Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that by the testimony of the Holy Ghost, God said these words unto him, "Thou art my Son;" and thereby declared his state and condition, to be far above that of the angels.

§5. (IV.) The last thing considerable is, how the Lord Christ came by this name? (Kɛиλироvоμnnε) Нe "obtained it by inheritance," as his peculiar lot and portion for ever. As he was made the heir of all, so he inherited a more excellent name than the angels. Now he was made heir of all, in that all things being made and formed by him, the Father committed unto him as mediator a peculiar power over all things, to be disposed of by him for all the ends of his mediation: so also being the natural and eternal Son of God, upon the discharge of his work, the Father declared and pronounced that to be his name; See Luke i, 35; Isa. vii, 14; ix, 6. His being the Son of God is the proper foundation of his being called so; and his discharge of his office the occasion of its declaration; so he came unto it "by right of inheritance," when he was "declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead," Rom. i, 4.

$6. This discourse of the apostle, proving the preeminence of the Messiah above the angels, was peculiarly necessary to the Hebrews; and it is to this day a tradition amongst them, that "the Messiah shall be exalted above Abraham, and Moses, and the ministering angels." Besides, they acknowledged the scriptures of the Old Testament wherein the apostle shews them this truth was contained. But they were dull and slow in making the profitable application of these principles for the confirmation of their faith in the gospel, as the apostle chargeth them, chap. v, 11, 12. We may farther remark, that they had at that time great speculations about the glory, dignity, and excellency

of angels, and were fallen into a kind of worshipping of them. And it is not improbable, that this vain curiosity, and dangerous superstition, was heightened by the controversy agitated between the Pharisees and Saducees about them; the latter denying their existence, the former, whom the body of the people followed, exalting them above measure, and inclining to an idolatrous veneration of them. It was necessary, therefore, in order to take them off from this idolatrous superstition, to instruct them in the pre-eminence of the Redeemer above them all; that so their thoughts might be directed to, and their trust placed in him alone.

$7. Obs. All pre-eminence and exaltation of one above others depends on the supreme counsel and will of God. Christ, as mediator, is a pattern of all privileges and pre-eminence in others. Grace, mercy, and glory, spiritual, and eternal things, are those wherein really there is any difference among the sons of men; and that any one in this respect is preferred before another, depends merely on the sole good pleasure of God; seeing no one in these things makes himself to differ from another, neither is he possessed of any thing that he hath not received. And this discrimination of things by the supreme will of God, especially spiritual and eternal, is the spring and rule of all that glory which he will manifest; and in which he will be eternally exalted.

VERSE 5.

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

$1. Introduction, §2. (1.) The apostle's manner of producing the testimony.§3-5. (II.) The testimony itself produced. §6-8. (III.) The genuine sense of the passage. 9--13. Observatious.

§1. THE apostle here proceeds to confirm his proposition concerning the pre-eminence of the Messiah above the angels, by sundry testimonies produced out of the Old Testament; two of which are contained in this verse. Let us consider,

I. The manner in which the apostle produces the testimony; "Unto which of the angels said he at any time?"

II. The testimony itself, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." We shall then,

III. Inquire into the genuine sense of the passage, and,

IV. Make some observations.

§2. (I.) In the former three things may be observed:

1. That the testimony insisted on, being a matter of faith, is that of the scripture. Our apostle here confidently refers the Hebrews to the acknowledged rule of their faith and worship; whose authority he knew they would not decline, Isa. viii, 21.

2. 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 no where 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. An argument taken negatively from the authorty of the scripture in matters of faith, or what relates to the worship of God, is

[blocks in formation]

valid and effectual, and here consecrated for ever for the use of the church.

3. That the apostle either indeed grants, or else, for argument sake, condescends to the apprehensions of the Hebrews, that there is a distinction of degrees and pre-eminence amongst the angels themselves. "To which of the angels said he?" This respects not only the community of them, but any or all of the chief or princes among them.

$3. (II.) We now proceed to the testimony itself here produced. Three things are required to make it pertinent to the end proposed: That the Messiah is intended; that a signal name be appropriated to him; that this be a proof of his pre-eminence above angels.

1. That it is the Messiah who is prophesied of in the second Psalm, from whence the words are taken. This with all Christians is put beyond dispute by its application to Christ in several places of the New Testament, as Acts iv, 25-27; Acts xiii, 33; Heb. v, 5. It is certain also, that the Jews esteemed that psalm to relate to the Messiah. But it was not enough for the apostle, that those with whom he dealt acknowledged these things, unless they were really so; that his argument might proceed (ex veris) from what was true, as well as (ex concessis) from what was granted. 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 to the Lord Christ without any mention of David, and that four several times; twice in the Acts, and twice in this epistle. We may indeed grant that consideration was had of David and his kingdom typically, but not absolutely. When the thing signified is principally aimed at, it is not necessary that every thing spoken should be applicable properly to the type itself; it being sufficient that there

was in the type somewhat that bore a general resemblance to what was principally intended. 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 to the type should belong to the anti-type. 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 to him, but directly and immediately to intend the Messiah. If it yet be supposed that what is hence spoken, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," is also to be applied to David, yet it is not ascribed to him personally and absolutely, but merely considered as the 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 here as a type of Christ or no, the apostle's purpose stands firm, that the words were principally and properly spoken of the Messiah.

§4. 2. It is required that in the testimony produced a signal name be appropriated to the Messiah, so as that he may inherit it exclusively. 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 to him, as whereby he might for ever be distinguished from others. Thus many may be "beloved of the Lord," and be so termed; but yet Solomon only was peculiarly called (7) Jedediah; and by that name was distinguished from others. In this way it

« AnteriorContinuar »