Joh 1:1-2, Phili 2:6, Heb 1:3, 10 | Barnes | STEP | PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. John, the writer of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee and Salome; compare with . His father was a fisherman of Galilee, though it would appear that he was not destitute of property, and was not in the lowest condition of life. He had hired men in his employ, . Salome is described as one who attended our Saviour in his travels, and ministered to his wants, . Jesus commended his own mother Mary, on the cross, to John, and he took her to his own home ( ), with whom, history informs us, she lived until her death, about fifteen years after the crucifixion of Christ; and John was known to Caiaphas, the high-priest, . From all this it would seem not improbable that John had some property, and was better known than any of the other apostles. He was the youngest of the apostles when called, and lived to the greatest age, and is the only one who is supposed to have died a peaceful death. He was called to be a follower of Jesus while engaged with his father and his elder brother James mending their nets at the Sea of Tiberias, . John was admitted by our Saviour to peculiar favour and friendship. One of the ancient fathers (Theophylact) says that he was related to him. "Joseph," he says, "had seven children by a former wife, four sons and three daughters, Martha, Esther, and Salome , whose son John was; therefore Salome was reckoned our Lord's sister, and John was his nephew." If this was the case it may explain the reason why James and John sought and expected the first places in his kingdom, . These may also possibly be the persons who were called our Lord's "brethren" and "sisters," . This may also explain the reason why our Saviour committed his mother to the care of John on the cross, . The two brothers, James and John, with Peter, were several times admitted to peculiar favours by our Lord. They were the only disciples that were permitted to be present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, ; they only were permitted to attend the Saviour to the mount where he was transfigured, . The same three were permitted to be present at his sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane, ; . And it was to these disciples, together with Andrew, to whom the Saviour specially addressed himself when he made known the desolations that were coming upon Jerusalem and Judea; compare . John was also admitted to peculiar friendship with the Lord Jesus. Hence he is mentioned as "that disciple whom Jesus loved" ( ), and he is represented ( ) as leaning on his bosom at the institution of the Lord's Supper-an evidence of peculiar friendship. . Though the Redeemer was attached to all his disciples, yet there is no improbability in supposing that his disposition was congenial with that of the meek and amiable John--thus authorizing and setting the example of special friendships among Christians. To John was committed the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus. After the ascension of Christ he remained some time at Jerusalem, . John is also mentioned as having been sent down to Samaria to preach the gospel there with Peter ( ); and from Acts chapter 15 it appears that he was present at the council at Jerusalem, A.D. 49 or 50. All this agrees with what is said by Eusebius, that he lived at Jerusalem till the death of Mary, fifteen years after the crucifixion of Christ. Till this time it is probable that he had not been engaged in preaching the gospel among the Gentiles. At what time he went first among the Gentiles to preach the gospel is not certainly known. It has commonly been supposed that he resided in Judea and the neighbourhood until the war broke out with the Romans, and that he came into Asia Minor about the year 69 or 70. It is clear that he was not at Ephesus at the time that Paul visited those regions, as in all the travels of Paul and Luke there is no mention made of John. Ecclesiastical history informs us that he spent the latter part of his life in Asia Minor, and that he resided chiefly at Ephesus, the chief city of that country. Of his residence there little is certainly known. In the latter part of his life he was banished to Patmos, a small desolate island in the AEgean Sea, about twenty miles in circumference. This is commonly supposed to have been during the persecution of Domitian, i.n the latter part of his reign. Domitian died A.D. 96. It is probable that he returned soon after that, in the reign of the Emperor Trajan. In that island he wrote the book of Revelation. . After his return from Patmos he lived peaceably at Ephesus until his death, which is supposed to have occurred not long after. He was buried at Ephesus; and it has been commonly thought that he was the only one of the apostles who did not suffer martyrdom. It is evident that he lived to a very advanced period of life. We know not his age, indeed, when Christ called him to follow him, but we cannot suppose it was less than twenty-five or thirty. If so, he must have been not far from one hundred years old when he died. Many anecdotes are related of him while he remained at Ephesus, but there is no sufficient evidence of their truth. Some have said that he was taken to Rome in a time of persecution and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, and came out uninjured. It has been said also that, going into a bath one day at Ephesus, he perceived Cerinthus , who denied the divinity of the Saviour, and that he fled from him hastily, to express his disapprobation of his doctrine. It is also said, and of this there can be no doubt, that during his latter years he was not able to make a long discourse. He was carried to the church, and was accustomed to say nothing but this, "Little children, love one another." At length his disciples asked him why he always dwelt upon the same thing. He replied, "Because it is the Lord's command; and if this be done, it is sufficient." Learned men have been much divided about the time when this Gospel was written. Wetstein supposed it was written just after our Saviour's ascension; Mill and Le Clerc, that it was written in 97; Dr. Lardner, that it was about the year 68, just before the destruction of Jerusalem. The common opinion is that it was written at Ephesus after his return from Patmos, and of course as late as the year 97 or 98. Nothing can be determined with certainty on the subject, and it is a matter of very little consequence. There is no doubt that it was written by John. This is abundantly confirmed by the ancient fathers, and was not questioned by Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian, the acutest enemies of revelation in the early ages. It has never been extensively questioned to have been the work of John, and is one of the books of the New Testament whose canonical authority was never disputed. See Lardner, or Paley's Evidences . The design of writing it John himself states, . It was to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that those who believed might have life through his name. This design is kept in view through the whole Gospel, and should be remembered in our attempts to explain it . Various attempts have been made to show that he wrote it to confute the followers of Cerinthus and the Gnostics, but no satisfactory evidence of such a design has been furnished. As he wrote after the other evangelists, he has recorded many things which they omitted. He dwells much more fully than they do on the divine character of Jesus; relates many things pertaining to the early part of his ministry which they had omitted; records many more of his discourses than they have done, and particularly the interesting discourse at the institution of the Supper. See chapters 14-17. It has been remarked that there are evidences in this Gospel that it was not written for the Jews. The author explains words and customs which to a Jew would have needed no explanation. See . The style in the Greek indicates that he was an unlearned man. It is simple, plain, unpolished, such as we should suppose would be used by one in his circumstances. At the same time it is dignified, containing pure and profound sentiments, and is on many accounts the most difficult of all the books of the New Testament to interpret. It contains more about Christ , his person, design, and work, than any of the other Gospels. The other evangelists were employed more in recording the miracles , and giving external evidence of the divine mission of Jesus. John is employed chiefly in telling us what he was, and what was his peculiar doctrine. His aim was to show, 1st. That Jesus was the Messiah. 2nd. To show, from the words of Jesus himself , what the Messiah was. The other evangelists record his parables, his miracles, his debates with the Scribes and Pharisees; John records chiefly his discourses about himself . If anyone wishes to learn the true doctrine respecting the Messiah, the Son of God , expressed in simple language, but with most sublime conceptions; to learn the true nature and character of God, and the way of approach to his mercy-seat; to see the true nature of Christian piety, or the source and character of religious consolation; to have perpetually before him the purest model of character the world has seen, and to contemplate the purest precepts that have ever been delivered to man, he cannot better do it than by a prayerful study of the Gospel by John. It may be added that this Gospel is of itself proof that cannot be overthrown of the truth of revelation. John was a fisherman, unhonoured and unlearned, . What man in that rank of life now could compose a book like this? Can it be conceived that any man of that rank, unless under the influence of inspiration, could conceive so sublime notions of God, could present so pure views of morals, and could draw a character so inimitably lovely and pure as that of Jesus Christ? To ask these questions is to answer them. And this Gospel will stand to the end of time as an unanswerable demonstration that the fisherman who wrote it was under a more than human guidance, and was, according to the promise that he has recorded ( comp. ), guided into all truth . It will also remain as an unanswerable proof that the character which he has described--the character of the Lord Jesus--was real. It is a perfect character. It has not a flaw. How has this happened? The attempt has often been made to draw a perfect character--and as often, in every other instance, failed. How is it, when Homer and Virgil, and the ancient historians, have all failed to describe a perfect character, with the purest models before them, and with all the aid of imagination, that in every instance they have failed? How is it that this has at last been accomplished only by a Jewish fisherman? The difficulty is vastly increased if another idea is borne in mind. John describes one who he believed had a divine nature, . It is an attempt to describe God in human nature , or to show how the Divine Being acts when united with man, or when appearing in human form. And the description is complete. There is not a word expressed by the Lord Jesus, or an emotion ascribed to him, inconsistent with such a supposition. But this same attempt was often made, and as often failed. Homer and Virgil, and all the ancient poets, have undertaken to show what the gods would be if they came down and conversed with man. And what were they? What were Jupiter, and Juno, and Venus, and Mars, and Vulcan? Beings of lust, and envy, and contention, and blood. How has it happened that the only successful account which has been given of the divine nature united with the human, and of living and acting as became such a union, has been given by a Jewish fisherman? How, unless the character was real, and the writer under a guidance far superior to the genius of Homer and the imagination of Virgil--the guidance of the Holy Spirit? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. Verse 1. In the beginning . This expression is used also in . To that place John evidently has allusion here, and means to apply to "the Word" an expression which is there applied to God . In both places it clearly means "before creation," "before the world was made," "when as yet there was nothing." The meaning is, that the Word had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which became a man, or was incarnate, . The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus the eternity of God is described ( ): Before the mountains were brought forth , &c.; and eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world . Whatever is meant by the term "Word," it is clear that it had an existence before creations . It is not, then, a creature or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is but one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine. Compare the Saviour's own declarations respecting himself in the following places: . Was the Word . Greek, "was the Logos ." This name is given to him who afterward became flesh , or was incarnate ( )--that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. Those opinions it is unnecessary to repeat. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows: 1st. A word is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts; 2nd. The Son of God may be called "the Word," because he is the medium by which God promulgates his will and issues his commandments. See . 3rd. This term was in use before the time of John. (a) It was used in the Chaldee translation of the Old Testament, as, e.g., : "I have made the earth, and created man upon it." In the Chaldee it is, "I, by my word , have made," &c. : "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth." In the Chaldee, " By my word I have founded the earth." And so in many other places. (b) This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term "Mimra "--that is, "Word;" and no small part of the interpositions of God in defence of the Jewish nation were declared to be by "the Word of God." Thus, in their Targum on , it is said, "Ye have appointed THE WORD OF GOD a king over you this day, that he may be your God." (c) The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy. (d) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the second person of the Trinity . The term nous , or mind , was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this nous was the word or reason of the first person. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the second person of the Trinity by Christians, whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the Logos, or Word. It is possible , also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the Logos or Word was one of the AEons that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning. Was with God . This expression denotes friendship or intimacy. Comp. . John affirms that he was with God in the beginning-- that is, before the world was made. It implies, therefore, that he was partaker of the divine glory; that he was blessed and happy with God. It proves that he was intimately united with the Father, so as to partake of his glory and to be appropriately called by the name God. He has himself explained it. See : And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was . See also : No man hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, which IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, he hath declared him . See also : The Son of man, which is in heaven . Comp. . Was God . In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was with God . Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, he here states that he was God . There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; for, 1st. There is no doubt that by the Logos is meant Jesus Christ. 2nd. This is not an attribute or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the Logos was made flesh --that is, became a man. 3rd. There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation-that the Word was God . 4th. There is no evidence that John intended to use the word God in an inferior sense. It is not "the Word was a god ," or "the Word was like God ," but the Word was God . He had just used the word God as evidently applicable to Jehovah, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that the would in the same verse , and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God. 5th. The name God is elsewhere given to him, showing that he is the supreme God. See . The meaning of this important verse may then be thus summed up: 1st. The name Logos, or Word, is given to Christ in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructor of mankind; the medium of communication between God and man. 2nd. The name was in use at the time of John, and it was his design to state the correct doctrine respecting the Logos. 3rd. The Word , or Logos, existed before creation --of course was not a creature , and must have been, therefore, from eternity. 4th. He was with God --that is, he was united to him in a most intimate and close union before the creation; and, as it could not be said that God was with himself , it follows that the Logos was in some sense distinct from God, or that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. When we say that one is with another , we imply that there is some sort of distinction between them. 5th. Yet, lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being--a creature--he affirms that he was God--that is, was equal with the Father. This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity: 1. That the second person is in some sense distinct from the first. 2. That he is intimately united with the first person in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods. 3. That the second person may be called by the same name; has the same attributes; performs the same works; and is entitled to the same honours with the first, and that therefore he is "the same in substance, and equal in power and glory," with God. (a) "In the beginning" (b) "the Word" (c) "with God" (d) "was God" Php 2:6 Heb 1:8-13 1Jo 5:7

John 1:1-2

PREFACE

TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

John, the writer of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee and Salome; compare Mt 27:56 with Mk 15:40,41. His father was a fisherman of Galilee, though it would appear that he was not destitute of property, and was not in the lowest condition of life. He had hired men in his employ, Mk 1:20. Salome is described as one who attended our Saviour in his travels, and ministered to his wants, Mt 27:55, Mk 15:41. Jesus commended his own mother Mary, on the cross, to John, and he took her to his own home (Jn 19:26,27), with whom, history informs us, she lived until her death, about fifteen years after the crucifixion of Christ; and John was known to Caiaphas, the high-priest, Jn 18:15. From all this it would seem not improbable that John had some property, and was better known than any of the other apostles.

He was the youngest of the apostles when called, and lived to the greatest age, and is the only one who is supposed to have died a peaceful death. He was called to be a follower of Jesus while engaged with his father and his elder brother James mending their nets at the Sea of Tiberias, Mt 4:21, Mk 1:19, Lk 5:10.

John was admitted by our Saviour to peculiar favour and friendship. One of the ancient fathers (Theophylact) says that he was related to him. "Joseph," he says, "had seven children by a former

wife, four sons and three daughters, Martha, Esther,

and Salome, whose son John was; therefore Salome was

reckoned our Lord's sister, and John was his nephew."

If this was the case it may explain the reason why James and John sought and expected the first places in his kingdom, Mt 20:20,21. These may also possibly be the persons who were called our Lord's "brethren" and "sisters," Mt 13:55,56. This may also explain the reason why our Saviour committed his mother to the care of John on the cross, Jn 19:27. The two brothers, James and John, with Peter, were several times admitted to peculiar favours by our Lord. They were the only disciples that were permitted to be present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, Mk 5:37, Lk 8:51; they only were permitted to attend the Saviour to the mount where he was transfigured, Mt 17:1, Mk 9:2. The same three were permitted to be present at his sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane, Mt 26:36-45; Mk 14:32-42. And it was to these disciples, together with Andrew, to whom the Saviour specially addressed himself when he made known the desolations that were coming upon Jerusalem and Judea; compare Mt 24:12, Mk 13:3,4. John was also admitted to peculiar friendship with the Lord Jesus. Hence he is mentioned as "that disciple whom Jesus loved" (Jn 19:26), and he is represented (Jn 13:23) as leaning on his bosom at the institution of the Lord's Supper-an evidence of peculiar friendship. Jn 13:23. Though the Redeemer was attached to all his disciples, yet there is no improbability in supposing that his disposition was congenial with that of the meek and amiable John--thus authorizing and setting the example of special friendships among Christians.

To John was committed the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus. After the ascension of Christ he remained some time at Jerusalem, Acts 1:14, 3:1, 4:13. John is also mentioned as having been sent down to Samaria to preach the gospel there with Peter (Acts 8:14-25); and from Acts chapter 15 it appears that he was present at the council at Jerusalem, A.D. 49 or 50. All this agrees with what is said by Eusebius, that he lived at Jerusalem till the death of Mary, fifteen years after the crucifixion of Christ. Till this time it is probable that he had not been engaged in preaching the gospel among the Gentiles.

At what time he went first among the Gentiles to preach the gospel is not certainly known. It has commonly been supposed that he resided in Judea and the neighbourhood until the war broke out with the Romans, and that he came into Asia Minor about the year 69 or 70. It is clear that he was not at Ephesus at the time that Paul visited those regions, as in all the travels of Paul and Luke there is no mention made of John.

Ecclesiastical history informs us that he spent the latter part of his life in Asia Minor, and that he resided chiefly at Ephesus, the chief city of that country. Of his residence there little is certainly known. In the latter part of his life he was banished to Patmos, a small desolate island in the AEgean Sea, about twenty miles in circumference. This is commonly supposed to have been during the persecution of Domitian, i.n the latter part of his reign. Domitian died A.D. 96. It is probable that he returned soon after that, in the reign of the Emperor Trajan. In that island he wrote the book of Revelation. Rev 1:9. After his return from Patmos he lived peaceably at Ephesus until his death, which is supposed to have occurred not long after. He was buried at Ephesus; and it has been commonly thought that he was the only one of the apostles who did not suffer martyrdom. It is evident that he lived to a very advanced period of life. We know not his age, indeed, when Christ called him to follow him, but we cannot suppose it was less than twenty-five or thirty. If so, he must have been not far from one hundred years old when he died.

Many anecdotes are related of him while he remained at Ephesus, but there is no sufficient evidence of their truth. Some have said that he was taken to Rome in a time of persecution and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, and came out uninjured. It has been said also that, going into a bath one day at Ephesus, he perceived Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of the Saviour, and that he fled from him hastily, to express his disapprobation of his doctrine. It is also said, and of this there can be no doubt, that during his latter years he was not able to make a long discourse. He was carried to the church, and was accustomed to say nothing but this, "Little children, love one another." At length his disciples asked him why he always dwelt upon the same thing. He replied, "Because it is the Lord's command; and if this be done, it is sufficient."

Learned men have been much divided about the time when this Gospel was written. Wetstein supposed it was written just after our Saviour's ascension; Mill and Le Clerc, that it was written in 97; Dr. Lardner, that it was about the year 68, just before the destruction of Jerusalem. The common opinion is that it was written at Ephesus after his return from Patmos, and of course as late as the year 97 or 98. Nothing can be determined with certainty on the subject, and it is a matter of very little consequence.

There is no doubt that it was written by John. This is abundantly confirmed by the ancient fathers, and was not questioned by Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian, the acutest enemies of revelation in the early ages. It has never been extensively questioned to have been the work of John, and is one of the books of the New Testament whose canonical authority was never disputed. See Lardner, or Paley's Evidences.

The design of writing it John himself states, Jn 20:31. It was to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that those who believed might have life through his name. This design is kept in view through the whole Gospel, and should be remembered in our attempts to explain it. Various attempts have been made to show that he wrote it to confute the followers of Cerinthus and the Gnostics, but no satisfactory evidence of such a design has been furnished.

As he wrote after the other evangelists, he has recorded many things which they omitted. He dwells much more fully than they do on the divine character of Jesus; relates many things pertaining to the early part of his ministry which they had omitted; records many more of his discourses than they have done, and particularly the interesting discourse at the institution of the Supper. See chapters 14-17.

It has been remarked that there are evidences in this Gospel that it was not written for the Jews. The author explains words and customs which to a Jew would have needed no explanation. See Jn 1:38,41 Jn 5:1,2, 7:2, 4:9. The style in the Greek indicates that he was an unlearned man. It is simple, plain, unpolished, such as we should suppose would be used by one in his circumstances. At the same time it is dignified, containing pure and profound sentiments, and is on many accounts the most difficult of all the books of the New Testament to interpret. It contains more about Christ, his person, design, and work, than any of the other Gospels. The other evangelists were employed more in recording the miracles, and giving external evidence of the divine mission of Jesus. John is employed chiefly in telling us what he was, and what was his peculiar doctrine. His aim was to show,

1st. That Jesus was the Messiah.

2nd. To show, from the words of Jesus himself, what the Messiah was. The other evangelists record his parables, his miracles, his debates with the Scribes and Pharisees; John records chiefly his discourses about himself. If anyone wishes to learn the true doctrine respecting the Messiah, the Son of God, expressed in simple language, but with most sublime conceptions; to learn the true nature and character of God, and the way of approach to his mercy-seat; to see the true nature of Christian piety, or the source and character of religious consolation; to have perpetually before him the purest model of character the world has seen, and to contemplate the purest precepts that have ever been delivered to man, he cannot better do it than by a prayerful study of the Gospel by John. It may be added that this Gospel is of itself proof that cannot be overthrown of the truth of revelation. John was a fisherman, unhonoured and unlearned, Acts 4:13. What man in that rank of life now could compose a book like this? Can it be conceived that any man of that rank, unless under the influence of inspiration, could conceive so sublime notions of God, could present so pure views of morals, and could draw a character so inimitably lovely and pure as that of Jesus Christ? To ask these questions is to answer them. And this Gospel will stand to the end of time as an unanswerable demonstration that the fisherman who wrote it was under a more than human guidance, and was, according to the promise that he has recorded (Jn 16:13 comp. Jn 14:26), guided into all truth. It will also remain as an unanswerable proof that the character which he has described--the character of the Lord Jesus--was real. It is a perfect character. It has not a flaw. How has this happened? The attempt has often been made to draw a perfect character--and as often, in every other instance, failed. How is it, when Homer and Virgil, and the ancient historians, have all failed to describe a perfect character, with the purest models before them, and with all the aid of imagination, that in every instance they have failed? How is it that this has at last been accomplished only by a Jewish fisherman? The difficulty is vastly increased if another idea is borne in mind. John describes one who he believed had a divine nature, Jn 1:1. It is an attempt to describe God in human nature, or to show how the Divine Being acts when united with man, or when appearing in human form. And the description is complete. There is not a word expressed by the Lord Jesus, or an emotion ascribed to him, inconsistent with such a supposition. But this same attempt was often made, and as often failed. Homer and Virgil, and all the ancient poets, have undertaken to show what the gods would be if they came down and conversed with man. And what were they? What were Jupiter, and Juno, and Venus, and Mars, and Vulcan? Beings of lust, and envy, and contention, and blood. How has it happened that the only successful account which has been given of the divine nature united with the human, and of living and acting as became such a union, has been given by a Jewish fisherman? How, unless the character was real, and the writer under a guidance far superior to the genius of Homer and the imagination of Virgil--the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

----------------------------------------------------------------------- THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

Verse 1. In the beginning. This expression is used also in Gen 1:1. To that place John evidently has allusion here, and means to apply to "the Word" an expression which is there applied to God. In both places it clearly means "before creation," "before the world was made," "when as yet there was nothing." The meaning is, that the Word had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which became a man, or was incarnate, Jn 1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus the eternity of God is described (Ps 90:2): Before the mountains were brought forth, &c.; and eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world. Whatever is meant by the term "Word," it is clear that it had an existence before creations. It is not, then, a creature or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is but one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine. Compare the Saviour's own declarations respecting himself in the following places: Jn 8:58, 17:5, 6:62, 3:13, 6:46, 8:14, 16:28.

Was the Word. Greek, "was the Logos." This name is given to him who afterward became flesh, or was incarnate (Jn 1:14)--that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. Those opinions it is unnecessary to repeat. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows:

1st. A word is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts;

2nd. The Son of God may be called "the Word," because he is the medium by which God promulgates his will and issues his commandments. See Heb 1:1-3.

3rd. This term was in use before the time of John.

(a) It was used in the Chaldee translation of the Old Testament, as, e.g., Is 45:12: "I have made the earth, and created man upon it." In the Chaldee it is, "I, by my word, have made," &c. Isa 48:13: "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth." In the Chaldee, "By my word I have founded the earth." And so in many other places.

(b) This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term "Mimra "--that is, "Word;" and no small part of the interpositions of God in defence of the Jewish nation were declared to be by "the Word of God." Thus, in their Targum on De 26:17,18, it is said, "Ye have appointed THE WORD OF GOD a king over you this day, that he may be your God."

(c) The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy.

(d) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the second person of the Trinity. The term nous, or mind, was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this nous was the word or reason of the first person. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the second person of the Trinity by Christians, whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the Logos, or Word. It is possible, also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the Logos or Word was one of the AEons that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning.

Was with God. This expression denotes friendship or intimacy. Comp. Mk 9:19. John affirms that he was with God in the beginning-- that is, before the world was made. It implies, therefore, that he was partaker of the divine glory; that he was blessed and happy with God. It proves that he was intimately united with the Father, so as to partake of his glory and to be appropriately called by the name God. He has himself explained it. See Jn 17:5: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. See also Jn 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, which IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, he hath declared him. See also Jn 3:13: The Son of man, which is in heaven. Comp. Php 2:6,7.

Was God. In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was with God. Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, he here states that he was God. There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; for,

1st. There is no doubt that by the Logos is meant Jesus Christ.

2nd. This is not an attribute or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the Logos was made flesh--that is, became a man.

3rd. There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation-that the Word was God.

4th. There is no evidence that John intended to use the word God in an inferior sense. It is not "the Word was a god," or "the Word was like God," but the Word was God. He had just used the word God as evidently applicable to Jehovah, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that the would in the same verse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God.

5th. The name God is elsewhere given to him, showing that he is the supreme God. See Rom 9:5, Heb 1:8,9,10-12, 1Jn 5:20, Jn 20:28. The meaning of this important verse may then be thus summed up:

1st. The name Logos, or Word, is given to Christ in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructor of mankind; the medium of communication between God and man.

2nd. The name was in use at the time of John, and it was his design to state the correct doctrine respecting the Logos.

3rd. The Word, or Logos, existed before creation--of course was not a creature, and must have been, therefore, from eternity.

4th. He was with God--that is, he was united to him in a most intimate and close union before the creation; and, as it could not be said that God was with himself, it follows that the Logos was in some sense distinct from God, or that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. When we say that one is with another, we imply that there is some sort of distinction between them.

5th. Yet, lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being--a creature--he affirms that he was God--that is, was equal with the Father. This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. That the second person is in some sense distinct from the first.

2. That he is intimately united with the first person in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods.

3. That the second person may be called by the same name; has the same attributes; performs the same works; and is entitled to the same honours with the first, and that therefore he is "the same in substance, and equal in power and glory," with God.

(a) "In the beginning" Prov 8:22-31, Col 1:16,17, 1Jn 1:1 (b) "the Word" Rev 19:13 (c) "with God" Jn 17:5 (d) "was God" Php 2:6 Heb 1:8-13 1Jo 5:7 Verse 2. The same. The Word, or the Logos,

Was in the beginning with God. This seems to be a repetition of what was said in the first verse; but it is stated over again to guard the doctrine, and to prevent the possibility of a mistake. John had said that he existed before the creation, and that he was with God; but he had not said in the first verse that the union with God existed in the beginning. He now expresses that idea, and assures us that that union was not one which was commenced in time, and which might be, therefore, a mere union of feeling, or a compact, like that between any other beings, but was one which existed in eternity, and which was therefore a union of nature or essence.

Philippians 2:6

Verse 6. Who being in the form of God. There is scarcely any passage in the New Testament which has given rise to more discussion than this. The importance of the passage on the question of the Divinity of the Saviour will be perceived at once; and no small part of the point of the appeal by the apostle depends, as will be seen, in the fact that Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly Divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation. The word rendered form μορφη morphe, occurs only in three places in the New Testament, and in each place is rendered form, Mk 16:12, Php 2:6,7. In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumed after his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to Emmaus. "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them." This "form" was so unlike his usual appearance, that they did not know him. The word properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, beautiful bodily appearance. Passow. In Php 2:7, it is applied to the appearance of a servant-- "and took upon him the form of a servant;" that is, he was in the condition of a servant-- or of the lowest condition. The word form is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their aspect or appearance when they became visible to men. See Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 2; Ovid, Meta. i. 73; Silius xiii. 643; Xeno. Memora. ix; 2Eniad, iv. 556, and other places cited by Wetstein, in loc. Hesychius explains it by ιδεαειδος. The word occurs often in the Septuagint,

(1.) as the translation of the word Ziv splendour, Dan 4:33, 5:6,9,10, 7:28;

(2.) as the translation of the word . Tabnith--structure, model, pattern--as in building, Isa 44:13;

(3.) as the translation of temuna--appearance, form, shape, image, likeness, Job 4:16. See also the Book of Wisdom xviii. 1. The word can have here only one of two meanings, either

(1.) splendour, majesty, glory--referring to the honour which the Redeemer had, his power to work miracles, etc.; or

(2.) nature, or essence--meaning the same as φυσις, nature, or ουσια, being. The first is the opinion adopted by Crellus, Grotius, and others, and substantially by Calvin. Calvin says, "The form of God here denotes majesty. For as a man is known from the appearance of his form, so the majesty which shines in God is his figure. Or, to use a more appropriate similitude, the form of a king consists of the external marks which indicate a king --as his sceptre, diadem, coat of mail, attendants, throne, and other insignia of royalty; the form of a consul is the toga, ivory chair, attending lictors, etc. Therefore Christ, before the foundation of the world, was in the form of God, because he had glory with the Father before the world was, Jn 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, before he put on our nature, there was nothing humble or abject, but there was magnificence worthy of God." --Comm. in loc. The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was Divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lex.;) Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40;) Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation. In support of this interpretation, and in opposition to that which refers it to his power of working miracles, or his divine appearance when on earth, we may adduce the following considerations.

(1.) The "form" here referred to must have been something before he became a man, or before he took upon him the form of a servant. It was something from which he humble& himself by making "himself of no reputation;" by taking upon himself" the form of a servant;" and by being made "in the likeness of men." Of course, it must have been something which existed when he had not the likeness of men; that is, before he became incarnate, he must therefore have had an existence before he appeared on earth as a man, and in that previous state of existence there must have been something which rendered it proper to say that he was "in the form of God."

(2.) That it does not refer to any moral qualities, or to his power of working miracles on earth, is apparent from the fact that these were not laid aside. When did he divest himself of these in order that he might humble himself ? There was something which he possessed which made it proper to say of him that he was "in the form of God," which he laid aside when he appeared in the form of a servant, and in the likeness of men. But assuredly that could not have been his moral qualities, nor is there any conceivable sense in which it can be said that he divested himself of the power of working miracles in order that he might take upon himself the "form of a servant." All the miracles which he ever wrought were performed when he sustained the form of a servant, in his lowly and humble condition. These considerations make it certain that the apostle refers to a period before the incarnation. It may be added,

(3.) that the phrase "form of God" is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God. When it is said that he was "in the form of a servant," the idea is, that he was actually in a humble and depressed condition, and not merely that he appeared to be. Still it may be asked, what was the "form" which he had before his incarnation? What is meant by his having been then "in the form of God?" To these questions perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given. He himself speaks (Jn 17:5) of "the glory which he had with the Father before the world was;" and the language naturally conveys the idea that there was then a manifestation of the Divine nature through him, which in some measure ceased when he became incarnate; that there was some visible splendour and majesty which was then laid aside. What manifestation of his glory God may make in the heavenly world of course we cannot now understand. Nothing forbids us, however, to suppose that there is some such visible manifestation; some splendour and magnificence of God in the view of the angelic beings such as becomes the Great Sovereign of the universe--for he "dwells in light which no man can approach unto," 1Timm 6:16. That glory, visible manifestation, or splendour, indicating the nature of God, it is here said that the Lord Jesus possessed before his incarnation.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God. This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it, "did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire;" that is, that though he was of a Divine nature or condition, he did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on him a humble condition --even that of a servant. Letters to Channing, pp. 88--92. That this is the correct rendering of the passage is apparent from the following considerations :--

(1.) It accords with the scope and design of the apostle's reasoning. His object is not to show, as our common translation would seem to imply, that he aspired to be equal with God, or that he did not regard it as an improper invasion of the prerogatives of God to be equal with him, but that he did not regard it, in the circumstances of the case, as an object to be greatly desired, or eagerly sought to retain his equality with God. Instead of retaining this by an earnest effort, or by a grasp which he was unwilling to relinquish, he chose to forego the dignity, and to assume the humble condition of a man.

(2.) It accords better with the Greek than the common version. The word rendered robbery αρπαγμος-- is found nowhere else in the New Testament, though the verb from which it is derived frequently occurs, Mt 11:12, 13:19, Jn 6:15, 10:12,28,29, Acts 8:39, 23:10, 2Cor 12:2,4; 1Thes 4:17, Jude 1:23, Rev 12:5. The notion of violence, or seizing, or carrying away, enters into the meaning of the word in all these places. The word here used does not properly mean an act of robbery, but the thing robbed--the plunder-- das Rauben, (Passow,) and hence something to be eagerly seized and appropriated. Schleusner. Comp. Storr, Opuscul. Acade. i. 322, 323. According to this, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seized and eagerly sought; and the sense is, that his being equal with God was not a thing to be anxiously retained. The phrase "thought it not," means "did not consider;" it was not judged to be a matter of such importance that it could not be dispensed with. The sense is, "he did not eagerly seize and tenaciously hold," as one does who seizes prey or spoil. So Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Bloomfield, Stuart, and others understand it.

To be equal with God. τοειναιισαθεω. That is, the being equal with God he did not consider a thing to be tenaciously retained. The plural neuter form of the word equal in Greek ισα used in accordance with a known rule of the language, thus stated by Buttman. "When an adjective as predicate is separated from its substantive, it often stands in the neuter where the substantive is a masculine or feminine, and in the singular where the substantive is in the plural. That which the predicate expresses is, in this case, considered in general as a thing." Gr. Gram., 129, 6. The phrase "equal with God," or "equal with the gods," is of frequent occurrence in the Greek classics. See Wetstein, in loc. The very phrase here used occurs in the Odyssey, O.--- τοννυνισαθεωιθακησιοιεισοροωσι.

Comp. Jn 5:18. "Made himself equal with God." The phrase means one who sustains the same rank, dignity, nature. Now it could not be said of an angel that he was in any sense equal with God; much less could this be said of a mere man. The natural and obvious meaning of the language is, that there was an equality of nature and of rank with God, from which he humbled himself where he became a man. The meaning of the whole verse according to the interpretation suggested above, is, that Christ, before he became a man, was invested with honour, majesty, and glory, such as was appropriate to God himself; that there was some manifestation, or splendour in his existence and mode of being then, which showed that he was equal with God; that he did not consider that that honour, indicating equality with God, was to be retained at all events, and so as to do violence, as it were, to other interests, and to rob the universe of the glory of redemption; and that he was willing, therefore, to forget that, or lay it by for a time, in order that he might redeem the world. There were a glory and majesty which were appropriate to God, and which indicated equality with God--such as none but God could assume. For how could an angel have such glory, or such external splendour in heaven, as to make it proper to say that he was "equal with God?" With what glory could he be invested which would be such as became God only? The fair interpretation of this passage therefore is, that Christ, before his incarnation, was equal with God.

(b) "in the form of God" Jn 1:1,2, Col 1:15 (c) "equal with God" Jn 5:18

Hebrews 1:3

Verse 3. Who being the brightness of his glory. This verse is designed to state the dignity and exalted rank of the Son of God, and is exceedingly important with reference to a correct view of the Redeemer. Every word which is employed is of great importance, and should be clearly understood in order to a correct apprehension of the passage. First, In what manner does it refer to the Redeemer? To his Divine nature? To the mode of his existence before he was incarnate? Or to him as he appeared on earth? Most of the ancient commentators supposed that it referred to his Divine dignity before he became incarnate; and proceed to argue, on that supposition, on the mode of the Divine existence. The true solution seems to me to be, that it refers to him as incarnate, but still has reference to him as the incarnate Son of God. It refers to him as Mediator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as Divine--thus, in his incarnation, being the brightness of the Divine glory, and the express image of God. That this is the correct view is apparent, I think, from the whole scope of the passage. The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as he has spoken to us, (Heb 1:1,) and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from Gods the last and greatest of the messengers which God has sent to man. But, then, it is a description of him as he actually is ---the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh: and this leads the writer to dwell on his Divine character, and to argue from that, Heb 1:8,10-12. I have no doubt, therefore, that this description refers to his Divine nature, but it is the Divine nature as it appears in human flesh. An examination of the words used will prepare us for a more clear comprehension of the sense. The word glory--δοξα-- properly, a seeming, an appearance; and then

(1.) praise, applause, honour;

(2.) dignity, splendour, glory;

(3.) brightness, dazzling light; and

(4.) excellence, perfection, such as belongs to God, and such as there is in heaven. It is probably used here, as the word-- is often among the Hebrews, to denote splendour, brightness, and refers to the Divine perfections as resembling a bright light, or the sun. The word is applied to the sun and stars, 1Cor 15:40,41; to the light which Paul saw on the way to Damascus, Acts 22:11; to the shining of Moses' face, 2Cor 3:7; to the celestial light, which surrounds the angels, Rev 18:1; and glorified saints, Lk 9:31,32; and to the dazzling splendour or majesty in which God is enthroned. 2Thes 1:9, 2Pet 1:17, Rev 15:8, 21:11,23. Here there is a comparison of God with the sun; he is encompassed with splendour and majesty; he is a being of light and of infinite perfection. It refers to all in God that is bright, splendid, glorious; and the idea is, that the Son of God is the brightness of it all. The word rendered brightness απαυγασμα --occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, reflected splendour, or the light which emanates from a luminous body. The rays or beams of the sun are its "brightness," or that by which the sun is seen and known. The sun itself we do not see; the beams which flow from it we do see. The meaning here is, that if God be represented under the image of a luminous body, as he is in the Scriptures, (see Ps 84:11, Mal 4:2,) then Christ is the radiance of that light, the brightness of that luminary. Stuart. He is that by which we perceive God, or by which God is made known to us in his real perfections. Comp. Jn 1:18; Jn 14:9. It is by him only that the true character and glory of God is known to men. This is true in regard to the great system of revelation; but it is especially true in regard to the views which men have of God. Mt 11:27: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." The human soul is dark respecting the Divine character, until it is enlightened by Christ. It sees no beauty, no glory in his nature--nothing that excites wonder, or that wins the affections, until it is disclosed by the Redeemer. Somehow it happens--account for it as men may--that there are no elevating, practical views of God in the world; no views that engage and hold the affections of the soul; no views that are transforming and purifying, but those which are derived from the Lord Jesus. A man becomes a Christian, and at once he has elevated practical views of God. He is, to him, the most glorious of all beings. He finds supreme delight in contemplating his perfections. But he may be a philosopher or an infidel, and though he may profess to believe in the existence of God, yet the belief excites no practical influence on him; he sees nothing to admire--nothing which leads him to worship him. Comp. Rom 1:21.

And the express image. The word here used χαρακτηρ likewise occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is that from which our word character is derived. It properly means, a graying, tool; and then something engraved or stamped--a character --as, a letter, mark, sign. The image stamped on coins, seals, wax, expresses the idea; and the sense here is, that if God be represented under the idea of a substance, or being, then Christ is the exact resemblance of that, as an image is of the stamp or die. The resemblance between a stamp and the figure which is impressed is exact; and so is the resemblance between the Redeemer and God. See Col 1:15: "Who is the image of the invisible God."

Of his person. The word person, with us, denotes an individual being, and is applied to human beings, consisting of body and soul. We do not apply it to anything dead--not using it with reference to the body when the spirit is gone. It is applied to man-- with individual and separate consciousness and will; with body and soul; with an existence separate from others. It is evident that it cannot be used in this sense when applied to God, and that this word does not express the true idea of the passage here. Tindal renders it, more accurately, substance. The word in the original υποστασις --whence our word hypostasis means, literally, a foundation, or substructure. Then it means, a well-founded trust, firm expectation, oonttdence, firmness, boldness; and then reality, substance, essential nature. In the New Testament, it is rendered confident, or confidence, (2Cor 9:4, 11:17, Heb 3:14;) substance, (Heb 11:1;) and person in the passage before us. It is not elsewhere used. Here it properly refers to the essential nature of God--that which distinguishes him from all other beings and which, if I may so say, constitutes him God; and the idea is, that, the Redeemer is the exact resemblance of that. This resemblance consists, probably, in the following things--though perhaps the enumeration does not include all-- but in these he certainly resembles God, or is his exact image.

(1.) In his original mode of being, or before the incarnation. Of this we know little. But he had a "glory with the Father before the world was," Jn 17:5. He was "in the beginning with God, and was God," Jn 1:1. He was in intimate union with the Father, and was one with him, in certain respects; though in certain other respects, there was a distinction. I do not see any evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrine of "eternal generation," and it is certain that that doctrine militates against the proper eternity of the Son of God. The natural and fair meaning of that doctrine would be, that there was a time when he had not an existence, and when he began to be, or was begotten. But the Scripture doctrine is, that he had a strict and proper eternity. I see no evidence that he was, in any sense, a derived being--deriving his existence and his divinity from the rather. The Fathers of the Christian church, it is believed, held that the Son of God, as to his Divine, as well as his human nature, was derived from the Father. Hence the Nicene creed speaks of him as begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light very God of very God, begotten, not made" --language implying derivation in his Divine nature. They held, with one voice, that he was God; but it was in this manner. See Stuart, Excursus III on the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this is incredible, and impossible. A derived being cannot, in any proper sense, be God; and if there is any attribute which the Scriptures have ascribed to the Saviour with peculiar clearness, it is that of proper eternity, Rev 1:11,18, Jn 1:1. It may have been, that it was by him that the perfections of God were made known, before the incarnation, to the angelic world, but on that point the Scriptures are silent.

(2.) On earth he was the brightness of the Divine glory, and the express image of his person.

(a.) It was by him, eminently, that God was made known to men--as it is by the beams of the sun that that is made known.

(b.) He bore an exact resemblance to God. He was just such a being as we should suppose God to be, were he to become incarnate, and to act as a man. He was the embodied representation of the Deity. He was pure--like God. He was benevolent--like God. He spake to the winds and storms--like God. He healed diseases--like God. He raised the dead--like God. He wielded the power which God only can wield, and he manifested a character in all respects like that which we should suppose God would evince, if he appeared in human flesh, and dwelt among men. And this is saying much. It is, in fact, saying that the account in the Gospels is real, and that the Christian religion is true. Uninspired men could never have drawn such a character as that of Jesus Christ, unless that character had actually existed. The attempt has often been made to describe God, or to show how he would speak and act if he came down to earth. Thus the Hindoos speak of the incarnations of Vishnu; and thus Homer, and Virgil, and most of the ancient poets, speak of the appearance of the gods, and describe them as they were supposed to appear. But how different from the character of the Lord Jesus! They are full of passion, and lust, and anger, and contention, and strife; they come to mingle in battles, and to take part with contending armies, and they evince the same spirit as men, and are merely men of great power, and more gigantic passions; but Christ is God IN HUMAN NATURE. The form is that of man; the Spirit is that of God. He walks, and eats, and sleeps as a man; he thinks, and speaks, and acts like God. He was born as a man--but the angels adored him as God. As a man he ate; yet, by a word, he created food for thousands, as if he were God. Like a man he slept on a pillow, while the vessel was tossed by the waves; like God he rose, and rebuked the winds, and they were still. As a man he went, with affectionate interest, to the house of Martha and Mary. As a man he sympathized with them in their affliction, and wept at the grave of their brother; like God he spoke, and the dead came forth to the land of the living. As a man he travelled through the land of Judea. lie was without a home; yet everywhere the sick were laid at his feet, and health came from his touch, and strength from the words of his lips--as if he were God. As a man he prayed in the garden of Gethsemane; he bore his cross to Calvary; he was nailed to the tree; yet then the heavens grew dark, and the earth shook, and the dead arose--as if he were God. As a man he slept in the cold tomb; like God he rose, and brought life and immortality to light. He lived on earth as a man--he ascended to heaven like God. And in all the life of the Redeemer, in all the variety of trying situations in which he was placed, there was not a word or action which was inconsistent with the supposition that he was the incarnate God. There was no failure of any effort to heal the sick or to raise the dead; no look, no word, no deed, that is not perfectly consistent with this supposition; but, on the contrary, his life is full of events which can be explained on no other supposition than that he was the appropriate shining forth of the Divine glory, and the exact resemblance of the essence of God. There are not two Gods, as there are not two suns when the sun shines. It is the one God, in a mysterious and incomprehensible manner, shining into the world in the face of Jesus Christ. 2Cor 4:6. As the wax bears the perfect image of the seal--perfect not only in the outline, but in the filling up--in all the lines, and features, and letters, so is it with the Redeemer. There is not one of the Divine perfections which has not the counterpart in him; and if the glory of the Divine character is seen at all by men, it will be Been in and through him.

And upholding all things by the word of his power. That is, by his powerful word, or command. The phrase "word of his power' is a Hebraism, and means his efficient command. There could not be a more distinct ascription of divinity to the Son of God than this. He upholds or sustains all things--i. e. the universe. It is not merely the earth; not only its rocks, mountains, seas, animals, and men, but it is the universe--all distant worlds. How can he do this who is not God? He does it by his word-- his command. What a conception! That a simple command should do all this: So the world was made when God "spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast," Ps 33:9. So the Lord Jesus commanded the waves and the winds, and they were still, (Mt 8:26,27;) so he spoke to diseases, and they departed--and to the dead, and they arose. Comp. Gen 1:3. I know not how men can explain away this ascription of infinite power to the Redeemer. There can be no higher idea of omnipotence than to say, that he upholds all things by his word; and assuredly he who can hold up this wast universe, so that it does not sink into anarchy or into nothing, must be God. The same power Jesus claimed for himself. See Mt 28:18.

When he had by himself purged our sins. "By himself"--not by the blood of bulls and lambs, but by his own blood. This is designed to bring in the grand feature of the Christian scheme, that the purification made for sin was by his blood, instead of the blood which was shed in the temple-service. The word here rendered "purged" means purified, or "expiated". Jn 15:2. The literal rendering is, "having made purification for our sins." The purification or cleansing, which he effected, was by his blood. See 1Jn 1:7: "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." This the apostle here states to have been the great object for which he came, and having done this, he sat down on the right hand of God. See Heb 7:27, 9:12-14. It was not merely to teach that he came; it was to purify the hearts of men, to remove their sins, and to put an end of sacrifice by the sacrifice of himself.

Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Of God. Mk 16:19 Eph 1:20, seq.

(a) "being the brightness" Jn 1:14 (b) "when he" Heb 7:27, 9:12-14 (a) "sat down" Ps 110:1

Hebrews 1:10

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