Hebrews 1

SECTION ONE Hebrews 1:1-14 and Hebrews 2:1-4 In this section, the Apostle endeavors to persuade and encourage his Hebrew brethren in Christ to persevere to the end in their begun Christian course, by presenting to them sundry motives drawn chiefly from the Divine nature, glory, and dignity of Christ, considered as the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things.

I. He concedes that God had in ancient times, in divers parts and ways, spoken to the Fathers by the Prophets. But then he claims that the same God did in the end of these days, or at the close of the Jewish age, speak to us by his own Son (Hebrews 1:1). But who is this Son of God? There is by the common consent of all, a very close and intimate connection between the character of the messenger and the weight and importance of his message. And hence the Apostle next proceeds to answer this question: to speak particularly of the incomparable majesty, glory, and perfec¬tions of Jesus Christ, as the Son of God. He says,

1. That he is the heir, or Lord, of all things (Hebrews 1:2). 2 That through him, God made the worlds (Hebrews 1:2).
2. That he is the effulgence of the Father’ s glory (Hebrews 1:3).
3. That he is the exact image or likeness of the Father’ s essence (Hebrews 1:3).
4. That he supports all things by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3).
5. That by means of his own blood, he has made purification for our sins (Hebrews 1:3).
6. And that having done this, he now sits, as King of kings and Lord of lords, on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens (Hebrews 1:3).

II. In the remaining portion of the first chapter, the Apostle further expands and amplifies this subject, by comparing Christ with angels. He proves chiefly from the Old Testament Scriptures, that he (Christ) is superior to the angels.

1. In that he has obtained by inheritance a more excellent name than they (Hebrews 1:4-5).
2. The angels are all required to worship him (Hebrews 1:6).
3. True, indeed, the angels are very powerful and exalted beings. Before them the enemies of Jehovah melt away, as wax or stubble before the flame. And endowed, as they are, with all the strength and purity indicated by the symbolic use of the word spirit, they are of course far removed from all the infirmities and imperfections of the flesh. But by the appointment of the Father, as well as by his own essential Divinity, the Son is exalted far above all the angels of Heaven. As God, he sits on the throne of the universe, judging and governing it in truth and in righteous-ness (Hebrews 1:7-8).
4. He has been anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, far above all kings and princes (Hebrews 1:9). “ The Father giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.”
5. He is from everlasting to everlasting. By him the founda¬tions of the Earth were laid, and the heavens are the work of his hands. They will all finally perish; and he will roll them up and recast them, as a worn-out garment; but he is himself still the same, yesterday, today, and forever. This cannot, of course, be said of the angels, or of any other creature (Hebrews 1:10-12).
6. The angels are all ministering spirits, sent forth under Christ to minister to the heirs of salvation. But Christ sits on the right hand of God, waiting until, according to the promise of the Father, his enemies shall be made his footstool Hebrews 1:13-14).

III. From these premises, then, our author concludes that we Christians, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, should give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard from God through Christ and his holy Apostles and Prophets; lest at any time we should be carried away from them by the evil influences of the world, and so making shipwreck of our faith, we should finally come short of the eternal inheritance. For,

1. It is a principle of the Divine government, as well indeed as of all just human governments, that wherever much is given, there also much is ever expected and required (2: 1, 2).
2. But even under the Law, in an age of comparative darkness, there was no pardon for the willfully disobedient (Hebrews 2:2).
3. And hence it follows that there is no possible way of escape for those who now neglect the great salvation that is offered to us in the Gospel (Hebrews 2:3-4).

From this analysis, it is obvious that the whole section may be properly divided into the three following paragraphs: I. Hebrews 1:1-3. The fact that God has spoken to us through his Son, with a statement of the Son’ s rank and dignity. II. Hebrews 1:4-14. The Son of God compared with angels.III. Hebrews 2:1-4. Danger of neglecting what God has revealed to us through his Son. Title.—In the oldest manuscripts, such as the Sinaitic, the Vatican, the Alexandrian, etc., the title is simply, “ To the Hebrews ” In the editions of Stephens, it is, “ The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews” ; and in the “ Received text” of Elzevir, it is, “ The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Some other slight variations occur in a few of the manuscripts; but the first form, “ To the Hebrews,” is sustained by the best authorities; and was probably prefixed to the Epistle in the Apostolic age, by some of the inspired Fathers; or, at least, with their consent and approval. See Introduction Hebrews 3:1.

Hebrews 1:1 –God who—This is a very striking and remarkable introduction. Full of his subject, and earnest in his desires to communi¬cate to his desponding Hebrew brethren the word of life, the author indulges in no unnecessary preliminaries, but enters at once on the discussion of his sublime theme. He concedes what had indeed been often demonstrated, and what the Jews then all confidently believed, that God had anciently (palai) spoken to the Fathers by the Prophets: but then he also claims with equal confidence and on equal authority, that the same glorious and infinitely perfect Being did, “ at the end of these days,” or near the close of the Jewish age, speak unto us by his own Son. True, indeed, he had, for some time previous to Paul’ s writing this Epistle, been generally known by a name that would have appeared somewhat barbarous to the ancient Hebrews.

To them he was primarily revealed as Eloheem, a word in the plural number which means powerful ones; persons of great authority and influence; because in the beginning, the power of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, was most eminently displayed and illustrated in creating and garnishing the heavens and the earth. his is therefore the only name by which the Deity is made known to us in the first chapter of Genesis. But in the second and following chapters, he is called also Jehovah, the existing One; the Being absolute; because he only has life and immortality in himself; all other being is derived from him and depends on him.

These are the proper names by which the Deity is commonly designated in the Old Testament. But in the New he is called Theos, which, according to Herodotus, means one who places, disposes, or arranges (from titheemi, to place); because, says he, the gods were supposed to have fixed all things in the world, in their proper places. According to Plato, theos means one who runs (from theo, to run) ; because the Sun, Moon, and stars, which he regarded as the primary gods, run their course daily from east to west, as if exercising a watch-care over the Earth and its inhabitants. But it is now generally believed by the ablest critics, that both Herodotus and Plato were in error; and that the Greek word theos and the Latin deus are of the same family as Zeus, and cognate with the Sanscrit dyu,— a word which means splendor, brightness, the bright sky. Any and all of these Greek conceptions would, of course, for a time, seem somewhat barbarous and repulsive to the pious and superstitiously sensitive Hebrews. But a change of names does not of necessity imply a. change of nature, essence, or character.

The Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the universe, whether known as Eloheem, Jehovah, Theos, Deus, Dyu, or God, is ever the same, yesterday, today, and forever; without any variableness or shadow of change. (James 1:17.) The Author of the Old Testament is the Author of the New. And hence it follows that the Bible is a unit; and that it is throughout perfectly consistent in all its parts. For “ all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doc¬trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17.)

Hebrews 1:1 –at sundry times—The word that is here rendered, at sundry times” (polumezos), means properly in many parts. It refers to the well known fact, that God’ s plan of mercy through Jesus Christ, was revealed to the ancients gradually and in fragments. To Eve, it was promised indirectly, that through her Seed the Old Serpent should be crushed (Genesis 3:15); to Abraham directly, that through his Seed all the nations of the Earth should be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3); to Judah, that Shiloh (the Pacificator) should come, before the scepter should depart from him (Genesis 49:10) ; and to all Israel, that God would raise up to them, from among themselves, a Prophet like unto Moses, to whom he would require all to hearken (Deuteronomy 18:18). David, in one of his Psalms (Psalms 22:11-21), speaks of the sufferings of the Messiah; in another (Psalms 16:7-11), of his resurrection, and his deliverance from the power of Hades; and in another (Psalms 110), of his priesthood, reign, and triumphs. And so also it may be said of all the other Prophets. Through them, God gave to his people, as their wants and circum¬stances required, “ precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.” (Isaiah 28:10-14.) But when in the fullness of time, He came, who is himself the Light of the world (John 8:12, and John 9:5), then the whole plan of redemption was speedily revealed to mankind in all its fullness. This was done, partly through his own personal ministry, and partly through the ministry of his Apostles; “ God also bearing them witness, both with signs, and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.”

Hebrews 1:1 –and in divers manners—This expression denotes the various ways (polutzopos) in which God made his will known to the ancients. This he did sometimes by dreams; sometimes by visions; sometimes, by symbols; sometimes, by Urim and Thummim; sometimes, by audible voices; and sometimes, by inspiration or prophetic ecstasy: all of which served to mark, in some measure, the comparative imperfection of the Old Economy. They severally indicate that so long as it continued, there was a wide breach— an unhappy state of alienation and separation between man and his Maker. (Numbers 12:6-8.) But in Christ, God and man are united. He (Christ) has slain the enmity, and taken it out of the way, by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:20-22), so that through him, not only can God now consistently speak more freely and directly to man, but man can also speak with more freedom and confidence to God. See Hebrews 4:16 Hebrews 10:19-22. In this respect, then, there is a very great contrast between the Old and the New Economy. God never before spoke to the people, even from the Mercy-seat of the Tabernacle, as he did in and through his own Son during his earthly ministry.

Hebrews 1:1 –spake in time past unto the fathers—This phrase is understood differently by commentators. Some think that it embraces all time, from Adam to Christ, including even the ministry of John the Baptist. But it is most likely, that the Apostle has here in view only the revelations of God to the Hebrew fathers, from Abraham to Malachi; or perhaps to Simon the Just. This explanation accords best with the context and also with Hebrew usage. The Jews all looked upon Abraham, as the father and founder of their nation; and Malachi wrote the last book of the Old Testament ; though it seems probable, that the spirit of prophecy did not wholly cease among the Jews, till the time of Simon the Just, about 300 years B.C. He is called by the Jews “ One of the remnants of the Great Synagogue,” said to have been founded by Ezra for the revision and completion of the Old Testament Canon.

See “ Reason and Revelation,” p. 207-219, by the author. The word here rendered, “ in time past” (palai), means properly in ancient times; and it can therefore hardly have reference to the ministry of John.

Hebrews 1:1 –by the prophets;—literally, in the Prophets. God first worked in the Prophets, and then through them, in making known to the Hebrew Fathers the various messages of his grace. The English word prophet is now generally used to denote one who foretells future events. And this is sometimes the meaning of the original word (propheroph) in Hellenistic Greek. But in Classic Greek it means one who speaks for another; and especially, one who speaks for a god and interprets his words to men. Thus, for instance, Mercury is called the prophet of Jupiter; and in the same sense, the poets are called the prophets of the Muses.

The corresponding Hebrew word is ndvee (from the root, to boil up as a fountain), and means literally one who boils over. The name was given to the ancient prophets, because, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, they seemed to pour out their inspired utterances, as a fountain pours out its waters. (Psalms 45:1.) And hence it was always God who spoke in and by the Prophets: for says Peter, “ No prophecy of the Scripture is of private interpretation; but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21.)

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days—or rather, according to our best authori¬ties, at the end of these days (epi eschatou ton heemeron touton). This is the reading given in MSS. A, B, D, K, L, and M. Three different views have been taken of these words. It is alleged (1) that they refer simply to the closing period of the Jewish age (Moll); (2) that they refer exclusively to the Christian age (Stuart); and (3) that they refer to the closing period of the prophetic era, embracing both the ministry of Christ and of his Apostles (Luther). The first of these hypotheses is favored (a) by the use of the aorist tense of the verb (elaleesen) he spoke, not he has spoken; (b) by the fact that during the last three and a half years of the Jewish age, God did actually speak to the people in the per¬son of his own Son; and (c) by the current use of this phrase among the Jews.

They were wont to divide all time into two ages, viz., “ the present age” (ho aion houtos) and “ the coming age” (ho aion mellon). By the former, they meant the age then existing before the coming of Christ; and by the latter they meant the age subsequent to his coming. (Matthew 12:32.) And hence it was, that in the Hebrew dialect “ these days” came to signify the Jewish age; and “ the last days ” the coming age.

The dividing line of these two ages was never drawn very distinctly by the Jews. But as Christ put an end to the Law, nailing it to his cross (Colossians 2:14), his death, of course, serves to define this boundary, fixing definitely the end of the Jewish age, as well as the beginning of the Christian age. So that the days of Christ’ s personal ministry on earth, previous to his death, were according to the Hebrew “ usus loquendi,” the end of “ these days.” The second hypothesis is favored by the reading of the “ Textus Receptus,” and also by several of the ancient versions, which have “ in these last days” (epi escha ton ton heemeron). That “ the last days” is a phrase in Hebrew literature, equivalent to “ the coming age,” is plain from sundry passages in both the Old and the New Testament. See, for example, Isaiah 2:2; Jeremiah 23:20; Micah 4:1; and Acts 2:17. The third hypothesis is supposed to receive some support from the fact conceded in Hebrews 2:3; viz., that the things “ which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord” himself, were afterward confirmed unto us by his Apostles and Prophets, during the opening period of the Christian age.

The fact here stated, no one of course denies who believes the Bible to be the word of God; but whether it has any bearing on the question before us, may be doubted. On the whole, it seems most probable that the Apostle is speaking here simply of Christ’ s personal ministry on Earth; and that he refers only, as the tense of the verb indicates, to the last days of the Jewish age.

Hebrews 1:2 –by his Son,—literally, in Son (en hui) ; the word son being used without the article or possessive pronoun, as a quasi-proper name. So also the word son is used without any limiting epithet in Psalms 2:12. But our English idiom requires an article or a possessive pronoun before the word son, as in our Common Version. But why is Christ called the Son of God? To this question, three answers have been given: (1) Because of his supernatural birth by the virgin Mary. (2) Because of his being begotten from the grave, as the first-fruits of them that slept. And (3) because of his being eternally begotten of the Father.

In proof of the first hypothesis, we have the direct testimony of the angel Gabriel. According to Luke, this ambassador of God, when sent to announce to Mary the birth of the coming Messiah, said to her, “ The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35.) And in proof of the second, we have given the tes¬timony of Paul in Acts 13:33. Speaking by the Spirit, he says, “ And we declare unto you the glad tidings, that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee” ; that is, this day I have begotten thee from the dead. (Revelation 1:5.)

That Jesus Christ, then, is called the Son of God, because he was miraculously begotten by the Holy Spirit of the virgin, and also because he was the First-begotten from the dead, there can be no doubt. But is it true that he is called also the Son of God, be¬cause he was eternally begotten of the Father? So many believe and testify (Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, etc.). And in proof of their position, they appeal with much confidence to what is said of the Son in this connection. (1:2, 3.) For how, say they, could God make the worlds by his Son, if he had no Son for thousands of years after the worlds were created? But in reply to this, it may perhaps be enough to say, How could God create all things by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9), four thousand years before the Word be¬came incarnate? And how could Jesus say to his disciples (John 6:62), “ What, and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” Was the Logos known as the Son of man before he became incarnate ? Surely not.

Here, then, we might pause, relying on the correctness of the old logical adage, that “ Whatever proves too much, proves nothing.” But the question is of easy solution. We all know that it is very common to use names and titles acquired at a later period of life, to designate the same persons even in their childhood, youth, and early manhood. We say, for example, that Abraham left Ur of Chaldea and went to Haran, when he was seventy years of age; though he was really not called Abraham, but Abram, until about twenty-nine years after his departure from Ur. And just so it is, with respect to the titles given to the eternal Logos after he became incarnate. These may all be used, in like manner, to designate his Divine personality before he became flesh and dwelt among us. Thus we say with all propriety, that in the beginning the Logos created all things; that Jesus Christ created all things; that the Son of God created all things; and that the Son of man created all things. And hence we conclude that whatever may be true of Christ’ s eternal sonship, the doctrine is not taught in this passage of Scripture.

It does not follow, however, as, some have erroneously supposed, that the name, Son of God, is applied to Christ in the Scriptures, with reference merely to his human nature. Certainly not. On the contrary it is always used with special reference to his Divine nature, in the new relations which he sustains to the Father, as our Immanuel. This is the sense in which the name son, as applied to Christ, is used throughout this entire chapter. This is the sense in which Christ himself speaks of his sonship in relation to the Father (John 5:17-27); and this is the sense in which Paul uses the term son, when he contrasts the human nature of Christ with his Divine nature (Romans 1:4). He (Christ), says Paul, “ was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh [that is, according to his human nature] ; and declared to be the Son of God, with power, according to the Spirit of holiness [that is according to his holy spiritual or Divine nature], by his resurrection from the dead.” See also Matthew 16:16.

Hebrews 1:2 –whom he hath appointed heir of all things,—Here again the verb (etheeken) is in the aorist (the indefinite past) : whom he appointed Heir of all things. But when did God appoint or constitute his Son the Heir of all things? No doubt this was done in purpose, when in the eternal counsels of Jehovah, it was also de¬creed that the Logos should become the Son of God, incarnate. So it appears from the second Psalm, in which reference is made to this appointment. “ I will declare the decree,” says the Messiah, speaking by the Psalmist, “ Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” It is manifest from this passage, that the heirship of Christ is made to depend on his sonship; and that both are the result of God’ s eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:11) ; though it was not until after Christ’ s resurrection, that he assumed in fact, the dignity, glory, and dominion, which belong to him as the Son of God and the Heir of all things (Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 28:9; Acts 2:36; Philippians 2:5-11).

The Greek word (kleeronomos) here translated heir, means (1) one who acquires anything by lot; and (2) one who inherits anything by the will and appointment of another. In this latter sense, that is, by the appointment of God, Christ, as our elder brother, is made Heir of the universe. And as he has made us (Christians) heirs with himself (Romans 8:17), we too may be said to inherit all things (1 Corinthians 3:21-23).

Hebrews 1:2 –by whom also he made the worlds;—that is, by his Son, the Logos, before he became incarnate. (John 1:2.) It would be vain and useless to speculate here, as many commentators have done, on the relations which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, sustained to each other in the work of creation. Such themes are too high for us; and we must not therefore pretend to be wise concern¬ing such matters, beyond what is written. “ Secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children.” (Deuteronomy 29:29.)

The proper meaning of the word here rendered worlds (aiones) is still a matter of controversy. The singular number aidn means (1)endless duration; (2) any age or period of time; and (3) by metonymy, anything that lives or exists forever. Some have taken the word, as it occurs here, in its second or metaphorical sense; and they suppose that it means simply the several ages of the world, such as the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian. But this meaning does not well accord with the context; and in Hebrews 11:3, it is clearly inadmissible. We must therefore look to the third or metonymical meaning of this word, for a sense that will harmonize with the conditions of the context, and the design of the writer. What, then, are the aiones, or aeons, to which Paul here refers?

The ancient Gnostics used this word to denote certain emanations from the Deity, of which they supposed that Christ himself was the chief. The Christian Fathers applied it to the angels, both good and bad. And even the Greek philosophers were wont to designate by it their demigods and other beings superior in rank to man. (Mosh. Eccl. Hist. vol. 1, p. 63.) And hence some commentators, as Wolf and Frabicius, suppose that by the word aeons, in this connection, the Apostle means simply the higher created spiritual intelligences. But in Hebrews 9:3, this word manifestly embraces the material universe.

The author says, “ By faith we understand that the worlds (adones) were framed by the word of God; so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” That is, God did not, by his Son, make the material and visible universe, as a carpenter makes a house, out of preexisting materials; but, ex nihilo, out of nothing. From this passage, then, it is manifest that the aeons, or at least some of them are visible to the eye. And hence it seems most probable that under this word, the Apostle intends to embrace the entire created universe, both rational and irrational, material and immaterial. But it is the universe, not as the mere aggregate of all things (ta pant a); nor even as the beau¬tifully adorned and organized cosmos (kosmos) ; but as a system of powers and agencies which will endure forever. If this view is correct, then our author not only says with John (John 1:1), that through Christ all things began to be (egeneto), but he goes even further, and indicates the comparative perfection and perpetuity of his works. For he has not only created all things “ which are in Heaven and on Earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or powers” (Colossians 1:16), but he has also made them aeons, the imperishable elements of a system which, under certain modifications, will endure forever.

Hebrews 1:3 –Who being the brightness of his glory,—This has reference to the Son of God, incarnate; in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9); and through whom the glories of the Father are now so fully revealed to mortals. The word apaugasma means radiance, effulgence, light beaming from a luminous body: and it is here used by the Holy Spirit, as a very beautiful and ex¬pressive metaphor, to indicate an existing relation between the Father and the Son. The analogy may be stated thus: as the radi¬ance of the Sun is to the Sun itself, so is Christ, the Son of God, to the Father. And hence we see the Father through the Son (John 14:9), just as we see the Sun itself through its effulgence. For “ no man,” says John, “ hath seen the Father at any time; [but] the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:18.)

This, then, is but a partial presentation of the doctrine of Christ’ s mediation between God and man; a doctrine which abounds in all parts of the Holy Scriptures. Previous to his fall, man, no doubt, sustained to his Maker the most direct and intimate relations. He often saw him, and conversed with him as friend with friend. But sin broke off all such intercourse, and drew a veil of impenetrable darkness between them. Now, no man can see God in his essential glory and live. (Exodus 33:20.) But, nevertheless, through Christ, who is the way, the truth, the resurrec¬tion, and the life (John 11:25 John 14:6), God has graciously given us such a display of his own glorious perfections, as our sin¬ful nature can bear; and such as is, in all respects, best adapted to our present wants and circumstances.

Hebrews 1:3 –and the express image of his person,—This, in connection with the last expression, forms a sort of Hebrew parallelism, both the members of which have reference to the Divine nature of Christ. But they serve to describe him, not as the Logos, but as the Son of God incarnate. This view is most in harmony with the object of the Apostle, which is to encourage his brethren to perse¬vere to the end in their fidelity to Christ. And this he does by presenting Christ to us, not as he was in the beginning, but as he is now, “ God manifest in the flesh.” (1 Timothy 3:16.)

The word charakter means (1) an engraver, an engraving or stamping instrument; (2) the figure or image made by such an in¬strument, as on coins, wax, or metals; (3) the features of the face or countenance; and (4) any characteristic mark by which one thing is distinguished from another. The word hupostasis, here rendered person, means (1) a foundation, that which stands under and supports a superstructure; (2) well grounded trust, firmness, confidence; (3) the subject-matter of a discourse or narrative; and (4) the essence or substance of anything; that which underlies and supports its phenomena. Previous to the Arian controversy, in the beginning of the fourth century, this word was seldom used in the sense of person (prosopon). But then, Athanasius and other leaders of his party so explained it, because they thought it necessary to make a distinction between the ousia (esence, being) of the Deity, and his hupostasis. They alleged that in the Godhead there could be but one essence, that the essence of the Son is of necessity the same as the essence of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, though they supposed that each might have his own proper personality. And hence they inferred that it is the personality, and not the essence or substance, of Christ which is here compared with that of the Father.

But it is now very generally conceded that in this they were in error; and that the word hupostasis here means the essence or substance of the Father; and consequently that the word charak ter expresses the exact likeness of the Son to the Father in all the essential elements of his being, as well as of his personality. When the Father is represented as a Sun, then Christ is called his radiance or effulgence. But when the former is rep-resented to us as a substance whose essential being underlies all the pure and unsullied phenomena of the universe, then the latter is represented as the exact likeness of that substance, being in his own person all the essential rparks and characteristics of the Deity. Is the Father represented as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent— infinitely wise, holy, just, and good; so also is the Son. For, says Christ, “ I and my Father are one” (John 10:30); and again he says, “ He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).

Hebrews 1:3 –and upholding all things by the word of his power,—It is difficult to say what is the exact meaning of the word upholding in this connection. Christ, by the word of his power, created all things in the beginning. “ He spake, and it was done; he com¬manded, and it stood fast.” (Psalms 33:6 Psalms 33:9; compare with Genesis 1:3 Genesis 1:6 Genesis 1:9, and John 1:2.) Is the word upholding used here to denote that Christ, by his word, so supports all things as to keep them still in existence ? Does it mean that unless supported by his word, all things would at once sink into annihilation ? Or does it mean simply that, by his word, he still maintains the order, harmony, and well-being of the whole creation, so as to bear all things forward to their appointed destiny ? The influence, whatever it is, is all-pervading and universal. It extends to all things created, whether they be angels, men, suns, moons, stars, comets, systems, or atoms; so that by it the hairs of our head are numbered (Matthew 10:29-30), and the revolutions of the planets are constantly regulated.

This much is certain. But is this all?

What is it to create, and what is it to annihilate? What is it to give life, and what is it to take it away ? By what means and agencies are the flowers caused to bloom, and the fields to yield an abundant harvest? Who can properly estimate the mediate and immediate energies and influences by which Christ preserves, upholds, regulates, and governs all things throughout his vast dominions? If he is himself the fountain of life (Psalms 36:9; John 4:14 John 5:26), then who can say how much and how constantly all things animate depend on him for life, and breath, and all things ? If we live, and move, and have our being in him (Acts 17:28), then who is able to estimate aright the degree and the extent of that influence by and through which our adorable Redeemer supports every creature and even every atom to which he has given being?

The context does not enable us to answer these questions; and none of the parallel passages throw much light on the subject. True, it is said in Colossians 1:16-17, that “ by him [Christ] were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth, visible and invisible; whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers— all things were created by him and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” But what, again, is the meaning of the word consist (sunesteeke)— or, as it may be rendered subsist, held together?

Manifestly, this is a subject which rises far above the conception of finite minds.

The expression, “ word of his power ,” is commonly regarded as a Hebraism for “ his powerful word.” But any change in the arrangement of these words would very greatly weaken the force of the expression. It is not by his word in the abstract, but in the concrete as it proceeds from and is supportd by his omnipotent power and energy, that Christ upholds, sustains, and governs all things. The word of God is but an expression of his will, and must always be taken in connection with the power which gave it utterance. God said, “ Let there be light,” because he so willed it; and instantly his creative power was exercised in harmony with his will, as expressed in his word. And just so it is still. Christ has but to speak, and the rains are withheld, the flowers wither, and all nature languishes. Again he speaks, and “ the wilderness and solitary parts of the earth are made glad, and the very deserts rejoice and blossom as the rose.”

What further need, then, have we of testimony to prove that Christ is Divine? If he upholds all things by the word of his power; then, indeed, beyond all doubt, he is “ God with us.”

Hebrews 1:3 –when he had by himself purged our sins,—Or as it may be more literally rendered, Having by himself made purification for sins. In reading this Epistle, we should never forget that it was written primarily for the Hebrew Christians; and that its words and phrases should therefore be generally interpreted according to Hebrew usage. But in the law of Moses, nothing is made to stand out more prominently than the fact, that moral defilement could be removed only by means of sacrifice; and that without the shedding of blood there could be really no “ purification of sins.” In the law prescribing and regulating the services of the day of atone¬ment, for instance, it is said, “ Then shall he [the High Priest] kill the goat of the sin-offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the Veil; and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the Mercy-seat, and be¬fore the Mercy-seat; and he shall make an atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so shall he do for the Tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.” (Leviticus 16:15-16.) And again, in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses of the same chapter, it is said, “ And this shall be a statute forever unto you; that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: for on that day shall the Priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.”

So God testified to the people through Moses. Without the shedding of blood there could be no atonement (Leviticus 17:11) ; and without an atonement there could be no purification from sin (Leviticus 16:30). But the atonement made by the High Priest, under the Law, was but a shadow of the atonement which Christ made by the offering of his own blood for the sins of the people. (Colossians 2:16; Hebrews 10:1.) “ For what the law [of Moses] could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God [has done by] sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and [by an offering] for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness required by the law might be fulfilled in us who walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:3-4.) And hence says John, “ If we walk in the light, as he [God] is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7.) And again he says, that Jesus has washed us from our sins in his own blood. (Revelation 1:5.) It was not, then, as the Socinians allege, merely by his moral example and his very instructive teachings, but by “ his own blood,” that our blessed Savior made expiation and purification for the sins of the people.

On this point the following very just remarks of Ebrard will be instructive to the reader, and serve to develop still further the pro¬found significance of the words of our text. He says, “ They are entirely wrong who understand the words, to make purification (katharismou poiein), to denote simply moral amelioration; as if the author wished to set forth Christ here as a moral teacher, who, by precept and example, excited men to amendment. . . . The whole law of purification, as given by God to Moses, rested on the assumption, that our nature, as sinful and guilt-laden, is not capa¬ble of coming into immediate contact with our holy God and Judge. The mediation between man and God, in that Most Holy Place separated from the people, was revealed in three forms: (1) in sacrifices; (2) in the priesthood; and (3) in the Levitical laws of purity. Sacrifices were typical acts or means of purification from guilt; priests were the agents for accomplishing these acts, and were not themselves accounted purer than the rest of the people, having consequently to bring offerings for their own sins, before they offered for those of the people. And lastly, Levitical purity was the condition which was attained positively by sacrifice and worship; and negatively by avoiding Levitical pollution— the condition in which the people were enabled, by means of the priests, to come into relation with God without dying (Deuteronomy 5:26) : the result of the cultus which was past, and the postulate of that which was to come.

So that that which purified was sacrifice; and the purification was the removal of guilt. . . . And hence a Christian Jew would never, on reading katharismou poiein (to make purification), think of what we call moral amelioration; which if not springing out of the living ground of a heart reconciled to God, is mere self-deceit, and only external avoidance of evident transgression. But the purification (katharismos) which Christ brought in, would, in the sense of our author and his readers, be understood only of that gracious atonement for all guilt of sin of all mankind, which Christ, our Lord and Savior, has com¬pleted for us by his sinless sufferings and death; and out of which flows forth to us, as from a fountain, all power to love in return, all love to Him our heavenly pattern, and all hatred of sin which caused his death.”

It matters not, then, whether the words “ by himself” (dia heau tou) are genuine or spurious. If they were not expressed in the original, they are at least fairly and necessarily implied in it. This may be clearly shown by a reference to many parallel passages in both the Old and New Testaments. See, for instances, 7: 27; 9: 12, 26; 10: 10; John 1:29; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 3:5.

Hebrews 1:3 –sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:—The word majesty is used here to denote God himself; it means simply the Majestic One. “ On the right hand” is a phrase indicating the place of highest honor and authority. See 1 Kings 2:19; Psalms 45:9 Psalms 80:17 Psalms 110:1; Matthew 20:20-23 Matthew 26:64, etc. And “ on high” denotes a sphere far above all created heavens (Ephesians 4:10), where now dwells our Elder Brother filled with all the fullness of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9). In the beginning, “ he was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God” ; but, for the sake of redeeming mankind from the dominion of sin, death, and the grave, “ he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was found in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and be¬came obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in Earth, and things under the Earth; and that every tongue should confess that Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:6-11.) Now, therefore, all authority in Heaven and on Earth is given to him (Matthew 28:18); and he will reign over the entire universe (God the Father only excepted), until he shall have put down all rule and all au¬thority and power (1 Corinthians 15:24). Then, and not till then, will he deliver up the kingdom to the Father, “ that God may be all and in all.”

How infinitely glorious, then, is the Son of God, our Immanuel, through whom the Father has spoken to us “ in the last of these days” ! He is the Heir of all things; the Creator of all things; the effulgence of the Father’ s glory, and the exact likeness of his substance. He upholds all things by the word of his power. And having in infinite condescension and love made expiation and purification for our sins by the sacrifice of himself, he now reigns over the entire universe as King of kings and Lord of lords. These are all plain and simple words; but who is able to comprehend their full and proper import ? Under such thoughts of the Infinite, the brain staggers, and the mind itself becomes bewildered as it tries in vain to comprehend the extent and magnitude of their immeasurable fullness. But here, as in other cases, “ the Spirit helps our infirmities.” Knowing our incapacity to comprehend these matters aright, it has still further amplified and explained them in the fol¬lowing paragraph.

THE SON OF GOD WITH ANGELSHeb_1:4-14 The object of the Apostle in this paragraph is twofold: (1) to develop and illustrate still further the infinite perfections of Jesus as the Son of God; and (2) to show as a consequence of his many excellencies, the paramount obligations that we are all under to ob¬serve and respect the revelation which God has so graciously made to us through him. This will appear more obvious as we proceed with the consideration of the several points that are brought out in the following comparisons.

Hebrews 1:4 –Being made so much better than the angels,—This clause is very nearly related to the last part of the preceding verse; and it is added for the purpose of defining and illustrating more fully the infinite power, majesty, and dominion of our Redeemer. The reference here is still of course chiefly, though not exclusively, to the Divine nature of Christ. It is not of the man Jesus alone, nor of the Logos alone, but of the Logos incarnate, that our author speaks in this, and in the following verses of this chapter. And be it ob¬served that here, as well as in the clause immediately preceding, the exaltation of Christ is spoken of as a result and consequence of his humiliation and his obedience unto death. The idea of the Apostle is, not that he was made better than the angels by his in-carnation, but that having by himself made purification for our sins, and having been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of them that slept, he then became (genoemnos) in rank, dignity, and au¬thority, superior (kreitton) to them: he was then exalted to a sphere of glory, dignity, and authority, which is as far above that of the highest angels, as the name which he inherited is superior to theirs. Hebrews 1:4 –as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.—Whenever God gives a name to anyone, he gives it in harmony with the rank and character of the person so designated. Previous to his incarnation, Jesus was called the Logos (John 1:1), because he was himself both the medium and the substance of all the revelations which God had ever made to fallen man. But after his resurrection, when by virtue of his sufferings and death he was made the Heir of all things, it became necessary that he should receive a name corresponding with his new rank and official dignity, as the First-born from the dead (Colossians 1:18), the Begin¬ning of the creation of God (Revelation 3:14)— then it was that by right of inheritance he was called the Son of God. This name, as the Apostle proceeds to show, indicates that Christ, in his new re¬lations, is far superior to the angels.

Hebrews 1:5 –For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?—That God the Father said this to Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 1:20), is evident from the second Psalm, and also from Paul’ s address at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:33-34). But never was this name given in its full and proper meaning (John 5:18) to any of the angels. True, indeed, they are all called sons of God (Job 33:7) ; and so also are pious men and women called “ the sons and daugh¬ters of the Lord God Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:18). But no mere creature, however pure and exalted, was ever so singled out and distinguished from all others, by the Father of spirits. This is the peculiar honor of Him who is, not only one with the Father (John 10:30), and who is himself God equal with the Father (John 5:18), but who is also the First-begotten from the dead, the Prince of the kings of the Earth” (Revelation 1:5). On him this title was repeatedly bestowed by the Father, with reference to both his incarnation and his resurrection.

See Psalms 2:7; Matthew 3:17 Matthew 17:5; Acts 13:33, etc. But in this case, the Spirit refers particularly to his resurrection from the dead, when the Father not only gave him a name indicative of his Divinity and oneness with him¬self, but also at the same time exalted him “ far above all principal¬ity, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and put all things under his feet, and give him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all” (Ephesians 1:21-23) ; angels, and authorities, and powers being made subject unto him” (1 Peter 3:22). Hebrews 1:5 –And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?—This is a quotation from 2 Samuel 7:14, introduced here for the purpose of illustrating the very near, dear, and intimate re¬lations which exist between the Father and the Son; with the view of showing still further the very great superiority of the Son over the angels. But there is an apparent difficulty in applying this passage to Christ; for it is quite obvious from the context, that pri¬marily it had reference to Solomon. David, it seems, had pur¬posed in his heart to build a house for the Lord God of Israel. But while he was meditating on the matter, God sent Nathan the Prophet to him, saying, “ When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy Fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, who shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will his Father, and he shall be my Son.

If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.” There can be no doubt, then, that this whole passage refers to Solomon; and so Solomon himself understood it, as we learn from 1 Kings 8:17-21. How, then, can it with propriety be ap¬plied to Christ ?

It is usual with many commentators to explain such passages on the principle of accommodation. But this will not do. No exposition of this passage of Scripture is at all admissible which does not make its meaning extend through and beyond Solomon to him who is, par excellence, the Seed of David according to the flesh; and who, as such, is to sit on David’ s throne, “ to order it, and to establish it, with justice and with judgment, from henceforth even forever.” (Isaiah 9:7.) And hence the only way of explaining it properly is on the principle of double reference.

As a knowledge of this principle is essential to a proper understanding of much that is contained in this Epistle, the learned reader will excuse the following attempt to make it plain and intelligible to even mere beginners in the study of sacred literature. It is one of the very few principles of interpretation, which are peculiar to the Holy Scriptures. Generally, the Bible is to be interpreted like other books. But in the use of this principle, it is unlike any and every other document. The nearest approach to it may be found in the instructions which a skillful educator gives to his pupils by means of pictures and diagrams. For the purpose of illustrating the unknown or the abstract, he draws a visible outline or representation of it, by means of which he is enabled to impart to his pupils a more accurate knowledge of the object to be illustrated than he could possibly communicate to them by any mere combination of words and sentences.

In his verbal remarks and explanations, he may sometimes refer exclusively to the pictorial illustration; and sometimes he may refer only to the object or thing that is to be illustrated; but not unfrequently he will pur¬posely so arrange his remarks as to make them applicable to both the sign and the thing signified. He presents the picture to the eye of sense, as a sort of medium through which the eye of the under¬standing may perceive more clearly and distinctly the various qual¬ities and properties of what he wished to describe and illustrate.

Very much in this way has God explained to mankind the more abstract and recondite realities of the economy of redemption. To do this successfully in the early ages of the world, in any way and by any means, was a very difficult problem; a problem which God alone was then capable of solving. But all things are possible with him. He resolved to give to mankind a revelation of his purpose of mercy concerning them; and he resolved to do it in such a way as would not only be best adapted to the purposes of instruction; but also, it would seem, in such a way that it could never be successfully imitated or counterfeited by any impostor.

For this purpose, he called Abraham out of Ur of Chaldea, and made him the Father of two families; the one according to the flesh, and the other according to the Spirit. The former was related to the latter, as the type is related to the antitype; or as the picture is related to the reality which it is designed to represent. And hence it is that many things said of the former in the Old Testament, have reference also to the latter. Sometimes, indeed, there are promises of an exclusive nature, made in reference to each of these. But not unfrequently what is said of the type, has reference also in a still higher sense, to the antitype. Of this we have many impressive examples in nearly all the books of the Old Testament. In the seventy-second Psalm, for example, David has given us a most graphic and interesting description of the peaceful and prosperous reign of Solomon; but throughout this beautiful ode there is also constant reference to a greater than Solomon.

And just so it is in the quotation made from 2 Samuel 7:12-16. The primary reference here is to Solomon; and in part of the narrative it is to Solomon only; for certainly God would never, even hypothetically, impute iniquity to Christ. But in the expression, “ I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son,” God speaks both of Solomon as a type and of Christ in a far higher sense as the antitype. The relation of Solomon’ s sonship was, in fact, to that of Christ, just as the shadow is to the substance (Colossians 2:17) ; so that the meaning of the passage, properly understood, is in perfect harmony with the sentiment of the preceding clause. They both serve to present to us our blessed Savior in a relation that is peculiar to himself.

Hebrews 1:6 –And again, when he bringeth, etc.— To what does the ad¬verb again (palin) here refer? Is it used here, as in the last part of the fifth verse, merely to indicate that this is another citation from the Old Testament? Or does it refer to a second introduc¬tion of the First-born into the world? On this point the critics are about equally divided. It is, however, generally conceded that the latter view is most in harmony with the Greek idiom and construc¬tion: and on this ground it is advocated by De Wette, Liinemann, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Alford, and most of the ancient interpreters.

But it is urged as an objection to this interpretation, that our author has not spoken elsewhere, in the preceding verses, of the first introduction of the First-born into the world; and that it is therefore not probable that he would here refer to the second, as such. And hence the former view (that the adverb again serves merely to introduce another quotation) is, on the whole, preferred by Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bleek, Ebrard, Stuart, and others, who think that there is really nothing in the Greek construction which seriously militates against this interpretation. According to their notion, the passage may be freely rendered as follows: “ But when, on another occasion, God speaks of bringing the First-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” And according to the second mode of constructing the ad¬verb, the meaning runs thus: “ But when God speaks of bringing the First-born a second time into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” To my mind there is nothing in the latter rendering which is in any way inconsistent with either the Apostle’ s reasoning in the case, or with the general tenor of the Psalm from which he quotes. And I therefore see no reason for departing from what is generally conceded to be the most simple and natural construction of the Greek text.

The First-born refers of course to Christ. The same word (prototokos) occurs in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5; in both of which passages, it means “ the First-born from the dead” ; having refer¬ence to the fact that Jesus was the first who rose from the dead to die no more. Others, as Lazarus (John 11), had risen before him; but not as he rose, above death and superior to it. They were still under the dominion of death, and soon returned again to the dust to see corruption. But Jesus rose a conqueror over death, and also over him who has the power of death. (2: 14.) And to this same thought there may be some allusion in our text, and also in such parallel passages as Psalms 89:27; Romans 8:29; and Colossians 1:15. But in these cases, the primary reference is to the laws and customs of primogeniture; according to which the first-born was entitled to preeminence in all things. “ For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell” ; and “ that in all things he should have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:18-19.)

Hebrews 1:6 –into the world,—The term world (oichoumenee) means properly the inhabited earth; the habitable globe. But to what bring¬ing in of the First-born does the Apostle here refer ? Some say to his incarnation (Chrysostom and Calvin) ; some to his entering on his public ministry, after his baptism, when the Holy Spirit de¬scended on him like a dove, and the Father himself proclaimed from Heaven in the audience of the people, “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” ; some say that the reference is to his resurrection from the dead (Brentius and A. Clark); some, to his coming in power to set up his Kingdom on Earth, on the Pen-tecost which next followed after his resurrection (Grotius and Wetstein); and some again, to his second personal coming, when he will raise the dead, purify the Earth by fire, judge the world, and deliver up the Kingdom to the Father (De Wette, Lunemann, Tholuck, Hofmann, Delitzsch, Alford, etc.).

These several hypotheses, save perhaps the second, have all been maintained by men of learning and ability, and I therefore think it proper to introduce them to the reader. But to my mind, it is evident that it is to Christ’ s coming in power to set up his Kingdom and begin his reign on Earth, on the fiftieth day after his resurrection ; and that it is to this alone, that the Holy Spirit here refers. To this view, I am led chiefly by the following considerations:

(1.) It is most in harmony with the construction and scope of both the text and the context. The adverb again (palin), as we have seen, indicates most naturally a return of the First-born into the world. And the scope of the Apostle’ s argument clearly indicates, that this second manifestation of the Lord Jesus would be with great power and authority. When he came into the world the first time (Hebrews 10:5), he came in humility and weakness (Luke 2) ; for then it was necessary that he should by his own death make purification for sins (Hebrews 1:3). But having done this once for all, it was then fit that he should enter on his mediatorial reign over Heaven and Earth; which he did on the Pentecost which next fol¬lowed after his resurrection. To this reign our author has con¬stant reference in this part of his argument.

His object here is, not to show what Christ was previous to his coronation; nor is it to show what he will be after that he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24); but it is to show what he is now, and what are now our obligations to love, serve, and obey him in all things. And hence we are required by the force of the Apostle’ s argument to understand this second coming of Christ as having reference to the beginning of his mediatorial reign.

(2.) This view is most in harmony with the scope of the ninety-seventh Psalm, from which this citation, in proof of Christ’ s su¬periority over the angels, is made. The Psalmist begins by calling on the whole Earth, even on the isles of the Gentiles, to be glad and rejoice on account of the universal reign of Jehovah (verse 1). In the second paragraph (verses 2-5), he describes the majesty of Jehovah as the Lord of the whole Earth; speaks of the justice and righteousness of his administration, and of the awful manifesta¬tions of his power and judgments, before which the Earth melts and his enemies are consumed. In the third (verses 6, 7), he speaks of the manifestations of God’ s glory, as it were, from the very heavens; predicts the embarrassment and confusion of all idolaters; and then calls on all in authority, all Eloheem, whether men or angels, to fall down and worship him. In the fourth (verses 8, 9), he speaks of the joy of all the saints, on witnessing the judgments and the glorious exaltation of their sovereign Lord. And finally (verses 10-12), he admonishes the pious to abstain from all evil; and encourages them to trust in the Lord and give thanks to him, on account of his gracious care over them, and the great abundance of the provisions which he has made for them.

The whole Psalm, therefore, clearly indicates that it has reference to the long expected reign of the Messiah. And this is the view that was taken of it by many of the ancient Rabbis, as well as by most Christian expositors. Raschi and Kimchi say that all the Psalms, from 93 to 101, refer to the reign of the Messiah.

It is no objection to this interpretation, that the universal reign of Jehovah is the proper subject of this beautiful and triumphal ode; and that the name of the Messiah does not, in fact, occur in it. This is equally true of many other passages in the Old Testament, which, in the New, are applied directly to Christ. Take, for exam¬ple, the following from Isaiah 40:3-5 : “ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be ex¬alted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it to¬gether ; for the mother of the Lord hath spoken it.” Here, too, as well as in the ninety-seventh Psalm, it is Jehovah Eloheem that is spoken of by the Prophet. And yet, in Matthew 3:3, this passage is applied to Christ; who, in Jeremiah 23:6, is called Jehovah our righ¬teousness.

But it is alleged by some, that our author cannot have reference here to the ninety-seventh Psalm; because, say they, the proper rendering of the last clause of the sixth verse is, “ Worship him all ye gods, and not all ye angels (angeloi).” This is plausible; but it is by no means a valid objection against the view taken. For in the Septuagint the word Eloheem is rendered angels in this very passage; and better still the same word Eloheem in Psalms 8:5, is by the author of our Epistle rendered angels in 2:7. “ Thou hast made him a little lower,” he says, “ than the angels.” Here the word rendered angels is in the Hebrew Eloheem, the same as that which occurs in Psalms 97:7. So also Philo says, “ The angels are the servants of God; and they are esteemed actual gods by those who are in toil and slavery.” (Philo on Fugitives, Section 38.) It is wholly unnecessary, therefore, to refer to Deuteronomy 32:43, for the quotation given in our text. True, indeed, the identical words, “ Let all the angels of God worship him,” are there found in the Septuagint; but they are wholly wanting in the original Hebrew; and are of course without canonical authority.

(3.) The view taken of the passage is also most in harmony with other portions of Scripture which relate to the coming and reign of the Messiah. Our Savior himself speaks of the inauguration of his reign on Earth, as his second coming into the world. “ Verily, verily,” says he, “ I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28.) In this passage Christ has reference, most likely, to both his transfiguration, which occurred eight days afterward (Matthew 17:1-13), and to his coming in power to set up his Kingdom and begin his reign on earth, as he did on the day of Pentecost which next followed after his resurrection (Acts 2:1¬38). But if so, the former was but the shadow, while the latter was the reality of what is here promised. And hence when Peter had, on the latter occasion, submitted to his astonished auditors the evidence of Christ’ s resurrection, he closed his address with the as¬surance that God had made Jesus, the lately crucified One, both Lord and Christ; that is, the anointed Sovereign of the universe. And, accordingly, from that day forward his right to universal dominion is everywhere conceded. See, for example, Acts 10:36; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 1:22; and Philippians 2:9-11.

The binding obligation of the decree of Jehovah with regard to the homage that is due to his Son, as our anointed and mediatorial Sovereign, commenced, therefore, with his coronation; and will continue, until having put down all adverse power and authority, he shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father. Till then, every knee in Heaven and Earth must bow to him, and every tongue must confess that he “ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11).

Hebrews 1:6 –let all the angels of God worship him.—This is, at least to us, the main point of the argument. All that precedes this in the sixth verse is only circumstantial; and does not in any way, however construed, materially affect the sense of this clause. Even if we should have mistaken the proper grammatical use of the word “ again” ; the chapter and verse of the Old Testament from which the citation is made; and also the time of Christ’ s introduction into the world as here spoken of; still the fact remains indisputable, that by the decree of Jehovah all the angels of glory are required to bow down and worship him who is the First-begotten from the dead, the First-born of the whole creation. This is enough for us. Resting as it does on apostolic authority, this one declaration is, of itself, sufficient to prove, beyond all doubt, not only that Jesus is infinitely exalted above all angels, but also that it is now right and proper that all created intelligences should adore and worship the Son, even as they also adore and worship the Father.

Hebrews 1:7 –And of the angels he saith,—That is, while he speaks thus and so of the angels, he speaks in immeasurably higher terms of the Son. This will appear clear in the sequel. But what does he say of the angels ? Hebrews 1:7 –Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.—This is another instance of Hebrew parallelism taken from Psalms 104:4. The words angels and ministers refer to the same class of persons, and their predicates “ spirits” and “ a flame of fire” are both used for a like purpose. But what do those clauses sev¬erally mean? Some commentators have proposed to change the order of the words, so as to make the clauses read thus: “ Who maketh spirits [or winds] his angels; and a flame of fire his ministers.” But this is scarcely allowable even in the Hebrew. To say that a flame of fire is the ministers of God, is not in harmony with the laws of propriety in any language. But in our Greek text the absurdity of this rendering is still more obvious.

For (1) the proper subject of the parallelism is angels. The object of the Apostle is to contrast these high celestial intelligences, and not spirits, or winds, or a flame of fire, with Christ. (2) The use of the Greek article before angels (tons angelous) and ministers (tous leitourgous), and not before spirits (pneumata) and a flame of fire \

Hebrews 1:1

General remarks. Much has been said on the subject of whether Paul, or some other person, is the author of this book. I shall offer a few statements in view of the importance of the question due to the general agitation. I believe Paul is the author because it has the same logical form of reasoning shown in his other epistles. Also, 2 Peter 3:15-16 declares that Paul had written an epistle to the brethren, and his discription of it (“some things hard to be understood”) indicates one consisting of logical discussion. It is true also that many of the Nicene writers (known as Apostolic Fathers) ascribe the epistle to Paul.

These men lived only a few centuries this side of Christ, and hence had access to evidences that were well founded. Furthermore, there is no negative reason for ascribing it to any other writer, for the whole epistle contains nothing that differs in a single feature from the manner of Paul’s language or reasoning.

Hebrews 1:1. The principal subject of this book is the law of Christ over that of Moses and the prophets. The revelation of God’s will was made known through Christ in the place of all other means in former times. The most outstanding disturbance of the first century of the Gospel Dispensation was caused by Judaizers. That means Jews or any others who insisted that Christians should conform to the Mosaic system in connection with their profession of faith in Christ. This book was written to show the errors in such a teaching. Sundry times and in divers manners refers to the many instances and various plans under which God used to give his revelations of truth to the prophets, to be given on by them to the heads of the units of His people.

Hebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2. Last days means the closing days of the Jewish Dispensation, since that was when Jesus lived in his personal ministry. The Son gave the words of the Father to the apostles (John 17:8) and they to us, and that is the way in which we of this age have been spoken to of God. Appointed heir of all things. Heir is used in the sense of possessor (John 17:10) because God turned all things pertaining to the new dispensation over to Him (Matthew 28:18). By whom also he made the worlds. This refers to the cooperation which Jesus showed in all of God’s works. See the plural “us” in Genesis 1:26 Genesis 3:22; also read John 1:3.

Hebrews 1:3

Hebrews 1:3. Thayer defines brightness by “reflected brightness,” meaning that when Jesus was on earth he reflected the glory of his Father. Express image is from which Thayer defines at this place, “A mark or figure burned in or stamped on, an impression; the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect.” God is not composed of substance as that word is commonly used, hence the word person as in the King James Version is a good translation. It means that when Christ was on earth, he had the form or image of his Father. That is one reason why He said, “he that hath seen me hath seen the father” (John 14:9). All of this agrees with the words of God that the man was to be created in “our” (God’s and Christ’s) image (Genesis 1:26).

Upholding all things by the word of his power. All power (or authority) being given to Christ (Matthew 28:18), the arrangement of all things pertaining to the new system of salvation was disposed of according to His will and direction. By himself purged our sins. This took place when He died on the cross, thereby making the supreme sacrifice that was sufficient to purge all men from their sins who would accept it. By the death on the cross, the plan was made completely efficient, which is why He said “it is finished” (John 19:30). By coming alive from the grave, Jesus validated the purchase price of man’s salvation, and then He was ready to return to his Father.

He did so and was seated at the right hand of the throne of God, having been welcomed by the angelic hosts in the city of everlasting glory. (See the wonderful reception given Christ in Psalms 24:7-10.)

Hebrews 1:4

Hebrews 1:4. Better does not apply to the personal character, for the angels who are living in heaven are perfect in that respect. Thayer defines the original word, “It is more advantageous.” The meaning of the phrase is that Jesus was given a greater advantage in the great plan of God than the angels. The word excellent is to be understood also in the sense of advantage. By inheritance means that Jesus received this mentioned advantage through his relationship with God. It was not merely given to him as a man might see fit to give something to a stranger, but this was his by right of being the Son of God; he inherited it. While the favors or honors that the angels enjoy were given to them by the Creator of all things.

Hebrews 1:5

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

Hebrews 1:6

Hebrews 1:6. When Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, God directed all the angels to worship him. That word in the Greek New Testament comes from several different words, and has a variety of meanings, depending on the connection in which it is used. In the present passage it means to “do homage” or manifest great respect for one. There are myriads of angels, and all of them were told to render homage to the babe in Bethlehem. The argument the apostle is making is that if such great beings as the angels were commanded to acknowledge the superiority of the babe that was laid in a manger, He certainly is to be ascribed a great giver of law. (If angels worshipped the humble babe thus posed in the city of David, common mortals like us should regard it an honor to be permitted the act of worshiping him today, when He is sitting at his Father’s right hand, reigning as King of kings and Lord of lords.)

Hebrews 1:7

Hebrews 1:7. But even this contrast with angels would not mean so much, unless the angels themselves were important beings. Accordingly, Paul says God makes his angels ministering spirits, thus being very important personages in the great scheme of grace.

Hebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8. The superiority of Christ over all other beings (except his Father) is still the main subject. Thy throne 0 God. Jesus is called God because that is the family name of the Godhead. He is called God in Acts 20:28, where his blood is mentioned as the purchasing price of the church. The throne of Christ is declared by his Father to be for ever and ever because He is to reign to the end of the age (1 Corinthians 15:24-26). A scepter is a rod or instrument that a ruler holds that is a token of his authority. The scepter connected with the kingdom of Christ is a righteous one, because it requires the citizens of the kingdom to live a life of righteousness only.

Hebrews 1:9

Hebrews 1:9. Loved righteousness and hated iniquity. This phrase expresses two completely opposite terms. Hated is from a Greek word that sometimes has a milder meaning than it does here. In the present passage it is defined by Thayer, “To hate, pursue with hatred, detest.” Because Christ had these qualities, He was given the great honor that the verse states. The specification, God, even thy God, is made because the name “God” is the family name of the Deity, and Christ had that name by virtue of his being a member of the family.

But in the work assigned to Him as head of the kingdom, He was to be a king and the Father was to be God over him (1 Corinthians 11:3). In old times it was customary to anoint kings with oil at their coronation. Christ was figuratively anointed with the oil of gladness or exultation. Above thy fellows means that Christ was exalted higher than any other ruler that had ever been on earth.

Hebrews 1:10

Hebrews 1:10. This and the following two verses are quoted from Psalms 102:24-27. David was the famous ancestor of Christ, yet he recognizes him as his Lord (Matthew 22:43-45). The work of creation is ascribed to Christ because he was associated with his Father in that work. It is so taught in John 1:1-3, and it is indicated likewise by the plural pronoun “us” in Genesis 1:26 Genesis 3:22.

Hebrews 1:11

Hebrews 1:11. The main subject of this epistle is the superiority of Christ over all other persons or things (except his Father). The works of creation, in the making of which He had a part, will cease to be even though He will continue. They means the things of creation mentioned in the preceding verse. Wax old as cloth, a garment is an illustration drawn from a garment that has reached the end of its usefulness. When a garment gets into that condition, it is discarded and treated as the next verse states.

Hebrews 1:12

Hebrews 1:12. A vesture is a covering piece, to be folded up or discarded when no longer useful. Changed is from ALLASSO which Thayer defines, “To exchange one thing for another.” This is said with reference to the earth and the other parts of the material universe related to it. They are finally to be discarded and dissolved, and other things will be used in their place. (See 2 Peter 3:10-13; Revelation 21:1.) Thou art the same. Not that Christ will never change his position in the great plan of God, for He will cease to be the king after the judgment day (1 Corinthians 15:24-27). But He will never cease to be (as will the material universe), and in that sense His years shall not fail.

Hebrews 1:13

Hebrews 1:13. The second part of this verse is a quotation from Psalms 110:1, in which David states something that God said of Christ. The point that Paul is making is that since nothing like this was ever said to any one of the angels, Christ is to be regarded as superior to them. Making His enemies his footstool is equivalent to subjecting all things to him, which is the thing predicted in 1 Corinthians 15:25-26.

Hebrews 1:14

Hebrews 1:14. Unless the angels also are important beings, there would not be much significance in being made superior to them. Paul recognizes this point by the statement made here in question form. Angels are among the instruments or agencies which God uses, in his treatment of and care for His own. (Read the following passages. Genesis 24:7; Daniel 6:22; Matthew 2:13; Acts 12:11 Acts 27:23.)