Hebrews 1:5

The apostle proceedeth to the confirmation of his proposition concerning the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, and of his proof of it from the excellency of the name given unto him; and this he doth by sundry testimonies produced out of the Old Testament, two whereof are conjoined in this verse, as the verses are divided in our Bibles.

Hebrews 1:5. Τίνι γὰρ ει῏πέ ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων· Υἱός μου ει῏ οὺ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε ;

Ει῏πέ ποτε. Vulg., “dixit aliquando,” “said he sometime;” for “at any time.” Syr., מֵן מְתוּם אֲמַר אַלָהָא, “from at any time said God.” “Eloah,” “God,” is supplied needlessly, though better than those who would render ει῏πε impersonally, “was it said at anytime;” for it is express in the psalm from whence the words are taken, יְהָֹוה אָמַר, “The LORD said.” “The LORD said unto me, יְלִדְתִּיךָ בִּנִי אַתָּה אֲנִי הַיוֹם,” “Thou my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” The ellipsis of the verb substantive in the original, which is perpetual, is supplied by the apostle with εἷ, “Thou art my Son.” Further difficulty in the grammatical sense of the words there is not. And here we shall close this verse, or at least consider this testimony by itself. [5]

[5] Ποτε, v καὶ πάλην. does not serve to strengthen the τίνι, but is independent, signifying ‘at any time,'and thus forms a marked antithesis with πάλιν. This καὶ πάλιν is to be extended in the following way: Καὶ τίνι τῶν ἀγγέλων, ‘To which of the angels has he at any time said, Thou art my Son? And to which has he again said, I will be to him a Father?'This contains clearly the two ideas: God has used such expressions to an angel not even a single time, but to the Son not merely once, but again and again. Γεγέν. There is ascribed to the Messiah a relation of sonship to God such as is never applied, even approximately, to any of the angels, a relation of such a kind, that the Messiah derives his real being not from David but from God.” Ebrard “It may fairly be doubted whether there exists any valid evidence in favor of the declarative sense of the passage, and hence we have no alternative but to explain it according to its literal acceptation, as an absolute affirmation of the divine sonship of Christ. That this is the exposition which would most readily occur to the Jews is too evident to require any detailed proof...... Today always is..... So Clement of Alexandria happily remarks, ‘Today is the image of an eternal age.'” Treffrey on the Sonship, pp. 300-302. ED.

Hebrews 1:5. Unto which of the angels did he at any time [or, ever] say, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? Two things are considerable in these words :

1. The manner of the apostle's producing the testimony which he intended to make use of: “Unto which of the angels said he at any time?”

2. The testimony itself: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

In the former three things may be observed:

First, That the testimony which in a matter of faith he insisted on is that of the Scripture. He refers the Jews unto that common principle which was acknowledged between them. Men had not as yet learned in such contests to make that cavilling return which we are now used unto, ‘How do you know those Scriptures to be the word of God?'Nor, indeed, is it suitable unto common honesty for men to question the credit and prostitute the authority of their own most sacred principles, for no other end but to prejudice their adversaries'. But our apostle here confidently sends the Hebrews to the acknowledged rule of their faith and worship, whose authority he knew they would not decline, Isaiah 8:20.

Secondly, That the apostle argues negatively from the authority and perfection of the Scripture in things relating to faith and the worship of God. ‘It is nowhere said in the Scripture to angels; therefore they have not the name spoken of, or not in that manner wherein it is ascribed to the Messiah.'This argument, saith an expositor of great name on this place, seems to be weak, and not unlike unto that which the heretics made use of in the like cases; and therefore answers that the apostle argues negatively, not only from the Scripture, but from tradition also. But this answer is far more weak than the argument is pretended to be. The apostle deals expressly in all this chapter from the testimony of Scripture, and to that alone do his words relate, and therein doth he issue the whole controversy he had in hand, knowing that the Jews had many corrupt traditions, expressly contrary to what he undertook to prove; particularly, that the law of Moses was eternally obligatory, against which he directly contends in the whole epistle. An argument, then, taken negatively from the authority of the Scripture in matters of faith, or what relates to the worship of God, is valid and effectual, and here consecrated for ever to the use of the church by the apostle.

Thirdly, That the apostle either indeed grants, or else, for argument's sake, condescends unto the apprehension of the Hebrews, that there is a distinction of degrees and pre-eminence amongst the angels themselves. To confirm, therefore, his general assertion of the dignity and pre-eminence of Christ above them all, he provokes them to instance in any one of them, which either indeed or in their apprehension was promoted above others, to whom such words as these were ever spoken: “To which of the angels said he.” His assertion respects not only the community of them, but any or all of the chief or princes among them. There are שָׂרִים הָרִאשׂנִים, Daniel 10:13, “chief princes” among the angels. And of them Michael, the prince of the people of God, is said to be אֶחָד, “one;” that is, not in order, but the chief in dignity, their head and leader. Now, saith the apostle, to which of these, or of the rest of them, were these words spoken?

Proceed we now to the testimony itself produced. Three things are required to make it pertinent unto his purpose, and useful unto the end for which he makes mention of it :

First, That He of whom he speaks is peculiarly intended therein.

Secondly, That there be in it an assignation of a name unto him made by God himself, which thereon he might claim as his peculiar inheritance.

Thirdly, That this name, either absolutely or in its peculiar manner of appropriation unto him, is more excellent than any that was ever given unto angels, as a sign of their dignity, authority, and excellency. And these things, for the clearing of the apostle's argument, must particularly be insisted on.

First, The words produced do peculiarly belong unto him to whom they are applied; that is, it is the Messiah who is prophesied of in the second psalm, from whence they are taken. This with all Christians is put beyond dispute, by the application of it in several places unto him; as Acts 4:25-27; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 5:5. It is certain, also, that the Jews always esteemed this psalm to relate unto the Messiah; they do so to this day. Hence the Targum on the psalm expressly applies it unto him, thus rendering these words: “O beloved! as a son to his father, thou art pure to me as in the day wherein I created thee.” So are the words perverted by the Targumist, not knowing what sense to ascribe unto them; which is frequent with him. But it is manifest that the constant opinion of the ancient Jews was that this psalm principally intended the Messiah, nor did any of them of old dissent. Some of their later masters are otherwise minded, but therein discover their obstinacy and iniquity. Thus Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, in his comment on this psalm, in the Venetian edition of the great Masoretical Bibles, affirms that “whatever is sung in this psalm our masters interpreted of Messiah the king; but,” saith he, “according unto the sound of the words, and for the confutation of the heretics” (that is, Christians), “it is convenient that we expound it of David.” So wickedly corrupt and partial are they now in their interpretations of the Scripture. But these words are left out in the Basle edition of the same notes and comments; by the fraud, it may be, of the Jews employed in that work, so to hide the dishonesty of one of their great masters. But the confession of the judgment of their fathers or predecessors in this matter is therein also extant. And Aben Ezra, though he would apply it unto David, yet speaks doubtfully whether it may not better be ascribed unto the Messiah.

But this was not enough for the apostle, that those with whom he dealt acknowledged these words to be spoken concerning the Messiah, unless they were so really, that so his argument might proceed “ex veris” as well as “ex concessis,” from what was true as upon what was granted. This, then, we must next inquire into.

The whole psalm, say some, seems principally, if not only, to intend David. He having taken the hill and tower of Zion, and settled it for the seat of his kingdom, the nations round about tumultuated against him; and some of them, as the Philistines, presently engaged in war against him for his ruin, 2 Samuel 5:17. To declare how vain all their attempts should be, and the certainty of God's purpose in raising him to the kingdom of Israel, and for his preservation therein against all his adversaries, with the indignation of God against them, the Holy Ghost gave out this psalm for the comfort and establishment of the church in the persuasion of so great a mercy. And this is borrowed of Rashi.

But suppose the psalm to have a further respect than unto David and his temporal kingdom, and that it doth point at the Messiah under the type of David, yet then also whatever is spoken in it must firstly and properly be understood of David. So that if the words insisted on by the apostle do prove that the Lord Christ was made more excellent than the angels, they prove the same concerning David also, concerning whom they were spoken in the first place.

Ans. 1. There is no cogent reason why we should acknowledge David and his kingdom to be at all intended in this psalm. The apostles, we see, apply it unto the Lord Christ without any mention of David, and that four several times, twice in the Acts, and twice in this epistle. The Jews acknowledge that it belongs unto the Messiah. Besides, there are sundry things spoken in the psalm that could never truly and properly be applied unto David. Such are the promises, 2 Samuel 5:8-9, and the invitation of all men to put their trust and confidence in him, 2 Samuel 5:12. And we have a rule given us by the Holy Ghost, That where any thing seems to be spoken of any one to whom it doth not properly belong, there the person is not at all to be understood, but the Lord Christ himself immediately. This rule Peter gives us in his interpretation of the 16th psalm, and his application of it unto the Lord Jesus, Acts 2:29-31. So that there is no necessity to grant that there is any reference in these words to any type at all. But,

2. We grant that David was a type of Christ, and that as he was king of the people of God. Hence he is not only often signally called “The son of David,” but “David” also, Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 37:24-25; Hosea 3:5. And the throne and kingdom promised to David for ever and ever, that it should be as the sun, and established for ever as the moon, Psalms 89:36-37, that is, whilst the world endures, had no accomplishment but in the throne and kingdom of his Son, Jesus Christ. Thus also many other things are said of him and his kingdom, which in propriety of speech can no way be applied unto him but as he was a type of Christ, and represented him to the church. We may then grant, as that about which we will not contend, that in this psalm consideration was had of David and his kingdom, but not absolutely, but only as a type of Christ. And hence two things will follow:

(1.) That some things may be spoken in the psalm which no way respect the type at all. For when not the type, but the person or thing signified, is principally aimed at, it is not necessary that every thing spoken thereof should be applicable properly unto the type itself, it being sufficient that there was in the type somewhat that bare a general resemblance unto him or that which was principally intended. So, on the contrary, where the type is principally intended, and an application made to the thing signified only by way of general allusion, there it is not required that all the particulars assigned unto the type should belong unto or be accommodated unto the thing typed out, as we shall see in the next testimony cited by the apostle. Hence, though in general David and his deliverance from trouble, with the establishment of his throne, might be respected in this psalm, as an obscure representation of the kingdom of Christ, yet sundry particulars in it, and among them this mentioned by our apostle, seem to have no respect unto him, but directly and immediately to intend the Messiah.

(2.) If it yet be supposed that what is here spoken, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” is also to be applied unto David, yet it is not ascribed unto him personally and absolutely, but merely considered as a type of Christ. What, then, is principally and directly intended in the words is to be sought for in Christ alone, it being sufficient to preserve the nature of the type that there was in David any resemblance or representation of it. Thus, whether David be admitted as a type of Christ in this psalm or no, the purpose of the apostle stands firm, that the words were principally and properly spoken of the Messiah, and unto him. And this is the first thing required in the application of the testimony insisted on.

Secondly, It is required that in the testimony produced a signal name be given unto the Messiah, and appropriated unto him, so as that he may inherit it for ever as his own, neither men nor angels having the same interest with him in it. It is not being called by this or that name in common with others that is intended, but such a peculiar assignation of a name unto him as whereby he might for ever be distinguished from all others. Thus many may be beloved of the Lord, and be so termed, but yet Solomon only was peculiarly called יְדִידְיָה, “Jedidiah;” and by that name was distinguished from others. In this way it is that the Messiah hath his name assigned unto him. God decreed from eternity that he should be called by that name; he spake unto him and called him by that name: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” He is not called the Son of God upon such a common account as angels and men, the one by creation, the other by adoption; but God peculiarly and in a way of eminency gives this name unto him.

Thirdly, This name must be such as either absolutely, or by reason of its peculiar manner of appropriation unto the Messiah, proves his pre- eminence above the angels. Now, the name designed is The Son of God: “Thou art my Son;” not absolutely, but with that exegetical adjunct of his generation, “This day have I begotten thee.” Chrysostom, Hom. 22, on Genesis 6, positively denies that the angels in Scripture are anywhere called the sons of God. Hence some conjecture that the translation of the LXX. is changed since that time, seeing it is evident that they are so called in the Greek Bibles now extant.

However, in the original they are called “the sons of God,” Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Psalms 82:6. Believers are also called “the sons of God,” Romans 8:16; Galatians 4:6; 1 John 3:1; and magistrates “gods,” Psalms 82:1; Psalms 82:6; John 10:34. It doth not therefore appear how the mere assigning of this name to the Messiah doth prove his pre-eminence above the angels, who are also called by it.

Ans. Angels may be called the sons of God upon a general account, and by virtue of their participation in some common privilege; as they are by reason of their creation, like Adam, Luke 3 ult., and constant obedience, Job 1. But it was never said unto any angel personally, upon his own account, “Thou art the son of God.” God never said so unto any of them, especially with the reason of the appellation annexed, “This day have I begotten thee.” It is not, then, the general name of a son, or the sons of God, that the apostle instanceth in; but the peculiar assignation of this name unto the Lord Jesus on his own particular account, with the reason of it annexed, “This day have I begotten thee,” which is insisted on. So that here is an especial appropriation of this glorious name unto the Messiah.

Again, The appropriation of this name unto him in the manner expressed proves his dignity and pre-eminence above all the angels. For it is evident that God intended thereby to declare his singular honor and glory, giving him a name to denote it, that was never by him assigned unto any mere creature, as his peculiar inheritance; in particular, not unto any of the angels. Not one of them can lay any claim unto it as his peculiar heritage from the Lord.

And this is the whole that was incumbent on the apostle to prove by the testimony produced. He manifests him sufficiently to be more excellent than the angels, from the excellency of the name which he inherits, according to his proposition before laid down. There is, indeed, included in this reasoning of the apostle an intimation of a peculiar filiation and sonship of Christ. Had he not been so the Son of God as never any angel or other creature was, he never had been called so in such a way as they are never so called. But this the apostle at present doth not expressly insist upon; only, he intimates it as the foundation of his discourse.

To conclude, then, our considerations of this testimony, we shall briefly inquire after the sense of the words themselves, absolutely considered; although, as I have showed, that doth not belong directly unto the present argument of the apostle.

Expositors are much divided about the precise intendment of these words, both as they are used in the psalm, and variously applied by the apostles. But yet generally the expositions given of them are pious, and consistent with each other. I shall not insist long upon them, because, as I said, their especial sense belongeth not unto the design and argument of the apostle.

That Christ is the natural and eternal Son of God is agreed at this day by all Christians, save the Socinians. And he is called so because he is so. The formal reason why he is so called is one and the same, namely, his eternal Sonship; but occasions of actual ascribing that name unto him there are many. And hence ariseth the difficulty that is found in the words. Some think these words, “This day have I begotten thee,” do contain the formal reason of Christ's being properly called the Son of God, and so denote his eternal generation. Others think they express only some outward act of God towards the Lord Christ, on the occasion whereof he was declared to be the Son of God, and so called. The former way went Austin, with sundry of the ancients. The היּוֹם, the “hodie,” or “this day,” here, was the same with them as the “nunc stans,” as they call it, of eternity; and the יְליִדְתִּיךָ, “I have begotten thee,” denotes, as they say, the proper natural generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the person of the Father unto him. And this doctrine is true, but whether here intended or no is by some greatly questioned.

Others, therefore, take the words to express only an occasion of giving this name at a certain season to the Lord Christ, when he was revealed or declared to be the Son of God. And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke 1:35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matthew 3:17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Romans 1:4, and Acts 13:33; some to the day of his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent, and reconcilable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end, that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts 13:33.

And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David, as a type of Christ, seeing he was said, as it were, to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. Neither, indeed, doth the apostle treat; in this place of the eternal generation of the Son, but of his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels.

The word היּוֹם, also, constantly in the Scripture denotes some signal time, one day or more. And that expression, “This day have I begotten thee,” following immediately upon that other typical one, “I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion,” seems to be of the same importance, and in like manner to be interpreted. Thus far, then, I choose to embrace the latter interpretation of the words, namely, that the eternal generation of Christ, on which his filiation or sonship, both name and thing, doth depend, is to be taken only declaratively; and that declaration to be made in his resurrection, and exaltation over all that ensued thereon. But every one is left unto the liberty of his own judgment herein.

And this is the first testimony whereby the apostle confirms his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the name that he inherits as his peculiar right and possession.

For the further confirmation of the same truth, he adds another testimony of the same importance, in the words ensuing :

Hebrews 1:5. Καὶ πάλιν· ᾿Εγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν ;

Vulg.: “Et rursum, ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium;” “I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son.” So also the Syriac, לַאבָּא and לָבְיָא, “in patrem,” and “in filium;” not “pro patre,” and “pro filio,'as some render the words. Erasmus worse than they: “Ego ero ei loco patris, et ille erit mihi loco filii;” “Instead of a father,” and “instead of a son,” or, “in the place;” which agrees not with the letter, and corrupts the sense. Beza: “Ego ero ei pater, et ipse erit mihi filius;” who is followed by ours, “And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.”

Καὶ πάλιν, “and again.” That, is, in another place, or “again,” it is said to the Son what is nowhere spoken unto the angels. ῎Εγὼ ἔσομαι, לְאָב וְהוּא יִהְיֶהאּלִּי לְבֵן אֲנִי אֶהִוֶהאּלוֹ. The prefixed ל doth not denote a substitution or comparison, but the truth of the thing itself. So it is said of Rebekah, ותְּהִיאּלוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, “she was unto him,” not “for,” or “instead of,” or “in the place of,” but “his wife,” Genesis 24:67. And in the words of the covenant, Jeremiah 31:33, “I will be to them לֵאלֹהִים, and they shall be to me לְעָם not, “I will be unto them instead of God, and they shall be unto me instead of a people;” but, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” And the same is the signification of these words, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” [6]

[6] The quotation is from 2 Samuel 7:14. The εἰς is Hebraistic, equivalent to ל. Efforts have been made to explain this passage exclusively either of Solomon or of Christ; but in vain. The context will not allow such a limitation. The “seed” predicted is a royal progeny, not merely an individual son, but a succession of kings; and as theMessiah is the most distinguished and glorious, whatever of dignity and of honor is asserted or implied in the context is properly attributable to him. Turner. ED.

Hebrews 1:5. And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?

This is the second testimony produced by the apostle to prove the pre- eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the excellency of the name given unto him. One word, one witness, the testimony being that of God, and not of man, had been sufficient to have evinced the truth of his assertion; but the apostle adds a second here, partly to manifest the importance of the matter he treated of, and partly to stir them up unto a diligent search of the Scripture, where the same truths, especially those that are of most concernment unto us, are scattered up and down in sundry places, as the Holy Ghost had occasion to make mention of them. This is that mine of precious gold which we are continually to dig for and search after, if we intend to grow and to be rich in the knowledge of God in Christ, Proverbs 2:3-4. Expositors do generally perplex themselves and their readers about the application of these words unto the Lord Christ.

Cajetan, for this cause, that this testimony is not rightly produced nor applied as it ought, rejects the whole epistle as not written by the apostle, nor of canonical authority. Such instances do even wise and learned men give of their folly and self-fullness every day. The conclusion that he makes must needs be built on these two suppositions:

First, That whatever any man might or could apprehend concerning the right application of this testimony, he himself might and could so do; for otherwise he might have acknowledged his own insufficiency, and have left the solution of the difficulty unto them to whom God should be pleased to reveal it.

Secondly, That when men of any generation cannot understand the force and efficacy of the reasonings of the penmen of the Holy Ghost, nor discern the suitableness of the testimonies they make use of unto the things they produce them in the confirmation of, they may lawfully reject any portion of Scripture thereon. The folly and iniquity of which principles or suppositions are manifest.

The application of testimonies out of the Old Testament in the New depends, as to their authority, on the veracity of him that maketh use of them; and as to their cogency in argument, on the acknowledgment of them on whom they are pressed. Where we find these concurring, as in this place, there remains nothing for us but to endeavor a right understanding of what is in itself infallibly true, and unquestionably cogent unto the ends for which it is used.

Indeed, the main difficulty which in this place expositors generally trouble themselves withal ariseth purely from their own mistake. They cannot understand how these words should prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, which they suppose they are produced to confirm, seeing it is from thence that he is exalted above the angels. But the truth is, the words are not designed by the apostle unto any such end. His aim is only to prove that the Lord Christ hath a name assigned unto him more excellent, either in itself or in the manner of its attribution, than any that is given unto the angels, which is the medium of this first argument to prove him, not as the eternal Son of God, nor in respect of his human nature, but as the revealer of the will of God in the gospel, to be preferred above all the angels in heaven, and consequently, in particular, above those whose ministry was used in the giving of the law.

Two things, then, are necessary to render this testimony effectual to the purpose for which it is cited by the apostle; first, That it was originally intended of him to whom he doth apply it; secondly, That there is a name in it assigned unto him more excellent than any ascribed unto the angels.

For the first of these, we must not waive the difficulties that interpreters have either found out in it, or cast upon it. The words are taken from 2 Samuel 7:14, and are part of the answer returned from God unto David by Nathan, upon his resolution to build him a house. The whole oracle is as followeth: 2 Samuel 7:11-16, “The LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.” (Or as 1 Chronicles 17:11, “And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired, that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”) “He shall build an house for my name; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” (1 Chronicles 17:12, “He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.”) “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.” (1 Chronicles 17:13, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee.”) “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” (1 Chronicles 17:14, “But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.”)

This is the whole divine oracle from whence the apostle takes the testimony under consideration; and the difficulty wherewith it is attended ariseth from hence, that it is not easy to apprehend how any thing at all in these words should be appropriated unto the Lord Christ, seeing Solomon seems in the whole to be directly and only intended. And concerning this difficulty there are three opinions among interpreters:

1. Some cutting that knot, which they suppose could not otherwise be loosed, affirm that Solomon is not at all intended in these words, but that they are a direct and immediate prophecy of Christ, who was to be the son of David, and to build the spiritual house or temple of God. And for the confirmation of this assertion they produce sundry reasons from the oracle itself; as,

(1.) It is said that God would raise up to David a seed, or son, intimating that he was not as yet born, being foretold to be raised up; whereas Solomon was born at the time of this prophecy.

(2.) It is also affirmed that this son or seed should reign and sit upon the throne of David after his decease, and being gathered unto his fathers; whereas Solomon was made king and sat upon the throne whilst David was yet alive, and not entered into rest with his fathers.

(3.) The throne of this son is to be established for ever, or as the same promise is expressed, Psalms 89, whilst the sun and moon continue; the throne of Solomon and his posterity failed within a few generations.

(4.) The title there given unto him who is directly prophesied of shows him, as our apostle intimates, to be preferred above all the angels; and none will say that Solomon was so, who, as he was inferior to them in nature and condition, so by sin he greatly provoked the Lord against himself and his posterity.

But yet all these observations, though they want not some appearance and probability of reason, come short of proving evidently what they are produced for, as we may briefly manifest; for,

(1.) It doth not appear that Solomon was born at the time of the giving forth of this oracle, if we must suppose that God intimated in it unto David that none of the sons which he then had should succeed him in his kingdom; yea, it is manifest from the story that he was not. Besides, “raising up” doth not denote the birth or nativity of the person intended, but his designation or exaltation to his throne and office, as is the usual meaning of that expression in the Scripture; so that Solomon might be intended, though now born, yea, and grown up, if not yet by the providence of God marked and taken out from amongst his brethren to be king, as afterwards he was.

(2.) Although a few days before the death of David, to prevent sedition and division about titles and pretensions to the kingdom, Solomon by his appointment was proclaimed king, or heir to the crown, yet he was not actually vested with the whole power of the kingdom until after his natural decease. Moreover, also, David being then very weak and feeble, and rendered unable for public administration, the short remainder of his days after the inauguration of Solomon needed no observation in the prophecy.

The other two remaining reasons must be afterwards spoken unto. And for the present removal of this exposition, I shall only observe, that to affirm Solomon not at all to be intended in this oracle, nor the house or temple which afterwards he built, is to make the whole answer of God by the prophet unto David to be equivocal. For David inquired of Nathan about building a house or material temple unto God. Nathan returns him answer from God that he shall not do so, but that his son should perform that work. This answer David understands of his immediate son and of a material house, and thereupon makes material provision for it and preparation in great abundance, upon the encouragement he received in this answer of God. Now, if neither of these were at all intended in it, neither his son nor the material temple, it is evident that he was led into a great mistake, by the ambiguity and equivocation of the word; but we find by the event that he was not, God approving and accepting of his obedience in what he did. It remains, then, that Solomon firstly and immediately is intended in these words.

2. Some, on the other hand, affirm the whole prophecy so to belong unto and so to be fulfilled in Solomon, and in him alone, that there is no direct respect therein unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And the reason for their assertion they take from the words which immediately follow those insisted on by the apostle, namely, “If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men;” which cannot be applied unto Him who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth. They say, therefore, that the apostle applies these words unto Christ only by way of an allegory. Thus he deals with the law of not muzzling the ox which treadeth out the corn, applying it to the provision of carnal things to be made for the dispensers of the gospel; as he also in another place representeth the two testaments by the story of Sarah and Hagar.

That which principally is to be insisted on for the removal of this difficulty, and which will utterly take it out of our way, will fall in with our confirmation of the third interpretation, to be proposed. For the present, I shall only answer, that as the words cited by the apostle do principally concern the person of Christ himself, yet being spoken and given out in form of a covenant, they have respect also unto him as he is the head of the covenant which God makes with all the elect in him. And thus whole mystical Christ, head and members, are referred unto in the prophecy; and therefore David, in his repetition and pleading of this oracle, Psalms 89:30, changeth those words, “If he commit iniquity,” into “If his children forsake my law.” Notwithstanding, then, a supposition of transgression in him concerning whom these words are spoken, the Lord Christ may be intended in them; such failings and transgressions as disannul not the covenant often falling out on their part for whom he undertaketh therein. But I offer this only “in majorem cautelam,” to secure the testimony insisted on unto our apostle's intention; the difficulty itself will be clearly afterwards assoiled.

3. We say, therefore, with others, that both Solomon and the Lord Christ are intended in this whole oracle; Solomon literally, and nextly as the type; the Lord Christ principally and mystically, as he who was typed, figured, and represented by him. And our sense herein shall be further explained and confirmed in the ensuing considerations:

(1.) That there never was any one type of Christ and his offices that entirely represented him and all that he was to do: for as it was impossible that any one thing or person should do so, because of the perfection of his person and the excellency of his office, which no one thing that might be appointed to prefigure him as a type, because of its limitedness and imperfection, could fully represent; so had any such been found out, that multiplication of types which God in his infinite wisdom was pleased to make use of, for the revelation of him intended in them, had been altogether useless and needless. Wherefore, according as God saw good, and as he had made them meet and fit, so he designed one thing or person to figure out one thing in him, another for another end and purpose.

(2.) That no type of Christ was in all things that he was or did a type of him, but only in that particular wherein he was designed of God so to be, and wherein he hath revealed him so to have been. David was a type of Christ, but not in all things that he was and did. In his conquests of the enemies of the church, in his throne and kingdom, he was so; but in his private actions, whether as a man, or as a king or captain, he was not so. The like must be said of Isaac, Melchizedek, Solomon, and all other personal types under the old testament, and much more of other things.

(3.) That not all things spoken of him that was a type, even therein wherein he was a type, are spoken of him as a type, or have any respect unto the thing signified, but some of them may belong unto him in his personal capacity only. And the reason is, because he who was a type of God's institution might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even then and in those things when and wherein he was a type. Hence somewhat may be spoken of him, as to his moral performance of his duty, that may no way concern the antitype, or Christ prefigured by him. And this wholly removes the difficulty mentioned in the second interpretation of the words, excluding the Lord Christ from being directly in the oracle, upon that expression, “If he commit iniquity;” for these words relating to the moral duty of Solomon in that wherein he was a type of Christ, namely, the rule and administration of his kingdom, may not at all belong to Christ, who was prefigured by God's institution of things, and not in any moral deportment in the observance of them.

(4.) That what is spoken of any type, as it was a type, and in respect of its institution to be such, doth not really and properly belong unto him or that which was the type, but unto him who was represented thereby. For the type itself, it was enough that there was some resemblance in it of that which was principally intended, the things belonging unto the antitype being affirmed of it analogically, on the account of the relation between them by God's institution. Hence that which follows on such enunciations doth not at all respect or belong to the type, but only to the antitype. Thus, at the sacrifice of expiation, the scape-goat is said to bear and carry away all the sins of the people into a land not inhabited, not really, and in the substance of the matter, but only in an instituted representation; for “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Much less may the things that ensue upon the Lord Christ's real bearing and taking away of our sins be ascribed to the devoted beast. So is it in this case. The words applied by the apostle to prove the Son to have a more excellent name than the angels, and consequently to be preferred above them, do not at all prove that Solomon, of whom they were spoken merely as he was a type, should be esteemed to be preferred above all angels, seeing he did only represent Him who was so, and had these words spoken unto him, not absolutely, but with respect unto that representation. And this removes the fourth objection made in the behalf of the first interpretation, excluding Solomon from being at all intended in the prophecy; for what was spoken of him as a type required not a full accomplishment in his own person, but only that he should represent him who was principally intended.

(5.) That there is a twofold perpetuity mentioned in the Scripture, the one limited and relative, the other absolute; and both these are applied unto the kingdom of David. First, there was a perpetuity promised unto him and his posterity in the kingdom, as of the priesthood to Aaron, that is, a limited perpetuity, namely, during the continuance of the typical state and condition of that people; whilst they continued, the rule by right belonged unto the house of David. There was also an absolute perpetuity promised to the kingdom of David, to be made good only in the kingdom and rule of the Messiah. And both these kinds of perpetuity are expressed in the same words, giving their sense according as they are applied. If applied to the successors of David, as his kingdom was a type of that of Christ, they denote the limited perpetuity before mentioned, as that which respected an adjunct of the typical state of that people, that was to be regulated by it and commensurate unto it; but as they are referred to the kingdom of Christ represented in the other, so an absolute perpetuity is expressed in them. And this takes away the third reason for excluding Solomon from being intended in these words, the perpetuity promised being unto him limited and bounded.

These considerations being premised, I say, the words insisted on by the apostle, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,” belonged first and nextly unto Solomon, denoting that fatherly love, care, and protection that God would afford unto him in his kingdom, so far forth as Christ was represented by him therein; which requires not that they must absolutely and in all just consequences from them belong unto the person of Solomon. Principally, therefore, they intend Christ himself, expressing that eternal, unchangeable love which the Father bore unto him, grounded on the relation of father and son.

The Jews, I confess, of all others, do see least of typicalness in Solomon. But the reason of it is, because that his sin was the occasion of ruining their carnal, earthly glory and wealth; which things alone they lust after. But the thing was doubtless confessed by the church of old, with whom Paul had to do; and therefore we see that the writer of the Books of the Chronicles, written after the return of the people from their captivity, when Solomon's line was failed, and Zerubbabel of the house of Nathan was governor amongst them, yet records again this promise, as that which looked forward, and was yet to receive its full accomplishment in the Lord Christ. And some of the rabbins themselves tell us that Solomon, because of his sin, had only the name of peace, God stirring up adversaries against him; the thing itself is to be looked for under Messiah Ben David.

The allegation of these words by the apostle being thus fully and at large vindicated, I shall now briefly inquire into the sense and meaning of the words themselves.

It was before observed, that they are not produced by the apostle to prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, nor do they signify it; nor were they urged by him to confirm directly and immediately that he is more excellent than the angels, of whom there is nothing spoken in them, nor in the place from whence they are taken. But the apostle insists on this testimony merely in confirmation of his former argument for the pre-eminence of the Son above angels taken from that more excellent name which he obtained by inheritance; which being the name of the Son of God, he hereby proves that indeed he was so called by God himself.

Thus, then, do these words confirm the intention of the apostle; for to which of the angels said God at any time, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?” The words contain a great and signal privilege; they are spoken unto and concerning the Messiah; and neither they nor any thing equivalent unto them were ever spoken of any angel; especially the name of the Son of God, so emphatically, and in way of distinction from all others, was never assigned unto any of them. And this, as hath been already showed, proves an eminency and pre-eminence in him above all that the angels attain unto. All this, I say, follows from the peculiar, signal appropriation of the name of the Son of God unto him, and his especial relation unto God therein expressed.

Briefly, we may adjoin the intention of the words as in themselves considered, and so complete the exposition of them. Now, God promiseth in them to be unto the Lord Christ, as exalted into his throne, a father, in love, care, and power, to protect and carry him on in his rule unto the end of the world. And therefore upon his ascension he says that he went unto his God and Father, John 20:17. And he rules in the name and majesty of God, Micah 5:4. This is the importance of the words. They intend not the eternal and natural relation that is between the Father and Son, which neither is nor can be the subject of any promise, but the paternal care of God over Christ in his kingdom, and the dearness of Christ himself unto him.

If it be asked on what account God would thus be a father unto Jesus Christ in this peculiar manner, it must be answered that the radical, fundamental cause of it lay in the relation that was between them from his eternal generation; but he manifested himself to be his father, and engaged to deal with him in the love and care of a father, as he had accomplished his work of mediation on the earth and was exalted unto his throne and rule in heaven.

And this is the first argument of the apostle, whereby he proves that the Son, as the revealer of the mind and will of God in the gospel, is made more excellent than the angels; whose glory was a refuge to the Jews in their adherence to legal rites and administrations, even because they were given unto them “by the disposition of angels.”

According unto our proposed method, we must in our progress draw hence also some instructions for our own use and edification; as,

I. Every thing in the Scripture is instructive. The apostle's arguing in this place is not so much from the thing spoken, as from the manner wherein it is spoken. Even that also is highly mysterious. So are all the concernments of it. Nothing in it is needless, nothing useless. Men sometimes perplex themselves to find out the suitableness of some testimonies produced out of the Old Testament unto the confirmation of things and doctrines in the New by the penmen of the Holy Ghost, when all the difficulty ariseth from a fond conceit that they can apprehend the length and breadth of the wisdom that is laid up in any one text of Scripture, when the Holy Ghost may have a principal aim at those things which they are not able to dive into. Every letter and tittle of it is teaching, and every thing that relates unto it is instructive in the mind of God. And it must be so, because,

1. It proceeds from infinite wisdom, which hath put an impress of itself upon it, and filled all its capacity with its blessed effects. In the whole frame, structure, and order of it, in the sense, words, coherence, expression, it is filled with wisdom; which makes the commandment exceeding broad and large, so that there is no absolute comprehension of it in this life. We cannot perfectly trace the footsteps of infinite wisdom, nor find out all the effects and characters of it that it hath left upon the Word. The whole Scripture is full of wisdom, as the sea is of water, which fills and covers all the parts of it. And,

2. Because it was to be very comprehensive. It was to contain, directly or by consequence, one way or other, the whole revelation of God unto us, and all our duty unto him; both which are marvellous, great, large, and various. Now this could not have been done in so narrow a room, but that every part of it, and all the concernments of it, with its whole order, were to be filled with mysteries and expressions or intimations of the mind and will of God. It could not hence be that any thing superfluous should be put into it, or any thing be in it that should not relate to teaching and instruction.

3. It is that which God hath given unto his servants for their continual exercise day and night in this world; and in their inquiry into it he requires of them their utmost diligence and endeavors. This being assigned for their duty, it was convenient unto divine wisdom and goodness to find them blessed and useful work in the whole Scripture to exercise themselves about, that everywhere they might meet with that which might satisfy their inquiry and answer their industry. There shall never be any time or strength lost or misspent that is laid out according to the mind of God in and about his Word. The matter, the words, the order, the contexture of them, the scope, design, and aim of the Holy Ghost in them, all and every one of them, may well take up the utmost of our diligence, all are divine. Nothing is empty, unfurnished, or unprepared for our spiritual use, advantage, and benefit. Let us then learn hence,

(1.) To admire, and, as one said of old, to adore the fullness of the Scripture, or of the wisdom of God in it. It is all full of divine wisdom, and calls for our reverence in the consideration of it. And indeed a constant awe of the majesty, authority, and holiness of God in his Word, is the only teachable frame. Proud and careless spirits see nothing of heaven or Divinity in the Word; but the humble are made wise in it.

(2.) To stir up and exercise our faith and diligence to the utmost in our study and search of the Scripture. It is an endless storehouse, a bottomless treasure of divine truth; gold is in every sand. All the wise men in the world may, every one for himself, learn somewhat out of every word of it, and yet leave enough still behind them for the instruction of all those that shall come after them. The fountains and springs of wisdom in it are endless, and will never be dry. We may have much truth and power out of a word, sometimes enough, but never all that is in it. There will still be enough remaining to exercise and refresh us anew for ever. So that we may attain a true sense, but we can never attain the full sense of any place; we can never exhaust the whole impress of infinite wisdom that is on the Word. And how should this stir us up to be meditating in it day and night! And many the like inferences may hence be taken. Learn also,

II. That it is lawful to draw consequences from Scripture assertions; and such consequences, rightly deduced, are infallibly true and “de fide.” Thus from the name given unto Christ, the apostle deduceth by just consequence his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels. Nothing will rightly follow from truth but what is so also, and that of the same nature with the truth from whence it is derived. So that whatever by just consequence is drawn from the Word of God, is itself also the Word of God, and truth infallible. And to deprive the church of this liberty in the interpretation of the Word, is to deprive it of the chiefest benefit intended by it. This is that on which the whole ordinance of preaching is founded; which makes that which is derived out of the Word to have the power, authority, and efficacy of the Word accompanying it. Thus, though it be the proper work and effect of the Word of God to quicken, regenerate, sanctify and purify the elect, and the Word primarily and directly is only that which is written in the Scriptures, yet we find all these effects produced in and by the preaching of the Word, when perhaps not one sentence of the Scripture is verbatim repeated. And the reason hereof is, because whatsoever is directly deduced and delivered according to the mind and appointment of God from the Word is the Word of God, and hath the power, authority, and efficacy of the Word accompanying it.

III. The declaration of Christ to be the Son of God is the care and work of the Father. He said it, he recorded it, he revealed it. This, indeed, is to be made known by the preaching of the gospel; but that it shall be done, the Father hath taken the care upon himself. It is the design of the Father in all things to glorify the Son; that all men may honor him even as they honor the Father. This cannot be done without the declaration of that glory which he had with him before the world was; that is, the glory of his eternal sonship. This he will therefore make known and maintain in the world.

IV. God the Father is perpetually present with the Lord Christ, in love, care, and power, in the administration of his office as he is mediator, head, and king of the church. He hath taken upon himself to stand by him, to own him, to effect every thing that is needful unto the establishment of his throne, the enlargement of his kingdom, and the ruin and destruction of his enemies. And this he will assuredly do to the end of the world,

1. Because he hath promised so to do. Innumerable are the promises on record that are made unto Jesus Christ unto this purpose. God hath engaged to hold him in his hand, and to hide him as a polished shaft in his quiver, to give him a throne, a glorious kingdom, an everlasting rule and government, and the like. Now, what he hath promised in love and grace, he will make good with care and power. See Isaiah 49:5-9; Isaiah 50:7-9.

2. All these promises have respect unto the obedience of the Lord Christ in the work of mediation; which, being performed by him rightly and to the utmost, gives him a peculiar right unto them, and makes that just and righteous in the performance which was mere sovereign grace in the promise. The condition being absolutely performed on the part of Christ, the promise shall be certainly accomplished on the part of the Father. By this is the covenant of the Redeemer completed, ratified, and established.

The condition of it on his part being performed unto the uttermost, there shall be no failure in the promises, Isaiah 53:10-12.

3. The Lord Christ makes it his request that he may enjoy the presence and power of his Father with him in his work and the administration of his mediation; and the Father always hears him. Part of his covenant with his Father was like that of Barak (who was a type of him) with Deborah the prophetess, who spake in the name of the Lord, Judges 4:8: “If thou wilt go with me, I will go,” against all the enemies of the church, Isaiah 50:8-9. And accordingly, upon his engagement to go with him, he requests his presence; and in the assurance of it professeth that he is not alone, but that his Father is with him, John 8:16. To this purpose see his requests, John 17.

4. The nature of his work and kingdom requires it. God hath appointed him to reign in the midst of his enemies, and mighty opposition is made on all hands to his whole design, and a very particular act of it. The whole work of Satan, sin, and the world, is both to obstruct in general the progress of his kingdom, and to ruin and destroy every particular subject of it; and this is carried on continually with unspeakable violence and unsearchable stratagems. This makes the presence of the authority and power of the Father necessary to him in his work. This he asserts as a great ground of consolation to his disciples, John 10:28-29. There will be a great plucking, a great contending to take believers out of the hand of Christ, one way or other, to make them come short of eternal life; and though his own power be such as is able to preserve them, yet he lets them know also, for their greater assurance and consolation, that his Father, who is over all, is greater, more powerful than all, greater than he himself, in the work of mediation, John 14:28, is also engaged with him in their defense and preservation. So also is he as to the destruction of his adversaries, all opposing power whatever, Psalms 110:5-6. The Lord stands by him, on his right hand, to smite and tread down his enemies,

all that arise against his design, interest, and kingdom. Be they never so many, never so great, he will ruin them, and make them his footstool every one. See Micah 5:4.