Commentary on Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles John Calvin (continued)
John Calvin 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,
HEBREWS: APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS
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.
Appendix G
APPENDIX G
Chapter 2:7 Thou madest him, etc The reference is to Psalm 8, and has been variously explained. There are especially three opinions on the subject. Some, like Calvin and Doddridge, consider that the case of ``man,'' as described in the Psalm, is alluded to, or accommodated to Christ. Others, like Grotius, hold that ``man,'' in the Psalm, is to be understood historically and mystically. The third party, as most of the Fathers, as well as some later divines, such as Beza, Dr. Owen., and Stuart, maintain that the Psalm is strictly prophetic. What makes it difficult to regard it in this light is the exclamation, ``What is man?'' and also the dominion over the brute creation, which is the only thing mentioned in the Psalm as constituting the glory and honor of man.
All critics refer on this subject to the grant given to Adam in Genesis 1:28. But this grant, forfeited no doubt by Adam's sin and fall, was afterwards renewed to Noah and his sons, when they came out of the ark, and was even enlarged, as the permission to eat animal food was given them. Genesis 9:1-3. It was this grant no doubt the Psalmist had in view. Noah and his sons were men of faith; Noah is distinctly said to have been a righteous man. It was to them as bearing this character that the grant was made. What Adam forfeited was restored to those restored to God's favor, that is, the dominion over the brute creation and the inheritance of this lower world. But as Canaan was afterwards to the Israelites a type of heaven, and also a pledge to those who were
John Calvin
Israelites indeed, so might be regarded the possession of the earth granted to Noah and his sons, though dominion in which ``glory and honor'' consisted, is what is expressly mentioned in the Psalm; and dominion is the special subject handled by the Apostle, verse 5.
Though man, as to his nature, is inferior to the angels, yet in that nature God has granted him a dominion never granted to angels. The power over every living thing in the world was bestowed, not on angels, but on man, according to the testimony of the Old Testament; so that the power ascribed by the Jews to angels was not warranted by their own Scriptures. This fact seems to have been referred to as an introduction to what the Apostle was proceeding to say respecting Christ, and as an evidence that his human nature, though in itself inferior to that of angels, did not detract from his superiority; as though he had said, ``It is no objection that he became man, for even to man, not to angels, has been granted the dominion of the world.''
Then the Apostle extends the idea, and refers to Christ as one who was to make good the grant made. The dominion promised to man, especially what that dominion was a pledge of, was not attained by man; but Christ, who has assumed his nature, and in this respect became lower than the angels, will yet attain it for him. It is through Christ indeed that we obtain a right to the things of this world as well as to the things of the next world. God promises both to his people; but in Christ only are his promises, yea and amen. The promise made to man as a believer, both as to this world and the next, is as it were made good only through Christ, who assumed his nature for this very purpose.
By taking this view we avoid the necessity of making that prophetic which has no appearance of being so, or of supposing that the Psalm is referred to by way of accommodation. The fact respecting man restored to God's favor is stated, and the Apostle teaches us that the dominion granted to him can only be realized through Christ, who has already attained that dominion in his own person, and will eventually confer it on all his people.
Appendix H
APPENDIX H
Chapter 2:9. That he by the grace of God, etc How to connect the different parts of this verse has been a difficulty which critics have in various ways attempted to remove. There is hardly a sense in our version. We must either regard a transposition in the words, or, like Stuart, give the meaning of when to {ὅπως}, ``when by the grace of God he had tasted death for all.'' But this is an unnatural meaning, and therefore not satisfactory. Doddridge supposes a transposition, and gives this version, ---
we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that by the grace of God he might taste death for every man, crowned with glory and honor.''
Macknight more properly connects ``the suffering of death'' with ``crowned
HEBREWS: APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS
with glory and honor,'' while he makes a similar transposition. Bloomfield considers that there is an ellipsis in the last clause, and gives this rendering, ---
him, who was made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, we behold, on account of having suffered death, crowned with glory and honor, which suffering he bore, in order that by the grace of God he might taste of death for every man.''
This borders on tautology, and cannot be admitted. That the transposition made by Doddridge and Macknight gives the real meaning, admits hardly of a doubt; and such a version would be the most suitable in our language. But how to account for the arrangement in the Apostle's words seems to be this, it is a construction according to the system of Hebrew parallelism; the first and the last clause are connected, and the second and the third. Let the verse be arranged in lines, and this will become quite evident, ---
him, who was made a little lower than angels, --- We behold, even Jesus, for the suffering of death, Crowned with glory and honor, --- That by God's grace he might for all taste death.''
The meaning is clearly this, --- that he was made lower than angels in order to die for all, and that on account of his atoning death he was crowned with glory and honor; which perfectly accords with what the Apostle teaches us in Philippians 2:8-10. See a similar arrangement in Matthew 7:6, and 1 Corinthians 6:11.
Appendix I
APPENDIX I
Chapter 2:14 The power of death, etc This is rendered by Stuart ``deadly power.'' The genitive after {χράτος}; is no doubt in several instances rendered adjectively, as ``the power of his glory,'' in Colossians 1:11, ``his glorious power;'' and ``the power of his might,'' in Ephesians 6:10, may be rendered ``His mighty power.'' But there is here an antithesis which ought to be preserved, --- the death of Christ and the death over which Satan is said to have power. Christ by his death deprived Satan of his power to cause death.
To ``destroy'' does not suitably express what is meant by the verb here used. It means to render void, useless, inefficacious, and hence to overcome, to subdue. When applied to the Law, it means to render void or to abolish: but when it refers to a person, as here, or to a hostile power, as in 1 Corinthians 15:24, it means to subjugate, to put down, or to overcome. So here, the rendering most suitable would be, ``that by death he might overcome (or subdue) him who had the power of death,'' that is, the power of causing eternal ruin; for death here must mean the second death. And hence the Rabbinical notion about the angel of death, that is, of temporal death, has no connection with this passage.
There is here evidently an allusion to Genesis 3:13. The originator of death is Satan, both as to the soul and the body; and hence our Savior calls him a murderer. To subdue this murderer was to remove the sin which he introduced,
John Calvin by means of which he brought in death; and this removal of sin was effected by death, so that the remedy for sin was the same with the effect which sin produced.
Appendix K
APPENDIX K
Chapter 2:16 For verily he took not, etc The words may be rendered, ``For verily he lays not hold on angels, but on the seed of Abraham does he lay hold.'' Both early and later divines have supposed ``nature'' to be understood; but some moderns, following Cameron of an earlier age, regard the verb in the sense of bringing aid or help. So Stuart and Bloomfield. The first renders the verse thus, ---
he doth not at all help the angels, but he helpeth the seed of Abraham.''
The present, the historical present, is used for the past; or if we render {οὐ} {γὰρ} {δήπου} ``for nowhere,'' the reference is to Scripture; nowhere in Scripture is such a thing recorded.
But to ``take hold on'' is sufficiently plain and very expressive. Christ took hold on Peter when he was sinking, (Matthew 14:31:) it is the same verb. Our Savior took not hold on the angels when sinking into ruin, but he did take hold on the seed of Abraham to save them from perdition. The connection seems to be with the preceding verses; therefore {γὰρ} ought to be rendered ``for'' and not ``besides,'' as by Stuart, nor ``moreover,'' as by Macknight. A reason is given why Christ became partaker of flesh and blood; and the reason was, because he did not come to deliver angels but the seed of Abraham; that is, his spiritual, not his natural seed, for he speaks throughout of God's sons and God's children. See John 1:12, 13, where the born of God are represented to be those to whom Christ grants the privilege of children.
Appendix L
APPENDIX L
Chapter 3:4 He that built, etc. This verse has been considered as difficult with respect to the connection it has with the argument of the Apostle. Stuart states thus the difficulty, --- ``Moses as the delegate of God was the founder of the Jewish institution, and Christ is merely declared to be only a delegated founder, then in what way does the writer make out the superiority of Christ to Moses. Both were delegates of the same God, and both the founders of a new and divine dispensation. If Christ, then, is not here asserted to be founder in some other character than that of a delegate, I am unable to perceive any force in the writer's argument.'' Hence the Professor comes to the conclusion, that Christ is meant by the Apostle when he says, ``He who built (or formed) all things is God,'' conceiving that the argument is otherwise inconclusive.
HEBREWS: APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS
Now, the mistake of the Professor is this, that he makes delegation to be the comparison and not the character of the delegation. That Christ's power was delegated is quite evident from this passage: Christ is said to have been ``appointed'' in verse 2, and is said to be ``faithful,'' which implies that he had an office delegated to him. Then the delegation is undeniable; and what the Apostle evidently dwells upon is the superiority of the delegated power: Moses was faithful as a servant in God's house; the people of Israel were previously Gods adopted people; but Christ has power, a delegated power, to make as it were a new people; he builds his own house. Moses was a part of the house in which he served; but as Christ builds his own house, he is worthy of more glory than Moses. These are the comparisons made by the Apostle.
Then this verse is introduced, and that for two reasons, --- first, to shew that God built the house in which Moses served; and secondly, to intimate the divine power of Christ, as none but God builds all things. Moses' house is called God's house in verse 2; and Christ's house is called his own in verse 5. Hence the obvious inference is, that he is one with God, as God only builds all things, though in his Mediatorial character he acts as God's Apostle and high priest. The same kind of representation we find in the first chapter: it is said that by him God made the world; and afterwards that the Son is the Creator, who had founded the earth, and whose work are the heavens. Creative power, though exercised by Christ as a Mediator, must yet be a divine power.
Appendix M
APPENDIX M
Chapter 3:9. Tempted, etc. To understand this passage we must bear in mind the event referred to. The same year in which the people of Israel came forth from Egypt, they were distressed for water at Rephidim, (Exodus 17:1;) and the place had two names given to it, Massah and Meribah, because the people tempted God and chided with Moses. The Lord did not swear then that they should not enter into the land of Canaan; but this was on the following year, after the return of the spies. (Numbers 14:20-38.) And God said then that they had tempted him ``ten times;'' that is, during the short time since their deliverance from Egypt. It was after ten temptations that God deprived them of the promised land.
Bearing in mind these facts, we shall be able to see the full force of the passage. The ``provocation'' or contention, and ``temptation'' refer clearly to the latter instance, as recorded in Numbers 14, because it was then that God swear that the people should not enter into his rest. The people's conduct was alike in both instances.
To connect ``forty years'' with ``grieved'' was the work of the Punctuists, and this mistake the Apostle corrected; and it is to be observed that he did not follow in this instance the Septuagint, in which the words are arranged as divided by the Masorites. Such a rendering as would correspond with the