I will not deny but it may have respect unto sundry things pre- ceding these, and preparatory unte them; as,—(1.) The eternal pur- _ pose of God, ordaining him before the fourtdation of the world unto his work and inheritance, 1 Pet.i 20. (2.) The covenant that was of old between the Father and Son for the accomplishment. of the great work of redemption, this inheritance being included in’ the contract, Proy. viii. 80, 31; Isa. lili. 10,11. (3.) The promises made unto him in his types, Abraham, David, and Solomon, Gen. xv.; Ps. Ixxii. (4.) The promises left upon record in the Old Testa- ment for his supportment and assurance of success, Ps. ii.; Isa. xlix., ete. (5.) The solemn proclamation of him to be the great heir and lord of all, at his first coming into the world, Luke i. 11, 30-32. But it is the consummation of all these, whatever was in- tended or declared in these previous acts of the willand wisdom of God, that is principally intended in this expression.
Some suppose it of importance, in this matter of the heirship of Christ, to assert that he was the rightful heir of the crown and seeptre of Israel. This opinion is so promoted by Baronius as to contend that the right of the kingdom was devolved on him, which was caused to cease for a season in Antigonus, who was slain by M.
AG AN EXPOSITION OF THE [cHAP. I.
Antony. But what was the right of the kingdom that was in Antigonus is hard to declare. The Asmonzans, of whom that ruled he was the last, were of the tribe of Levi. Their right to the sceptre was no more but what they had won by the sword. So that by his death there could be no devolution of a right to reign unto any, it being that which he never had. Nor is it probable that our Saviour was the next of kin to the reigning house of Judah; nor was it any wise needful he should be so; nor is there any pro- mise to that purpose. His lineal descent was from Nathan, and not from Solomon,—of that house was Zerubbabel the aichmalotarches, —which therefore is specially mentioned in the reformation, Zech. xii. 12. Besides, the heirship promised unto Christ was neither of a temporal kingdom of Israel, which he never enjoyed, nor of any other thing in dependence thereon, Were it so, the Jews must first have the dominion, before he could inherit it. And such, indeed, was the mistake of the disciples (as it is of the Jews to this day), who inquired, not whether he would take the kingdom to himself, but whether he would restore it unto Israel.
We have opened the words: it remaineth that we consider the sense and persuasion of the Hebrews in this matter; 2. Show the influence of this assertion into the argument that the apostle hath in hand; and, 3. Annex a brief scheme of the whole lordship and kingdom of Christ.
The testimonies given to this heirship of the Messiah in the Old Testament, sufficiently evidencing the faith of the church guided by the rule thereof, will be mentioned afterwards. For the present, I shall only intimate the continuance of this persuasion among the Jews, both then when the apostle wrote unto them and afterwards, To this purpose is that of Jonathan in the Targum on Zech. iv. 7: xmiady 553 nde pompbs now ost ame n> %S3;—“ He shall reveal the Messiah, whose name is from everlasting, who shall have the do- minion over all kingdoms.” See Ps. Ixxii. 11. And of him who was brought before the Ancient of days, like the Son of man, Dan. vii., to whom all power was given, they say, mwon qo sin;—“ He is Mes- siah, the king.” So R. Solomon on the place. So R. Bechai on Exod, xxiii. 21, “My name is in him.” “ He is called,” saith he, “nip, because in that name two significations are included, 7K, ‘a lord, and my, ‘an ambassador;’” the reasons of which etymology out of the Greek and Latin tongues he subjoins, I confess foolishly enough., But yet he adds to our purpose: “It may have a third signification, of a ‘keeper;’ for the Targum, instead of the Hebrew mnwy, hath mun, from 192. Because he, that is the Messiah, pre- serves or keeps the world, he is called 5s1w -pw, ‘the keeper of Is- rael.’ Hence it appears that he is the Lord of all things, they being put under him, and that the whole host of things above and below
VER, 1, 2.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 47
are in his hand. He is also the manager of all above and beneath, because God hath made him to rule over all, hath appointed him the lord of his house, the ruler of all he hath.” Which expressions, how consonant they are to what is delivered by the apostle in this place and chap. iiL, is easily discerned.
The influence of this assertion or common principle of the Judaical church into the argument that the apostle hath in hand is evident and manifest. He who is the heir and lord of all things, spiritual, temporal, ecclesiastical, must needs have power over all Mosaical institutions, be the lord of them, which are nowhere exempted from his rule.