《Exposition of Hebrews(Ch. 1)》(John Owen)

Commentator

Of Welsh descent, Owen was born at Stadhampton in Oxfordshire, and was educated at Queen's College, Oxford (B.A. 1632, M.A. 1635). In 1644, Owen married Mary Rooke (d. 1675). The couple had 11 children, ten of whom died in infancy. One daughter survived to adulthood, married, and shortly thereafter died of consumption.

On 29 April he preached before the Long Parliament. In this sermon, and in his Country Essay for the Practice of Church Government, which he appended to it, his tendency to break away from Presbyterianism to the Independent or Congregational system is seen. Like John Milton, he saw little to choose between "new presbyter" and "old priest."

He became pastor at Coggeshall in Essex, with a large influx of Flemish tradesmen. His adoption of Congregational principles did not affect his theological position, and in 1647 he again argued against Arminianism in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, which drew him into long debate with Richard Baxter. He made the friendship of Fairfax while the latter was besieging Colchester, and addressed the army there against religious persecution. He was chosen to preach to parliament on the day after the execution of King Charles I, and succeeded in fulfilling his task without directly mentioning that event.

Another sermon preached on 29 April, a plea for sincerity of religion in high places, won not only the thanks of parliament but the friendship of Oliver Cromwell, who took Owen to Ireland as his chaplain, that he might regulate the affairs of Trinity College, Dublin. He pleaded with the House of Commons for the religious needs of Ireland as some years earlier he had pleaded for those of Wales. In 1650 he accompanied Cromwell on his Scottish campaign. In March 1651, Cromwell, as Chancellor of Oxford University, gave him the deanery of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, and made him Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University in September 1652; in both offices he succeeded the Presbyterian, Edward Reynolds.

During his eight years of official Oxford life Owen showed himself a firm disciplinarian, thorough in his methods, though, as John Locke testifies, the Aristotelian traditions in education underwent no change. With Philip Nye he unmasked the popular astrologer, William Lilly, and in spite of his share in condemning two Quakeresses to be whipped for disturbing the peace, his rule was not intolerant. Anglican services were conducted here and there, and at Christ Church itself the Anglican chaplain remained in the college. While little encouragement was given to a spirit of free inquiry, Puritanism at Oxford was not simply an attempt to force education and culture into "the leaden moulds of Calvinistic theology." Owen, unlike many of his contemporaries, was more interested in the New Testament than in the Old. During his Oxford years he wrote Justitia Divina (1653), an exposition of the dogma that God cannot forgive sin without an atonement; Communion with God (1657), Doctrine of the Saints' Perseverance (1654), his final attack on Arminianism; Vindiciae Evangelicae, a treatise written by order of the Council of State against Socinianism as expounded by John Biddle; On the Mortification of Sin in Believers (1656), an introspective and analytic work; Schism (1657), one of the most readable of all his writings; Of Temptation (1658), an attempt to recall Puritanism to its cardinal spiritual attitude from the jarring anarchy of sectarianism and the pharisaism which had followed on popularity and threatened to destroy the early simplicity.

01 Chapter 1

Introduction

THE general scope and design of the apostle in this whole epistle hath been before declared, and need not here be repeated. In this first chapter he fixeth and improveth the principal consideration that he intends to insist on throughout the epistle, — to prevail with the Hebrews unto constancy and perseverance in the doctrine of the gospel. And this is taken from the immediate author of it, the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Him, therefore, in this chapter he at large describes; and that two ways, —

1. Absolutely, declaring what he is in his person and offices, as also what he hath done for the church; and,

2. Comparatively, with respect unto other ministerial revealers of the mind and will of God, especially insisting on his excellency and preeminence above the angels, as we shall see in the explication of the several parts and verses of it.

Verse 1-2

πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησες ἡμιν ἐν υἱῷ, ὅν ἔθηκε κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν.

Many of these words being variously rendered, their true grammatical sense and importance is to be considered before we open the meaning of the whole, and aim of the apostle in them; in which way we shall also proceed throughout the whole epistle.

πολυμερῶς. בְּכֻל מַגוָן, Syr., “in all parts,” or “by many parts.” “Multifariam,” Vulg. Eras., A. Montan., “diversely.” “Multis vicibus,” Beza; which ours render, “at sundry times.” ΄είρομαι is “sortior,” “divido,” to part,” “to take part,” “to divide :” whence is μέρος, “the part of any thing;” and πολυμερής, “that which consisteth of many parts;” and πολυμερῶς, “by many parts;” which is also used as ἐν τῷ μέρει, for “alternis vicibus,” “sundry changes.” The word properly is,” by many parts,” “fully,” “by several parts at several times,” as our translation intimates; yet so that a diversity of parts and degrees, rather than of times and seasons, is intended.

καί πολυτρόπως. ובְּכֻל דַּמְוָן, Syr., “in all forms.” “Multisque modis,” Vulg. Eras., A. Montan., Beza, “many ways ;” or as ours, “divers manners.”

πάλαι. מֵן קְדִים, Syr., “ab initio,” “from the beginning.” “Olim,” the Latin translation, “of old,” “formerly,” “in times past.” πάλαι is “olim,” quondam, pridem, jamdudum, any time past that is opposed τῷ ἄρτι, or νῦν, to that which is present, properly time some good while past, as that was whereof the apostle treats, having ended in Malachi four hundred years before.

τοῖς πατράσιν.עַם אֲבָהֵין Syr., “with our fathers,” “to the fathers.”

᾿εν τοῖς προφήταις. בּנְבִיֵאּ, Syr., “in the prophets.” So all the Latin translations, “in prophetis.”

᾿επ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων. ובְּהָלֵין יַוְמָחֵא אַחֲרַיִאּ, Syr., “and in those, last days.” “Ultimis diebus hisce,” “ulitmis diebus istis,” “in these last days.” “Novissime diebus istis,” Vulg., — “last of all in these days.” Some Greek copies have ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, “in extremo dierum istorum,”” in the end of these days.” The reason of which variety we shall see afterwards.

᾿εν υιῷ, as before, “in the prophets;” not “by his Son,” but “in the Son.” The emphasis of the expression is necessarily to be retained, as the opening of the words will discover.

τοὺς αἰῶνας. “Mundos,” “secula.” לְעָלְמֵא, Syr., “the ages,” “times,” “worlds.” In the remaining words there is no difficulty, as to the grammatical signification; we shall then read them,’(1)—

EXPOSITION. — II. καὶ π. “Of the two modes of interpreting these words, I rather prefer that which separates them, and gives a distinct meaning to each: ‘God, who in ancient times made communications to the fathers by the prophets, in sundry parts and in various ways, has now made a revelation to us by his Son:’i. e., he has completed the whole revelation which he intends to make under the new dispensation by his Son, his Son only, and not by a long-continued series of prophets, as of old.” — Stuart.

“They have been considered merely a rhetorical amplification.” — Tholuck.

“ πολυμερῶς means, not ‘many times,’but ‘manifoldly, in many parts.’The antithesis is not that God has spoken often by the prophets, but only once by his Son;..... the opposition is between the distribution of the Old Testament revelation among the prophets, and the undivided fullness of the New Testament revelation by Christ.” — Ebrard.

᾿επ ἐσχ. τῶν ἡμ. “Under the last period, viz., of the Messiah.” — Stuart.

“On the confines of the former period, and of the new everlasting epoch; not within the later, and also not within the former.” — Tholuck.

“The end of this time, in reference to the עולם הזהof the Jews, the period of the world which preceded the coming of Christ, whose work was to form the transition from it to the period terminating in the resurrection.” — Ebrard.

“The period of the gospel, the last dispensation of God.” — Bloomfield.

εν ψἱῷ. A specimen of the arbitrary use of the article, for “ ψἱῷ is monadic: it designates one individual peculiarly distingished, and the pronoun αὐτοῦ is omited after it; on all which accounts, according to theory, the article should be added.” — Stuart.

“‘God spake to us by one who was Son,’who stood not in the relation of prophet, but in the relation of Son to him. If it were ἐν τῷ ψἱῷ, then Christ would be placed as this individual, in opposition to the individuals of the prophets; but as the article is wanting, it is the species that is placed in opposition to the species, although, of court, Christ is the single individual of his species.” — Ebrard.

“ ψἱός may in this use be considered (like χριστός, put for ῾ο χριστός) as an appellative converted into a sort of proper name.” — See Middleton on the Greek article, note Matthew 1:1; Matthew 4:3; Bloomfield. κληρονόμος.

“The Son inherited the world neither by lot nor by the demise of the possessor. Like the Hebrew יָרַשׁ, of which inherit is only a secondary sense, it means to take into possession in any manner.” — Stuart.

“The prophets were heralds of the promised future inheritance; Christ is the heir himself..... The principal idea is, not that of a possession which any one receives through the death of another, but a possession which he on his part can transfer as an inheritance to his posterity; consequently a permanent possession, over which he has full authority.” — Ebrard.

“ καὶ connects a new thought with what precedes; the same being who, according to his divine human nature, shall possess all things in the world, is also, according to his divine nature, the author of all things.” — Tholuck.

“ αἰών must necessarily signify the world. This is decisively shown by the parallel passage, Hebrews 11:3, and likewise by that in the Epistle to the Colossians, Colossians 1:15-17, and φέρων τὰ πάντα in Hebrews 1:3.” — Tholuck.

TRANSLATIONS. — II. καὶ π. “Often, and in various ways.” — Stuart.

“In many portions, and in many ways.” — Craik.

τοὶς πατ. “To our fathers.” — De Wette.

πάλ. “Since primeval times.” — Tholuck.

“In ancient times.” — Stuart.

επ ἐσχ. κ. τ. λ. “In the end of these days.” — Conybeare and Howson.

᾿εν ψ. “In the person of the Son.” — Conybeare and Howson. κλ.

“Lord of all things.” — Stuart. αἰών.

“The world.” — Stuart.

“The universe.” — Conybeare and Howson.

Hebrews 1:1-2. — By sundry parts, and in divers manners, God having formerly [or, of old] spoken unto the fathers in the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us in the Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all, by whom also he made the worlds.

The apostle intending a comparison between the Mosaical law and the gospel, referreth it unto two heads, — first, Their revelation and institution, whence the obligation to the observance of the one and the other did arise; and, secondly, Their whole nature, use, and efficacy. The first he enters upon in these words, and premising that wherein they did agree, distinctly lays down the severals wherein the difference between them doth consist; both which were necessary to complete the comparison intended.

That wherein they agree is the principal efficient cause of their revelation, or the prime author from whom they were. This is God. He was the author of the law and gospel. He spake of old “in the prophets,” he spake in the last days “in the Son.” Neither of them was from men; not one from one principle, and the other from another, — both have the same divine original. See 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21. Herein they both agree.

Their difference in this respect, namely, in their revelation, he refers to four heads, all distinctly expressed, saving that some branches of the antithesis on the part of the gospel are only included in the opposite expressions that relate unto the law.

Their difference,

First, respects the manner of their revelation, and that in two particulars:

1. The revelation of the will of God under the law was given out by “divers parts;” that under the gospel at once, or in one dispensation of grace and truth.

2. That “in divers manners;” this one way only, by the Spirit dwelling in the Lord Christ in his fullness, and by him communicated unto his apostles.

Secondly, The times and seasons of their revelation. That of the law was made “of old,” “formerly, in times past;” this of the gospel “in these last days.”

Thirdly, The persons to whom the revelation of them was made. That was to the “fathers,” this to “us.”

Fourthly, and principally, The persons by whom these revelations were made. That was by “the prophets;” this by “the Son.” God spake then in the prophets; now he hath spoken in the Son. The whole stress of the apostle’s argument lying on this last instance, omitting the prosecution of all the other particulars, he enters upon the further description of this immediate revealer of the gospel in whom God spake, the Son, and lays down in general,

1. The authority committed unto him, — God made him “heir of all;”

2. The ground and equity of committing that great power and trust unto him, in these words, “By whom also he made the worlds:” whereby he opens his way to the further declaration of his divine and incomparable excellencies, wherein he is exalted far above all or any that were employed in the revelation or administration of the law of Moses, and the holy worship instituted thereby.

All these particulars must be opened severally, that we may see the intendment of the apostle, and the force of his argument in the whole; and some of them must necessarily be somewhat largely insisted on, because of their influence into the ensuing discourse.

That wherein the law and gospel do both agree is, that God was the author of them both. About this there was no difference as to the most of them with whom the apostle treated. This he takes for granted. For the professing Jews did not adhere to Mosaical institutions because God was their author, not so of the gospel; but because they were given from God by Moses in such a manner as never to be changed or abrogated. This the apostle lays down as an acknowledged principle with the most, that both law and gospel received their original from God himself; proving also, as we shall see in the progress of our discourse, to the conviction of others, that such a revelation as that of the gospel was foretold and expected, and that this was it in particular which was preached unto them.

Now, God being here spoken of in distinction from the Son expressly, and from the Holy Ghost by evident implication, it being he by whom he spake in the prophets, that name is not taken οὐσιώδως, substantially, to denote primarily the essence or being of the Deity, and each person as partaking in the same nature, but ὐποστατικῶς, denoting primarily one certain person, and the divine nature only as subsisting in that person. This is the person of the Father; as elsewhere the person of the Son is so signified by that name, Acts 20:28; John 1:1; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 5:20 ; — as also the person of the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:11; Colossians 2:2. So that God, even the Father, by the way of eminency, was the peculiar author of both law and gospel; of which afterwards. And this observation is made necessary from hence, even because he immediately assigns divine properties and excellencies unto another person, evidently distinguished from him whom he intends to denote by the name God in this place; which he could not do did that name primarily express, as here used by him, the divine nature absolutely, but only as it is subsisting in the person of the Father.

From this head of their agreement the apostle proceeds to the instances of the difference that was between the law and the gospel as to their revelation from God; of which, a little inverting the order of the words, we shall first consider that which concerns the times of their giving out, sundry of the other instances being regulated thereby.

For the first, or the revelation of the will of God under the old testament, it was, “of old.” God spake πάλαι, “formerly,” or “of old.” Some space of time is denoted in this word which had then received both its beginning and end, both which we may inquire after. Take the word absolutely, and it comprises the whole space of time from the giving out of the first promise unto that end which was put unto all revelations of public use under the old testament. Take it as relating to the Jews, and the rise of the time expressed in it is the giving of the law by Moses in the wilderness. And this is that which the apostle hath respect unto. He had no contest with the Jews about the first promise, and the service of God in the world built thereon, nor about their privilege as they were the sons of Abraham; but only about their then present church privilege and claim by Moses’law. The proper date, then, and bound of this πάλαι, “of old,” is from the giving out of Moses’law, and therein the constitution of the Judaical church and worship, unto the close of public prophecy in the days of Malachi. From thence to the days of John Baptist God granted no extraordinary revelation of his will, as to the standing use of the whole church. So that this dispensation of God speaking in the prophets continued for the space of twenty-one jubilees, or near eleven hundred years. That it had been now ceased for a long time the apostle intimates in this word, and that agreeably to the confessed principles of the Jews; whereby also he confirmed his own of the coming of the Messiah, by the reviving of the gift of prophecy, as was foretold, Joel 2:28-29.