<- Previous   First   Next ->

occurrence in the corresponding phrase. ‘The prophets’ are spoken of as a definite, known, body, fulfilling a particular office. The sense would lose as much by the omission of the article in this case ( ejn profhvtai" ‘in men who were prophets’) as it would lose here by the insertion ( ejn tw'/ uiJw'/ in the Son Heb. 6:6).

It is instructive to notice how completely the exact force of the original was missed by the later Greek Fathers. Even Chrysostom says: to; ejn uiJw'/ dia; tou' uiJou' fhsiv , and OEcumenius repeats the words.

The new revelation is a continuation of the old so far as God is the author of both. It is wholly new and separate in character so far as Christ is the Mediator of it.

Herveius notices the difference between the Presence of God in the prophets and in His Son: In prophetis fuit Deus secundum inhabitationem gratiae et revelationem voluntatis sapientiae suae, in Filio autem omnino totus manebat...utpote cui sapientia Dei personaliter erat unita.
o}n e[qhken ... dij ou| kai; ejpoivhsen ...] The office of the Son as the final revealer of the will of God is illustrated by His relation to God in regard to the world, in and through which the revelation comes to men. He is at once Creator and Heir of all things. The end answers to the beginning. Through Him God called into being the temporal order of things, and He is heir of their last issue. All things were created ‘in Him’ and ‘unto Him’ (Col. 1:15, 16, ejn aujtw'/ ejktivsqh, eij" aujto;n e[ktistai ). The universal heirship of Christ is illustrated by, if not based upon, His creative activity. e[qhken klhronovmon p. ] Vulg. quem constituit (O. L. posuit ) heredem universorum. Even that which under one aspect appears as a necessary consequence is referred to the immediate will of God ( e[qhken ). For the use of tivqhmi see Rom. 4:17 (Gen. 17:5); 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11. There is nothing to determine the ‘time’ of this divine appointment. It belongs to the eternal order. Yet see Ps. 2:8; Matt. 28:18 ( ejdovqh ). We ‘who see but part’ may fix our attention on inceptive fulfilments.
klhronovmon ] The thought of sonship passes naturally into that of heirship: Gal. 4:7; compare Rom. 8:17.

The word heir marks the original purpose of Creation. The dominion originally promised to Adam (Gen. 1:28; compare Ps. 8) was gained by Christ. And so, in regard to the divine economy, the promise made to Abraham (compare Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:29) and renewed to the divine King (Ps. 2:8), which was symbolised by the ‘inheritance’ of Canaan (Ex. 23:30), became absolutely fulfilled in Christ.

The image of ‘heirship’ which is based apparently on the second Psalm (Ps. 2:8) is recognised in the Gospels (Matt. 21:38 and parallels) where the contrast between ‘the servants’ (prophets) and ‘the Son’ is also marked.

At the same time, it must be carefully noticed that the usage cannot be pressed in all directions. The term is used in relation to the possession, as marking the fulness of right, resting upon a personal connexion, and not, as implying a passing away and a succession, in relation to a present possessor (comp. Gal. 4:1 oJ klhronovmo" ... kuvrio" pavntwn w[n ). The heir as such vindicates his title to what he holds. Compare Additional Note on Heb. 6:12.

The heirship of ‘the Son’ was realised by the Son Incarnate (v. 4) through His humanity: klhronovmo" ga;r pavntwn oJ despovth" Cristo;" oujc wJ" qeo;" ajllj wJ" a[nqrwpo" (Theod.); but the writer speaks of ‘the Son’ simply as


<- Previous   First   Next ->