In support of this statement the writer adduces an abundance of evidence, no fewer than seven passages being cited fromthe Ο.Τ. Before considering these, two preliminary objections may first be removed. (1) To us nothing may seem less in need of proof than that Christ who has indelibly impressed Himself on mankind is superior to the angels who are little more than a picturesque adornment of earthly life. But when this writer lived the angels may be said to have been in possession, whereas: Christ had yet to win His inheritance. More- over, as Schoettgen shows (p. 005) it was usual and needful to make good the pro- position, “ Messias major est Patriarchis, Mose, et Angelis ministerialibus’’. Prof. Odgers, too, has shown (Proceedings of Soc. of Hist. Theol., 1895-6) that quite pos- sibly the writer had in view some Jewish Gnostics who believed that Christ Him- self belonged to the angelic creation and had, with the angels, a fluid personality
5. “Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέ ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων, “Υἱός µου εἶ
253
@v.5;2 Sam. vii. τάς ar. Xxii. τὸ et XXVill. 6;
Ps. ii. 7; Acts xiii. 33.
and no proper human nature. In any case it was worth the writer’s while to carry home to the conviction of his con- temporaries that a mediation accom- plished by one who was tempted and suffered and wrought righteousness, a mediation of an ethical and spiritual kind, must supersede a mediation accomplished ~ by physical marvels and angelic minis- tries. (2) The passages cited from the Old Testament in proof of Christ’s superiority although their immediate his- torical application is disregarded, are con- fidently adduced in accordance with the universal use of Scripture in the writer’s time. But it must not be supposed that these passages are culled at random. With all his contemporaries this writer believed that where statements were made of an Israelitish king or other official in an ideal form not presently realised in those directly addressed or spoken of, these were considered to be Messianic, that is to say, destined to find their fulfilment and realisation in the Messiah. These interpretations of Scrip- ture were the inevitable result of faith in God. The people were sure that God would somehow and at some time fulfil the utmost of His promise.
The first two quotations (ver. 5) illus- trate the giving of the more excellent name; the remaining quotations exhibit the superiority of the Son to angels, or more definitely the supreme rule and im- perishable nature of the Son, in contrast to the perishable nature and servile func- tion of the angels.
Ver. 5. τίνι yap εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ayy- έλων .. . “ For to which of the angels did he ever say My Son art Thou, I this day have begotten Thee?” τίνι to what individual; ποτε in the whole course of history. The angels as a class are called “' Sons of Elohim” in the ο (Gentavidi2 Pes xcxincy te ἸΧΣΧΊΧΟΣΙ Jobi.6). But this was not used in its strict sense but merely as expressive of indefinite greatness, nor was it addressed to any individual. εἶπεν, the subject un- expressed, as is common in citing Scrip- ture (2 Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 8, etc.). Winer and Blass supply 6 θεός, others 4 γραφή. Warfield, who gives the fullest treatment of the subjectless use of λέγει, φησί, and such words
254
.. 3 , A 3 A mm 3 cer 9 { Ps. χονῖϊ. εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν ; 6.
7; Rom