there did anoint thee, God, thy God with the oil,” etc. In this alternative translation the Son would again be addressed as “God.” But the main point is the fact that in this anointing the human nature of the King is stressed, wherefore also “thy associates” are mentioned. As the Son of man he sat down at the right of the majesty after effecting the world’s cleansing from sins (v. 3). The verb “to anoint” has two accusatives, one of the person and another of the oil. “Oil” is the symbol of gladness. Thus this expression is figurative: gladness, delight, bliss were poured out upon the head of this King.

This does not refer to the anointing with the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ’s baptism, nor to the anointing for his office of King; for the psalm deals with the King’s wedding. These μέτοχοι are not angels who have already been described as being only God’s messengers and officials. These “associates” of the King are the saints: he is the heir (v. 2), they his joint heirs (Rom. 8:17); he is on the throne, they sit with him in his throne (Rev. 3:21). They share his gladness. For he did not take on the nature of angels, but he did take on that of the seed of Abraham (2:16).

“God, thy God,” in no way lessens the deity of the Son who is addressed as God in v. 8. We have John 20:17, a statement from Jesus’ own lips. We have already stated that the human nature is in the mind of the writer from v. 2 onward, and for this human nature God was the God of Christ, our King, and will ever remain so. Those who have an unclear understanding of the union of the two natures will always offer hesitating or inadequate or even wrong comment. But when clarity is attained, the tremendous effect of this writer’s quotations upon the Jewish Christians he addresses appears at once. This Jesus is the Lord and King of whom God spoke so fully and so clearly of old in the person of the ancient prophets—how can their faith possibly decline?

Hebrews 1:10

10 Ps. 102:25–27 is added with a simple “and.” It describes the Son still further, namely as to his eternal unchangeableness. Calvin stated that only by means of pia deflectione could the writer of Hebrews make this psalm speak of the Messiah, and others speak of “an audacious innovation”; but these views have been fully answered, especially by those who note that the whole psalm applies to Yahweh, the Immutable, as the Coming One, and that especially in the lines quoted, which speak of the final consummation when heaven and earth shall be changed, the Messianic meaning is as clear as a Jew or a Christian could wish it. Of necessity, however, if the Son is immutable, his immutability must extend back before even creation. As for the slight textual changes, these are negligible, for “thou” is placed first instead of fifth because for clearness’ sake Κύριε is inserted from the preceding, the psalm being addressed throughout to Yahweh.

And:

Thou, down in the beginning, Lord, didst found the earth,

And works of thy hands are the heavens.

They shall perish, but thou, thou dost continue on;

And all they as a robe shall grow old,

And as a mantle thou wilt roll them up;

As a robe also they shall be exchanged.

But thou, the same art thou;

And thy years shall not fail.

The psalmist uses thoughts and expressions that he has learned from the prophets; Delitzsch has traced them in his Psalmen. The first two lines, which describe the creation of the earth and the heavens, only expand the clause occurring in v. 2: “through whom also he made the eons.” “Thou didst found the earth” is poetic to express the solidity of the earth, a vast mass resting on a mighty foundation. Poetic also is the statement that the heavens are “works of thy hands,” as if the Lord’s hands had fashioned them, and put them in place.

The Incarnate Son is the Creator. All that we said about the relative clauses used in v. 2 belongs also here. Certainly, the incarnation occurred historically in time, long after the creation; but God is beyond and above time and dates; Rev. 13:8 affords us a glimpse of this. Only mechanical thinking will cling to dates and seek to subject the Eternal One to this limitation. Realizing that we are on the brink of the humanly conceivable every time we touch eternity, omnipotence, etc., we shall go as far as Scripture actually goes but shall never venture a step farther. In heaven we may be granted the privilege of seeing more of this connection between the creation and the incarnation of the heir of all things, the Changeless. One.

11, 12) One leap takes us from the creation of the earth and the heavens to their destruction: “They (αὐτοί, emphatic) shall perish.” This is not speculation, philosophic deduction, or “the assured results of science.” It is revelation, the same revelation which records the creation in Gen. 1. Speculation has never found a beginning, likewise never an end. When scientists say that they are not obliged to do this they seek to excuse themselves from the main thing they must do to be true “knowers” (scientists), for unless they truly know the beginning and the end and him who fixes both, how can they truly know what lies between? The humble Christian, who knows this main thing, is far, far in advance of all the learned men, who in spite of all that they learn lack the absolute essentials.

“They—but thou” are in sharp contrast: “but thou, thou dost continue on”—a simple, human way of stating the Son’s eternity. “Continue on” is an expression of time; human thought and language have no other expressions for what by another word of time we call “eternity.” He who was before creation will be the same after heaven and earth perish.

καί is explicative: “And all they (the heavens) as a robe shall grow old.” Surely, the heavens seem permanently changeless, but they are like a robe that is presently worn out and must be discarded. “And as a mantle thou wilt roll them up,” a variant reading is “thou wilt exchange them” for a better mantle. Isa. 34:4; 51:6; Matt. 24:35; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10; Rev. 21:1. “As a robe also shall they be exchanged” is what Rev. 21:1 describes when it speaks of “a heaven new, an earth new.”

Again we have the contrast: “But thou, the same art thou; and thy years shall not fail.” The Son is the Immutable One; his eternity is expressed once more in a human way with terms of time.

Hebrews 1:13

13 Δέ. adds. Moreover, to whom of the angels has he ever said:

Sit at my right

Until I place thine enemies as a footstool for thy feet?

This is the climax just as it is in v. 3. We see that v. 4–14 are the Old Testament exposition and elaboration of v. 1–3. These are the prophetic voices of the Old Testament by which God spoke in olden times. To believe in Jesus means only to believe the Old Testament prophecies, believe God who spoke about Jesus in the person of the Old Testament prophets (v. 1).

Ps. 110 was composed by David. That point is vital for an understanding of Matt. 22:41–46; Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41, 44. The first line of the psalm: “The Lord (Yahweh) said to my Lord (’Adonai),” is omitted and only the command is quoted: “Sit at my right,” etc., present imperative: “be sitting and so continue,” etc. The phrase ἐκδεξιῶν is the Greek idiom which looks “out from” a place toward the speaker and uses the neuter plural as if the right consisted of parts. What sitting at God’s right means, and how this applies to the human nature of the Son we have discussed in v. 3.

Spurgeon misunderstands when he regards this sitting as being otiose: “His work is done, and he may sit … he may therefore quietly wait.… In his sitting he is our representative.… While we see our Lord and representative sitting in quiet expectancy, we, too, may sit in the attitude of peaceful assurance.” Yahweh, Spurgeon thinks, will subdue the enemies while Christ merely sits and waits. But read Ps. 2:9. This is not quiet waiting. We know that the opera ad extra sunt indivisa; all the persons of the Godhead join in them. The Father may, indeed, be said to lay the enemies of the Son at his feet, but this does not exclude the fact that the Son smashes his foes with the rod of iron. God, too, sits and laughs at the raging kings of earth and at the violent hosts of men and of devils that assail his Son’s kingdom. This sitting is the exercise of power and majesty.

This expression is anthropomorphitic: “till I place thine enemies as a footstool for thy feet” (compare Josh. 10:24). Conquering kings emphasized their triumph by placing a foot upon the neck of some conquered king. The figure is extended so as to include all the incarnate Son’s enemies, and it is in accord with the idea of a “footstool” to match the sitting and at the same time conveys the idea of permanent triumph by means of “footstool.” So Delitzsch writes: “Temporal history shall end with the triumph of good over evil, yet not with the annihilation of evil but with its subjugation. To this it will come when absolute omnipotence for and through the exalted Christ shows its effectiveness.”

The question asked in v. 13 is like that asked in v. 5. The answer is: “To no angel has God ever said such a thing.”

Hebrews 1:14

14 The answer to the second question indicates the reason God could never have said and never did say anything like this to even the highest angel. The interrogatory form implies that no reader of this epistle will think of dissenting. Are they not all (only) officiating spirits commissioned (again and again, iterative present) for ministry for the sake of those about to inherit salvation? Yes, that is what they are, no more than that is possible for them. They fit into the incarnate Son’s royal rule of grace, none of them could ever act as the King himself.

Οὐχί is the strengthened οὐ. “All” becomes emphatic because of “to whom” in v. 13 which implies “to none”; “all” are only what is here said of them. The adjective λειτουργικά recalls the noun used in v. 7 and has the corresponding meaning: “officiating” spirits. They may officiate in God’s acts of judgment (v. 7) but also in God’s grace (here) as being “commissioned” on all sorts of errands “for ministry” (or service), commissioned thus “for the sake of (διά with the accusative) those about to inherit salvation.” It is the angels’ delight to do this service for Christ’s saints. To act as Christ’s officiating ministrants in saving us poor mortals is the height of their joy. It is also the limit of their activity. They cannot make us heirs of salvation, only the heir (v. 2) can do this, who alone has the inheritance to share with us as joint heirs (Rom. 8:17). Μέλλω with the present infinitive paraphrases the future tense. “Salvation” refers to our deliverance at the time of death (Luke 16:22) and in the final judgment.

For one service, however, angels are never employed; they are never sent out to preach the gospel. That service Christ reserves for the church and its ministry. Through both Testaments there runs the story of the angels and of the missions they perform. It is most entrancing in the New Testament. Shall the angels be for the readers of this epistle a consuming “flame of fire” (v. 7), or shall they be what v. 14 says? Are the readers among “those about to inherit salvation,” or are they among the enemies to be laid low as Jesus’ “footstool” (v. 13)? These and similar questions are involved in this wonderful presentation of the incarnate Son’s incomparable exaltation.

The writer, we may note, proceeds as Jesus does in Luke 24:25–27: he expounds the Scriptures in order to remove all doubts.

Again we note that, all denials to the contrary, the Old Testament is full of the revelation of the Trinity and of the Son and his incarnation and human exaltation. This chapter is the evidence.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

C. Tr. Concordia Triglotta. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church, German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo., Concordia Publishing House.