Joh 9:29-33, 19:7, Heb 1:5-8 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 29. We know , &c. We know that God commanded Moses to deliver the law. In that they were correct; but they assumed their interpretation of the law to be infallible, and hence condemned Jesus. As for this fellow. The word fellow is not in the original. It is simply "this." The word fellow implies contempt, which it cannot be proved they intended to express. Whence he is . We know not his origin, his family, or his home. The contrast with the preceding member of the sentence shows that they intended to express their belief that he was not from God. They knew not whether he was mad, whether he was instigated by the devil, or whether he spoke of himself. See . (p) "We know" (q) "we know not"

John 9:29-33

Verse 29. We know, &c. We know that God commanded Moses to deliver the law. In that they were correct; but they assumed their interpretation of the law to be infallible, and hence condemned Jesus.

As for this fellow. The word fellow is not in the original. It is simply "this." The word fellow implies contempt, which it cannot be proved they intended to express.

Whence he is. We know not his origin, his family, or his home. The contrast with the preceding member of the sentence shows that they intended to express their belief that he was not from God. They knew not whether he was mad, whether he was instigated by the devil, or whether he spoke of himself. See Jn 7:27, 8:48-52.

(p) "We know" Ps 103:7, Heb 3:5 (q) "we know not" Jn 8:14 Verse 30. A marvellous thing. This is wonderful and amazing.

Know not from whence he is. That you cannot perceive that he who has wrought such a miracle must be from God.

(r) "Why, herein" Jn 3:10 (s) "yet he hath" Ps 119:18, Isa 29:18,19, 35:5, 2Cor 4:6 Verse 31. Now we know. That is, it is an admitted or conceded point. No one calls it into question.

God heareth not. When a miracle was performed it was customary to invoke the aid of God. Jesus often did this himself, and it was by his power only that prophets and apostles could perform miracles. The word "heareth" in this place is to be understood as referring to such cases. God will not "hear"--that is, answer.

Sinners. Impostors. False prophets and pretenders to divine revelation. See Jn 9:24. The meaning of this verse is, therefore, "It is well understood that God will not give miraculous aid to impostors and false prophets," We may remark here,

1st. That the passage has no reference to the prayers which sinners make for salvation.

2nd. If it had it would not be of course true. It was the mere opinion of this man, in accordance with the common sentiment of the Jews, and there is no evidence that he was inspired.

3rd. The only prayers which God will not hear are those which are offered in mockery, or when the man loves his sins and is un- willing to give them up. Such prayers God will not hear, Ps 66:18: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me;" Isa 1:14,15, Job 27:9, Jer 11:11, Eze 8:18, Mic 3:4, Zech 8:13.

A worshipper. A sincere worshipper; one who fears, loves, and adores him.

Doeth his will. Obeys his commandments. This is infallibly true. The Scripture abounds with promises to such that God will hear their prayer. See Ps 34:15, Mt 7:7,8.

(t) "God heareth not sinners" Job 27:9, Ps 66:18, Prov 28:9, Isa 1:15 Jer 11:11, Eze 8:18, Mic 3:4, Zech 7:13

(u) "but if any man" Ps 34:15, Prov 15:29 Verse 32. Since the world began. Neither Moses nor any of the prophets had ever done this. No instance of this kind is recorded in the Old Testament. As this was a miracle which had never been performed, the man argued justly that he who had done it must be from God. As Jesus did it not by surgical operations, but by clay, it showed that he had power of working miracles by any means. It may be also remarked that the restoration of sight to the blind by surgical operations was never performed until the year 1728. Dr. Cheselden, an English surgeon, was the first who attempted it successfully, who was enabled to remove a cataract from the eye of a young man, and to restore sight. This fact shows the difficulty of the operation when the most skilful natural means are employed, and the greatness of the miracle performed by the Saviour.

Verse 33. Could do nothing. Could do no such work as this. This reasoning was conclusive. The fact that Jesus could perform miracles like this was full proof that never has been and never can be refuted. One such miracle proves that he was from God. But Jesus gave many similar proofs, and thus put his divine mission beyond the possibility of doubt.

John 19:7

Verse 7. We have a law. The law respecting blasphemy, Lev 24:16; De 13:1-5. They had arraigned Jesus on that charge before the Sanhedrim, and condemned him for it, Mt 26:63-65. But this was not the charge on which they had arraigned him before Pilate. They had accused him of sedition, Lk 23:2. On this charge they were now convinced that they could not get Pilate to condemn him. He declared him innocent. Still bent on his ruin, and resolved to gain their purpose, they now, contrary to their first intention, adduced the original accusation on which they had already pronounced him guilty. If they could not obtain his condemnation as a rebel, they now sought it as a blasphemer, and they appealed to Pilate to sanction what they believed was required in their law. Thus to Pilate himself it became more manifest that he was innocent, that they had attempted to deceive HIM, and that the charge on which they had arraigned him was a mere pretence to obtain his sanction to their wicked design.

Made himself. Declared himself, or claimed to be.

The Son of God. The law did not forbid this, but it forbade blasphemy, and they considered the assumption of this title as the same as blasphemy (Jn 10:30,33,36), and therefore condemned him.

(d) "We have a law" Lev 24:16 (e) "because he made himself" Jn 5:18, 10:33

Hebrews 1:5-8

Verse 5. For unto which oft he angels, etc. The object of this is to prove that the Son of God, who has spoken to men in these last days, is superior to the angels. As the apostle was writing to those who had been trained in the Jewish religion, and who admitted the authority of the Old Testament, of course he made his appeal to that, and undoubtedly referred for proof to those places which were generally admitted to relate to the Messiah. Abarbanel says, that it was the common opinion of the Jewish doctors, that the Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the angels. Stuart. There is a difficulty, as we shall see, in applying the passages which follow to the Messiah--a difficulty which we may find it not easy to explain. Some remarks will be made on the particular passages as we go along. In general, it may be observed here,

(1.) That it is to be presumed that those passages were, in the time of Paul, applied to the Messiah. He seems to argue from them as though this was commonly understood,and is at no pains to prove it.

(2.) It is to be presumed, that those to whom he wrote would at once admit this to be so. If this were not so, we cannot suppose that he would regard this mode of reasoning as at all efficacious, or adapted to convince those to whom he wrote.

(3.) He did not apprehend that the application which he made of these texts would be called in question by the countrymen of those to whom he wrote. It is to be presumed, therefore, that the application was made in accordance with the received opinions, and the common interpretation.

(4.) Paul had been instructed, in early life, in the doctrines of the Jewish religion, and made fully acquainted with all their principles of interpretation. It is to be presumed, therefore, that he made these quotations in accordance with the prevalent belief, and with principles which were well understood and admitted,

(5.) Every age and people have their own modes of reasoning. They may differ from others, and others may regard them as unsound, and yet, to that age and people, they are satisfactory and conclusive. The ancient philosophers employed modes of reasoning which would not strike us as the most forcible, and which, perhaps, we should not regard as tenable. So it is with the Chinese, the Hindoos, the Mohammedans now. So it was with the writers of the dark ages, who lived under the influence of the scholastic philosophy. They argue from admitted principles in their country and time--just as we do in ours. Their reasoning was as satisfactory to them, as ours is to us.

(6.) In a writer of any particular age we are to expect to find the prevailing mode of reasoning, and appeals to the usual arguments on any subject. We are not to look for methods of argument founded on the inductive philosophy in the writings of the schoolmen, or in the writings of the Chinese or the Hindoos. It would be unreasonable to expect it. We are to expect that they will be found to reason in accordance with the customs of their time; to appeal to such arguments as were commonly alleged; and, if they are reasoning with an adversary, to make use of the points which he concedes, and to urge them as fitted to convince him. And this is not wrong. It may strike him with more force than it does us; it may be that we can see that is not the most solid mode of reasoning, but still it may not be in itself an improper method. That the writers of the New Testament should have used that mode of reasoning sometimes, is no more surprising than that we find writers in China reasoning from acknowledged principles, and in the usual manner there; or than that men in our own land, reason on the principles of the inductive philosophy. These remarks may not explain all the difficulties in regard to the proof-texts adduced by Paul in this chapter, but they may remove some of them, and may so prepare the way that we may be able to dispose of them all as we advance. In the passage which is quoted in this verse, there is not much difficulty in regard to the propriety of its being thus used. The difficulty lies in the subsequent quotations in the chapter.

Said he at any time. He never used language respecting the angels, like that which he employs respecting his Son. He never applied to any one of them the name Son.

Thou art my Son. The name "sons of God," is applied in the Scriptures to saints, and may have been given to the angels. But the argument here is, that the name "my son" has never been given to any one of them particularly, and by eminence. In a large, general sense, they are the sons of God, or the children of God; but the name is given to the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, in a peculiar sense, implying a peculiar relation to him, and a peculiar dominion over all things. This passage is quoted from Ps 2.--a Psalm that is usually believed to pertain particularly to the Messiah, and one of the few Psalms that have undisputed reference to him. Acts 4:25; Acts 13:33.

This day. Acts 13:33, where this passage is applied to the resurrection of Christ from the dead;--proving that the phrase "this day" does not refer to the doctrine of eternal generation, but to the resurrection of the Redeemer--"the FIRST-BEGOTTEN of the dead," Rev 1:6. Thus Theodoret says of the phrase "this day"--" It does not express his eternal generation, but that which is connected with time." The argument of the apostle here does not turn on the time when this was said, but on the fact that this was said to him, and not to any one of the angels; and this argument will have equal force, whether the phrase be understood as referring to the fact of his resurrection, or to his previous existence. The structure and scope of the second Psalm refers to his exaltation after the kings of the earth set themselves against him, and endeavoured to cast off his government from them. In spite of that, and subsequent to that, he would set his King, which they had rejected, on his holy hill of Zion. See Ps 2:2-6.

Have I begotten thee. See this place explained Acts 13:33. It must, from the necessity of the case, be understood figuratively; and must mean substantially, "I have constituted, or appointed thee." If it refers to his resurrection, it means that that resurrection was a kind of begetting to life, or a beginning of life, see Rev 1:5. And yet, though Paul (Acts 13:33) has applied it to the resurrection of the Redeemer, and though the name "Son of God" is applied to him on account of his resurrection, (Rom 1:4,) yet I confess this does not seem to me to come up to all that the writer here intended. The phrase, "THE Son of God," I suppose, properly denotes that the Lord Jesus sustained a relation to God, designated by that name, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name "the Son of man." The one implied that he had a peculiar relation to God, as the other implied that he had a peculiar relation to man. This is indisputable. But on what particular account the name was given him, or how he was manifested to be the Son of God, has been the great question. Whether the name refers to the mode of his existence before the incarnation, and to his being begotten from eternity, or to the incarnation and the resurrection, has long been a point on which men have been divided in opinion. The natural idea conveyed by the title, `THE Son of God,' is, that he sustained a relation to God which implied more than was human or angelic; and this is certainly the drift of the argument of the apostle here. I do not see, however, that he refers to the doctrine of `eternal generation,' or that he means to teach that. His point is, that God had declared and treated him as a Son--as superior to the angels and to men, and that this was shown in what had been said of him in the Old Testament. This would be equally clear, whether there is reference to the doctrine of eternal generation or not. The sense is, "he is more than human." He is more than angelic, He has been addressed and treated as a Son--which none of the angels have. They are regarded simply as ministering spirits. They sustain subordinate stations, and are treated accordingly. He, on the contrary, is the brightness of the Divine glory, he is treated and addressed as a Son. In his original existence this was so. In his incarnation this was so. When on earth this was so; and in his resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God, he was treated in all respects as a Son--as superior to all servants, and to all "ministering spirits." The exact reference, then, of the phrase "this day have I begotten thee," in the Psalm, is to the act of constituting him, in a public manner, the Son of God; and refers to God's setting him as King on the "holy hill of Zion"--or making him King over the church and the world, as Messiah; and this was done eminently, as Paul shows (Acts 13) by the resurrection. It was based, however, on what was fit and proper. It was not arbitrary. There was a reason why he should thus be exalted, rather than a man or an angel; and this was, that he was the God incarnate, and had a nature that qualified him for universal empire, and he was thus appropriately called "THE Son of God."

And again, I will be to him a Father. This passage is evidently quoted from 2Sam 7:14. A sentiment similar to this is found in Ps 89:20-27. As these words were originally spoken, they referred to Solomon. They occur in a promise to DAVID, that he should not fail to have an heir to sit on his throne, or that his throne should be perpetual. The promise was particularly designed to comfort him in view of the fact, that God would not suffer him to build the temple, because his hands had been defiled with blood. To console him, in reference to that, God promises him far greater honour than that would be. He promises that the house should be built by one of his own family, and that his family and kingdom should be established for ever. That, in this series of promises, the Messiah was included, as a descendant of David, was the common opinion of the Jews, of the early Christians, and has been of the great body of interpreters. It was certainly from such passages as this, that the Jews derived the notion, which prevailed so universally in the time of the Saviour, that the Messiah was to be the Son or the descendant of David. See Mt 22:42-45, 9:27, 15:22, 20:30,31, Mk 10:47,48, Lk 18:38,39, Mt 12:23; Mt 21:9, Jn 7:42, Rom 1:3, Rev 5:5, 22:16. That opinion was universal. No one doubted it; and it must have been common for the Jews to apply such texts as this to the Messiah. Paul would not have done it, in this instance, unless it had been usual. Nor was it improper. If the Messiah was to be a descendant of David, then it was natural to apply these promises, in regard to his posterity, in an eminent and peculiar sense to the Messiah. They were a part of the promises which included him, and which terminated in him. The promise, therefore, which is here made is, that God would be to him, in a peculiar sense, a Father, and he should be a Son. It does not, as I suppose, pertain, originally, exclusively to the Messiah, but included him as a descendant of David. To him it would be applicable in an eminent sense; and if applicable to him at all, it proved all that the passage here is adduced to prove--that the name Son is given to the Messiah, a name not given to angels. That is just the point on which the argument turns. What is implied in the bestowment of that name, is another point on which the apostle discourses in the other parts of the argument. I have no doubt, therefore, that while these words originally might have been applicable to Solomon, or to any of the other descendants of David who succeeded him on the throne, yet they at last terminated, and were designed to, in the Messiah, to whom pre-eminently God would be a Father. Comp. Introduction to Isaiah, & 7, iii. (3,) and Isa 7:16.

(a) "at any time, Thou" Ps 2:7 (b) "and again" 2Sam 7:14 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 Verse 7. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits. He gives to them an inferior name, and assigns to them a more humble office. They are mere ministers, and have not ascribed to them the name of Son. They have a name which implies a more humble rank and office--the name "spirit," and the appellation of a "flame of fire." They obey his will as the winds and the lightnings do. The object of the apostle in this passage is to show that the angels serve God in a ministerial capacity--as the winds do; while the Son is Lord of all. The one serves him passively, as being wholly under his control; the other acts as a Sovereign, as Lord over all, and is addressed and regarded as the equal with God. This quotation is made from Ps 104:4. The passage might, be translated, "Who, maketh his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire; that is, "who makes his angels like the winds, or as swift as the winds, and his ministers as rapid, as terrible, and as resistless as the lightning." So Doddridge renders it; and so did the late Rev. Dr. J.P. Wilson. MS. Notes. The passage in the Psalm is susceptible, I think, of another interpretation, and might be regarded as meaning, "who makes the winds his messengers, and the flaming fire his ministers;" and perhaps this is the sense which would most naturally occur to a reader of the Hebrew. The Hebrew, however, will admit of the construction here put upon it, and it cannot be proved that it was the original intention of the passage to show that the angels were the mere servants of God, rapid, quick, and prompt to do his will--like the winds. The Chaldee Paraphrase renders the passage in the Psalm, "Who makes his messengers swift as the wind; his ministers strong, like a flame of fire." Professor Stuart maintains that the passage in the Psalm cannot mean "who makes the winds his messengers," but that the intention of the Psalmist is to describe the invisible as well as the visible majesty of God, and that he refers to the angels as a part of the retinue which goes to make up his glory. This does not seem to me to be perfectly certain; but still, it cannot be demonstrated that Paul has made an improper use of the passage. It is to be presumed that he, who had been trained in the knowledge of the Hebrew language, would have had a better opportunity of knowing its fair construction than we can; and it is morally certain, that he would employ the passage in an argument as it was commonly understood by those to whom he wrote--that is, to those who were familiar with the Hebrew language and literature. If he has so used the passage; if he has --as no one can disprove-- put the fair construction on it, then it is just in point. It proves that the angels are the attendant servants of God; employed to grace his train, to do his will, to accompany him as the clouds and winds and lightnings do, and to occupy a subordinate rank in his creation.

Flame of fire. This probably refers to lightning-- which is often the meaning of the phrase. The word "ministers" here, means the same as angels; and the sense of the whole is, that the attending retinue of God, when he manifests himself with great power and glory, is like the winds and the lightning. His angels are like them. They are prompt to do his will--rapid, quick, obedient in his service; they are, in all respects, subordinate to him, and occupy, as the winds and the lightnings do, the place of servants. They are not addressed in language like that which is applied to the Son of God, and they must all be far inferior to him.

(1) "And of the angels" "unto" (a) "maketh" Ps 104.4 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"