<- Previous   First   Next ->

Dei ubique est’). All local association must be excluded: oujc o{ti tovpw/ perikleivetai oJ qeo;" ajllj i{na to; oJmovtimon aujtou' deicqh'/ to; pro;" to;n patevra (Theophlct.). Non est putandum quod omnipotens Pater qui spiritus est incircumscriptus omnia replens dexteram aut sinistram habeat...Quid est ergo ‘sedit ad dexteram majestatis’ nisi ut dicatur, habitat in plenitudine paternae majestatis? (Primas.) Comp. Eph. 4:10. We, as we at present are, are forced to think in terms of space, but it does not follow that this limitation belongs to the perfection of humanity.

Herveius (on 5:13) notices the double contrast between the Son and the Angels: Seraphin stant ut ministri, Filius sedet ut Dominus: Seraphin in circuitu, Filius ad dexteram.
th'" megal. ] Heb. 8:1; Jude 25. The word is not unfrequent in the LXX.:
e.g., 1 Chron. 29:11; Wisd. 18:24. ‘The Majesty’ expresses the idea of God in His greatness. Comp.

Buxtorf Lex. s. v. hr:WbG“ , H1476. 1 Clem. xvi. to; skh'ptron th'" megal. , c.

xxxvi. ajpauvgasma th'" megal. ejn uJyhloi'" ] Ps. 93:4 (92:4) (LXX.). Here only in N.T. Comp. ejn uJyivstoi" Luke 2:14; Matt. 21:9 and parallels; and ejn toi'" ejpouranivoi" Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12.

The term marks the sphere of the higher life. Local imagery is necessarily used for that which is in itself unlimited by place (compare Heb. 4:14; 7:26). Tiv ejstin jEn uJyhloi'" ; Chrysostom asks, eij" tovpon perikleivei to;n qeovn ; a[page (Hom. 2.3). In excelsis dicens non eum loco concludit, sed ostendit omnibus altiorem et evidentiorem, hoc est quia usque ad ipsum pervenit solium paternae claritatis (Atto Verc.).

The clause belongs to ejkavqisen and not to th'" megalwsuvnh" . The latter connexion would be grammatically irregular though not unparalleled, and th'" megalwsuvnh" is complete in itself.

This Session of Christ at the right hand of God,—the figure is only used of the Incarnate Son—is connected with His manifold activity as King (Acts 2:33 ff.; Eph. 1:21 ff.; Col. 3:1; Heb. 10:12) and Priest (1 Pet. 3:22; Heb. 8:1; Heb. 12:2) and Intercessor (Rom. 8:34). Comp. Acts 7:55 f. ( eJstw'ta ejk
d.
).
iii.
Transition to the detailed development of the argument (4). The fourth verse forms a transition to the special development of the argument of the Epistle. The general contrast between ‘the Son’ as the mediator of the new revelation and ‘the prophets’ as mediators of the old, is offered in the extreme case. According to Jewish belief the Law was ministered by angels (Heb. 2:2; Gal. 3:19; comp. Acts 7:53), but even the dignity of these, the highest representatives of the Dispensation, was as far below that of Christ as the title of minister is below that of the incommunicable title of divine Majesty. This thought is developed Heb. 1:5-2:18.

The abrupt introduction of the reference to the angels becomes intelligible both from the function which was popularly assigned to angels in regard to the Law, and from the description of the exaltation of the Incarnate Son. Moses alone was admitted in some sense to direct intercourse with God (Num. 12:8; Deut. 34:10): otherwise ‘the Angel of the Lord’ was the highest messenger of revelation under the Old Covenant. And again the thought of the Session of the Son on the Father's throne calls up at once the image of


<- Previous   First   Next ->