The Gospel According to St. John; commentaries on Hebrews and 1–3 John

Two Epistles, as has been already noticed, were circulated in the third century under the name of Barnabas. Both were for some time on the verge of the canon of the N. T., and at last, a century later, one was by common consent included in it and the other excluded. Both deal with a question which was of momentous importance at the close of the apostolic age, and the manner in which they respectively deal with it illuminates the idea of inspiration, and reveals a little of the divine action in the life of the Church.

The question arose of necessity from the progress of the Faith. As the Gentile churches grew in importance, Christians could not but ask how they were to regard the Scriptures and the institutions of Judaism?

The destruction of Jerusalem forced this inquiry upon believers with a fresh power. There was an apparent chasm opened in the line of divine revelation. All that had been held sacred for centuries was swept away, and yet the books of the Old Testament, which appeared to find an outward embodiment in the Jewish services, were still the authoritative Bible of Christians.

Could the Old Testament be thus kept? And if so, how were Christians to explain the contradiction between the hallowing of the writings, and the apparent neglect of their contents)? The ordinances of the Law had not been formally abrogated: what then were the limits of their obligation? In what sense could writings, in which the ordinances were laid down, still be regarded as inspired by the Spirit of God, if the ordinances themselves were set aside?

A little reflection will shew that the difficulties, involved in these questions which the early Christians had to face, were very real and very urgent. The pregnant thoughts of the Epistle to the Hebrews — all that is contained in the words polumeros kai polutropos palai o theos lalesas tois patrasin en tois prophetais — have indeed passed so completely into our estimate of the method of the divine education of 'the nations' and of 'the people,' that some effort is required now in order that we may feel the elements of the problem with which they deal. But we can realise the situation by removing this book from the New Testament, and substituting in imagination the Epistle of Barnabas for it.

Two opposite solutions of the difficulties obtained partial currency. It was said on the one side that the Old Testament must be surrendered: that Judaism and Christianity were essentially antagonistic: that Christ really came to abolish the work of an opposing power: that the separation of the Gospel from the Law and the Prophets must be final and complete. This view, represented in its most formidable shape by Marcion, was opposed to the whole spirit of the apostolic teaching and to the instinct of the Christian Society. It isolated Christianity from the fulness of human life, and it is needless to dwell upon it.

On the other side it was said, as in the Epistle of Barnabas, that God had spoken only one message and made one Covenant, and that message, that Covenant, was the Gospel; but that the message had been misunderstood from the first by the Jews to whom it was addressed, and that the Covenant in consequence had not been carried into effect till Christ came (Barn. iv. 6).

This view is not in its essence less unhistorical than the other, or less fatal to a right apprehension of the conditions and course of the divine revelation. But it had a certain attractiveness from the symbolic interpretation of Scripture which it involved, and it seemed to guard in some sense the continuity of God's dealing with men. So it was that, if the Epistle to the Hebrews had not already provided help before the crisis of the trial came, and silently directed the current of Christian thought into the true channel, it would be hard to say how great the peril and loss would have been for later time.

For the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas present a complete and instructive contrast in their treatment of the Old Testament Scriptures and of the Mosaic institutions. Both agree in regarding these as ordained by God, and instinct with spiritual truth, but their agreement extends no farther either in principles or in method.

(a) Barnabas sets forth what he holds to be the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament without principle or self-restraint. He is satisfied if he can give an edifying meaning to the letter in any way. He offers his explanations to all; and in the main deals with trivial details (e.g. c. ix., the explanation of IHT).

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews on the other hand exercises a careful reserve. He recognises a due relation between the scholar and his lesson; and the examples by which he illustrates his leading thoughts are all of representative force: the idea of rest (the Sabbath-rest, the rest of Canaan, the rest of Christ): the idea of priesthood (the priest of men, the priest of the chosen people): the idea of access to God (the High-priest in the Holy of holies, Christ seated on the right-hand of God).

The one example which the two Epistles have in common, the rest of God after creation, offers a characteristic contrast. In the Epistle to the Hebrews it suggests the thought of the spiritual destiny of man: in Barnabas it supplies a chronological measure of the duration of the world (Heb. iv.; Barn. xv.).

(b) Barnabas again treats the Mosaic legislation as having only a symbolic meaning. It had no historical, no disciplinary value whatever. The outward embodiment of the enigmatic ordinances was a pernicious delusion. As a mere fleshly observance circumcision was the work of an evil power (Barn. ix. 4) But the evil power apparently gave a wrong interpretation to the command on which it was based and did not originate the command (comp. Just M. Dial. 16).

In the Epistle to the Hebrews on the other hand the Mosaic system is treated as a salutary discipline, suited for the training of those to whom it was given, fashioned after a heavenly pattern (vii. 5; x. 1), preparatory and not final, and yet possessing throughout an educational value. The Levitical sacrifices, for example, were fitted to keep alive in the Jews a sense of sin and to lead thought forward to some true deliverance from its power. The priesthood, again, and high-priesthood suggested thoughts which they did not satisfy, and exactly in proportion as they were felt to be divine institutions, they sustained the hope of some complete satisfaction. The purpose of God is indeed fulfilled from the first, though to us the fulfilment is shewn in fragments. Hence the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews goes beyond the Law, and in the gentile Melchizedek finds the fullest type of the King-priest to come.

(e) There is another point of resemblance and contrast between the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle to the Hebrews which specially deserves to be noticed. Barnabas (c. xvi.) dwells on the perils and the failures of the external Law fashioned under the later Temple into a shape which affected permanence. In this he marks a real declension in the development of Judaism. The Temple, like the Kingdom, waa a falling away from tho divine ideal. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews recognises the same fact, but he places the original divine order apart from the results of man's weakness. He goes back to the Tabernacle for all his illustrations, in which the transitoriness of the whole system was clearly signified.

In a word, in the Epistle of Barnabas there is no sense of the continuity of the divine discipline of men, of an education of the world corresponding to the growth of humanity: no recognition of the importance of outward circumstances, of rules and observances, as factors in religious life: no acknowledgment of a relation of proportion between spiritual lessons and a people's capacity. It is an illustration of the same fundamental fault that we find in the Epistle not only a complete rejection of the letter of the Levitical system, but also an imperfect and inadequate view of Christian institutions.

On the other hand we have in Hebr. i. 1 — 4 a view of the unfolding and infolding of the divine counsel in creation of infinite fulness. The end is there seen to be the true consummation of the beginning. We discern that one message is conveyed by the different modes of God's communication to His people: that one Voice speaks through many envoys; that at last the spoken word is gathered up and fulfilled in the present Son.

We have not yet mastered all the teaching of the pregnant words; yet even now we can perceive how the thoughts which they convey characterise the whole Epistle: how they arose naturally out of the circumstances of the early Church; and, by comparison with the Epistle of Barnabas, how far they transcended the common judgment of the time. Under this aspect the Epistle to the Hebrews, by its composition and its history, throws light upon the ideas of Inspiration and a Canon of Scripture. On the one side we see how the Spirit of God uses special powers, tendencies and conditions, things personal and things social, for the expression of a particular aspect of the Truth; and on the other side we see how the enlightened consciousness of the Church was in due time led to recognise that teaching as authoritative which was at first least in harmony with prevailing forms of thought.

Polumeros kai polutropos palai o theos lalesas tois patrasin en tois prophetais ep'

prosebraious 'AB me. eprosebraiousepestole M?. eprosebraiousepistolepaulou S.

The whole is bound together in one unbroken grammatical construction, but the subject is changed in its course. In the first two verses God is the subject: in the last two the Son; and the fourth verse introduces a special thought which is treated in detail in the remainder of the chapter.

Thus for purposes of interpretation the paragraph may be divided into three parts.

i. The contrast of the Old Revelation and the New: vv. 1, 2.

ii. The nature and the work of the Son: v. 3.

iii. Transition to the detailed development of the argument: v. 4.

It will be noticed that the Lord is regarded even in this brief introductory statement in His threefold office as Prophet (God spake in His Son), Priest (having made purification of sins), and King (He sat down).

i. The contrast of the Old Revelation and the New (1, 2).

The contrast between the Old Revelation and the New is marked in three particulars. There is a contrast (a) in the method, and (b) in the time, and (c) in the agents of the two revelations.

(a) The earlier teaching was conveyed in successive portions and in varying fashions according to the needs and capacities of those who received it: on the other hand the revelation in Him who was Son was necessarily complete in itself (comp. John i. 14, 18).

(b) The former revelation was given of old time, in the infancy and growth of the world: the Christian revelation at the end of these days, on the very verge of the new order which of necessity it ushered in.

(c) The messengers in whom God spoke before, were the long line of prophets raised up from age to age since the world began (Luke i. 70; Acts iii. 21): the Messenger of the new dispensation was God's own Son.

The first contrast is left formally incomplete (having...spoken in many parts and in many modes...spake). The two latter are expressed definitely (of old time to the fathers, at the end of these days to us—in the prophets, in Him Who is Son); and in the original, after the first clause, word answers to word with emphatic correspondence: polumeros kai polutropos (1) palai (2) ho theos lalesas (3) tois patrasin (4) en tois prophetais (5): no corresponding clause (1') ep' eschaton ton hemeron touton (2') elalnsen (3') hemin (4') en huio (5').

The consideration of these contrasts places the relation of Christianity to all that had gone before in a clear light. That which is communicated in parts, sections, fragments, must of necessity be imperfect; and so also a representation which is made in many modes cannot be other than provisional. The supreme element of unity is wanting in each case. But the Revelation in Christ, the Son, is perfect both in substance and in form. The Incarnation and the Ascension include absolutely all that is wrought out slowly and appropriated little by little in the experience of later life. The characteristics which before marked the revelation itself now mark tho human apprehension of the final revelation.

The Incarnation, in other words, is the central point of all Life; and just as all previous discipline led up to it polumeros kai polutropos, so all later experience is the appointed method by which its teaching is progressively mastered polumeros kai polutropos. All that we can learn of the constitution of man, of the constitution of nature, of the 'laws' of history must, from the nature of the case, illustrate its meaning for us (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 9 £).

These thoughts find their complete justification in the two clauses which describe the relation to the order of the world of Him in Whom God spoke to us. God appointed Him heir of all things, and through Him He made the world. The Son as Heir and Creator speaks with perfect knowledge and absolute sympathy.

But while the revelations of the Old and the New Covenants are thus sharply distinguished, God is the One Author of both. He spoke in old time, and He spoke in the last time. In the former case His speaking was upon earth and in the latter case from heaven (c. xii, 25 note), but in both cases the words are alike His words. Not one word therefore can pass away, though such as were fragmentary, prospective, typical, required to be fulfilled by Christ's Presence (Matt. v. 18). In revelation and in the record of revelation all parts have a divine work but not the same work nor (as we speak) an equal work. 1. Tho order of the first words in the original text, by which the two adverbs (polumeros kai polutropos) come first, to which nothing afterwards directly answers (Having in many parts and in many modes of old time spoken...), serves at once to fix attention on the variety and therefore on the imperfection of the earlier revelations, and also to keep a perfect correspondence in the members which follow (palai, ep' eschatou ton hemeron touton — lalesas, elalesen — tois patrasin, hemin — en tois prophetais, en huio).

At the same time the two main divisions of the revelation are connected as forming one great whole: God having spoken... spake... (ho theos lalesas...elalesen). It is not simply that the Author of the earlier revelation is affirmed to have been also the Author of the later (God who spake...spake...ho tois patrasin lalesas theos elalesen or God spake...and spake...); but the earlier revelation is treated as the preparation for, the foundation of, the latter (God having spoken...spake...).

polumeros kai polutropos] in many parts and in many manners, Vulg. multifariam multisque modis. Syr. Psh. in all parts and in all manners (Syr. Hcl. in many parts...).

The variety of the former revelation extended both to its substance and to its form. Tho great drama of Israel's discipline was divided into separate acts; and in each act different modes were employed by God for bringing home to His people various aspects of truth. Thus the 'many parts' of the preparatory training for Christianity may be symbolised (though they are not absolutely coincident with them) by the periods of the patriarchs, of Moses, of the theocracy, of the kingdom, of the captivity, of the hierarchy, as Israel was enabled to assimilate the lessons provided providentially in the national life of Egypt, Canaan, Persia, Greece. And the many 'modes' of revelation are shadowed forth in the enactment of typical ordinances, in declarations of 'the word of the Lord,' in symbolic actions, in interpretations of the circumstances of national prosperity and distress. And further it must be noticed that the modes in which God spoke in the prophets to the people were largely influenced by the modes in which God spoke to the prophets themselves 'face to face,' by visions, by Urim and Thummim (comp. Num. xii. 6, 8). These corresponded in the divine order with the characters of the messengers themselves which became part of their message.

The general sense is well given by Theodoret: to mentoi polumeros tas pantodapas oikonomias semaines, to de polutropos ton theion optasion to diaphoron, allos gar hophthe to 'Abraam kai allos to Mouse...to mentoi polumeros kai heteron ainittetai hoti ton propheton hekastos meriken tina oikonomian enecheirizeto, ho de touton theos, ho despotes lego Christos, ou mian tina okonomese xreian, alla to pan enanpesas katorthose.

The adverbs are not rare in late Greek: for polumeros see Plut. ii. 537 d; Jos. Anti. viii. 3, 9; and for polutropos Philo, ii. 512 M.; Max. Tyr. vii. 2. Polumeres is used of Wisdom in Wisd. vii. 22. The two corresponding adjectives occur together in Max. Tyr. xvii. 7: There are, he says, two instruments for understanding, tou men aplou hon kaloumen noun, tou de poikilou kai polumerous kai polutropou as aistheseis kaloumen. For similar combinations see Philo de vit Mos. i. § 20 (ii. 99 M.) (polutropo kai poluschidei); de decal. § 17 (ii 194 M.) (polutropoi kai polueideis); quis rer. div. haer. § 58 (i. 514 M.) (pollous kai polutropous).

Clement of Alexandria in a remarkable passage (Strom. vi. 7, § 58, p. 769) uses the phrase of the action of the Word, Wisdom, the firstborn Son: ohutos estin ho ton geneton aponton didaskalos, ho sumboulos tou theou tou ta panta prosgnokotos ho de anothen ek protes kataboles kosmou polutropos kai polumeros pepaideuken te kai teleimi. Comp. Strom. i. 4, 27, p. 331 eikotos toiouo ho apostolos polupoikilon eireken ten sophian tou theou, polumeros kai polutropos, dia technes, dia episte mes, dia pisteos, dia propheteias, ten eautes endeiknumenen dunamin eis ten hemeteran euergesian...

palai] of old time (Vulg. olim) and not simply formerly (proteron c. iv. 6; x. 32). The word is rare in N.T. and always describes something completed in the past. Here the thought is of the ancient teachings now long since sealed.

ho theos lalesas...elalesen...] There is but one final Source of all Truth. The unity of the Revealer is the pledge and ground of the unity of the Revelation, however it may be communicated; and His revelation of Himself is spontaneous. He 'speaks' in familiar intercourse. The word lalein is frequently used in the Epistle of divine communications: ii. 2, 3; iii. 5; iv. 8; v. 5; xi. 18; xii. 25. Compare John ix. 29; xvi. 13. This usage is not found in St Paul (yet eschatou ton em£ron touton elalesbn emin iv uiph,

2 eschatou 'ABD?M? (vg) me: eschaton S. syrr.

see Rom. iii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 3), but it is common in St Luke (Acts).

The Vulgate rendering loquens (Old Lat. locutus)...locutus est exhibits a characteristic defect of the version in the rendering of participles (compare v. 3 purgationem faciens; v. 14 missi), tois patrasin] This absolute title the fathers occurs again John vii. 22; Rom. ix. 5; xv. 8 (in Acts iii. 22 it is a false reading). Compare Ecclus. xliv. Pateron umnos.

More commonly we find 'our (your) fathers': Acts iii. 13, 25; v. 30; vii. 11 &c.; 1 Cor. x. 1. The absolute term marks the relation of 'the fathers' to the whole Church.

hen tois pr./] in the prophets (Vulg. in prophetis), not simply through them using them as His instruments (c. ii. 2, 3), but in them (c. iv. 7) as the quickening power of their life. In whatever way God made Himself known to them, they were His messengers, inspired by His Spirit, not in their words only but as men; and however the divine will was communicated to them they interpreted it to the people: compare Matt. x. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 3. (Ipse in cordibus corum dixit quidquid illi foras vel dictis vel fastis locuti sunt hominibus. Here.) Conversely the prophet speaks 'in Christ' as united vitally with Him: 2 Cor. ii. 17; xii. 19.

Cf. Philo de praem, et poen. 9 (ii. 417 M.) ermeneus gar estin ho prophetes endothen hupechountos ta lektea tou theou.

The title 'prophet' is used in the widest sense as it is applied to Abraham (Gen. xx. 7), to Moses (Deut. xxxiv. 10; comp. xviii. 18), to David (Acts ii. 3th), and generally to those inspired by God: Ps. cv. 15. Compare Acts iii. 21 ton hagion ap' aionos autou propheton. Luke i. 70. The prophets, according to a familiar Rabbinic saying, prophesied only of the days of the Messiah (Sabb. 63 a; Wünsche, Altsyn. Theol. s. 355). Comp. Philo quis rer. div. haer. § 52 (i. 510 f. M.).

(2). ep' eschatou ton hem. t.] at the end of these days: Vulg. novissime diebus istis, O.L. in novissimis diebus his.

The phrase is moulded on a lxx rendering of the O.T. phrase b'chryt hymym 'in the latter days,' ep' eschatou ton hemeron (Gen. xlix. 1: Num. xxiv. 14; Jer. xxiii. 20 v. 1. eschaton; xlix. 39 [xxv. 18]; comp. Deut iv. 30; xxxi. 29), which is used generally of the times of Messiah (Is. ii. 2; Dan. x. 14 and notes).

Starting from this general conception Jewish teachers distinguished 'a present age,' 'this age' (vlm hzh, ho aion outos, nun kairos) from 'that age,' 'the age to come' (vlm hb', ho mellon aion, ho aion ekeinos, "aion "erchomenos).

Between 'the present age' of imperfection and conflict and trial and 'the age to come' of the perfect reign of God they placed 'the days of Messiah,' which they sometimes reckoned in the former, sometimes in the latter, and sometimes as distinct from both. They were however commonly agreed that the passage from one age to the other would be through a period of intense sorrow and anguish, 'the travail-pains' of the new birth (Hebrew, odines Matt. xxiv. 8).

The apostolic writers, fully conscious of the spiritual crisis through which they were passing, speak of their own time as the 'last days' (Acts ii. 17; James v. 3: comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1); the 'last hour' (1 John ii. 18); 'the end of the times' (1 Pet i. 20 ep' eschatou ton chponon: in 2 Pet iii. 3 the true reading is ep' eschaton ton hem.); 'the last time' (Jude 18 ep' eschatou chronou).

hon etheken kleponomon panton, di' ou kai epoiesen tous

epoi. t. haionas 'ABD?*M? (vg) syr vg: t. hai. epoi. S syr hl.

Thus the full phrase in this place emphasises two distinct thoughts, the thought of the coming close of the existing order (ep' eschatou at the end), and also the thought of the contrast between the present and the future order (tov hemeron touton of these days as contrasted with 'those days').

elalesen hemin] spake to us— the members of the Christian Church: x. 26; xiii. 1 (so Theophylact: enopoiei kai exisoi tois mathetais kai autous kai heauton). The word was not directly addressed to the writer: ii. 3. The mission of Christ is here regarded as complete. It is true in one sense that He told His disciples the full message which He had received (John xv. 15), if in another sense He had, when He left them, yet many things to say (xvi. 12). This contrast between the divine, absolute, aspect of Christ's work, and its progressive appropriation by men, occurs throughout Scripture. Compare Col. iii. 1 ff., 5.

en huio] The absence of the article fixes attention upon the nature and not upon the personality of the Mediator of the new revelation. God spake to us in one who has this character that He is Son. The sense might be given by the rendering in a Son, if the phrase could be limited to this meaning ('One who is Son'); but 'a Son' is ambiguous. See v. 5; iii. 6; v. 8; vii. 28. Compare John v. 27 note; x. 12; Rom. i. 4.

The absence of the article is made more conspicuous by its occurrence in the corresponding phrase. 'The prophets' are spoken of as a definite, known, body, fulfilling a particular office. The sense would lose as much by the omission of the article in this case (en prophetais 'in men who were prophets') as it would lose here by the insertion (en to huio in the Son c. vi. 6).

It is instructive to notice how completely the exact force of the original was missed by the later Greek Fathers. Even Chrysostom says: to en huio dia tou huiou phesi, and OEcumenius repeats the words.

The new revelation is a continuation of the old so far as God is the author of both. It is wholly new and separate in character so far as Christ is the Mediator of it

Herveius notices tho difference between the Presence of God in the prophets and in His Son: In prophetis fuit Deus secundum inhabitationem gratiae et revelationem voluntatis sapientiae suae, in Filie autem omnino totus manebat...utpote cui sapientia Dei personaliter erat unita.

en etheken...di' ou kai epoiesen...] The office of the Son as the final revealer of the will of God is illustrated by His relation to God in regard to the world, in and through which the revelation comes to men. He is at once Creator and Heir of all things. The end answers to the beginning. Through Him God called into being the temporal order of things, and He is heir of their last issue. All things were created 'in Him' and 'unto Him' (Col. i. 15, 16, en auto ektisthe, eis auton ektistai). The universal heirship of Christ is illustrated by, if not based upon, His creative activity.

etheken kleronomon p.] Vulg. quem constituit (0.L. posuit) heredem universorum. Even that which under one aspect appears as a necessary consequence is referred to the immediate will of God (etheken). For the use of tithemi see Rom. iv. 17 (Gen. xvii. 5); 1 Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11. There is nothing to determine the 'time' of this divine appointment. It belongs to the eternal order. Yet see Ps. ii. 8; Matt. xxviii. 18 (edothe). We 'who see but part' may fix our attention on inceptive fulfilments.

kleronomon] The thought of sonship passes naturally into that of heirship: Gal. iv. 7; compare Rom. viii. 17.

The word heir marks the original purpose of Creation. The dominion originally promised to Adam (Gen. i. 28; compare Ps. viii.) was gained by Christ. And so, in regard to the divine economy, the promise made to Abraham (compare Rom. 13; Gal. iii. 39) and renewed to the divine King (Ps. ii. 8), which was symbolised by the 'inheritance' of Canaan (Ex. xxiii. 30), became absolutely fulfilled in Christ. The image of 'heirship' which is based apparently on the second Psalm (Ps. ii. 8) is recognised in the Gospels (Matt. xxi. 38 and parallels) where the contrast between 'the servants' (prophets) and 'the Son' is also marked.

At the same time, it must be carefully noticed that the usage cannot be pressed in all directions. The term is used in relation to the possession, as marking the fulness of right, resting upon a personal connexion, and not, as implying a passing away and a succession, in relation to a present possessor (comp. Gal. iv. 1 ho kleronomos...kurios panton hon). The heir as such vindicates his title to what he holds. Compare Additional Note on vi. 12.

The heirship of 'the Son' was realised by the Son Incarnate (v. 4) through His humanity: kleronomos gar panton ho despotes Christos ouch hos theos all' hos anthropos (Theod.); but the writer speaks of 'the Son' simply as Son as being heir. In such language we can see the indication of the truth which is expressed by the statement that the Incarnation is in essence independent of the Fall, though conditioned by it as to its circumstances.

papton] The purpose of God extended far beyond the hope of Israel; ouketi gar meris kuriou ho Iakob (Deut. xxxii. 9), alla pantes (Theophlct.). Noe jam portio Domini tantum Jacob et portio ejus Israel, sed omnes omnino nationes (Atto Verc.).

de' ou kai epoiesen t. hai.] This order, which is certainly correct, throws the emphasis on the fact of creation, which answers to the appointment of the Son as heir (kai epoiesen, compare vi. 7; vii. 25). The creation does indeed involve the consummation of things. The 'Protevangelium' is Gen. i. 26 f.

tous aionas] the world, Vulg. saecula. The phrase hoi aiones has been interpreted to mean

(1) 'Periods of time,' and especially 'this age' and 'the age to come,' as though the sense were that God created through the Son—Who is supratemporal—all time and times.

(2) The successive emanations from the divine Being, as in the Gnostic theologies; or the orders of finite being. Comp. Const. Apost. viii. 12 o de' autou [tou huiou] poiesas ta cheroubim kai ta seraphim, aionas te kai stratios...

(3) The sum of the 'periods of time' including all that is manifested in and through them, This sense appears first in Eccles. iii. 11, answering to the corresponding use of vlm which is first found there. The plural vlmym is found with this meaning in later Jewish writers, e.g.vlmym vvr'. Comp. Wisd. xiii. 9.

There can be little doubt that this is the right sense here (comp. xi. 3 note). The universe may be regarded either in its actual constitution as a whole (ho kosmos), or as an order which exists through time developed in successive stages. There are obvious reasons why the latter mode of representation should be adopted here.

The difference between ho aion — the age—one part of the whole development, and oi aiones — the ages—the sum of all the parts, is well illustrated by the divine title 'the King of the ages' 1 Tim. i. 17 (ho basileus ton aionon; Tobit xiii. 6, 10; Henoch p. 86 Dillm. ho b. panton ton ai.; Ecclus. xxxvi. 22 (19) ho theos ton aionon; Henoch p. 83). In this aspect 'the King of the ages' is contrasted with 'the rulers of this age' (hoi archontes tou aionos toutou 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8). Compare pantokrator (Apoc. i. 8 &c.) with kosmokrator (Eph. vi. 12).

The Rabbinic use of vlm is very wide. Thus they speak of the 'Macrocosm,' the universe, as vlm hgdvl, and of the 'Microcosm,' man, as vlm hqtvn.

There is a very fine saying in Aboth iv. 'R. Jacob said This world is like a vestibule before the world to come: prepare thyself in the vestibule that thou mayest enter into the festival-chamber'(ltrqlyn).

ep. tous aionas) The order of finite being even when it is regarded under the form of gradual development is spoken of as 'made' by a supra-temporal act. 'All creation is one act at once.' panton...tous aionas]) all things.., the world...all single things regarded in their separate being: the cycles of universal life.

For the fact of creation through the Son see John i 3, 10; 1 Cor. viii. 6 (dia); Col. i. 16 (en).

Philo speaks of the Logos as 'the instrument through which the world was made: heureseis aition men autou (sc tou kosmou) ton thron huph' su gegonen. hulen de ta tessara stoichein ex hon sunekrathe. organon de logon theou di' ou kateskeuasthe. tes de kataskeues aitian ten agathoteta tou demiourgou (de Cher. 35; ii. 162 M.) Comp. de monarch. ii § 5(ii. 225 M.); leg. alleg. iii. § 31 (i. 106 M.).

The first passage is singularly instructive as bringing out the difference between the Christian and Philonic conception of the divine action. Comp. Rom. xi. 36 (ek, dia, eis); 1 Cor. viii. 6 (ex, eis, dia). The preposition hupo is not, I believe, used in connexion with creation in the N.T.

ii. The Nature and work of the Son (3).

The Nature and work of the Son is presented in regard to (1) His divine Personality and (2) the Incarnation.

(1) In Himself the Son is presented in His essential Nature, as the manifestation of the divine attributes (apaugasma tes doxes), and He embodies personally the divine essence (charakter tes hupostaseos). In connexion with this view of His Nature, His work is to bear all things to their true end (pheron ta panta).

(2) This general view of His work leads to the view of His work as Incarnate in a world marred by sin. In regard to this He is the One absolute Redeemer (kathar. ton ham. poiesamenos) and the Sovereign representative of glorified humanity (ekath. en dexia tes meg. en hups.).

³Who, being the effulgence of His glory and the expression of His essence, and so bearing all things by the word of His power, after He had Himself made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

(3). The description of the Nature and Work of the Son of God in relation to the Father (spake in, appointed, made) given in the second verse is completed by a description of His Nature and Work in regard to Himself.

The description begins with that which is eternal. The participles 'being,' 'bearing' describe the absolute and not simply the present essence and action of the Son. Compare John i. 18; (iii. 13); Col i. 15, 17. The hov in particular guards against the idea of mere 'adoption' in the Sonship, and affirms the permanence of the divine essence of the Son during His historic work.

At the same time the divine being of the Son can be represented to men aionas. ³hos hon apaugasma tes doxes kai charakter tes

only under human figures. Since this is so, the infinite truth must be suggested by a combination of complementary images such as are given here in apaugasma and charakter. The first image (apaugasma) brings out the conception of the source (pege) of the Son's Being, and of His unbroken connexion with the Father, as revealing to man the fulness of His attributes.

The second image (charakter) emphasises the true Personality of the Son as offering in Himself the perfect representation of the divine essence of the Father (John xiv. 9).

Taken together the images suggest the thoughts presented by the theological terms 'coessential' (homoousios) and 'only-begotten' (monogenes).

The 'glory' of God finds expression in the Son as its 'effulgence': the 'essence' of God finds expression in Him as its 'type.'

Neither figure can be pressed to conclusions. The luminous image may be said to have no substantive existence (tl gar apaugasma, phasin (the followers of Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus), enupostaton ouk estin all' en hetero echei to einai Chrysost. Hom. ii. 1). The express image may be offered in a different substance. So it is that the first figure leaves unnoticed the Personality of the Son, and the second figure the essential equality of the Son with the Father. But that which the one figure lacks the other supplies. We cannot conceive of the luminous body apart from the luminous image; and we cannot identify the archetype and its expression.

Under another aspect we observe that the Divine Manifestation is placed side by side with the Divine Essence. It is in Christ that the Revelation is seen (apaugasma). It is in Christ that the Essence is made intelligibly distinct for man (charakter).

The two truths are implied by the words of the Lord recorded in St John's Gospel v. 19, 30; xiv. 9.

For the pre-existence of the Son compare c. vii. 3; x. 5.

It must farther be noticed that in the description of the Being of the Son language is used which points to a certain congruity in the Incarnation. This is the 'propriety' of His Nature to perfectly reveal God. Through Him God reveals Himself outwardly.

Under this aspect the clause which describes the action of the Son—pherom ta panta to rhemati tes dunameos autou—gives in its most general form the truth expressed in the divine acts hon etheken kleronomon panton, di' hou kai epoiesen tous aionas.

apaugasma tes doxes] the effulgence of His glory, Vulg. splendor gloriae (and so Latt. uniformly).

apaugasma] The verb apaugazo has two distinct meanings:

(1). To flash forth: radiate.

(2). To flash back: reflect.

The noun apaugasma, which is a characteristically Alexandrine word occurring in Wisdom (vii. 25), and in Philo, may therefore mean either

(1). The effulgence; or

The use of the word by Philo is not decisive as to the sense to be chosen. In one passage the sense 'effulgence' appears to be most natural: De concupisc. § 11 (ii. 356 M.) to d' euphusomenon (Gen. ii. 7) delon hos aitherion en pneuma kai ei de ti aitheriou pneumatos kreitton, hate tes makarias kai trismakarias phuseos apaugasma.

In two others the sense 'reflection' is more appropriate: De opif. mundi § 51 (i. 35 M.) pas anthropos kata men ien dianoian oikeiotai theio logo, tes maka rias phuseos ekmageion he apospasma he apaugasma gegonos, kata de ten tou somatos kataskeuen hapanti to kosmo.

De plantatione Noae § 12 (i. 337 M.) to de hagiasma (Ex. xv. 17) hoion hagion apaugasma, mimema archetupou, epei ta aisthesei kala kai noeses kalon eikones.

The passage in Wisdom (vii. 25 f.) is capable of bearing either meaning. The threefold succession apaugasma, esoptron, eikon, — effulgence, mirror, image, no less than v. 25, appears to favour the sense of 'effulgence.' Otherwise esoptron interrupts the order of thought.

In this passage the sense reflection is quite possible, but it appears to be less appropriate, as introducing a third undefined notion of 'that which reflects.' Moreover the truth suggested by reflection' is contained in charakter, to which 'effulgence' offers a more expressive complement; and the Greek Fathers with unanimity have adopted the sense effulgence according to the idea expressed in the Nicene Creed, Light of Light. Several of their comments are of interest as bringing out different sides of the image: Orig. in Joh. xxxii. 18 holes men oun hoimai tes doxes tou theou autou apaugasma einai ton huion...phthanein mentoi ge apo tou apaugasmata tos toutoth tes holes doxes merika apaugasmata epi ten loipen logiken ktisin. Comp. c. Cels. v. 18; de princ. 1, 2, 4 (and Redepenning's note); Hom. in Jer. ix. 4 ouchi egennesen ho pater ton huion kai apelusen auton apo tes geneseos autou, all' dei genna auton hoson esti to phos poietikon tou apaugasmatos..

Greg. Nyss. de perfecta Christ. forma, Migne Patr. Gr. xlvi. p. 265 doxan kai hupostasin onomase to huperkeimenon pantos agathou...to de sunages te kai adiastaton tou huiou pros ton patera diermeneuon...apaugasma doxes kai charaktera hupostaseos prosagoreuei...alla kai ho ten apaugazousan phusin noesas kai to apaugasma tautes pantos katenoese, kai ho to megethos tes hupostaseos en no labon to epiphainomen charakteri pantos emmetrei ten hupostasin.

Chrysostom (Hom. ii. 2) apaugasma eipen...hina deixe hoti kakei (John viii. 12) ohutos siretai. delon de hos phos ek photos.

Theodoret *ad loc. to apaugasma kai ek tou puros Isti kaisurtpspurii esti kai sun to puri esti...dei de he doxa, aei toinun kai to apaugasma.

OEcumenius ad loc. dia tou apaugasma' ten kata phusin ek tou patros proodon tou huiou deloi. ouden gar holos oudamou kata charin kai aispoiesin proeisin apaugasma tinos, ouk apo tou heliou, ouk apo tou puros, ouk aph' heterou tinos, aph' ou pephuken apaugasma proienai.

It is indeed true that the sense of 'effulgence' passes into that of 'reflection' so far as both present the truth that it is through Christ that God becomes visible to man. But in the one case the nature of Christ is emphasised and in the other His office. The 'effulgence' is the necessary manifestation of the luminous body: the 'reflection' is the manifestation through some medium as it takes place in fact.

It is however necessary to observe that 'effulgence' is not any isolated ray, but the whole bright image which brings before us the source of light. Comp. Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. viii., Migne Patr. Gr. xlv. p. 773 hos ek mantos tou heliakou kuklou te tou photos lampedoni apaugazetai, ou gar to men te lampei to de alampes esti uou kuklou. houtos hole he doxa hetis estin ho pater to ex heautes apaugasmati, toutesti to alethino photi pantachothen periaugazetai. And again, while the general figure guards the conception of the permanence of the relation between the source and the light, the 'effulgence' is regarded in its completeness (apaugasma)—the light flashed forth, and not the light in the continuity of the stream.

tes doxes autou] The 'glory of God' is the full manifestation of His attributes according to man's power of apprehending them, 'all His goodness' (Ex. xxxiii. 19 ff.). This 'glory' was the subject of His crowning revelation as contemplated by the prophets hupostaseos autou, pheron te ta panta to rhemati tes

3 phaneron B* (rell pheron).

(Is. xl. 5 the glory of the Lord shall be revealed; xlvi. 13 in Zion salvation, unto Israel my glory; lx. 1 f.) and made known in Christ (2 Cor. iv. 4, 6: comp. Rom. ix. 23; 1 Tim. i. 11; John xi. 40; i. 14); compare Introduction to the Gospel of St John xlvii. ff. It is the final light (Apoc. xxi. 23) for which we look (Tit. ii. 13; Rom. v. 2).

Under the Old Dispensation the Shekinah was the symbol of it: Ex. xxiv. 16; Ps. lxxxv. 9, Comp. Rom. ix. 4; (2 Pet i. 17).

Clement (1 Cor. c. xxxvi.) writes hos on apaugasma tes megalosunes autou, taking the word megalosune from the later clause and greatly obscuring the fulness of the thought.

charakter tes hupostaseos] the expression of His essence, Vulg. figura (O. L. imago, v. character) substantiae. Syr. image of His essence

The word charakter is used from the time of Herodotus (i. 116) of the distinguishing features, material or spiritual, borne by any object or person; of the traits by which we recognise it as being what it is.

It is specially used for the mark upon a coin (Eurip. El. 558 f.; Arist. Pol. i. 9) which determines the nature and value of the piece. Comp. Ign. ad Magn. 5 hosper gar estin nomismata duo, ho men theou ho de kosmou, kai ekaston auton idion charaktera epikeimenon echei, hoi apistoi tou kosmou touton, hoi de pistoi en agape charaktera theou patros dia Iesou Christou..

In this connexion charakter is applied to the impression of the engraving on a die or seal which is conveyed to other substances. Philo, de Mund. opif. § 4 (i. 4 M.) hosper en kero tini te heautou psuche...tous charakteras ensphragizesthai.

id. § 53 (i. 36 M.) tes hekateras phuseos apematteto te psuche tous charakteras; de mundo § 4 (ii. 606 M.).

De plant. Noae § 5 (i. 332 M.) ho Mouses [ten logiken psuchen]onomasen...tou theiou kai aoratou eikona, dokimon einai nomisas ouseotheisan kai tupotheisan sphragidi theou, hes ho charakter estin ho aidios logos.

By a natural transition from this use, charakter is applied to that in which the distinguishing traits of the object to which it is referred are found. So Philo describes 'the spirit,' the essence of the rational part of man, as (a figure and impress of divine power': he men oun koine pros ta haloga dunamis ousian elachen haima, he de ek tes logikes aporrueisa peges, to pneuma, ouk aera kinoumenon alla tupon tina kai charaktera theias dunameos, en onomati kurio Mouses eikona kalei, delon hoti archetupon men phuseos logikes ho theos esti, mimema de kai apeikonisma anthropos (quod det. pot. insid. § 23; i 207 M.). And Clement of Rome speaks of man as 'an impress of the image of God': epi pasin to exochotaton...anthropon...eplasen [ho demiourgos kai despotes ton hapanton]tes heautou eikonos charaktera (Gen. i. 26 f.) (ad Cor. i. 33).

Generally charakter may be said to be that by which anything is directly recognised through corresponding signs under a particular aspect, though it may include only a few features of the object. It is so far a primary and not a secondary source of knowledge. Charakter conveys representative traits only, and therefore it is distinguished from eikon (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15; 1 Cor. xi. 7; Col. iii. 10) which gives a complete representation under the condition of earth of that which it figures; and from morphe (Phil. ii.. 6 f.) which marks the essential form.

There is no word in English which exactly renders it. If there were a sense of 'express' (i.e. expressed image) answering to 'impress,' this would be the best equivalent.

hupostasis] The word properly means 'that which stands beneath' as a sediment (Arist. de hist. an. v. 19 and often), or foundation (Ezek. xliii. 11, lxx.), or ground of support (Ps. lxviii. (lxix.) 2; Jer. xxiii. 22, lxx.).

From this general sense come the special senses of firmness, confidence (compare c. iii. 14 note; 2 Cor. ix. 4; xi. 17); reality ([Arist.] de mundo 4 ta men kat' emphasin, ta de kath' hupostasin, kat' emphasin men hirides...kath' hupostasin de...kometas...), that in virtue of which a thing is what it is, the essence of any being (Ps. xxxviii. (xxxix.) 6; Ps. lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 48; Wisd. xvi. 21: compare Jerem. x. 17; Ezek. xxvi. 11).

When this meaning of 'essence' was applied to the Divine Being two distinct usages arose in the course of debate. If men looked at the Holy Trinity under the aspect of the one Godhead there was only one hupostasis, one divine essence. If, on the other hand, they looked at each Person in the Holy Trinity, then that by which each Person is what He is, His hupostasis, was necessarily regarded as distinct, and there were three hupostaseis. In the first case hupostasis as applied to the One Godhead was treated as equivalent to ousia: in the other case it was treated as equivalent to prosopon.

As a general rule the Eastern (Alexandrine) Fathers adopted the second mode of speech affirming the existence of three hupostaseis (real Persons) in the Godhead; while the Western Fathers affirmed the unity of one hupostasis (essence) in the Holy Trinity (compare the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Dionysius of Rome, Routh, Rell. sacræ, iii. 390 ff. and notes). Hence many mediæval and modern writers have taken hupostasis in the sense of 'person' here. But this use of the word is much later than the apostolic age; and it is distinctly inappropriate in this connexion. The Son is not the image, the expression of the 'Person' of God. On the other hand, He is the expression of the 'essence' of God. He brings the Divine before us at once perfectly and definitely according to the measure of our powers.

The exact form of the expression, apaug. tes d. kai char. tes hupost. and not to apaug. t. d. kai ho char. tes hupost. or apaug. d. kai char. hupost., will be noticed (comp. v. 2 en huio).

pheron te] and so bearing...We now pass from the thought of the absolute Being of the Son to His action in the finite creation under the conditions of time and space. The particle te indicates the new relation of the statement which it introduces. It is obvious that the familiar distinction holds true here: 'kai conjungit, te adjungit.' The providential action of the Son is a special manifestation of His Nature and is not described in a coordinate statement: what He does flows from what He is.

pheron] bearing or guiding, Vulg. portans, O. L. ferens v. gerens. This present and continuous support and carrying forward to their end of all created things was attributed by Jewish writers to God no less than their creation. 'God, blessed be He, bears (mvvl) the world' (Shem. R. § 36 referring to Is. xlvi. 4; compare Num. xi. 14; Deut. i. 9). The action of God is here referred to the Son (comp. Col. i. 17).

The word pherein is not to be understood simply of the passive support of a burden (yet notice c. xiii. 13; xii.

dunameos autou, katharismon ton hamartion poiesamenos

kathariemon 'AB vg: + di' autou' kath. D?*: + di' heautou' kath. S syrr. t. hamartion 'ABD?M? vg syr vg me: t. ham. + hemon S syr hl: + humon '*. t. ham. poies. ekath. 'ABD?M? vg: poies. t. ham. hem. ekath. S.

2o); "for the Son is not an Atlas sustaining the dead weight of the world." It rather expresses that 'bearing' which includes movement, progress, towards an end. The Son in the words of Oecumenius periagai kai sunechei kai pedaliouchei...ta aorata kai ta orata peripheron kai kubernon. The same general sense is given by Chrysostom: pheron...toutesti, kubernon ta diapiptonta sunkraton. tou gar poiesai ton kosmon ouch hetton esti to sunkrotein all', ei depi ti kai thaumaston eipein, kai meizon (Hom. ii. 3). And so Primiasius; verbo jussionis suae omnia gubernat et regit, non enim minus est gubernare mundum quam creasse...in gubernando vero ca quae facta sunt ne ad nihilum redeant continentur.

Gregory of Nyssa goes yet further, and understands pheron of the action by which the Son brings things into existence: ta sumpanta to rhemati tes dunameos autou pherei ho Logos ek tou me hontos eis genesin. panta gar hoa ten aulon eileche phusin mian aitian echei tes hupostaseos to rhema tes aphrastou dunameos (de perf. Christ. forma, Migne Patr. Gr. xlvi. p. 265). For this sense of pherein compare Philo quis rer. div. haer. § 7 (i. 477 M.); de mut. nom. § 44 (i. 6, 7 M.).

Philo expresses a similar idea to that of the text when he speaks of ho pedaliouchos kai kubernetes tou pantos logos theios (De Cherub. § 11; i. 145 M.). And Hermas gives the passive side of it Sim. ix. 14, 5 to onoma tou huiou tou theou mega esti kai achoreton kai ton kosmon holon bastazei. ei oun pasa he ktisis dia tou huiou tou theou bastazetai...

to rh. tes dun.] by the word—the expression—of His (Christ's) power, the word in which His power finds its manifestation (compare Rev. iii. 10 ton logon tes hupomones mou). As the world was called into being by an utterance (rhema) of God (c. xi. 3), so it is sustained by a like expression of the divine will. The choice of the term as distinguished from logos marks, so to speak, the particular action of Providence. Gen. i. 3 eipen ho theos.

dun. autou] The pronoun naturally refers to the Son, not to the Father, in spite of the preceding clauses, from the character of the thought.

kath. poiesamenos] having made—when He had made—purification of sins. This clause introduces a new aspect of the Son. He has been regarded in His absolute Nature (hon), and in His general relation to finite being (pheron): now He is seen as He entered into the conditions of life in a world disordered by sin.

The completed atonement wrought by Christ (having made) is distinguished from His eternal being and His work through all time in the support of created things (being, bearing); and it is connected with His assumption of sovereign power in His double Nature at the right hand of God (having made...He sat...). Thus the phrase prepares for the main thought of the Epistle, the High-priestly work of Christ, which is first distinctly introduced in c. ii. 17.

poiesamenos] The Vulgate, from the

ekathisen en dexia. tes megalosunes ev hupselois,?tosouto

defectiveness of Latin participles, fails to give the sense: purgationem peccatorum faciens (compare v. 1 loquens). In v. 14 (missi) there is the converse error. The Old Latin had avoided this error but left the thought indefinite, purificatione (purgatione) peccatorum facta.

The use of the middle (poiesamenos) suggests the thought which the late gloss di' heautou made more distinct. Christ Himself, in His own Person, made the purification: He did not make it as something distinct from Himself, simply provided by His power. Compare mneian poieisthai Rom. i. 9; Eph. i. 16, &c.; poieisthai deeseis 1 Tim. ii. 1; Luke v. 33; John xiv. 23, &c.

There is perhaps a reference to the imperfection of the Aaronic purifications (compare Lev. xvi. 30) which is dwelt upon afterwards, c. x. 1 ff.

The genitive (kath. hamartion) may express either

(1) the cleansing of sins, i.e. the removal of the sins. Compare Matt. viii. 3; Job vii. 21 (Ex. xxx. 10), or (2) the cleansing (of the person) from sins. Comp. c. ix. 15.

The former appears to be the right meaning. See Additional Note.

The result of this 'purification' is the foundation of a 'Holy' Church (comp. John xiii. 10 n.). The hindrance to the approach to God is removed.

ekathisen] c. viii 1; x. 12; xii 2. Comp. Eph. i. 20 (kathisas); Apoc. iii. 21. Kathisai (intrans.) expresses the solemn taking of the seat of authority, and not merely the act of sitting. Comp. Matt. v. 1; xix. 28; xxv. 31.

The phrase marks the fulfilment of Ps. cx. 1; Matt. xxii. 44 and parallels; Acts ii. 34; and so it applies only to the risen Christ. Angels are always represented as 'standing' (Is. vi 2; 1 K. xxii. 19) or falling on their faces: and so the priests ministered, comp. c. x. 11. Only princes of the house of David could sit in the court (Hebrew) of the Temple (Biesenthal). Hence 'the man of sin' so asserts himself: 2 Thess. ii. 4. Bernard says in commenting on the title 'thrones' (Col. i. 16): nec vacat Sessio: tranquillitatie insigne est (de consid. v. 4, 10).

en dexia] v. 13. The idea is of course of dignity and not of place ('dextra Dei ubique est'). All local association must be excluded: ouch hoti topo perikleietai ho theos all' hina to homotimon autou deichthe to pros ton patera (Theophlct.). Non est putandum quod omnipotens Pater qui spiritus est incircumscriptus omnia replens dexteram aut sinistram habeat...Quid est ergo 'sedit ad dexteram majestatis' nisi ut dicatur, habitat in plenitudine paternae majestatis? (Primas.) Comp. Eph. iv. 10. We, as we at present are, are forced to think in terms of space, but it does not follow that this limitation belongs to the perfection of humanity.

Herveius (on v. 13) notices the double contrast between the Son and the Angels: Seraphin stant ut ministri, Filius sedet ut Dominus: Seraphin in circuitu, Filius ad dexteram.

tes megal.] c. viii. 1; Jude 25. The word is not unfrequent in the lxx.: e.g. 1 Chron. xxix. 11; Wisd. xviii. 24.

'The Majesty' expresses the idea of God in His greatness. Comp. Buxtorf Lex. s. v. nvvrh 1 Clem. xvi. to skeptron tes megal., c. xxxvi. apaugasma tes megal.

en hupselois] Ps. xciii. (xcii.) 4 (lxx.).

The term marks the sphere of the higher life. Local imagery is necessarily used for that which is in itself unlimited by place (compare iv. 14; vii. 26). Ti estin En hupselois; Chrysostom asks, eis topon perikleiei ton theon; apage (Hom. ii. 3). In excelsis dicens non eum loco concludit, sed ostendit omnibus altiorem et evidentiorem, hoc est quia usque ad ipsum pervenit solium paternae claritatis (Atto Verc.).

The clause belongs to ekathisen and not to tes megalosues. The latter connexion would be grammatically irregular though not unparalleled, and tes megalosunes is complete in itself.

This Session of Christ at the right hand of God,—the figure is only used of the Incarnate Son—is connected with His manifold activity as King (Acts ii. 33 ff.; Eph. i. 21 ff.; Col. iii. 1; c. x. 12) and Priest (1 Pet iii. 22; c. viii. 1; c. xii. 2) and Intercessor (Rom. viii. 34). Comp. Acts vii. 55 f. (hestota ek d.).

iii. Transition to the detailed development of the argument (4).

The fourth verse forms a transition to the special development of the argument of the Epistle. The general contrast between 'the Son' as the mediator of the new revelation and 'the prophets' as mediators of the old, is offered in the extreme case. According to Jewish belief the Law was ministered by angels (c. ii. 2; Gal. iii. 19; comp. Acts vii. 53), but even the dignity of these, the highest representatives of the Dispensation, was as far below that of Christ as the title of minister is below that of the incommunicable title of divine Majesty. This thought is developed i. 5—ii. 18.

The abrupt introduction of the reference to the angels becomes intelligible both from the function which was popularly assigned to angels in regard to the Law, and from the description of the exaltation of the Incarnate Son. Moses alone was admitted in some sense to direct intercourse with God (Num. xii 8; Deut. xxxiv. 10): otherwise 'the Angel of the Lord' was the highest messenger of revelation under the Old Covenant. And again the thought of the Session of the Son on the Father's throne calls up at once the image of the attendant Seraphim (Is. vi. 1 ff.; John xii. 41; iv. 2 ff.).

The superiority of Messiah to the angels is recognised in Rabbinic writings.

Jalkut Sim. 2, fol. 53, 3 on Is. lii. 13, Behold my servant shall (deal wisely) prosper. This is King Messiah. He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. He shall be exalted beyond Abraham, and extolled beyond Moses, and raised high above the ministering angels (ml'ky hsrt).

Jalkut Chadash f. 144, 2. Messiah is greater than the fathers, and than Moses, and than the ministering angels (Schoettgen, i. p. 905).

?having become so much better than the angels as He hath inherited a more excellent name than they.

(4). The thought of the exaltation of the Incarnate Son fixes attention on His Manhood. Under this aspect He was shewn to have become superior to angels in His historic work. And the glory of 'the name' which He has 'inherited' is the measure of His excellence. Comp. Eph. i. 20 f.

tosouto...hoso] c. x. 25; vii. 20 ff. Comp. viii. 6. The combination is found in Philo (de mund. opif. § 50 kreitton genomenos ton angelon hoso diaphoroteron par' autous kekleronomeken onoma.?Tini gar eipen

4 om. ton' (ang.) B.

(i. 33 M.); Leg. ad Cai. § 36) but not in St Paul.

kreitton] The word is characteristic of the epistle (13 times). Elsewhere it is found only in the neuter (kreitton 4 times; 1 Cor. xii. 31 is a false reading). The idea is that of superiority in dignity or worth or advantage, the fundamental idea being power and not goodness (ameinon and aristos are not found in the N. T.).

genomenos] The word stands in significant connexion with hov (v. 3). The essential Nature of the Son is contrasted with the consequences of the Incarnation in regard to His divine-human Person (comp. c. v. 9). His assumption of humanity, which for a time 'made Him lower than angels,' issued in His royal exaltation. Comp. Matt. xx. vi. 64; Luke xxii. 69 (ho huios tou anthropou).

The Greek fathers lay stress upon kreitton as marking a difference in kind and not in degree. Athan. c. Ar. i. § 59 to hara 'kreitton' kai nun kai di'holon to Kurio anatithesi, to kreittoni kai allo para ta geneta tunchanonti. Kreitton gar he di' autou thusia, kreitton he en auto elpis, kai hai di' autou epangelias, ouch hos pros mikra megalai sunkrinomenai all' hos allai pros alla ten phusin tunchanousai epei kai ho panta oikonomesas kreitton ton geneton esti.

They also rightly point out that genomenos is used of the Lord's Human Nature and not of His divine Personality: touto kata to anthropeion eireken, hos gar theos poietes angelon kai despotes angelon, hos de anthropos meta ten anastasin kai ten eis ouranous anabasin kreitton angelon egeneto.

For kreitton, diaphoroteros, see c. viii. 6 note.

ton angelon] The class as a definite whole (vv. 5, 7, 13),and not beings of such a nature (ii. 2, 5, 7, 9, 16).

diaph. par' autous....onoma] The 'name' of angels is 'excellent' (&ampphoron, different, distinguished, for good from others; comp. Matt. xii. 12 diapherei), but that inherited by the Son is 'more excellent' (Vulg. differentius prae illis. O.L. procellentius (excellentius) his (ab his)). For the use of para see iii. 3, ix. 23, xi. 4, xii. 24.

By the 'name' we are to understand probably not the name of 'Son' simply, though this as applied to Christ in His humanity is part of it, but the Name which gathered up all that Christ was found to be by believers, Son, Sovereign and Creator, the Lord of the Old Covenant, as is shewn in the remainder of the chapter. Comp. Phil. ii. 9 (Eph. i. 21).

For the position of diaphoroteron compare xi. 25 (iii. 14).

kekler.] The perfect lays stress upon the present possession of the 'name' which was 'inherited' by the ascended Christ. That which had been proposed in the eternal counsel (v. 2 etheken) was realised when the work of redemption was completed (John xix. 30 tetelestai). The possession of the 'name' — His own eternally — was, in our human mode of speech, consequent on the Incarnation, and the permanent issue of it.

In looking back over the view of the Lord's Person and Work given in vv. 1—4 we notice

(1). The threefold aspect in which it is regarded.

(a) The Eternal Being of the Son (hon, pheron).

(b) The temporal work of the Incarnate Son (katharismon poiesamenos, kreitton genomenos).

(g) The work of the Exalted Christ in its historical foundation and in its abiding issues (ekathisen, kekleronomeken).

(2). The unity of Christ's Person.

The continuity of the Person of the Son throughout is distinctly affirmed. He is One before the work of creation and after the work of redemption. Traits which we regard as characteristic severally of His divine and of His human nature are referred to the same Person. This unity is clearly marked:

Whom He appointed heir of all things, through Whom He made the world,

Who being...and bearing...

having made purification...

sat down, having become...

Even during His dwelling on earth, under the limitations of manhood, the activity of His divine Being (pheron ta panta) was not interrupted; and His redemptive work must be referred to the fulness of His One Person.

(3). The unity of Christ's work.

The Creation, Redemption, Consummation of all things are indissolubly connected. The heirship of Christ is placed side by side with His creative work. The exaltation of humanity in Him is in no way dependent on the Fall. The Fall made Redemption necessary, and altered the mode in which the divine counsel of love, the consummation of creation, was fulfilled, but it did not alter the counsel itself!

A mysterious question has been raised whether the terms 'Son' and 'Father' are used of the absolute relations of the divine Persons apart from all reference to the Incarnation. In regard to this it may be observed that Scripture tells us very little of God apart from His relation to man and the world. At the same time the description of God as essentially 'love' helps us to see that the terms 'Father' and 'Son' are peculiarly fitted to describe, though under a figure, an essential relation between the Persons of the Godhead. This essential relation found expression for us in the Incarnation; and we are led to see that the 'economic' Trinity is a true image, under the conditions of earth, of the 'essential' Trinity.

Comp. v. 2 en huio; vii. 3. John iii. 16, 17.

It is remarkable that the title 'Father' is not applied to God in this Epistle except in the quotation i. 5; yet see xii. 9.

See Additional Note on the Divine Names in the Epistle.

I. The superiority of the Son, the Mediator of the New Revelation, to Angels (i. 5—ii. 18).

This first main thought of the Epistle, which has been announced in v. 4, is unfolded in three parts. It is established first (i) in regard to the Nature and Work of the Son, as the Mediator of the New Covenant, by detailed references to the testimony of Scripture (i. 5—14). It is then (ii) enforced practically by a consideration of the consequences of neglect (ii. 1—4). And lastly it is shewn (iii) that the glorious destiny of humanity, loftier than that of angels, in spite of the fall, has been fulfilled by the Son of Man (ii. 5—18).

i. The testimony of Scripture to the preeminence of the Son over angels (i. 5— 14).

The series of seven quotations which follows the general statement of the subject of the Epistle shews that the truths which have been affirmed are a fulfilment of the teaching of the Old Testament. The quotations illustrate in succession the superiority of the Son, the Mediator of the new Revelation and Covenant, over the angels, and therefore far more over the prophets, (1) as Son, (vv. 5, 6) and then in two main aspects, (2) as 'heir of all things' (vv. 7—9), and (3) as 'creator of the world' (vv. 10—12).

The last quotation (vv. 13, 14) presents (4) the contrast between the Son and the angels in regard to the present dispensation. The issue of the Son's Incarnation is the welcome to sit at God's right hand (kreitton genomenos) in certain expectation of absolute victory, while the angels are busy with their ministries.

(1) 5, 6. The essential dignity of the Son.

The dignity of the Son as Son is asserted in three connexions, in its foundation (semeron gegenneka se); in its continuance (esomai auto eis patera); and in its final manifestation (otan palin eisagage).

?For to which of the angels said He at any time,

I have today begotten Thee?

and again,

I will be to Him a Father,

And He shall be to Me a Son?

?And when He again bringeth (or when on the other hand He bringeth) in the Firstborn into the world He saith,

And let all the Angels of God worship Him.

The first two quotations are taken from Ps. ii. 7 and 2 Sam. vii. 14 (|| 1 Chron. xvii. 13). Both quotations verbally agree with the lxx., which agrees with the Hebr.

The words of the Psalm are quoted again c. v. 5 and by St Paul, Acts xiii. 33. And they occur in some authorities (D a b c &c.) in Luke iii. 22. See also the reading of the Ebionitic Gospel on Matt. iii. 17.

The same Psalm is quoted Acts iv. 25 ff. Comp. Apoc. ii. 27; xii. 5; xiv. 1; xix. 15.

The passage from 2 Sam. vii. 14 is quoted again in 2 Cor. vi. 18 with important variations (esomai humin...humeis esesthe moi eis huious kai thugateras), and Apoc. xxi. 7.

Both passages bring out the relation of 'the Son of David' to the fulfilment of the divine purpose. The promise in 2 Sam. vii. 14 is the historical starting point. It was spoken by Nathan to David in answer to the king's expressed purpose to build a Temple for the Lord. This work the prophet said should be not for him but for his seed. The whole passage, with its reference to 'iniquity' and chastening, can only refer to an earthly king; and still experience shewed that no earthly king could satisfy its terms. The kingdom passed away from the line of David. The Temple was destroyed. It was necessary therefore to look for another 'seed' (Is. xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5; Zech. vi. 12): another founder of the everlasting Kingdom and of the true Temple (compare Luke i. 32 f.; John ii. 19).

The passage from the Second Psalm represents the divine King under another aspect. He is not the builder of the Temple of the Lord but the representative of the Lord's triumph over banded enemies. The conquest of the nations was not achieved by the successors of David. It remained therefore for Another. The partial external fulfilment of the divine prophecy directed hope to the future. So it was that the idea of the theocratic kingdom was itself apprehended as essentially Messianic; and the application of these two representative passages to Christ depends upon the prophetic significance of the critical facts of Jewish history.

The third quotation is beset by difficulty. Doubt has been felt as to the source from which it is derived. Words closely resembling the quotation are found in Ps. xcvii. (xcvi.) 7 proskunesate auto pantes hoi angeloi autou (lxx.). But the exact phrase is found in the Vatican text of an addition made to the Hebrew in Deut. xxxii. 43 by the lxx. version which reads euphranthete ouramoi hama auto, pote ton angelon

Huios mou ei su, ego semeron gegenneka se,

5 ton ang. pote D?* syr vg.

kai proskunesatosan auto pantes huioi theou.

euphranthete ethne meta tou laou autou, kai enischusatosan auto pantes angeloi theou.

This gloss is quoted also by Justin M. Dial. c. 130. It was probably derived from the Psalm (comp. Is. xliv. 23), and may easily have gained currency from the liturgical use of the original hymn. If (as seems certain) the gloss was found in the current text of the lxx. in the apostolic age, it is most natural to suppose that the writer of the Epistle took the words directly from the version of Deuteronomy.

The quotation of words not found in the Hebrew text is to be explained by the general character of Deut. xxxii. which gives a prophetic history of the Course of Israel, issuing in the final and decisive revelation of Jehovah in judgment. When this revelation is made all powers shall recognise His dominion, exercised, as the writer of the Epistle explains, through Christ. The coming of Christ is thus identified with the coming of Jehovah. Comp. Luke i. 76; Acts ii. 20, 21.

In the Targum on Deut. xxxii. 44 which bears the name of Jonathan ben Uzziel there is the remarkable clause: 'He by His Word (vmymryh) shall atone for His people and for His land.'

It may be added that the thought both in Deuteronomy and in the Psalm is essentially the same. The Hymn and the Psalm both look forward to the time when the subordinate spiritual powers, idolised by the nations, shall recognise the absolute sovereignty of Jehovah.

Part of the same verse (Deut. xxxii. 43) is quoted by St Paul in Rom. xv. 10.

(5). tini phar eipen pote] For to which...said He at any time? The use of the rhetorical question is characteristic of the style of the Epistle. Compare v. 14; ii. 2 ff.; iii. 16 ff.; vii. 11; xii. 7.

The subject of the verb is taken from the context. God is the Speaker in all revelation (v. 1). It has been objected that the title 'Son' is not limited to the Messiah in the Old Testament, but the objection rests upon a misunderstanding. The title which is characteristic of Messiah is never used of Angels or men in the Old Scriptures. Angels as a body are sometimes called 'sons of God' (Ps. xxix. 1, lxxxix. 6) but to no one (tini) is the title 'Son of God' given individually in all the long line of revelation. The tini and the pote are both significant.

In like manner the title 'Son' was given to Israel as the chosen nation: Hos. xi. 1; Ex. iv. 22; but to no single Jew, except in the passage quoted, which in the original refers to Solomon as the type of Him who should come after.

Nor is it without the deepest significance that in these fundamental passages, Ps. ii. 7, 2 Sam. vii. 14, the speaker is 'the Lord' and not 'God.' The unique title of Christ is thus connected with God as He is the God of the Covenant (Jehovah, the Lord), the God of Revelation, and not as He is the God of Nature (Elohim, God).

huios mou] The order is full of meaning. By the emphasis which is laid upon huios the relation is marked as peculiar and not shared by others. My Son art thou, and no less than this; and not Thou too, as well as others, art my son. Compare Ps. lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 27 pater mou ei su. At the same time the su is brought kai palin

Ego esomai auto eis patera, kai autos estai moi eis huioe;?otan de palin eisagage ton prototokon eis ten oikoumenen, legei

om. auto '*.

into significant connexion with ego in the next clause, where the emphasis is laid on ego (I in my sovereign majesty') and not on semeron.

semeron) The word both in its primary and in its secondary meaning naturally marks some definite crisis, as the inauguration of the theocratic king, and that which would correspond with such an event in the historic manifestation of the divine King. So the passage was applied to the Resurrection by St Paul (Acts xiii. 33; comp. Rom. i. 4); and by a very early and widespread tradition it was connected with the Baptism (Luke iii. 22 Cod. D; Just M. Dial. c. 88, and Otto's note).

Many however have supposed that 'today' in this connexion is the expression for that which is eternal, timeless.

This view is very well expressed by Primasius: Notandum quia non dixit: Ante omnia secula genui te, vel in praetorito tempore; sed, hodie, inquit, genui te, quod adverbium est praesentis temporis. In Deo enim nec praeterita transeunt nec futura succedunt; sed omnia tempora simul ei conjuncta sunt, quia omnia praesentia habet. Et est sensus: Sicut ego semper aeternus sum neque initium neque finem habeo, ita te semper habeo coaeternum mihi.

Philo recognises the same idea: semeron de estin ho aperantos kai adiexitetos haion. menon gar kai eniauton kai sauolos chronon periodoi dogmata anthropon eisin arithmon ektetimekoton. ta de apseudes honoma haionos he semeron (de Prof. § 11; i. 554 M.); and the idea was widely current. Comp. Schöttgen, ad loc. and c. iii. 13 note.

Such an interpretation, however, though it includes an important truth, summed up by Origen in the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, appears to be foreign to the context.

gegenneka] The term marks the communication of a new and abiding life, represented in the case of the earthly king by the royal dignity, and in the case of Christ by the divine sovereignty established by the Resurrection of the Incarnate Son in which His Ascension was included (Acts xiii. 33; Rom. i. 4; vi. 4; Col. i. 8; Apoc. i. 5).

For the use of gennpan compare 1 Cor. iv. 15; and especially St John's use: 1 John iii. 1 Add. Note.

ego esomai...eis] The relation once established is to be realised in a continuous fulfilment. The future points to the coming Messiah from the position of the O. T. prophet.

The title pater is applied to God here only in the Epistle.

einai eis] Comp. c. viii. 10; 2 Cor. vi. 18. And in a somewhat different sense, Matt. xix. 5; Acts xiii. 47; 1 Cor. xiv. 22; xvi. 16; Eph. i. 12; Luke iii. 5 &c.

(6). hotan de] This third quotation is not a mere continuation (kai palin) but a contrast (de). It marks the relation of angels to the Son and not of the Son to God and again it points forward to an end not yet reached.

hotan de p. eis.] The palin has been taken (1) as a particle of connexion and also (2) as qualifying eisagage.

In the first case it has received two interpretations.

(a) again, as simply giving a new quotation as in the former clause, ii. 13; iv. 5; x. 30 &c. But it is fatal to this view, which is given by Old Lat. (deinde iterum cum inducit) and Syr., that such a transposition of palin is without parallel (yet see Wisdom xiv. i). The ease with which we can introduce the word 'again' parenthetically hides this difficulty.

(b) on the other hand, in contrast. In this way palin would serve to emphasise the contrast suggested by de. Comp. Luke vi. 43; Matt. iv. 7; 1 John ii. 8.

Such a use is not without parallels, Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. § 9 (i. 93 M.) ho de palin apodidraskon theon...he de palin theon apodokimazousa..., and the sense is perfectly consistent with the scope of the passage. It would leave the interpretation of 'the bringing in of the Son' undefined.

(2) But it appears to be more natural to connect hotan with eisagage (Vulg. et cum iterum introducit) and so to refer the words definitely to the second coming of the Lord. This interpretation is well given by Gregory of Nyssa: he tou 'palin' prostheke to me protos ginesthai touto dia tes kata tenlexin tauten semasias endeiknutai. epi gar tes epanalepseos ton hapax gegonoton te lexei taute kechremetha. oukoun ten epi to telei ton haionon phoberan autou epiphaneian semainei to logo hote ouketi ente tou doulou katharatai morphe, all' epi tou thronou tes basileias megaloprepos prokathemenos kai hupo ton angelon panton peri auton proskunoumenos. (c. Eunom. iv., Migne, Patr. Gr. xlv. p. 634; comp. c. Eunom. ii., id. p. 504.)

The advantage of taking palin as 'on the other hand' is that the words then bring into one category the many preparatory introductions of the 'firstborn' into the world together with the final one. But one main object of the Epistle is to meet a feeling of present disappointment. The first introduction of the Son into the world, described in v. 2, had not issued in an open triumph and satisfied men's desires, so that there was good reason why the writer should point forward specially to the Return in which Messiah's work was to be consummated. On the whole therefore the connexion of palin with eisagage seems to be the more likely construction. In any case the hotan eisagage must refer to this.

hotan...eisagage] The Latin rendering cum introducit (inducit), which has deeply coloured the Western interpretation of the phrase, is wholly untenable. In other places the construction is rightly rendered by the fut. exact., e.g. Matt. v. 11 cum male dixerint; xix. 28 cum sederit &c., and so in 1 Cor. xv. 26 many authorities read cum dixerit.

The construction of hotan with aor. subj. admits of two senses. It may describe a series of events reaching into an indefinite future, each occurrence being seen in its completeness (Matt. v. 11; x. 19; Mark iv. 15; Luke vi. 22; James i. 2); or it may describe the indefiniteness of a single event in the future seen also in its completeness (John xvi. 4; Acts xxiv. 22; 1 Cor. xv. 28). (The difference between the pres. subj. and the aor. subj. with hotan is well seen in John vii. 27, 31; xvi. 21.)

In other words hotan...eisagage must look forward to an event (or events) in the future regarded as fulfilled at a time (or times) as yet undetermined. It cannot describe an event or a series of events, already completed in the past. We may, that is, when we render the phrase exactly 'whenever he shall have introduced,' contemplate each partial and successive introduction of the Son into the world leading up to and crowned by the one final revelation of His glory, or this final manifestation alone (comp. Col. iii. 4; 2 Thess. i. 10).

If, as seems most likely, the palin is joined with eisagage, then the second interpretation must be taken.

It follows that all interpretations which refer this second introduction of the Son into the world to the Incarnation are untenable, as, for example, that of Primasius: Ipsam assumptionem carnis appellat alterum introitum; dum enim qui invisibilis erat humanis aspectibus (John i. 10) assumpta carne visibilem se probavit quasi iterum introductus est.

Nor indeed was the Incarnation in this connexion the first introduction of Christ into the world. We must look for that rather in the Resurrection when for a brief space He was revealed in the fulness of His Manhood triumphant over death and free from tho limitations of earth, having victoriously fulfilled the destiny of humanity. For the present He has been withdrawn from he oikoumene, the limited scene of man's present labours; but at the Return He will enter it once more with sovereign triumph (Acts i. 11).

ton prototokon] Vulg. primogenitum. The word is used absolutely of Christ here only (comp. Ps. lxxxix. (lxxxviii.) 28, lxx.). Its usage in other passages,

Rom. vii. 29 pr. en pollois adelphois, comp. Col. i. 15 pr. pases ktiseos,

Apoc. i. 5 ho pr. ton nekron,

Col. i. 18 pr. ek ton nekron.

brings out the special force of the term here, as distinguished from huios. It represents the Son in His relation to the whole family, the whole order, which is united with Him. His triumph, His new birth (gegenneka), is theirs also (comp. 1 Pet. i. 3). The thought lies deep in the foundations of social life. The privileges and responsibilities of the firstborn son were distinctly recognised in the Old Testament (Deut. xxi. 15 ff. [inheritance]; 2 Chron. xxi. 3 [kingdom]); as they form a most important element in the primitive conception of the family, the true unit of society (Maine, Ancient Law, 233 ff.). The eldest son, according to early ideas, was the representative of his generation, by whom the property and offices of the father, after his death, were administered for the good of the family.

The title 'firstborn' (bkvr) was applied by Rabbinic writers even to God (Schöttgen ad loc.) and to Messiah on the authority of Ps. lxxxix. 27 (Shemoth R. § 19, pp. 150 f. Wünsche).

In Philo the Logos is spoken of as protogonos or presbutatos huios, De confus. ling. § 14 (i. 414 M.) touton presbutaton huion ho ton onton aneteile (Zech. vi. 12) pater, hov heterothi protogenon onimase..., id. § 28 (i. 427 M.) kai han medepo mentoi tunchane tis axiochreos hon huios throu prosagoreuesthai, spoudazeto kosmeisthai kata ton protogonon autou logon, ton angelon presbutaton hos archangelon poluonumon huparchonta. Comp. de agricult. § 12 (i. 308 M.).

The wider sense of the term is suggested by its application to Israel: Ex. iv. 22; comp. Jer. xxxi. 9.

The patristic commentators rightly dwell on the difference between monogenes, which describes the absolutely unique relation of the Son to the Father in His divine Nature, and prototokos, which describes the relation of the Risen Christ In His glorified humanity to man: e.g. Theodoret: houto kai monogenes estin hos theos kai prototokos hos anthropos en pollois adelphois Compare Bp Lightfoot on Coloss. i. 15.

eis ten oikoum] Vulg. in orbem terrae. Comp. c. ii. 5 note; Acts xvii. 31.

legei] he saith, not he will say. The words already written find their accomplishment at that supreme crisis. The different tenses used of the divine voice in this chapter are singularly instructive. The aor. in v. 5 (eipen) marks a word spoken at a definite moment. The perf. in v. 13 (eireken) marks a word which having been spoken of old is now finding fulfilment Here the pres. regards the future as already realised.

The contrast of lego and eireka is seen clearly in John xv. 15 (comp. xii. 50).

Kai proskunesatosan auto pantes angeloi theou.?kai pros men tous angelous legei

kai proskun.] And let...The conjunction suggests others who join in this adoration, or in some corresponding service of honour.

pantes ang.] Biesenthal quotes a passage from the Jerus. Talmud (Avod. Zar. § 7) in which it is said that when Messiah comes the demons who had been worshipped among the Gentiles shall do him homage, and idolatry shall cease.

(2) 7—9. The superior dignity of the Son as anointed King ('heir of all things').

In the quotations already given the author of the Epistle has shewn that the language of the Old Testament pointed to a divine Son, a King of an everlasting Kingdom, a Conqueror, a Builder of an abiding Temple, such as was only figured by the earthly kings of the chosen people. One truly man was spoken of in terms applied to no angel. In Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, such language was fulfilled.

He now shews the abiding royal glory of the Son in contrast with the ministerial and transitory offices of angels. Angels fulfil their work through physical forces and 'natural' laws (v. 7): the Son exercises a moral and eternal sovereignty (v. 8); and in virtue of His own Character He receives the fulness of blessing (v. 9). So He becomes 'heir of all things'.

The lesson is given in two quotations from the Psalms. The first quotation from Ps. civ. (ciii.) 4 agrees verbally with the Alexandrine text of the lxx. and with the Hebrew, save that kai is inserted, an insertion which is not uncommon. The second quotation from Ps. xlv. (xliv.) 7, 8 differs from the lxx. by the insertion of kai, by the transposition of the article (he rh. t. euth. rh. for rh. eu. he rh.), and probably by the substitution of autou for sou after basileias, which is also against the Hebrew. For anomian some lxx. texts give adikian.

The use of these two Psalms is of marked significance. Ps. civ. is a Psalm of Creation: Ps. xlv. is a Psalm of the Theocratic Kingdom, the Marriage Song of the King.

Neither Psalm is quoted again in the N. T. The second passage is quoted by Justin M. Dial. 56, 63, 86.

Both quotations are introduced in the same manner by a preposition marking a general reference (pros men...pros de...: contrast tini eipen v. 5).

?And of the angels He saith,

Who maketh His angels winds,

And His ministers a flame of fire;

?but of the Son He saith,

God is Thy throne for ever and ever,

And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of His kingdom.

[or Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,

And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.]

?Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst iniquity;