Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 1:1 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The elevation of the New Testament Mediator as Son above all other mediators of Revelation and Redemption
_________
FIRST SECTION
ELEVATION OF JESUS CHRIST ABOVE THE PROPHETS AND ABOVE THE ANGELS, THE MEDIATORS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
______
I
In time past.— ÐÜëáé points to the fact that the Old Testament revelation has long since past, having come with Malachi to its canonical conclusion; so that nothing was henceforth to be expected but the coming of him who was predicted by that prophet, the “messenger of the covenant” who immediately preceded the coming of the Lord Himself. The ‘Fathers’ to whom the prophetic words were addressed, are the forefathers of the Jews. Sir. xliv.; Acts iii. 22; Rom. ix. 5.
In the Prophets.—The contrasted ἐíõἱῷ forbids our referring this to the prophetic writings (Fr. Schmidt, Stein). Further, we are neither to supply ὤí , being, nor to take ἐí instrumentally (Chrys., Luth., Calv., Grot., Thol., Ebr., Del.). This construction is commonly taken as an Hebraism: so Del. compares 1Sa_28:6, 2Sa_23:2 : ãִּáֵּø áְּ . Others, as Thol., point to a similar use of ἐí in the classics (Bern hardy’s Synt. 210). But ἐí , according to Kühner, § 600, 3, admits instrumentality only in connection with things, and neither our author’s style nor the sense form here a deviation from the customary import of ἐí . For He who speaks is God. The prophets are the organs of His revelation, completely controlled by Him, and in whom His own utterances are heard. This presupposes a transient indeed and indirect, but still real union of God with the prophets. But this union is not an essential, and as it were, metaphysical entrance into human nature, nor a settled, peaceful indwelling of God in the prophets wrought through the Spirit; but a divine activity in the prophets, coinciding and blending itself with the prophetic utterance. Precisely for this reason the prophets could never become to the fathers a proper manifestation of God, could never become a Theophany. They were, as shown by the ëáëÞóáò (spoke), the tongues of God, and even the form of the prophetic utterances is the result of God’s purpose and agency, and must not be regarded as something barely human and separable from its divine subject-matter. Precisely for this reason could Paul argue (Gal_3:16,) from the form as such. Finally, the word prophet is here used in the broader sense, which extends the name to Abraham (Gen_20:7), and the patriarchs generally (Psa_105:15); as also to Moses (Deu_34:10).
At the end of these days.—The expression ἐð ἐó÷Üôïõ ôῶí ἡìåñῶõ ôïýôùí , at the end of these days is rightly to be understood only as a terminus technicus in connection with the Hebrew áְּàַçֲøִéú äַéָּîִéí (at the end of the days). These words, which originally pointed only to the future, became, on account of their frequent connection with Messianic prophecies, a standing designation for the Messianic time, which brings to an end the òåֹìָí äַæֶּä áἰὼí ïὖôïò and introduces the coming age òåֹìָí äַáָּà áἰὼí ìÝëëùí as the period, commencing with the resurrection, of the glorious manifestation of the kingdom of God. In the Jewish conception this period coincided with the appearance of the Messiah.
Since this was looked for in the “time of the end,” Dan_8:17-19, or “at the end of time,” Dan_12:13, to the Christian conception this divides itself into two sections of which the first commences with the appearance of Jesus Christ in the flesh, the second with the reappearance of Him who has been exalted at the right hand of God. The two divisions stood in the contemplation and hope of the early church, in close proximity, and were essentially identical: for the latter contains only the complete manifestation of what was essentially and substantively commenced in the former: Col_3:3-4. The expression ‘last days’ ( ἔó÷áôáé ἡìÝñáé ) Jam_5:3, comprehends therefore the whole time from the birth of Jesus Christ to His second coming, which takes place in the êáéñὸò ἔó÷áôïò 1Pe_1:5 after the accomplishment, ‘in the last times,’ ἐí ὑóôÝñïéò êáéñïῖò (1Ti_4:1), of the signs preceding His second coming. Then all promises receive their final fulfilment, Heb_11:40; Heb_12:28; and for believers their entrance into rest ( êáôÜðáõóéò Heb_4:4; Heb_4:11), and into the Sabbatism ( óáââáôéóìüò Heb_4:10) is accomplished at the same time with their emancipation into the glorious freedom of the children of God, Rom_8:21. Thus the first coming of Jesus Christ falls “at the end of the times” ( ἐð ’ ἐó÷Üôïõ ôῶí ÷ñüíùí ), 1Pe_1:20, when the “fulness of time” ( ðëÞñùìá ôῶí ÷ñüíùí ) had come, Gal_4:4. Precisely for this reason does Peter recognize in the miracle of the Pentecost (Act_2:17), the fulfilment of a prophecy in regard to that which was to happen “in the last days” ( ἐí ôáῖò ἐó÷Üôáéò ἡìÝñáéò ); as elsewhere the appearance of certain heretical teachers recalls prophecies in regard to the ‘end of time’ (Judges 18), or ‘of the days’ (2Pe_3:3). The ïἱêïõìÝíç ìÝëëïõóá (coming world) which is subjected not to angels, but to the Lord, (Heb_2:5) or the new order of things, (the season of rectification, êáéñὸò äéïñèþóåùò ), Heb_9:10, commences, therefore, with the founding of the Christian church; and believers have since their conversion tasted along with the word of God, the “powers of the world to come,” Heb_6:5. For Christ appeared for the doing away of sins by the sacrifice of Himself, “at the consummation of the ages” ( ἐðὶ óõíôåëåßᾳ áἰþíùí , Heb_9:26.) There is, thus, now nothing to be looked for but the second coming, 1Th_4:15. Already has the “last time” ( ἐó÷Üôç ὥñá ) begun, 1Jn_2:18. The expression has not a chronological, but a doctrinal and moral import. When, therefore, it is said that God has spoken in the Son, ἐð ̓ ἐó÷Üôïõ ἡìåñῶí ôïýôùí , the expression cannot, viewed with reference either to the language or to the fact, mean “at last in these days” (Vulg., Luth., Dav. Schulz). The ἡìÝñáé áὖôáé , these days, are not the days in which the readers and the author live, but they correspond to the áἰὼí ïὖôïò this age or time, and ἐð ̓ ἐó÷Üôïõ is to be taken as neuter, indicating the close of the ante-Messianic time. The demonstrative points not to a chronological, but to a doctrinal conception. So also ἡìῖí denotes, in contrast with the ‘fathers,’ the author with his readers as belonging to the Christian period.
In the Son.—The absence of the article before õἱῷ has its ground not in the fact that õἱüò can be used of Christ after the manner of a proper name, and thus be determined in itself (Böhme, Bloomf., Del., Riehm), which none can doubt, but in the fact that it is here not the individual, whom the author would signalize, but the character, or relation. In distinction from the well-known prophets, the organ of God’s utterances at the close of the ages is one who stands to God in the relation of Son. Thus we have no longer to do with a continuance of God’s prophetic oracles; but with a form of divine revelation specifically different from all that preceded it, yet maintaining its organic connection with them by the fact of its proceeding from the same God who spoke to the Fathers.
Heb_1:2. Appointed.—It were possible (with Bengel, Bleek, Lönemann) to understand this of an appointment in the divine purpose and counsel. But the connection of the clauses is not such as to indicate an enumeration of the several stages from the ante-temporal act of destining the pre-existing Son to be the inheritor of all things, to the actual fulfilment of this purpose in the redemption wrought by the Incarnated Word. The question evidently is rather of the historical Mediator of the Divine Revelation, who stands in the relation of Son. The import of this term it is now the special purpose of the writer to unfold, and this the more, in that, on the one hand, the term ‘Son of God’ has in the Old Testament itself a different signification; and, on the other, that he has hitherto spoken of that prophetic revelation of God which expresses itself in the word. For this reason he adds two clauses by way of specially defining the term Son, each of which expresses in its own peculiar manner this Son’s uniqueness of nature and infinite elevation. He is the Ruler who being worshipped as Lord ( êýñéïò ), has been by right of inheritance, and thus legitimately and by virtue of His divine Sonship, exalted to this dignity. And this exaltation is no apotheosis: no elevation of a man (as Socinianism would have it) to a divine position and dignity; it corresponds to the relation which this personage sustained to God before the ages. The Mediator of God’s final revelation in His word, is also the Mediator of the exercise of His power in creation. Thus through the relative ( ὅò , who) the discourse passes over from God, the subject of the preceding clauses, to this mediator as subject of the following. In these the term ἐêÜèéóåí points to the joint agency of Christ in the act of His exaltation: while the participial clauses preceding bring out the indispensable and vital points of the Son’s having taken His place at the right hand of God only after accomplishing the work of redemption, and under what essential attributes of His person and agency (what being and what doing) all this has been accomplished. The participial clause ðïéçóÜìåíïò (after making, etc.) gives the work which in perfect freedom the Son has accomplished before His exaltation; the participial clause ãåíüìåíïò (becoming so much greater, etc.) describes the position and recognition awarded to Him in consequence of that work; while the two participial clauses ὤí and öÝñùí (being, etc., and ‘bearing’ or ‘upholding,’ etc.) indicated by the closely connecting particle ôå as standing in intimate relationship, and designedly placed before the others, express the unoriginated and unchangeable, and thus eternal and identical being and agency of the Mediator of Redemption and Creation. We must not deny (with Lün.) that also these latter clauses have to do with the manifested Messiah. But from this it follows neither that, as descriptive of the personal qualities of Christ, they assign the internal ground of His exaltation (de Wette), nor that they characterize the Son in the inmost and essential ground of His absolute personality (Del.), nor that referring to Him presumably merely as the exalted one, they point to merely economical relations in the accomplishment of redemption (V. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 2d ed. 1. p. 140 ff.). They point us rather to the unchangeable essence, the ever uniform and invariable activity of the Mediator of the New Covenant. They contain “a characteristic of the Son, as designating that nature which belongs peculiarly to Christ in each and all of His various modes of existence.” (Riehm, I. 278). For the Pres. Part. marks not in itself any independent time but simply co-ordinates the action with that of the principal verb. But if, as here, the principal verb is past, the contemporaneous action in the subordinate clause is expressed not by the Pres. but by the Imperf. The Present characterizes by pointing to permanent features and essential attributes.
The worlds.—As no trace of controversy with Gnostic notions of Æons and Angels, held by Jews, is found elsewhere in our epistle, we must, were it even for this reason, decline to refer the áἰῶíåò here to angels (as earlier expositors with Wolf). The passage Heb_11:3 proves also that áἰῶíåò cannot signify secular periods (Chrys.), still less the two cardinal epochs of the world’s history, the Mosaic and the Christian (Bolten, Paulus, Stolz, Stein), but only the world as existing and moving in time. Its parallel is found in the Old Testament äָòåֹìָîִéí which (from òָìַí , to veil, hide,) signifies originally only successive periods of time lying beyond the vision, but in the writings of the Rabbins, the worlds as the hidden, unfathomable, concrete product and expression of the hidden, unfathomable ages of time. The transition in signification is found Ecc_3:11. As, however, áἰþí never signifies time or eternity in the abstract, but both only under the category of progress and movement in which spiritual forces are active, so with the relation of this word to the idea of the world. It denotes the world not as the mere aggregate of all things, the universe, ( ôὰ ðÜíôá ), not as the manifold variety of things wrought into an organic unity and harmony ( êüóìïò ); nor again the world in its materiality, perishableness, and vanity; but as a system of spiritual relations and powers in whose phenomena we may discern the íïïýìåíá , Rom_1:20. These invisible, spiritual and permanent potencies of the phenomenal world are no individual Angels and Æons, no powers independently fashioning the world, and no world of Ideas after whose model God was constrained to fashion and to build the world of phenomena. Rather God has formed these through His Son, and according to Heb_11:3, arranged and reduced them to order by His creative word. It is these áἰῶíåò which, amidst all phenomenal vicissitudes and fluctuations, and the ceaseless passing away of individual existences, remain permanent in the world. But Jehovah is ὁ èåὸò ôῶí áἰþíùí , Sir_36:19; ὁ âáóéëåὺò ôῶí áἰþíùí (Tob_13:6; Tob_13:10; 1Ti_1:17). The emphasis in our passage lies not on the fact that God through the Son has made also (=even) the Æons, but that in connexion with the fact that He constituted or appointed the Son heir of the worlds, we are also to look at the fact that through Him He made ( ἐðïßçóåí ) the world.
Heb_1:3. Beaming image.— Ἀðáὑãáóìá is by Bleek following previous interpreters (as Clarius, Schlichting, Capellus, Gerhard, Calov., Böhme), explained as effulgence, beaming or shining forth; but the form of the word would lead us to take it passively. We might hence (with Erasm., Calv., Bez., Grot., etc.) refer it to the image, the form received and reflected in a mirror. More exactly, however, it denotes the distinct, concrete result of the beaming or shining forth (Lob., Paralip. 396, Krüger, Gr. Gram. 191); so that according to Lün. it involves a threefold idea: 1. that of independent existence; 2. that of origin or descent; 3. that of likeness. Äüîá denotes the resplendent glory of God’s majesty as the means by which He makes a revelation of Himself, and claims the adoring recognition of His creatures. In Christ this glory is received and concentrated in an individual, personal image, rayed or beamed forth, as it were, from the Deity, and itself, therefore, beaming forth its brightness in turn. This beaming image is thus no mere mirrored reflection, no fleeting phenomenon produced merely for a specific and definite purpose. It has expressed in it the essential being of God, just as the figure or image is contained in the die. The numerous significations of ὑðüóôáóéò may be reduced to four fundamental ones: 1. underplacing, underlaying, hence, foundation, basis, substruction, support, even sediment; 2. the fact of putting one’s self under a thing, taking it upon one’s self; hence, firmness, steadfastness, confidence of spirit, enterprise, determination; 3. that which lies at the basis as the proper object, or subject matter of a discourse or narrative; 4. real being in contrast with fancy and illusion; hence, essence, substance. Since now every real being has a special mode of existence corresponding to its essence, the term ὑðüóôáóéò could become a doctrinal terminus ecclesiasticus for the trinitarian distinction in the existence of God= ðñüóùðïí , persona, and so many interpreters explain it here, even Calvin, Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Thom. Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Corn. a Lapide. This signification of the word, however, belongs demonstrably to a later ecclesiastical usage. We must refer the term, therefore, to the essential being of God, as Philo employs it as a synonym of ïὐóßá , and the Vulgate translates figura substantiæ ejus, or still better Origen de Princip. iHebrews Heb_1:2; Heb_1:8, figura expressa substantiæ. For the etymology of ÷áñáëôÞñ points at all events to a means by which a thing is made recognizable or even valid in exchange, and that by stamped or engraved marks. The word, however, never denotes the stamped figure or impression itself, but only the means for it. It may thus denote partly the features or marks which in general are the means of recognition, and partly may indicate the stamp itself; but this not merely as the external instrument, or tool for stamping, but as bearing in itself the form to be impressed, and having the destination and capacity by means of this of making the impression. In this sense Philo (ed. Mangey I. p. 332) calls the rational soul a genuine coin which has obtained its ïὐóßá and its ôýðïò from that seal of God whose ÷áñáêôÞñ is the eternal Logos.
Bearing.—The character of the discourse will not allow our transforming the idea of öÝñåéí , bearing, into that of maintaining and governing. And, moreover, not merely do the later Jews frequently make use of this language, that God bears the worlds with His power and with the arm of His strength, but also Paul expresses a kindred idea thus: “all things consist ( óõíÝóôçêåí ) in him,” Col_1:17. On the other hand this öÝñåéí must not be conceived as a mere passive bearing (portare); for the Son sustains no merely external relation to the world, nor in His action upon it merely puts forth His power in a manner like that ascribed to those who bore the heavens and the structure of the universe in the old mythologies; He acts through the word of His power. The ‘Word’ is not here that of the Gospel (Socin.) although his ( áὐôïῦ ) refers not to God (Cyril, Grot., etc.) but to the Son. It is the word in which the power essential to the Son utters itself, with which power it is itself fraught. The utterance of the Son, by which the world is upheld in its unity, and carried forward to the accomplishment of its purposes, is parallel to the creative word of God in the account of creation. The idea of bearing thus passes over into the active conception of gerere (carrying forward), of a sustaining movement and guidance which works upon and within it by an overmastering, spiritual agency. In this sense the prophets are said (2Pe_2:4) to be öåñüìåíïé ὐðὸ ðíåýìáôïò ἁãßïõ , and the Sept. thus uses öÝñåéí , Num_11:14; Deu_1:9.
Purification.—The expression, “making a purification of sins,” refers not to an altered condition of the world wrought through the ministry of Christ, nor to a moral renovation of the human race effected in consequence of that ministry, but to the accomplished work of redemption in removing the hinderances created by sin to our intercourse with God. The form of expression is drawn from that Levitical worship in which only pure Israelites were permitted to take part. God, that is to say, has separated His people for His service, Lev_20:7; Num_16:5; that they may be His sanctified ones, His Saints, Psa_16:3; Pro_30:3. But the Saints are to be not merely corporeally pure, Exo_19:20; Deu_23:12-14; 1Sa_16:5, but also Levitically pure, Lev_11:44, since it is the business of those whom God has set apart from the nations as His possession, to observe the distinctions between the “clean” and the “unclean,” which He Himself has established, Lev_20:24-26. Even though in all these arrangements we may not be able specially to refer back to death and corruption, as permanent tokens and memorials of sin (as Sommer has with great acuteness attempted (Bibl. Treatises, Bonn, 1846, p. 183–367), still to the ceremonially defiled, equally as to the sinner, participation in the service was allowed only in consequence of priestly mediation on the ground of sacrifice, and thus alone access to God and appearance in His presence were rendered possible. To this our text refers, which, by the addition of ôῶí ἁìáñôéῶí , of sins (gen. obj. Exo_30:10; Job_7:21; comp. Mat_8:3), points specially to the purification from all sins, Lev_16:30, which was made on the great day of atonement, and thus brings as definitely before the reader the high-priestly work of Christ as the words immediately following exhibit His kingly office. The Mid. form, ðïéçóÜìåíïò , intimates a close and immediate relation of the action to the acting subject (Kühner Gr. § 250, (d), Hadley Gr. Gr., § 689). The act of purification is thus designated as the special and peculiar act of the Son. The reading äἰ ἑáõôïῦ designates, at the same time, directly the person of Jesus Christ as the means of purification, and we must refer in our minds specially to the identity of the priest and of the expiatory sacrifice (Heb_7:27; Heb_10:10), as the ideas of purification and expiation stand in so close relation that ëִּôֻּøִéí , Exo_29:36, is translated ἡìÝñá ôïῦ êáèáñéóìïῦ , day of purification, and 2Ma_2:16, the feast of atonement is called êáèáñéóìüò . Moreover, Grimm (Stud. und Krit., 1839, p. 751) regards as conjectural root of the Gothic sauns (ransom, ëýôñïí ), the word sinna, saun=to be pure. Köstlin’s assertion [Joh. Lehrbegr., p. 534) that the doctrine of our passage differs essentially from that of Paul, who makes atonement vicarious, is unfounded. The êáèáñéóìüò wrought by the death of Christ is mentioned, Eph_5:26; Tit_2:14, while again substitution appears, Heb_9:14; Heb_10:10. Purification involves as its necessary condition, cleansing; as its consequence, sanctification, in the sense of consecration, Heb_9:14; Heb_9:22 f.; Heb_10:2.
Took his seat.— Êáèßæåéí , in older classical use, is ordinarily transitive, but Hellenistic usage makes it generally intransitive, as elsewhere also constantly in our Epistle (Heb_8:1; Heb_10:12; Heb_12:2); while with Paul again, except 2Th_2:4, it is uniformly transitive. Ἐíὑøçëïῖò (corresponding to áַּîָּøåֹí , Psa_93:4; as ἐí ὑøßóôïéò , Luk_2:14; Luk_19:38; to áַּîְּøåֹîִéí Job_16:19) is grammatically to be referred to ἐêÜèéóåí , inasmuch as ìåãáëùóýíç , majesty, (comp. Heb_8:1), like ἡ ìåãáëïðñåðὴò äüîá , 2Pe_1:17, and äýíáìéò , Mat_26:64, is a designation of God in the respect that no greatness, power and majesty can reach to Him, compare itself with Him, or of itself attain to Him. The term “Majesty” has no need to be specialized by a defining clause like ἐí ὑøçëïῖò , a construction which (Beza, Bleek) would require the article ( ìåãáëùóýíçò ôῆò ἑí ὑøçëïῖò ). But the phrase ἐíὑøçëïῖò is important as added to ἐêÜèéóåí , describing more definitely Christ’s exaltation after and by means of His ascension. We must not, however, with Ebrard, in the Reformed interest, maintain that ἐí ὑø . contains a manifest local relation, while the êáèßæåéí ἐí äåîéᾷ is a figurative expression, embracing purely the idea of participation in the Divine dominion and majesty, and utterly void of any local import. Inasmuch as the local relations are concrete and real, but yet can neither be sensibly beheld, nor are developed in the form of distinct conceptions in the Scriptures, but are revealed only in a general way to Christian apprehension, the figurative mode of expression and the local conceptions are neither to be dispensed with nor limited to a single isolated point. Such erroneous localization and possible misconceptions are in Scripture in part expressly and formally corrected, as Joh_4:21; Joh_4:50 ff.; Jer_23:23; 1Ki_8:27; partly set aside by counter statements, as at Heb_4:14 Christ is said to have “passed through the heavens” (comp. Eph_1:21; Eph_4:10, “who ascended above all heavens”); Heb_7:14, to have become “higher than the heavens,” and finally Act_7:55, Stephen sees Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Finally the original and primary conception involved in the phrase, “sitting at the right hand of God,” is not that of participation in the fulness of the Divine power and honor, or in the exercise of universal dominion; but of being taken into protection under the sheltering presence of Jehovah from the assaults of enemies, Psa_11:1; Mat_22:44; Rev_12:5. Only as a consequence of this follows participation in Divine honor, omnipotence and sovereignty; and this, in that the language is applied not to the theocratic kings in general, but to the Messiah, and, in its application to Jesus, presupposes, as its condition, His theanthropic exaltation. This sitting of the exalted Christ at the right hand of Majesty, which is to continue without interruption until His Second Coming, must be conceived, therefore, not as a state of repose, or of mere security, as of one rescued from his enemies, but of Messianic activity in the accomplishment of redemption. This activity may assume the most varied forms (Act_2:23; Rom_8:34; Heb_8:1); among them especially that of asserting the Divine dominion over all hostile assaults, and over all ungodly persons, Eph_1:20; 1Co_15:25; Heb_2:8; Heb_10:12; 1Pe_3:22.
Heb_1:4. Becoming.—The participial clause, which at once forms the close of the period and introduces the capital thought of the immediately following discussion, gives, in contrast with what Christ, in His essential nature and under all circumstances, is and does, the change in position and dignity which He has experienced in His actual historical career. The word ãåíüìåíïò is neither to be taken separately nor unduly pressed. It stands in close connection with êñåßôôùí (becoming mightier, superior); ideo que non ad essentiæ ortum, sed ad conditionem pertinet (Matth. Polus, Synops. Crit.). It is an error, however, to deduce from it the meaning factus=declaratus; and not less erroneous, on the other hand, is the rendering existens (Faber Stapul.), or the reference of the word, as with many older interpreters, to an eterna generatio. Nor does the term apply (as with Thom. Aquin., Cajet.) to the act of incarnation, or to Christ’s investiture with the office of Mediator, “quo pacto non uno modo factus dici potest” (H. B. Stark, Not. Sel., p. 4); but it refers to the exaltation of Him who had become incarnate (Theodoret, Œcumen.). Applied to Christ, it involves the idea of a change in the mode of His being and manifestation, but by no means in His nature, Rom_1:3; Gal_4:4; Php_2:7. It implies no apotheosis or exaltation of a man to Deity, but an actual exaltation of the Incarnate One as such into the place of Deity in the progress of a series of historical events. Êñåßôôùí (= êñáôýôåñïò ) denotes not of itself Divinity (Cyrill), although the Greeks familiarly designated supernatural beings as ïἱ êñåßôôïíåò . In its frequent use by our author it always denotes a preëminence, whose exact character is determined by the context. (See Heb_9:19; Heb_9:22; Heb_8:6; Heb_9:23; Heb_10:34; Heb_11:16; Heb_11:35; Heb_11:40; Heb_12:24). Clem. Rom. (1 Cor. 36.) in citing our passage, puts instead of it, ìåßæùí . The formula ôïóïýôῳ — ὅóῳ , occurring in Philo and in our Epistle here, as also at Heb_7:20-22; Heb_8:6; Heb_10:25, is never used by Paul; nor is ðáñÜ after a comparative though frequent in our Epistle, as Heb_3:3; Heb_9:23; Heb_11:4; Heb_12:24, and occurring Luk_3:13; 3 Esdras 4:35. The comparative äéáöïñþôåñïí , found elsewhere in the New Testament only at Heb_8:6, enhances the idea of dignity which is already contained in the positive.
Name.—The term ‘name’ ( ὄíïìá ) is referred by Bez. and Calov, etc., to the dignity and glory attained by Christ; by Akersloot to his extraordinary appellatives as high-priest, Lord; and by Del. to the aggregate heavenly name of the Exalted One, His ùֵׁî äַîְּôֹøָùׁ , nomen explicitum, which has entered no human mind on earth, and can be pronounced by no human tongue, ὄíïìá ὄ ïὐäåὶò ïἶäåí åἰ ìὴ áὐôüò , Rev_19:12. The majority, however, refer the name to õἱüò , Son. This view is sustained by the immediately following citations from the Old Testament, in proof that the name Son, used of an individual person, as such belongs exclusively to the Messiah; by the fact that while the name of ‘Angel’ points to the idea of servant and messenger, the name of Son, on the contrary, involves that of essential equality with the Father, of dominion and of heirship; and, finally, by the choice of the word ‘inherited’ ( êåêëçñïíüìçêåí ) which clearly refers back to the clause, “whom He constituted heir of all,” while the perf. has inherited, shows that it relates not to an act parallel to, and simultaneous with, the ἔèçêå , after the resurrection, by which Christ obtained in His humanity, what in His divine nature He already possessed from eternity (Theodoret, Œcumen., Theophyl.), but to a complete and final taking possession of that which, as His befitting allotment, corresponding with His essential character, the Messiah has received once for all in permanent possession. The term refers not then to absolute Sonship, as a relation which Jesus may be supposed to have obtained on account of His merits, as His special allotment; but rather to that name of Son, challenging universal recognition (Php_2:9), which Christ received, neither after His ascension nor at His conception (Sebast. Schmidt), Luk_1:35; but bears even in the Old Testament. Camero appropriately remarks: “He is not said to have inherited the thing which belonged to Him by nature, but the name of the thing, that, viz., by which it was known to angels and men that He Himself was the Son of God.”
Angels.—The subsequent citations show that by ἄããåëïé we are to understand not the servants of God under the old covenant (Frenzel in Augusti’s Theol. Blätter, No. 25. Haberfeld: Angeli e primo et secundo cap. ep. ad Hebr. Exulantes. Isenac. 1808), but the heavenly angels. The mention of them is not introduced casually, as if suggested by the mention of the Throne of God, and scarcely either for an independent polemical purpose, in opposition to Jewish Gnostic conceptions of the Messiah as an intermediate spirit and angel (Thol.) Ideas of this kind found, indeed, utterance among the Jews of this period, and had in part penetrated into the Christian church (Hellwag in the Theol. Jahrb. Tübingen, 1848. But no trace of an allusion to them is found in our Epistle whose purpose is to portray the infinite elevation of the new covenant, and of its perfect Founder above the old covenant, and its manifold and imperfect mediators. But to these intermediate agencies of the Old Testament belong essentially Angelophanies, which are expressly mentioned (Heb_2:2), in connection with the giving of the Law. Nor can any appeal be made to the Fourth Book of Esdras, and this, whether with Lawrence, Lücke and Hilgenfeld, we carry back the date of this book as early as the first century, B. C., or with Volkmar and Ewald (the Fourth Book of Esdras, etc., 1863), bring it down to the first century after Christ, and with Dillman regard it as the work of a Hellenistic Jew, belonging to the last quarter of the first post-Christian century, exhibiting a Judaism which, after its rejection of Christianity, and after the Roman conquest of Palestine, is now in rapid progress toward its state of Talmudic ossification. For the Angels Uriel and Jeremiel are, indeed, in a certain sense, mediators of the revelations of God; they explain to Esra the visions which he has received, and answer the questions when and by whom God will introduce the judgment and the end of things, and others of like nature. But the Messiah is designated not as an angel, but as the Son of God (4 Esdras 7:28, 29) and beheld under the figure of the Lion from Judah, who annihilates the eagle, the symbol of the Roman Empire (4 Esdras 11). In some features the apocalyptic representations assume a wild and monstrous character; while in the Book of Enoch, in the Jubilees, in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the contents taments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the contents of the revelation are at least recited from heavenly are given to Esra to be drunk in from a pitcher (4 Esdr. 14:40). Also in the Book of Enoch, (translated and explained by Dillman, Leipz., 1853) we find, indeed, an uncertain and inconsistent enumeration of angels, who are called in brief ‘the white ones’ (Enoch 87:2; 90:21, 31) or ‘those who do not sleep’ (Enoch 39:12; 61:12; 71:7), and equally with the heroes (Enoch 43:3; 46:7) are often styled ‘stars,’ (Enoch 21:3, 6; 86:3; 87:4; 88:1, 3; 90:21). There are also of these, different orders and proper names. At the head of the Satane stands Satan (Enoch 40:7) who (Enoch 54:5, 6; 55:4) is also called Azazel, alongside of whom in the section Enoch 6:16 and 79:2 appears Semjâzâ. Avenging angels are mentioned Enoch 53:3; 54:3; 56:1; 62:11; 63:1; 79:28. Among the good angels by the throne of God are found three principal and highest leaders, Cherubim, Seraphim and Ophanim; Enoch 61:10; 71:7, and four supreme angels, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, Enoch 40:4, 10; 54:6; 71:8, 13. In the sections that treat of Noah, Zuriel, ( öåּøִéàֵì ) takes the place of Phanuel. At Enoch 21:5, Uriel, and Enoch 23:4, Raguel are named as conductors of Enoch through heaven, while elsewhere also Michael Enoch 24:6, and Raphael, Enoch 23:3, 6; 32:6, perform this service; though the proper calling of Raphael and Gabriel is healing and purifying, Enoch 10:4; 10:10; 40:9. The Messiah nowhere appears here as an angelic being, but as Son of a woman (Enoch62:5), as Son of a man (Enoch 69:29), and Son of Man who has righteousness (Enoch46:1), who will be a staff to the righteous and holy, and the light of the nations; (Enoch 48:4), whom also the angels praise (Enoch40:5), and who, with the Lord of Spirits and the head of days, as the anointed one (Enoch 48:10; 52:4), who bears in Himself the fulness of the Divine Spirit (Enoch49:2, 4), was chosen out and concealed before the world was created, Enoch 48:6. On the one hand the attributes which distinguish the members of the true church, are in the highest sense applied to the Messiah. He is hence called absolutely the Chosen One, Enoch 40:5; 45:3; 48:2; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 51:5, 8, 10; 62:1, and the ‘root’ or the ‘branch of righteousness,’ Enoch 10:16; 93:2, and as such, or as the righteous one, Enoch 38:2; 92:2, 10, is distinguished from the Messianic people, who, in like manner, are conceived as plants of the eternal seed, Enoch 84:6, and is designated as the aggregate of the chosen, righteous and holy ones, Enoch 38:2; 40:2; 45:5; 51:5; 61:12, and hence also can collectively be called the righteous one, Enoch 91:10. On the other hand the Messiah is called absolutely the Word, Enoch 90:38; the Word of God, Enoch 14:24; 102:1, and the Son of God, Enoch 105:2, who will bear the sword of righteousness, and will appear in the eighth week of the world, Enoch 91:12. God, who is often called the “Ancient of Days,” Enoch 46:1; 47:3; 58:2; 71:10, 13, (after Dan_7:13) swears before Michael, Enoch 69:15 ff. that the salvation beheld by Enoch shall be eternal, and that the Messiah, as king of the kingdom of heaven, will establish on the earth an imperishable kingdom. Moreover, at Enoch 39:5; 49:1; 62:2, there is promised the outpouring of the Spirit of wisdom and righteousness. (Comp. Ewald: Treatise on the Origin, Import and Construction of the Æthiopic Book of Enoch, Gött., 1854, and Dillmann, who, in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. XII., places the composition of Enoch 37–71, after taking out the Noachian fragment—in the first decennium of the Hasmonean princes, that of the remaining sections in the time of the rule of John Hyrcanus, and that of the books of Noah in the first Christian century. Among these latest portions, in which, however, the Romans still do not appear as a secular power, dangerous to the Jews, he reckons Enoch 54:7–55:2; Enoch 60; 65:1–69:25; Enoch 106, and the greatest part of Enoch 6–16. The hypothesis defended by Hilgenfeld (The Jewish Apocalyptic in its Historical development, Jena, 1857) of a Christian origin of Enoch 37–71 stands connected with other opinions of this scholar, and is refuted by Dillmann. This whole subject, however, is not yet thoroughly cleared up.
2. The fragmentary character of this revelation produces in it no error; for God is He who speaks to us in the prophets, and all the utterances of revelation are oracles of God ( ëüãéá ôïῦ èåïῦ ). The great variety of its forms best bears testimony to the goodness of God in graciously condescending to human necessities, and demonstrates at once the sincerity and earnestness with which He draws near to us, and the depth of His condescension. For God did not use the prophets as merely passive instruments, nor speak through them as through a speaking trumpet; nor did He merely “exercise His power in them, and inspire in their mind and heart what, when and how they were to speak,” 2 Peter 1 (Starke). He deposited His own thoughts in the prophetic modes and forms of thought, and clothed His own word in the peculiarities of speech which belonged to the prophet and to his time. It is precisely for this reason that in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament the discourse frequently passes from the third person to the first, and conversely, and that without indication of any change in the person of the speaker.
3. The fact that the same God has spoken to us at an earlier period in the prophets, and, at the close of the Ante-Messianic period, in the Son, assures to us the unity, amidst its manifold variety, of the historical revelation; while it teaches us that the individual utterances mutually illustrate each other, and yet derive their full light only from the actual central point of all revelation, Jesus Christ. For which reason also the Old Testament is rightly understood only from the stand-point of the New, and the entire body of Scripture is to be regarded in the light of a revelation of God for the salvation of the world, whose parts stand related to each other as preparation and fulfilment.
4. The successive stages of Revelation (Rosenm., Treatise on the successive stages of Divine Rev., 1784) point to a divine plan of salvation, which, ordained from eternity, has in its execution in time, given birth to a completely adjusted economy of salvation, and discloses a wisdom into whose mysteries Angels desire to look, 1Pe_1:12, and to whom it is made known in the church of Jesus Christ, Eph_3:10, as also to us to whom the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, has given the spirit of wisdom and revelation for the knowledge of Himself, Eph_1:17. The answer of Cyrill (adv. Julian, I 1:126) to the inquiry of the emperor Julian regarding the reason of the lateness of Christ’s appearance, viz., that “Revelation advances with advancing culture, and its perfection could be reached only in connection with a corresponding culture of the race,” is an answer at once erroneous and puerile. More to the purpose remarks Heubner: “Christianity completes the circle of Revelation; it is its perfection, and stands good for the highest reach of culture which man can attain on earth.”
5. The designation of God’s revelation in the Son as the final one, while decidedly repelling the idea that any grade of human culture can transcend, and leave behind it Christianity as a thing antiquated and effete, remands to the realm of dreams every anticipation of a new revelation in behalf of some religion of the future. And the declaration—that Christ, only after accomplishing a purification of sin, took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, reminds us that there can be no degree of human need which should require another religion. “If God has finally spoken to us by Christ and His Apostles, we must not turn away to the next doctrine that may arise, be it Mohammedanism or Popery; but abide by that which we heard from the beginning from Christ and His Apostles; and so abiding we shall abide with the Father and the Son.” (Starke).
6. In the fact that through the Son, in whom God has spoken to us in the fulness of times, He originally made the worlds, is involved the possibility of a perfect harmony in natural and historical revelation. But the apostasy and its consequences have changed their original relation. The realization of this harmony must be brought about by a complete triumph over sin, and an accomplished elimination of evil from the world, and will be effected not by any heightened development on the part of nature, but by the special acts of God in a series of historical revelations.
7. While Jesus Christ is placed on a level with the prophets in that—according to the rule, Amo_3:7 : “Jehovah does nothing without revealing His counsel to His servants, the prophets,”—He is a personal organ for genuine oracles of God, He stands essentially distinguished from them not exclusively in the fact of His being the perfect Mediator of the final revelation, of whom all earlier prophets have prophesied. For in this case He might possibly have been conceived merely as the most perfect teacher and the most distinguished prophet. The specific distinction lies in the three following points: 1. Christ is become king at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven, while the prophets have been and remain simply servants of Jehovah. 2. Christ is Saviour and Redeemer of the world, which presupposes His personal purity from every sin; the prophets, on the contrary, were at all times sinful men. who stood in need of redemption. 3. The exaltation of Jesus Christ to divine Majesty after accomplishing on earth the work of redemption, corresponds to His ante-mundane condition and life, to His eternal relation as Son to the Father, and to his supra-mundane character and work; so that in His personal appearance on earth He is to be designated as God-man ( èåÜíèñùðïò ), while the prophets, as men of God, who have spoken under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, maintained and attested their created and finite character.
8. That the historical Mediator of the final revelation of God is the ante-mundane Mediator of the creation of the world, imparts to Him a special majesty and dignity beyond that of all created mediators. The comparison of Him with the Angels shows that He is not, in this relation, conceived as an unconscious intermediate cause, but has exercised this mediating agency in a personal existence. And the declaration that He is the beaming image of God’s glory and the impress of His substance, shows that the Mediator who is distinguished above all beings, and even above the Angels, by the name of “Son,” does not bear His filial name in a conventional and theocratic sense. “The Son is the mediating essence of the whole spiritual world, in whom the Deity presents Himself in that world, mirrored in all His perfections, in power, wisdom, holiness, love. Such is the external relation of the Son; for the world, for us, He is the being from whom beams forth the divine äüîá . The ground of this is