Thus, setting aside the mixture of their follies and impieties, wherein we are not concerned, we have a sufficient suffrage from the Jews themselves unto our assignation of this prophetical psalm to the Messiah; which is enough to stop the mouths of their modern gainsayers, who are not able to assign any other person unto whom it should belong. Having, then, removed their objec- tions, we may return unto the interpretation of the words.
The matter intended in the first part of these words, or sitting at the right hand of God, hath been somewhat spoken unto already, and I shall add but little in the further explanation of it in this place,
_ Some things controverted on these words we may well omit the con- sideration of; as whether were the more honourable place of old, the right hand or the left. Besides, they have been sufficiently spoken unto already on verse 3. For whereas there is no mention made anywhere of sitting at the left hand of God, as was observed, there is no comparison to be feigned between the one and the other. Besides, the pretence of the left hand to have been the most hon- ourable place of old is most vain, insisted on by some who had a
224 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. I.
desire to vent new observations on old matters to little purpose. And Bellarmine shows what good leisure he had in managing of controversies, when he spent more time and labour in answering an objection against the pope’s supremacy, from Peter's being placed in old seals on the left hand of Paul, than on many texts of Scrip- ture plainly overthrowing his pretensions.
Neither shall we consider their claim unto this testimony, who, understanding the human nature of Christ to be only intended and spoken to, affirm that its sitting at the right hand of God con- sists in a real communication of all divine properties and attributes unto that nature; a pretence very remote from the apostle’s design and importance of the words.
For the introductory preface of this testimony, “ Unto which of the angels said he at any time?” we have already considered it. In the testimony itself we must consider,—1. The person speaking, “The Lorp.” 2. The person spoken unto, “my Lord.” 3. The nature and manner of this speaking, “said.” 4. The thing spoken, “Sit on my right hand.” 5. The end hereof as to work and opera- tion, “ make thine enemies thy footstool.” 6. The limitation of it as unto duration, “ until.”
1. The person speaking is the Lorp, “The Lorp said.” In the Greek, both the person speaking and the person spoken unto are expressed by the same name, Kupiog, “ Lord;” only the person spoken unto is not absolutely called so, but with relation to the psalmist, xupiw mov, “to my lord.” David calls him his lord, Matt. xxii. 45. But in the Hebrew they have different denominations. The person speaking is Jehovah, 717! 083,—that is, God the Father; for though the name be often used where the Son is distinctly spoken of, and sometimes in the same place each of them is mentioned by that name, as Gen. xix. 24, Zech. ii. 8, 9, because of their equal partici- pation of the same divine nature, signified thereby, yet where Jeho- vah speaketh unto the Son or of him, as here, it is the person of the Father that is distinctly denoted thereby, according as was showed at the entrance of this epistle.
2. The person spoken wnto is the Son, f8, “the Lord,” David’s Lord; in what respect we must now inquire. The Lord Christ, the Son, in respect of his divine nature, is of the same essence, power, and glory, with the Father, John x. 30. Absolutely, therefore, and * naturally, in that respect he is capable of no subordination to the Father or exaltation by him, but what depends on and flows from his eternal generation, John v. 26. By dispensation he humbled himself, and emptied himself of this glory, Phil. ii. 7, 8; not by a real parting with it, but by the assumption of human nature into personal union with himself, being made flesh, John i. 14; wherein his eternal glory was clouded for a season, John xvii. 5, and his
VER. 13.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 225
person humbled to the discharge of those acts of his mediation which were to be performed in the human nature, Phil. ii. 9, 10. This person of Christ is here spoken unto, not in respect of his divine nature only, which is not capable of exaltation or glory by the way of free gift or donation ; nor in respect of his human nature only, which is not the king and head of the church; but with respect unto his whole person, wherein the divine nature, exerting its power and glory with the will and understanding of the human nature, is the principle of those theandrical acts whereby Christ, ruleth over all in the kingdom given him of his Father, Rev. i 17, 18. As he was God, he was David’s Lord, but not his son; as he was man, he was David’s son, and so absolutely could not be his Lord; in his person, as he was God and man, he was his Lord and his son,—which is the intention of our Saviour’s question, Matt. xxiL 45,