The doctrine of purging our sins by Christ, is deep and large, extending itself unto many weighty heads of the gospel; but we shall follow our apostle, and in this place pass it over briefly and in general, because the consideration of it will directly occur unto us in our progress.
Two things the apostle here expresseth concerning the Messiah; and one, which is the foundation of both the other, he implieth or supposeth. First, he expresseth what he did; he purged our sins. Secondly, how he did it, he did it by himself. That which he supposeth as the foundation of both these is, that he was the great high priest of the church; they with whom he dwelt knowing full well, that this matter of purging sins, belonged only unto the priest.
Here then the apostle tacitly enters upon a comparison of Christ with Aaron, the high priest, as he had done before with all the prophetical revealers of the will of God, and as he named none of them in particular, no more doth he here name Aaron; but afterwards when he comes more largely to insist on the same matter again, he expressly makes mention of his name as also of that of Moses.
And in both the things here ascribed to him as the great high priest of his church doth he prefer him above Aaron. First, in that he - ‘purged our sins,” that is, really and effectually before God, and in the conscience of the sinner, and that for ever. Whereas the purgation of sins about which Aaron was employed, was in itself but typical, external, and representative of that which was true and real, both of which the apostle proves at large afterwards. Secondly, in that he did it by himself, or by the offering of himself, whereas whatever Aaron did of this kind, he did it by the “ offering of the blood of | bulls and goats,” as shall be declared.
And hence appears also the vanity of the gloss of a learned man on these words; ‘ Postquam,’ saith he, ‘ morte sua causam dedisset ejus fidei per quam a peccatis purgamur, quod nec Moses fecerat, nec prophete’. For as we shall see that Christ’s purging of our sins, doth not consist in giving a ground and cause for faith, whereby we purge ourselves, so the apostle is not comparing the Lord Christ in these words with Moses and the prophets, who had nothing to do in the work of purging sin, but with Aaron, who by office was designed thereunto.
And this the apostle further declareth by manifesting the way whereby he did it; that is δι’ ἑαυτου “ by himself,” that is, by the sacrifice and offering of himself, as chap. ix. 14; Eph. v. ὦ, The high priest of old made atonement, and typically purged the sins of the people, by sacrificing of beasts according to the appointment of the law, Lev. xvi. This our high priest did by the sacrifice of himself, Isa. liii. 10; Heb. ix. 12. Of the nature of propitiatory or expiatory sacrifices, we must treat at large afterwards. We keep ourselves now to the apostle’s general proposition, expressing briefly the sacerdotal office of Christ, and the excellency of it, in that he really purged our sins, and that by the sacrifice of himself. And this was in and by his death on the cross, with his antecedent preparatory sufferings. Some distinguish between his death and the oblation of himself. This they say he performed in heaven, when as the high priest of his church, he entered into the holiest not made with hands, whereunto his death was but ἃ preparation. For the slaying of the beast, they say, was not the sacrifice, but the offering of its blood on the altar, and the carrying of it into the holy place. But this utterly overthrows the whole sacrifice of Christ, which indeed is the thing by them aimed at. It is true the slaying of the beast was not the whole sacrifice, but only an essential part of it, as was also the offering of its blood, and the sprinkling of it in the holy place, in the anniversary sacrifice of atonement, but not in any other. And the reason why the whole sacrifice could not consist ‘in any one action, arose merely from the imperfection of the things and persons employed in that work. The priest was one thing, the beast to be sacrificed another, the altar another, the fire and the altar another, the incense added another, each of them limited and designed to its peculiar end, so that the atonement could not be made by any one of them, nor the sacrifice consist in them. But now in this sacrifice of Christ all these meet in one, because of his perfection. He himself was both priest, sacrifice, altar, and incense, as we shall see in our progress; and he perfected his whole sacrifice at once, in and by his death and blood-shedding, as the apostle evidently declares, chap. ix. 12, 14.
Thus by himself did Christ purge our sins, making an atonement for them by the sacrifice of himself in his death, that they should never be imputed to them that believe.
And this part of this verse will afford us also this distinct observation:—So great was the work of freeing us from sin, that it could no otherwise be effected but by the sacrifice of the Son of God himself,
Our apostle makes it his design in several places to evince that none of those things from whence mankind usually did, or might with any hopes or probabilities expect relief in this case, would yield them any at all.
The best that the Gentiles could attain, all that they had to trust to, was but the improvement of natural light and reason, with an attendance to those seeds and principles of good and evil, which are yet left in the depraved nature of man. Under the conduct and in obedience to these, they sought for rest, glory, and immortality. How miserably they were disappointed in their aims and expectations, and what a woful issue all their endeavours had, the apostle declares and proves at large, Rom. 1. 18, to the end.
The Jews who enjoyed the benefit of divine revelations, having lost for the most part the true spiritual import of them, sought for the same ends by the law, and by their own diligent observance of it. They “rested in the law,” Rom. ii. 17, namely, in the hope, that by it they should obtain deliverance from sin, and acceptance with God, and “« followed after it,” chap. ix. 31, that is to attain righteousness and salvation by it. And this seemed to bea sufficient foundation for them to build on; for having lost the spiritual understanding of the use and end of the law, as renewed to them in the covenant of Horeb, they went back to the primitive use and end of it, on its first giving in innocency, and foolishly thought, as many more yet do, that it would do the same things for sinners, that it would have done for men, if they had not sinned in Adam, that is, have given them acceptance with God here, and eternal life hereafter. Wherefore the apostle in many places takes great pains to undeceive them, to rectify their mistake, and to prove that God had no such design in giving them the law, as that which they would impose upon him.
And first, he asserts and proves in general, that the law would deceive their expectation; and that by the deeds of the law no flesh should be justified, Rom. ili. 20, and that it would not give them life, Gal. ii. 21, orrighteousness. And that they might not complain, that then God himself had deceived them in giving alaw that would not serve the turn for which it was given; he declares, secondly, that they had mistaken the end for which the law was renewed unto them; which was not that it might give them life or righteousness, but that it might discover sin, exact obedience, and by both drive and compel them to look out after some other thing, that might both save them from their sin, and afford them a righteousness unto salvation. And furthermore, he thirdly, acquaints them whence it was, that the law was become insufficient for these ends, and that was because it was become weak through the flesh, Rom. viii. 8. The law was able to continue our acceptance with God, in that condition wherein at first we were created; but after that man by sin became flesh, or had a principle of enmity against God in him, bringing forth the fruits of sin continually, the law stood aside, as weakened and insuflicient to help and save such an one. And these things the apostle expressly and carefully insists upon, in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians.
But, thirdly, Though the law, and an earnest endeavour after the observance of it in general, would not serve to save us from our sins, yet there were especial institutions of the law, that were appointed for that end and purpose; as namely, the sacrifices in particular, which were designed to make atonement for the deliverance of sinners, and to procure their reconciliation with God. These the Jews principally rested on, and trusted unto; and indeed to expect righteousness and justification by the Mosaic sacrifices, as they did, was far more rational, than to expect it by the works of the moral law as some now do, for all good works whatever are required in the law, and so far are works of the law. In the sacritices, there was a supposition of sin, and an appearance of a compensation to be made, that the sinner might go free; but in the moral law, there is nothing but absolute, universal, and exact righteousness required or admitted, without the least provision of relief for them who come short therein. But yet our apostle declares, and proves, that neither were these available for the end aimed at, as we shall see at large on the ninth and tenth chapters of this Epistle.
Now within the compass of these three, natural light or reason, with ingrafted principles of good and evil, the moral law, and the sacrifices thereof, do lie and consist, all the hopes and endeavours of sinners after deliverance and acceptance with God. There is nothing that they can do, or put any confidence in, but may be referred unto one of these heads. And if all this fail them, as assuredly they will, which we might prove by reasons and demonstrations innumerable, though at present we content ourselves with the testimonies above reported, it is certain that there is nothing under heaven can yield them in this case the least relief.
Again, This is the only way for that end which is suited to the wisdom of God. The wisdom of God is an infinite abyss, into which, as it lies in his own eternal breast, we cannot at all look. We can only adore it, as it breaks forth and discovers itself in the works that outwardly are of him, or in the effects of it. Thus David, in the consideration of the works of God, falls into an admiration of the wisdom whereby they were made, Psal. civ. 24, and Psal. cxxxvi. 5. The wisdom of God opens and manifests itself in its effects; and thence according unto our measure, do we learn what doth become it, and is suitable to it. But when the Holy Ghost cometh to speak of this work of our redemption by Christ, he doth not only call us to consider singly the wisdom of God, but his various and manifold wisdom, Eph. i. 10, and affirms that all the treasures of wisdom are hid in it, Col. ii. 3, plainly intimating, that it is a work so suited unto, so answering the infinite wisdom of God in all things throughout, that it could no otherwise have been disposed and effected. And this as well upon the account of the wisdom of God itself absolutely considered, as also as it is that property whereby God designs and effects the glorifying of all other excellencies of his nature, whence itis called various or manifold; so that we may well conclude, that no other way of deliverance of sinners was suited unto the wisdom of God.
Secondly, This way alone answered the holiness and righteousness of God. He is a holy God, who will not suffer the guilty to go free: he is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and his judgment is, that they who commit sin are worthy of death. Sin is contrary to his nature; and his justice requireth that it go not unpunished. Besides, he is the great and supreme governor of all; and whereas as sin breaketh and dissolveth the dependance of the creature upon him, should he not avenge that defection, his whole rule and government would be disannulled. But now, if this vengeance and punishment should fall on the sinners themselves, they must perish under it eternally; not one of them could escape, or ever be freed or purged from their sins. A commutation then there must be; that the punishment due to sin, which the holiness and righteousness of God exacteth, may be inflicted, and mercy and grace showed unto the sinner. That none was able, fit, or worthy to undergo this penalty, so as to make a compensation for all the sins of all the elect; that none was able to bear it, and break through it, so as that the end of the undertaking might be happy, blessed, and glorious on all hands, but only the Son of God, we shall further manifest in our progress, and it hath been elsewhere declared.
1. And this, first, should teach us to live in a holy admiration of this mighty and wonderful product of the wisdom, righteousness, grace, and goodness of God,{which found out, and appointed this way of delivering sinners, and have gloriously accomplished it in the sacrifice of the Son of God himself. The Holy Ghost every-where proposeth this unto us, as a mystery, a great and hidden mystery, which none of the great, or wise, or disputers of the world, ever did or could come to the least acquaintance withal. And three things he asserts concerning it: First, That it is revealed in the gospel, and is thence alone to be learned and attained, whence we are invited again and again to search and inquire diligently into it, to this very end, that we may become wise in the knowledge and acknowledgment of this deep and hidden mystery. Secondly, That we cannot in our own strength, and by our own most diligent endeavours, come to a holy acquaintance with it, notwithstanding that revelation that is made of it, in the letter of the word; unless moreover we receive from God the spirit of wisdom, knowledge, and revelation, opening our’eyes, making our minds spiritual, and enabling us to discover these depths of the Holy Ghost ina spiritual manner. Thirdly, That we cannot by these helps attain in this life unto a perfection in the knowledge of this deep and unfathomable mystery, but must still labour to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of it, our thriving in all grace and obedience depending thereon. All these things the Scripture abounds in the repetition of. And besides, it every-where sets forth the blessedness and happiness of them, who by grace obtain a spiritual insight into this mystery, and who thus also find by experience the satisfying excellency of it with the apostle, Phil. ii. 8. All which considerations are powerful motives unto this duty of inquiring into, and admiring this wonderful mystery, wherein we have the angels themselves for our associates and companions.
2. We may also consider the unspeakable love of Christ in this work of delivering us from sin. In this the Scripture also abundantly goeth before us, setting forth, extolling, commending this love of Christ, and calling us to a holy consideration of it. Particularly it shows it accompanied with all things that may make love expressive and to be admired. For, first, It proposeth the necessity and exigency of the condition wherein the Lord Christ gave us this relief; that was when we were sinners, when we were lost, when we were children of wrath, under the curse, when no eye did pity us, when no hand could relieve us. And if John mourned greatly, when he thought that there was none found worthy in heaven or earth to open his book of visions, and to unloose the seals thereof; how justly might the whole creation mourn and lament, if there had been none found to yield relief, when all were obnoxious to this fatal rum! And this is an exceeding commendation of the love of Christ, that he set his hand to that work which none could touch, and put his shoulders under that burden which none else could bear, when all lay in a desperate condition. Secondly, The greatness of this deliverance: it is from wrath, and curse, and vengeance eternal; not from a trouble or a danger of a few days’ continuance, not from a momentary suffering, but from everlasting wrath, under the curse of God and power of Satan in the execution of it, which necessarily attend sin and sinners. And, thirdly, The way whereby he did it; not by his word whereby he made the world; not by his power whereby he sustains and rules the things that he hath made; not by paying a price of corruptible things; not by revealing a way unto us only, whereby we ourselves might escape that condition wherein we were, as some foolishly imagine, but by the sacrifice of himself, making his soul an offering for sin, and oftering up himself unto God through the eternal Spirit, by laying down his life for us; and greater love can no man manifest than by so doing. And, fourthly, The infinite condescension that he used to put himself into that condition, wherein by himself he might purge our sins. For to this purpose, when he was in the form of God, he emptied himself of his glory, made himself of no account, was made flesh, took on him the form of a servant, that he might be obedient unto death, the death of the cross. And, fifthly, The end of his undertaking for us, which was the bringing of us unto God, into his love and favour here, and the eternal enjoyment of him hereafter. All these things, I say, doth the Scripture insist frequently and largely upon, to set forth the excellency of the love of Christ, to render it admirable and amiable unto us. And these things should we lay up in our hearts and continually ponder, that we may give due acceptance and entertainment to this wonderful love of the Son of God.
The apostle having thus asserted in general the sacerdotal office of Christ, and the sacrifice that he offered, with the end of it, because that could not be done without the greatest dejection, humiliation, and abasement of the Son, that we may not conceive that he was left in, or doth yet abide under the same condition, adds the blessed event and consequent of his great work and undertaking.
things to be inquired after to this end, are, First, The scope of the apostle in these words. Secondly, The manner of his expressing his intention, and the particulars therein intended. Thirdly, To what he refers in the Mosaic economy, whereby he strengthens the argument which he has in hand,
First, That the Lord Christ undertaking to purge our sins, did by the one offering of himself perfectly effect it, so discharging the whole work of his priesthood, as to the making atonement for sinners. This the blessed issue of his undertaking doth demonstrate. Immediately upon his work, he entered into the glorious condition here expressed: a signal pledge and evidence that his work was perfected, and that God was fully satisfied, and well pleased with what he had done.
Secondly, The blessed and glorious condition of the Lord Jesus after his humiliation, is expressed in these words. His Spirit did of old signify both his sufferings, and the glory that should follow, 1 Peter i. 11, as himself interpreted the Scriptures unto his disciples, Luke xxiv. 26. And this glory at theclose of his work, he requested as due unto him upon compact and promise, John xvii. 5. These are the things in general designed by the apostle in these words.
Secondly, The manner in which he expresses the glory and blessed condition of the Son of God, after his purging our sins, and what is particularly intimated therein, is to be considered. Some mistakes, or groundless curiosities must first be removed, and then the real import of the words declared.
Some contend, that the left hand of old was most honourable; so that as the placing of Christ at the right hand of God denotes his honour and glory, so also it denotes an inferiority to the Father. To this purpose, they produce some sayings out of some ancient writers among the heathen, giving the preference of place or dignity unto the left hand. As these sayings are made use of by the Romanists, to answer an objection of very little moment against Peter’s supremacy, taken from some ancient Episcopal seals, wherein the figure of Paul was placed on the right hand of that of Peter. But this conjecture may be easily disproved by testimonies innumerable out of approved authors among the Gentiles. And in Scripture, the nght hand doth constantly denote dignity and pre-eminence. The instance of Jacob’s blessing Joseph’s children, testifies also the constant usage of those ancient times from the intimation of nature itself, Gen. xlvii. 17—19. And the disposal of the sheep and goats at the last day, to the right hand and left, gives the privilege to the former. So Basil, ἡ δεξια ywoa δηλοι ro τῆς akiac ὅμοτιμον, ‘the right hand place denoteth equality of dignity.’ And Chrysostome, εἰ yap eAatrwow ἡθελε δηλωσαι οὐκ av εἰπεν ek δεξιων add’ εξ ἀριστερων, ‘If he would have signified any lessening or diminution, he would not have said, Sit on my right hand, but on my left.’ So that it is honour and glory which is signified by this expression, and that only.
Some, granting the right hand to denote the most honourable place, inquire whether this be spoken in reference unto God the Father himself, or unto others that do or may be supposed to sit on his left hand. For the first sense contends Maldonate on Matt. xvi. 19. ‘For,’ saith he, ‘though it be impossible that the Son in absolute or essential glory should be preferred before or above the Father, yet as to his immediate rule over the church, he may more show forth his power and glory in the rule and government of all things.’ Others contend, that it is spoken with respect unto sitting at the left hand, above which this is preferred. But this whole inquiry is both curious and groundless. For, first, though sitting at the right hand be a token of great glory and dignity, yet as the apostle speaks in this very case, it 1s manifest that He is excepted who put all things under him, | Cor. xv. 27. He who thus exalted him over all at his right hand, is excepted. And secondly, There is here no comparison at all, or regard to sitting on the left hand, nor is there any such comparison in other passages where that expression is used, but only the glory of Christ the Mediator is absolutely declared..
And this may be cleared by other instances. Solomon placed his mother, when she came to him, on his right hand, a token of exceeding honour; but he himself sat down on the throne of the kingdom, 1 Kings i. 19. The church is said to be at the right hand of Christ, Ps. xlv. 9, which, as it prefers her above all others, so it takes not off her subjection unto Christ. Nero in Suetonius, when Tiridates king of Armenia came to Rome, placed him for his honour on his right hand, himself sitting on the throne of rule. And where three sit together, the middle seat is the place of chiefest honour. Hence Cato in Africa, when Juba would have placed himself in the midst between him and Scipio, removed himself to the left hand of Scipio, that Juba might not have the place of pre-eminence above Reman magistrates.
It is not unlikely but that there may be an allusion in this expression to the Sanhedrim, the highest court of judicature among the Jews. He who presided in it was called 7.1 ax, or pt mA ay, ‘the Father of judgment,’ or ‘Father of the house of judgment,’ and sat at the right hand of the ‘2, or prince of the Sanhedrim, next unto him unto whom belonged the execution of the sentence of the court. Of this ab din, mention is made in the Targum, Cant. vil. 4. 2x7 jNTT NYT MA AN, ‘The Father of the house of judgment, who judgeth thy judgments; agreeably to that, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.”
The whole expression then is plainly metaphorical, and taken from what is, or was in use amongst men, and thence translated to signify the state and condition of Christ in heaven. And this is that which the apostle in general intimates in these words, that as the greatest honour that can be done unto any one among the sons of men, is for the chief ruler to set him next himself on his right hand, so is the Son as Mediator, made partaker of the greatest glory that God hath to bestow in Heaven. It is not then the essential eternal glory of the Son of God, that he hath equal with the Father, which in these words is expressed, and whereof the apostle had spoken before; but that glory and honour which is bestowed on him by the Father, after and upon the sacrifice of himself for the expiation of sin. So then the right hand of God is not here taken absolutely, as in other places, for the poweér and strength of God, but with the adjunct of sitting at tt, it shadows out a place and eminency of glory, as he is considered on his throne of majesty; and therefore it is here termed the right hand of majesty, and not of omnipotency or power.
First, The security of Christ from all his adversaries, and all sufferings for the future. The Jews knew what he suffered from God and man. Hereof he lets them know what was the reason; it was for the purging of our sins; and moreover declares, that now he is everlastingly secured from all opposition, for where he is, thither his adversaries cannot come, as John vii. 84. He is above their reach, beyond their power, secure in the throne and presence of God. Thus the fruit of the church, being secured from the rage and persecution of Satan, is said to be caught up unto God, and to his throne, Rev. xu. 5. Hence, though men do, and will continue their malice and wrath against the Lord Christ to the end of the world, as though they would crucify him afresh; yet he dies no more, being secure out of their reach at the right hand of God.
Secondly, His majesty and glory inexpressible;—all that can be given by God in heaven. God on his throne, is God in the full manifestation of his own majesty and glory: on his right hand sits the Mediator, yea, so as that he also is in the midst of the thrones, Rev. v. 6. How little can our weak understandings apprehend of this majesty! ᾿ see Phil. 1.9; Matt. xx.21; Rom. viii. 34; Col. ii. 1; Eph.i.20.
These are the things which the apostle sets forth in this expression. And they are plainly intimated in the context of the Psalm from whence the words are taken, Ps. cx. 1. So that it is not his rule and authority, but his safety, majesty, and glory, which accompany them, that are here intended. '
Thirdly, We are to inquire to what it was in the old church state of the Jews, that the apostle had respect in this ascription of glory and majesty unto Christ; and so what it is that he preferreth him above.
It is thought by many, that the apostle in these words exalteth Christ above David, the chief king among the Jews. Of him it is said, that God would make him his first-born, higher than the kings of the earth, Ps. Ixxxix. 27. His throne was high on the earth, and his glory above that of all the kings about him; but for the Lord Christ, he is incomparably exalted above him also, in that he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high. But, as was said, these words denote not the rule, power, or authority of Christ, typified by the kingdom of David, but his glory and majesty, represented by the magnificent throne of Solomon. Besides, he is not treating of the kingly power of Christ, but of his sacerdotal office, and of the glory that ensued upon the discharge thereof.
That, therefore, which in these words the apostle seems to have had respect to, was the high priest’s entrance into the holy place, after his offering of the solemn anniversary sacrifice of expiation. Then alone was he admitted into that holy place, or heaven below, where was the * solemn representation of the presence of God, his throne, and his glory. And what did he there? He stood with all humility and lowly reverence, ministering before the Lord, whose presence was there represented. Hedid not go and sit down between the cherubim, but worshipping at the footstool of the Lord, he departed. It is not, saith the apostle, so with Christ; but as his sacrifice was infinitely more excellent and effectual than theirs, so upon the offering of it, he entered into the holy place, or heaven itself above, and into the real glorious presence of God, not to minister in humility, but to a participation of the throne of majesty and glory. He is a king and priest upon his throne, Zech. vi. 19.
Thus the apostle shuts up his general proposition of the whole matter, which he intends farther to dilate and treat upon. In this description of the person and offices of the Messiah, he coucheth the springs of all his ensuing arguments, and from thence enforceth the exhortation which we have observed him constantly to pursue. And we also may hence observe,
1, That there is nothing more vain, foolish, and fruitless, than the opposition which Satan and his agents yet make to the Lord Christ and his kingdom. Can they ascend into heaven? Can they pluck the Lord Christ from the throne of God? A little time will manifest this madness, and that unto eternity.
2. That the service of the Lord Christ is both safe and honourable. As he is a good, so he is a glorious master; one that sits at the right’ hand of God.
3. Great is the spiritual and eternal security of them that truly believe in Christ. Of all which severally afterwards.
Ver. 4.—Tue design of the apostle, as we have now often shown, is to evince the necessity of abiding in the doctrine of the gospel, from the excellency of the person by whom it pleased God to reveal it unto us. This he hath done already in general, in that description which he hath given us of his person, power, works, offices, and glory; whereby he hath made it evident, that no creature whom God was pleased at any time to make use of in the revelation of his will, or the institution of his worship, was any way to be compared with him. Having proceeded thus far in general, he descends now to the consideration of particular instances, in all those whom God employed in the ministration of the law, and constitution of Mosaic worship, and takes occasion from them all to set forth the dignity and incomparable excellencies of the Lord Christ, whom in all things he exalts.
First then, he treateth concerning angels, as those who were the most glorious creatures employed in the giving of the law. The Hebrews owned, yea pleaded this in their own defence, that besides the mediation of Moses, God used the ministry of angels in the giving of the law, and in other occasional instructions of their forefathers. Some of them contend, that the last of the prophets was personally an angel, as the signification of his name imports. Holy Stephen upbraiding them with their abuse and contempt of their greatest privileges, tells them that they received the law by the disposition, ordering, or ministry of angels, Acts vil. 53. And the Targum interprets the chariots of God with the thousands of angels, Ps. Ixviii, 18, 19, of the angels by whose ministry God taught Israel the law. This then might leave a special prejudice in their minds, that the law being so delivered by angels, must needs have therein the advantage above the gospel, and be therefore excellent and immutable.
To remove this prejudice also, and further to declare the excellency and preeminence in all things of him who revealed the gospel, the apostle takes occasion from what he had newly taught them concerning the exaltation of Jesus Christ at the right hand of God, to prove unto them out of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that he is exceedingly advanced, and glorious above the angels themselves, of whose concurrence in the ministration of the law they boasted; and to this purpose produceth four signal testimonies one after another.
This is the design of the apostle, which he pursues and makes out unto the end of this chapter; and that we may rightly conceive of his intention, and of the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the whole, we shall, before we consider his proposition, laid down in this fourth verse, or the ensuing confirmations of it, inquire in general what it is in Christ which he compareth with, and preferreth above the angels, and wherein it is that he so exalts him.
The comparison entered on between the Lord Christ and angels, must be either with respect unto their natures, or unto their dignity, office, power, and glory. If the comparison be of nature with nature, then it must be either in respect of the divine or human nature of Christ. If it should be of the divine nature of Christ, with the nature of angels, then it is not a comparison of proportion, as between two natures agreeing in any general kind of being, as do the nature of a man and a worm; but a comparison only manifesting a difference and distance without any proportion. So answereth Athanasius, Orat. 2,ady. Arian. But the truth is, the apostle hath no design to prove by arguments and testimonies the excellency of the divine nature above the angelical. There was no need so to do, nor do his testimonies prove any such thing. Beside, speaking of angels, the other part of the comparison, he treats not of their nature, but of their office, work, and employment, with their honourable and glorious condition therein. Whereas, therefore, the apostle produceth sundry testimonies, confirming the deity of the Son, he doth it not absolutely to prove the divine nature to be more excellent than the angelical, but only to manifest thereby the glorious condition of him who is partaker of it, and consequently his preeminence above angels, or the equity that it should be so.
Neither is the comparison between the human nature of Christ and the nature of angels. For that absolutely considered and in itself is inferior to the angelical; whence in regard of his participation of it, he is said to be made lower than the angels, ch. ii. 9,
‘The apostle then treats of the person of Christ, God and man, who was appointed and designed of God the Father, to be the revealer of the gospel, and Mediator of the New Testament. As such, he is the subject of the ensuing general proposition; as such, he was spoken of in the words immediately foregoing; and concerning him, as such, are the ensuing testimonies to be interpreted, even those which bear testimony to his divine nature: these being produced to demonstrate the excellency of his person, as vested with the offices of the king, priest, and prophet of his church, the great revealer of the will of God in the last days.
Τοσουτῳ κρειττων γενομενος: Syr. ay m5 hom, et 1pse tantum preestantior fuit. Bodesian. ‘And he was so much more excellent;’ at tanto potior factus est. Tremel. ‘And he is made so much better;’ at ipse toto excellit; or as De Dieu, At hoc totum excellit, ‘and he wholly excelleth,’ or ‘in all things he excelleth.” Vulg. ‘Tanto melior factus angelis:’ the translation of κρειττων by melior is blamed by Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, and is generally deserted by the expositors of the Roman church. And it is hard, if not impossible, to find melior in any good author, used in the sense that κρείττων is here and elsewhere constantly applied unto. Ours render the word better, made better, to avoid, I believe, a coincidence with that which they express διαφορωτερον by ‘more excellent:’ xpertwy is properly nobilior, potentior, preestantior, excellentior; ‘ more powerful, able, excellent,’ as to love, honour, or state and condition; as in that of Homer,
That is, πολλὸν apewy, saith Eustathius, multo potentior, ‘ more powerful, able to prevail, or more excellent.’ Tvopevoc, factus, effectus; ‘made, was, became.’ Διαφορωτερον, differentius, ‘ different,’ which is sometimes put absolutely for the ‘best things,’ or things far better than other things that differ, the best things. ‘Make to differ,’ to prefer, make better, 1 Cor. iv. 7. Syr. sn07, excellentius, ‘more excellent.’ Arapeow is both to differ and excel; but the differentius of the Vulgar yields no good sense in this place. KexAnoovounke, heereditavit, sortitus est, jure hereditario obtinuit; of the import of which word before.
‘Being in so much preferred (exalted, made eminent) above angels, as he (obtained) inherited a more excellent name than they.’
First, What it is that the apostle asserts in them, as his general proposition; namely, that the Son, as the great priest and prophet of the church, was preferred above, and made more glorious and powerful than the angels; and how this was done, and wherein it doth consist.
Secondly, When he was so preferred above them; which belongs unto the explication and right understanding of the former.
Thirdly, The degree of this preference of him above the angels, intimated in the comparison; “ being made by so much more excellent, as he hath,” &c.
Fourthly, The proof of the assertion, both absolutely, and as to the degree intimated; and this is taken from his name.
Fifthly, The way whereby he came to have this name: he obtained it as his lot and portion, or he inherited it.
Ist. He is made more excellent than the angels, preferred above them; that is, say some, declared so to be. Tum res dicitur fieri, cum incipit patefieri. Frequently in the Scripture, a thing is then said to be made, or to be, when it is manifested so to be. And in this sense the word γίνεσθαι is sometimes used, Rom. iii. 4, PivesOw ὁ Θεος αληθης, rac de ανθρωπος ψευστης; “ Let God be true, and every man a liar;” that is, manifested and acknowledged so to be. So, James 1. 12, δοκιμος γενομενος, he that is approved in trial, and thereby manifested to be sincere and sound. In this sense the apostle tells us, Rom.i. 3, that the Lord Christ was “declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.” The resurrection from the dead did not make him to be the Son of God, but evidently manifested and declared him so to be. According to this interpretation of the words, that which the Holy Ghost intimateth is, that whereas the Lord Christ ministered in a condition outwardly low in this world, whilst he purged our sins, yet by his sitting down at the right hand of God, he was revealed, manifested, declared to be more excellent than all the angels in heaven.
But I see no reason why we should desert the proper and most usual signification of the word, nothing in the context persuading us so do. Besides, this suits not the apostle’s design, who doth not prove from the Scripture that the Lord Christ was manifested to be more excellent than the angels, but that really he was preferred and exalted above them.
So then, κρειττων γενόμενος is as much as preferred, exalted, actually placed, in more power, glory, dignity, than the angels. This John Baptist affirms of him, ἐμπροσθεν μου yeyovev, ὅτι πρωτος pov nv, “ He was preferred before me, because he was before me.” Preferred above him, called to another manner of office than that which John ministered in; made before or above him in dignity, because he was before him in nature and existence. And this is the proper sense of the words. The Lord Jesus Christ, the revealer of the will of God in the gospel, is exalted above, preferred before, made more excellent and glorious than the angels themselves, than all or any of them, who ministered unto the Lord in the giving of the law on Mount*'Sinai.
Some object to this interpretation, that he who is said to be made or set above the angels, is supposed to have been lower than they before. To which I answer, And so he was, not in respect of essence, subsistence, and real dignity, but in respect of the infirmities and sufferings that he was exposed unto, in the discharge of his work here on the earth, as the apostle expressly declares, ch. 11. 9.
2d. And this gives us light into our second inquiry on these words; namely, When it was that Christ was thus exalted above the angels.
1. Some say, that it was in the time of his incarnation; for then the human nature being taken into personal subsistence with the Son of God, it became more excellent than that of the angels. This sense is fixed on by some of the ancients, who are followed by sundry modern expositors. But we have proved before, that it is not of either nature of Christ absolutely or abstractedly that the apostle here speaketh, nor of his person, but as vested with his office, and discharging it. And moreover the incarnation of Christ was part of his humiliation and exinanition, and is not therefore especially intended, where his exaltation and glory is expressly spoken of.
2. Some say, that it was at the time of his baptism, when he was anointed with the Spirit, for the discharge of his prophetical office, Isa. xi. 1,2. But yet neither can this designation of the time be allowed; and that because the main things wherein he was made lower than the angels, as his temptations, and sufferings, and death itself, did follow his baptism and.unction.
3. It must therefore be the time of his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation at the right hand of God, which ensued thereon, that is designed as the season wherein he was made more excellent than the angels, as evidently appears from the text and context.
For, 1. That was the time, as we have showed before, when he was gloriously vested with that all power in heaven and earth, which was of old designed unto him, and prepared for him. 2. The order also of the apostle’s discourse leads us to fix on this season. After he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down, &c., being made so much more excellent; that is, therein, and then he was so made. 3. The testimony in the first place produced by the apostle in the confirmation of his assertion, is elsewhere, as we shall see, applied by himself unto his resurrection and the glory that ensued, and consequently they are also in this place intended. 4. This preference of the Lord Christ above the angels, is plainly included in that grant of all power made unto him, Matt. xxvuni. 18, expounded Eph. 1. 21, 22. 5. The testimony used by the apostle in the first place, is the word that God spake unto his King, when he set him upon his holy hill of Sion, Ps. ii. 6—8, which typically expresseth his glorious instalment in his heavenly kingdom.
The Lord Christ then, who in respect of his divine nature was always infinitely and incomparably more excellent than all the angels, after his humiliation in the assumption of the human nature, with the sufferings and temptations that he underwent, upon his resurrection was exalted into a condition of glory, power, authority, and excellency, and intrusted with power over them, as our apostle here informs us.
3d. In this preference and exaltation of the Lord Christ, there is a degree intimated; being made so much more, &c. Now our conceptions hereabout, as to this place, are wholly to, be regulated by the name given unto him. Look, saith the apostle, as the name given to the Messiah excels the name given to angels, so much doth he himself excel them in glory, authority, and power; for these names are severally given them of God, to signify their state and condition. What, and how great this difference is, we shall afterwards see, in the consideration of the instances given of it by the apostle in the verses ensuing.
4th. The proof of this assertion which the apostle first fixeth on, is taken from the name of Christ. His name, not given him by man, not assumed by himself, but ascribed unto him by God himself. Neither doth he here by the name of Christ, or the name of the angels, intend any individual proper names of the one or the other; but such descriptions as are made of them, and titles given unto them by God, as whereby their state and condition may be known. Observe, saith he, how they are called of God, by what names and titles he owns them, and you may learn the difference between them. This name he declares in the next verse: God said unto him, “ Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” It is not absolutely his being the Son of God that is intended, but that by the testimony of the Holy Ghost, God said these words unto him, “Thou art my Son,” and thereby declared his state and condition to-be far above that of the angels, to none of whom he ever said any such thing, but speaks of them in a far distinct manner, as we shall see. But hereof in the next verse.
Some by this excellent name understand his power, and dignity, and glory, called his “name above every name,” Phil. ii. 8, but then this can no way prove that which the apostle produceth it for, it being directly the same with that which is asserted, in whose confirmation it is produced..
5th. The last thing considerable is, how the Lord Christ came by this name, or obtained it. Κεκληρονομηκε, he obtained it by inheritance, as his peculiar lot and portion for ever. In what sense he is said to be κληρονομος; the heir, was before declared. As he was made the heir of all, so he inherited a more excellent name than the angels. Now he was made heir of all, in that all things being made and formed by him, the Father committed unto him, as Mediator, a peculiar power over all things, to be disposed of by him unto all the ends of his mediation. So also, being the natural and eternal Son of God, in and upon the discharge of his work, the Father declared and pronounced that to be his name; see Luke i. 35; Isa. vii. 14, ix. 6. His being the Son of God, is the proper foundation of his being called so; and his discharge of his office the occasion of its declaration. So he came unto it by right of inheritance, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead, Rom. i. 3.
This then is the sum of the apostle’s proposition, and the confirmation of it. A name given by God to that end and purpose, doth truly declare the nature, state, and condition of him or them to whom it is - given. But unto Christ the Mediator, there is a name given of God himself, exceedingly more excellent than any that by him is given unto the angels; which undeniably evinceth, that he is placed in a state and condition of glory far above them, or preferred before them.
I shall only observe one or two things, concerning the Hebrews to whom the apostle wrote, and so put an end to our exposition of this verse.
First, then, This discourse of the apostle, proving the preeminence of the Messiah above the angels, was very necessary unto the Hebrews, although it was very suitable unto their own principles, and in general acknowledged by them. It is to this day a tradition amongst them, that the Messiah shall be exalted above Abraham, and Moses, and the ministering angels. Besides, they acknowledged the Scriptures of the Old Testament, wherein the apostle shows them that this truth was taught and confirmed. But they were dull and slow in making application of these principles unto the confirmation of their faith in the gospel, as the apostle chargeth them, ch. v. 11,12. And they had at that time great speculations about the glory, dignity, and excellency of angels, and were fallen into some kind of worshipping of them. And it may be this curiosity, vanity, and superstition, was heightened in them by the heat of the controversy between the Pharisees and Sadducees about the angels; the one denying their existence and being, the other, whom the body of the people followed, exalting them above measure, and inclining to the worship of them. This the apostle declares, Col. 11. 18. Treating of those Judaizing teachers who then troubled the churches, he chargeth them with fruitless and curious speculations about angels, and the worshipping of them. And of their ministry in the giving of the law they still boasted. It was necessary therefore to take them off from this confidence of that privilege, and the superstition that ensued thereon, to instruct them in the preeminence of the Lord Christ above them all, that so their thoughts night be directed unto him, and their trust placed in him alone. And this exaltation of the Messiah, some of their later doctors assert on Dan. vii. 9, Wan poID 51 Ty mn min, “I beheld until the thrones were set,” ‘ placed, exalted,’ as in the original Chaldee; and as all old translations, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic, render the words, (although our translation renders them, ‘ until the thrones were cast down,’) affirming that one of those thrones was for the Messiah, before whom all the angels ministered in obedience.
Secondly, It may not be amiss to remark, that the Jews have always kad a tradition of the glorious name of the Messiah; of which even since their utter rejection, they retain some obscure remembrance. The name which they principally magnify is pouvn, Metatron. Ben Uzziel in his ‘Targum on Gen. v. ascribes this name to Enoch when he was translated, “ he ascended into heaven in the word of the Lord,” NAD NSD Pwo Maw Np, ‘and his name was called Metatron the great Scribe.’ But this opinion of Enoch being Metatron is rejected and confuted ‘im the Talmud. There they tell us that Metatron is pdrymt ww, ‘the prince of the world:’ or as Elias calls him in Thisbi, DET WwW, ‘the prince of God’s presence.’ And in the first mention of this name which is Talmud. Tract. Saned. cap. iv. fol. 38, they plainly intimate, that they intended an uncreated angel by this expression. - And such indeed must he be, unto whom may be assigned what they ascribe unto Metatron. Foras Reuchlin from the Cabbalists informs us, they say pruva myn dwn; ‘the teacher of Moses himself was Metatron.’ He it is, saith Elias, that is the angel always appearing in the presence of God, of whom it is said, ** My name is in him.” And the Talmudists, that he hath power to blot out the sins of Israel: whenee they call him the chancellor of heaven. And Bechai on Exod. xxiii. affirms, that this name signifies both a Lord, a messenger, and a keeper. A Lord, because he ruleth all; a messenger, because he stands always before God to do his will; and a keeper, because he keepeth Israel. I confess the etymology that he gives of this name to that purpose, is weak. and foolish; as is also that of Elias, who tells us that Metatron is 7 pwda, in the Greek tongue.
one sent. But yet what is intended by all these obscure intimations is evident; the uncreated prince of glory, and his exaltation over all, with the excellency of his name, is aimed at. For the word itself, it is either a mere corruption of the Latin word Mediator, such as is usual amongst them, or a Gematrical fiction to answer στὸ, the Almighty, there being a coincidence in their numeral letters.
The doctrine of the preference and preeminence of Christ, is insisted on by the apostle unto the end of this chapter; and therefore [ shall not treat of it, until we have gone through all the proofs of it produced; and even then but briefly; having already in part spoken of it, in our consideration of his sovereignty and lordship over all.
All preeminence and exaltation of one above others, depends on the supreme counsel and will of God.
The instance he gives of him who is exalted over all, sufficiently confirms our general rule. He had his name, denoting his glory and excellency, by inheritance; an heritage designed for him, and given unto him in the counsel, will, and good pleasure of God; he gave him that name above every name, Phil. ii. 9. And that of his own will and pleasure; ‘it pleased the Father, that in him all fulness should dwell.” That so in all things he might have the preeminence, Col. i. 16,17. He foreordained him unto it from eternity, 1 Pet. i. 20, and actually exalted him according to his eternal counsel in the fulness of time, Acts ii. 36, v. 31.
This prelation then of Christ above all, depends on the counsel and pleasure of God; and he is herein a pattern of all privilege and preeminence in others.
Grace, mercy, and glory, spiritual things and eternal, are those wherein really there is any difference among the sons of men. Now that any one in these things is preferred before another, depends merely upon the sole good pleasure of God. No man in these things makes himself to differ from another, neither hath he any thing that he hath not received. God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. And this discrimination of all things by the supreme will of God, especially spiritual and eternal, is the spring, fountain, and rule of all that glory which he will manifest, and be exalted in unto eternity.
Ver. 5,—The apostle proceedeth to the confirmation of his proposition concerning the preeminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, and of his proof of it from the excellency of the name given unto him. And this he doth by sundry testimonies produced out of the Old Testament; two whereof are conjoined in this verse, as the verses are divided in our Bibles.
Eve ποτε; Vulg. dixit aliquando, said he sometimes; for, at any time. Syr. xm>x ὝΩΝ Din yo, ‘from at any time, said God.’ Eloah, God, is supplied; needlessly, though better than those who would render εἰπε, impersonally; was it said at any time. For it is express in the Psalm from whence the words are taken, mx mm, ‘the Lord said.’ The Lord said unto me, Jrnt>> Dy ὋΝ ANN a, “ thou my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ The ellipsis of the verb substantive in the original which is perpetual, is supplied by the apostle, with «, ‘thou art my Son.’ Further difficulty in the grammatical sense of the words there isnot. And here we shall close this verse, or at least consider this testimony by itself.
Ver. 5.—Unto which of the angels did he at any time (or ever) say, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
1. The manner of the apostle’s producing the testimony which he intended to make use of. “ Unto which of the angels said he at any time.”
2. The testimony itself: “ Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”
First, That the testimony which in a matter of faith he insisted on, is that of the Scripture. He refers the Jews unto that common principle which was acknowledged between them. Men had not as yet learned in such contests to make that cavilling return, which we are now used unto; how do you know those Scriptures to be the word of God? Nor indeed is it suitable unto common honesty, for men to question the credit, and prostitute the authority of their own most sacred principles, for no other end, but to prejudice their adversaries. But our apostle here confidently sends the Hebrews to the acknowledged rule of their faith and worship; whose authority he knew they would not decline, Isa. viii. 21.
Secondly, That the apostle argues negatively from the authority and perfection of the Scripture in things relating to faith and the worship of God. It is nowhere said in the Scripture to angels; therefore they have not the name spoken of, or not in that manner wherein it is ascribed to the Messiah. This argument, saith an expositor of great name in this place, seems to be weak, and not unlike unto that which the heretics make use of in like cases. And therefore answers, that the apostle argues negatively, not only from the Scripture, but from tradition also. But this answer is far more weak than the argument is pretended to be. The apostle deals expressly in all this chapter from the testimony of Scripture; and to that alone do his words relate: and therein doth he issue the whole controversy he had in hand; knowing that the Jews had many corrupt traditions expressly contrary unto what he undertook to prove; particularly, that the law of Moses was eternally obligatory, against which he directly contends in the whole epistle. An argument then taken negatively from the authority of the Scripture in matters of faith, or what relates to the worship of God, is valid and effectual, and here consecrated for ever to the use of the church by the apostle.
Thirdly, That the apostle either indeed grants, or else for argument’s sake condescends unto the apprehension of the Hebrews, that there is a distinction of degrees and preeminence amongst the angels themselves. To confirm, therefore, his general assertion of the dignity and preeminence of Christ above them all, he provokes them to instance in any one of them, who either indeed, or in their apprehension, was promoted above others, to whom such words as these were ever spoken. ‘ ‘To which of the angels, said he;”’ his assertion respects not only the community of them, but any, or all of the chief, or princes among them. There are DWNT DM, Dan. x. 13, chief princes amone the angels. And of them Michael, the prince of the people of God, is said to be Ἴπν, One; that is not in order, but the chief in dignity, their head and leader. Now, saith the apostle, to which of any of these, or of the rest of them, were these words spoken?.
We proceed now to the testimony itself produced. Three things are required to make it pertinent unto his purpose, and useful unto the end for which he makes mention of it.
First, That he of whom he speaks was peculiarly intended therein.
Secondly, That there be in it an assignation of a name unto him made by God himself, which thereon he might claim as _ his peculiar inheritance.
Thirdly, That this name, either absolutely, or m its peculiar manner of appropriation unto him, is more excellent than any that was ever given unto angels, as asign of their dignity, authority, and excellency.
And these things, for the clearing of the apostle’s argument, must particularly be insisted on.
First, The words produced do peculiarly belong to him to whom they were applied. That is, it is the Messiah who is prophesied of in the second Psalm from whence they are taken. This with all Christians is put beyond dispute, by the application of it in several places to him, as Acts iv. 25—27, xiii. 33; Heb. v. 5. It is certain also, that the Jews always esteemed this Psalm to relate to the Messiah; they do so to this day. Hence the Targum on the Psalm expressly apples it to him, thus rendering these words, ‘ O beloved, as a Son to his Father, thou art pure to me as in the day wherein I created thee.’ So are the words perverted by the Targumist, not knowing what sense toascribe to them, which is frequent with him. But it is manifest that the constant opinion ofthe ancient Jews, was that this Psalm principally intended the Messiah, nor did any of them of old dissent. Some of their later masters are otherwise minded, but therein they discover their obstinacy and iniquity.
Thus Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, in his comment on this Psalm, in the Venetian edition of the great Masoretical Bibles, affirms, that whatever is sung in this Psalm, our masters interpreted of Messiah the King; ‘but, saith he, ‘according to the sound of the words, and for the contutation of the heretics,’ (that is Christians,) ‘it is convenient that we expound it of David.’ So wickedly corrupt and partial are they now in their interpretations of the Scripture. But these words are lett out in the Basil edition of the same notes and comments, by the fraud, it may be, of the Jews employed in that work, so to hide the dishonesty of one of their great masters. But the confession of the judgment of their fathers or predecessors in this matter, is therein also extant. And Aben Ezra, though he would apply it to David, yet speaks doubtfully whether it may not better be ascribed to the Messiah.
But this was not enough for the apostle, that those with whom he dealt acknowledged these words to be spoken concerning the Messiah, unless they were so really, that so his argument might proceed ea veris, as well as ex concessis, from what was true, as on what was granted. This then we must next inquire into.
The whole Psalm, say some, seems principally, if not only to intend David. He having taken the hill and tower of Sion, and settled it for the seat of his kingdom, the nations round about tumultuated against him, and some of them, as the Philistines, presently engaged in war against him for his ruin, 2 Sam. v. 17. To declare how vain all their attempts should be, and the certainty of God’s purpose in raising him to the kingdom of Israel, and for his preservation therein against all his adversaries, with the indignation of God against them, the Holy Ghost gave out this Psalm for the comfort and establishment of the church in the persuasion of so great a mercy. And this is borrowed of Rashi.
But suppose the Psalm to have a farther respect than to David and his temporal kingdom, and thatit doth point at the Messiah under the type of David, yet theri also whatever is spoken in it, must first and properly be understood of David. So that if the words insisted on by the apostle do prove that the Lord Christ was made more excellent than the angels, they prove the same concerning David also, concerning whom they were spoken in the first place.
Answ. 1. There is no cogent reason why we should acknowledge David and his kingdom to be at all intended in this Psalm. The apostles we see apply it to the Lord Christ without any mention of David,*and that four several times: twice in the Acts, and twice in this Epistle. The Jews acknowledge that it belongs to the Messiah. Besides there are sundry things spoken in the Psalm, that could never truly and properly be applied to David. Such are the promises, ver. 8, 9, and the invitation of all men to “ put their trust and confidence in him,” ver. 12. And we have a rule given us by the Holy Ghost, that where anything seems to be spoken of any one, to whom it doth not properly belong, there the person is not at all to be understood, but the Lord Christ himself immediately. Thisrule Peter gives us in his interpretation of the sixteenth Psalm, and his application of it to the Lord Jesus, Acts ii. 29—31. So that there is no necessity to grant that there is any reference in these words to any type at all. But,
Secondly, We grant that David was a type of Christ, and that as he was king of the people of God. Hence he is not only often signally called the Son of David, but David also, Jer. xxx. 9; Ezek. xxxvii. 24, 25; Hos. iii. 5. And the throne and kingdom promised to David for ever and ever, that it should be as the sun, and established for ever as the moon, Psal. lxxxix. 36, 37, that is, while the world endures, had no accomplishment but in the throne and kingdom of his Son Jesus Christ. ‘Thus also many other things are said of him and his kingdom, which in propriety of speech can no way be applied unto him, but as he was a type of Christ, and represented him to the church. We may then grant, as that about which we will not contend, that in this Psalm, consideration was had of David and his kingdom, but not absolutely, but only asa type of Christ. And hence two things will follow.
First, That some things may be spoken in the Psalm, which no way respect the type at all. For when, not the type, but the person or thing signified, is principally aimed at, itis not necessary that every thing spoken thereof, should be also applicable properly unto the type itself; it being sufficient that there was in the type somewhat that bare a general resemblance unto him, or to that which was principally intended. So, on the contrary; where the type is principally intended, and an application made to the thing signified only, by way of general allusion; there it is not required that all the particulars assigned unto the type, should belong unto, or be accommodated unto the thing typified; as we shall see in the next testimony cited by the apostle. Hence, though in general, David and his deliverance from trouble, with the establishment of his throne, might be respected in this Psalm, as an obscure representation of the kingdom of Christ, yet sundry particulars in it, and among them this mentioned by our apostle, seems to have no respect unto him, but directly and immediately to intend the Messiah.
Secondly, If it be supposed that what is here spoken, ‘ Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” is also to be applied unto David; yet it is not ascribed to him personally and absolutely, but merely considered as a type of Christ. What then is principally and directly intended in the words, is to be sought for in Christ alone. It being sufficient to preserve the nature of the type, that there was in David any resemblance or representation of it.
Thus, whether David be admitted as a type of Christ in thi¢ Psalm or not, the purpose of the apostle stands firm, that the words were principally and properly spoken of the Messiah, and unto him. And this is the first thing required in the application of the testimony insisted on.
Secondly, It is required that in the testimony produced, a signal name be given unto the Messiah, and appropriated unto him, so as that he may inherit it for ever as his own; neither men nor angels having the same interest with him init, It is not being called by this or that name in common with others, that is intended; but such a peculiar assignation of a name unto him, as whereby he might for ever be distinguished from all others. Thus many may be beloved of the Lord and be so termed; but yet Solomon only was peculiarly called mn, Jedidiah, and by that name was distinguished from others. In this way itis that the Messiah hath this name assigned unto him. God decreed from eternity that he should be called by that name; he spake unto him and called him by that name: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” He is not called the Son of God upon such a common account as angels and men, the one by creation, the other by adoption; but God peculiarly, and in a way of eminence, gives this name unto him.
Thirdly, This name must be such, as either absolutely, or by reason of its peculiar manner of appropriation to the Messiah, proves his preeminence above the angels. Now the name designed is the Son of God: ‘Thou art my Son,’ not absolutely, but with the exegetical adjunct of his generation, ‘this day have I begotten thee.’ Chrysost.
Hom. 22. on Gen. vi. positively denies that the angels in Scripture are any where called the sons of God. Hence some conjecture, that the translation of the LX X. is changed since that time; seeing it is evident that they are so called in the Greek Bibles now extant. However, in the original, they are called the sons of God, Job i. 6, ΠΡ 5 eli. xxxviil, 7; Psal. lxxxix. 6. Believers are also called the sons of God, Rom. viii. 16; Gal. iv. 6; 1 John iii. 1: and magistrates, gods, Psal. Ixxxii. 1. 6; John x. 34. It doth not, therefore, appear how the mere assigning of this name to the Messiah, doth prove his preeminence above the angels, who are also called by it.
Answ. Angels may be called the sons of God upon a general account, and by virtue of their participation in some common privilege; as they are by reason of their creation, like Adam, Luke ii. ult. and constant obedience, Job i. 6. But it was never said unto any angel personally upon his own account, ‘Thou art the son of God.’ God never said so unto any of them, especially with the reason of the appellation annexed, ‘this day have I begotten thee.’ It is not then the general name of a son, or the sons of God, that the apostle instanceth in, but the peculiar assignation of this name unto the Lord Jesus on his own particular account, with the reason of it annexed, ‘this day have I begotten thee,’ which is insisted on. So that here is an especial appropriation of this glorious name unto the Messiah.
Fourthly, The appropriation of this name unto him in the manner expressed, proves his dignity and preeminence above all the angels. For it is evident that God intended thereby to declare his singular honour and glory, giving him a name to denote it, that was never by him assigned unto any mere creature, as his peculiar inheritance; in particular, not unto any of the angels: not one of them can lay any claim unto it, as his peculiar heritage from the Lord.
And this is the whole that was incumbent on the apostle to prove by the testimony produced. He manifests him sufficiently to be more excellent than the angels, from the excellence of the name which he inherits, according to his proposition before laid down. There isindeed included in this reasoning of the apostle, an intimation of a peculiar filiation and sonship of Christ. Had he not been so the Son of God, as never any angel or other creature was, he never had been called so, in such a way as they are never so called. But this the apostle at present doth not expressly insist upon, only he intimates it as the foundation of his discourse.
To conclude then our considerations of this testimony, we shall briefly inquire after the sense of the words themselves, absolutely considered; although, as I have shown, that doth not belong directly unto the present argument of the apostle..
Expositors are much divided about the precise intention of these words, both as they are used in the Psalm, and variously applied by the apostles. But yet generally the expositions given of them are pious, and consistent with each other. I shall not insist long upon them, because, as 1 said, their especial sense belongeth not unto the design and argument of the apostle.
That Christ is the natural and eternal Son of God, is agreed at this day by all Christians, save the Socinians. And heis called so, because he is so. The formal reason why he is so called, is one and the same; namely, his eternal Sonship; but occasions of actually ascribing that name unto him, there are many. And hence ariseth the difficulty that is found in the words. Some think those words, ‘This day have I begotten thee,’ do contain the formal reason of Christ’s being properly called the Son of God, and so to denote his eternal generation. Others think they express only some outward act of God towards the Lord Christ, on the occasion whereof he was declared to be the Son of God, and socalled. The former way went Austin with sundry of the ancients. The orn, the hodie, or this day here, was with them the same as the nunc stans, as they call it, of eternity; and the pn», ‘ I have begotten thee,’ denotes, as they say, the proper natural generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Gcdhead by the person of the Father untohim. And this doctrine is true, but whether here intended or not, is by some greatly questioned.
Others therefore take the words to express only an occasion of giving this name at a certain season to the Lord Christ, when he was revealed or declared to be the Son of God. And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke i. 35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matt. 1. 17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom. i.3;and Acts xii. 33; some to the day of hisascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent and reconcileable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end; that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts xiii. 33. 1
And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David as a type of Christ, seeing he was said as it were to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. Neither indeed doth the apostle treat in this place of the eternal generation of the Son, but of his exaltation and preeminence above angels.
The word also nym constantly in the Scripture denotes some signal time, one day, or more. And that expression, ‘ This day have I begotten thee,’ following immediately upon that other typical one, ‘ I have set my King upon my holy hill of Sion,’ seems to be of the same import, and in like manner to be interpreted. ‘Thus far f then choose to embrace the latter interpretation of the words; namely, that the eternal generation of Christ, on which his filiation or sonship, both name and thing doth depend, is to be taken only declaratively, and that declaration to be made in his resurrection and exaltation over all thatensued thereon. But every one is left unto the liberty of his own _ judgment herein.
And this is the first testimony, whereby the apostle confirms this assertion of the preeminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the name that he inherits as his peculiar right and possession.
For the further confirmation of the same truth, he adds another testimony of the same import, in the words ensuing.
Ka παλιν, εγὼ ETOMAL AUT εἰς. πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ξσται μοι ELC viov. Vulg. Et rursum, ego ero illi in patrem, et 1058. ert mihi in filium. “71 will be unto him for a Father, and he shall be to me for a Son.’ So also the Syriac: nand and x22), in patrem, and in filium, not pro patre, et pro filio, as some render the words. Erasmus worse than they: Ego ero ei loco patris, et ille erit mihi loco filii, ‘Instead of a Father, and instead of a Son,’ or ‘in the place,’ which agrees not with the letter, and corrupts the sense. Beza, Egoero ei pater, et ipse erit mihi filius, who is followed by ours. ‘‘ And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.”
Καιπαλιν, and again; that is, in another place, oragain it is said to the Son, what is nowhere spoken unto the angels. Eyw eooua, ἽΣ TON ON Δ ‘Simm sim and, the prefixed > doth not denote a substitution or comparison, but the truth of the thing itself. So it is said of Rebecca, mynd o~nm, ‘she was unto him,’ not for, or instead, or in the place of, but ‘his wife. And in the words of the covenant, Jer. xxxi. 33. 41 will be to them ond, and they shall be to me vyd;’ not, ‘I will be unto them instead of God, and they shall be unto me instead of a people;’ but, “1 will be their God, and they shall be my people.’ And the same is the signification of these words, ‘I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son.’
This is the second testimony produced by the apostle to prove the preeminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the excellency of the name given unto him. One word, one witness, the testimony being that of God, and not of man, had been sufficient to have evinced the truth of his assertion. But the apostle adds a second here, partly to manifest the importance of the matter he treated of, and partly to stir them up to a diligent search of the Scripture, where the same truths, especially those that are of most concern unto us, are stored up and down in sundry places, as the Holy Ghost had occasion to make mention of them. This is that mine of precious gold which we are continually to dig for and search after, if we intend to grow and to be rich in the knowledge of God in Christ, Prov. 11. 3, 4, Expositors do generally perplex themselves and their readers about the application of these words unto the Lord Christ. Cajetan for this cause, that this testimony is not rightly produced nor applied as it ought, rejects the whole epistle, as not written by the apostle, nor of canonical authority. Such instances do even wise and learned men give of their folly and self-fulness every day. The conclusion that he makes, must needs be built on these two suppositions. First, That whatever any man might or could apprehend concerning the right application of this testimony, that he himself might and could so do; for otherwise he might have acknowledged his own insufficiency, and have left the solution of the difficulty unto them to whom God should be pleased to reveal it. Secondly, That when men of any generation cannot understand the force and efficacy of the reasonings of the penmen of the Holy Ghost,.nor discern the suitableness of the testimonies they make use of, unto the things they produce them in the confirmation of, they may lawfully reject any portion of Scripture thereon. The folly and iniquity of which principles or suppositions are manifest.
The application of testimonies out of the Old Testament in the New, depends as to their authority on the veracity of him that maketh use of them; and as to their cogency in argument on the acknowledgment of them on whom they are pressed. Where we find this concurring, as in this place, there remains nothing for us, but to endeavour a right understanding of what is in itself infallibly true, and unquestionably cogent unto the ends for which it is used.
Indeed the main difficulty, which in this place expositors generally trouble themselves withal, ariseth purely from their own mistake. They cannot understand how these words should prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, which they supposed they are produced to confirm, seeing that it is from thence that he is exalted above the angels. But the truth is, the words are not designed by the apostle unto any such end. His aim is only to prove, that the Lord Christ hath a name assigned unto him more excellent, either in itself, or in the manner of its attribution, than any that is given unto the angels, which is the medium of this first argument to prove him, not as the eternal Son of God, nor in respect of his human nature, but as the revealer of the will of God in the gospel, to be preferred above all the angels: in heaven, and consequently in particular above those whose ministry was used in the giving of the law.
Two things then are necessary to render this testimony effectual to.. the purpose for which it is cited by the apostle; first, that it was. originally intended of him to whom he doth apply it; secondly, that there is a name ‘in it assigned unto him more excellent than any ascribed to the angels.
For the first of these, we must not wave the difficulties that inter-: preters have either found out in it, or cast upon it. The words are taken from 2 Sam. vii. 14, and are part of the answer returned from God unto David by Nathan, upon his resolution to build him an house. The whole oracle is as followeth, ver. 11, “The Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.” Ver. 12, ‘* And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will'set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom;” (or, as 1 Chron, xvi. 11.“ And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired, that thou must go to be with thy father, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons, and I will establish his kingdom.”’) Ver. 13, “ He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” (1 Chron. xvii. 12, 19, “ He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever.’’) Ver. 14, “ I will be his Father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with ‘the stripes of the children of men.” Ver. 15, « But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.” (1 Chron, xvi. 13, “ I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son; and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee.”) Ver. 16, ‘‘ And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever.”
(1 Chron. xvii. 14,) “ But I will settle him in mine house, and in my kingdom for ever, and his throne shall be established for evermore.”
This is the whole divine oracle, from whence the apostle takes the testimony under consideration; and the difficulty wherewith it is attended ariseth from hence, that it is not easy to apprehend how any thing at all in these words should be appropriated unto the Lord Christ; seeing Solomon seems in the whole to be directly and only intended. And concerning this difficulty, there are three opinions among interpreters.
1. Some cutting that knot, which they supposed could not otherwise be loosed, affirm that Solomon is not at all intended in these words, but that they are a direct and immediate prophecy of Christ, who was to be the son of David, and to build the spiritual house or temple of God. And for the confirmation of this assertion, they produce sundry reasons from the oracle itself; as
Ist. It issaid, that,God would raise up to David a seed, or son; intimating, that he was not as yet born, being foretold to be raised up; whereas Solomon was born at the time of this prophecy.
2d. It is alsoaffirmed, that this son or seed should reign and sit upon the throne of David after his decease, and after he was gathered unto his fathers; whereas Solomon was made king, and sat upon the throne whilst David was yet alive, and not entered into rest with his fathers.
3d. The throne of this son is to be established for ever, or as the same promise is expressed, Psal. lxxxix. 36, “ Whilst the sun and moon continue.” The throne of Solomon and his prosterity failed within a few generations.
Ath. The title there given unto him who is directly prophesied of, shows him, as our apostle intimates, to be preferred above all the angels; and none will say that Solomon was so, who, as he was inferior to them in nature and condition, so by sin he greatly provoked the Lord against himself and his posterity.
But yet all these observations, though they want not some appearance and probability of reason, come short of proving evidently what they are produced for, as we may briefly manifest. For,
Ist. It doth not appear that Solomon was born at the time of the giving forth of this oracle; if we must suppose that God intimated in it unto David, that none of the sons which he then had should succeed him in his kingdom; yea, it is manifest from the story that he was not. Besides, raising up doth not denote the birth or nativity of the person intended, but his designation or exaltation to his throne and office, as is the usual meaning of that expression in the Scripture; so that Solomon might be intended, though now born, yea and grown up, if not yet by the providence of God marked and taken out from amongst his brethren to be king, as afterwards he was.
2. Although a few days before the death of David, to prevent sedition and division about titles and pretensions to the kingdom, Solomon by his appointment was proclaimed king, or heir to the crown, yet he was not actually vested with the whole power of the kingdom, until after his natural decease. Moreover also, David being then very weak and feeble, and rendered unable for public administration, the short remainder of his days after the inauguration of Solomon, needed not to be observed in the prophecy.
The other two remaining reasons must be afterwards spoken unto. And for the present removal of this exposition, I shall only observe, that to affirm Solomon not at all to be intended in this oracle, nor the house or temple which afterwards he built, is to make the whole answer of God by the prophet unto David to be equivocal. For David inquired of Nathan about building an house, or material temple unto God. Nathan returns him answer from God that he shall not do so, but that his son should perform that work. This answer David understands of his immediate son, and of a material house, and thereupon makes material provision for it, and preparation in great abundance, upon the encouragement he received in this answer of God. Now if neither of these were at all intended in it, neither his son nor the material temple, it is evident that he was led into a great mistake, by the ambiguity and equivocation of the word; but we find by the event that he was not led into any such mistake; God approving and accepting of his obedience in what he did. It remains then that Solomon, first and immediately is intended in these words.
2. Some on the other hand affirm the whole prophecy so to belong to, and so to be fulfilled in Solomon, and in him alone, that there is no direct respect therein unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And the reason for their assertion they take from those words which immediately follow those insisted on by the apostle, namely, “If he commit iniquity [ will chastise him with the rod of men;” which cannot be applied unto him who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth. They say, therefore, that the apostle applies these words unto Christ, only by way of an allegory; thus he deals with the law of not muzzling the ox which treadeth out the corn, applying it to the provision of carnal things to be made for the dispensers of the gospel. As he also in another place representeth the two Testaments in the story of Sarah and Hagar.
That which principally is to be insisted on for the removal of this difficulty, and which will utterly take it out of our way, will fall in with our confirmation of the third interpretation to be proposed. For the present, I shall only answer, that as the words cited by the apostle do principally concern the person of Christ himself, yet being spoken and given out in form of a covenant, they have respect also to him as he is the Head of the covenant, which God makes with all the elect in him. And thus whole mystical Christ, head and members, are referred to in the prophecy; and therefore David, in his repetition and pleading of this oracle, Psal. Ixxxix. 30, changeth those words, ‘“ if he commit iniquity,” into “if his children forsake my law.” Notwithstanding then a supposition of transgression in him, concerning whom these words are spoken, the Lord Christ may be intended in them; such failings and transgressions as disannul not the covenant, often falling out on their part, for whom he undertaketh therein. But I offer this only in majorem cautelam, to secure the testimony insisted on unto our apostle’s intention. The difficulty itself will be afterwards clearly assoiled.
3. We say therefore with others, that both Solomon and the Lord Christ are intended in this whole oracle; Solomon literally and first, as the type; the Lord Christ principally and mystically, as he who was typified, figured, and represented by him. And our sense herein shall be farther explained and confirmed in the ensuing considerations.
1. That there never was any one type of Christ and his offices that entirely represented him, and all that he was to do. Foras it was impossible that any one thing or person should do so, because of the perfection of his person, and the excellency of his office, which no one thing that might be appointed to prefigure him as a type, because of its limitedness and imperfection, could fully represent; so had any such been found out, that multiplication of types which God in his infinite wisdom was pleased to make use of, for the revelation of him intended in them, had been altogether useless and needless. Wherefore, according as God saw good, and as he had made them meet and fit, so he designed one thing or person to figure out one thing in him, and another for another end and purpose.
2. That no type of Christ was, in all things that he was or did, a type of him, but only in that particular wherein he was designed of God so to be, and wherein he hath revealed him so to have been. David was a type of Christ, but not in all things that he was and did. In his conquests of the enemies of the church, in his throne and kingdom he was so; but in his private actions, whether as a man, or as a king or captain, he was not so. The like must be said of Isaac, Melchisedec, Solomon, and of all other personal types under the O]d Testament, and much more of other things.
3. That not all things spoken of him that was a type, even in those respects wherein he was a type, are spoken of him as a type, or have any respect unto the thing signified, but some of them may belong unto him in his personal capacity only. And the reasonis, because he, who was a type by God’s institution, might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even then and in those things, when and wherein he was a type. Hence somewhat may be spoken of him as to his moral performance of his duty, that may no way concern the antitype, or Christ prefigured by him. And this wholly removes the difficulty mentioned in the second interpretation of the words, excluding the Lord Christ from being directly in the oracle, upon that expression, “If he sin against me;’’ for those words relating to the moral duty of Solomon, in that wherein he was a type of Christ, namely, the rule and administration of his kingdom, may not at all belong to Christ, who was prefigured by God’s institution of things, and not in any moral deportment in the observance of them.
4, That what is spoken of any type, as it was a type, and in respect of its institution to be such, doth not really and properly belong unto him, or to that which was the type, but unto him who was represented thereby. For the type itself, it was enough that there was some resemblance in it of that which was principally intended; the things belonging unto the antitype being affirmed of it analogically on account of the relation between them by God’s institution. Hence that which follows on such enunciations, doth not at all respect or belong to the type, but only to the antitype. Thus at the sacrifice of expiation, the scape goat is said to bear and carry away all the sins of the people into a land not inhabited; not really, and in the substance of the matter, but only in an instituted representation: for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Much less may the things that ensue upon the Lord Christ’s real bearing and taking away of our sins be ascribed to the devoted beast. So isit in this case, The words applied by the apostle to prove the Son to have a more excellent name than the angels, and consequently to be preferred above them, do not at all prove that Solomon, of whom they were spoken merely as he was a type, should be esteemed to be preferred above all angels, seeing he did only represent him who was so, and had these words spoken unto him, not absolutely, but with respect unto that representation. And this removes the fourth objection made in the behalf of the first interpretation, excluding Solomon from being at all intended in the prophecy; for what was spoken of him as a type, required not. a full accomplishment in his own person, but only that he should represent him who was principally intended.
5. That there is a two-fold perpetuity mentioned in the Scripture, the one limited and relative, the other absolute; and both these are applied unto the kingdom of David. First, there was a perpetuity promised unto him and his posterity in the kingdom, as of the priesthood to Aaron, that is a limited perpetuity, namely, during the continuance of the typical state and condition of that people; whilst they continued, the rule by right belonged tothe house of David. There wasalsoan absolute perpetuity promised to the kingdom of David, to be made good only in the kingdom and rule of the Messiah: and both these kinds of perpetuity are expressed in the same words, giving their sense according as they are applied. If applied to the successors of David, as his kingdom was a type of that of Christ, they denote the limited perpetuity before mentioned, as that which respected an adjunct of the typical state of that people, that was to be regulated by it, and commensurate untoit. But as they were referred to the kingdom of Christ represented in the other, an absolute perpetuity is expressed in them. And this takes away the third reason, excluding Solomon from being intended in these words; the perpetuity promised being unto him 11- mited and bounded.
These considerations being premised, I say, the words insisted on by the apostle, “I will be unto him a father, and he shall be unto me a son,” belonged first and next unto Solomon, denoting that fatherly love, and care, and protection, that God would afford unto him in his kingdom, so far forth as Christ was represented by him therein; which requires not that they must absolutely, and in all just consequences from them, belong unto the person of Solomon. Principally therefore they intend Christ himself, expressing that eternal unchangeable love which the Father bore unto him, grounded on the relation of Father and Son.
in Solomon. But the reason of it is, because that his sin was the occasion of ruining their carnal earthly glory and wealth, which things alone they lust after. But the thing was doubtless confessed by the church of old, with whom Paul had to do; and therefore we see, that the writer of the book of the Chronicles, written after the return'of the people from their captivity, when Solomon’s line had failed,and Zerubbabel of the house of Nathan was governor amongst them, yet records again this promise, as that which looked forward, and was yet to receive its full accomplishment in the Lord Christ. And some of the rabbins themselves tell us, that Solomon, because of his sin, had only the name of peace, God stirring up adversaries against him: the thing itself is to be looked for under Messiah Ben David.
The allegation of these words by the apostle being thus fully and at large vindicated, | shall now briefly inquire into the sense and meaning of the words themselves.
It was before observed, that they are not produced by the apostle to prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, nor do they signify it, nor were they urged by him to confirm directly and immediately this truth, that he is more excellent than the angels; of whom there is nothing spoken in them, nor in the place from whence they are taken. But the apostle insists on this testimony, merely in confirmation of his former argument, for the preeminence of the Son above angels, taken from that more excellent name which he obtained by inheritance; which being the name of the Son of God, he hereby proves that indeed he was so called by God himself.
Thus then do these words confirm the intention of the apostle. For to which of the angels said God at any time, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.” The words contain a great and. signal privilege: they are spoken unto and concerning the Messiah, and neither they, nor any thing equivalent unto them, were ever spoken of any angel; especially the name of the Son of God, so emphatically, and in way of distinction from all others, was never assigned unto any of them. And this, as hath been already shown, proves an eminency and preeminence in him, above all that the angels attain unto. All this, 1 say, follows from the peculiar signal appropriation of the name of the Son of God unto him; and his especial relation unto God therein expressed.;
We may briefly adjoin the intention of the words as in themselves considered, and so complete the exposition of them. Now God promiseth in them to be unto the Lord Christ as exalted into his throne, a Father, in love, care, and power, to protect and carry him on in his rule unto the end of the world. And therefore upon his ascension he says, that he went unto his God and Father, John xx. 17, and he rules in the name and majesty of God; Mic. v. 4. This is the import of the words: they tend not the eternal and natural relation that is between the Father and Son, which neither is, nor can be the subject of any promise, but the paternal care of God over Christ in his kingdom, and the dearness of Christ himself unto him.
If it be asked on what account God would thus be a Father unto Jesus Christ, in this peculiar manner, it must be answered, that the radical fundamental cause of it lay in the relation that was between them from his eternal generation; but he manifested himself to be his Father, and engaged to deal with him in the love and care of a Father, as he had accomplished his work of mediation on the earth, and was exalted unto his throne and rule in heaven.
And this is the first argument of the apostle, whereby he proves that the Son, as the revealer of the mind and will of God in the gospel, is made more excellent than the angels, whose glory was a refuge to the Jews in their adherence to legal rights and administrations, even because they were given unto them by the disposition of angels.
According unto our proposed method, we must in our progress draw hence also some instructions for our own use and edification. As,
First, Every thing in the Scripture is instructive—The apostle’s arguing in this place is not so much from the thing spoken, as from the manner wherein it is spoken; even that also is highly mysterious. So are all the concernments of it. Nothing in it is needless, nothing useless. Men sometimes perplex themselves to find out the suitableness of some testimonies produced out of the Old Testament, unto the confirmation of things and doctrines in the New, by the penmen of the Holy Ghost; when all the difficulty ariseth from a fond conceit, that they can apprehend the depth and breadth of the wisdom that is laid up in any one text of Scripture, when the Holy Ghost may have a principal aim at those things which they are not able to dive into. Every letter and tittle of it is teaching, and every thing that relates unto it is instructive in the mind of God. And it must be so, because,
1. It proceeds from infinite Wisdom, which hath put an impression of itself upon it, and filled all its capacity with its blessed effects. In the whole frame, structure, and order of it, in the sense, words, coherence, expression, it is filled with wisdom, which makes the commandment exceeding broad and large, so that there is no absolute comprehension of it in this life. We cannot perfectly trace the footsteps of infinite Wisdom, nor find out all the effects and characters of itself, which it hath left upon the word. The whole Scripture is full of wisdom, as the sea is of water, which fills and covers all the parts of it. And,
2. Because it was to be very comprehensive. It was to contain directly or by consequence, one way or other, the whole revelation of God unto us, and all our duty unto him, both which are marvellous, great, large, and various. Now this could not have been done in so narrow a room, unless every part of it, and all ‘the concerns of it, with its whole order, had been filled with mysteries, and expressions or intimations of the mind and will of God. It could not hence be, that any thing superfluous should be put into it, or any thing be in it, that should not relate to teaching and instruction.
3. It is that which God hath given unto his servants, for their continual exercise day and night in this world. And in their inquiry into it he requires of them their utmost diligence and endeavours. This being assigned for their duty, it was convenient unto divine Wisdom and Goodness to find them blessed and useful work in the whole
Scripture, to exercise themselves about, that every-where they might, meet with that which might satisfy their inquiry, and answer their industry. There shall never be any time or strength lost or mispent that is laid out according to the mind of God in and about his word. The matter, the words, the order, the contexture of them, the scope, design, and aim of the Holy Ghost in them, all and every one of them, may well take up the utmost of our diligence: all are divine. Nothing is empty, unfurnished, or unprepared for our spiritual use, advantage, and benefit. Let us then learn hence,
1. To admire, and as one said of old, to adore the fulness of the Scripture, or of the wisdom of God in‘it. It is all full of divine wisdom, and calls for our reverence in the consideration of it. And indeed a constant awe of the majesty, authority, and holiness of God in his word, is the only teachable frame. Proud and careless spirits see nothing of heaven or divinity in the word; but the humble are made wise in it.
2. To stir up and exercise our faith and diligence to the utmost in our study and search of the Scripture. It is an endless storehouse, a bottomless treasure of divine truth. Gold isin every sand. All the wise men in the world may every one for himself learn somewhat out of every word of it, and yet leave enough still behind them for the instruction of all those that shall come after them. The fountains and springs of wisdom in it are endless, and will never be dry. We may have much truth and power out of a word, sometimes enough, but never all that is in it. There will still be enough remaining to exercise and refresh us anew for ever. So that we may attain a true sense, but we can never attain the full sense of any place; we can never exhaust the whole impression of infinite wisdom that is on the word. And how should this stir us up to be meditating in it day and night; and many the like inferences may hence be taken. Learn also,