Hebrews 1:5 Komentář

In this chapter we have a twofold comparison stated: I. Between the evangelical and legal dispensation; and the excellency of the gospel above that of the law is asserted and proved (Heb 1:1-3). II. Between the glory of Christ and that of the highest creatures, the angels; where the pre-eminence is justly given to the Lord Jesus Christ, and clearly demonstrated to belong to him (Heb 1:4 to the end).

The intention of this epistle being to demonstrate the superior excellency of the Gospel revelation to the legal one, the apostle begins with the divine author of it, in which they both agree, and observes that in other things they differ. The revelation under the law was made in times past, the Gospel revelation in these last days; the former was made to the Jewish fathers that were of old, the latter to the then present apostles; the one was made at sundry times, and in divers manners, the other was made at once, and in one way; the one was made by the prophets of the Lord, the other by his own son, Heb 1:1 and therefore the latter must be the more excellent; in proof of which the author enlarges on the character of the Son of God, with respect to his person, office, and glory; showing that he is heir of all things, the Maker of the worlds, of the same nature and glory with his Father; is omnipotent, and upholds all things by the word of his power; is the High Priest of his people, who has made satisfaction for their sins, and purged them from them, and is now at the right hand of God, Heb 1:2 He goes on to prove that he is more excellent than the angels, by a variety of arguments, and these supported by testimonies from the Scriptures; as that he has a more excellent name than any of them, being called the Son of God, Heb 1:4 which is proved from Psa 2:7 that he is the object of the worship of angels, Heb 1:6 which is required of them, Psa 97:7 that he is their Maker and Creator, Heb 1:7 which appears from Psa 104:4 that he has an everlasting kingdom, is a righteous King, and is richly anointed above his fellows, Heb 1:8 which is the sense of some passages in Psa 45:6 and that he is the founder and former of the heavens, and of the earth, and will endure when they shall not, Heb 1:10 which is confirmed by testimonies out of Psa 102:25 that he sits at the right hand of God, where none of the angels were ever admitted, Heb 1:13 as is clear from Psa 110:1 and besides, the angels, as they are ministers made by him, they are sent out from him to wait on his people, the heirs of salvation, and minister to them, and therefore he must be greater than they, Heb 1:14.

For unto which of the angels said he at any time,.... That is, he never said to any of the angels what he has said to Christ; namely, what follows, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee for though angels are called the sons of God, Job 1:6 yet are never said to be begotten by him; or, with this clause annexed to it, "this day have I begotten thee"; nor are they ever so called in a proper sense, or in such sense as Christ is: this is said to Christ, and of him, in Psa 2:7 and that agreeably to the sense of the Jewish church at this time, or the apostle would never have produced it to the Hebrews in such a manner; and not only the whole psalm in general, but this verse in particular, is owned by Jewish writers (t), both ancient and modern, to belong to the Messiah. Christ is the Son of God, not by Creation, nor by adoption, nor by office, but by nature; he is the true, proper, natural, and eternal Son of God; and as such is owned and declared by Jehovah the Father, in these words; the foundation of which relation lies in the begetting of him; which refers not to his nature, either divine or human: not to his divine nature, which is common with the Father and Spirit; wherefore if his was begotten, theirs must be also, being the same undivided nature, common to all three; much less to his human nature, in which he is never said to be begotten, but always to be made, and with respect to which he is without Father; nor to his office, as Mediator, in which he is not a Son, but a servant; besides, he was a Son, previous to his being a prophet, priest, and King; and his office is not the foundation of his sonship, but his sonship is the foundation of his office; or by which that is supported, and which fits him for the performance of it: but it has respect to his divine person; for as, in human generation, person begets person, and like begets like, so it is in divine generation; though care must be taken to remove all imperfection from it, as divisibility and multiplication of essence, priority and posteriority, dependence, and the like; nor can the modus, or manner of it, be conceived, or explained by us: the date of it, today, designs eternity, as in Isa 43:13, which is one continued day, an everlasting now; and this may be applied to any time and case, in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, his baptism, his transfiguration on the Mount, and his resurrection from the dead, as in Act 13:33 and at his ascension to heaven, when he was made Lord and Christ, and his divine sonship more manifestly appeared; which seems to be the time, and case, more especially referred to here. And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a Son: which words are taken from Sa2 7:14 and the sense is, not that he should be his son by adoption; or that he would be instead of a father to him; or that he should be as dear to him as a son is to a father; but that he was really and properly so; and he would make it manifest, and own him as such, as he did at Jordan's river, upon the Mount, and at his resurrection and ascension; though the words are spoken of Solomon, as a type of Christ, they properly belong to the antitype, who is greater than Solomon. (t) Zohar in Numb. fol. 82. 2. Maimon. in Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 11. 1. & Abarbinel, Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 37. 4. & 38. 1.

This is the way, dear friends, in which we found our salvation, Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights of heaven. In him we see mirrored God’s pure and transcendent face. Through him the eyes of our hearts have been opened. Through him our foolish and darkened understanding springs up to the light. Through him the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge. For, since “he reflects the glory of God,” “he is as much superior to the angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” For thus it is written: “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” But of his Son this is what the Master said: “You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” And again he says to him, “Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.” Who are meant by “enemies”? Those who are wicked and resist his will.

" This voice the Father was going Himself to recommend. For, says he, He establishes the words of His Son, when He says, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.

Let us see what the devil says to the Lord from the Scriptures: “It is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you; on their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’ ” See how crafty he is, even in the texts he quotes. For he wishes to diminish the Savior’s glory, as if the Savior needed the help of angels. It is as if he would strike his foot unless he were supported by their hands. The devil takes this verse from Scripture and applies it to Christ. Yet it is written not of Christ but about the saints in general. Freely and in total confidence I contradict the devil. This passage cannot be applied to the person of Christ, for Christ does not need the help of angels. He is greater than the angels and obtained a better name than they by inheritance. For God never said to any of the angels, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” He has spoken to none of them as to a son. “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” But to his own Son he speaks properly and says countless things about him in the prophets.As I say, the Son of God does not need the help of angels. No, devil; learn rather that unless Jesus helps the angels, they dash their feet. We have just heard a passage about the angels, “that we are to judge angels.” If any of the angels is seen to stumble, he stumbles because he did not reach out his hand to Jesus. If Jesus had taken his hand, he would not have stumbled. For when someone trusts in his own strength and does not call upon the help of Jesus, he stumbles and falls.

"For to which of the Angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son"? For these things indeed are spoken with reference also to the flesh: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son" - while this, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," expresses nothing else than "from [the time] that God is." For as He is said to be, from the time present (for this befits Him more than any other), so also the [word] "To-day" seems to me to be spoken here with reference to the flesh. For when He hath taken hold of it, thenceforth he speaks out all boldly. For indeed the flesh partakes of the high things, just as the Godhead of the lowly. For He who disdained not to become man, and did not decline the reality, how should He have declined the expressions?

We heard, and we who are men, are true sons through grace. The angels, however, did not hear this, lest their sublimity be thought to be from nature rather than from grace. Christ, however, is not from grace, but from nature. "I have begotten You." The Father relates the birth of the Son according to the flesh, therefore he said: "today"; Thus says the holy Athanasius. "I will be to Him a Father."

Again, accept this as the Son's birth according to the flesh, belonging to the Father; for it is clearly said, "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son according to the flesh."

From where, he says, is it evident that He is better than the angels? From His name: the name Son signifies true birth, that is, that He is from Him. If He is Son by grace, then He is lower than the angels. The expression "Today I have begotten You" means nothing other than that He is from the beginning, from which the Father also is. Just as the expression "being" ("the One who is") is used of God in the present tense, because it is most fitting for Him, so also is the expression "today." However, some considered that the words "Today I have begotten You" were spoken not of the pre-eternal birth, but of His birth in the flesh. For it too was from above: from the Holy Spirit, by the blessing of the Father. This, obviously, is said in regard to the flesh. For when He assumed it, all such things are henceforth said of Him without risk. Thus, the assumed nature inherited the authentic name of the Son, which the Word had, being united with it, since it is hypostatic in Him, as the angel also said: "and the Holy One to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk. 1:35), and again: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High" (Lk. 1:32). None of the angels received this. And if some of the righteous are also called sons of God, it is by grace; but with Christ it is not so: His sonship is by hypostatic identity with the human flesh assumed by Him.

48. – Then (v.5) he proves what he has said: first, he discusses the name inasmuch as it belongs to Christ according to His divinity; secondly, inasmuch as it belongs to Him according to His human nature (v. 5b). 49. – In regard to the first he adduces the authority of Ps. 2 (v.7): 'The Lord said to me: You are my son; this day have I begotten you.' And this in answer to the question: To what angel has God ever said, You are my son? As if to say: He never said these words to any of the angels, but to Christ alone. Here three thing are to be noted: first, the manner of His origin, in the word, said; secondly, the uniqueness of His sonship, in the words, You are my son; thirdly, its eternity when he says, This day have I begotten you. But the manner of His origin is not carnal, but spiritual and intellectual: 'For God is spirit' (Jn. 4:29); consequently, He does not engender in a carnal way, but in a spiritual and intellectual way. But the intellect, when it speaks, engenders a word, which is its concept; therefore, it is significant that he says that the Lord said to me, i.e., that the Father said to the Son. Consequently, for the Father's intellect to speak is to conceive the Word in His heart: 'My heart has uttered a good word' (Ps. 44:1); 'God speaks once, and repeats not the selfsame thing the second time' (Jb. 33:14); 'I came out of the mouth of the Most High' (Sir. 24:5). But if many others are called sons, nevertheless, it is His unique property to be the natural Son of God; but others are called sons of God, because they partake of the word of God: 'He called gods those who heard the word of God' (Jn. 10:35). But in regard to the third, that generation is not temporal, but eternal, because this day I have begotten you. Now time differs from eternity, because time varies as the motions whose measure it is; therefore, it is named by the succession of past and future. But eternity is the measure of an unchangeable thing; consequently, in eternity there is not variation due to succession of past and future, but there is only the present. Therefore, it is signified by an adverb of the present tense: this day, i.e., in eternity. But that which is coming to be, because it does not yet exist, is incomplete; and that which has come to be is complete and, therefore, perfect. Consequently, He does not say, 'I begot you', but I have begotten, because He is perfect. Yet, lest it be supposed that His entire engendering took place in the past, he adds, today, and joins the past to the present, saying, I have begotten you today. This teaches us that this engendering is always going on and is always complete. Consequently, in the word, today, permanence is designated; but in I have begotten, perfection. As if to say: You are perfect, Son; and yet your generation is eternal and you are always being engendered by me, as light is perfect in the air and yet is always proceeding from the sun: 'His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity' (Mic. 5:2): 'From the womb before the day star I have begotten you' (Ps. 109:3). But this could be explained also of temporal generation. As if to say: today, i.e., in time I have begotten you. 50. – Then (v. 5b) he clarifies his conclusion that this belongs to Christ according to His human nature. And he does this by another authority. According to a Gloss, Isaiah says: 'I will be to him a Father', yet nothing like this is to be found in Isaiah, except the statement: 'A son has been given to us' (Is. 9:6). But in 2 Sam. (7:14) and (1 Chr. 28) we find these very works spoken by the Lord to David in regard to Solomon, through whom Christ was prefigured. 51. – Yet it should be noted that in the Old Testament some things are said of figures not insofar as they are things, but insofar as they are figures; and then they do not apply to Christ, except insofar as He is prefigured. For example in Ps. 71 certain things are said of David or of Solomon, only inasmuch as they prefigured; but other things are said of them, inasmuch as they are men. Such things can then be considered as applying to them as well as to Christ. Thus, 'and he will rule from sea to sea' can never be verified of Solomon. So, in the present instance, although certain things are said of Solomon, they can also be said of Christ, Who was prefigured by him. 52. – He says, therefore, I will be, which is in the future tense, to denote that the Incarnation of the Son was to occur at some future time: 'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son made of a woman' (Gal. 4:4). But above, when He spoke of the eternal generation, He said, You are, without implying any movement; but here, when He speaks of the temporal, He says, unto me a Son, which denotes the terminus of some motion. For assumption implies a movement toward sonship. And because every movement occurs through the action of something heading toward a definite effect, he first mentions the action of the maker, because the assumption was not made in virtue of the human but of the divine, when he says, I will be to you a Father, i.e., I will assume him into a union with the person of the Son. Then he mentions the effect which resulted, because he was assumed into a personal union with the Son: He shall be to me a Son. Luke says of he first: 'The power of the Most High', i.e., of the One making the assumption, 'will over-shadow you' (Lk. 1:35). Of the second it says in Rom. (1:3): 'Who was made to him of the seed of David.' 53. – Again, I will be to him, i.e., I will glorify him to his honor and profit: 'Glorify me, Father' (Jn. 17:5). And he will be to me, i.e., to my honor, by manifesting my name to men: 'I have manifested your name to the men' (Jn. 17:6).

Different discoveries made of the Divine will to the ancient Israelites by the prophets, Heb 1:1. The discovery now perfected by the revelation of Jesus Christ, of whose excellences and glories a large description is given, Heb 1:2-13. Angels are ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, Heb 1:14.

Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee - These words are quoted from Psa 2:7, a psalm that seems to refer only to the Messiah; and they are quoted by St. Paul, Act 13:33, as referring to the resurrection of Christ. And this application of them is confirmed by the same apostle, Rom 1:4, as by his resurrection from the dead he was declared - manifestly proved, to be the Son of God with power; God having put forth his miraculous energy in raising that body from the grave which had truly died, and died a violent death, for Christ was put to death as a malefactor, but by his resurrection his innocence was demonstrated, as God could not work a miracle to raise a wicked man from the dead. As Adam was created by God, and because no natural generation could have any operation in this case, therefore he was called the son of God, Luk 3:38, and could never have seen corruption if he had not sinned, so the human nature of Jesus Christ, formed by the energy of the eternal Spirit in the womb of the virgin, without any human intervention, was for this very reason called the Son of God, Luk 1:35; and because it had not sinned, therefore it could not see corruption, nor was it even mortal, but through a miraculous display of God's infinite love, for the purpose of making a sacrificial atonement for the sin of the world and God, having raised this sacrificed human nature from the dead, declared that same Jesus (who was, as above stated, the Son of God) to be his Son, the promised Messiah; and as coming by the Virgin Mary, the right heir to the throne of David, according to the uniform declaration of all the prophets. The words, This day have I begotten thee, must refer either to his incarnation, when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit; or to his resurrection from the dead, when God, by this sovereign display of his almighty energy, declared him to be his Son, vindicated his innocence, and also the purity and innocence of the blessed virgin, who was the mother of this son, and who declared him to be produced in her womb by the power of God. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, to which the words most properly refer, not only gave the fullest proof that he was an innocent and righteous man, but also that he had accomplished the purpose for which he died, and that his conception was miraculous, and his mother a pure and unspotted virgin. This is a subject of infinite importance to the Christian system, and of the last consequence in reference to the conviction and conversion of the Jews, for whose use this epistle was sent by God. Here is the rock on which they split; they deny this Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and their blasphemies against him and his virgin mother are too shocking to be transcribed. The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus refutes their every calumny; proves his miraculous conception; vindicates the blessed virgin; and, in a word, declares him to be the Son of God with power. This most important use of this saying has passed unnoticed by almost every Christian writer which I have seen; and yet it lies here at the foundation of all the apostle's proofs. If Jesus was not thus the Son of God, the whole Christian system is vain and baseless: but his resurrection demonstrates him to have been the Son of God; therefore every thing built on this foundation is more durable than the foundations of heaven, and as inexpugnable as the throne of the eternal King. He shall be to me a Son? - As the Jews have ever blasphemed against the Sonship of Christ, it was necessary that the apostle should adduce and make strong all his proofs, and show that this was not a new revelation; that it was that which was chiefly intended in several scriptures of the Old Testament, which, without farther mentioning the places where found, he immediately produces. This place, which is quoted from Sa2 7:14, shows us that the seed which God promised to David, and who was to sit upon his throne, and whose throne should be established for ever, was not Solomon, but Jesus Christ; and indeed he quotes the words so as to intimate that they were so understood by the Jews. See among the observations at the end of the chapter.

THE HIGHEST OF ALL REVELATIONS IS GIVEN US NOW IN THE SON OF GOD, WHO IS GREATER THAN THE ANGELS, AND WHO, HAVING COMPLETED REDEMPTION, SITS ENTHRONED AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND. (Heb 1:1-14) at sundry times--Greek, "in many portions." All was not revealed to each one prophet; but one received one portion of revelation, and another another. To Noah the quarter of the world to which Messiah should belong was revealed; to Abraham, the nation; to Jacob, the tribe; to David and Isaiah, the family; to Micah, the town of nativity; to Daniel, the exact time; to Malachi, the coming of His forerunner, and His second advent; through Jonah, His burial and resurrection; through Isaiah and Hosea, His resurrection. Each only knew in part; but when that which was perfect came in Messiah, that which was in part was done away (Co1 13:12). in divers manners--for example, internal suggestions, audible voices, the Urim and Thummim, dreams, and visions. "In one way He was seen by Abraham, in another by Moses, in another by Elias, and in another by Micah; Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel, beheld different forms" [THEODORET]. (Compare Num 12:6-8). The Old Testament revelations were fragmentary in substance, and manifold in form; the very multitude of prophets shows that they prophesied only in part. In Christ, the revelation of God is full, not in shifting hues of separated color, but Himself the pure light, uniting in His one person the whole spectrum (Heb 1:3). spake--the expression usual for a Jew to employ in addressing Jews. So Matthew, a Jew writing especially for Jews, quotes Scripture, not by the formula, "It is written," but "said," &c. in time past--From Malachi, the last of the Old Testament prophets, for four hundred years, there had arisen no prophet, in order that the Son might be the more an object of expectation [BENGEL]. As God (the Father) is introduced as having spoken here; so God the Son, Heb 2:3; God the Holy Ghost, Heb 3:7. the fathers--the Jewish fathers. The Jews of former days (Co1 10:1). by--Greek, "in." A mortal king speaks by his ambassador, not (as the King of kings) in his ambassador. The Son is the last and highest manifestation of God (Mat 21:34, Mat 21:37); not merely a measure, as in the prophets, but the fulness of the Spirit of God dwelling in Him bodily (Joh 1:16; Joh 3:34; Col 2:9). Thus he answers the Jewish objection drawn from their prophets. Jesus is the end of all prophecy (Rev 19:10), and of the law of Moses (Joh 1:17; Joh 5:46).

For--substantiating His having "obtained a more excellent name than the angels." unto which--A frequent argument in this Epistle is derived from the silence of Scripture (Heb 1:13; Heb 2:16; Heb 7:3, Heb 7:14) [BENGEL]. this day have I begotten thee-- (Psa 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Act 13:33; Rom 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (compare Luk 20:36; Rom 1:4; Rev 1:5); (4) By actual possession, as heir of all [BISHOP PEARSON]. The Psalm here quoted applied primarily in a less full sense to Solomon, of whom God promised by Nathan to David. "I will be his father and he shall be my son." But as the whole theocracy was of Messianic import, the triumph of David over Hadadezer and neighboring kings (2Sa. 8:1-18; Psa 2:2-3, Psa 2:9-12) is a type of God's ultimately subduing all enemies under His Son, whom He sets (Hebrew, "anointed," Psa 2:6) on His "holy hill of Zion," as King of the Jews and of the whole earth. the antitype to Solomon, son of David. The "I" in Greek is emphatic; I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5). when Thou hast ransomed and opened heaven to Thy people. He had been always Son, but now first was manifested as such in His once humbled, now exalted manhood united to His Godhead. ALFORD refers "this day" to the eternal generation of the Son: the day in which the Son was begotten by the Father is an everlasting to-day: there never was a yesterday or past time to Him, nor a to-morrow or future time: "Nothing there is to come, and nothing past, but an eternal NOW doth ever last" (Pro 30:4; Joh 10:30, Joh 10:38; Joh 16:28; Joh 17:8). The communication of the divine essence in its fulness, involves eternal generation; for the divine essence has no beginning. But the context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb 1:4). The "bringing the first-begotten into the world" (Heb 1:6), is not subsequent, as ALFORD thinks, to Heb 1:5, but anterior to it (compare Act 2:30-35).