Joh 1:1-3, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, 6, 8, 10-12 | 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 1:1-3

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. Verse 3. All things. The universe. The expression cannot be limited to any part of the universe. It appropriately expresses everything which exists--all the vast masses of material worlds, and all the animals and things, great or small, that compose those worlds. See Rev 4:11, Heb 1:2, Col 1:16.

Were made. The original word is from the verb to be, and signifies "were" by him; but it expresses the idea of creation here. It does not alter the sense whether it is said "were by him," or "were created by him." The word is often used in the sense of creating, or forming from nothing. See Jas 3:9, Gen 2:4 Isa 48:7, in the Septuagint.

By him. In this place it is affirmed that creation was effected by the Word, or the Son of God. In Gen 1:1, it is said that the Being who created the heavens and the earth was God. In Ps 102:25-28, this work is ascribed to Jehovah. The Word, or the Son of God, is therefore appropriately called God. The work of creation is uniformly ascribed in the Scriptures to the second person of the Trinity. See Col 1:16, Heb 1:2,10. By this is meant, evidently, that he was the agent, or the efficient cause, by which the universe was made. There is no higher proof of omnipotence than the work of creation; and hence God often appeals to that work to prove that he is the true God, in opposition to idols. See Isa 40:18-28 Jer 10:3-16, Ps 24:2, 39:11, Prov 3:19. It is absurd to say that God can invest a creature with omnipotence. If he can make a creature omnipotent, he can make him omniscient, and can in the same way make him omnipresent, and infinitely wise and good; that is, he can invest a creature with all his own attributes, or make another being like himself, or, which is the same thing, there could be two Gods, or as many Gods as he should choose to make. But this is absurd. The Being, therefore, that created all things must be divine; and as this work is ascribed to Jesus Christ, and as it is uniformly in the Scriptures declared to be the work of God, Jesus Christ is therefore equal with the Father.

Without him. Without his agency; his notice; the exertion of his power. Comp. Mt 10:29. This is a strong way of speaking, designed to confirm, beyond the possibility of doubt, what he had just said. He says, therefore, in general, that all things were made by Christ. In this part of the verse he shuts out all doubt, and affirms that there was no exceptions; that there was not a single thing, however minute or unimportant, which was not made by him. In this way he confirms what he said in the first verse. Christ was not merely called God, but he did the works of God, and therefore the name is used in its proper sense as implying supreme divinity. To this same test Jesus himself appealed as proving that he was divine. Jn 10:37: If I do not THE WORKS of my Father, believe me not. Jn 5:17: MY FATHER worketh hitherto, and I work.

(e) "All things" Ps 33:6, Eph 3:9

Colossians 1:16

Verse 16. For by him were all things created. This is one of the reasons why he is called "the image of God," and the "firstborn." He makes God known to us by his creative power, and by the same power in creation shows that he is exalted over all things as the Son of God. The phrase which is here used by the apostle is universal. He does not declare that he created all things in the spiritual kingdom of God, or that he arranged the events of the gospel dispensation, as Socinians suppose, (see Crellius;) but that everything was created by him. A similar form of expression occurs in Jn 1:3. Jn 1:3. There could not possibly be a more explicit declaration, that the universe was created by Christ, than this. As if the simple declaration in the most comprehensive terms were not enough, the apostle goes into a specification of things existing in heaven and earth, and so varies the statement, as if to prevent the possibility of mistake.

That are in heaven. The division of the universe into "heaven and earth" is natural and obvious, for it is the one that is apparent. See Gen 1:1. Heaven, then, according to this division, will embrace all the universe, except the earth; and will include the heavenly bodies and their inhabitants, the distant worlds, as well as heaven, more strictly so called, where God resides. The declaration then is, that all things that were in the worlds above us were the work of his creative power.

And that are in earth. All the animals, plants, minerals, waters, hidden fires, etc. Everything which the earth contains.

Visible and invisible. We see but a small part of the universe. The angels we cannot see. The inhabitants of distant worlds we cannot see. Nay, there are multitudes of worlds which, even with the best instruments, we cannot see. Yet all these things are said to have been created by Christ.

Whether they be thrones. Whether those invisible things be thrones. The reference is to the ranks of angels, called here thrones, dominions, etc. Eph 1:21. The word "thrones" does not occur in the parallel place in Ephesians; but there can be no doubt that the reference is to an order of angelic beings, as those to whom dominion and power were entrusted. The other orders enumerated here are also mentioned in Eph 1:21.

All things were created by him. The repetition, and the varied statement here, are designed to express the truth with emphasis, and so that there could not be the possibility of mistake or misapprehension. Jn 1:1; Jn 1:2; Jn 1:3. The importance of the doctrine, and the fact that it was probably denied by false teachers, or that they held philosophical opinions that tended to its practical denial, are the reasons why the apostle dwells so particularly on this point.

And for him. For his glory; for such purposes as he designed. There was a reference to himself in the work of creation, just as when a man builds a house it is with reference to some important purposes which he contemplates, pertaining to himself. The universe was built by the Creator to be his own property; to be the theatre on which he would accomplish his purposes, and display his perfections. Particularly the earth was made by the Son of God to be the place where he would become incarnate, and exhibit the wonders of redeeming love. There could not be a more positive declaration than this, that the universe was created by Christ; and, if so, he is Divine. The work of creation is the exertion of the highest power of which we can form a conception, and is often appealed to in the Scriptures by God to prove that he is Divine, in contradistinction from idols. If, therefore, this passage be understood literally, it settles the question about the divinity of Christ. Accordingly, Unitarians have endeavoured to show that the creation here referred to is a moral creation; that it refers to the arrangement of affairs in the Christian church, or to the kingdom of God on earth, and not to the creation of the material universe. This interpretation has been adopted even by Grotius, who supposes that it refers to the arrangement by which all things are fitted up in the new creation, and by which angels and men are reconciled. By the "things in heaven and in earth" some Unitarian expositors have understood the Jews and the Gentiles, who are reconciled by the gospel; others, by the "things in heaven" understand the angels, and by the "things on earth" men, who are brought into harmony by the gospel plan of salvation. But the objections to this interpretation are insuperable.

(1.) The word created is not used in this sense properly, and cannot be. That it may mean to arrange, to order, is true; but it is not used in the sense of reconciling, or of bringing discordant things into harmony. To the great mass of men, who have no theory to support, it would be understood in its natural and obvious sense, as denoting the literal creation.

(2.) The assertion is, that the "creative" power of Christ was exerted on "all things." It is not in reference to angels only, or to men, or to Jews, or to Gentiles; it is in relation to "everything in heaven and in earth ;" that is, to the whole universe. Why should so universal a declaration be supposed to denote merely the intelligent creation?

(3.) With what propriety, or in what tolerable sense, can the expression, "things in heaven and things in earth," be applied to the Jews and Gentiles? In what sense can it be said that they are "visible and invisible?" And, if the language could be thus used, how can the fact that Christ is the means of reconciling them be a reason why he should be called "the image of the invisible God?"

(4.) If it be understood of a moral creation, of a renovation of things, of a change of nature, how can this be applied to the angels? Has Christ created them anew? Has he changed their nature and character? Good angels cannot need a spiritual renovation; and Christ did not come to convert fallen angels, and to bring them into harmony with the rest of the universe.

(6.) The phrase here employed, of "creating all things in heaven and in earth," is never used elsewhere to denote a moral or spiritual creation. It appropriately expresses the creation of the universe. It is language strikingly similar to that used by Moses, Gen 1:1; and it would be so understood by the great mass of mankind. If this be so, then Christ is Divine, and we can see in this great work a good reason why he is called "the image of the invisible God," and why he is at the head of the universe--the firstborn of the creation. It is because, through him, God is made known to us in the work of creation; and because, being the great Agent in that work, there is a propriety that he should occupy this position at the head of all things.

(d) "by him were all" Jn 1:3 (a) "by him and for him" Rom 11:36

Hebrews 1:2

Verse 2. Hath in these last days. In this the final dispensation; or in this dispensation under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. Phrases similar to this occur frequently in the Scriptures. They do not imply that the world was soon coming to an end, but that that was the last dispensation, the last period of the world. There had been the patriarchal period, the period under the law, the prophets, etc., and this was the period during which God's last method of communication would be enjoyed, and under which the world would close. It might be a very long period, but it would be the last one; and, so far as the meaning of the phrase is concerned, it might be the longest period, or longer than all the others put together, but still it would be the last one. Acts 2:17; Isa 2:2.

Spoken unto us. The word "us" here does not of necessity imply that the writer of the epistle had actually heard him, or that they had heard him to whom the epistle was written. It means that God had now communicated his win to man by his Son. It may be said, with entire propriety, that God has spoken to us by his Son, though we have not personally heard or seen him. We have what he spoke, and caused to be recorded, for our direction.

By his Son. The title commonly given to the Lord Jesus, as denoting his peculiar relation to God. It was understood, by the Jews, to denote equality with God, (Jn 5:18; comp. Jn 10:33,36,) and is used with such a reference here. Rom 1:4, where the meaning of the phrase "Son of God" is fully considered. It is implied here, that the fact, that the Son of God has spoken to us, imposes the highest obligations to attend to what he has said; that he has authority superior to all those who have spoken in past times; and that there will be peculiar guilt in refusing to attend to what he has spoken. See Heb 2:1-4; comp. Heb 12:25. The reasons for the superior respect which should be shown to the revelations of the Son of God may be such as these:---

(1.) His rank and dignity. He is: the equal with God, (Jn 1:1,) and is himself called God in this chapter, Heb 1:8. He has a right, therefore, to command, and when he speaks men should obey.

(2.) The clearness of the truths which he communicated to man, on a great variety of subjects, that are of the highest moment to the world. Revelation has been gradual--like the breaking of the day in the east. At first there is a little light; it increases and expands till objects become more and more visible, and then the sun rises in full-orbed glory. At first we discern only the existence of some object--- obscure and undefined; then we can trace-its outline; then its colour, its size, its proportions, its drapery--till it stands before us fully revealed. So it has been with revelation. There is a great variety of subjects which we now see clearly, which were very imperfectly understood by the teaching of the prophets, and would be now if we had only the Old Testament. Among them are the following:--

(a.) The character of God. Christ came to make him known as a merciful Being, and to show how he could be merciful as well as just. The views given of God by the Lord Jesus are far more clear than any given by the ancient prophets; compared with those entertained by the ancient philosophers, they are like the sun compared with the darkest midnight.

(b.) The way in which man may be reconciled to God, The New Testament-- which may be considered as that which God "has spoken to us by his Son" --has told us how the great work of being reconciled to God can be effected. The Lord Jesus told us that he came to "give his life a ransom for many;" that he laid down his life for his friends; that he was about to die for man; that he would draw all men to him. The prophets indeed-- particularly Isaiah --threw much light on these points. But the mass of the people did not understand their revelations. They pertained to future events--always difficult to be understood. But Christ has told us the way of salvation; and he has made it so plain, that he who runs may read.

(c.) The moral precepts of the Redeemer are superior to those of any and all that had gone before him. They are elevated, pure, expansive, benevolent--such as became the Son of God to proclaim. Indeed, this is admitted on all hands. Infidels are constrained to acknowledge, that all the moral precepts of the Saviour are eminently pure and benignant. If they were obeyed, the world would be filled with justice, truth, purity, and benevolence. Error, fraud, hypocrisy, ambition, wars, licentiousness, and intemperance, would cease; and the opposite virtues would diffuse happiness over the face of the world. Prophets had indeed delivered many moral precepts of great importance, but the purest and most extensive body of just principles and of good morals on earth are to be found in the teachings of the Saviour.

(d.) He has given to us the clearest view which man has had of the future state; and he has disclosed, in regard to that future state, a class of truths of the deepest interest to mankind, which were before wholly unknown or only partially revealed.

1. He has revealed the certainty of a state of future existence--in opposition to the Sadducees of all ages. This was denied, before he came, by multitudes; and where it was not, the arguments by which it was supported were often of the feeblest kind. The truth was held by some--like Plato and his followers--but the arguments on which they relied were feeble, and such as were unfitted to give rest to the soul. The truth they had obtained by TRADITION; the arguments were THEIR OWN.

2. He revealed the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This before was doubted or denied by nearly all the world. It was held to be absurd and impossible. The Saviour taught its certainty; he raised up more than one to show that it was possible; he was himself raised, to put the whole matter beyond debate.

3. He revealed the certainty of future judgment--the judgment of all mankind.

4. He disclosed great and momentous truths respecting the future state. Before he came, all was dark. The Greeks spoke of Elysian fields, but they were dreams of the imagination; the Hebrews had some faint notion of a future state, where all was dark and gloomy, with perhaps an occasional glimpse of the truth that there is a holy and blessed heaven; but to the mass of mind, all was obscure. Christ revealed a heaven, and told us of a hell. He showed us that the one might be gained, and the other avoided. He presented important motives for doing it; and, had he done nothing more, his communications were worthy the profound attention of mankind. I may add,

(3.) That the Son of God has claims on our attention from the MANNER in which he spoke, He spoke as one having "authority," Mt 7:29. He spoke as a witness of what he saw and knew, Jn 3:11. He spoke without doubt or ambiguity of God, and heaven, and hell. His is the language of one who is familiar with all that he describes; who saw all, who knew all. There is no hesitancy or doubt in his mind of the truth of what he speaks; and he speaks as if his whole soul were impressed with its unspeakable importance. Never were so momentous communications made to men of hell as fell from the lips of the Lord Jesus, (Mt 23:33 ;) never were announcements made so fitted to awe and appall a sinful world.

Whom he hath appointed heir of all things. See Ps 2:8; comp. Rom 8:17. This is language taken from the fact that he is "the SON of God." If a Son, then he is an heir --for so it is usually among men. This is not to be taken literally, as if he inherits anything as a man does. An heir is one who inherits anything after the death of its possessor--usually his father. But this cannot be applied in this sense to the Lord Jesus. The language is used to denote his rank and dignity as the Son of God. As such, all things are his, as the property of the father descends to his son at his death. The word rendered heir-- κληρονομος--means, properly,

(1.) one who acquires anything by lot; and

(2.) an heir in the sense in which we usually understand the word. It may also denote a possessor of anything received as s portion, or of property of any kind. See Rom 4:13,14. It is, in every instance, rendered heir in the New Testament. Applied to Christ, it means that, as the Son of God, he is possessor or lord of all things, or that all things are his. Comp. Acts 2:36, 10:36; Jn 17:10, 16:15. "All things that the Father hath are mine." The sense is, that all things belong to the Son of God. Who is so rich, then, as Christ? Who so able to endow his friends with enduring and abundant wealth?

By whom. By whose agency; or who was the actual agent in the creation. Grotius supposes that this means, "on account of whom;" and that the meaning is, that the universe was formed with reference to the Messiah, in accordance with an ancient Jewish maxim, But the more common and classical usage of the word rendered by, (δια,) when it governs a genitive, as here, is to denote the instrumental cause; the agent by which anything is done. See Mt 1:22, 2:5,15,23, Lk 18:31, Jn 1:17 Acts 2:22,43, 4:16, 12:9, Rom 2:16, 5:5. It may be true that the universe was formed with reference to the glory of the Son Of God, and that this world was brought into being in order to show his glory; but it would not do to establish that doctrine on a passage like this. Its obvious and proper meaning is, that he was the agent of the creation--a truth that is elsewhere abundantly taught. See Jn 1:3,10, Col 1:16, Eph 3:9, 1Cor 8:6. This sense, also, better agrees with the design of the apostle in this place. His object is to set forth the dignity of the Son of God. This is better shown by the consideration that he was the Creator of all things, than that all things were made for him.

The worlds. The universe, or creation. So the word here-- αιων--is undoubtedly used in Heb 11:3. The word properly means age--an indefinitely long period of time; then perpetuity, ever, eternity--always being. For an extended investigation of the meaning of the word, the reader may consult an essay by Prof. Stuart, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, for 1829, pp. 406--452. From the sense of age, or duration, the word comes to denote the present and future age; the present world, and the world to come; the present world, with all its cares, anxieties, and evils; the men of this world--a wicked generation, etc. Then it means the world --the material universe--creation as it is. The only perfectly clear use of the word in this sense in the New Testament is in Heb 11:3, and there there can be no doubt. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were made by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." The passage before us will bear the same interpretation, and this is the most obvious and intelligible. What would be the meaning of saying that the ages or dispensations were made by the Son of God? The Hebrews used the word-- --olam--in the same sense. It properly means age, duration; and thence it came to be used by them to denote the world--made up of ages or generations; and then the world itself. This is the fair, and, as it seems to me, the only intelligible interpretation of this passage--an interpretation amply sustained by texts referred to above, as demonstrating that the universe was made by the agency of the Son of God Comp. Heb 1:10, and Jn 1:3.

(a) "spoken" De 18:15 (b) "heir" Ps 2:8 (c) "by whom also" Jn 1:3

Hebrews 1:6

Verse 6. And again. Marg., When he bringeth in again. The proper construction of this sentence probably is, "But when, he the moreover, brings in," etc. The word "again" refers not to the fact that Son of God is brought again into the world, implying that he had been introduced before; but it refers to the course of the apostle's argument, or to the declaration which is made about the Messiah in another place. "The name Son is not only given to him as above, but also in another place, or on another occasion, when he brings in the first-begotten into the world."

When he bringeth in. When he introduces. So far as the language here is concerned, this might refer to the birth of the Messiah; but it is evident, from the whole connexion, that the writer meant to refer to something that is said in the Old Testament. This is plain, because the passage occurs among quotations designed to prove specific point--that the Son of God, the Author of the Christian system, was superior to the angels. A declaration of the writer here, however true and solemn, would not have answered the purpose. A proof-text was wanting; a text which would be admitted, by those to whom he wrote, to bear on the point under consideration. The meaning then is, "that on another occasion, different from those to which he had referred, God, when speaking of the Messiah, or when introducing him to mankind, had used language showing that he was superior to the angels." The meaning of the phrase, "when he bringeth in," therefore, I take to be, when he introduces him to men; when he makes him known to the world--to wit, by the declaration which he proceeds immediately to quote.

The first-begotten. Christ is called the "first-begotten," with reference to his resurrection from the dead, in Rev 1:5, Col 1:18. It is probable here, however, that the word is used, like the word first-born, or first-begotten, among the Hebrews, by way of eminence. As the first-born was the principal heir, and had peculiar privileges, so the Lord Jesus Christ sustains a similar rank in the universe of which God is the Head and Father. Jn 1:14,

where the word, "only-begotten," is used to denote the dignity and honour of the Lord Jesus.

Into the world. When he introduces him to mankind, or declares what he is to be.

He saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Much difficulty has been experienced in regard to this quotation, for it cannot be denied that it is intended to be a quotation. In the Septuagint these very words occur in De 32:43, where they are inserted in the Song of Moses. But they are not in the Hebrew; nor are they in all the copies of the Septuagint. The Hebrew is, "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people; for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries.", The Septuagint is, "Rejoice ye heavens with him and let all the angels of God worship him. Let the nations rejoice with his people, and let all the sons of God be strong in him, for he has avenged the blood of his sons." But there are objections to our supposing that the apostle had this place in his view, which seem to me to settle the matter.

(1.) One is, that the passage is not in the Hebrew; and it seems hardly credible that, in writing to Hebrews, and to those residing in the very country where the Hebrew Scriptures were constantly used, he should adduce, as a proof-text on an important doctrine, what was not in their Scriptures.

(2.) A second is, that it is omitted in all the ancient versions, except the Septuagint.

(3.) A third is, that it is impossible to believe that the passage in question, in Deuteronomy, had any reference to the Messiah. It does not relate to his "introduction" to the world. It would not occur to any reader that it had any such reference. The context celebrates the victory over the enemies of Israel which God will achieve. After saying that "his arrows would be drunk with blood, and that his sword would devour flesh with the blood of the slain and of captives, from the time when he begins to take vengeance on an enemy," the Septuagint (not the Hebrew) immediately asserts, "let the heavens rejoice at the same time with him, and let all the angels of God worship him." That is: "Let the inhabitants of the heavenly world rejoice in the victory of God over the enemies of his people, and let them pay their adoration to him." But the Messiah does not appear to be alluded to anywhere in the context; much less described as "introduced into the world." There is, moreover, not the slightest evidence that it was ever supposed by the Jews to have any such reference; and though it might be said that the apostle merely quoted language that expressed his meaning--as we often do when we are familiar with any well-known phrase that will exactly suit our purpose and convey an idea--yet, it should be remarked, that this is not the way in which this passage is quoted. It is a proof-text, and Paul evidently meant to be understood as saying, that that passage had a fair reference to the Messiah. It is evident, moreover, that it would be admitted to have such a reference by those to whom he wrote. It is morally certain, therefore, that this was not the passage which the writer intended to quote. The probability is, that the writer here referred to Ps 97:7, (in the Sept. Ps 96:7.) In that place, the Hebrew is, "worship him all ye gods " --all ye elohim. In the Septuagint it is, "Let all his angels worship him ;" where the translation is literal, except that the word God--"angels of God" --is used by the apostle instead of his-- "all his angels"--as it is in the Septuagint. The word "gods" elohim is rendered by the word angels, but the word may have that sense. Thus it is rendered by the Seventy, in Job 20:15; and in Ps 8:6, 138:1. It is well known, that the word elohim may denote kings and magistrates, because of their rank and dignity; and is there anything improbable in the supposition that, for a similar reason, the word may be given also to angels? The fair interpretation of the passage, then, would be, to refer it to angelic beings; and the command, in Ps 97, is for them to do homage to the being there referred to. The only question then is, whether the Psalm can be regarded properly as having any reference to the Messiah? Did the apostle fairly and properly use this language as referring to him? On this we may remark,

(1.) That the fact that he uses it thus may be regarded as proof that it would be admitted to be proper by the Jews in his time, and renders it probable that it was in fact so used.

(2.) Two Jewish rabbins of distinction--Raschi and Kimchi--affirm, that all the Psalms, from 93, to 101 are to be regarded as referring to the Messiah. Such was, and is, the opinion of the Jews.

(3.) There is nothing in the Psalm which forbids such a reference, or which can be shown to be inconsistent with it. Indeed, the whole Psalm might be taken as beautifully descriptive of the "introduction" of the Son of God into the world, or as a sublime and glorious description of his advent. Thus, in Ps 97:1, the earth is called on to rejoice that the Lord reigns. In Ps 97:2-5, he is introduced or described as coming in the most magnificent manner--clouds and darkness attend him; a fire goes before him; the lightnings play; and the hills melt like wax --a sublime description of his coming, with appropriate symbols, to reign, or to judge the world. In Ps 97:6, it is said that all people shall see his glory; in Ps 97:7, that all who worship graven images shall be confounded, and all the angels are required to do him homage, and in vers. Ps 97:8-12, the effect of his advent is described as filling Zion with rejoicing, and the hearts of the people of God with gladness. It cannot be proved, therefore, that this Psalm had no reference to the Messiah; but the presumption is that it had, and that the apostle has quoted it not only as it was usually regarded in his time, but as it was designed by the Holy Ghost. If so, then it proves, what the writer intended, that the Son of God should be adored by the angels; and, of course, that he was superior to them. It proves also more. Whom would God require the angels to adore? A creature? A man? A fellow-angel? To ask these questions is to answer them. He could require them to worship none but God, and the passage proves that the Son of God is divine.

(1) "And again" or "when he bringeth again" (a) "let all the angels" Ps 97:7

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.