Thirdly, It is contrary to his purpose; for whereas he doth not prove the Lord Christ to be deservedly preferred above Moses, unless he manifest that by his own power he built the house of God in such a manner as Moses was not employed in, according to this in- terpretation of the words, he here assigns the principal building of the house unto another, even the Father, and so overthrows what he had before asserted.
This, then, is that which by these words the apostle intends to declare, namely, the ground and reason whence it is that the house was or could be in that glorious manner built by Christ, even be- cause he is God, and so able to effect it; and by this effect of his power he is manifested so to be.
Ver. 5, 6.—“ And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were [after] to be spoken; but Christ [was faithful] as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.”
The apostle in these words proceedeth unto another argument to the same purpose with the former, consisting in a comparison be- tween Christ and Moses in reference unto their relation to the house of God when built. In the building they were both faithful, Christ as the chief builder, Moses as a principal part of the house, minis- terially also employed in the building of it. The house being built, they are both faithful towards it in their several relations unto it ;— Moses as a servant in the house of God; Christ as a Son over his own house; his own because he built it.
The Vulgar Latin reads also in the latter place, “in the house,” év +@ ofxw, for éai roy oixov, “over the house;” but cor- ruptly, as was observed. The agreement of the original copies and the series of the apostle’s discourse require, “ over the house:” “a Son over the house.”
Some by airod would have God the Father to be intended, “ over his house,” “the house of God.” But the other sense, “his own house,” is evidently intended. Having built the house, and being the Son or lord over it, it becomes his own house.
As to Moses, there are in the words,—l. His relation to the house of God, which was that of a “servant;” 2. The end of his ministry, “ For a testimony of those things which were [after] to be spoken.”
‘ b ?Eal roy ofxov.
Ai’rou,
VER. 3-6.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 557
In reference unto the Lord Christ,—1. His relation to the house is asserted to be that of “a son,” or lord “ over the house.” 2. An implication of his faithfulness in that relation, “But Christ as a son;’ that is, ‘was faithful as a son.’ 3. A declaration of the state and condition of that house over which as a son he presides, with an application of the things spoken unto the faith and obedi- ence of the Hebrews, “ Whose house are we, if we hold fast,” ete.
The argument of the apostle in these words is obvious: ‘The son faithful over his own house is more glorious and honourable than a servant that is faithful in the house of his lord and master; but Christ was thus a son over the house, Moses only a servant in it’
There is one difficulty in the terms of this argument, which must be removed before we enter upon the explication of the words in particular; and this lies in the opposition that is here made between a son and a servant, on which the stress of it doth lie. For Moses was not so a servant but that he was also a child, a son of God; and the Lord Christ was not so a son but that he was also the servant of the Father in his work, and is in the Scripture often so called, and accordingly he constantly professed that as he was sent by the Father, so he came to do his will and not his own.
Ans. First, The comparison here made is not between the persons of Christ and Moses absolutely, but with respect unto their relation unto the church or house of God in their offices. Moses was indeed a son of God by adoption (for “the adoption” belonged unto believers under the old testament, Rom. ix. 4); he was so in his own person; but he was not a son in reference unto the house, but a servant by his office, and no more. And the Lord Christ, who was the Son of God upon a more glorious account, even that of his eternal ge- neration, is not here thence said to be a son, he is not as such here spoken of, ‘but as one that had the rule as a son over the house.
Secondly, It is true, Christ was the servant of the Father in his work, but he was more than so also. Moses was in the house a ser- vant, and no more. The Lord Christ was so a servant as that he was also the son, lord, and heir of all. And this, as to the equity of it, is founded originally in the dignity of his person, for he is “ over all, God blessed for ever,” Rom. ix. 5. He was God and Lord by nature, a servant by condescension; and therefore made a son or lord by the Father’s constitution, as our apostle declares at large, Phil. ii. 6-9. This, then, is the economy of this matter: being in himself God over all, he became by voluntary condescension, in the susception of human nature, the servant of the Father; and upon the doing of his will, he had the honour given him of being the son, head, and lord over the whole house. So that no scruple can hence arise against the force of the apostle’s argument.