Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 1:1 - 1:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
COMMENTARY
————
The final disclosure of God’s mind and purpose has been made in his Son, who is far superior to the angels; beware then of taking it casually and carelessly (1:1-2:4)!
The epistle opens with a long sentence (vv. 1-4), the subject being first (vv. 1, 2) God, then (vv. 3, 4) the Son of God; rhetorically and logically the sentence might have ended with ἐ(+ τ arm) υῷ but the author proceeds to elaborate in a series of dependent clauses the pre-eminence of the Son within the order of creation and providence. The main thread on which these clauses about the Son’s relation to God and the world are strung is ὃ …ἐάιε ἐ δξᾷτςμγλσνς It is in this (including the purging of men from their sins by His sacrifice) that the final disclosure of God’s mind and purpose is made; ὁθὸ ἐάηε ἡῖ ἐ υῷ…ὃ …ἐάιε κλ But the cosmic significance of the Son is first mentioned (v. 2); he is not created but creative, under God. Here as in 2:10 the writer explicitly stresses the vital connexion between redemption and creation; the Son who deals with the sins of men is the Son who is over the universe. This is again the point in the insertion of φρντ τ πνακλ before κθρσὸ ἁατῶ πισμνς The object of insisting that the Son is also the exact counterpart of God (ὃ ὤ κλ 3a), is to bring out the truth that he is not only God’s organ in creation, but essentially divine as a Son. In short, since the object of the divine revelation (λλῖ) is fellowship between God and men, it must culminate in One who can deal with sin, as no prophet or succession of prophets could do; the line of revelation ἐ ποήαςhas its climax ἐ υῷ in a Son whose redeeming sacrifice was the real and effective manifestation of God’s mind for communion.
As it is necessary to break up this elaborate sentence for the purpose of exposition, I print it not only in Greek but in the stately Vulgate version, in order to exhibit at the very outset the style and spirit of Πὸ Ἑρίυ.
Πλμρςκὶπλτόω πλιὁθὸ λλσςτῖ πτάι ἐ τῖ ποήαςἐʼἐχτυτνἡεῶ τύω ὲάηε ἡῖ ἐ υῷ ὃ ἔηεκηοόο πνω, δʼο κὶἐοηετὺ αῶα·ὄ ὢ ἀαγσατςδξςκὶχρκὴ τςὑοτσω ατῦ φρντ τ πνατ ῥμτ τςδνμω ατῦ κθρσὸ τνἁατῶ πισμνςἐάιε ἐ δξᾷτςμγλσνςἐ ὑηος τσύῳκετω γνμνςτνἀγλνὅῳδαοώεο πρ ατὺ κκηοόηε ὄοα Multifariam et multis modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio, quem constituit heredem universorum, per quem fecit et saecula, qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius, portans quoque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedit ad dexteram majestatis in excelsis, tanto melior angelis effectus quanto differentius prae illis nomen hereditavit.
1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son—a Son whom he has appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world.
Greek prefaces and introductions of a rhetorical type were fond of opening with πλςin some form or other (e.g. Sirach prol. πλῶ κὶμγλνκλ Dion. Halic. de oratoribus antiquis, πλὴ χρνκλ an early instance being the third Philippic of Demosthenes, πλῶ, ὦἄδε Ἀηαο, λγνγγοέω κλ Here πλμρςκὶπλτόω is a sonorous hendiadys for “variously,” as Chrysostom was the first to point out (τ γρπλμρςκὶπλτόω τυέτ δαόω). A similar turn of expression occurs in 2:2 πρβσςκὶπρκή The writer does not mean to exclude variety from the Christian revelation; he expressly mentions how rich and manysided it was, in 2:4. Nor does he suggest that the revelation ἐ ποήαςwas inferior because it was piecemeal and varied. There is a slight suggestion of the unity and finality of the revelation ἐ υῷ as compared with the prolonged revelations made through the prophets, the Son being far more than a prophet; but there is a deeper suggestion of the unity and continuity of revelation then and now. Πλμρςκὶπλτόω really “signalises the variety and fulness of the Old Testament word of God” (A. B. Davidson). On the other hand, Christ is God’s last word to the world; revelation in him is complete, final and homogeneous.
Compare the comment of Eustathius on Odyssey, 1:1: πλτόω ἀενρσηπσνοςἦθνεςγῶι, μδνςἀανρσο σμεότςἑέῳἀανρσῷτ σνλν ἄλςγρτ Τλμχ, ἑέω δ Ερκεᾳ ἑέω τῖ δύος ἄλνδ τόο τ Λέτ, κὶὄω ἀοοω ἅαι Πλμρς according to Hesychius ( = πλσέω), differs from πλτόω(δαόω, πιίω), and, strictly speaking, is the adverb of πλμρς (Wis 7:23, where Wisdom is called πεμ μνγνς πλμρς But no such distinction is intended here.
In πλι(as opposed to ἐʼἐχτυτνἡεῶ τύω) θὸ λλσς λλῖ, here as throughout the epistle, is practically an equivalent for λγι (see Anz’s Subsidia, pp. 309-310), with a special reference to inspired and oracular utterances of God or of divinely gifted men. This sense is as old as Menander (ὁνῦ γρἐτνὁλλσνθο, Kock’s Comic. Attic. Fragm. 70). Ο πτρςin contrast to ἡεςmeans OT believers in general (cp. Joh_6:58, Joh_7:22), whereas the more usual NT sense of the term is “the patriarchs” (cp. Diat. 1949-1950, 2553e), i.e. Abraham, etc., though the term (3:9, 8:9) covers the ancients down to Samuel or later (Mat_23:30). Our fathers or ancestors (Wis 18:6) means the Hebrew worthies of the far past to whom Christians as God’s People, whether they had been born Jews or not (1Co_10:1 ο πτρςἡῶ), look back, as the earlier Sirach did in his πτρνὕνς(Sir 44:1-50:33), or the prophet in Zec_1:5 (ο πτρςὑῶ …κὶο ποῆα). For ο ̔αέε = our fathers, cp. Prayer of Manasseh1 (θὸ τνπτρν and Wessely`s Studien zur Palä und Papyruskunde, i. 64, where boys are reckoned in a list σντῖ πτάι The insertion of ἡῶ (p12 999. 1836 boh sah Clem. Alex., Chrys. Priscillian) is a correct but superfluous gloss. As for ἐ τῖ ποήας ποῆα is used here in a broader sense than in 11:32; it denotes the entire succession of those who spoke for God to the People of old, both before and after Moses (Act_3:22, Act_7:37), who is the supreme prophet, according to Philo (de ebriet. 21, de decalogo 33). Joshua is a prophet (Sir 46:1), so is David (Philo, de agric. 12). In Psa_105:15 the patriarchs, to whom revelations are made, are both God’s ποῆα and χιτί Later on, the term was extended, as in Luk_13:28 (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, κὶπνα τὺ ποήα, cp. Heb_11:32), and still more in Mat_5:12 (τὺ ποήα τὺ πὸὑῶ). The reason why there is no contrast between the Son and the prophets is probably because the writer felt there was no danger of rivalry; prophecy had ceased by the time that the Son came; the “prophet” belonged to a bygone order of things, so that there was no need to argue against any misconception of their function in relation to that of the Son (Bar 85:1-3 “in former times our fathers had helpers, righteous men and holy prophets …but now the righteous have been gathered and the prophets have fallen asleep”).
As no further use is made of the contrast between Jesus and the prophets (who are only again mentioned incidentally in 11:32), it was natural that ἀγλι should be conjectured (S. Crellius, Initium Ioannis Evangelii restitutum, p. 238, independently by Spitta in Stud. u. Kritiken, 1913, pp. 106-109) to have been the original reading, instead of ποήας But “the word spoken by angels” (2:2) does not refer to divine communications made to the patriarchs; nor can ο πτρςbe identified with the patriarchs, as Spitta contends (cf. U. Holzmeister in Zeitschrift fü kathol. Theologie, 1913, pp. 805-830), and, even if it could, ποήαςwould be quite apposite (cp. Philo, de Abrah. 22). Why the writer selects ποήαςis not clear. But ἀθώοςwould have been an imperfect antithesis, since the Son was human. Philo (de Monarch. 9: ἑμνῖ γρεσνο ποῆα θο κτχωέο τῖ ἐεννὀγνι πὸ δλσνὧ ἂ ἐεήῃ views the prophets as interpreters of God in a sense that might correspond to the strict meaning of ἐ, and even (Quaest. in Exo_23:22 τῦγρλγνο ὁποήη ἄγλςκρο ἐτν applies ἄγλςto the prophet. But ἐ here is a synonym for δά(Chrys. ὁᾷ ὅικὶτ ἐ δὰἐτν as in 1 S 28:6 (ἀερθ ατ κρο ἐ τῖ ἐυνοςκὶἐ τῖ δλι κὶἐ τῖ ποήας
In Test. Dan_1:1 [acc. to the tenth cent. Paris MS 938]1 and in LXX of Num_24:14, Jer_23:20 [B:ἐχτν A Q*], 25:19 (49:39) [B: ἐχτν A Q], 37 (30) 24 [A Q: ἐχτν B], Eze_38:8 (ἐʼἐχτυἐῶ), Dan_10:14 [ἐχτ ? ἐχτν Hos_3:5 [Q], ἐʼἐχτυτνἡεῶ appears, instead of the more common ἐʼἐχτντνἡεῶ, as a rendering of the phrase בְחרי היִָם A similar variety of reading occurs here; Origen, e.g., reads ἐχτνwithout τύω (on Lam_4:20) and ἐχτυ(fragm. on Joh_3:31), while ἐχτνis read by 044, a few minor cursives, d and the Syriac version. The same idea is expressed in 1 P 1:20 by ἐʼἐχτυτνχόω, but the τῦω here is unique. The messianic mission of Jesus falls at the close of these days, or, as the writer says later (9:26), ἐὶσνεεᾳτναώω. These days correspond to the present age (ὁνναώ); the age (or world) to come (ὁμλω αώ, 6:5) is to dawn at the second coming of Christ (9:28, 10:37). Meantime, the revelation of God ἐ υῷhas been made to the Christian church as God’s People (ἐάηε ἡῖ); the ἡεςdoes not mean simply the hearers of Jesus on earth, for this would exclude the writer and his readers (2:3), and ἐάηε covers more than the earthly mission of Jesus. There is no special reference in ἐάηε to the teaching of Jesus; the writer is thinking of the revelation of God’s redeeming purpose in Christ as manifested (vv. 3, 4) by the (resurrection and) intercession in heaven which completed the sacrifice on the cross. This is the final revelation, now experienced by Christians.
The saying of Jesus quoted by Epiphanius (Haer. xxiii. 5, xli. 3, lxvi. 42), ὁλλνἐ τῖ ποήας ἰο πριι was an anti-gnostic logion based partly on this passage and partly on Isa_52:6 ἐώεμ ατςὁλλν πριι The author of Hebrews is not conscious of any polemic against the OT revelation as inferior to and unworthy of the Christian God. He assumes that it was the same God who spoke in both Testaments: “Sed in hac diversitate unum tamen Deus nobis proponit: nequis putet Legem cum Evangelio pugnare, vel alium esse huius quam illius authorem” (Calvin).
In ὃ ἔηε κηοόο πνω there is a parallel, perhaps even an allusion, to the Synoptic parable: finally he sent his son (Mat_21:27), or, as Mark (12:6) and Luke (20:13) explicitly declare, his beloved son, though our author does not work out the sombre thought of the parable. There, the son is the heir (οτςἐτνὁκηοόο), though not of the universe. Here, the meaning of ὃ ἔηε κηοόο πνω is the same: he was “appointed” heir, he was heir by God’s appointment. It is the fact of this position, not the time, that the writer has in mind, and we cannot be sure that this “appointment” corresponds to the elevation of v. 3 (ἐάιε). Probably, in our modern phrase, it describes a pre-temporal act, or rather a relationship which belongs to the eternal order. The force of the aorist ἔηε is best rendered by the English perfect, “has appointed”; no definite time is necessarily intended.
“Nam ideo ille haeres, ut nos suis opibus ditet. Quin hoc elogio nunc eum ornat Apostolus ut sciamus nos sine ipso bonorum omnium esse inopes” (Calvin). The reflection of Sedulius Scotus (alii post patrem haeredes sunt, hic autem vivente Patre haeres est) is pious but irrelevant, for κηοοενin Hellenistic Greek had come to mean, like its equivalent “inherit” in Elizabethan English, no more than “possess” or “obtain”; a κηοόο was a “possessor,” with the double nuance of certainty and anticipation. “Haeres” in Latin acquired the same sense; “pro haerede gerere est pro domino gerere, veteres enim ‘haeredes’ pro ‘dominis’ appellabant” (Justinian, Instit. ii.19. 7).
In δʼο (Griesbach conj. δόι κὶἐοηετὺ αῶα the κίespecially1 suggests a correspondence between this and the preceding statement; what the Son was to possess was what he had been instrumental in making. Τὺ αῶα here, though never in Paul, is equivalent (EBi 1147) to τ πναin v. 3 (implied in πνω above), i.e. the universe or world (11:3). The functions assigned by Jewish speculation to media like the Logos at creation are here claimed as the prerogative of the Son. This passing allusion to the function of Christ in relation to the universe probably originated, as in the case of Paul, in the religious conception of redemption. From the redeeming function of Christ which extended to all men, it was natural to infer His agency in relation to creation as part of his pre-existence. The notion is that “the whole course of nature and grace must find its explanation in God, not merely in an abstract divine arbitrium, but in that which befits the divine nature” (W. Robertson Smith), i.e. the thought behind 2:9f. is connected with the thought behind 1:1-3. This may be due to a theological reflection, but the tendency to emphasize the moral rather than the metaphysical aspect, which is noticeable in Πὸ Ἑρίυ as in the Fourth Gospel, and even in Paul, is consonant with Philo’s tendency to show the function of the Logos and the other intermediate powers as religious rather than cosmical (cp. Bré’s Les Idé Philos. et Religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie, pp. 65 f., 111 f., 152, “il ne s’agit plus chez Philon d’un explication du monde mais du culte divin”; 174 f., “la thé de Philon, qui explique et produit la doctrine des intermé n’est pas l’impossibilitépour Dieu de produire le monde mais l’impossibiliteépour l’â d’atteindre Dieu directement”). Yet Philo had repeatedly claimed for his Logos, that it was the organ of creation (e.g. de sacerdot. 5, λγςδ ἐτνεκνθο, δʼο σμα ὁκσο ἐηιυγῖο and this is what is here, as by Paul, claimed for Christ. Only, it is a religious, not a cosmological, instinct that prompts the thought. The early Christian, who believed in the lordship of Christ over the world, felt, as a modern would put it, that the end must be implicit in the beginning, that the aim and principle of the world must be essentially Christian. This is not elaborated in “Hebrews” any more than in the Fourth Gospel (Joh_1:3); the author elsewhere prefers the simple monotheistic expression (2:10, 11:3). But the idea is consonant with his conception of the Son. “If pre-existence is a legitimate way of expressing the absolute significance of Jesus, then the mediation of creation through Christ is a legitimate way of putting the conviction that in the last resort, and in spite of appearances, the world in which we live is a Christian world, our ally, not our adversary” (Denney in ERE viii. 516 f.).
3 He (ὃ ὤ) reflecting God’s bright glory and stamped with God’s own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to (κετω) the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior (δαοώεο, 8:6) to theirs.
The unique relation of Christ to God is one of the unborrowed truths of Christianity, but it is stated here in borrowed terms. The writer is using metaphors which had been already applied in Alexandrian theology to Wisdom and the Logos. Thus Wisdom is an unalloyed emanation τςτῦπνορτρςδξς ἀαγσα…φτςαδο (Wis 7:25, 26), and ἀαγσαin the same sense of “reflection” occurs in Philo, who describes the universe as οο ἁίνἀαγσα μμμ ἀχτπυ(de plant. 12), the human spirit as τπντν κὶχρκῆαθίςδνμω (quod deter. pot. ins. sol. 83), and similarly the Logos. χρκή is “the exact reproduction,” as a statue of a person (OGIS 363:60 χρκῆαμρῆ ἐῆ); literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made by a seal, the very facsimile of the original. The two terms ἀαγσαand χρκή are therefore intended to bring out the same idea.
ὑότσς the being or essence of God, which corresponds to his δξ (= character or nature); it is a philosophical rather than a religious term, in this connexion, but enters the religious world in Wis 16:21 (ἡμνγρὑότσςσυκλ Its physical sense emerges in the contemporary de Mundo, 4, τνἑ ἀρ φναμτντ μνἐτ κτ ἔφσντ δ κθ ὑότσν The use of it as a term for the essence or substance of a human being is not uncommon in the LXX (e.g. Psa_39:5, Psa_139:15); cp. Schlatter’s Der Glaube im NT3 (1905), pp. 615 f., where the linguistic data are arranged.
χρκή had already acquired a meaning corresponding to the modern “character” (e.g. in Menander’s proverb, ἀδὸ χρκὴ ἐ λγυγωίεα, Heauton Timoroumenos, 11). The idea of χρκή as replica is further illustrated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gen_21:2): “hence we learn that he (Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’s) face, as like as possible to him.”
An early explanation of this conception is given by Lactantius (diuin. instit. iv. ), viz. that “the Father is as it were an overflowing fountain, the Son like a stream flowing from it; the Father like the sun, the Son as it were a ray extended from the sun (radius ex sole porrectus). Since he is faithful (cp. Heb_3:2) and dear to the most High Father, he is not separated from him, any more than the stream is from the fountain or the ray from the sun; for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the sun’s light in the ray.” But our author is content to throw out his figurative expressions. How the Son could express the character of God, is a problem which he does not discuss; it is felt by the author of the Fourth Gospel, who suggests the moral and spiritual affinities that lie behind such a function of Jesus Christ, by hinting that the Son on earth taught what he had heard from the Father and lived out the life he had himself experienced and witnessed with the unseen Father. This latter thought is present to the mind of Seneca in Epp. 6:5, 6, where he observes that “Cleanthes could never have exactly reproduced Zeno, if he had simply listened to him; he shared the life of Zeno, he saw into his secret purposes” (vitae eius interfuit, secreta perspexit). The author of Hebrews, like Paul in Col_1:15-17, contents himself with asserting the vital community of nature between the Son and God, in virtue of which (φρντ) the Son holds his position in the universe.
In the next clause, φρν τ τ πναis not used in the sense in which Sappho (fragm. 95, πναφρν speaks of the evening star “bringing all things home,” the sheep to their fold and children to their mother. The phrase means “upholding the universe as it moves,” bearing it and bearing it on. “Thou bearest things on high and things below,” Cain tells God in Bereschith rabba, 23. 2, “but thou dost not bear my sins.” “Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia” (Seneca, Epist. 31:10). The idea had been already applied by Philo to the Logos (e.g. de migrat. Abrah. 6, ὁλγς…ὁτνὅω κβρήη πδλοχῖτ σματ: de spec. legibus i., 81, λγςδ ἐτνεκνθο, δʼο σμα ὁκσο ἐηιυγῖο de plant. 32, λγςδ ὁἀδο θο τῦαωίυτ ὀυώαο κὶββιττνἔεσατνὅω ἐτ). So Chrysostom takes it: φρν…τυέτ, κβρῶ, τ δαίτνασγρτν It would certainly carry on the thought of δʼο …αῶα, however, if φρι here could be taken in its regular Philonic sense of “bring into existence” (e.g. quis rer. div. haer. 7, ὁτ μ ὄτ φρνκὶτ πναγνῶ: de mutat. nom. 44, πναφρνσοδῖ ὁθό); this was the interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa (MPG. xlvi. 265), and it would give a better sense to “word of power” as the fiat of creative authority. But the ordinary interpretation is not untenable.
In τ ῥμτ τςδνμω ατῦ the ατῦ(ατῦ?) refers to the Son, not as in the preceding clause and in 11:3 to God. Hence perhaps its omission by M 424** 1739 Origen.
With κθρσὸ …ὑηοςthe writer at last touches what is for him the central truth about the Son; it is not the teaching of Jesus that interests him, but what Jesus did for sin by his sacrifice and exaltation. From this conception the main argument of the epistle flows. Κθρσὸ τνἁατῶ is a Septuagint expression (e.g. Job_7:21 πίσ …κθρσὸ (עבר τςἁατα μυ though this application of κ to sins is much more rare than that either to persons (Lev_15:13) or places (1Ch_23:26, 1Ch_23:2 Mac 10:5). In 2 P 1:9 (τῦκθρσο τνπλιατῦἁατῶ) it is filled out with the possessive pronoun, which is supplied here by some (e.g. ἡῶ Dc K L harkl sah arm Athan Chrys., ὑῶ א Grammatically it = (a) purgation of sins, as κθρζ may be used of the “removal” of a disease (Mat_8:3, Mat_8:4), or = (b) our cleansing from sins (9:14 κθρε τνσνίηι ἡῶ ἀὸνκῶ ἔγν Before κθρσό the words δʼἑυο (ατῦ are inserted by D H K L M 256 d harkl sah boh eth Orig. Athan Aug. etc. Δʼἑυο = ipse, as ἑυῷ= sua sponte. Ἐάιε ἐ δξᾷis a reminiscence of a favourite psalm (110:1) of the writer, though he avoids its ἐ δξῶ. It denotes entrance into a position of divine authority. “Sedere ad Patris dexteram nihil aliud est quam gubernare vice Patris” (Calvin). Ἐ ὑηος a phrase used by no other NT writer, is a reminiscence of the Greek psalter and equivalent to ἐ ὑίτι: grammatically it goes with ἐάιε. (The divine attribute of μγλσν is for the first time employed as a periphrasis for the divine Majesty.) This enthronement exhibits (v. 4) the superiority of the Son to the angels. Ὄοαis emphatic by its position at the close of the sentence; it carries the general Oriental sense of “rank” or “dignity.” The precise nature of this dignity is described as that of sonship (v. 5), but the conception widens in the following passage (vv. 6f.), and it is needless to identify ὄοαoutright with υό, though υέ brings out its primary meaning. In τσύῳκετω γνμνς(going closely with ἐάιε) τν(accidentally omitted by B and Clem. Rom.) ἀγλν(emphatic by position) πρ ατὺ κκηοόηε ὄοα the relative use of ὅο in NT Greek is confined to Mar_7:36, but τσύο …ὅο is a common Philonic expression. Κετω (for which Clement of Rome in 36:2 substitutes the synonymous μίω) is an indefinite term = “superior.” Unlike Paul, the writer here and elsewhere is fond of using πρ after a comparative.
Κετω in this sense occurs in the contemporary (?) Aristotelian treatise de Mundo, 391a (δὰτ ἀέτιτνκετόω ενι where τ κετόαmeans the nobler Universe.
The sudden transition to a comparison between the Son and the angels implies that something is before the writer’s mind. Were his readers, like the Colossians to whom Paul wrote, in danger of an undue deference to angels in their religion, a deference which threatened to impair their estimate of Christ? Or is he developing his argument in the light of some contemporary belief about angels and revelation? Probably the latter, though this does not emerge till 2:2. Meanwhile, seven Biblical proofs (cp. W. Robertson Smith, Expositor2, i. pp. 5 f.) of v. 4 are adduced; the two in v. 5; specially explain the δαοώεο ὄοα while the five in vv. 6-14 describe the meaning and force of κετω τνἀγλν The first two are:
5 For to what angel did God ever say,
“Thou art my son,
to-day have I become thy father”?
Or again,
“I will be a father to him,
and he shall be a son to me”?
The first quotation is from the 2nd Psalm (v. 7), read as a messianic prediction—which may have been its original meaning, and certainly was the meaning attached to it by the early Christians, if not already by some circles of Judaism:1
υό μυε σ,
ἐὼσμρνγγνηάσ.
Did the author take σμρνhere, as perhaps in 3:7f., though not in 13:8, in (a) a mystical sense, or (b) with a reference to some special phase in the history of Christ? (a) tallies with Philo’s usage: σμρνδ ἐτνὁἀέαο κὶἀιξττςαώ …τ ἀεδςὄοααῶο (de fuga, 11, on Deu_4:4), ἕςτςσμρνἡέα, τυέτνἀί ὁγραὼ ἅα τ σμρνπρμτετι(leg. alleg. iii. 8 on Gen_35:4). (b) might allude either to the baptism or to the resurrection of Christ in primitive Christian usage; the latter would be more congenial to our author, if it were assumed that he had any special incident in mind. But he simply quotes the text for the purpose of bringing out the title of Son as applied to Christ. When we ask what he meant by σμρν we are asking a question which was not present to his mind, unless, indeed, “the idea of a bright radiance streaming forth from God’s glory” (v. 8) pointed in the direction of (a), as Robertson Smith thought. But the second line of the verse is merely quoted to fill out the first, which is the pivot of the proof: υό μυε σ. Sons of God is not unknown as a title for angels in the Hebrew Old Testament (see EBi 4691). “Sometimes Moses calls the angels sons of God,” Philo observes (Quaest. in Gen_6:4 —as being bodiless spirits). But the LXX is careful to translate: “sons of Elohim” by ἄγλιθο (e.g. in Gen_6:2, Gen_6:4, Job_1:6, Job_2:1, Job_38:7), except in Psa_29:1 and 89:7, where sons of God are intended by the translator to denote human beings; and no individual angel is ever called υό.1 As the author of Πὸ Ἑρίυ and his readers knew only the Greek Bible, the proof holds good.
The second quotation is from 2 S 7:14:
Ἐὼἔοα ατ εςπτρ,
κὶατςἔτιμιεςυό,
a promise cited more exactly than in 2Co_6:18 and Rev_21:7, but with equal indifference to its original setting. Paul and the prophet John apply it to the relationship between God and Christians; our author prefers to treat it as messianic. Indeed he only alludes twice, in OT quotations, to God as the Father of Christians (see Introd. p. xxxv).
The third quotation (v. 6) clinches this proof of Christ’s unique authority and opens up the sense in which he is κετω τνἀγλν
and further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
In ὅα δ πλνεσγγ the term πλν rhetorically transferred, answers to the πλνof v. 5; it is not to be taken with εσγγ = “reintroduce,” as if the first “introduction” of the Son had been referred to in v. 2f. A good parallel for this usage occurs in Philo (leg. alleg.iii. 9: ὁδ πλνἀοιρσω θὸ τνμνοδνςατο φσνενι where πλνgoes with φσν Εσγι might refer to birth,2 as, e.g., in Epictetus (iv. 1, 104, οχ ἐενςσ εσγγν and pseudo-Musonius, ep. 90 (Hercher’s Epist. Graeci, 401 f.: ο τκαμννεςτ γνςἄλ κὶτιδ τκαεσγγς or simply to “introduction” (cp. Mitteis-Wilcken, i. 2. 141 (110 b.c.), εσξ τνἐατῦυὸ εςτνσνδν Linguistically either the incarnation or the second advent might be intended; but neither the tense of εσγγ (unless it be taken strictly as futuristic = ubi introduxerit) nor the proximity of πλνis decisive in favour of the latter (ὅα εσγγ might, by a well-known Greek idiom, be equivalent to “when he speaks of introducing, or, describes the introduction of”—Valckenaer, etc.). Πωόοο is Firstborn in the sense of superior. The suggestion of Christ being higher than angels is also present in the context of the term as used by Paul (Col_1:15, Col_1:16), but it is nowhere else used absolutely in the NT, and the writer here ignores any inference that might be drawn from it to an inferior sonship of angels. Its equivalent (cp. the v.ll. in Sir 36:17) πωόοο is applied by Philo to the Logos. Here it means that Christ was Son in a pre-eminent sense; the idea of priority passes into that of superiority. A πωόοο υό had a relationship of likeness and nearness to God which was unrivalled. As the context indicates, the term brings out the pre-eminent honour and the unique relationship to God enjoyed by the Son among the heavenly host.
The notion of worship being due only to a senior reappears in the Vita Adae et Evae (14), where the devil declines to worship Adam: “I have no need to worship Adam …I will not worship an inferior being who is my junior. I am his senior in the Creation; before he was made, I was already made; it is his duty to worship me.” In the Ascensio Isaiae (11:23 f.) the angels humbly worship Christ as he ascends through the heavens where they live; here the adoration is claimed for him as he enters ἡοκυέη
The line κὶποκνστσνατ πνε ἄγλιθο comes from a LXX addition to the Hebrew text of the Song of Moses in Deu_32:43, calling upon all angels to pay homage to Yahweh. But the LXX text1 actually reads υο θο, not ἄγλιθο (into which F corrects it)! Our author probably changed it into ἄγλιθο, recollecting the similar phrase in Psa_97:7 (ποκνστ ατ πνε ο ἄγλιατῦ unless, indeed, the change had been already made. The fact that Justin Martyr (Dial. 130) quotes the LXX gloss with ἄγλι is an indication that this may have been the text current among the primitive Christians.
The last four (vv. 7-14) quotations carry on the idea of the Son’s superiority to the angels:
7 While he says of angels (πό = with reference to),
“Who makes his angels into winds,
his servants into flames of fire,”
8 he says of the Son,
“God is thy throne for ever and ever,
and thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity:
9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness,
therefore God, thy God, has consecraled thee
with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades”—
10 and,
“Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord,
and the heavens are the work of thy hands:
11 they will perish, but thou remainest,
they will all be worn out like a garment,
12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle, and they will be changed,
but thou art the same,
and thy years never fail.”
In v. 7 the quotation (ὁπιντὺ ἀγλυ ατῦπεμτ| κὶτὺ λιοροςατῦπρςφόα only differs from the LXX by the substitution of πρςφόα for πρφέο (B: πρςφέαAa). The singular in φόαand perhaps the recollection that πεμ elsewhere in NT = “wind” only in the singular, led to the change of πεμτ into πεμ (D 1, 326, 424**, 1912, 1245, 2005 d sah eth Orig). The author is taking the LXX translation or mistranslation of Psa_104:4 (ὁπινκλ a nominative without a verb, as in 1Co_3:19) to mean that God can reduce angels to the elemental forces of wind and fire, so unstable is their nature, whereas the person and authority of the Son are above all change and decay. The meaning might also be that God makes angels out of wind and fire;2 but this is less apt. Our author takes the same view as the author of 4 Esdras, who (8:21) writes:
“Before whom the heavenly host stands in terror,
and at thy word change to wind and fire.”
Rabbinic traditions corroborate this interpretation; e.g. “every day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and they utter a song and perish” (Chagiga, ed. Streane, p. 76), and the confession of the angel to Manoah in Yalkut Shimeoni, ii. 11. 3: “God changes us every hour …sometimes he makes us fire, at other times wind.”
The interest of rabbinic mysticism in the nature of angels is illustrated by the second century dialogue between Hadrian, that “curiositatum omnium explorator,” and R. Joshua ben Chananja (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 171-172). The emperor asks the rabbi what becomes of the angels whom God creates daily to sing His praise; the rabbi answers that they return to the stream of fire which flows eternally from the sweat shed by the Beasts supporting the divine throne or chariot (referring to the vision of Ezekiel and the “fiery stream” of Dan_7:10). From this stream of fire the angels issue, and to it they return. Λιοροςof angels as in Psa_103:21 (λιορο ατῦ πιῦτςτ θλμ ατῦ
The fifth (vv. 8, 9) quotation is from Psa_45:7, Psa_45:8—a Hebrew epithalamium for some royal personage or national hero, which our author characteristically regards as messianic.
ὁθόο συὁθὸ εςτναῶατῦαῶο,
κὶ ῥβο τςεθττςἡῥβο τςβσλίςσυ
ἠάηα δκισννκὶἐίηα ἀοίν
δὰτῦοἔρσ σ ὁθό, ὁθό συ
ἔαο ἀαλάεςπρ3 τὺ μτχυ συ
The quotation inserts τςbefore εθττς follows A in preferring τναῶατῦαῶο (τῦαῶο om. B 33) to αῶααῶο (B), but prefers4 B’s ἀοίν(cp. 2Co_6:14) to A’s ἀιίν and agrees with both in prefixing ἡto the second (D K L P Cyr. Cosm Dam.) instead of to the first (אA B M, etc.) ῥβο. The psalm is not quoted elsewhere in NT (apart from a possible reminiscence of 45:5, 6 in Rev_6:2), and rarely cited in primitive Christian literature, although the messianic reference reappears in Irenaeus (iv. 34. 11, quoting v. 2). ὁθό (sc. ἐτνrather than ἔτ) may be (a) nominative (subject or predicate). This interpretation (“God is thy throne,” or, “thy throne is God”), which was probably responsible for the change of σῦafter βσλίςinto ατῦ(אB), has been advocated, e.g., by Grotius, Ewald (“thy throne is divine”), WH (“founded on God, the immovable Rock”), and Wickham (“represents God”). Tyndale’s rendering is, “God thy seat shall be.” Those who find this interpretation harsh prefer to (b) take ὁθό as a vocative, which grammatically is possible ( = ὦθέ cp. 10:7 and Psa_3:8, 138:17 etc.); “Thy throne, O God (or, O divine One), is for ever and ever.” This (so sah vg, etc.) yields an excellent sense, and may well explain the attractiveness of the text for a writer who wished to bring out the divine significance of Christ; ὁθό appealed to him like κρεin the first line of the next quotation. The sense would be clear if ὁθό were omitted altogether, as its Hebrew equivalent ought to be in the original; but the LXX text as it stands was the text before our author, and the problem is to decide which interpretation he followed. (b) involves the direct application of ὁθό to the Son, which, in a poetical quotation, is not perhaps improbable (see Joh_1:18, Joh_20:28); in v. 9 it may involve the repetition of ὁθό (om. by Irenaeus, Apost. Preaching, 47—accidentally?) as vocative, and does involve the rendering of ὁθό συas the God of the God already mentioned. The point of the citation lies in its opening and closing words: (i) the Son has a royal and lasting authority (as ὁθό?), in contrast to the angels, and (ii) he is anointed (ἔρσ1 = ὁΧίτς more highly than his companions—an Oriental metaphor referring here, as in Isa_61:3 etc., not to coronation but to bliss. If the writer of Hebrews has anything specially in mind, it is angels (12:23) rather than human beings (3:14) as μτχιof the royal Prince, whose superior and supreme position is one of intense joy, based on a moral activity (as in 12:2, where the passive side of the moral effort is emphasized).
The sixth (vv. 10-12) quotation is from Psa_102:26-28 which in A runs thus:
κτ ἀχς σ, κρε τνγνἐεείσς
κὶἔγ τνχιῶ σύεσνο ορνί
ατὶ ἀοονα, σ δ δαέες
κὶπνε ὡ ἱάινπλιθσνα,
κὶὡε πρβλινἑίεςατὺ κὶἀλγσνα·
σὶδ ὁατςε, κὶτ ἔησυοκἐλίοσν
The author, for purposes of emphasis (as in 2:13), has thrown σ to the beginning of the sentence, and in the last line he has reverted to the more natural σ (B). In the text of the epistle there are only two uncertain readings, for the proposed change of δαέεςinto the future δαεες(vg. permanebis) does not really affect the sense, and D*’s ὡ for ὡε is a merely stylistic alteration. In 12a two small points of textual uncertainty emerge. (a) ἑίες(A B Dc K L P M fu Syr arm sah boh eth Orig. Chrys.) has been altered into ἀλξι (א D* 327, 919 vt Tert. Ath). The same variant occurs in LXX, where ἀλξι is read by אfor ἑίες which may have crept into the text from Isa_34:4, but is more likely to have been altered into ἀλξι in view of ἀλγσνα (ἐιήοτι arm). (b) ὡ ἱάιν(אA B D* 1739 vt arm eth) after ατύ is omitted by Dc M vg syr sah boh Chrys. Ath Cyril Alex. Probably the words are due to homoioteleuton. If retained, a comma needs to be placed after them (so Zimmer.); they thus go with the preceding phrase, although one early rendering (D d) runs: “(and) like a garment they will be changed.”
The psalm is taken as a messianic oracle (see Bacon in Zeitschrift fü die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1902, 280-285), which the Greek version implied, or at any rate suggested; it contained welcome indications of the Son in his creative function and also of his destined triumph. The poetical suggestion of the sky as a mantle of the deity occurs in Philo, who writes (de fuga, 20) that the Logos ἐδεα ὡ ἐθτ τνκσο·γνγρκὶὕω κὶἀρ κὶπρκὶτ ἐ τύω ἐαπσεα. But the quotation is meant to bring out generally (i) the superiority of the Son as creative (so v. 2) to the creation, and (ii) his permanence amid the decay of nature;1 the world wears out,2 even the sky (12:26) is cast aside, and with it the heavenly lights, but the Son remains (“thou art thou,” boh); nature is at his mercy, not he at nature’s. The close connexion of angels with the forces of nature (v. 7) may have involved the thought that this transiency affects angels as well, but our author does not suggest this.
The final biblical proof (v. 13) is taken from Psa_110:1, a psalm in which later on the writer is to find rich messianic suggestion. The quotation clinches the argument for the superiority of the Son by recalling (v. 8) his unique divine commission and authority:
13 To what angel did he ever say,
“Sit at my right hand,
till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” ?
14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for
the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?
The Greek couplet—
κθυἐ δξῶ μυ
ἕςἂ θ τὺ ἐθοςσυὑοόιντνπδνσυ
corresponds exactly to the LXX; D* omits ἄ as in Act_2:35. The martial metaphor is (cp. Introd. pp. xxxiii f.) one of the primitive Christian expressions which survive in the writer’s vocabulary (cp. 10:12).
The subordinate position of angels is now (v. 14) summed up; πνε—all without distinction—are simply λιοριὰπεμτ (without any power of ruling) εςδαοίνἀοτλόεα(commissioned, not acting on their own initiative).3 According to the Mechilta on Exo_14:13, the Israelites, when crossing the Red Sea, were shown “squadrons upon squadrons of ministering angels” (תורמיֹ תורמיֹ שֶ מלאביהשֵָ); cp. Heb. of Sir 43:26a, and Dieterich’s Mithrasliturgie, p. 6, line 14, ἡἀχ τῦλιορονο ἀέο (see above, v. 7). Philo speaks of ἄγλιλιορο (de virtutibus, 74), of τὺ ὑοικνυ ατῦτνδνμω ἀγλυ (de templo, i), and in de plantatione, 4: Μσςδ ὀόαιεθβλ χώεο ἀγλυ ποαοεε, πεβυμνςκὶδαγλοσςτ τ πρ τῦἡεόο τῖ ὑηόι ἀαὰκὶτ βσλῖὧ εσνο ὑήοιχεο. “Angels of the (divine) ministry” was a common rabbinic term, and the writer concludes here that the angels serve God, not, as Philo loved to argue, in the order of nature, but in promoting the interests of God’s people; this is the main object of their existence. He ignores the Jewish doctrine voiced in Test. Lev_3:5, that in (the sixth?) heaven the angels of the Presence (ο λιορονε κὶἐιακμνιπὸ κρο ἐὶπσι τῖ ἀνίι τνδκίν sacrifice and intercede