Appendix A – Appendix F

Appendix A

APPENDIX A

Chapter 1:3 Who being the brightness, etc. The words are rendered by Beza, “the effulgence of his glory, and the impress of his person;” by Doddridge, “the effulgent ray of his glory, and the express delineation of his person;” by Macknight, “an effulgence of his glory, and an exact image of his substance;” and by Stuart, “the radiance of his glory, and the exact image of his substance.” The word “brightness,” does not adequately express the meaning of the first word, ἀπαύγασμα, which signifies an emitted light, a splendor proceeding from an object. The most suitable word would be, outshining, or irradiation, “the outshining of his glory.” The “express image” of our version is the impress, the engraven or impressed form, derived from the archetype. And “impress,” as given by Beza, fully expresses it.

The words are doubtless metaphorical, but the idea is this — that Christ, as a Mediator, as the Son of God in human nature, exactly represents what God is, being the very image of him who is invisible. “Substance,” or essence, is the divine nature in all its glorious and incomprehensible attributes of power, wisdom, holiness, justice, and goodness. These and other perfections are exhibited in Christ perfectly, and in such a way that we can look on them, and in a measure understand them. Hence he said, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,” John 14:9.

The word ὑπόστασις, does not mean a “person,” either in Scripture or in classic writers. It is a meaning invented by the fathers during the Arian controversy. As used in the Sept. and in the New Testament, it means foundation or basis, Ezekiel 43:11, — substance, Psalm 139:15, — expectation, Psalm 38:11, — and confidence, 2 Corinthians 9:4. Its classic meaning, according to Stuart, is foundation, steadfastness, courage, purpose, resolution, determination, substance, essence, being. There is in Colossians 1:15, a phrase of a similar import, with “the impress of his substance,” where Christ is said to be “the image (εἴχων — the likeness) of the invisible God.” The substance or essence is “the invisible God,” and “the impress” is “the image.”

“In the opinion,” says Stuart, “that the verse now under consideration relates to the incarnate Messiah, and not to the Logos in his divine nature simply considered, I find that Scott and Beza concur, not to mention others of the most respectable commentators.”

It was the mistaken view which the fathers took of the passage that led them to invent a new meaning to the word ὑπόστασις; and many have followed them.

Appendix B

APPENDIX B

Chapter 1:5. Thou art my Son, etc. It is to be observed that Christ is called a Son when his prophetic office is referred to, ver. 2, when spoken of as a king, ver. 8, when his priesthood is mentioned, chapter 5:5, and when a comparison is made between him and Moses, chapter 3:6. But as a king over his people is he represented here as superior to angels; and David as his type was also called a son because he was a king. Christ is said here to have derived his name by “inheritance” — from whom? The Apostle refers throughout to the Old Testament; and what does Peter say That David, being a Prophet, knew that God “would raise up Christ to sit on his throne,” Acts 2:30. Then the inheritance in this instance was from David. Christ is God’s only­begotten Son as to his divine nature; but he is also a Son in a peculiar manner, superior to all others, that is, as a Prophet, Priest, and King. There were types of him in these offices; but they were only types, and therefore far inferior to him even as to these offices. And angels never sustained such offices.

Appendix C

APPENDIX C

Chapter 1:6 And again when he bringeth, etc Critics have found some difficulty in the order in which the particles are arranged here, and have proposed a transposition, which is not at all necessary. The word “first­begotten,” or first­born, seems to have been used on account of what the previous verse contains. The words, “Today have I begotten thee,” refer clearly to the resurrection; and Christ is said to have been “the first­born from the dead,” Colossians 1:18. Having then referred to Christ’s resurrection, he now as it were goes back to his birth, or to the announcement made in prophecy of his coming into the world, and seems to say, that not only when he became the first­born from the dead he attained a manifested superiority over angels, but even at his first introduction into the world, for they were commanded even to worship him. “And when again,” or also, or moreover, “he introduces,” etc.; as though he had said, “God owned him as his Son by raising him from the dead; and again, or in addition to this, when he introduced him into the world, he commanded the angels to worship him.” So that the subordination of angels was evident before his resurrection, even at his very introduction into the world.

Stuart considers his introduction to be his birth, and regards the words, “and let all the angels of God worship him,” as borrowed, though not literally, from Psalm 97:7, to express what is intimated in the account of his birth, Luke 2:10-14. The Hebrews, written to, were, he supposes, acquainted with that event.

This is the view taken by some of the fathers, Chrysostom and others. But some, as Mede, thinking the quotation a prophecy, consider that his second coming is intended, as the contents of the Psalm were deemed to be descriptive of the day of judgment. A third party, as Dr. Owen, view the introduction to be Christ’s birth, and consider the Psalm as giving an allegorical description of the progress of the Gospel in the world; and this seems to be the view taken by Calvin, and is apparently the most consistent.

The difference in the quotation is quite immaterial. The words in the Psalm are, “Worship him all gods,” or rather angels; for so is the word sometimes rendered. The version of the Sept. is, “Worship him all ye his angels;” and here “God “is put instead of “his.”

Appendix D

APPENDIX D

Chapter 1:10. Thou, Lord, etc. The quotation is literally from the Sept., only the order of the words in the first sentence is changed; and it is literally the Hebrew, except that σὺ χύζιε are added. The Hebrew is, “Of old the earth hast thou founded, and the work of thy hands are the heavens.”

Nothing can more clearly prove the divine nature of Christ than this quotation; and it settles at once the meaning of αἰω̑νας; in the 2nd verse, as it confirms the truth that Christ, the Messiah, being not only the Son but also the only­begotten of God, is the Creator of the world, even the earth and the heavens, as here stated. Nor can the word have any other meaning in chapter 9:26, and 11:3

It is generally admitted that this Psalm refers to Christ; and Dr. Owen mentions three particulars in proof of this, — the redemption of the Church, verses 13 and 16, — the call of the Gentiles, verses 15, 21, and 22, — and the creation of a new people, verse 18; and he adds, that the Jews themselves refer the last thing to the time of the Messiah.

Referring to the words, “as a vesture,” the same author beautifully observes, that the whole creation is like God’s vesture, by which he shews himself to men in his power and wisdom, and that hence it is said, that he “clothes himself with light as with a garment,” Psalm 104:2.

Appendix E

APPENDIX E

Chapter 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, etc It is said of Christ also, that he was a minister or a servant; but while he was a servant, he was at the same time the Lord of all, which cannot be said of angels. Yet as a servant he was superior to them; for he became so in a work which they were not capable of doing. So that as a servant a superiority belongs to him. But his office as a servant is not contemplated here. Indeed all the names given to him, in common either with men on earth or with angels in heaven, mean very different things when applied to him; such as son, servant, priest, king, Savior, etc.

It ought to be born in mind that throughout this chapter Christ is spoken of in his character of a Mediator, and not as to his divine nature simply considered, and that the reference is made, as to his superiority over angels, to the testimonies in the Old Testament. He is in this chapter represented as superior to angels, —

1. Because he is called in a peculiar respect a Son.

2. Because angels were commanded to worship him.

3. Because he is addressed as having an eternal throne, and being honored more than all his associates as a king.

4. Because he is the Creator of the world.

5. And lastly, because there is a promise made to him that all his enemies shall be finally subdued, while angels are only employed in ministering to his people.

Who, after duly considering all these things, can possibly come to any other conclusion than that the Messiah is a divine person as well as human? Angels are commanded to worship him, his throne is eternal, he created this world, and all his enemies shall finally be made his footstool. That he is sometimes spoken of as having a delegated power, as in verse 2, “by whom he (God) made the world,” and sometimes as acting independently, as in verse 10, “Thou, Lord, hast founded the earth;” all this only proves, that as he is inferior to the Father in his mediatorial office, so he is one with the Father as his only­begotten Son. Creation is what God claims as peculiarly his own work; and were not the Son one in essence with the Father, creation could not have been ascribed to him.

Appendix F

APPENDIX F

Chapter 2:1. Lest at any time we should let them slip. Much has been written as to the meaning of the verb here used. It is said by Schleusner that it signifies two things, “to flow through,” as waters through a sieve or a leaky vessel, and “to flow by,” as a river. It is used mostly in the latter sense. Chrysostom and others, both ancient and modern, give it the sense of falling away or perishing; but, according to Stuart, there is no instance either in Scripture or the classics which countenances such a meaning. As it was often the case, so here, the fathers gave what they conceived to be the general sense, without attending to the precise meaning of the word used; and thus their propositions are often very loose. Besides, most of them were wholly ignorant of the language of the Old Testament.

To flow by, in the sense of escaping, is its meaning in classical authors; and Stuart says that all the examples commonly referred to apply only to things, and not to persons. The word only occurs here in the New Testament, and once in the Sept.; and there also it refers to a person, and is clearly used transitively. The passage is Proverbs 3:21, “O son, pass not by (or disregard not, μὴ παραῤῥυὢς, flow not by,) but keep (or retain, τήρησον) my counsel and thought.” The form of the sentence is different in Hebrew, but the idea is here preserved, “My son, let them not depart from thine eyes; keep (retain) sound wisdom and discretion.” Not to suffer them to depart from the eyes, is the same as not to pass them by or disregard them. There is no other idea compatible with the context; and it is what exactly suits this passage. Then the sentence would be, “Lest we should at any time disregard (or neglect) them.”

It is justly observed by Stuart, that everything in the whole passage is in favor of this meaning: it is the opposite of “taking heed;” and it is often the case in Scripture that the negative idea is stated as well as the positive, and vice versa. Besides, in verse 3 the same idea is presented to us on the same subject, “If we neglect,” etc. Indeed, to disregard or neglect may be deemed as the consequence of not taking heed or attending to a thing. Inattention to truth is followed by the neglect of what it teaches and inculcates. Unless we earnestly attend to what we hear, we shall inevitably neglect what is required. There may be some attention without performance; but there can be no performance without attention.