Heb 1:8, 10-12 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 8. But unto the Son he saith . In . The fact that the writer of this epistle makes this application of the Psalm to the Messiah, proves that it was so applied in his time, or that it would be readily admitted to be applicable to him. It has been generally admitted, by both Jewish and Christian interpreters, to have such a reference. Even those who have doubted its primary applicability to the Messiah, have regarded it as referring to him in a secondary sense. Many have supposed that it referred to Solomon in the primary sense, and that it has a secondary reference to the Messiah. To me it seems most probable that it had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah. It is to be remembered, that the hope of the Messiah was the peculiar hope of the Jewish people. The coming of the future King, so early promised, was the great event to which they all looked forward with the deepest interest. That hope inspired their prophets and their bards, and cheered the hearts of the nation in the time of despondency. The Messiah, if I may so express it, was the hero of the Old Testament--more so than Achilles is of the Iliad, and AEneas of the AEniad. The sacred poets were accustomed to employ all their most magnificent imagery in describing him, and to present him in every form that was beautiful in their conception, and that would be gratifying to the pride and hopes of the nation. Every thing that is gorgeous and splendid in description is lavished on him; and they were never under any apprehension of attributing to him too great magnificence in his personal reign; too great beauty of moral character; or too great an extent of dominion. That which would be regarded by them as a magnificent description of a monarch, they freely applied to him; and this is evidently the case in this Psalm. That the description may have been, in part, derived from the view of Solomon in the magnificence of his court, is possible, but no more probable than that it was derived from the general view of the splendour of any oriental monarch, or than that it might have been the description of a monarch which was the pure creation of inspired poetry. Indeed, I see not why this Psalm should ever have been supposed to be applicable to Solomon. His name is not mentioned. It has no peculiar applicability to him. There is nothing that would apply to him which would not also apply to many an oriental prince. There are some things in it which are much less applicable to him than to many others. The king here described is a conqueror . He girds his sword on his thigh, and his arrows are sharp in the hearts of his foes, and the people are subdued under him. This was not true of Solomon. His was a reign of peace and tranquillity, nor was he ever distinguished for war. On the whole, it seems clear to me, that this Psalm is designed to be a beautiful poetic description of the Messiah as king . The images are drawn from the usual characteristics of an oriental prince; and there are many things in the poem--as there, are in parables--for the sake of keeping, or veri-similitude , and which are not, in the interpretation, to be cut to the quick. The writer imagined to himself a magnificent and beautiful prince: a prince riding prosperously in his conquests; swaying a permanent and wide dominion; clothed in rich and splendid vestments; eminently upright and pure; and scattering blessings everywhere--and that prince was the Messiah. The Psalm, therefore, I regard as relating originally and exclusively to Christ; and though, in the interpretation, the circumstances should not be unduly pressed, nor an attempt be made to spiritualize them, yet the whole is a glowing and most beautiful description of Christ as a King. The same principles of interpretation should be applied to it which are applied to parables, and the same allowance be made for the introduction of circumstances for the sake of keeping, or for finishing the story. If this be the correct view, then Paul has quoted the Psalm in conformity exactly with its original intention, as he undoubtedly quoted it as it was understood in his time. Thy throne . A throne is the seat on which a monarch sits, and is here the symbol of dominion, because kings, when acting as rulers, sit on thrones. Thus a throne becomes the emblem of authority or empire. Here it means, that his rule or dominion would be perpetual- " for ever and ever " --which assuredly could not be applied to Solomon. O God . This certainly could not be applied to Solomon; but applied to the Messiah, it proves what the apostle is aiming to prove--that he is above the angels. The argument is that a name is given to him which is never given to them . They are not called God in any strict and proper sense. The argument here requires us to understand this word as used in a sense more exalted than any name which is ever given to angels, and though it may be maintained that the name Elohim is given to magistrates or to angels, yet here the argument requires us to understand it as used in a sense superior to what it ever is when applied to an angel--or of course to any creature, since it was the express design of the argument to prove that the Messiah was superior to the angels. The word God should be taken in its natural and obvious sense, unless there is some necessary reason for limiting it. If applied to magistrates ( ) it must be so limited. If applied to the Messiah there is no such necessity, ( ,) and it should be taken in its natural and proper sense. The form here--οθεος in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it. Stuart . This, then, is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word. Unitarians proposed to translate this, "God is thy throne;" but how can God be a throne of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary?--This refers, as it seems to me, to the Messiah as king . It does not relate to his mode of existence before the incarnation, but to him as the magnificent monarch of his people. Still the ground or reason why this name is given to him is that he is divine. It is language which properly expresses his nature. He must have a divine nature, or such language would be improper. I regard this passage, therefore, as full proof that the Lord Jesus is divine ; nor is it possible to evade this conclusion by any fair interpretation of it. It cannot be wrong to address him as God; nor addressing him as such, not to regard him as divine. Is for ever and ever . This could not, in any proper sense, apply to Solomon. As applied to the Messiah, it means that his essential kingdom will be perpetual, . As Mediator his kingdom will be given up to the Father, or to God, without reference to a mediatorial work, ( -- ; ,) but his reign over his people will be perpetual. There never will come a time when they shall not obey and serve him, though the peculiar form of his kingdom, as connected with the work of mediation , will be changed. The form of the organized church, for example, will be changed--for there shall be no necessity for it in heaven--but the essential dominion and power of the Son of God will not cease. He shall have the same dominion which he had before he entered on the work of mediation; and that will be eternal. It is also true, that, compared with earthly monarchs, his kingdom shall be perpetual. They soon die. Dynasties pass away. But his empire extends from age to age, and is properly a perpetual dominion. The fair and obvious interpretation of this passage would satisfy me, were there nothing else, that this Psalm had no reference to Solomon, but was designed originally as a description of the Messiah, as the expected King and Prince of his people. A sceptre of righteousness . That is, a right or just sceptre. The phrase is a Hebraism. The former expression described the perpetuity of his kingdom; this describes its equable nature. It would be just and equal. . A sceptre is a staff or wand usually made of wood, five or six feet long, and commonly overlaid with gold, or ornamented with golden rings. Sometimes, however, the sceptre was made of ivory, or wholly of gold. It was borne in the hands of kings as an emblem of authority and power. Probably it had its origin in the staff or crook of the shepherd-- as kings were at first regarded as the shepherds of their people. Thus Agamemnon is commonly called, by Homer, the shepherd of the people. The sceptre thus becomes the emblem of kingly office and power--as when we speak of swaying a sceptre ;-- and the idea here is, that the Messiah would be a King , and that the authority which he would wield would be equitable and just. He would not be governed, as monarchs often are, by mere caprice, or by the wishes of courtiers and flatterers; he would not be controlled by mere will, and the love of arbitrary power; but the execution of his laws would be in accordance with the principles of equity and justice. How well this accords with the character of the Lord Jesus we need not pause to show. Comp. , seq. (b) "he saith" (2) "righteousness" "rightness or straightness"

Hebrews 1:8

Verse 8. But unto the Son he saith. In Ps 45:6,7. The fact that the writer of this epistle makes this application of the Psalm to the Messiah, proves that it was so applied in his time, or that it would be readily admitted to be applicable to him. It has been generally admitted, by both Jewish and Christian interpreters, to have such a reference. Even those who have doubted its primary applicability to the Messiah, have regarded it as referring to him in a secondary sense. Many have supposed that it referred to Solomon in the primary sense, and that it has a secondary reference to the Messiah. To me it seems most probable that it had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah. It is to be remembered, that the hope of the Messiah was the peculiar hope of the Jewish people. The coming of the future King, so early promised, was the great event to which they all looked forward with the deepest interest. That hope inspired their prophets and their bards, and cheered the hearts of the nation in the time of despondency. The Messiah, if I may so express it, was the hero of the Old Testament--more so than Achilles is of the Iliad, and AEneas of the AEniad. The sacred poets were accustomed to employ all their most magnificent imagery in describing him, and to present him in every form that was beautiful in their conception, and that would be gratifying to the pride and hopes of the nation. Every thing that is gorgeous and splendid in description is lavished on him; and they were never under any apprehension of attributing to him too great magnificence in his personal reign; too great beauty of moral character; or too great an extent of dominion. That which would be regarded by them as a magnificent description of a monarch, they freely applied to him; and this is evidently the case in this Psalm. That the description may have been, in part, derived from the view of Solomon in the magnificence of his court, is possible, but no more probable than that it was derived from the general view of the splendour of any oriental monarch, or than that it might have been the description of a monarch which was the pure creation of inspired poetry. Indeed, I see not why this Psalm should ever have been supposed to be applicable to Solomon. His name is not mentioned. It has no peculiar applicability to him. There is nothing that would apply to him which would not also apply to many an oriental prince. There are some things in it which are much less applicable to him than to many others. The king here described is a conqueror. He girds his sword on his thigh, and his arrows are sharp in the hearts of his foes, and the people are subdued under him. This was not true of Solomon. His was a reign of peace and tranquillity, nor was he ever distinguished for war. On the whole, it seems clear to me, that this Psalm is designed to be a beautiful poetic description of the Messiah as king. The images are drawn from the usual characteristics of an oriental prince; and there are many things in the poem--as there, are in parables--for the sake of keeping, or veri-similitude, and which are not, in the interpretation, to be cut to the quick. The writer imagined to himself a magnificent and beautiful prince: a prince riding prosperously in his conquests; swaying a permanent and wide dominion; clothed in rich and splendid vestments; eminently upright and pure; and scattering blessings everywhere--and that prince was the Messiah. The Psalm, therefore, I regard as relating originally and exclusively to Christ; and though, in the interpretation, the circumstances should not be unduly pressed, nor an attempt be made to spiritualize them, yet the whole is a glowing and most beautiful description of Christ as a King. The same principles of interpretation should be applied to it which are applied to parables, and the same allowance be made for the introduction of circumstances for the sake of keeping, or for finishing the story. If this be the correct view, then Paul has quoted the Psalm in conformity exactly with its original intention, as he undoubtedly quoted it as it was understood in his time.

Thy throne. A throne is the seat on which a monarch sits, and is here the symbol of dominion, because kings, when acting as rulers, sit on thrones. Thus a throne becomes the emblem of authority or empire. Here it means, that his rule or dominion would be perpetual- "for ever and ever" --which assuredly could not be applied to Solomon.

O God. This certainly could not be applied to Solomon; but applied to the Messiah, it proves what the apostle is aiming to prove--that he is above the angels. The argument is that a name is given to him which is never given to them. They are not called God in any strict and proper sense. The argument here requires us to understand this word as used in a sense more exalted than any name which is ever given to angels, and though it may be maintained that the name Elohim is given to magistrates or to angels, yet here the argument requires us to understand it as used in a sense superior to what it ever is when applied to an angel--or of course to any creature, since it was the express design of the argument to prove that the Messiah was superior to the angels. The word God should be taken in its natural and obvious sense, unless there is some necessary reason for limiting it. If applied to magistrates (Ps 82:6) it must be so limited. If applied to the Messiah there is no such necessity, (Jn 1:1, Isa 10:6, 1Jn 5:20, Php 2:6,) and it should be taken in its natural and proper sense. The form here--οθεος in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it. Stuart. This, then, is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word. Unitarians proposed to translate this, "God is thy throne;" but how can God be a throne of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary?--This refers, as it seems to me, to the Messiah as king. It does not relate to his mode of existence before the incarnation, but to him as the magnificent monarch of his people. Still the ground or reason why this name is given to him is that he is divine. It is language which properly expresses his nature. He must have a divine nature, or such language would be improper. I regard this passage, therefore, as full proof that the Lord Jesus is divine; nor is it possible to evade this conclusion by any fair interpretation of it. It cannot be wrong to address him as God; nor addressing him as such, not to regard him as divine.

Is for ever and ever. This could not, in any proper sense, apply to Solomon. As applied to the Messiah, it means that his essential kingdom will be perpetual, Lk 1:33. As Mediator his kingdom will be given up to the Father, or to God, without reference to a mediatorial work, (1Cor 15:24,28--1Cor 15:24; 1Cor 15:28,) but his reign over his people will be perpetual. There never will come a time when they shall not obey and serve him, though the peculiar form of his kingdom, as connected with the work of mediation, will be changed. The form of the organized church, for example, will be changed--for there shall be no necessity for it in heaven--but the essential dominion and power of the Son of God will not cease. He shall have the same dominion which he had before he entered on the work of mediation; and that will be eternal. It is also true, that, compared with earthly monarchs, his kingdom shall be perpetual. They soon die. Dynasties pass away. But his empire extends from age to age, and is properly a perpetual dominion. The fair and obvious interpretation of this passage would satisfy me, were there nothing else, that this Psalm had no reference to Solomon, but was designed originally as a description of the Messiah, as the expected King and Prince of his people.

A sceptre of righteousness. That is, a right or just sceptre. The phrase is a Hebraism. The former expression described the perpetuity of his kingdom; this describes its equable nature. It would be just and equal. Isa 11:5. A sceptre is a staff or wand usually made of wood, five or six feet long, and commonly overlaid with gold, or ornamented with golden rings. Sometimes, however, the sceptre was made of ivory, or wholly of gold. It was borne in the hands of kings as an emblem of authority and power. Probably it had its origin in the staff or crook of the shepherd-- as kings were at first regarded as the shepherds of their people. Thus Agamemnon is commonly called, by Homer, the shepherd of the people. The sceptre thus becomes the emblem of kingly office and power--as when we speak of swaying a sceptre;-- and the idea here is, that the Messiah would be a King, and that the authority which he would wield would be equitable and just. He would not be governed, as monarchs often are, by mere caprice, or by the wishes of courtiers and flatterers; he would not be controlled by mere will, and the love of arbitrary power; but the execution of his laws would be in accordance with the principles of equity and justice. How well this accords with the character of the Lord Jesus we need not pause to show. Comp. Isa 11:2, seq.

(b) "he saith" Ps 14:6,7 (2) "righteousness" "rightness or straightness"

Hebrews 1:10-12

Verse 10. And. That is, "To add another instance;" or, "to the Son he saith in another place, or in the following language." This is connected with Heb 1:8. "Unto the Son he saith, (Heb 1:8,) Thy throne, etc.--and (Heb 1:10) he also saith, Thou Lord," etc. That this is the meaning is apparent, because

(1.) the object of the whole quotation is to show the exalted character of the Son of God, and

(2.) an address here to JEHOVAH would be wholly irrelevant. Why, in an argument designed to prove that the Son of God was superior to the angels, should the writer break out in an address to JEHOVAH, in view of the fact that he had laid the foundations of the world, and that he himself would continue to live when the heavens should be rolled up and pass away? Such is not the manner of Paul, or of any other good writer; and it is clear that the writer here designed to adduce this as applicable to the Messiah. Whatever difficulties there may be about the principles on which it is done, and the reason why this passage was selected for the purpose, there can be no doubt about the design of the writer. He meant to be understood as applying it to the Messiah, beyond all question, or the quotation is wholly irrelevant, and it is inconceivable why it should have been made.

Thou, Lord. This is taken from Ps 102:25-27. The quotation is made from the Septuagint, with only a slight variation, and is an accurate translation of the Hebrew. In the Psalm, there can be no doubt that JEHOVAH is intended. This is apparent on the face of the Psalm, and particularly because the name JEHOVAH is introduced Ps 102:1,12, and because he is addressed as the Creator of all things, and as immutable. No one, on reading the Psalm, ever would doubt that it referred to God; and, if the apostle meant to apply it to the Lord Jesus, it proves most conclusively that he is divine. In regard to the difficult inquiry, why he applied this to the Messiah, or on what principle such an application can be vindicated, we may perhaps throw some light by the following remarks. It must be admitted, that probably few persons, if any, on reading the Psalm, would suppose that it referred to the Messiah; but

(1.) the fact that the apostle thus employs it, proves that it was understood, in his time, to have such a reference, or, at least, that those to whom he wrote would admit that it had such a reference. On no other principle would he have used it in an argument. This is at least of some consequence, in showing what the prevailing interpretation was.

(2.) It cannot be demonstrated that it had no such reference--for such was the habit of the sacred writers in making the future Messiah the theme of their poetry, that no one can prove that the writer this Psalm did not design that the Messiah should be the subject of his praise here.

(3.) There is nothing in the Psalm which may not be applied to the Messiah; but there is much in it that is peculiarly applicable to him. Suppose, for example, that the Psalmist, Ps 102:1-11, in his complaints, represents the people of God, before the Redeemer appeared, as lowly, sad, dejected, and afflicted, speaking of himself as one of them, and as a fair representative of that people, the remainder of the Psalm will well agree with the promised redemption. Thus, having described the sadness and sorrow of the people of God, he speaks of the fact that God would arise and have mercy upon Zion, (Ps 102:13,14,) that the heathen would fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth would see his glory, (Ps 102:15,) and that when the Lord should build up Zion he would appear in his glory, Ps 102:16. To whom else could this be so well applied as to the Messiah? To what time so well as to his time? Thus, too, in Ps 102:20, it is said that the Lord would look down from heaven "to hear the groaning of the prisoner, and to loose them that are appointed to death"-- language remarkably resembling that used by Isaiah, Isa 61:1 which the Saviour applies to himself, in Lk 4:17-21. The passage then quoted by the apostle (Ps 102:25-27) is designed to denote the immutability of the Messiah, and the fact that in him all the interests of the church were safe. He would not change. He had formed all things, and he would remain the same. His kingdom would be permanent, amidst all the changes occurring on earth, and his people had no cause of apprehension or alarm, Ps 102:28.

(4.) Paul applies this language to the Messiah, in accordance with the doctrine which he had stated, (Heb 1:2,) that it was by him that God "made the worlds." Having stated that, he seems to have felt that it was not improper to apply to him the passages occurings in the Old Testament that speak of the work of creation. The argument is this. "He was, in fact, the Creator of all things. But, to the Creator, there is applied language in the Scriptures which shows that he was far exalted above the angels. He would remain the same, while the heavens and the earth should fade away. His years are enduring and eternal. Such a Being MUST be superior to the angels; such a Being must be divine." The words "Thou, Lord" συκυριε are not in the Hebrew of the Psalm, though they are in the Septuagint. In the Hebrew, in the Psalm, (Ps 102:24,) it is an address to God--"I said, O my God"-- --but there can be no doubt that the Psalmist meant to address JEHOVAH, and that the word God is used in its proper sense, denoting divinity. See Ps 102:1,12, of the Psalm.

In the beginning. See Gen 1:1. When the world was made. Comp. Jn 1:1, where the same phrase is applied to the Messiah --"In the beginning was the Word."

Hast laid the foundation of the earth. Hast made the earth. This language is such as is common in the Scriptures, where the earth is represented as laid on a foundation, or as supported. It is figurative language, derived from the act of rearing an edifice. The meaning here is, that the Son of God was the original Creator or Founder of the universe. He did not merely arrange it out of pre-existing materials, but he was properly its Creator or Founder.

And the heavens art the works of thine hands. This must demonstrate the Lord Jesus to be divine. He that made the vast heavens must be God. No creature could perform a work like that; nor can we conceive that power to create the vast array of distant worlds could possibly be delegated. If that power could be delegated, there is not an attribute of Deity which may not be, and thus all our notions of what constitutes divinity would be utterly confounded. The word "heavens" here must mean all parts of the universe except the earth, see Gen 1:1. The word hands is used, because it is by the hands that we usually perform any work.

(a) "Thou Lord" Ps 102:25 Verse 11. They shall perish. That is, the heavens and the earth. They shall pass away; or they shall be destroyed. Probably no more is meant by the phrase here, than that important changes will take place in them, or than that they will change their form, Still, it is not possible to foresee what changes may yet take place in the heavenly bodies, or to say that the present universe may not at some period be destroyed, and be succeeded by another creation still more magnificent. He that created the universe by a word, can destroy it by a word; and he that formed the present frame of nature can cause it to be succeeded by another, not less wonderful and glorious. The Scriptures seem to hold out the idea, that the present frame of the universe shall be destroyed. See 2Pet 3:10-13; Mt 24:35.

But thou remainest. Thou shalt not die, or be destroyed, What a sublime thought! The idea is, that though the heavens and earth should suddenly disappear, or though they should gradually wear out and become extinct, yet there is one infinite Being who remains unaffected, and unchanged. Nothing can reach or disturb him. All these changes shall take place under his direction, and by his command. See Lev 20:11. Let us not be alarmed, then, at any revolution. Let us not fear, though we should see the heavens rolled up as a scroll, and the stars falling from their places. God, the Creator and Redeemer, presides over all. He is unchanged, He ever lives; and though the universe should pass away, it will be only at his bidding, and under his direction.

And they all shall wax old. Shall grow or become old. The word wax is an old Saxon word, meaning to grow, or increase, or become. The heavens here are compared with a garment-meaning, that as that grows old and decays, so it will be with the heavens, and the earth. The language is evidently figurative; and yet who can tell how much literal truth there may be couched under it? Is it absurd to suppose that that sun which daily sends forth so many countless millions of beams of light over the universe, may, in a course of ages, become diminished in its splendour, and shine with feeble lustre? Can there be constant exhaustion, a constant burning like that, and yet no tendency to decay at some far distant period? Not unless the material for its splendour shall be supplied from the boundless resources of the Great Source of Light--God; and when he shall choose to with. hold it, even that glorious sun must be dimmed of its splendour, and shine with enfeebled beams.

(*) "wax old" "shall become old" Verse 12. And as vesture, A garment;--literally something thrown around--περιβολαιον,--and denoting properly the outer garment, the cloak or mantle. Mt 5:40.

Shalt thou fold them up. That is, the heavens. They are represented in the Scriptures as an expanse, or something spread out, (Heb. in Gen 1:7;) and a curtain, or tent, (Isa 40:22,) and as a scroll that might be spread out or rolled up like a book or volume, Isa 34:4, Rev 6:14. Here they are represented as a garment or mantle that might be folded up--language borrowed from folding up and laying aside garments that are no longer fit for use.

And they shall be changed. That is, they shall be exchanged for others, or they shall give place to the new heavens and the new earth. 2Pet 3:13. The meaning is, that the present form of the heavens and the earth is not to be permanent, but is to be succeeded by others, or to pass away, but that the Creator is to remain the same.

Thou art the same. Thou wilt not change.

And thy years shall not fail. Thou wilt exist for ever unchanged. What could more clearly prove that he of whom this is spoken is immutable? Yet it is indubitably spoken of the Messiah, and must demonstrate that he is divine. These attributes cannot be conferred on a creature; and nothing can be clearer, than that he who penned the epistle believed that the Son of God was divine.